[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 15, to incorporate Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Company.-Mr. Damude.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 16, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934.
Drilling of Uniformed Classes
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minis, ter of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I desire to advise the hon. member and the house generally that the government intends to introduce a measure having as its object the amendment of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. As I indicated to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) on the second day of the session, the matter is under consideration. Although I do not know what is contained in the bill for which first reading is asked by the hon. member for Weybum, I am quite sure it cannot embrace all that the government has in mind. I would therefore request that he, in company with other members with intentions similar to his own, should consider allowing the bill to stand, pending the introduction of a government measure which must be preceded by a money resolution. The hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) and some others have suggested the introduction of similar bills. However, the hon. member for Weybum will have to decide what he wishes to do.
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I wonder if it would make any difference to the minister if the bill were introduced and permitted to stand. It could be dropped in the event of the government bringing down legislation.


Mr. DUNNING:: Yes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DRILLING OF UNIFORMED CLASSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question directed to me yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) I desire to make a statement.
Section 99 of the criminal code empowers the governor in council to prohibit drilling, military exercises and training without lawful authority, and makes it a criminal offence. Such a proclamation was issued on September 21, 1917, and has never been repealed. Section 99, therefore, is in force in all parts of Canada at the present time. By virtue of the proclamation of 1917, issued under the authority of the then section 98 of the criminal code, the present section 99, it is a criminal offence for any persons to carry out such military exercises, movements or evolutions without lawful authority, and if an offence is being committed it is of course the responsibility of the provincial authorities to prosecute, because the administration generally of the provisions of the criminal law rests with the provinces.

In the circumstances, however, the question of unlawful drilling and military training and exercises by political groups is one which may involve the dominion as a whole and, therefore, the dominion government will, in addition to any steps which may be taken by any provincial authority, cause an investigation to be made. If as a result of such investigation it is considered that an offence against the criminal law, as above referred to, is being committed by fascists, communists or otherwise, the government will cause the necessary proceedings to be initiated by way of having such information and complaint laid as the facts disclosed by the investigation may justify, and otherwise the government will furnish such reasonable assistance to the provincial authorities as they may require in connection with the prosecution.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. N. Francoeur for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Bennett.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, my purpose
in rising to take part in this debate is merely to discuss briefly two or three matters which have been referred to in the speeches of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and other hon. members, especially those who sit in the far corner.
The first matter I should like to refer to is the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada of three bills which had been reserved by the lieutenant governor of Alberta. There was also the matter of the disallowance of three statutes which had been passed by the province of Alberta a few months before the reference was made. Apparently my right hon. friend is not very fond of references to the Supreme Court of Canada, although he indulged in that practice when he was the head of the government.


Mr. BENNETT:: Very seldom.


Ernest Lapointe: On a few occasions. My right hon. friend said that the referring of these matters to the Supreme Court of Canada would prove dangerous to the preservation of the powers of the central government. As his authority he quoted from a letter which Sir John A. Macdonald had written in 1889 to the then Minister of Justice, Sir John Thompson. It is true that at that time the Su-

The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
prcme Court Act had been passed, but it did not contain section 55 which empowers the governor general to make these references.
At the interprovincial conference of 1888 Mr. Mercier succeeded in having a resolution adopted, section 2 of which read as follows:
That it is important to the just operation of our federal system, as well that the federal parliament should not assume to exercise powers belonging exclusively to the provincial legislatures, as that a provincial legislature should not assume to exercise powers belonging exclusively to the federal parliament; that to prevent any such assumption, there should be equal facilities to the federal and provincial governments for promptly obtaining a judicial determination respecting the validity of statutes of both the federal parliament and provincial legislatures; that constitutional provision should be made for obtaining such determination before, as well as after a statute has been acted upon; and that any decision should be subject to appeal as in other cases, in order that the adjudication may be final.
The question under consideration was the settlement of the Jesuits' estates, a very important matter which had entered the political field. Sir John A. Macdonald did not view with favour the request which had been made, as was indicated in his letter to Sir John Thompson. In 1890, subsequent to the date of the letter of Sir John A. Macdonald quoted by my right hon. friend, the Hon. Edward Blake moved an amendment to the motion to go into supply, which read as follows:
To leave out all the words after "That"- and insert the following:-"it is expedient to provide means -whereby, on solemn occasions touching the exercise of the power of disallowance, or of the appellate power as to educational legislation, important questions of law or fact may be referred by the executive to a high judicial tribunal for hearing and consideration. in such mode that the authorities and parties interested may be represented and that a reasoned opinion may be obtained for the information of the executive."


Mr. CAHAN:: What was the date of that?


Ernest Lapointe: April 29, 1890. Mr. Blake made a very learned speech in support of his amendment, from which I should like to quote a few words. I read from Hansard of 1890, page 4088, as follows:
Now, sir, in the exercise of this power of disallowance by the government, political questions will, or at any rate may, probably, always arise. Questions of policy may present themselves, that is questions of expediency, of convenience, of the public interest, of the spirit of the constitution or of the form of legislation. All these are clearly, exclusively for the executive and legislative, that is for the political departments of the government. But it is equally clear, that when in order to determine your course you must find whether a particular act is ultra or intra vires, you are discharging a legal and a judicial function. What do you do? You proceed to interpret the Constitutional Act, and to declare its meaning; you proceed to interpret the provincial act under consideration and to declare its meaning; you proceed to compare the two statutes so interpreted and declared; and you proceed, finally, to conclude whether or not the law conflicts with, or transcends the powers which are conferred upon the legislature which passed it. Nothing that can be conceived partakes more exclusively of the character of a legal and judicial operation than what I have just now described.
And then on page 4089:
My own opinion is, that whenever, in opposition to the continued view of a provincial executive and legislature it is contemplated by the dominion executive to disallow a provincial act because it is ultra vires, there ought to be a reference; and also that there ought to be a reference in certain cases where the condition of public opinion renders expedient a solution of legal problems, dissociated from those elements of passion and expediency which are, rightly or wrongly, too often attributed to the action of political bodies. And again, I for my part would recommend such a reference in all cases of educational appeal-cases which necessarily evoke the feelings to which I have alluded, and to one of which, I am frank to say, my present motion is mainly due.
He said, again:
But my proposal is by no means radical or revolutionary, compulsory or general. It is but an enabling proposition; it but empowers the executive to obtain-by a procedure replete with the essential requisites for the production of a sound opinion-the views on legal questions of legal authorities, leaving to the executive, so aided, the responsibility of final action. I have an absolute confidence that, if my proposal should be declined, the first persons to regret that decision will be hon. gentlemen opposite. My opinion is, that this is a proposal eminently helpful to the executive of the country at this time; but it is eminently helpful to them because it is eminently helpful to the good government of this country; and it is in this spirit that I move the amendment which I now submit to the judgment of the house.
Sir John A. Macdonald, then prime minister, replied, and his remarks will be found at pages 4093 and 4094. He started by saying that at first the resolution did not appeal to him, but after careful consideration and study this was the conclusion he had come to:
Whenever the question of disallowance is raised on important matters and the reasons alleged for disallowance are that the act itself was ultra vires, that is, that it was beyond the competence of the legislature which passed it, I coincide with my hon. friend in believing that the crown should have the power of submitting such a question to the courts, and give the opportunity to the authority-be it legislative or executive, which has passed the statute, to appear before such tribunals, and that all parties interested, or that the court should think were interested, should have tiie opportunity of being heard. Of course my hon. friend
176	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
(Mr. Blake), in his resolution, has guarded against the supposition that such a decision is binding on the executive. It is expressly stated-and that is one of the instances which shows that this resolution has been most carefully prepared-that such a decision is only for the information of the government. The executive is not relieved from any responsibility because of any answer being given by the tribunal. If the executive were to be relieved of any such responsibility, I should consider that a fatal blot in the proposition of my hon. friend. I believe in responsible government. I believe in the responsibility of the executive. But the answer of the tribunal will be simply for the information of the government. The government may dissent from that decision, and it may be their duty to do so if they differ from the conclusion to which the court has come.
There is another point in regard to which the court must be guarded in the measure which will be introduced-not this session but I hope next session-based on this resolution, and that is that the answer, whatever it may be, should be considered in the nature of a judgment so far as to allow of an appeal to the judicial committee of the privy council. AVith these remarks, I will only say further, that I thank the hon. gentleman for having brought this resolution before the house, as I concur with it generally, though holding the right with a free hand to frame the measure which will have to be brought down to parliament in accordance with it.
In the following year, 1891, as a result of that resolution which had been unanimously adopted by parliament, the "Act respecting the Supreme and Exchequer Courts," by section 4 of chapter 25 of the statutes of 1891 was amended by the substitution of a new section for section 37. This new section was the prototype of section 55 of the present Supreme Court Act. So, Mr. Speaker, this power of referring legal questions to the Supreme Court of Canada was placed in the act after parliament, on the resolution of Edward Blake, supported by Sir John A. Macdonald, had thought that this would be the best way to deal with such questions as the disallowance or otherwise of provincial statutes which might be considered ultra vires or to trespass on the powers of parliament. My right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) says: Yes, but this was not a statute that you referred; it was merely a useless piece of paper, an incomplete document.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I pointed out that there is power to do it.


Ernest Lapointe: The
Supreme Court Act was not framed for the purpose,, nevertheless the section which gives the power to the governor in council, section
35, says:
References by Governor in Council
Important questions of law or fact touching
(a)	the interpretation of the British North America Acts, or

(b)	the constitutionality or interpretation of any dominion or provincial legislation; or
(c)	the appellate jurisdiction as to educational matters-
And so on. And then (d):
(d)	the powers of the parliament of Canada, or of the legislatures of the provinces, or of the respective governments thereof, whether or not the particular power in question has been or is proposed to be exercised.
So this provision was put in the act for the special purpose of enabling the government to do what has been done in the present instance, and I -may add that it was done after the government of the province concerned had asked the governor in council to do it before reaching a conclusion in the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that was not so with respect to all the matters referred.


Ernest Lapointe: No, but it was so with regard to two of them, and at the same time the governor in council was asked to refer the third question, the power of disallowance, to the court. Certainly if the contention of the province with respect to the power of disallowance had been upheld that would have affected all the bills.
Then my right hon. friend, and I am grateful to him for the moderation with which he dealt with this question-he even approved of the course of the government with certain reservations-said that he approved the disallowance of the three statutes which had previously been disallowed; but he said, very courteously, that as far as he was concerned, while he thought we should have disallowed the act which refused access to the courts, we should, if I remember his words aright, have let the bankers fight out the other bills themselves.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend says, "hear, hear." Perhaps he does not know that this denial of access to the courts was contained not only in one bill but in every one of the three statutes. The statute concerning banking included a provision denying to the bankers or other interested parties the right to go to the courts to test its validity, and the other statute for licensing bank employees contained a similar provision. If that were the only cause for disallowance it would apply to the three statutes because that provision permeated the three measures which had been enacted.
But there is more than that. I am free to admit that I thought, and the officers of my department thought, that perhaps this last enactment was less objectionable than the other two, because the two statutes con-

The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
cerning banking were a direct and straight invasion of federal powers, coming in conflict with federal policies and federal legislation, and were therefore subject to disallowance under all the authorities if we were to follow the decisions in matters of this kind which had been reached by every minister oi justice since confederation. I may add that before this power of disallowance was exercised, the premier of the province was asked whether he would agree to suspend the operation of those statutes pending a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. This he bluntly refused to do. He said that the statutes would be enforced immediately; and of course there was no other course to follow on the part of the governor in council.
But my right hon. friend says, although approving of disallowance, that it was a discrimination against Alberta because the statutes of Ontario with regard to the power contracts have not been disallowed. Since my right hon. friend, who is a great authority, has made that statement, of course all the hon. gentlemen on the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and social credit benches have had the same criticism to offer of the action of the government.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: He spoke first.


Mr. PELLETIER:: I thought of it before he did that.


Ernest Lapointe: What is that?
Mr. PELLETIER.: We felt that way before that.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, you did think of that before? I congratulate the hon. member.


An hon. MEMBER:: Following the leader.


Ernest Lapointe: May I say that there have been since confederation, prior to the consideration of this legislation which is being dealt with, one hundred provincial statutes disallowed, seventy-two between 1867 and 1900, and twenty-eight from 1900 until this present instance. Thousands of them were submitted after a petition had been presented for their disallowance, but the governor in council refused to disallow them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But a number of them were amended in consequence of representations made.


Ernest Lapointe: And a number of them were amended after representations by the Minister of Justice to the provincial governments. I think I am free 51952-12
to say that, of those hundred statutes, not two are identical. There are differences in every statute. The circumstances are not always the same; the circumstances which must enter into line when the question has to be decided differ in almost every case. I think I can easily show the difference between the Ontario statutes and the statute of Alberta. In respect of the Ontario acts which were challenged, here is what I had the honour to say in my recommendation to the governor in council:
With regard to the allegation that the said act is ultra vires the legislature of the province, the undersigned is of opinion that this allegation, if well founded, would not constitute a sufficient ground for disallowance. There are cases in the earlier years of confederation in which acts were disallowed on the ground that they were ultra vires, but the more modern view is that if the act be questionable only as to its validity-
Mark those words.
-and not on the ground that it interferes with any dominion policy or interest, the question of its validity should be left to the determination of the courts. To disallow a provincial statute solely upon the ground that it is ultra vires would be to subject the provinces to the findings of the law officers of the crown upon the questions of law involved and deprive them of the right to have such questions judicially determined. Presumably the inclusion in the act of a provision that no action or other proceeding shall be brought against the said commission founded upon any such contract will not prevent the companies from having the validity of the act judicially determined by the courts of Ontario, because if the act is attacked upon the ground that it is ultra vires, surely none of its provisions could be pleaded as a bar to the judicial determination of such question. The undersigned is therefore clearly of opinion that the act should not be disallowed on this ground.
We took the stand there that the courts could redress the grievance, if there was one, with regard to the constitutionality or the validity of the acts. What has happened since proves that we were right in that assumption because the acts were successfully challenged before the courts as a result of a judgment rendered by the court of appeal of Ontario and appealed to the privy council. But the question has been settled since to the satisfaction of the parties, which shows that we were right in refusing to interfere in this matter. There was in this case, as is stated in another paragraph of the recommendation I submitted to the governor in council, no question of invasion of federal jurisdiction or federal policy or federal power. As I said last year, touching the question of unfairness or injustice, I share on this point the views expressed by Sir Allen Aylesworth when he was minister of justice. It is for the electors of

178	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
the province to decide whether the legislation is unfair or unjust and to vote against the government that enacts such legislation.
Listen now, Mr. Speaker, to one or two of the reasons submitted in my recommendation to the governor in council with regard to the Alberta legislation.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Just before the
minister passes from that, am I interrupting if I ask-


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid my forty minutes will not be sufficient.


Mr. LAWSON:: We will give you time, all the time you want.


Ernest Lapointe: To parliament the British North America Act thus confided powers to establish and regulate the monetary system of Canada, and the powers thus assigned are exclusive and paramount and the provincial legislatures are wholly without authority to interfere with the exercise of such powers. The statutes of Alberta in question constitute an unmistakable invasion of the legislative field thus assigned to parliament. They conflict with dominion laws and virtually supplant dominion institutions designed by parliament to facilitate the trade and commerce of the whole dominion. While the undersigned is of opinion that no project or policy of a provincial legislature should be interfered with by exercise of the power of disallowance merely on the ground that measures to promote such project or policy are of doubtful constitutional validity, a distinction is to be made where the legislature deliberately attempts to interfere with the operation of dominion laws and to substitute laws and institutions of its own for those legitimately enacted and organized by parliament, and this is particularly true where the legislature has denied recourse to the courts of justice.
Yet there is some good thing in all things that are not so good. It is interesting for us to be told that we are discriminating in favour of the province of Ontario; for quite different statements have been made elsewhere.
In the course of the debate many hon. members-not my right hon. friend, because he is too great a parliamentarian to do so-have spoken in violent terms of the "Quebec padlock law" and denounced me for not having acted with regard to it. Perhaps they will be surprised to hear that, apart from the telegrams and resolutions of every description which have been sent to me, the petition, the official, the regular and only one, that has been forwarded for the disallowance of that legislation was received three or four days ago; and the question has to be considered in the time during which a decision must be reached.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When does the year expire?


Ernest Lapointe: At the end of March. I do not complain in that respect, because it will not affect the work I have to do. I do not think, however, that it is becoming, that it is quite proper, in regard to a matter that partakes of judicial interpretation-and the authorities have even discussed the question whether the function of the Minister of Justice in a matter of this kind is not judicial rather than legislative-that I should be abused before I have considered the matter, as I have been during the course of this debate. I do not think it is fair; I do not think it is conducive to the proper discharge of this part of the functions of government.
In this connection I have been asked to receive delegations, who wish to come and press upon me the advisability of recommending the disallowance of the legislation. Well, that is not the way in which a matter of this sort must be dealt with. I will not receive any delegation either for or against; and I may say to those who make the request that it would be very easy for those who think otherwise to fill all the halls of Ottawa, including the drill hall, with people who do not share the views of the persons who have made the request. It is not by such pressure either upon the Department of Justice or upon any other branch of the administration that a matter of this kind should be dealt with.
I wish now to deal with the question of unemployment insurance. The action of the government in this regard has been criticized both by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), and others, with respect to the preparation of an amendment to the British North America Act, with a request to the provinces to agree to such an amendment being made. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said that we should assert our power. He has said that since the imperial conference of 1936 Canada, as a nation, has attained equality in the British commonwealth, and I agree with that. But, he adds, the condition in regard to our constitution is one of inferiority. I cannot admit that this apparent inferiority is really a condition of inferiority, in view of the fact that the status of our constitution is what it is by reason of the will of the Canadian people and not because of the will of any superior authority who wishes to control and to dominate the Dominion of Canada.
When the Statute of Westminster was enacted, with the proviso that there should be nothing therein to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Act, that proviso was inserted because the Dominion of Canada wanted it and not

The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
because the imperial parliament desired to have it. I can assure my hon. friend that the imperial parliament would be most happy if we could rid them of this necessity of having perhaps to decide as between the parliament of Canada and some provinces on the question of an amendment. The provision is there because, under our constitutional arrangement, until we ask that it be abolished it must stand. My views in the matter are well known and I have not changed them in any particular. I think that Canada should have the power to amend its own constitution. We are the only British dominion that does not possess this power; indeed, we are the only country with a federal system of government that has not in some way the power to change in some details its constitutional charter. The United States, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, the Argentine Republic, Australia, Switzerland-all these are federal states and their respective constitutions foresee the possibility of amendment and determine the methods and conditions that shall govern the making of amendments.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They are usually amended by presidential decrees.


Ernest Lapointe: That
might be a fine point for discussion, but it is not in the constitution of the United States. To my mind it is a necessity and a safeguard, and all the constitutional authors recognize and teach it.
I am aware that many Canadians seem to believe that a constitution is something sacred, something intangible, a sort of ark of the covenant which nobody should look at and still less touch without incurring the gravest penalty. With all possible respect for the sincerity of those who entertain this view I am compelled to say it is absurd. A constitutional charter, whatever it may be, even though it meets with the unanimous approval of all the citizens of a state, cannot preclude future alterations in the system which it has established. National sovereignty is unpre-scriptible, and a generation has no metaphysical right definitely to bind future generations and to deny to them the competence which they themselves possess. It cannot fix in advance and absolutely the fate of the political and social realities of the future. Reforms must be made difficult, but not impossible, and their achievement must be subject to modalities, procedures and delays. But when a constitutional reform is required and is desired by the great majority of the citizens of a country, I am afraid that prohibitions which may have been enacted twenty-five, fifty, sixty or even a hundred years before 51952-12}
cannot be a permanent obstacle. They will be ignored, or people will find a way to get around them. I warn all my fellow citizens in all parts of Canada that to insist on making the constitution rigid and inflexible, and to prevent orderly change or improvement, is to run the risk of having it violated in a disorderly way when the political forces opposed to it are strong enough to do so. Doctor William Bennett Munro, a Harvard professor and originally a Canadian, said in a remarkable book on European governments that a constitution should not be either too easy or too difficult of amendment. If it is too easy it ceases to be a guarantee of order, of stability, of continuity in the public life of the nation; if it is too difficult it becomes an obstacle to progress and national advancement, and would be used as an excuse for revolutionary action.
The British North America Act is a statute of the imperial parliament. No method of changing it is provided. The result is that whenever an amendment is required there has to be another imperial statute. Then in order to have such a statute enacted is it necessary to have the consent of the provinces, all of them, or a majority of them? Is it necessary that this consent should be expressed by resolution of the legislature, by order in council, or by an expression of view by the premier of the province? My right hon. friend has discussed this side of the question; I do not know any more than he does. The present system is vague and uncertain; there is no definite method laid down of achieving what we might consider a desirable improvement. We do not know.
My right hon. friend favours a national convention to discuss this matter. The idea has some advantages, perhaps many, but there are also objections. But I agree with him, I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; I agree with all the public men who have had anything to do with the affairs of this dominion during recent years and who have contended that a change must be made; that we must find a way of ending the rigidity which prevents the Dominion of Canada from enacting legislation which we may believe to be necessary for the national progress and for the good of the whole country. How will that be done? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre appealed to me. I am willing to do anything to achieve this result. I have already expressed my views, and I have been instrumental in placing them before representatives of the various provincial governments. To reach a successful
180	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
conclusion in this matter I am willing to do anything which commends itself to my judgment, and I hope that this parliament will not end before some progress is made in that direction.
But meanwhile we have this question of unemployment insurance. It is being discussed at great length in my own province at the present time, and I read in the press this morning some pretty violent words which were uttered in the legislature of Quebec yesterday in regard to the matter. May I say that unemployment insurance seems to be desired by a vast majority of the people of Canada? It has been in the platforms of all parties for many years; the provinces themselves have expressed the view that we should have unemployment insurance. In 1933 the then government of the province of Quebec appointed a commission to study social assurances, of which Professor Edouard Montpetit of the university of Montreal was president. There were representatives upon it of the various labour unions, as well as of the employers. His Excellency Bishop Georges Courchesne of Rimouski was one of the distinguished members of that commission. I have their report here. I will translate this sentence from the conclusions-


Mr. HEAPS:: What is the date of the report?


Ernest Lapointe: December, 1932, but it was published in 1933. It says:
Unemployment insurance, though under the law it comes within provincial jurisdiction, and although in theory it might be applied in the sphere of provincial administration, cannot effectively be organized, for the reasons given in this memorandum, otherwise than in the national field.
The commission stated very clearly that although they favoured it they could not recommend its adoption by the provincial government because it could be effective only if made a national scheme. When my right hon. friend enacted his unemployment insurance act we who were then on the other side of the house claimed that the matter was provincial in scope, that the federal government did not possess the power to enact such legislation, and that it would be referred to the courts if a change of government took place. This we did. The Supreme Court of Canada decided by a majority of four to two that the act was invalid because it encroached upon provincial authority. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. I confess that I cannot very well understand my right hon. friend when he says that the case was not argued, or that admissions were
I Mr. E. Lapointe.]
made giving up the whole thing. When the case was argued before the Supreme Court of Canada the counsel for the dominion were the present chief justice of Ontario, assisted by Mr. St. Laurent of Quebec, both past presidents of the Canadian Bar Association, as is my right hon. friend, and also by Mr. Plaxton, a very efficient and brilliant officer of the Department of Justice. Certainly the argument was made as strongly as possible and, before the decisions were given, my right hon friend himself said that he could not find fault with the counsel appointed by the dominion government.
Before the case was argued before the privy council Mr. Rowell had been appointed chief justice of Ontario, and we appointed in his place Mr. Robertson of Toronto, who, as everybody knows, is an eminent and distinguished counsel. The privy council merely supported the views of the Supreme Court of Canada. I never could understand why the privy council was so strongly attacked after that decision had been given by them, because after all they merely said the same thing that the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada had said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was for the reasons they gave.


Ernest Lapointe: I have here the report of the privy council in which I find something rather interesting. When one listens to the violent protests made in some quarters about trespassing and encroaching upon the rights of provinces, one has a desire to know all the facts. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that when the reference was argued before the Supreme Court of Canada, Quebec was there represented in the defence of its rights, and argued that the law was ultra vires? Mr. Geoffrion represented the province of Quebec on that occasion. But when the case was argued before the privy council there had been a change of government in Quebec, and Mr. Geoffrion's mandate had been revoked. A gentleman named, I believe, Mr. Monette, was sent to represent Quebec, and apparently he had instructions to appear only in connection with the natural products marketing case. That was the only one, according to the reports, and according to the information I received from my officers, in which the province of Quebec was represented before the privy council. Do hon. members know that on the unemployment insurance case Quebec was not represented, the only provinces to have representation being Ontario and New Brunswick?

The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
Ontario-and I am sure we will not have difficulty in securing Ontario's agreement to the amendment-was represented by Mr. Roebuck, the then Attorney General, and Mr. I. A. Humphries, K.C. Here is what Ontario said before the privy council, according to the report:
Ontario does not take quite the same view of all the matters as the dominion takes. Ontario desires to support this act, however, because it is felt that it is in the public interest both in the provinces and in the dominion as a whole. Ontario's attitude, therefore, is that it is desirable to find means, if that is possible within the four corners of the constitution, by which the act may be supported as a matter within dominion jurisdiction. It is submitted that the legislation is within the overriding power of the opening words of section 91, and is also within the residuary power-in a sense there is a distinction between those two.
Then, the last words were:
A subject of nation wide legislation may and does incidentally affect the provinces. The scheme of insurance being nation wide and not possible of enactment in the provinces, it is not civil rights in the province at all.
With regard to the dominion right of taxation, it is not conceded that the dominion may tax everything everywhere and that the provinces are left solely to what is left, but no objection is taken by Ontario to this particular taxation for this particular purpose.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is that a summary in the report, or a shorthand report?


Ernest Lapointe: A summary in the report. The report goes on to show that the province of New Brunswick is the only one which, through its Attorney General, Mr. McNair, defended the provincial jurisdiction in the matter before the privy council. The only other province represented was Ontario, and Ontario supported the validity of the legislation. Quebec did not appear, and did not say a word.
I am at a loss to understand now the indignation of gentlemen who to-day claim that this tyrannical government at Ottawa wants to transgress upon the rights of the province of Quebec, and to trespass upon her provincial constitutional powers, when we courteously and politely ask them whether they will agree to a little amendment to give the federal parliament the right to amend the constitution for the purpose of enacting an unemployment insurance scheme. Two years ago the same gentlemen, without being asked and without being invited to give any consent or to agree to anything, were quite pleased to accept legislation enacted without their participation.
And now we are the persecutors. We are the ones who, through the constitution, are trying to inflict this persecution on the province of Quebec. Well, I am not impressed by these denunciations, I must admit, and I do not think the country or the electors in the province will be impressed by them, either.
Perhaps I should have done so at the outset, but if I am not too late I should like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address upon their splendid presentations. Both are worthy acquisitions to the house. Of course I am better acquainted with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fran-cceur), who has been my life long friend, and I take this opportunity to congratulate him upon his election. He has shown all the qualities I have always known him to possess. His stand in the campaign was fearless, courageous and non-equivocal, and he received a splendid support from his electors.
I am grateful to those who urged the electors of Lotbiniere to put up an opposition. I saw a very worthy article in the press to the effect that it was good for a government to have an opposition, and that the election should not be allowed to go unopposed. That statement in the press was of great service to us, and I am grateful that the electors of Lotbiniere, in the province of Quebec, have had a chance to declare their stand on the questions submitted to them. It was a test, and I am pleased that our friends from the other provinces, who were a little nervous as to what Quebec thought and felt, have been reassured. They know now that the noisy expressions of some groups do not represent the sane minds in the population of that province.
The majority was large, indeed. But, so far as the issues of the campaign are concerned it is still larger than it appears, because there was no Conservative opposition. When one reads the figures as to votes he will find that the votes given to the opposition candidate, who certainly did not represent Conservative ideas or Conservative views, were given at places where Conservative voters were in the majority. That is explainable-they did not like his ideas. The platform of this gentlemen was not supported by the Conservatives of the province of Quebec any more than it was supported by the Liberals, but many Conservatives voted for him because they felt they were against the government anyway. It is for these reasons that I believe we should have in these byelections either a straight contest or none at all, in order that Conservatives may not get into the bad habit of voting for anybody.


Mr LAWSON:: Anybody other than a Liberal.


Ernest Lapointe: Anybody other than a Liberal, yes. The result was a
182	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
good thing for democracy. We are living in difficult times; attacks are being made upon democratic institutions and parliamentary representation. Many of them are being made in my own province. Some of these people do not seem to realize that it is dangerous to attack democracy and parliamentary institutions. If they succeed in destroying the influence of parliament they do not know what the result will be. They may believe that their own system will prevail, but they are taking the chance that the system which will finally prevail will be one which they themselves abhor.
As I said in Lotbiniere, those who attack democracy in this way are in fact protected by democracy. If this was a totalitarian state and they said the things which they have said and which they have printed in their newspapers, they would be immediately purged- I do not know whether that is the correct word to use.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the Hitler word.


Ernest Lapointe: That is what he would do. But we live in a democracy and we do not treat our opponents in that way. They are quite safe to carry on their campaign-against me at all events, because I am not bothered by what they say.
Democracy has made Canada what it is to-day. It is the only possible system of government for this country. If I may be permitted to single out one country, immediately a dictator took office in Germany his first act was to do away with all the state legislatures. There was no longer a federal system, there was only one government, and that government was himself. I wonder how my fellow citizens of Quebec would like it if we had a system under which the provinces would disappear, where a nazi or totalitarian form of government in Ottawa would direct everything and everybody?
May I say another word in conclusion? Those who speak against democracy speak against parliament. They speak against the parliament of Canada. While I hate to say this myself, next week I enter my thirty-fifth year as a member of the House of Commons. During that time I have come in contact with gentlemen from every section of this country. I have met members of every trade and class, men from the prairies and the farms, men from the large cities and small towns. Many of these men have had ideas different from mine. They have had different visions, different views, different tastes, different talents, but I am proud to say that you could not find anywhere any body of 
men, any association or any group which surpasses the parliament of Canada for love of country and willingness to serve it at all times. We may differ in our methods, but we are all animated with the same desire to serve our fellow men.
This parliament is Canada on a reduced plane. It is the voice of Canada that is heard here. It is here that the will of the people asserts itself. Our parliamentary institution is not perfect; there is need for improvement, but to abolish it entirely would make conditions much worse. We must look towards the future, not back to the past. No matter what the agitators and theorists may say, if we overcome our present difficulties it will be because of the work of the members of this parliament. Sometimes we fight among ourselves, but out of it all comes something advantageous to the people of this country.
We do not want a dictatorship in this country. Our future can be secured only if our people are free to exercise their unfettered influence upon those who sit in places of power. It is for us to show the world that Canada is not a reactionary and degenerate democracy, but a country that is self-disciplined, free and rational and wholly prepared to face the future with full confidence and faith in its destiny.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to follow my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in detail, as I have no desire at this time to discuss the internal politics of the province of Quebec. I listened to the radio speeches of three members of the government who spoke in the campaigns in Lotbiniere and St. Henry. I was pleased, too, with the change of temper and tone of utterance of these gentlemen as compared with what I had heard some years ago when for being even slightly less zealous for Canada's defence I was assailed and driven out of public halls in the province of Quebec. There has been a great change not only in the temper but in the tone of their public utterance during recent years, and I congratulate the three members of this government, who participated in those elections, upon that change, except that I think they did in St. Henry lay special stress upon the benefit of public works-the tunnel under the canal, the fifty million dollar expenditure on the Canadian National station, and other similar matters which I thought were extreme suggestions to the electorate.

The Address-Mr. Cahan
But I wish to discuss another matter, and in that I do not intend to enter upon a discussion of the personal relations or of the personal opinions of the present premier of Quebec and the Minister of Justice. Dealing with the proposed amendment to the constitution, I have no doubt-and I do not believe any member of this parliament who has studied the question has any doubt- that a joint resolution of the House of Commons and of the Senate praying His Majesty in council to present to the parliament of the United Kingdom any bill amending the British North America Act would unhesitatingly be acted upon by that parliament. That I think is perfectly clear, and I have no hesitation in saying that if such an address or petition received the approval of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada the proposed amendment would be made to the British North America Act no matter what provision of the act it attempted to modify or amend.
The parliament of the United Kingdom cannot afford to come into collision with the deliberately expressed views of the parliament of Canada, and therefore that very fact has aroused in the province of Quebec certain doubts as to whether we should proceed at this time with the special amendment to which reference is made in the speech from the throne. It is not a doubt entertained solely by the Roman Catholic and French speaking majority in the province of Quebec. It is a doubt that is entertained also by the great body of English speaking and Protestant opinion in that province; and that doubt is as to whether it is advisable at this time to create the precedent by way of amendment to the act which the government now propose. There is a conviction that if amendments are likely to be so readily granted by the parliament of the United Kingdom, some day an amendment might be proposed which would diminish or prejudicially affect the rights of the English speaking and Protestant minority in that province, or, on the other hand, prejudicially affect the rights of the Catholic and French speaking majority in the province, who represent a minority in the whole dominion.
The amendment proposed is to add as clause 2(a) to section 91 of the British North America Act the words:	"Unemployment
insurance." I might say by way of parenthesis that I do not see the reason for calling it clause 2(a). For all practical purposes, if the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are to prevail you might as well
strike out clause 2, dealing with the regulation of trade and commerce, and insert the proposed clause 2(a) with regard to unemployment insurance as clause 2. Our present difficulty arises by reason of the fact that in drafting the British North America Act, so important did the framers of the act, who were Canadian statesmen of that day, regard the matter of the regulation of trade and commerce, that they placed it as the second item under section 91, which reads in part:
It is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated.
"Notwithstanding anything in this act"- that is, in section 91 or elsewhere.

the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated.
And one of those classes, the second one mentioned, the one which they regarded as second in importance, is "the regulation of trade and commerce." So, as clearly and concisely as it was possible for the men of that day to express their views, they expressed them to the effect that notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the absolute and exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extended to all matters coming within "the regulation of trade and commerce." I shall not emphasize it, but that clause gave a wide, a very wide, authority to the parliament of Canada; and yet the privy council, by decision after decision, has cut down and restricted that provision until to-day there is not a lawyer in this house who could tell me any particular matter coming under that head with respect to which this parliament might safely legislate. The whole purpose and intent of that clause of the act has been changed, if not obliterated.
Now with that in view I wonder whether the government have carefully considered whether the mere placing in section 91 as clause 2 (a) the words, "unemployment insurance" will give this parliament legislative jurisdiction to the extent necessary to deal with what we, in common parlance, understand to be covered by "unemployment insurance." I doubt it. I have not consulted my leader or my other colleagues with regard to it; I am simply expressing my personal opinion which has been elicited by what I have just heard from the right hon. the Minister of Justice. When this matter was before the previous government in 1935 I looked into the question as carefully as I could, and I
The Address-Mr. Cahan

became persuaded, and that persuasion became a conviction, that parliament could not deal as completely as was necessary with unemployment insurance unless at the same time it had legislative authority to deal with hours of employment, with minimum wages of employees, with the power to arbitrate and adjust labour disputes, which was wiped away by the Snider decision. The leader of the government will recall that the statute which was enacted and which the Snider decision nullified was one which for a period of twelve or fifteen years had been regarded as the law of Canada. Under its provisions grave labour troubles were adjusted satisfactorily and great loss was prevented not only to those employed in labour but to employers as well. There were some minor amendments to that act as time disclosed the need of amendment, but that act was essential to the well-being, not only of those employed in any province in particular but of all workmen in all the provinces.
I doubt, in view of the manner in which the privy council has interpreted from time to time section 91 of the British North America Act, whether under the words "unemployment insurance" when attached as sub-heading 2 (a) to section 91, this government and this parliament will find sufficient scope to deal with the very serious question of unemployment, in which so many thousands and even tens of thousands of the people of Canada are now intensely interested. When the previous legislation of 1935 was introduced, to my mind the most commendable feature was that by a series of proposed acts dealing with matters of employment, hours of employment, wages, and the like, parliament and the government were vested with sufficient authority to deal satisfactorily with unemployment insurance in respect of all matters coming within this class of subjects or that are correlated therewith. I should like the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to consider, in view of other decisions of the judicial committee, whether the proposed amendment is likely to prove sufficient for the purpose which he has in view in presenting it to the house.
Another consideration:	"unemployment
insurance" will not admit of the adjustment of all matters relating to unemployment and unemployment relief in this country. It is proposed, as I understand, to make a departure in the way of providing insurance for those who are now employed in industry or are likely to be employed in industry in the
(Mr. Cahan.]
future in case that stress of prevailing commercial, industrial and financial conditions pushes them again into a labour market in which they can find no employment. But for carrying out that purpose, which undoubtedly the house regards as a commendable one, and which must be dealt with sooner or later, so that ample provision may be made for dealing with it I wonder whether this measure should necessarily be pressed at this session of parliament. It can afford no relief to any considerable number of people for several years to come. It is a new departure that must be worked out stage by stage and year after year. It will cost I do not know how many millions; I have heard that at least fifty millions of contributions by the taxpayer, the employer and the labourer will be necessary to place the measure on even a moderately satisfactory basis. I ask whether it is advisable to press that amendment now, when the government have placed in the hands of a royal commission the elicitation of the relevant evidence and the consideration of representations from various parts of this country as to what amendments to the British North America Act should be considered and placed before the government and parliament of the United Kingdom.
The suggestion that now, by a mere vote of both houses, we can carry through this amendment to the British North America Act, as we undoubtedly can, has aroused for the first time in some years a grave anxiety in the province which I represent as to the likelihood of a similar procedure being adopted in respect of an amendment or modification of rights and interests which its people hold most dear. As a matter of fact I have never accepted, in the sense in which I have heard it repeated recently, that the British North America Act was a compact or treaty between provinces. It was more than that. It was more sacred than that. It was a clear understanding, a pact, an agreement between representatives of the Roman Catholic faith and representatives of the Protestant faith, in the old provinces of Canada, that certain civil liberties should be guaranteed. It was also an understanding between a Protestant minority in the Lower Canada and a Catholic majority there, and a Protestant majority throughout all the provinces entering the union and a Catholic minority there, that certain rights and interests were to be guaranteed and made secure. And before we enter upon the consideration of any large or liberal amendments to the British North America Act we should satisfy those interested from those two points of view that these so called minority rights and interests will not be prejudicially affected except with their consent

The Address-Mr. Hyndman
or the consent of those who represent them. Therefore I am simply suggesting, as one member of the house, sitting as I do on the opposition benches, not having discussed it with my colleagues or with my leader, that it would be wise to "make haste slowly" in regard to this particular amendment. I doubt whether the amendment proposed is sufficient. I think that other powers, or a broader definition, must be given to unemployment insurance, in order that all collateral matters may be satisfactorily dealt with.
When parliament comes to deal with the report which will be made eventually, probably at a later date in this year, by the royal commission now sitting, I think it will be necessary for parliament, if that commission does not do so, to consider fully and fairly some measure for procuring future amendments to the British North America Act at the will of the Canadian people as represented in parliament, which will prescribe a mode or method of procedure that will ensure that the rights of minorities will be respected and that any future modifications made by amendment to the constitution of this country will be made with the approval of these minorities. The anxiety that prevails, not only among Catholic people but among Protestants, not only among those of French descent who speak the French language but among those of English, Scottish and Irish descent who speak the English language, should be allayed at the very outset before any radical amendments to the British North America Act are now made.
I do not intend to enter into the discussion which was participated in by the right hon. Minister of Justice with respect to the argument of the appeals recently before the privy council. I have not seen the shorthand report; I suppose it is available in the Department of Justice, and, if it is, it might well be laid upon the table of the house-I refer to the shorthand report of the argument of counsel before that judicial committee. For many years after I became a student of these questions, some sixteen years after this confederation was founded, at my own personal expense, because of my personal interest, I obtained from London the shorthand reports in every constitutional case that was argued there. Some years ago I ceased to acquire them because those that I had in my possession I had packed away in trunks when I was leaving the home in which I formerly lived, and I do not know where they may now be found.
I will say this, however, that I have been particularly impressed by the report of the recent arguments before the judicial committee
as given to me by one of the professors of Harvard who heard the argument and who is very much interested in Canadian constitutional questions. I was impressed by what he said regarding the admissions which he says he heard made by counsel for the government. I believe that that appeal went, not upon any prolonged investigation or study by the members of the judicial committee, not upon any exhaustive study of the Canadian constitution and of the statutes and documents leading up to the framing of that constitution, but almost completely upon the admissions made by counsel, to the effect that these proposed measures were admittedly an infringement of the rights of the province under heading 13 of section 92, dealing with " property and civil rights in the province." In my opinion that admission was clearly made, if these reports are correct, without any careful effort to elucidate that aspect of the question which was relevant and material to the decision of the appeal then under consideration. However, I do not know personally the gentleman who made the argument. I have heard him spoken of very highly indeed, and I do not wish to detract from his professional reputation.
But as the British North America Act may be amended, and has been amended time and again by judicial interpretation, when new clauses to sections 91 and 92 have been added, as they have been added from time to time by judicial interpretation, it is most important that counsel representing the dominion should be very reticent in making admissions of that kind, which may be accepted by the judicial committee as valid, and as relieving them of any necessity of making an independent study of the issues.


Mr. A. B. HYNDMAN (Carleton):: Before continuing the debate I should like to congratulate the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) upon the title conferred upon him during the past year. Those of us who had not the privilege of attending the coronation were indeed proud, I may add, that we had a representative of Canada in the person of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). What gave us satisfaction, I believe, was not perhaps anything that he said at the coronation so much as his address at the Paris exposition, in which he said that when the mother country was in danger she could always depend upon Canada's readiness to be at her side. Those are words which I am sure every Canadian citizen was glad to hear our Prime Minister say. I believe that we as Canadians desire to impress upon the mother country that in all circumstances of
The Address-Mr. Hyndman

strife, yes, in every difficulty, in war, she may count upon our support. I would rather have words of that kind spoken even in France, that good country, than the words we heard in the recent by-elections in the province of Quebec, where it was said on different platforms that the reason we were building up our defences in Canada, the reason we spent $35,000,000 for defensive purposes last year, was only to protect our own shores. I am confident the citizens of this country feel that we spent that money last year for the protection of the citizens of Canada, but I am confident also that if the mother country, or any part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, is ever attacked, we in Canada will be ready at all times to go to its assistance.
I should like also at this time to compliment the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. True they are new members of the house, but they are veterans in the provincial field. I am particularly interested in the hon. member who seconded the address, as he represents a neighbouring constituency to my own.
I listened to the speech from the throne a3 well as I could at the bar of the senate, and next day I read it through very carefully. I must confess that I was greatly disappointed in its contents. I found it a void and empty document. Therefore I was pleased to hear the comment of the Prime Minister as reported on page 52 of Hansard:
Why should the speech from the throne state that the government contemplates taking efficient measures to improve economic conditions?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Will the hon. member please read the next sentence or two?


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: Yes, I was coming to that.
Look at the facts and figures with regard to the present conditions in Canada in comparison with what they were when we came into office and see what they disclose. They speak more eloquently than could any words in the speech from the throne.
Is that far enough?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is enough, yes.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: According to that the Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal party is putting all dependence, as far as the future of this country is concerned, upon increased trade, winning by-elections, increasing revenue and the decrease in unemployment. I think the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) pointed out very clearly in his address that as far as increase in trade is concerned it is largely dependent
[Mr. Hyndman.1
upon conditions in other countries, and we are in about the same position as those other countries. I recall clearly that prior to the last general election there was talk in Canada of the need for a national government. The present Prime Minister during that campaign stated on different occasions that there was no need for a national government; that all the provinces except one were Liberal, and that if we elected a Liberal government to the dominion house we would in reality have a national government and would have complete harmony between the provinces and the dominion. But in the very first session of this parliament what did we hear? We heard the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) in his address on the Bank of Canada say that it may be that the Liberal party is placing its footsteps on that trail of broken promises which leads not only through the valley of humiliation but down deep into the abysmal depths of eternal oblivion. We also heard the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) speak very strongly on the same subject. And what do we find going on this year? We have Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba not on the best of terms with the federal government. We have the premier of Ontario stating at a banquet in Toronto that he is no longer a Mackenzie King Liberal. Thank goodness Mackenzie King is not a Hepburn Liberal! And here we have the Premier of Quebec, the other major province in this dominion, stating that the Mackenzie King government, the federal government, has not the "intestinal fortitude" to settle the Canadian National Railways question. I would not call that harmony.
It is all very well to say that we have to depend upon trade; that the number of our unemployed is less-which I question very much-and that our revenues are higher and everything is fine. But I saw something in the Ottawa press last night which reminded me very much of the year 1929. On the front page of last night's Ottawa Journal in big, black headlines it said, "Leading stocks in sharp dip in New York." I also read that Mayor Lewis of this city, incidentally a very staunch Liberal, reminded his colleagues on the board of control that a fight is ahead if civic expenditures of 1938 are to be kept within the bounds of last year's budget. Those are similar to signs which appeared on the horizon in 1929. I submit that the government of the day are not taking the steps necessary to combat another depression.
We have three very important questions confronting the Canadian people at the present time. The most important is taxation. This country is weighed down with taxation.

The Address-Mr. Hyndman
Another question that is not being dealt with properly is unemployment, and the third, which has been discussed this afternoon, is the British North America Act. It is of those three questions that I wish to speak briefly at this time.
First, taxation. I wonder if hon. members realize the amounts of money that the taxpayers are paying to federal, provincial and municipal governments. For the information and interest of hon. members may I place on Hansard a few figures I have compiled from the Canada Year Book. I take the information given for the year 1934, a year when revenues were small, and I find that the ordinary revenue from taxation received by the provinces is as follows:
Prince Edward Island	$ 1,385,777
Nova Scotia	 8,876,505
New Brunswick	 5,535,214
Quebec	 31,018,344
Ontario	 61,426,934
Manitoba	 13,966,921
Saskatchewan	 15,585,916
Alberta	 15,176,607
British Columbia	 22,618,367
Total	$175,592,585
Hon. members will note the amount received by Saskatchewan, the province which has been so hard hit.
Let us now consider the taxes received by the municipalities, at the same time, bearing in mind that we are all taxpayers. The figures for the taxes received by municipalities in the different provinces are as follows:
Municipalities of-
Prince Edward Island	$	164,158
Nova Scotia	 7,108,035
New Brunswick	 2,207,230
Quebec	 59,729,973
Ontario	 117,892,884
Manitoba	 18,187,714
Saskatchewan	 16,624,783
Alberta	 12,218,328
British Columbia	 18,002,475
Total	$252,139,580
In 1936 the dominion government received in taxes no less than $372,595,996. The total, from all sources, amounts to about $800,428,161, and when we take the population of Canada at 11,000,000 we have a tax of $73 per capita. In other words, every man, woman and child in the dominion in every year has to pay $73 for taxes.
I claim that is a burning question to-day, one which should be considered by the government. I represent the county of Carleton, a county which I believe is managing its affairs in a first class manner. It is one of the best counties in the province-yes, one of the best in the dominion. When I tell hon. members that between 1932 and the close of
1937 the county of Carleton reduced its debenture debt by close to a million dollars, I think they will conclude that that county is doing its level best to try to make ends meet, and deserves a great deal of credit.
My submission is that taxation in Canada is too high. From the time we are born until we are buried we have to pay taxes-and we have to pay them even after that. The doctor who attends when we are born must pay taxes on all his equipment. Then, we pay heavy taxation on what we eat and wear. During a lifetime our pleasures, and especially radio, which I intend to touch upon later, are taxed. When we die we pay a tax, due to the taxes imposed upon undertaking equipment. Apparently the government is not satisfied with that, because they even tax the embalming fluid with which our bodies are embalmed, in an effort, I venture to say, to continue the process of taxation even when we are in the ground. In addition to that there are succession duties.
I was pleased to hear the references made by the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) and the hon. member for Haldi-mand (Mr. Senn) to the farmers of Canada. I cannot agree with some of the statements made by the hon. member for Huron North, as they could be applied to the farmers in the eastern part of Ontario. He told us, speaking in this debate, that the average farm in western Ontario, representing an investment of $7,200, after payment of all expenses netted the farmer only $362. So far as the farmers in the county of Carleton are concerned I would say that that figure is not correct. In some respects I believe his figures are a little low. For example, he allows $6 for power and light. Possibly electric power in western Ontario is supplied at a cheaper rate than we have in this part of Ontario, but I am almost certain that that figure is a little too low Then, too, his estimate of the net profit to the farmer as being about one dollar a day is, in my opinion, too high.
I make the rather strong statement that 75 per cent of the farms in Ontario are mortgaged. I admit that at present and during the past year the farmers have been a little better off; I admit they have a little more money in their pockets, but I pity them if we have another depression, and I have even greater pity for them if we are unfortunate enough to lose any of the markets we have had in the past. I submit that there should be an investigation into the prices our farmers get for their products and the prices the consumers have to pay. This is the type of investigation carried on by the
The Address-Mr. Hyndman

price spreads commission which, in my view, was the best commission ever appointed by any government.
I should like to give an example of what happened in this immediate locality at Christmas time. When the farmers around Ottawa tried to sell their turkeys just before Christmas all they could get from any dealer was twenty cents per pound, but immediately after Christmas the price jumped to thirty-two cents per pound. I contend that there is a sort of combine working against the farmers and also against the consumers in the city of Ottawa. Because of this combine we had to eat storage turkeys for our Christmas dinner, but immediately afterwards we were able to get fresh turkeys.
I contend that there should be an investigation into the packing industry in this country. The packers are bleeding the farmers. I agree with what the hon. member for Haldimand said the other night, that we in Ontario should have minimum prices fixed for our farm products. A minimum price is fixed for the wheat grown in the west and the same thing should be done for the products of the east. I notice the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is not in his seat, but while I am on this point I want to say I hope that during this session he will speak about something outside of wheat. For the past two years we have heard of nothing but wheat and conditions in the western provinces.
I have every sympathy with the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Incidentally, I might say I am averse to the criticism which has been made of those in charge of provincial affairs in Manitoba and Alberta. It must be remembered that I am no social crediter, but I think it must be admitted that they are attempting something. That is more than the federal government is doing at the present time. I do not want hon. members to think I believe in the policies of the social erediters, but they are at least trying to do something while we in the federal house, both Conservatives and members of the government, make no attempt to do anything.
I listened to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) the other evening when he was preaching free trade for the western province. Is that cooperation? We had discourses by the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) on keeping the provinces amalgamated in one dominion; yet we have the hon. member for Moose Jaw coming out and advocating regional free trade. That is not a very nice request for

any hon. member from the western provinces to make in the house. It must be remembered that the eastern provinces are not complaining very much about the help which has been given to the west during the past five or six years.


Mr. FAIR:: Where did that help come from originally?


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: I venture to say it
came from the west. Then we heard from the hon. member for Huron North. This is another gentleman who believes in free trade. I suggest to the hon member for Moose Jaw, the hon. member for Huron North and any other free traders in the house that if they want free trade they should move an amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I am a protectionist, but I want protection that is controlled. I believe in protecting our industries, but I should like to see the government have some control over industry. I have in my hand a list of retail prices of different articles. I intend to refer particularly to motor cars and farm implements. I notice the price in New York of a Chevrolet car, one of the three popular makes, is $732, while the price in Canada is $1,040. The United States price of a Ford is $749, while the Canadian price is $953. The price in New York of a Plymouth is S848, -while the price here is $1,093. I maintain that if manufacturers of motor cars who have been protected for a number of years are not able to manufacture cars to sell at the same price here as they sell at in the United States, then they should close up shop.


Mr. MARTIN:: Do I understand the hon.
member to say that in view of this spread in prices he would close up the automobile plants at Windsor and Oshawa?


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: I did not say that. I
say that if plants in Windsor cannot manufacture motor cars to sell for the same price as they are sold at in Detroit, then let them close up shop. Remember I am in favour of a tariff to protect the motor car manufacturers in Windsor, but I would like the government to go to these companies and say, "Unless you sell your cars for the same price as they are sold at in the United States, we are going to wipe out the duty." If that is done, then we shall get somewhere.


An hon. MEMBER:: Page your leader.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am happy to disagree with you.

The Address-Mr. Hyndman


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: I am not referring to my leader. That is what happened when he was in power.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What happened?


Mr. MUTCH:: We did not get cars at the same price when my hon. friend's party was in power.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: There was no increase in price.


Mr. BRADETTE:: They were selling at a higher price then than they are now.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: They were lower then
than they are now.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: They were higher then than they are now.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: They were lower in
price then than they are now. Let me remind hon. members that when my leader was in power he raised the tariff.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: Hold on over there. He raised the tariff all right, but he told the manufacturers that if they increased their prices to the consumers, the tariff would go down again; and they did not increase their prices. When the tariff was high when my leader was in power, one could buy farm implements cheaper than one can do to-day under the so-called low tariffs. One thing I should like to see lowered to-day is the tariff on farm implements, because I think one could say about farm implements the same thing that I have just said about motor cars.
I should also like to see a cessation of the exportation of certain of our natural resources, because we all know where the products of our mines, for example, are going. That was pointed out clearly the other evening by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), and I concur in what they said about the exportation of our raw materials to be used for war munitions.
Now I wish to say a word or two on radio. This country permitted the federal government to take over radio broadcasting for certain objectives, and under certain well-understood restrictions. Those objectives were as follows: First, Canada was to be sheltered from United States propaganda and from undersirable United States programs, from the dilution of our British citizenship through the aggressive and often fascinating United States spirit. This promise has been broken completely to pieces. We still get most of
our programs, at least the programs that we listen to, from the United States. So if we hoped that we were going to secure immunity from that influence, we have been tricked.
Second, our broadcasting was to move towards the British ideal as exemplified in the British Broadcasting Corporation. Has it? So far from being supported by the fees levied, it has to draw more and more of its support from United States commercial programs. The Canadian programs have not been bettered at more than a fraction of the rate at which we have increased United States programs, and the new increase in fees is accompanied by a large increase in United States programs. Apparently what our broadcasting corporation is trying to do is to get more broadcasting stations with which to broadcast United States programs. That is precisely the opposite of the objective which was presented to us to make us swallow the licence fee at all, and it really means another venture by Canada in government ownership -as if the Canadian National were not enough. Of course, we can have government regulation and censorship without government operation. To compare our licence fee with those of other countries is wholly beside the point because conditions are not at all similar in Canada and Great Britain and other European countries. Our proper comparison is with the United States. The people there pay no fees at all, and yet they get a large proportion of the most attractive programs to which we listen, as well as a number of others which we do not have. If the present policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is continued we shall eventually get most of the United States programs with their United States ideas and booming of United States products, but we shall have to pay $2.50 a year for that while the people of the United States pay nothing. If the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation cannot do better than that it might as well fold up. If it was fewer United States programs we wanted, we are getting more; if it was less booming of United States products through United States programs, we are getting more; if our object was to cut down on this United States invasion, the new policy, with its accompanying increase in the licence fee, is bringing us still more and more of the United States influence. If it was a gradual approach to the British system that we wanted, we are moving further and further away from it. If it was the development of a self-sufficient Canadian system that we hoped for, any intelligent radio fan now knows that is impossible. Our people are too United States program conscious.
The Address-Mr. Hyndman

Let me just mention the usual radio program listened to in a Canadian home on a Sunday evening. I venture to say that every member of the house on a Sunday evening listens to the following programs coming over the Ottawa station, CBO. At six o'clock we tune in on Joe Penner, the United States entertainer. At seven we follow that up with Jack Benny; at seven-thirty, with Phil Baker; at eight we have the dummy, Charlie McCarthy, coming on; at nine o'clock Manhattan Merry-go-round; at nine-thirty Walter Winchell, giving the news of Hollywood, and at ten we have the Good Will hour.


Mr. HOWE:: If my friend listens to CBO on Sunday evening he will not hear more than two of those programs. If he does hear all those programs, he must be doing what a great many people do, spinning his dial over the United States stations. CBO has only two of those programs.


James Earl Lawson: Because they spin over to the United States stations we charge them more for radio licences.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: You charged more for sugar a few years ago.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: I am giving the house the kind of programs the Canadian public are listening to.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I just want to make clear why I interrupted. I understood my hon. friend to say that he heard these programs over CBO.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: I get Jack Benny and certainly Charlie McCarthy over CBO.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But just those two.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: They are United States programs. My point is that that is the type of program we get over the air at the present time in Canada, and I feel there is no sense in being charged even two dollars for it. They say they are increasing the licence fee by fifty cents, but that does not blind me to the fact that I shall have to pay $7.50 for my radios this year because we have now to pay $2.50 for each set.
I feel that the proper thing to do, if we are going to have a broadcasting system in this country, is to wipe out the radio licence fee altogether. Surely we are taxed enough already, and surely we can hear at least something over the air without having to pay for a licence. I say, wipe out the licence fee absolutely and completely
As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, nothing is being done by this government. If we go back over their record since they came into power, about the only thing they have done is to appoint commissions. We

have had commissions sitting month after month, with high-priced lawyers, the lawyer for one commission being paid $200 a day and $20 a day living expenses. We have too many commissions looking after things.
As I said before, I am in favour of the minimum wage law; I think we need such legislation in this country.
I come now to unemployment.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. gentleman has already spoken for forty minutes.


Mr. A. A. BROWN (Hamilton East):: A careful scrutiny of the speech from the throne indicates clearly that the government is perfectly satisfied with the progress that this country has made during the past two years. Further, it shows that the government has no intention of departing from the policies which it has followed during that period. In support of this stand-pat attitude, hon. members to the right point out that the external trade of Canada has increased to $1,934,000,000; that the revenues have increased to $401,000,000, the highest for any similar period in our history ; that employment has increased and unemployment has decreased. I admit that in adopting this attitude the government is quite consistent. In a synopsis of the Liberal platform which was published in MacLean's magazine on September 15, 1935, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) states:
I believe that upon the development and expansion of our domestic and foreign trade depends the only ultimate solution of the problems of unemployment, railway debt and taxation, and the establishment of a substantial measure of social reform.
Yet as we peruse the speech from the throne we find no reference to the railway problem, to the problem of taxation, or to measures of social security which the government and all hon. members have agreed to be the grave problems which are stifling our economic life. In spite of the visible evidences of prosperity -our large revenues, and our huge external trade-we have some 381,000 people and probably more out of employment, some 970,000 on relief, and during the past two months we have experienced an adverse trade balance with the United States to the extent of some millions of dollars. Yet the government indicates that it intends to extend the present treaty with that country.
During the past few weeks there was in the city of Montreal a display by the wholesalers of toys for the Christmas trade of 1938, and German and Japanese products were there in such abundance that it was practically impossible to find any Canadian or British toys.

The Address-Mr. Brown
That will give some indication of what the Christmas toy trade will be in the coming year. Is it any wonder that thousands of people employed in the diversified industries throughout this country are alarmed for their future status, when some of them are receiving a bare living wage, when men emploj'ed in seasonal industries for nine months in the year have to go in debt or on relief for the remaining three months, when men at the age of thirty-eight years are regarded as too old to obtain new employment? Is it any wonder that by every mail representations are received from employers of labour, from the manufacturing industries, the coal industry of the west and of the maritime provinces, the fruit and vegetable growers of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and British Columbia?
As many speakers in the course of this debate have said, the industries of this country must march together, must work together, and failures in one will undoubtedly affect the others. According to the bureau of statistics, for the year 1936 the wealth production of all industry in Canada is rated as follows:
Manufacturing.. .
Agriculture	
Mining	
Tourist trade.. ..
Forestry	
Electric power.. . Construction..	..
Customs and trade
Fishing	
Trapping

376.000.	000
250.000.	000
214.760.000
138.000.	000
131.400.000
70.000.	000
35.000.	000 9,600,000
This clearly shows that it is impossible for one industry in this country to be injured without affecting adversely the others.
In the past it has been the practice of almost every government in times of depression upon coming into power to commence spending huge sums of money on building projects in order that the circulation of this money may stimulate private industry and so eventually reach the man out of employment. In the past, as a rule, this method has been successful, but on account of unusual conditions it is not altogether effective, partly because the projects that were started were not needed and partly because the money did not go into the hands of those who really needed it and whom it was intended for. I believe that a much more efficient way of dealing with this problem of unemployment and of avoiding the difficulties inseparable from amendment of the British North America Act would be for the government to consult those employers of labour who they believe will find work for the unemployed in order to ascertain under what conditions they could and would employ more hands, and to endeavour to meet such conditions, at the same time protecting the employee in the
matter of a living wage and decent working hours.
In many European countries during the great war the press was regarded as the greatest force in welding the nation together and in achieving unity of purpose. At present, in this so-called day of the radio, many of those countries that are passing through critical times have found the press the greatest force in influencing and directing the nation. If the government would give proper leadership; if it would insist upon Canadian goods being marked as " Made in Canada," goods imported from other countries having the country of origin similarly indicated; if the government would lead a nationwide advertising campaign and spend as much time in an effort to stimulate internal trade as it has done in attempting to develop external trade, I believe that great benefit would accrue to Canada, and that this would go a long way towards restoring prosperity to our people.
On motion of Mr. Brown the debate was adjourned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am informed by the whips that there is a general desire on the part of hon. members not to sit this evening. During the last few years it has become the custom not to sit on the last night of the first week. I do not think it should become a precedent altogether, but I think on this occasion it would be safe to ask for an adjournment. I move that the house do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at S.45 p.m.
Monday, February 7, 1938