Mr. HAZEN:

I am going to ask the minister whether it was submitted to them, when it was submitted to them, and what their answers were. When he replies he should give us a full explanation of what took place.

Mr. MARTIN:

I can do so now if the hon. member desires if;. The answer is yes, but I shall give greater detail later on.

Mr. HAZEN:

This practically concludes all'that I have to say. Once or twice in the speeches that have been made-there have been remarks to the effect that this bill might break the bonds or weaken the bonds between the different parts of the empire. I do not hold any such view. The British empire and commonwealth is more closely united to-day than it has ever been before in its history'.

In reading the speech made by the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe in May, 1930, when he moved that the recommendations of the preparatory conference to which I have referred be accepted by this house, I was interested in a certain portion of it. I have not time to quote portions of that speech, but I should like to read a quotation he gave from a speech made in the House of Lords by Lord Ba,lfour, which reads as follows:

The British commonwealth is held together far more effectually by broad loyalties and common feelings of interest and devotion to the

IMr. Hazen.]

great world ideals of peace and freedom than by anything else. A common interest in loyalty, in freedom, in ideals, that is the bond. If that is not enough, nothing else is enough.

Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):

In rising to take part in the debate on the new citizenship bill my first remarks are to congratulate the government and also the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) on introducing such an important bill at this time. I believe that the bill meets the general views of all people in this country. I suppose the only differences will be in regard to the interpretation of many of the sections. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I was a little disappointed when the minister changed his view this year and did not suggest that the bill be sent to a committee. I believe the importance of the bill warranted having it sent to a committee where every section could be thoroughly discussed and more information obtained than can be the case in the house itself.

My first criticism of the bill is that it is wrongly named. I think it should have been called the "Canadian nationality act" instead of the "Canadian Citizenship Act". I believe the word "nationality" would convey more, not only to the people of Canada but to the people of all countries especially if a person from Canada going abroad could say, "I am a Canadian national". In the United States they use both terms in their naturalization act; they refer to both nationality, naturalization and citizenship. In that country one can be a citizen and not be naturalized, and vice versa.

I wish now to deal with some of the sections, although I realize I must only comment on them because on the motion for second reading only the principle of the bill may be debated. I would find it extremely difficult to debate the bill or the principle of it if precluded, however, from dealing with some of the sections.

Before I begin to mention the sections may I say that I have listened to many speakers during this debate, and I have come to the conclusion that some of them have not studied the bill very carefully. Some of the sections which I believe to be among the most important have not yet been touched upon so far during the debate. I am going to mention one right now. Under section 4 a child becomes a natural-born Canadian citizen if its parent, either father or mother, was born on a Canadian ship. That follows the British act, and I do not think a great deal of objection can be offered to that section. But what do we find in section 5? A child bom outside Canada, perhaps in the middle of China or on some island in the Pacific

Canadian Citizenship

or elsewhere is a natural-born citizen under this measure if its father or mother was born on the Canadian ship. I contend that is carrying our natural citizenship much too far. Especially is that so, in the light of the criticism which has been offered, and I suggest rightly, to the sections of the bill which will compel a British subject coming from Great Britain or the other dominions to take out naturalization papers after a residence of some five years. So that I think when we come to the various sections of the bill we shall have something more to say with regard to this particular matter.

M e have heard some expressions with regard to the word "British", and I have met some people in this country who even actually hate that word. There are some persons in certain provinces who would like to cut all ties of any kind with Great Britain. I have wondered many times if those people have given any thought to the part Great Britain has plaj-ed in the development of this country of ours. Have they ever considered that perhaps we never would have had confederation but for the fact that following the Plains of Abraham, Great Britain took control of this countrj'. In all kindliness I ask my hon. friends from the province of Quebec to consider what kind of treatment might have been meted out to them had some power other than Great Britain taken possession from France at that time. I go farther than that. I say that had France retained control of what was then Canada the treatment given the people of the province of Quebec would not have been as fair or as generous as the treatment given them under British rule. The rights of minorities have been maintained to the letter. Again when one looks over the history of France and reads about the persecution of the church in that country; and when one considers the very fair treatment that has been given by the British, one wonders just the reason for this desire in the minds of some citizens of Canada to cut ourselves entirely free from everything pertaining to Great Britain, even to the extent of hating the very name.

To my mind in this bill far too many powers are given to the minister. I believe in a matter so important as the conferring of citizenship this parliament should say in every particular what is to be done, and it not be left to the minister. That is how it is done in the United States; all the regulations are passed by the legislative body and contained in the United States act. In connection with the conferring of citizenship I would be loathe to give the minister the power either to confer naturalization or the power to' ask for a rehearing after natural-63260- 464

ization has been granted. Section 14 is somewhat singular. After the court approves, under that section, naturalization, the minister may ask for a rehearing. The bill does not direct the court as to what shall be said or argued by the person brought before the court for the second time, other than that he must prove the right to have Canadian citizenship conferred upon him. I am of opinion that once the court, having heard all the facts of the case, decides that naturalization should be granted, that should be the end of it. If the minister is of opinion that a rehearing should be held, then the man should be given some intimation as to what objection has been raised by the minister to the granting of citizenship. Further, I wonder how many hon. members have noticed the provision that if on the second hearing the court decides to revoke citizenship, the person concerned will have to wait a further two years before his case may be heard again. When we reach the committee stage, that is something about which we should, I suggest, ask a number of questions.

I come now to sections 16, 17 and 18, all important sections, dealing with the loss of Canadian citizenship. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker) who, in his argument, could not see why a person from Great Britain should not be called upon to take out papers and to take the oath. He spoke of handing out treatment with fairness and equality. Well, if we are to treat all with fairness and equality, then why not do so? So far as I can find in the bill, loss of citizenship can happen only to one who is naturalized, and not to one born in this country.

I know it is only a natural feeling on the part of those born in Canada that they have a natural or prior right over those from other lands. But as I look at members of my own family and as I look at others born here I just wonder if we are viewing things in the bill in the right perspective. After all, remember that those who were born in this country had no say whatsoever as to where they were to be born. On the other hand, when I, like others who came to this land, chose it as one of the best countries to which I could go-and I have found it was the best country. If we are to treat all Canadians with fairness we should also consider those born in this country who might commit certain acts against the state.

No one, I believe, is going to accuse the United States of being inhuman or unChristian because of her naturalization laws. Yet I find that in the United States there are many conditions under which a citizen of

Canadian Citizenship

that country may lose his citizenship. That applies both to those born within the United States and to those obtaining naturalization papers. For instance, deserting military or naval services of the United States in time of war is punished by loss of citizenship, whether a person be born in America or not. Then, again one loses citizenship if he commits an act of treason, or attempts by force to overthrow the state, or bears arms against the United States, provided, of course, that he is convicted thereof by a court martial or some other court of competent jurisdiction.

Time will not permit my reading all those sections dealing with loss of nationality, so that I shall touch upon only one more. Many Americans who have come to this country have lost citizenship in the United States by voting in a municipal, provincial, or federal election. I had a case in my own community last year where a woman who had been thirty-five years in Canada, but whose parents were born in the United States- and she, too, had been born there-wanted to attend her daughter's wedding in that country. But when she came to the border the United States immigration officer said to her, "Just hold on a minute; have you ever voted in a municipal election?" She replied, honestly, that she had. "Well," he said, "you cannot enter this country; you are no longer a citizen of the United States". And that woman living in my own district was debarred from entering what one would term her own native land.

Does anyone call the United States un-Christian or cruel, or does anyone accuse it of doing something wrong? Yet if we proposed anything like that here there would be cries of, "Oh, that is un-Christian; that is cruel; that is wrong." But the United States has been carrying on in that way for many years.

I am suggesting to the minister and to hon. members that we should give careful consideration to this matter of loss of nationality, because even those born in this country may commit some act which, in some of our minds at least, believe should place them in a position where they should not be allowed to retain their Canadian citizenship.

The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and some other hon. members have mentioned minority groups, and have spoken particularly about Japanese. It is not my intention this evening to deal at length with that subject, because I feel certain that another occasion will arise when the entire matter may be dealt with. Let me say at once however that I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South when he points out that by the passing of this measure we thereby

[Mr. Reid-3

confer citizenship upon the Japanese-every one of them. I am going to leave this thpught with hon. members: There were 1,600 Japanese who left this country prior to the outbreak of war.

Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):

Was it not 16,000?

Mr. REID:

Well, I am not quite sure of the number. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni says it was 16,000, and that may be so. However, I thought that 1,600 had gone back to Japan just prior to 1939 to perform their military duty and to fight on the side of Japan, against us.

All these young men were born in British Columbia; they were educated there, and had reached, the stage in life where they were able to use their own discretion if they so desired. But, having been registered in Japan, and looking upon Japan as their country they went back to comply with the regulations for military service in that country. I hope when we get into committee the minister will answer this question: If we pass this measure in its present form what will be the status of those 1,600-or 16,000, as the case may be? What will be the status of that great number of Japanese who left voluntarily to fight on the side of Japan, the country to which they owe first allegiance, against this country of ours. Under the act they are designated natural-born Canadians. Are we to open the doors to them again? I was not at all surprised that the hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) were greatly perturbed about what is to happen. One of the things worrying those of us from British Columbia particularly is the dispersal of these people.

However, before discussing that point further may I say this. First, however, I have asked two important questions of hon. members in the House of Commons. Those particular questions have been quoted in the Japanese paper, but, as yet, they remain unanswered. My question to hon. members of the House of Commons, and to the people of Canada, is this: Can a man owe allegiance to two countries at one and the same time; can he be a citizen of two countries?

I remember the special committee on elections and franchise which sat in 1934. While I was not a member of that committee, one which sat long before the war, I appeared before it. That was a time when this question was not as acute as it is to-day. True, there were only a few of us trying to point the way in those days. There were four Japanese who came before that committee, and I well remember asking two of them this question: In case

Canadian Citizenship

of war or trouble with Japan, to which country will you owe allegiance? Without hesitation both of them said Japan-and that was long before the war.

Through their newspaper I have asked Japanese, and I have asked many gatherings why is it that, so far, not one Japanese has renounced his citizenship or allegiance to Japan. Why is it that none of them has said, "I was born here; I am a Canadian; this is the country to which I owe allegiance." I have wondered at that great silence. Why? What is holding them back? If a committee is to be set up to investigate the Japanese who signed papers indicating a willingness to go back to Japan but are now asking that they be revoked, I urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) to ask them that very question.

I have spoken on this matter many times and I am not going at this time to deal with it at any great length. However, I am a little worried about the position of this class of people under this bill.

There is another question which I forgot to mention: Can these people be really assimilated into the life of the Canadian people? My answer is, "no, they cannot." I look to the United States and I ask myself if the question of the blacks is any nearer settlement to-day than it was fifty or seventy-five years ago. I have travelled in the United States and spoken to men in authority and to others, and I have come to the conclusion that the question of the blacks in that country is more acute to-day than ever it was. Then I look at the Japs. I am not considering this problem only in the light of to-day; I am looking at it in the light of the time when I shall be gone. I wonder if it is right to encourage a group that is not assimilable, a group whose first allegiance is not to Canada but to Japan. And so I protest.

Strangely enough, there is a provision in the bill that one holding a dual citizenship may renounce his Canadian citizenship if he so desires and hold on to his original or foreign citizenship. But there is nothing in the act to compel anyone to make a decision in favour of retaining Canadian citizenship. I am maintaining, and I will maintain as long as this bill is before the house, that no one in Canada should be allowed to hold Canadian citizenship if he or she at the same time owes allegiance to and is a citizen of another country.

The minister stated in his remarks, and it is provided in the bill, that ceremonies will be held at the time citizenship is granted. Ceremonies are all right in their way, but I should like to have seen us do what they do

in the United States. I think I am on firm ground when I refer to that country because there are something like thirty-six different races who make up the peoples of the United States. If we consider the races who have come to Canada I think we shall find that we also have thirty-six different races who make up the Canadian population. Before a person can become a United States citizen he must attend a school, which is free, and be able to answer certain questions, before being granted naturalization. These questions are not of a harsh nature; they are educational in character. I should like to read the section of the United States act dealing with this matter. It reads:

356. 3. Educational examination of petitioners for naturalization. The examination of each petitioner for naturalization shall include an educational examination. The purpose of the educational examination shall be to determine whether the petitioner has a fair knowledge of the fundamental principles of the constitution and is qualified to assume the duties and responsibilities of a citizen of the United States. To this end the petitioner may be questioned as to

(1) the principal historical facts concerning the development of the United States as a republic;

(2) the organization and principal functions of the government of the United States, and of the states and local units of government, and

(3) the relation of the individual in the United States to government-national, state and local, the rights and privileges growing from that relationship, and the duties and responsibilities which result from it. Every care shall be exercised to avoid abstruse, technical, irrelevant and extreme questions. The language level of the questions shall be suited to the particular petitioner having regard to his educational background and the extent of his knowledge of the English language.

I believe that the effort which an alien must put forth before becoming a United States citizen makes him more conversant with that country and with the affairs of government. Someone, perhaps in a joking way, has said that many aliens know more about the United States after passing this educational test than many children who were born in the United States knew upon leaving school. Be that as it may, I believe that if something like that were done before we grant Canadian citizenship it would be far better than waiting until the citizenship is about to be granted and then making a ceremony of it by having someone put on robes and having a kind of show. Make the applicants do a little work and undertake a little study and that will make them even better citizens. At least it will make them more conversant with the affairs of the country.

As I say, we should take note of what the United States has done. Not only am I in favour of setting up schools for this purpose;

Canadian Citizenship

I would advocate that all the regulations and all powers granted under this act be passed upon by the people's representatives in this parliament. Many of the matters mentioned in the bill should not be left to the minister or to some of his officials.

I believe I have covered most of the salient points I had in mind. I think the immigration department should be linked up with this bill. As is well known the records of those entering either Canada or the United States are kept by the immigration department of that country.

I am rather doubtful about section 29 which confers property rights upon those who become naturalized citizens. It is my opinion that we are infringing upon provincial rights because property rights are entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces. If by this bill we confer property rights on anyone who becomes a Canadian citizen, then I think we are doing something we should be most careful about.

Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):

Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this debate conclude without once more appealing to the government, in support of what the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has said, and asking them to make a statement with regard to their present position in connection with the disposition of the Japanese. We have had the policy explained to us, but unfortunately little or no progress appears to have been made as time has gone along.

For twenty-five years in this house members from British Columbia have been endeavouring to explain the situation with regard to the Japanese in that province and to warn the people of Canada that the day would come when the question would become a red-hot and dangerous one. It needed the treacherous action of the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and the ensuing war to bring the situation really home to the Canadian people. I am very much afraid that the opinion of the Canadian people is slipping back to the belief that this is a provincial question and not a dominion one.

At the time that the Japanese were sweeping through the Pacific and moving in a northerly and northeasterly direction in the islands below Alaska there was great anxiety in British Columbia. So great was the anxiety at that time that it spread throughout the rest of Canada, and it seemed to us that Canada at last was getting hold of this problem as one which would have to be recognized as a dominion problem.

In August, 1944, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) proclaimed the governor. Reid.]

ment's policy in the matter of the Japanese. In November last the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) summarized that policy and reiterated it and reported at that time as to the numbers and the position which the question then occupied. Unfortunately things have happened since then. With regard to parts of the government's policy representations were made which resulted in an appeal to the supreme court. The supreme court largely upheld the orders in council, which were a portion of the government's policy. But in one way they did not, and there apparently the matter stands. We do not know whether the government is proposing to carry the matter to the privy council or whether the government is facilitating the other party in carrying it to the privy council, or whether in the meantime, if that appeal be long delayed or perhaps never taken, the government's policy will still remain at a standstill. This bill is now before the house, and there is a very close connection between what this bill contains and the Japanese question. I therefore ask the government to make a statement clarifying their position at the present time before this bill passes out of our hands.

The first portion of the policy to which I have referred states that it must no longer be looked upon as a provincial question and that the Japanese must not again be allowed to concentrate in British Columbia. But we have had no information about how that is to be brought about. We have no knowledge as to whether the hint dropped by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) last session that special legislation might be brought in will be acted upon or not. But it is quite clear at the present time that there is no power in the hands of the government to prevent the Japanese from again concentrating in British Columbia, although the government has had plenty of warning that if that should take place the difficulties and the dangers will be great.

The position of the government in that regard is modified also by the answer which the Prime Minister gave to the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Gibson) last December. When this matter was being discussed the hon. member asked whether the Prime Minister would undertake to make this statement, that the Japanese would not be allowed to return to the coast. The Prime Minister said that he was unable to' make such a statement. That caused doubt in the minds of us from British Columbia as to whether the government was really sincere in its statement that never again must these people be allowed to concentrate in British Columbia.

Canadian Citizenship

The government's policy also contains the setting up of a commission to measure the loyalty of the Japanese. It has been pointed out in this house more than once that you cannot expect thoughtful people who have considered this problem to believe that it is possible for a commission to measure the loyalty of these Japanese. Can anybody conceive of any way in which the loyalty of a Japanese could be measured so that the commission might be able to say: This man's loyalty is twelve inches long; he is all right. That man's loyalty is only nine inches long; he is all wrong. It is impossible to believe, the Japanese being what.-they are, and from our knowledge of their habits and behaviour, that their loyalty can be measured by a commission.

Whilst the Japanese were sweeping through the Pacific victoriously before Pearl Harbor and at the time of Pearl Harbor there were scores and scores of instances where they told their employers that soon they would be on top and we would be below. Maids told their mistresses; employees told their employers; high school and 'collegiate students boasted of the fact that the day would soon be here when they would be on top and we would be below. Those people were very largely Canadian-born, those who are held up to us as so saintly that we must not tamper with the position in which they find themselves. It is impossible for me to believe that a commission can measure with any certainty where the loyalty of the Japanese stands. Now that their emperor has been deposed, if they are asked questions it is not at all unlikely that they may declare loyalty to this country. They come of,a race which for centuries has worshipped the emperor whom they described as their god and which believed in the domination of the Japanese race in the countries surrounding the Pacific. Is it to be expected that merely because the children of these parents were born in this country that they have given up all belief in the sanctity of their emperor? It is far more probable that had that invasion come, had those Japanese paratroopers landed in Canada, had Japanese operations along the .southern shore of Alaska and down the Pacific coast been successful, the incoming Japanese troops would have benefited greatly by the existence of twenty-three or twenty-four thousand Japanese in this country.

Another plan which the government has in its policy is the distribution of the Japanese through the other provinces. It has not been successful. Not so very many of them have been so distributed. The government has not found the provinces cooperative in endeavouring to carry out that policy, and one province has already asked that the Japanese be removed in accordance with the clause in the contract entered into between the Britisn Columbia security commission and that province. Sixty per cent of these Japanese are still in British Columbia. They are in camps; they are in the settlements in the mining towns in the south; and if we look at the numbers of those who have already been removed and compare them with the numbers of those who will have to be received by the various provinces, if the distribution is in accordance with the population of the provinces we find something like this. Let us say that there are twenty-three or twenty-four thousand Japanese in Canada. If all the ten thousand that the minister mentioned who have asked to be allowed to return to Japan or to be removed from Canada should go, that will reduce the figure we are examining to fourteen thousand. If we distribute that fourteen thousand to the other provinces this is the picture:

Prince Edward Island would have to be asked to receive 140. They have none now.

Nova Scotia would be expected to take 700. They have none now.

New Brunswick would be asked to take 560, and there are none there now.

Quebec would be asked to take just over 4,000, and by the last figures I had, at the last session, there are 394 now in Quebec. Is it considered likely that the province of Quebec will be ready to take 4,000 in order to carry out the government's policy of distribution?

Ontario will be asked to take 4,600. There are 2,500 there now.

Manitoba will be asked to take 840. There are just over 1,000 there now.

Saskatchewan will be asked to take 1,120, and there are only*146 there now.

Alberta will be asked to take 980. They have almost 3,500 there now, and the premier has asked that they be removed.

It should be remembered that, outside the protected area which was proclaimed for about 100 miles up the Pacific coast in British Columbia we had Japanese resident for a considerable number of years. Those Japanese are still there, and when the removal from the protected area threatened, the Japanese started moving in to that area that I represent and to the area represented by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). So that in that section we have certainly enough for the quota for British Columbia: we cannot be expected to take any more, particularly bear-

Canadian Citizenship

ing in mind the statement of the Prime Minister that they must not be allowed to concentrate again in British Columbia.

Therefore I find myself in this position. The government's policy of distribution has certainly not succeeded. I see no likelihood that it will succeed in the future if it has not done so in the past. The policy which sets up a commission to measure their loyalty is not, to my mind, a satisfactory one. I am driven, therefore, to the only expedient which I think is left, namely, that we should boldly undertake the removal of the Japanese from Canada.

Ah , it is said, to do so would be flouting British justice." Mr. Speaker, of the many problems which confront us in private life and the decisions which have to be made in this house in international questions, how many of those problems can be decided by the application of one simple formula? We have to weigh the pros and cons. In matters which come up for decision here it is no easy thing for a government in Canada to balance all the arguments and decide which is the right course to take. Think of those boundary decisions which followed the great war. Think of the boundary of Sudetenland, and Poland, and the Polish corridor, to mention but a few. Why, justice could have been argued on both sides on each of those questions. You could not say that justice ruled the answer. The decision had to be weighed in the light of many^ circumstances, and the application of no simple formula settled one of these boundary cases.

Likewise in, this matter there are other cactors which have to ,be considered than merely the application of " British justice." One of the duties that each member of this house has to perform, is to have a vision of what Canada will be like when our descendants are occupying our places. We are here to represent those who sent us to this House of Commons. We are here to consider these matters from the point of view of Canada at large. I am not sure but that the most important duty falling upon us is to endeavour to see the .picture that may be painted in Canada when our grandchildren andi their descendants are here, and I cannot bring myself to believe that we shall be wise if we fail to remove these people from Canada now when the opportunity of settlement at the peace table is before us.

I do not consider that it is proper to expect our descendants to work, in that great task of building Canada, in collaboration, in cooperation, with the equal help of people whom, I consider unassimilable, people whose loyalty is unquestionably in doubt. They are unas-

similable in ths sense that, Gvsn though mixed marriages diid take place, it would be unwise, for the resultant children that would be born would start that hateful trouble of the Eurasian question as we see it in many other lands. It is all very well to say that half-breed children ought to be accepted by society and placed on an equality with either of the two races; it is easy to say that. But the answer is that they are not, and all their lifetime they are pathetic people who are looked down upon by the rest of the population, and are not received on an equality with them. It will be lamentable if we give countenance to the setting up in this country of a half-breed race composed of Canadians and Japanese.

I do not accept for a moment the doctrine that we have not the right to remove these people from here. We cannot trust them,. They have shown that they are unreliable. We cannot answer for it that if they say they are. loyal to Canada they really are. For a generation past their births have been registered with the Japanese consul general. How can a child whose birth was registered with the representative of another country have the same form of loj'fllty to our country and our king as we ha,ve? They are not on a par with us; and it would be a very grave mistake, in my opinion, if we allowed this matter to be settled by leaving some of them in this country, when the Prime Minister tells us that they shall not concentrate in our province and yet there is no means at present to prevent them from doing so.

Before this bill passes out of our hands, I trust that the government will see fit to make a statement clarifying the position in which it finds itself at present with respect to the policy it has enunciated, and explain particularly whether it is its intention to proceed to the privy council for a decision on the matters which were submitted to the supreme court.

Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):

In rising to speak in support of the principle of this bill, I might say it is my belief that one of the greatest and longest standing needs of the Canadian people is unity; not only that, but a sense of equality among our people.

It was a realization of this need that caused the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation national convention to adopt as part of its programme the establishment of the legal status of Canadian citizenship for the people of Canada by way of birth and residence qualifications. It was in realization of that need and the resolution from our convention that caused me last July 23 to write to the

Canadian Citizenship

Clerk of the house and inform him that it was my intention to place the following resolution upon the order paper:

That, in the opinion of this house, it is in the best interests of Canada to establish a distinctive Canadian citizenship, which shall be available to all persons of certain residence or birth qualifications within the dominion.

Mr. MARTIN:

Great minds think alike.

Mr. CASTLEDEN:

Yes; I hope they are thinking at the same time. My hon. friend had a long time to think about this and his party has been in power for many years.

When the house opened there was an undertaking in the speech from the throne that it was the intention of the government to bring in such a bill. When the bill was introduced, out of deference to it and under the rules of the house I withdrew my resolution. Unfortunately the bill died after it received first reading and the last session closed without anything further being done.

I again placed my resolution on the order paper prior to the opening of this session, and we welcome this bill. I hope it does not suffer the same fate, either in this house or in the other place, as did the last one. ''"-Canadians must feel that they are all members of one family. We must have that feeling in order fully to, develop our possibilities as a Canadian nation. On meeting Canadians from all parts of Canada one is struck forcibly by two or three things. The first is the lack of a real understanding and (appreciation of the problems, of the contributions, of the difficulties and even of the way of life of our fellow Canadians within our own-country. Tliere is a provincialism Which is stifling Canadians and which prevents and overshadows a national outlook. As a nation Canada lacks the spirit of greatness and the passion for knowledge which is one of the attributes of a progressive nation.

One fact which proves this, and which causes Canadians to think deeply is that so many of the cream of Canada's educated youth, the graduates from our universities, the brains and ability of our young people, the greatest asset we have, have migrated in their thousands, yes, in their hundreds of thousands to the great nation to the south of us. The fact is that we have lost a nation in the making to the United States where the statue of. liberty is a symbol of the great unity of that country, of its freedom. Had those Canadians who left our shores been imbued with a true realization of their duty as Canadians they would have remained in this country and helped to remedy its defects which prevented them from having within this

land those opportunities which they found elsewhere. The truth is that Canadians do not know Canada.

I do not wish anyone to think I am not aware of, or wish to belittle, the achievements and contributions that Canada has made. What I am trying to emphasize is the fact that we are only about five per cent of what we could be, five per cent of what we should be. It is my opinion that we shall not achieve that greatness until we have a consciousness of our unity. We are prone to emphasize our differences and, to overlook our common heritage. We lack a realization of our own greatness, our own strength and our own possibilities for the future. There cannot be a future unless we are a united people. .

J In the part of Canada which I have the honour to represent and where I was born, are people who came to Canada with hope, pride and faith that this was the greatest country in the world in which to live*J These people carved out their homes from the park areas and the prairies, like their brothers from the wooded lands of Canada from coast to coast. They built their schools, their churches and their little communities. Their children worked and played with their fellow Canadian children in their youth and mixed their blood with the blood of their fellow Canadians in the wars of this land, j They thought they were becoming Canadians.' When they took out their naturalization papers it was a surprising thing to them to find that they were not called Canadians.

_ Naturally they feel that there is, discrimination between them and those who were here before them; particularly when officials appointed by the federal government to take the census come and ask them this question: "What nationality are you?" Proudly they ' reply: "I am a Canadian." They are told, "No; you cannot put down on the census paper that you are a Canadian. What is your racial origin ?'j_J Many of these people came to this country as adults. They spent the latter part of their years in this country, -sometimes twenty and thirty years. They have been busy making a living; in pioneer Canada it is not an easy job. Many of these people did not learn the English or the French language. On reaching the age of seventy many of them find themselves unable to make a living. They have applied for the rights of Canadians to the pittance of an old age pension such as we give in Canada, only to find that they are not qualified. These are people who have done everything.to make Canada a nation. They have given their all to Canada, contributed their sons and their life work;

Canadian Citizenship

yet they are denied even that right. The fact that this bill ends that injustice commends it to the support of every hon. member.

I believe this bill should have been embodied in the terms of confederation almost eighty years ago. Certainly it should have been in the Statute of Westminster which was intended to give Canada the status of nationhood. What reasons the governments of the past had for not establishing, citizenship I do not know. Such a citizenship is the very foundation of nationhood. Without it no nation can be progressive. We pay lip-service to something which does not exist. Without it Canada will never achieve real progress. If Canada is to rise in the scale of nations, we must brothers be. The consciousness of unity is the first essential in the building of a nation. That unity cannot be built merely by a bill. There must be something deeper than that. In the hearts and minds of all Canadian citizens there must be a realization, an acceptance of the principle of equality of people irrespective of their colour, race or creed. Without it, jealousies divide us and progress is impossible. Irrespective of colour, race or creed, human beings within the Dominion of Canada must be conscious of an equality with each and every other Canadian.

It is interesting to note that one provincial government recognizes that equality. I have a news item here from the Toronto Globe and Mail, which, at any rate, can scarcely be accused of C.C.F. sympathies. To its credit it says this:

Appointment by the Saskatchewan government of a Canadian-born Japanese as legal adviser to its economic planning commission again focuses attention on the dominion governments plan for wholesale deportation of Japanese from this country. This particular individual has been given a position of great responsibility. The colour of his skin may be different from that of most Canadians, but the fact remains that he is a Canadian and is entitled to opportunities of citizenship in keeping with his abilities, so long as there is no abuse of this right

There are persons of Japanese origin who can be expected to make a definite contribution to the country. They should be allowed to stay here and make the best of the opportunity of citizenship. There are others who are not to be trusted. There is ,no place for them m Canada and the government has at its disposal all the machinery required to send them elsewhere. But it will be a sad day indeed when a Canadian government expels people from the country on the sole grounds that it has the legal power to do so.

To illustrate further what I mean about equality among people, I am sure the person concerned will not mind if I tell of a little incident which happened in this fair city of Ottawa. Recently a lady entered a street-car

on her way home. It was a windy day, and the lady was wearing on her head what I believe is termed a babushka. She took her seat in the street-car and overheard another lady remark to her companion, "There is another foreigner." The lady with the babushka was none other than the only lady member of this house. This illustrates the sort of thing Canada must overcome. Within this nation everyone must be conscious of the fact that all people are equal. The people of Canada must subscribe to that principle. The basis upon which unity must be built and wnich must become a part of Canadian citizenship is a recognition of the fact that citizenship must carry with it these basic freedoms: freedom of speech; freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom to worship as one chooses; freedom of the press; the right to a speedy public trial; the right to hold property. Canadian citizens must also appreciate their obligations and duties. They must inform themselves thoroughly of those duties which are related to citizenship. The Canadian must learn his responsibility in connection with voting; he must learn that this is a part of the democratic process. There must be instilled in each and every citizen of this country a passion for education and enlightenment.

I am going to suggest to the government that it prepare a simple, easily read pamphlet outlining the rights of every citizen before the law and some simple, basic principles of legal rights within this country so that a citizen rnay know what his rights are irrespective of the price of the lawyer whom he may or may not be able to hire.

In closing, I wish to say that only upon this unity can Canada hope to reach its full status. Self-governing and free, we can then work out our destiny. It must be a destiny of peace, happiness and enlightened freedom. We shall then be able to make our contribution to brotherhood among men, to a heritage of freedom which is a right common not only to people in Canada but to people everywhere in the world. We realize and appreciate that to-day we are part of one world. We cannot hope to make our contribution to the welfare of that world until we have achieved brotherhood within our own nation. This bill can form the basis of a new conception of Canada; it can place Canada among the nations moving toward a common brotherhood of mankind throughout the whole world.

Mr. W. A. McMASTER (High Park):

Mr. Speaker, it is largely because of what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) that I felt

Canadian Citizenship

I must say a few words and apologize for being one of British descent. I felt I also should apologize to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) for being of Scottish descent. I do not know why the hon. member took a Scotsman and placed him beside an American before the court of naturalization. I could understand why he would choose a Scotsman, but I do not know why he should mention an American as well. I can only say that if the hon. member believed the Scotsman could be made to think any less of himself by having to appear before a court, he is very much mistaken. A Scotsman in his own quiet way will still think he is one of the best people in the world.

I did not take in very good part the lecture given us to-day by the hon. member for Spadina, who spoke of something being very wrong here in Canada. That did not seem to be entirely in accord with the eloquent way in which he told of many people having come here from his own and other countries, and having found this a land of opportunity. Surely he must recall that at the time they came here there was no citizenship act in force. But I cannot believe the fact that no such act was in force made Canada any worse to live in, or the fact that this act will come into force will make it any better. My ancestors came from Scotland when Canada was quite different from what it is to-day. My grandfather remembered when the battle of Waterloo was fought. He came to Canada, to Glengarry. I venture to say that Glengarry was not a very easy place to live in then; opportunity was a long way off. When he worked on the Rideau canal,.which passes near these parliament buildings, I venture to assert that he earned his money the hard way, because in those days they had no mechanical tools with which to work. Then he left the eastern part of Ontario to go to the southwestern part of this province, and settled in a virgin forest. For many years he lived in a part of the country where he had to carry on his back for seventeen miles the flour used by his family. They were really the people who made this country the land of opportunity to which people now come, and where those now entering enjoy the benefits provided by our forefathers. Then they proceed to lecture us as to what we should do about the laws of this country.

Neither did I take very kindly the statement made by the hon. member for Spadina that our boys overseas died without any citizenship and without any flag to salute. It is a wonder he did not go on and say they had no Canada day to observe. I feel sure the 10,000 airmen and the 17,000 infantrymen and others who died overseas believed they had a

flag to salute, and believed they were citizens of a great country. I can say to you now, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the flag they believe they did salute, and would want to salute, was the union jack, or probably the red ensign.

I can remember reading that the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) said that when he as an engineer came to parliament he forgot about his engineering. Perhaps as a lawyer it is very easy for me to forget all about law. However, I believe that in an approach to any bill there are certain rules of interpretation which must be observed, and that those rules should be applied to the present bill.

What defect was it intended to cure? There must have been some reason for introducing the bill. In the debate there have 'been many eloquent speeches, perhaps the most eloquent of which was given by the Secretary of State IMr. Martin) who introduced the bill.

After all, no good and sufficient reason has been given. It is true they have mentioned that there was no particular act defining citizenship. But the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) has pointed out that there are three acts of parliament in which citizenship and nationality are mentioned. They are the Immigration Act, the Naturalization Act and the Canadian Nationals Act. This latter act was mentioned only incidentally by some hon. members, and by the Secretary of State.

I wondered what was said about Canadian citizenship when this act was brought into force in 1921, a generation ago. With that in mind, I took the time to look into the debates of that session, to find what was said. I find that the bill was introduced by the Right Hon. Charles Doherty, who at that time was Minister of Justice in a Conservative administration. The hint was offered by some hon. members, and possibly by the Secretary of State himself, that the real reason for introducing that bill was that it was required so that a Canadian should be a national, as distinct from a British national, in order to obtain greater responsibility before the league of nations.

In introducing the bill, the then Minister of Justice stated this, at page 645 of Hansard of that year.

But the purpose of the bill is to define a particular class of British subjects who, in addition to having all the rights and all the obligations of British subjects, have particular rights because of the fact that they are Canadians. I think we have always understood that without a specific statutory definition there has for a long time been such a person as a Canadian, and some outstanding indications v'hich justify a man in claiming to be a Canadian.

Canadian Citizenship

In other words, at that time the then Minister of Justice did not believe that it was necessary that they be made citizens by statute but believed that in fact they were Canadians.. Then he went on to explain the use of the word "national" instead of the word "citizen", the reason being that in the French version of the league of nations documents the word "ressortissant" more nearly approximated in English the meaning of the word "national" than any other word.

In the course of the debate, in which there was a considerable amount of discussion, and during which Mr. Doherty seemed to answer some questions forty or fifty times, he was asked by Mr. Fielding:

Is there such a thing now as a Canadian national? Is it right to say, "the following persons are Canadian nationals," or do we not by this bill make them so? It is a very fine distinction; f merely call the hon. gentleman's attention to it.

Mr. Doherty: I think that both things are

true. There does exist to-day such a thing as a Canadian national: if there does not, then all those who are proud of the fact that they are Canadians have been attaching to themselves a designation that means nothing. It is equally true that this a'Et speaking the day it is passed, declares the fact to exist that certain persons are Canadian nationals. The moment this bill is passed-whether by virtue of this law or by virtue of any anterior thing is immaterial- * these people are Canadians.

So that again Mr. Doherty states that, he believes that they were Canadians, and that there was such a thing as Canadian citizenship prior to that act.

Later on, Mr. Marcil referred to the fact that when he went to France on one occasion he wanted to register as a Canadian, but it was suggested to him that he should register as a British subj ect. When that point was raised in the debate Mr. Doherty said:

I certainly think he would be entitled to . . . That is, he would be entitled to register as a Canadian subject. .

. . . indeed, I thought he was, in the past. On any occasion when I have [DOT] been travelling and have been asked what my nationality was, I have said, "Canadian"-and it went right down. At the league of nations we from Canada were never known as anything else-and we were not anything else-than the Canadian representatives', and we sat at the table in the position officially designated "Canadian delegation."

Then, again, later on, Mr. D. D. McKenzie, who at that time was an outstanding Liberal, took part in the debate. As I recall, he was a doughty fighter. He, as a Liberal, criticized the bill introduced by the Conservative administration. in these words:

I do not think the good loyal people of Ontario will like the idea that we have forsaken Canadian citizenship with all that term meant, and

that we are now nationalists if we take our definition as a nationalist from what Mr. Bour-assa and those behind him were preaching . . .

Then he proceeded to discuss a matter of domestic strife in the party which I shall not bother reading. There again he thought there was a Canadian citizenship, before that time r A~great deal has been said about the taking of the census. I went to some trouble to find out why a census is taken and, so far as I can discover, it is because the British North America Act says there must be a census every ten years. Those ten-year periods were in 1871 1881 and so on. I find nothing in the

British North America Act which says that any particular questions shall be asked. They wanted to find out only how many people there were in the country; at least that was the chief reason.

Yet, in 1941 I find that on the form which was handed the census takers there are two columns, one immediately following the other, the first of which calls for nationality or citizenship, and the country to which the person owes allegiance. I have not a copy of the instructions given the census takers, although I tried to get them. I was late in asking for them. However, if the government in office at that time-a Liberal government-said to those census takers that a natural-born Canadian was to be classified as anything other than a Canadian, it gave those census takers wrong advice.

The next column deals with racial origin. This would refer to Scotsmen, Irishmen, Englishmen, or Frenchmen, as the case may be. I believe the instruction there was that it should be traced through the father, rather than in any other way, a procedure which, of course, is not always fair.

I have mentioned one reason for introducing any legislation, namely, that there must be a defect. Since the introduction of this bill I have believed firmly that it is not necessary in order to establish Canadian citizenship. What is the reason for it? One of the other rules in interpreting a statute which the minister will know better than I do- ,

Mr. MARTIN:

No, not at all.

Mr. McMASTER:

-is to ask: "What is the true object and intent of this amendment?" In this case, what is the object and intent of the bill? Perhaps in this instance I can help the minister. I do not believe there is any . other reason in the world for introducing the bill .than that of having a codification, and to compel those who come from the British isles

Canadian Citizenship

to appear to declare themselves nationals in the same way as do the peoples from any other country.

It is no disgrace to anyone coming from a country not speaking the English or the French languages to be asked to appear before a court, because they must give proof that they understand one of those languages.

It is a fair thing to ask that that be done. One of the previous speakers referred to elderly people who would be naturalized although they do not speak the language. I know of a fine lady in Toronto who had not learned the language and1 who was naturalized. It was only right that she should be, because she is a good citizen. But, generally speaking, it is not unfair to ask anyone to learn either English or French before he becomes a citizen. This does not mean that he will necessarily be a good citizen. As I have said time and again, and as has been said in other countries, when naturalization is at stake the smart immigrant will learn the language quickly, whereas the good immigrant may perhaps find it difficult to do so. But this reason does not apply to British subjects.

I should like to deal for a moment with the question of intolerance. I do not think I ever heard any of the members of a certain political party praise anyone except those whom they call members of minority groups. I am bound to say that I have heard people of British stock say the same thing. I do not believe there is any justification for such statements. They have a strange idea of intolerance. Lately we heard of a case in Toronto where the owner of a rink refused admission to a certain boy. His friends rallied around; the case was brought to court, and the owner of the rink was compelled to allow that boy to go in. It has been said that this is a case of intolerance when, in, fact, it is just an example of tolerance. They will not stand for that sort of thing in Toronto. I cannot understand why anyone should1 think that we in Canada are intolerant. Reference has been made to this twenty per cent of our population, but we are not intolerant toward them in Toronto and we do not hear of this' intolerance towards them. It is strange to hear this sort of thing from other parts of the country.

Then we have heard of the wearing of a babushka. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) was referred to by bystanders as a foreigner because she wore a babushka. No doubt it was rather unusual, but the mere wearing of it would not make her a foreigner.

I am opposed to this bill on principle. I

believe it is proposed for one purpose only, a purpose with which I certainly am not in agreement.

Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley); Mr. Speaker, there are only fifteen minutes left before I adjourn the debate. I know the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) is ready to give way to me because I am probably more conversant with what I am going to speak about than he is. I am not going to take up much time, but being a good Canadian I am interested in this bill. Being a good Liberal I. am glad to know that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) agrees with me. In this instance I think the hon. member is right. If he listened to me more often he would be right more often.

Mr. GREEN:

I would be in trouble.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

The particular section in this citizenship bill with which I am concerned is section 10. I am not a lawyer, and I have listened to lawyers in the house talk about Canada day and every other kind of day. As I understand this section, a man who resides in Canada for twenty years automatically becomes a Canadian citizen-

Mr. MARTIN:

Oh, no.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

-whether or not he can speak the language. Not being a lawyer,

I do not know about that, but I am opposed to it. As I see it, this will discredit our minister, for whom I have the greatest regard and for whom I believe every veteran in Canada has the greatest regard. As my minister has said, "Not a Jap from the Rockies to the sea." I stand by that and I presume he stands by that. However, I am in position to go still farther.

The province of British Columbia is the gateway to the great Pacific, the greatest market that this country ever had. There are 400,000,000 people in China alone who offer a great potential market for Canadian products. I wish to ask the members of this house what they would think of the province that was the gateway to that great market if it had no minister in the cabinet. I am here to tell the house that no member of the Liberal party from British Columbia wall ever sit as a member of the government if he permits the Japs to come back to the coast. That is covering a lot of territory, but the minister gave me that opening. I am talking for the rest of the members. If any other private member cared to go into the government and permitted the Japs to come back he would never be elected as a Liberal from British

Canadian Citizenship

Columbia. I think the hon. member for Vancouver South will agree with me when I say that no Conservative member would be elected from our province who allowed that. I am making no comment about the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis).

A citizen of this country must have all the rights of law and all the privileges of a Canadian citizen. I am glad the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is making careful notes of what I say because, added to what he has learned in Moscow, it will be an addition to his knowledge.

Mr. COLDWELL:

He will read it in Hansard in the morning.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

I always have the greatest respect for and admiration and appreciation of what the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) says. I have never had the privilege of visiting Moscow. I renaember when the premier of the great province of Saskatchewan told off this house and said that a man such as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard had no knowledge of what they were doing at Dieppe because he had been there on a twenty-four hour visit on one occasion.

We are told by this C.C.F. that these Japs should have all the rights which they will have under this bill. I am not a lawyer, but according to the press this is what the hon. member for Vancouver East said, and I quote from the Regina Leader-Post of April 19, 1945. He may have been misquoted because my hon. friend, the leader of the C.C.F., is always being misquoted. The article is headed, "Would disperse Canadian Japs". It reads:

Angus Maclnnis, C.C.F. member of parliament for Vancouver East, said in an interview Wednesday night that Prime Minister Mackenzie King should follow up his proposal of August 4 last, that orientals be dispersed across Canada.

I am not going to read the whole article.

Mr. MacINNIS:

What did you come across that you did not like to read?