Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma):

She should have to go; there is no reason why she should not qualify the same as a man. If it is necessary for a man to undertake certain obligations and possess certain qualifications in order to become an elector in this country, it is necessary that the woman who is exercising the same franchise and has equal privileges and responsibilities should be in identically the same position as the man, and that is what the Act calls for.

Mr. NICHOLSON:

So has the man.

Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma) :

I am

ready to admit my denseness, but I must nevertheless say that what I have heard from my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) and my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) has not converted me, but rather has it convinced me that I was right in the first place. As to what my hon. friend has said with regard to women from Mexico, if he wants my personal opinion, I am opposed to giving the franchise automatically to a man or woman from any country, I care not which, who does not understand something of the ideals of Canadian citizenship. If the provision in the Act is wrong that makes it possible for a Mexican woman to have that right, I would hold up both hands for amending the law and making it impossible for her to have that right.

Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma):

But it does not. What underlies this whole question is simply this: When the franchise

was granted to women I think it was recognized by those who advocated it that the women were going to be an independent body of electors, exercising their own judg-

ment and having their own opinions, and not simply following the opinions and judgments of their husbands. My hon. friend says that because a man goes before a judge and takes the oath of allegiance and becomes a British subject, he can then marry any woman he pleases and she automatically becomes an elector.

Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma) :

Can these women not go before a judge and get the right to become elected?