the advantages of Canadian citizenship. This is all to the good. There is a growing need of it at the present time.
I should like to refer now to an article which appeared in the Toronto Evening Telegram of April 1, 1946, describing some proceedings in the naturalization court in that *city. It reads in part:
Queen's husband Mr. King bars German's citizenship
Alfred Alpert, factory worker, was smart enough to get out of Germany in 1939 ahead of the nazis, but he's still a little muddled about world figures.
"Mr. King is king of the British empire," he told Judge Denton in naturalization court when seventy-eight new Canadians took the oath of allegiance to the crown. "Where does the King live?" the judge asked: "The King is in
'Ottawa," replied Alpert, who arrived in England in June, 1939, was at Kitchener camp and Isle of Man camp and migrated to Canada in July, 1940.
"I admit it's a bit confusing," said Judge Denton. "Where does the queen live, then?"
"She lives in England."
'"What is her name?"-"Queen Elizabeth."
"What is the king's name?" Alpert was stymied. Judge Denton gave him a hint: "The queen's husband," he explained, "what is his name ?"
"His name is Mackenzie King," Alpert replied.
There is a great need of giving to those who come to this country to make it their home an opportunity, which perhaps has not been fully provided for them in the land from which they come, to learn what citizenship means, to learn what the rights and the responsibilities of citizenship mean in a country like ours. I think as a nation we have hitherto failed deplorably in this respect. This is an age of adult education, but we in this country have not realized the great need of affording opportunities for adult education to those who come from other lands to make Canada their home. We have often treated as foreigners those new Canadians, who have come here with the full ' permission of the laws of this country to make it their home. To me that is a denial of the fundamental principle of Canadian citizenship. Once people are admitted to this country, once they become citizens, no lines should be drawn, racial or otherwise, which will have the effect of discriminating between different classes of citizens.
Due regard must be had in the future, far more than has been had in the past, to the duty of providing to those who come to this *country to make it their home the opportunity to learn of all that is involved in Canadian -citizenship, and there should be impressed
upon all applicants for citizenship a due regard not only for the rights but also for the responsibilities of citizenship.
I think it is worthy of the attention of this house that we should consider now the true significance of Canadian citizenship. Canadian citizenship involves an assertion of our rights as equal individuals before the law, -and before the electoral law, to determine as we will the destiny of this country. We owe *much to those who have gone before us and who have provided for us the privileges of this Canadian citizenship. If there was more regard for the sacrifices of those who have gone before us, there would be a higher appreciation of the privileges of citizenship in Canada. Think of the contribution made to the developing concept of Canadian citizenship by Macdonald, Cartier, Laurier and Sir Robert Borden, Think of the contribution made to that expanding significance of Canadian citizenship when in the time of Sir Robert Borden this country, by the hand of a minister of Canada representing His Majesty the King, signed the treaty of peace in 1919. It was a great step in our national development.
We need to have more pride in Canada. We need a greater sense of achievement on the part of our country anil our people-and when I say "our people" I mean all our people. We are not yet adequately conscious of being Canadians. This country is finding its soul, at soul born of sacrifice. I for one am an optimist for Canada. I can see nothing to circumscribe or limit the future of this country except the extent of our faith in it and our faith in ourselves under God's guidance.
It is not all clear sailing in this country to develop a sense of citizenship. Let us be quite frank. We have had a problem created by race and it is a difficult problem. It has led to a hyphenation of Canadianism which I say it is the duty of every citizen of this country to fight. We must put aside this idea of a hyphenated Canadianism which will not fit into a worthy conception of Canadian citizenship or Canadian unity. Those who exalt race above Canadian unity or Canadian citizenship do a great disservice to Canada.
We know perfectly well that so far as the great races of this country are concerned, racial purity is a biological myth. There has been a mingling of the races in Canada, and there will continue to be. A couple of years ago the premier of the province of Ontario, Hon. George Drew, addressing an audience composed largely of new Canadians, said that in the veins of his two children was mingled the blood of seven races. I daresay there are
many of us in this chamber who can say that we have in our veins the blood of several races at least.
If in approaching this question of the relationship between race and nationality, unity and a common Canadian citizenship, we realize that unity does not demand uniformity, and that we are operating under a * constitution which gives certain rights to our brothers whose maternal language is the French language; if we approach the problem with good-will and understanding and sympathy, there is no reason why there cannot be a true sense of Canadian unity. ^
There is a work of reconciliation to be done in this country. We saw the need of it in thig house in the debates of last Thursday and Friday. It seems to me that that work of reconciliation must begin, here in Ottawa. Whoever seeks to exploit racial differences for political advantage commits a crime against Canada, against Canadian unity and against our proper sense of Canadian citizenship.
If we know each other better there will be far less danger of suspicion and distrust. Canadians must know each other better. That is a duty that rests upon us all. In the light of the necessity of creating in Canada a deep sense of national unity there must be no thought of pitting aggressive minorities and aggresive majorities against one another. We have to put first the interests of Canada as the whole of Canada, as a nation.
As the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret) said in his speech in the house last Thursday, historically those who first held the title "Canadiens" were persons born in this country of French descent. It is a title which we are all proud to possess. I ask hon. members to recognize that it is not a contribution to Canadian unity to have a member of this house say: I have a superior claim to this title. It is now the proud possession of all of us and we should all be big enough to admit that our rights to it are now complete and equal.
The two great races in this country owe debts to each other which they do not, it seems to me, adequately realize. Reference was made in some of the earlier speeches in this debate to the articles of capitulation which were signed after the fall of Quebec in 1759, and after the fall of Montreal in 1760, followed by the Quebec Act of 1774, the constitutional act of 1791, the Act of Union of 1840 and finally the British North America Act itself. It is a plain fact of history that had Canada not become British when it did, it would later have become American. Those whose mother tongue is English may equally well
be reminded that but for the loyalty of the Canadiens, and had guarantees not been extended to those whose mother tongue was French, Canada would not have been retained for the British crown at the time of the American revolution but would have become American.
These two races owe a debt to each other which they can never adequately repay. Let us therefore in all common sense and justice recognize it, and let us be conscious of a sense of obligation to each other. I believe that will promote better understanding and a greater appreciation of each other.
We hear talk from time to time of language rights. This question of language was fully settled in the British North America Act, by section 133. It is our duty to refute, wherever and whenever we hear it, the talk of those who say that the national fabric of this country is weakened by there being two official languages. It is not so. Those who follow that line whittle and hack away at the foundation of confederation, because without section 133 confederation would never have been brought about, and without it confederation to-day could not continue.
I want to say a word with respect to one passage on bilingualism in the speech of the hon. member for Outremont-and I approach this as one who has the desire and hope to improve what little facility he possesses in the French language. I think no one will promote bilingualism in this country by scolding those who speak the English language for not having acquired any facility in French. It may be that the hon. member for Outremont did not intend to rail against those who1 have not acquired that facility. I think on sober reflection he will appreciate that that is not the way in which better understanding can be brought about between the two great races in this country. We must concentrate above all else on understanding each other, and with tolerance and good will any problems attendant on the question which the hon. member for Outremont raised are, I think, capable of solution.
Two sections of this bill, which are essential in the light of the principle of the measure have occupied the attention of some who have preceded me in the debate. I refer to section 26 and section 10. Without a careful examination of the provisions of these two sections the principle of the bill cannot be adequately debated. I wish to say a word with regard to section 26, particularly in view of the interpretation put upon it on Friday last by the hon. member for Outremont and the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard).