Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthem):

Mr. Speaker, may I first express commendation of the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) for the bill which he introduced into the house and which is now before us to establish the status of Canadian citizen. The bill, I think all hon. members will agree, gives every indication of being the result of very careful work, and I am sure the commendation the minister has received from1 all parts of the: house indicates that it is a splendid piece of work. I am sure he must have been pleased to see it reported1 in

Canadian Citizenship

the press to-day that the government of Australia is so much impressed with the principle of this bill that it is inclined to consider introducing a similar measure in the commonwealth of Australia. So again I say that the Secretary of State deserves great commendation for the splendid 'bill he has laid before us.

In the debate which has taken place so far there was some suggestion on the part of some hon. members that the United States had dealt with their problems of establishing citizenship and fostering devotion to their country in a manner which Canada might well emulate. As I listened to various speakers giving expression to that view I thought to myself, can these be representatives of a people who decided at the very outset of the second great war that it was a war in which they should immediately take part in order to protect their freedom and the freedom of the world, and who did1 it unhesitatingly and with the support of all parts of the country? I happened to be in this house 'when that decision was taken, and as I recall, only two members showed the slightest inclination not to agree with that decision. In that war we, the Canadian people, took into our armed forces over 1,100,000 persons, the vast majority of whom enlisted on a voluntary basis. I venture to say there is no other country in the world, the United States included, which could put into its armed forces almost one-tenth of its people on a voluntary basis. I ask myself, can this be a parliament of the Canadian people in which its representatives find fault with the Canadian people and point to the country to the south of us as more deserving of our admiration? Much as I admire that country to the south, the fact remains that they were just as much in danger as we were on that fateful third of September, 1939, but it took over a year for their people to come to a united decision that they should take part in that war. Had it not been for the decision which was taken by the Canadian people just " before our declaration of war on September 10, 1939, and remembering that France collapsed in June, 1940, and Britain stood alone except for the other members of the commonwealth and her empire; had Canada not been at her side, with the help she was able to give in giving an uplift to her morale, with the men she sent into the air force, the troops she had in the British isles to help defend the shores of Britain, I fear we would have lost the war.

I shall not refer to-night to our achievements after entering the war. In view of these exploits of a people which has played such a crucial part at a time of crisis, a people numbering around twelve million who by their free 63260-45

will act saved, perhaps, the very liberties of mankind, it ill behooves any hon. member to compare our achievement unfavourably with that of the people of any other country, even the great republic to the south.

There has been some suggestion that Americans have so solved their problems that the people of the United States are more proud of being members of that great country than Canadians are of being Canadians. People who talk like that must have associated with different kinds of Canadians from those with whom I have associated. I happen to have served for a time in the army in the first great war, and again in the second great war. I saw something of the reactions of my fellow Canadians toward their country; also I saw and heard in my travels something of the reactions of peoples of other countries toward their respective countries; and I came to the conclusion that much of the feeling that we were somehow inferior in the way we dealt with our great problems was not justified by the facts of the situation. I am satisfied that deep down within the soul of every Canadian there is just as much love of country as there is on the part of any American. The Canadian may not be quite so open in his expression of that feeling; but from what I have seen and from what the men of Canada have achieved on the field of battle, in the air and on the sea, will anyone in this house say that the Canadian has not shown just as much devotion to his country as has any man who belongs to any other nation? After all, "by their fruits ye shall know them"; and I submit it ill behooves any member of this parliament, right at the end of a war in which our people have given such proofs of their bravery and their devotion to their country, their ability to organize themselves and strike blow after blow for freedom, to cast aspersions upon the loyalty of the Canadian people to their own country.

I have heard it said that there is a work of reconciliation to be done. A work of reconciliation has been done by the great leaders of the Canadian people ever since confederation. It seems to me there is some disposition in this house to assume that the two great races, which voluntarily went together to create this great country and have lived together in great friendship in spite of the strains which have at times developed since confederation, suddenly need to be reconciled to each other. If they had not been ready to give and take, confederation would never have been brought about. If they had not been ready to live and work with one another

Canadian Citizenship

Something has been. said about the provision that a person may become a Canadian citizen if he has satisfied the other requirements which are set out in section 10 of the bill, such as being of good character, lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence therein, has an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship, with adequate knowledge of the English or French language not an absolute requisite. I hope that the house will not in any way require that provision to be curtailed.

From time to time since I have been privileged to be a member of this house I have drawn to its attention a situation which con-

Canadian Citizenship

fronts many of our western pioneers who came and settled in western Canada, thirty, forty and fifty years ago, and who for one reason or another, some of them because they happened to come from a country which was under the domination of Austria-Hungary, which at the time in question was an enemy country, could not become British citizens when they were getting their homesteads. Therefore they were given a certificate in what is called "form K", which many of them thought did make them British subjects. Later on in life, when some of them wished to apply for old age pension, after going out, breaking up the land, clearing it of bush and stone and hewing out homes for themselves on the western plains and in the wooded areas, they found that they were not British subjects. Then they would come in and apply to be qualified as British subjects, and certain questions were asked of them. One question was: "Do you intend to apply for old age pension?" If one of these men who helped to pioneer this country admitted that he would like to get what the people of this country have provided for people in their old age, in many cases the judge would decline the citizenship even if the man could speak English or French. I hope the minister will see to it that that sort of thing does not continue in the future. Surely no judge should be permitted to deny to a man who has pioneered in this country, who has lived in it for twenty years and who is otherwise qualified to be a British subject, that which this parliament intended every worthy citizen of this country to have, by refusing for no legal reason to grant that man British citizenship. From time to time I have brought cases like that forward, and to-night I wish to thank the minister most sincerely for making it possible for some of my constituents who helped build western Canada and who sent their boys to fight and in some cases to die for Canada, now to become British subjects even though they cannot speak English as well as some hon. members.

A suggestion has been made that there would be no harm in permitting that section to apply to those already settled in Canada, but that it should not apply to future settlers. To-day people who are among the most freedom-loving in the world are looking for homes in Canada, or at any rate somewhere other than Europe. Because they let it be known that they favoured freedom in their own country, many are afraid to return to their homelands, and they wish to come to Canada. I think, for example, of some of the Ukrainian people, some of the Polish people, who when Poland was overrun went into the Polish army in exile or are now refugees in 63260-45i

Germany. I get letters from them and from their relatives saying they do not wish to be returned to the Soviet Union but would like to be permitted to enter Canada. Could we wish to have better citizens. than men who were so devoted to freedom and liberty that they were prepared to remain in exile for five years, fighting against tyranny, and who are now ready to throw in their lot with .the building up of a great peace-time Canada as they were ready to risk their lives in order to establish freedom during the war? I hope the time will soon come when we may be able to admit to our country some of those worthy citizens who can make a great contribution to the building up of this country, even as their relatives have made a great contribution here in Canada in the past fifty years. I well remember when many of these people from central Europe were brought out and settled on our prairies. There were those who said they would never become good citizens. They feared what would be the result; but now that the country has seen what good citizens these people are and how ready they have been to support Canada in peace and defend her in war, those misgivings with regard to allowing some of them into this country should no longer p'revail. Some of these worthy people may be fifty years old or more when they come in the future. If they come here and make good citizens, as their relatives did fifty years ago, then they in turn should be able to look forward to becoming Briitsh subjects and Canadian citizens, even if they have difficulty in mastering the English or the French language. Therefore I urge the minister and the house not to take that section out of this act.

It has been suggested that if a man is a Canadian citizen it should not be provided in the bill that he is also a British subject. On that point I submit that whether or not it is put in the bill, if a" man is given the status of a Canadian citizen and takes the oath of [DOT] allegiance to the king of the British empire and commonwealth set out in the schedule, by that very fact he has a status as a subject of His Majesty, a status common to the citizen of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and certainly Northern Ireland. He has a common status with the people of all those countries. Whether or not it is put in the bill I think the courts would rule that he was a subject of the king. Consequently I believe that section is just a recognition of the legal position. But through you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say to hon. members that while I want to be a Canadian citizen I am also happy to belong to the British family.

Canadian Citizenship

I happened to attend the monetary conference at Bretton Woods, where there were distinguished representatives from India, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and from other parts of the British empire and commonwealth. While each of these groups recognized that they were as free to speak their minds as any other groups (the most spirited attack upon British policy came from the Indian delegation), there was a common feeling that we belonged to one family. I thought to myself what a splendid thing the British commonwealth and empire was, that within it you could have people of all religions and all races, from all parts of the globe, with the feeling that they belonged to one family, people who would work together as brothers in one family. As far as I am concerned I think of such men as Field Marshal Smuts, General Botha, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe and others who were happy to belong to the family of British subjects, realizing that within that family they were just as free as the people of any other nation on the face of the globe, while at the same time they were part of a family that would help to promote the peace of the world, and I am happy and proud to join the company of such men as those I have mentioned, and other outstanding leaders of various commonwealth countries.

I think the tendency of the world at the present time must not be toward an ever-narrowing devotion to one nation. There must be loyalty to your own nation, yes; but there must be an ever-widening loyalty. If one looks to the past, first there was loyalty to the tribe, and the tribes fought each other. Then there was loyalty to larger and larger groups. So that to-day, as I see it, while being loyal to Canada, it seems to me we should do what we can to strengthen the good will and accord which prevail in the family of British nations.

But there is another aspect of the question which points to a part which Canada can play. We have brought into our midst the oppressed of other lands. One-fifth of our people have come to us from countries whose people are of other than British or French origin. As those people from other lands have lived in our midst we have come to realize that there is very little difference between one human being and another. We have overcore some of the racial prejudices we may have had before we came to know the people of other racial origins. While in the past Canada has served as a sort of connecting link between the United Kingdom and the

United States, and to a certain extent by virtue of the fact that one of the great races which people this country is the French race we had a special appeal to the great French people, so now that we have taken into our midst the peoples of almost all countries in Europe, at least we in western Canada feel that if we can get along with them in perfect harmony and accord, we through them have learned that men are brothers and can live as brothers. Perhaps Canada, through that very fact can learn to play a part in the councils of the world in bringing all the nations of the world into greater harmony and accord.

Surely the nation of Canada playing a part in drawing together the various members of the British family, and the various members which make up the human family, to a point where war shall be no more and fraternity and brotherhood shall prevail-surely this is a greater vision than one which says, I will centre all my life and all my consideration in my own country, and have no care whatsoever in the working together of the different members of the human race.

Members find no difficulty' in being loyal at the same time to their families, to their cities, to their provinces and to their country. Many people find no inconsistency at the same time in feeling a loyalty to Canada and to the British family of nations. Others to-day are ready to go farther and say that we must set up a world government where we shall have loyalty to the human family, where we shall recognize the fatherhood of God and the essential brotherhood of man.

There has been some suggestion that in some way British subjects should not have to comply in the same way as others with the requirements in regard to obtaining Canadian citizenship, the idea being that when they wish to become Canadian citizens they should not have, among other things, to take the oath of allegiance. I will admit that at first I thought that when a British subject came to this country we should give to him some extra consideration over a person who is not a British subject, when both applied to be Canadian citizens. But the more I thought about the question the more I realized that the disadvantages far outweighed the advantages.

Speaker after speaker has mentioned that if we are to have real unity we must treat every Canadian on exactly the same basis, no matter where his ancestors came from. If we are to say to an Englishman, a Scotsman or an Irishman who comes to Canada, we will treat you as a preferred person; we are not

Canadian Citizenship

going to require you to go through the same steps as the Americans, the Russians, or any other-

Why should he?

Mr. TUCKER:

The reason why we should treat them the same is that if we treat one better than another he will carry that in his mind, and the other man will carry it in his mind after he becomes a Canadian citizen.

Mr. COCIvERAM: Absolute nonsense.

Mr. TUCKER:

My hon. friend says it is absolute nonsense. I would recall to his mind the words of various members on his own side of the house who have said over and over again that if we are to have wholehearted unity in 'Canada, we must treat all applicants for citizenship the same. If you say to a Scotsman, we will say-

Mr. KNOWLES:

Careful, now.

Why a Scotsman?

Mr. TUCKER:

If we were to say to a Scotsman that it was less needful that, to become a Canadian citizen, he go through the same steps as would be required from a man coming from the United States, the Scotsman would be inclined to say, well, it must be that I am a better Canadian to start with; I must have been better when I landed in this country than the other man was.

Mr. JACKMAN:

One of them is a British subject.

Mr. TUCKER:

Yes, the Scotsman is a British subject: no one takes that status away from him; and if he does not wish to become a Canadian citizen, he does not have to.

If we want to have everybody coming to this country and applying for Canadian citizenship feel that they are all on the same basis, then the only way to do it is to say to the Frenchman, the Englishman, the Scotsman, or the American, you must all take the same steps, and you will have to take the oath or affirmation.

It is an oath or affirmation I think everyone should have to take before receiving the right to play his part in choosing our government. I do not believe anyone should come here from another country and have a vote in choosing a government without first taking the stand that he will uphold Canada and stand behind her. Surely there is nothing disgraceful about going before a judicial officer to take the kind of oath prescribed in this bill. This is the oath or affirmation.

A lot of people in your riding would not take that oath.

Mr. TUCKER:

This is the oath or affirmation:

I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George VI, his heirs ancl successors, according to law; and that I will faithfully observe the laws and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Is it disgraceful for a man from England to appear alongside a man from the United States, and take that oath or affirmation before a judicial officer? After all, I submit to the government that before any man has a right to vote or to hold office in this country he should be required to take that oath or affirmation of allegiance to our king and our country.

Indeed, it is pointed out to me that members of the privy council have to undergo that "disgrace" before they can assume the duties of their high office-and it is a disgrace which I am sure some hon. members opposite would not mind assuming. Perhaps, in view of the way they are acting, that would not apply to some on the other side.

In her short time as a nation, Canada has had a glorious history, one which has been based upon tolerance between man and man, no matter what his race or religious origin. There has been a feeling of fraternity developed with these peoples from other countries who have come and settled on our lands, and have shown their willingness to be good, faithful, loyal Canadian citizens. We have demonstrated by our past achievements, by our ability to weld into one^ Canadian people the diverse elements of which this great nation is composed, that if we carry on with the programme before us this session, that of laying a broader and firmer foundation for this Canadian nation, Canada will go forward to a future greater than she has yet known.

Mr. D. K. HAZEN (St. John-Albert):

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) upon the contribution he has made to the debate. I followed his remarks closely and while I do not agree with all he said-we have the right to disagree, of course-I may say that I am in wholehearted agreement with many of the things he did say.

The Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) spoke with such eloquence and fervour on his motion for the second reading of this bill that a stranger listening might have been justified in coming to the conclusion that when it was passed we would "change the sorry scheme of things entire" and have a new heaven and a new earth in this country. Unfortunately that result will not follow.

We are all Canadians and we have called ourselves Canadians for many years. When this bill becomes law it will not make us better Canadians or more conscious of our

Canadian Citizenship

Canadian citizenship. We shall take no greater pride in our country after this bill is passed than we did before. We shall be no more loyal to our constitution and we shall be no less critical of or more satisfied with conditions that prevail in this country. We shall be no more united as a nation.

I make these remarks with two reservations. First, I believe that proper ceremonies on the granting of naturalization will be of benefit and, second, I think the provision in the bill that a declaration of Canadian citizenship will be an adequate statement of national status is a step in the right direction. But may I point out to hon. members that if a person applies to-day for a Canadian passport he can have inscribed on it the fact that he is a Canadian national. When the next census is taken I have no doubt that a person will be able to say he is a Canadian citizen, but inquiry will be made as to his national origin. There are good reasons why we should keep a record of national origin.

In dealing with questions of citizenship, nationality, naturalization and the status of aliens we are dealing with technical subjects. They are matters about which I do not profess to have the answers, and they are matters about which I think the members of the house should have a great deal more information. Therefore I am in agreement with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) who suggested' that this bill should be sent to a committee. There could be called before that committee experts from the Department of External Affairs, from the Department of the Secretary of State, from the immigration department and from the Department of Justice who could explain the difficulties they face in connection with the present legislation. There could also be called before that committee men who have made a particular study of this matter and who could express their views, who could criticize the bill and who could furnish information that hon. members do not possess at the present time. I strongly urge that the bill be sent to a committee for further study.

We have on the statute books of this country, and have had for many years, a definition of Canadian citizenship. This is to be found in section 2 (b) of the Immigration Act, which is chapter 93 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927. With the permission of hon. members I wish to place this definition on the record because that has not been done during this debate. I should like permission to do that without reading it in order to save time.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member must have the unanimous consent of the house.

Agreed.

Mr. HAZEN:

The definition of Canadian citizenship contained in the Immigration Act reads:

"Canadian citizen" means

(i) a person born in Canada who has not become an alien;

(ii) a British subject who has Canadian domicile; or

(iii) a person naturalized under the laws of Canada who has not subsequently become an alien or lost Canadian domicile;

Provided that for the purpose of this Act a woman who has not been landed in Canada shall not be held to have acquired Canadian citizenship by virtue of her husband being- a Canadian citizen; neither shall a child who has not been landed in Canada be held to have acquired Canadian citizenship through its father or mother being a Canadian citizen;

That definition has much to commend it, although it is not as inclusive as it might be. Its effect is limited by the fact that it is applicable only for the purposes of the Immigration Act.

We have also had on our statute books for many years a definition of "British subject". This is to be found in the Naturalization Act which is chapter 138 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. If I may be permitted, I would ask permission to place it on the record. Section 2 (a) reads:

(d) "British subject" means a person who is a natural-born British subject, or a person to whom a certificate of naturalization has been granted; or a person who has become a subject of His Majesty by reason of any annexation of territory.

Similar definitions of a "British subject," or definitions in practically similar words are to be found in the naturalization acts of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Great Britain.

We have also had on the statute books of this country for many years a definition of "Canadian national". This is to be found in the Canadian Nationals Act, which is chapter 21 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927. With your permission, sir, and for the information of the house I should like to place this on the record. It reads:

2. The following persons are Canadian nationals, viz; -

(a) any British subject who is a Canadian citizen wiithin the meaning of the Immigration Act;

(b) the wife of any such citizen;

(c) any person born out of Canada, whose father was a Canadian national at the time of that person's birth, or with regard to persons born before the third day of May, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one, any person whose father at the time of such birth, possessed all the qualifications of a Canadian national as defined in this act.

Canadian Citizenship

Before I go any farther I wish to say that I am in agreement with the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond) when he said-I am not quoting his words exactly- that this bill gives us no more than we had already as far as the definition of a Canadian citizen is concerned; that a Canadian citizen and a Canadian national means the same thing, that, if there is any difference, Canadian national means more; that the change made by this bill is more superficial than real.

The difficulty about these definitions is that they were unconnected and in consequence they led in some instances to conditions that were not altogether satisfactory. But I would point out that we shall always have some confusion and some difficulty so far as the term "Canadian citizen" is. concerned owing to the fact that other countries have different definitions of "citizen" or "national . We shall at all times have in connection with those terms a conflict of law which will lead to difficulties. I agree with the Secretary of State when he said, in speaking on this bill:

Despite what one often hears to the contrary, there has been a Canadian nationality, but the difficulty has been that the existing definitions were so specialized and so unrelated that they led to a condition of great confusion and misunderstanding.

It is well, I think, that this misunderstanding should be removed and that any difficulties which have been occasioned by the legislation that at present exists be overcome and cleared up if possible. So far as this bill clarifies the definition of a Canadian citizen I support it, but I do not agree with the definition of "Canadian domicile" that is contained in it because it has the effect of requiring a British subject to reside in this country five years before he can apply to become a Canadian citizen. I do not think it is necessary, in order to get a clear definition of Canadian citizenship, for the government to proceed in this way.

What 'this bill proposes to do, as I read it, is this. For better, for worse-time alone will tell-it proposes to turn our present Naturalization Act upside down. Under our present act a person who is naturalized becomes a British subject. Then the other statutes I have mentioned define him in many instances to be a Canadian national or a Canadian citizen. Under this bill the procedure is reversed. We give a man a certificate of Canadian citizenship and say that in consequence he is a Brtish subject.

It would be much better I think, to introduce a bill defining Canadian citizenship and then make the necessary amendments to our

present Naturalization Act. I do not say that dogmatically. I should like to have an opportunity to have the matter further considered and looked into, and it is for that reason I suggest that it foe referred to a committee of this house so that it can foe given further study.

This bill will materially change our Naturalization Act. Not only does it change the Naturalization Act; but, as I read it, it enacts as well a nationalization act. Under this bill foreigners will be naturalized and British subjects will be nationalized. Both an alien and a British subject, with some exceptions, will be required to live in this country for five out of the six years prior to the time they apply and they must comply with the other provisions of section 10. If they do so, the alien or foreigner will not be granted a certificate of naturalization, as he is under the present act. What he will be granted is a certificate of citizenship". It seems to me that perhaps the government is more or less playing with words in changing these terms.

The British subject who applies will receive a similar certificate. But the certificate the foreigner receives will naturalize him. It will make him a British subject and a Canadian citizen. The certificate a man from Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand or South Africa receives cannot make him at British subject for he is a British subject, but it makes him a Canadian citizen. This procedure, it seems to me, leaves very much to be desired. It is, in my humble opinion, objectionable.

Why, I ask, should a British subject, a citizen of Great Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand or South Africa who comes to Canada for the purpose of making this country his home be obliged to reside here for five years and then go through exactly the same procedure as the foreigner who applies for naturalization in order that he may be nationalized or declared to be a Canadian citizen. 1 should like to repeat the question asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker);

I ask the minister to explain why at this time when we in all parts of the empire are desirous in the interest of our own security to bind still closer the various parts of the empire together should a British subject coming into Canada and properly entering this country under our immigration laws be required to^ go through the same formalities as persons coming from other parts of the world.

I would call your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of hon. members to the fact that any British subject who has ordinarily resided in Canada for at least twelve months and in the electoral district where he

Canadian Citizenship

seeks to vote for at least two months immediately preceding the issue of a writ for election can vote in a dominion election. I think all of us have read that section with a good deal of interest.

Why is that privilege accorded to a British subject who has been in Canada for only a year? There is a reason for it and that reason is, I believe, that British subjects are familiar with democratic institutions and with British laws and British principles of fair play and justice and they speak our language. That is the reason why a British subject is permitted to vote after he has been twelve months in this country. That is a good reason, I think, why he should, when he applies for Canadian citizenship, be treated differently from a person coming from a country where a different system of government and different laws prevail and who is not familiar with our constitution and cannot speak our language. Surely there is nothing unreasonable in permitting a man -who is familiar with our way of carrying on and who is a British subject to be treated differently from a foreigner who is unacquainted with our ways and who possibly cannot speak our language.

I should like to call as a witness in support of this view Doctor John E. Read, K.C., who until recently was legal adviser to the Department of External Affairs. He gave evidence in 1913 before a committee of this house which had to do with the defence of Canada regulations.^ The committee was also considering questions of naturalization and immigration at that time. He was asked if he would draw any distinction between a person who was a British subject coming to Canada and a foreigner with regard to the time it would require to obtain Canadian citizenship, and he replied:

I think we ought to draw a distinction. I think a foreigner who comes here should have to reside here five years, no matter what happens. before becoming a Canadian citizen, but I should think a person coming here from another part of the British empire should be able to get it m a shorter time.

Mr. MARTIN:

He helped to draft this bill.

Mr. HAZEN:

I am giving the house his views. It does not follow from his having helped to draft this bill that he has changed them. This was in 1943.

That would depend on whether it was possible to work out some arrangement that would be satisfactory to meet the immigration requirements as well as the other requirements. I

I should like now to direct the attention of hon. members to the fact-I think it has already been, stated-that a certificate of naturalization granted in Canada prior to

January 1, 1945, was of a limited nature; it had no effect outside Canada. For many years the question of naturalization had engaged the attention of the statesmen of the empire and had been studied at practically every imperial conference, for the situation had been regarded as far from satisfactory. At the imperial conference of 1907 it was agreed that a naturalization act should be passed creating uniformity within the empire. That decision, it seems to me, was a wise one. It exhibited a breadth of vision and a statesmen-like approach which were most commendable. In that year and at the conference in 1911 Sir Wilfrid Laurier strongly urged the adoption of the principle that there should be uniformity in the effect of naturalization wherever granted, and that a man who was a British subject anywhere should be recognized as a British subject everywhere. Let me quote from the statement he made on June 13, 1911, at the imperial conference. It is found on page 251 of the proceedings as reported to both houses of the British parliament. This is in part what he said:

This is in my estimation one of the important questions that the conference has to deal with. The power of naturalization is one of the incidental powers of sovereignty and one of the most important attributes of sovereignty. The British government, in granting the constitutions of the several dominions, has parted with the Power of sovereignty and delegated it to the dominions. It has given the power to all the dominions of granting letters of naturalization to aliens. That was one of the necessary incidents, I think, of the power of self-government which was given to the dominions, and the one power which it was very important fpr them to have, because being young nations and all inviting immigration, it followed as a measure of practical moment that they should have the power to grant letters of naturalization. They have all availed themselves of that power, and each one has its own law of naturalization, and those laws are all different ... I do not think there are two laws in all the dominions which are here represented which are the same- they all vary.

The practical difficulty which arises at once is. as to what is 'to be the effect of this power of naturalization. The power which is given to Canada, to New Zealand, and to all the selfgoverning dominions, is one which is limited each to its own territory. It does not extend beyond the limits of the territory covered by that legislation.

Then, after giving instances of the difficulties that occurred under the legislation which then existed, Sir Wilfrid continued:

In these days of travel and locomotion it is conceivable that this condition of things-this divided allegiance-may produce serious complications. Therefore I think the first consequence to be deduced from this condition of things, this divided power of legislation between the mother country and the dominions beyond the seas, must be remedied in some way.

Canadian Citizenship

and I think this principle may be laid down as an object to be ultimately reached-a British subject anywhere, a British subject everywhere.

In consequence of these consultations at imperial conferences, Great Britain in 1914, Canada in 1914, Australia in 1920, New Zealand in 1923 and South Africa in 1926 passed naturalization acts identical with respect to their important provisions. These acts ' provided that a certificate granted in one of the dominions or in the United Kingdom would be recognized as conferring on the holder the status of a British subject throughout the w'Orld. The point I wish to make is that these acts were passed after an agreement had been reached between the dominions concerned.

The bill that is now before us makes a material change in the present act. It is not a change merely in procedure but a change in substance, for under our present laws a British subject became a Canadian citizen after five years' residence in Canada, but this bill requires a British subject from Great Britain or any of the other [DOT] dominions coming into this country after five years' residence to make a formal application and go before a court, just as a foreigner is obliged to do. Under our present laws a woman marrying a British subject becomes a British subject, but under the proposed legislation that is not the case. Here again we have a material change.

On June 15, 1943, Doctor E. H. Coleman,

K.C., under-secretary of state, appeared before the committee I have referred to, and with reference to the provisions of the naturalization acts passed by the different dominions and Great Britain, he was asked:

By the way, in each of these British dominions were the important provisions reenacted?

He replied: -

Yes. They are identical. That is the whole basis of the thing, in order that there might be uniformity and that the certificate granted in one of the dominions or in the United Kingdom might be recognized as conferring on the holder the status of a British subject throughout the world. There was an informal, if not a statutory, understanding between the governments of the United Kingdom and the dominions that no fundamental changes would be made without consultation. I think the subject had been on the agenda at more than one imperial conference held in the interval. There have been some modifications made by common agreement, and there have been some proposed which have not been made because a common agreement could not be reached. But the point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that we are bound- perhaps not legally, but morally at least-not 63260-46

to make any fundamental changes in the act without consultation with the other dominions, which includes the United Kingdom.

In 1929 a preparatory conference of the members of the commonwealth was held in London for the purpose of considering, among other questions, that of naturalization. The Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe headed the Canadian delegation that attended that conference. It made certain recommendations that are to be found in sections 73 to 78 inclusive of its report. I propose to read two of these recommendations which are found at page 128 of the evidence given by Doctor Read before the committee to which I have referred.

Mr. MARTIN:

Doctor Coleman or Doctor Read?

Mr. HAZEN:

Doctor Read.

Section 76 reads as follows:,

A common status directly recognized throughout the British commonwealth in recent years has been given a statutory basis through the operation of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914.

77. Under the new position, if any change is made in the requirements established by the existing legislation, reciprocal action will be necessary to attain this same recognition the importance of which is manifest in view of the desirability of facilitating freedom of intercourse and the mutual granting of privileges among the different parts of the commonwealth.

This report was approved in this house on a resolution introduced by the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. It came before the imperial conference in 1930 and was approved by that conference. The conclusions that were reached by the conference are to be found in its proceedings. I believe these proceedings were also approved by this house. The conclusions read as follows:

(1) That the conference affirms paragraphs 73 to 78 inclusive of the report of the conference on the operation of dominion legislation.

(2) That, if any changes are desired in the existing requirements for the common status, provision should be made for the maintenance of the common status, and the changes should only be introduced (in accordance with present practice) after consultation and agreement among the several members of the commonwealth.

(3) That it is for each member of the com-momvealth to define for itself its own nationals, but that, so far as possible, those nationals should be persons possessing the common status, though it is recognized that local conditions or other special circumstances may from time to time necessitate divergences from this general principle.

(4) That the possession of the common status in virtue of the law for the time being in force in any part of the commonwealth should carry with it the recognition of that status by the law of every other part of the commonwealth.

Canadian Citizenship

There is one other extract from the report that I should like to read. It is to be found on page 124 of the evidence to which I have referred, and reads as follows:

(2) Although it would seem that no question could arise as between members of the British commonwealth in the ease of those referred to in subparagraph (1) (a) above, it is recognized that in the case of a migrant, referred to in subparagraph (1) (b) above, the member from

which he might wish to declare an interest in the conditions under which the member to which he went might claim to be entitled to regard him as a member of its community. It is also desirable to avoid laws or rules as to acquisition or loss of such membership which might lead to overlapping. _ As time has not allowed consideration to be given to the different criteria which a member might desire to impose, it is recommended that any member contemplating passing a law on the membership of its community, should submit its proposals to the other members of the commonwealth, so as to enable them to offer observations thereon, if they feel so inclined.

I have quoted these paragraphs for one purpose. When the Secretary of State introduced this bill, and when he spoke on second reading, he did not tell us whether the proposals contained therein had been submitted to the other members of the commonwealth before it was introduced here.

Mr. MARTIN:

Yes.