He cannot establish domicile in Canada. That is the serious part. He may be deported. Even although he has been a resident of Canada for a great number of years, he becomes liable to deportation. In the second section we read:
2. Proof that any person belonged to or was within the description of any of the prohibited or undesirable classes -within the meaning of this section at any time since the fourth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and ten, shall, for all the purposes of this act be deemed to establish prima facie that he still belongs to such prohibited or undesirable class or classes.
If in the past a man had belonged to an undesirable organization or secret society, or any other prohibited class, he may have migrated to this country and completely changed his whole manner of life, but if he is accused by anyone or even suspected of belonging to these classes, the very fact that he once belonged to such a class is considered prima facie evidence. I do not think that is a fair provision. The onus of proof ought
Immigration Act-Mr. Woodsworth
not to be upon the accused man. The burden of proof ought to rest with the authorities or those who accuse him.
I come now to the important part which has been stressed by the hon. member for West Calgary. I believe he has made the objection because he has not carefully read the act. He claims that a British subject is not liable under this clause. I affirm-and again I would refer him to the presentation of Senator Dandurand-that a man born in England, a British subject is liable under this act.
Subtopic: REPEAL OP PROVISION FOR DEPORTATION OP CERTAIN CLASSES