SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report with all convenient speed the lists of members to compose the select standing committees of this House during the present session, presented on the 17th instant, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and committees appointed as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Archambault,	Johnston,
Bristol,	Kelly,
Brown,	Kyte,
Bureau,	Lapointe,
Cannon,	Logan,
Copp,	Macdonald (Pictou),
Elliott (Waterloo),	Macphail (Miss),
Ethier,	McMaster,
Findlay,	Morrison,
German,	Ryckman,
Gouin (Sir Lomer),	Sexsmith,
Guthrie,	Stewart (Leeds),
Hammell,	Stewart (Hamilton), and
Hanson, Jacobs,	Vien.-29. No. 2
ON RAILWAYS,	CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES Messieurs
Anderson,	Finn,
Archambault,	[DOT]Fiset (Sir Eugene),
Arthurs,	Forke,
Baxter,	Fournier,
Beland,	Gardiner,
Binette,	Gendron,
Bird,	Gordon,
Black (Huron),	Gould,
Boivin,	Graham,
Bowen,	Guthrie,
Boys,	Halbert.
Bristol,	Hammell,
Cahill,	Hanna,
Campbell,	Healy,
Cannon,	Hocken,
Carroll,	Hodgins,
Casgrain,	Hoey,
Charters,	Hughes,
Chevrier,	Humphrey,
Chisholm,	Hushion,
Church,	, Jelliff,
Clifford,	Johnston,
Copp,	Kay,
Crerar,	Kellner,
Davies,	Kennedy (Glengarry and
Dechene,	Stormont),
Denis (Joliette),	Kennedy (Edmonton),
Denis (St. Denis),	Knox,
Desrochers,	Lanctot,
Drayton (Sir Henry),	Lapierre,
Drummond,	Lavigueur,
Ethier,	LeSueur,
Euler,	Lewis,
Evans,	Lovett,
Fafard,	Lovie,
Fansher,	Low,
Lucas,	Putnam,
Macdonald (Pictou),	Rankin,
Mackinnon,	Robinson,
MacLaren,	Robitaille,
MacLean (Prince, P.E.I.), st. Pere,	
Maclean (York),	Savard,
McConica,	Seguin,
McCrea,	Shaw,
McDonald (Timiskaming), Sheard,	
McGiverin,	Simpson,
Mclsaac,	Sinclair (Queen's, P.E.I.),
McMurray,	Snowball,
McQuarrie,	Speakman,
McTaggart,	Spence,
Manion,	Stansell,
Marcile (Bagot),	Stevens,
Marler,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Martell,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Maybee,	Stewart (Humboldt),
Mercier,	Stewart (Leeds),
Mewbum,	Stork,
Millar,	Sutherland,
Michaud,	Tobin,
Milne,	Vien,
Morrison,	Wallace,
Murdock,	Ward,
Parent,	Walsh,
Pelletier,	White, and
Power,	Wilson.-128. (Quorum 25) No. 3
ON MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS Messieurs	
Anderson,	Kellner,
Archambault,	Kennedy (Edmonton),
Baldwin,	King (Huron),
Bancroft,	Lewis,
Bird,	Lucas,
Boivin,	Mackinnon,
Bouchard,	MacLaren,
Bourassa,	McBride,
Bowen,	McGiverin,
Boys,	McKillop,
Brethen,	McMurray,
Brown,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Bureau,	Mercier,
Chaplin,	Morin,
Chew,	Ouimet,
Clark,	Power,
Davies,	Pritchard,
Denis (St. Denis),	Putnam,
Deslauriers,	Raymond,
Drummond,	Reed,
Duff,	Rheaume,
Ethier,	Robitaille,
Findlay,	Seguin,
Fontaine,	Senn,
Forrester,	Sinclair (Oxford),
Fortier,	Stirling,
Garland (Carleton),	Stork,
Gendron,	Thompson,
Gould,	Tobin,
Hammell,	Wilson,
Harris,	Woods, and
Jones, Kay,	Woodsworth.-65. (Quorum 10) No. 4
ON STANDING ORDERS Messieurs	
Bmette,	Chew,
Black (Halifax),	Clifford,
Black (Huron),	Deslauriers,
Chaplin,	Desrochers,
[Stage Direction]
Select Standing Committees
Doucet,	LeSueur,
Duff,	MacLaren,
Duncan,	Maclean (York),
Euler,	McTaggart,
Evans,	Mercier,
Gervais,	C/uimet,
Gould,	Parent,
Harris, i	Roberge,
Hodgins,	Robichaud,
Hughes,	Rvekman,
Kelly,	Steedsman, and
Lavigueur,	Stewart (Leeds).-33.
I.eader,	(Quorum 7) No. 5
ON PRINTING	
(Members to act <	Dn the part of the Commons) Messieurs
Baldwin,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Casgrain,	Michaud,
Charters,	Murdock,
Chevrier,	Preston,
Coote,	Prevost,
Euler,	Raymond,
Fansher,	Rinfret,
Hocken,	Robichaud,
Humphrey,	St. Pere,
Jones,	Stirling, and
McConica, Malcolm,	Thurston.-23. No. 6
ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Messieurs	
Archambault,	LeSueur,
Beaubien,	Logan,
Boys,	Lewis,
Bvethen,	Macdonald (Fictou),
Bristol,	Mackinnon,
Cannon,	McCrea,
Cardin,	McGiverin,
Carroll,	Mclsaac,
Casgrain,	Me Master,
Chisholm,	Manion,
Clark,	Martell,
Coote,	Meighen,
Crerar,	Mewburn,
Drayton (Sir Henry),	Michaud,
Duff,	Papineau,
Elliott, (Dundas),	Parent,
Finn,	Pouliot,
Foike,	* Power,
Gardiner,	Prtston,
German,	Rheaume,
Good,	Ryckman,
Hanson,	Sheard,
Hudson,	Simpson,
Humphrey,	Steedsman,
Hushion,	Stewart (Leeds),
Jacobs,	Thurston,
Kelly,	Tobin,
Kennedy (Edmonton),	Tolmie,
King (Kootenay East)	, Vien,
Kyte,	Wallace, and
Lapierre, i	Ward.-62.
	(Quorum 21) No. 7
ON BANKING AND COMMERCE Messieurs	
Baxter,	Black (Halifax),
Benoit,	Black (Yukon),
Bird,	Boivin,
Bristol,	low.
Cahill,	McBride,
Caldwell,	Macdonald (Pictou),
Carmichael,	Mackinnon,
Carruthers,	Maclean (York),
Casgrain,	Macphail (Miss),
Chaplin,	McCrea,
Chevrier,	McKay,
Clark,	McMaster,
Clifford,	McMurray,
Coote,	McQuarrie,
Crerar,	McTaggart,
Desaulniers,	Malcolm,
Descoteaux,	Marler,
Drayton (Sir Henry),	Maybee,
Duncan,	Mewburn,
Elliott (Dundas),	Millar,
Elliott (Waterloo),	Morin,
EDer,	Papineau,
Fafard,	Power,
Fielding,	Rankin,
Fiset (Sir Eugene),	Pheaume,
Fortier,	Robb.
Garland (Bow River),	Robichaud,
German,	Robitaille,
Good,	Ryckman,
Grimmer,	Steedsman,
Guthrie,	St. Pere,
Planson,	Sales,
Harris,	Senn,
Hatfield,	Shaw,
Hcaly,	Sinclair (Queen's, P.E.I.).
Hodgins,	Sinclair (Oxford),
Hudson,	Speakman,
Hughes,	Spencer,
Hushion,	Stevens,
Irvine,	Stork,
Jacobs,	Tobin,
Jones,	Vien,
Kellner,	Ward.
King (Huron),	Woods, and
Ladner,	Woodsworth.-91.
I.afiamme,	
(Quorum 21)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Anderson,	Doucet,
Arthurs,	Duncan,
Baldwin,	Evans,
Benoit,	Fafard,
Boivin,	Fontaine,
Boucher,	Forke,
Bouchard,	Forrester,
Bourassa,	Fortier,
Bowen,	Fournier,
Brcthen,	Garland (Carleton),
Brown,	Gendron,
Cahill,	Gervais,
Caldwell,	Gould,
Campbell,	Halbert,
Cardin,	Hanna,
Carruthers,	Hatfield,
Charters,	Hopkins,
Chew,	Hubbs,
Clifford,	Hunt,
Crerar,	Jelliff,
Davies,	Jones,
Dechene,	Kay,
Delisle,	Kennedy (Glengarry and
Denis (Joliette),	Stormont),
Denis (St. Denis),	Knox,
Desaulniers,	Laflamme,
Descoteaux,	Lanctot,
Desrochers,	Lapierre,

Select Standing Committees
Leader,	Raymond,
Lovett,	Reed,
Lrvie,	Roberge,
Lucas,	Robinson,
MacLean (Prince, P.E.I.), Ross (Simcoe),	
McConica,	Sales,
Mc-Crea,	Savard, .'
McKay,	Seguin,
McKillop,	Senn.
McMaster,	Sexsmith,
McMurray,	Simpson,
Malcolm,	Sinclair (Queen's, P.E.I.),
Mercile (Bagot),	Sinclair (Oxford),
Maybee,	Spence,
Millar,	Stansell,
Milne,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Morin,	Stewart (Humboldt),
Morrison,	Stirling,
Motherwell,	Sutherland,
Munro,	Thompson,
Neill,	Thurston,
Ouiroet,	Tobin,
Preston,	Tolmie,
Pritchard,	Warner, and
Rankin,	White.-105. ''Quorum 12) No. 9


[Stage Direction]
Messieurs Ladner,
Lapointe,
Macdonald (Pictou), Malcolm,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Marler,
McDonald (Timiskaming), McKillop,
McTaggart,
Morin,
Murdock,
Prevost,
Rinfret,
Stewart (Hamilton), Tolmie,
White, and W oodsworth.-35.
Kennedy (Edmonton),
(Quorum 10)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Black (Halifax), Cahill,
Caldwell,
Cannon,
Carroll,
Denis (Joliette), Deslauriers, Drummond, Finn,
Gervais,
Graham,
Grimmer,
Guthrie,
Halbert,
Healy,
Hoey,
Johnston,
Messieurs
Bancroft,
Campbell,
Cardin,
Chisholm,
Delisle,
Dickie,
Doucet,
[Stage Direction]
Elliott (Dundas), Fournier,
Grimmer,
Hatfield,
Hoey,
Hubbs,
Hughes,
Kennedy (Port Arthur and Kenora), Lapointe,
Ladner,
MacLaren,
MacLean (Prince, P.E.I.), Mclsaac,
McQuarrie,
Martell,
Munro,
Neill,
Pelletier,
Pouliot,
Putnam,
Robichaud,
Ross (Simcoe),
Savard,
Snowball,
Spencer,
Stansell,
Stevens,
Stewart (Humboldt), and Stork.-37.
(Quorum 10)
[Stage Direction]
ON MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS Messieurs
Arthurs,
Bird,
Black (Yukon), Boucher,
Carroll,
Carruthers,
Church,
Davies,
D6ch£ne,
Desaulniers,
Dickie,
Fiset (Sir Eugene), Forrester,
Garland (Bow River), Gendron,
Hanson,
Hunt,
Kelly,
Kennedy (Kenora),
Knox,
Lanctot,
Lapierre,
Logan,
Macphail (Miss), Manion,
McBride,
Michaud,
Munro,
Pelletier,
Power,
Roberge,
Ross (Kingston), Spence,
Stewart (Argenteuil), Stork,
Ward, and Warner.-37.
tm 10)
Boivin,
Ethier,
Fansher,
Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River) Hocken,
McGiverin,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Preston,
Prevost,
Rinfret,
Robinson, and Ross (Kingston).-13.
(Quorum 5)

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messieurs
Beaubien,
Beland,
Carmichael,
Deslauriers,
Euler,
Garland (Carleton), Good,
Gouin (Sir Lomer), Hopkins,
King, Mackenzie (York), Lapointe,
Lovett,
Meighen,
Pouliot,
Pritchard,
Robinson,
Ross (Kingston), Sheard,
Sinclair (Oxford), Steedsman, and Walsh.-22.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the select standing committees of this House shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and thing* as may be referred to them by the House, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the year ended September 30, 1924. -Hon. Mr. Lapointe.
Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE Mr. MacLAREN:
1.	What ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine were employed in carrying freight from New London, Connecticut, overseas in 1924?
2.	What is the record of shipments, in carload quantities, of freight so carried, originating in Canada?

Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What amount, if any, was paid out of the federal treasury for unemployment relief during each of the years ending March 31, 1923 and 1924?
2.	What amount was paid out during the said period in connection with the Department of Labour under the heading of Civil Government?
3.	What amount was paid out for the same periods for travelling expenses and disbursements of the Minister of Labour?
4.	How many delegates attended the conferences of Unemployment which assembled in Ottawa during each of the years referred to?
a.	Civil Government, Permanent,..
Temporary,..
b.	Agricultural Instruction Act.. .
c.	Entomology	
d.	Dairy, General	
e.	Cow Testing	
f.	Finch Creamery	
g.	Extension of Markets	
h.	Destructive Insect and Pest Act
i.	Production and Sale of Tobacco
j.	Fruit Industry	
k.	Animal Contagious Diseases.. .
l.	Meat and Canned Foods	
m.	Live Stock Industry	
n.	Seed Control


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Department of Labour-
1.	1922-23: $924,877.72; 1923-24: $4,273.83.
2.
1922-23	1923-24
(a) Salaries		$202,090 75 $ 164,551 87
(b) Contingencies .	22,220 32	23,198 75

3.	1922-23: See return July 3, 1924, presented by Mr. Copp, showing all ministers' travelling expenses from April 1, 1919; 192324: $1,670.
4.	1922-23: Two representatives of federal government; sixteen provincial delegates; there were also in attendance municipal and other representatives to the number of seventeen; 1923-24: No conference.
Department Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment
1.	1922-3, $1,038,163.35; 1923-4, $312,008.98.
2.	3 & 4. No information.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-EMPLOYEES
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What were the total number of employees, and the total salaries paid such employees on January 1, 1922, and 1925, in the following branches of the Department of Agriculture, giving the total number of employees and salaries for each branch, viz.: civil government, both permanent and temporary; agricultural instruction; entomology; dairy general; cow testing; Finch creamery; extension of markets; destructive insect and pest; production and sale of tobacco; fruit industry; contagious diseases; meat and canned foods division; live stock industry; seed control?
2.	Has there been one or more new branches added to the Department of Agriculture since January 1, 1922?
3.	If so, what are the names of same, and what number of employees are in each branch or branches so established, in detail, same as question No. 1?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.
January, 1922	January, 1925
No. of Employees	Salary	No. of Employees	Salary343	$45,329 00	384	$55,557 9138	2,316 00	35	2,467 871	185 00	-	-10	1,228 00	35	6,020 276	740 00	-	-2	215 00	-	-11	1.330 00	13	2.116 5061	8,265 00	88	11,967 736	785 00	9	1,490 0045	5,965 00	70	8,672 57184	25,597 00	227	34,205 58269	37,826 00	244	38.211 97148	19,859 00	204	28,842 2655	6,703 00	81	9,853 69
Questions
2.	Yes.
3.	Agricultural marketing agent in Great Britain, one employee; salary, January, 1925, $420.
Note:
(1)	"Cow Testing" which, in 1922 was under the Daily and Cold Storage branch, was transferred to Live Stock in April, 1924, and expenditures in this connection for January, 1925, are therefore included under Live Stock Industry.
(2)	Salaries for entomology are paid from Civil Government.


CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE-PENSIONS
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	How many members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force were pensioners in December 1921, (a) in Canada; (b) in United States of America; (c) in Great Britain?
2.	As above classified what were the numbers for December 1924?


Hon. Mr. RELAND:: 1. The date nearest to December 31, 1921, at which the desired information is available is March 31, 1922:
(a) Pensioners, March 31, 1922 Pensioned for
Disabilities Pensioned ex-members of as Depend- Total
C.EJF.	ents	PensionersCanada .. ..	37,697	13,855	51,552U.S.A	2,737	1.198	3,935Brit. Isles. ..	2,821	4.527	7,348Elsewhere ..	364	252	616Total..	43,619	19332	63,451Ob) Pensioners,	December 31	1924Canada .. ..	36,937	13,809	50,746U.S.A	3,992	1,439	5,431Brit. Isles	2,822	4.470	7.292Elsewhere ..	318	2S1	599Total..	44,069	19,999	64,068


JAPANESE IMMIGRATION
Mr. NEILL:: Is the government in a position to bring down any further correspondence, or to make an announcement of the result of any negotiation? carried on with the Japanese authorities as to further restrictions on Japanese Immigration referred to by the Premier in debate in this House on July 11, 1924?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the government has no further correspondence to bring down at the present time, and no announcement to make.


INSECTICIDE AND GERMICIDE DUSTS
Mr. ROBINSON:: Is it the intention of the government during the present session, to introduce legislation controlling the ingredients, and the percentage of such ingredients, used
in the manufacture and mixing of "dusts" for insecticides and germicides, as used in orchard culture?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: The introduction of a bill providing for the control of the composition, manufacture and sale of insecticides and fungicides is now under consideration.


&quot;CANADA IS COMING THROUGH''-COST
Hon. Mr. MANION:: What has bean the cost to the treasury to date of printing and publishing the advertisement "Canada is Coming Through'' and what is the estimate of outstanding accounts?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: Up to date no accounts for printing and publishing the advertisement "Canada is Coming Through" have been paid. The total of the unpaid accounts amounts to $2,893.82. No accounts are outstanding.


PULPWOOD COMMISSION
Robert James Manion: What was the total cost to the country of the Pulp-wood Commission ?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 


$75,672.51. GRAIN INQUIRY COMMISSION
Robert James Manion: What has been the cost to date of the Grain Inquiry
Commission which has just reported and what is the estimate of outstanding accounts?


Thomas Andrew Low: Expenditure:-
June 30, 1923, to March 31,
1924		$ 107,612 01
April 1, 1924, to February 5,
1925		 59,994 88
Total	$ 167,606 89
Estimate of Outstanding Accounts:-
Accounts in department	$	2,097 07
Accounts not yet received....	3 93
Total	$	2,101 00


LUMBER PRODUCTS-EXPORTS
Mr. CLARK:: 1.	What quantity of logs was exported from the Dominion of Canada during the years 1922, 1923 and 1924?
2.	Prom what provinces did the above mentioned logs originate, and in what quantities?
3.	What quantity of puipwood was exported from the Dominion of Canada during the years 1922. 1923 and 1924?
4.	From what provinces did the above mentioned puipwood originate, and in what quantities.
5.	What quantity of manufactured pulp products was exported from the Dominion of Canada during the years 1922, 1923 and 1924.

Questions
6.	What quantity of pulpwood was used in the manufacture of the last mentioned articles during the years 1922, 1923 and 1524?
7.	What where the values of the products referred to in above paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, f arid 6?
8.	What quantity of lumber was exported from the Dominion of Canada during the years 1922, 1923 and 1924?
9.	From what provinces did the above mentioned lumber originate, and in what quantities?
10.	What were the values of the lumber exports referred to in above paragraphs 8 and 9?
Hon, Mr. LOW:
1. Exports of logs (Canadian produce) from Canada-
Fiscal years-	Quantity	Valueended March 31	M. Ft.	$1922	
156,911	2,766,5611923	
199,289	3,665,6701924	
329,182	6,090,9582.	Information not available.3.	Exports of pulpwood (Canadian produce) from Canada-Fiscal years-	Quantity	Valueended March 31	Cord	$1922	
825,967	9,879,1501923	
1,096,462	10,755,6551924	
1,444,693	14,322,7144.	Information not available.5.	Exports of Wood Pulp (Canadian produce) from Canada-
Fiscal years

	Quantity	Value
ended March 31	Owt.	$1922	12,435,237	35,924,8771923	16,988,823	42,976,9481924	17,306,981	46,173,7966.	Pulpwood used	in	Canadian mills-Calendar	Quantity	Valueyears	Cords	$1921	
2,180,578	38,283,2621922	
2,912,608	40,375,5991923	
3,270,433	43,594,5921924	Information not available7.	Answered by Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.8.	Exports of Lumber (Canadian produce) from Canada-Fiscal years-	Quantity	Valueended March 31	$Planks and boards	M.ft. 1,158,630	39,012,295Timber, square	...M.ft.	59,154	1,651,175Laths	M.	971,070	6,092,657Pickets	
M.	22,860	263,114Shingles	
M.	2,231,904	7,632,418Shooks	
-	602,740Veneers and plywood	
-	66,340Other lumber ...	-	409,473Planks and boards.	M.ft.	2,199,133	64,020,422Timber, square ..	.M.ft.	62,022	1,659,439Laths 	M.	1,401,297	8,313,267Pickets	M.	48,984	524,910Shingles	M.	2,622,035	10,528,319Shooks 	-	543,309Veneers and ply-	wood	-	219,464Other lumber ....	-	407,0701924	Planks and boards.	M.ft.	2,349,853	76,043,496Timber, square ...	M.ft.	179.987	5,074,631Laths	M.	1.611,923	9,836,960Pickets	M.	51,346	518,032Shingles	M.	2,519,734	9,206,873Shooks 	-	677,433Veneers and ply-	wood	-	529,080Other lumber ....	-	333,4739.	Information not available.10.	Answered in 8 and 9.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ROLLING STOCK
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	How many engines were built for Canadian National Railways in 1924?
2.	Where were these engines built?
3.	How many coaches, parlor ears and buffet parlor coaches were built for the Canadian National Railways in 1924?
4.	Where weie these built?
5.	How man3r mail and express cars, baggage cars, cabooses, box cars, ballast cars, general service cars were built for Canadian National Railways in 1924?
6.	Where were these built?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	90.
2.	Kingston, Ont., Montreal, Que., Schenectady, N.Y.
3.	50.
4.	Montreal, Que.
5.	1,742.
6.	Montreal, Que; Hamilton, Ont.; Amherst, N.S., New Glasgow, N.S.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAII WAYS-RESULTS OF OPERATION
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: What were the results of the operations of the Canadian National system and affiliated companies in 1924 in:- (a) Atlantic region;	(b) Central region;	(c)
Grand Trunk Western lines (n United States); (d) Western region?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: (a)	Deficit of $3,545,004.24.
(b) Net revenue of $16,433,446.96.
(c) Net revenue of $5,710,667.77.
(d)	Deficit of $1,124,353.49.


WHEAT EXPORTS
Mr. COOTE:: How many bushels of each grade of wheat were exported from Canada to the United States during the fiscal years 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924?

Questions


Hon. Mr. CARDIN (for the Minister of Customs):: Exports of Canadian Wheat to the United States During the Fiscal Years Specified:
Fiscal year	Bushels
1921."	42,324,894
1922		16,592,797
1923		16,213,629
1924		21,228,507
No records are available in this department
of the separate amounts of different grades of wheat comprised in the above exports.


BOOT AND SHOE PRODUCTS
Mr. PREVOST:: 
Thomas Andrew Low: 5 AND 6.-IMPORTS OF LEATHER INTO CANADA FOR ALL PURPOSES WITH DUTY COLLECTED
(FISCAL YEARS)
Classification
Belting leather.. Calf, kid or goat, lamb and sheep skins, tanned. Calf, kid or goat, lamb and sheep skins, dressed, waxed or glazed	
Glove leathers, tanned ordress-ed, coloured or uncoloured, imported by glove manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories in the manufacture of
gloves	
Harness leather. Japanned, patent or enamelled leather and Morocco leather, and leather in imitation of Morocco leather	
Skins for Moroc co leather, tanned, but not further manufactured ____
Sole leather.. Tanners' scrap
leather	
Upper leather, not	dressed,
waxed or glazed	
Upper leather, including don-gola, cordovan, kangaroo, alligator, and all upper leather, dressed, waxed or glazed, or further finished than tanned, n.o.p., and chamois skins. All other leather, dressed, waxed or glazed, etc.,
n.o.p	
All other leather and skins,n.o.p
Duty Imports Collected
251,044
457,407
5,956,753
2,099,797
54,342
12,986
767,861
s&-	'
43,390
82,941
;1,811,402
500,256
492,895
31,561
67,980
891,391
209,074 ; 8,106
10,258
1,941
133,799
6,508
12,371
Duty Imports Collected

469,331
274,965
1,799,308

264,045
73,015
68,571
2,068,913 _i. 69,023
34,832


fF 12,589 C 234,872 II 19,638 51,048 868,298 210,667 243,468 $ 51,191 40,900 266,168 202,149 9,956 8,153 1,756 40,220 2,946 7,657
[Stage Direction]
Imports
[Stage Direction]
185,636
151,167
1,731,605
122,029
30,184
34,128
711,872
21,263
Duty
Collected
20,343
22,474
258,306
70,646
3,080
19,510	4,650	32,008
ft
1,418 l! 262,026
20,154
63,832
603,138
272,114
144,303
Imports
[Stage Direction]
188,110
122,775
1,120,850
jgf 188 43,864 J&t- ' 3,022
9,503
86,757
39,545
20,710
Duty
Collected
926,470
30,297
125,393
21,715
63,811
759,319
267,396
164,235
[Stage Direction]
21,617
18,308
166,112
Imports
[Stage Direction]
271,586
102,008
1,074,496
91,442 1,151,390 4,401	21,252
,721
21,515
3,257
9,538
104,963
38,872
23,920
Duty
Collected
28,149
13,572
167,383
24,908
30,024
782,012
306,748
197,100
[Stage Direction]
31,473
14,961
159,034
115,093
3,031
6,774
2,036
28,240
3,736
4,470
107,541
44,481
28,601
7 and 8.-These questions will be answered by the Minister of Customs and Excise.

Questions

Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	During each of the years 1923 and 1924, what was the average amount of (a) Dominion notes, and (b) bank notes, in circulation?
2.	Of the Dominion notes what was the average amount of each denomination in circulation?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	(a) The monthly average of Dominion notes in circulation in 1923 was $240,862,014.40, in 1924, $226,002,627.55.
(b) The monthly average of bank notes in circulation in 1923 was $170,420,792, in 1924, $166,136,764.
2.	The average amount of each denomination of Dominion notes in circulation-
	1923	1924
Provincial.. ..	27,699 33	27,690 28Fractional.. ..	1,270.812 16	1,282,082 10$ 1 00 ..	16,876,095 00	17,160,537 172 00 ..	12,507,565 92	12,422,802 084 00 ..	35,555 33	34,736 335 00 ..	2,672,578 33	3,404,329 5950 00 ..	3,166 67	283 33500 00 ..	2,818,375 00	2.012,750 001,000 00 ..	5,608,250 00	3,944,416 67Bank Specials $ 500 00 ..	1,416 67	1,000 00 ..	936,750 00	747,166 675,000 00 ..	120,549,583 33	51,745,000 0050,000 00 ..	77,554,166 66	133,220,833 33


IMPORTS OF POTATOES
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	How many car loads of potatoes were imported from the United States between January 1 and December 31, 1924?
2.	How many between January 1, 1925, and February 10, 1925?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: ,
1.	January 1 to December 31, 1924, 56,375,173 pounds.
2.	January 1 to February 10, 1925, 3,015,742 pounds.



PAYMENTS TO NEW BRUNSWICK UNDER HIGHWAYS ACT

Mr. DOUCET:: What were the total amounts paid to the government of New Brunswick, since January 1, 1912, by virtue of the Highways Act?


George Perry Graham: The following amounts have been paid to the province of New Brunswick under authority of the Canada Highways Act:
Fiscal year 1921-22	 $ 438,303 74
1922-	23	
371,973	011923-	24	
297,202	601924-	25	
56,365	65



$1,163,845 00 SOLDIER SETTLEMENT

Mr. BANCROFT:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to enact in legislation the report of the special committee on Soldier's Land Settlement, which was accepted by parliament last session?
2.	Will the committee be reappointed this session to further consider the question of revaluation of lands in districts where it has been shown that the original sale price was too high?


Hon Mr. ROBB:: 1.	The matter is now under consideration.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
MAILS-PAYMENTS TO RAILWAYS Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):
1.	What principal changes in the routing of mail traffic have been made in the past twelve months?
2.	What has been the total amount paid to (a) the Canadian Pacific Railway, and (b) to the Canadian National Railways for carriage of mails for the last six months ?


Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: For a copy of all correspondence between the Chamber of Commerce at Petrolia, Ontario, and the Department of Trade and Commerce, with regard to American branch factories in Canada.
SINGAPORE MILITARY BASE On the motion of Mr. Prevost:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada and that of Great Britain or other self governing dominion in connection with a military base at Singapore.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Since the return laid on the table of this House on May 6, 1924, there has been no correspondence on this subject that I am aware of. There may be confidential memoranda which have come from the British government, but these, I assume, the British government would not wish to have disclosed.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York) moved:: That an humble address be presented to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, in the following words: We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the (	) House of Commons of Canada,
in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that you may graciously be pleased to give your consent to submit a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom to amend the British North America Act, 1867, in the manner following, or to the following effect:-
Total payment

B. N. A. Act Amendment
" An Act to amend the British North America Act. 1867.
"Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of same as follows:
" 1. This Act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1925.
" 2. The parliament of the Dominion may amend the said British North America Act when it may see fit to do so, but it is not empowered to pass any amendment affecting the rights guaranteed in said act to minorities.
" 3. The proposed law for the alteration of the said act must be passed by an absolute majority of each house of parliament."
All of which we humbly pray Your Majesty to take into your favourable and gracious consideration.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in the debate on
the Address I took occasion to deal with a matter in which I think Canada has a vital interest, concerning, as it does, the constitution of this country and the rights of the people and parliament. My reason for directing the attention of the House to the subject was the judgment which had been delivered a few days previously by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England, in connection with the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. The constitutionality of that act was questioned before that committee and the act was declared1 by the committee to be ultra vires of the powers of the Dominion parliament. That seemed to me an invasion of what I regard as the rights of Canada; or, if it was not an invasion of those rights, it was at least of such a character as to make us realize that the time has arrived when we in this parliament should go into the question of our constitution and the question of our rights and determine whether we should longer remain subject to the decision of a court in the creation of which we had no voice.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is a body of the highest legal standing. We all respect it; we have no objection to its findings; I believe its finding in this case was right in law. But to my mind such decisions are not in the interests of the development of this country in a constitutional way. I am confident that this parliament has only to ask that some kind of relief be afforded and the request will be granted, thus placing the interpretation of the constitution of Canada within our own country rather than outside of it.
Now, the only constitution we have for Canada is the document which I hold in my hand, the British North America Act. This copy is the official copy printed by parliament -I got it from the Senate-of "The British North America Acts, 1867-1907," and I contend that any change in or improvement of the constitution of Canada must be by way
iMr. W. P. Maclean.]
of amendment to these acts, and that the place to make those amendments is in this parliament. I go further and say that it is the duty of this parliament to cause that constitution to be amended so that the same rights may be conceded to us as have been granted by the Imperial parliament to Australia, in large measure to South Africa, and finally to Ireland. If you examine these constitutions which have been created since the passing of these British North America Acts you will find that they widen as they go down. I was surprised to find upon investigation that in the case of the Irish Free State, the last one created, the constitution is wider than any of the others and there is the least interference. A little later I will deal with that matter more specifically and perhaps throw a little light upon it.
I am not a lawyer; I am only a lay member of this House, but I have watched the proceedings of the House and the sentiment of the people throughout the country and I can see that there is a growing feeling in the minds of the people that the time has come when we ought to have what Australia has, what South Africa has, what the Free State of south Ireland has-the right to make our owp constitution; to amend it and to have it interpreted in our own courts. We shall then be in a position in this parliament and in the provincial parliaments to adjust the law so as to suit the interpretation made by our own courts.


Mr. MARTELL:: My hon. friend has said that the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act case was correct. Supposing we had followed the decision of the Ontario court in that case, which was absolutely to tRe contrary effect, we would then not have had right law in this country.
Mr.'MACLEAN (York): That may be so.
I w'ant to stop this conflict of jurisdiction; I want a real settlement for the constitution of this country. After fifty-seven years' experience with the British North America Act,
I think it is time that the Canadian people had what the British parliament has, what South Africa has, and most of all what Australia has, the right to make our own constitution and amend it, and have it interpreted by our own courts, and to have the final decision with them.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: May I ask the
hon. member if the constitution of Australia or South Africa is, like the British North America Act, the result of a contract between different provinces?

B. N. A. Act Amendment


William Findlay Maclean: (York):	They are all
cases of federations, except Ireland, and we know something about federations in this country; we have had experience with a federation. Our great neighbour to the south of us, the United States, is also a federation, and my contention is that the construction of such constitutions can be accomplished better in the country that is a federation than in the Mother Country. That being the case, I think I shall be able to show a little later on why we should be granted this relief.
I have approached the question in my amendment in the fairest possible way. I have observed the regular method of procedure. The amendment has respect in every word of it for His Majesty the King and for the Imperial parliament, and most of all it conserves and protects the rights of minorities guaranteed by our constitution. So I think it is a very reasonable amendment. What I propose is:
" An Act to amend the British North America Act 1867.	'
"Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of same as follows:
" 1. This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1925.
" 2. The parliament of the Dominion may amend the said British North America Act when it may see fit to do so, but it is not empowered to pass any amendment affecting the rights guaranteed in said act to minorities.
" 3. The proposed law for the alteration of the said act must be passed by an absolute majority of each house of parliament."
All of which we humbly pray Your Majesty to take into your favourable and gracious consideration.


Mr. FORKE:: What does the Iron, member mean by an absolute majority?


William Findlay Maclean: I will come to
that in a moment. I have put that in a very simple way. I maintain that no one is so competent to deal with the federation as we Canadians are, and as the other countries are that are united in a system of federation. While I have every respect for the Old Country and for the judges of the Old Country, they have not quite the experience that we have of the system of federation for the government of a country. It is true they have had a good deal to do with federations since they have been established here and in the other dominions, but they have not got to deal with these questions that are vital to us and that are coming up every day. There is a dispute now between the federal and provincial powers in this country, as there is in Australia, and the same is the case in the United States. The result in the United
States is that they have created one of the greatest courts in the world for the interpretation of federation law. Theirs is a federation; so is ours, so is Australia's so is South Africa's, and so will be others, for others are to come. As I said, the United States has had wide experience. We are getting wide experience, and the British parliament has not had that experience with federations so far that would qualify it to be the final interpreter of their constitutions. The British parliament is concerned with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It is concerned with one great island, England, Scotland and Wales, and with a small portion of the north of Ireland. That great island is governed by a parliament which has absolute power. There is no parliament in the world that has the absolute, full and free power that the parliament of Great Britain has. As I pointed out to this House the other day, they can by a single act change the succession to the crown, repeal Magna Charta, and disestablish the English Church; they can do all that by one single act of parliament. We have a different arrangement here. We are not as free as they are. We are more or less governed by this system of federation. We have a federation and we cannot get away from it, and so we must have a constitution applying to a federation. We must have it interpreted in Canada, and I believe that our Supreme court is fitted to become the final authority to decide cases in dispute as between the federal and provincial powers.
Just to show what the difference is between the two systems, and what has taken place, what concessions have been made to the other dominions, I am going to read from the latest deliverance that has been made on this, matter. I have here The Constitution, Administration and Laws of the Empire by A. Berriedale Keith, D.C.L., of the Inner Temple, barrister-at-law, and of the Scottish bar, Regius Professor of Sanskrit and Comparative Philology at the university of Edinburgh, formerly of the Colonial Office, author of Responsible Government in the Dominions, and so forth. Professor Keith is the latest authority on this question, and his book, which I now have in my hand, is dated one year ago to-day less two days. This book was published in London just about one year ago to-day, and it is the latest deliverance on the subject. I am going to read a short extract which helps a lot to clear the situation. On page 22 of this book, in dealing with colonial legislatures, he says:

B. N. A. Act Amendment
The existing restrictions on constitutional change differ greatly in various parts of the Empire. In Canada the provinces enjoy freedom in great measure, but only within the limited sphere of their own powers under the British North America Act; they cannot alter the division of powers between them and the Dominion, nor can they affect the office of Lieutenant-Governor as the executive link between them and the Dominion. The Dominion, on the other hand, has extremely limited powers, because the federation was a compact between the provinces, and it is held to be illegitimate for the federal parliament to change the terms of that compact, unless with general assent from the provinces. Imperial acts were therefore necessary in 1907 to alter the amounts of the provincial subsidies, in 1915 to readjust the representation of the provinces in the Senate, and in 1916 to extend the duration of parliament by a year. The desire of the Dominion to obtain wider constituent powers is natural but no agreement on the subject exists with the provinces, as Quebec fears that any change might lessen the security for the equal treatment of the French language in federal proceedings, and the position of the Roman Catholic Church.
Next he deals with Australia:
The Commonwealth of Australia has the widest constituent powers, to be exercised by absolute majorities in both houses of parliament, approved by a referendum of the electors-
There is where the leader of the Progressive party gets his answer. There must be an absolute majority of both the houses in Australia to effect the changes in the constitution.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is not that provided for
in the Australian constitution?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, I know, but let me finish the quotation:
-but one house may secure at the discretion of the Governor General a referendum by passing a bill for a change twice, an interval of three months intervening. There arises, however, the question whether any change abandoning the federal character of the constitution is possible; the answer would seem to be in the negative. The States have full powers of constitutional change, but within the limits of the federal constitution; bills effecting important alterations or dealing with the governor's salary must be reserved unless approved in advance by the Imperial government. Efforts to effect by referendum great changes in the relation of the states and the Commonwealth have so far been defeated at the polls, and the question of a revision of the constitution which would probably involve Imperial legislation, is still unsolved.
Now I come to New Zealand, and I have got very little more to read:
New Zealand originally had somewhat limited powers of constitutional change, but it is probable that since the act of 1865 she has practically full authority in this regard, though any important constitutional change would probably be effected by a bill reserved for the signification of the royal assent. The same position applies to Newfoundland where the constitution rests on the prerogative. In the Union of South Africa changes affecting the numbers and distribution of seats in the lower house, the native franchise in the Cape province, and the equality of the Dutch and English languages can be brought about only by a two-thirds majority of both houses at a joint sitting, and the same rule applies to any proposal to vary this requirement. Moreover, any bill affecting the constitution

or powers of the provincial councils, or the provisions regarding the lower house must be reserved. In Malta power of alteration, by two-thirds majorities of the total members of either house, is limited to matters not affecting the subjects of legislative power, religious toleration, the rules regarding official languages, and the civil list, and in the case of India under the provisional constitution power of change in any essentials is reserved to parliament.
India is altogether different from Canada I hope. Now I eome to legislation in the crown colonies:
The legislatures in the crown colonies and protectorates have as a rule no constituent powers, but those of the colonies with representative legislatures have full legal powers of alteration. In the Irish Free State the power of alteration is limited only by the necessity of not violating the treaty of December 6, 1921, and by the requirement that after eight years from December 6, 1922, changes must be approved by referendum.
There is a short and succinct history of the way in which the constitutions are provided with their amendments in the various acts which have passed the British parliament. Canada, which was the first to be created, is limited ever so much more than the other later dominions, and yet we by reason of our fifty-seven years of experience, by reason of our contribution in the war-of men, of money and other things-are at least entitled to the same equality of privilege in the matter of amending our constitution as these other states enjoy. And that is not all. We entered upon this undertaking long before many of the other dominions. Long ago we achieved responsible government in this country, but it was obtained by a battle, and we have been recognized as an equal state by certain declarations that have been made in England. We have been given a position on the League of Nations, and we have been recognized in other directions. The Parliament of Canada has achieved another thing. Canada has achieved the right to negotiate a treaty and to sign it through a Canadian minister and we are making headway in various other ways. You can go through the correspondence which has taken place between the Mother Country and Canada, and you see a gradual widening out not so much in the direction of independence as in the recognition of the fact that the more freedom is given to Canada the stronger she will be in domestic affairs and the broader and stronger will be the union between the daughter state and the Mother Country. That is my contention. I am asking only that Canada be given what these other countries possess, and we can get it in a moment; all we have to do is ask for it. Some of my friends will say "Why should we ask for it?" Because the sentiment is growing, and England sees more and more that the way to be

B. N. A. Act Amendment
strong in the estimation of the dominions, including Canada, is to give them every freedom in the management of their own affairs. This right will be given to us if we ask for it. For the present condition of affairs I blame our own parliament and our own governments past and present. They are to be blamed because they 'have not asked for this right. I am just as certain as that I am standing here that we have only to ask in the way I have indicated and the right will be conceded. Was any objection made when Canada asserted the right to sign her own treaty? No, there was no objection there, it was rather welcomed and, as I have said, this parliament is to blame because we have not been given full power to make our own constitution.
Now I have come to my real argument and it is this: Is Canada a sovereign state? Are we a nation? If we have not the right to make our own constitution and to make our own courts the final interpreter of it, ought we not to have the right when a legal decision is needed to have it made here in Canada by a court which is the creation of this Dominion? Canada creates her own courts, and why should she not be given the jurisdiction to settle these constitutional questions? I think the time has arrived when she should have this right, and I think the people of this country are of the same opinion. Some persons have said to me, "Oh Mr. Maclean, when you spoke in the House the other day you talked of the judicial committee having shot holes in the constitution of Canada. Are you not shooting holes in the British constitutionI say no. The whole history of British connection is one of the development of progressive government, of the increase of the liberties of the people concerned, and it must be admitted that in that way greater union is secured. Now, I am not the only offender in this matter. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has a very strong notice of motion on the order paper in regard to Canada's independence in the matter of fiscal and tariff policy. I know that I am going to have the support of the right hon. gentleman in this matter because I am only trying to do in regard to it what he is trying to do with respect to our fiscal policy He is following the late Sir John A. Macdonald. John A. achieved a good deal. He is responsible for the National Policy in this country; and if we achieved a national policy in regard to the tariff God knows it is time to achieve it in regard to the constitution of the country so as to render our courts supreme in matters of law.
I could go on and speak at length on this question but I do not intend to do so. This
is a short sitting and I should like to see some definite pronouncement made from authoritative quarters. But, I hope the House will adopt this proposal. There may be an objection to it, and I am waiting to hear that objection. I am especially waiting to hear from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as to whether they are prepared to ask for relief in this matter. I do noit wish to sidestep the issue, and I am not prepared to say whether there ought to be a consultation between the provinces and the Dominion, although that is set out in Professor Keith's book; but the point is that if we unite on this matter we will get relief. All you have to do is to ask the British government to-day to adopt what I have in substance embodied in my resolution. It is a simple proposal and will not be denied. I believe that if we pass the resolution this session we will obtain relief 'before the end of the year and then Canada will be in a position to undertake what is her right to undertake, which is the natural outcome of our progress; to make her own constitution, and to interpret it in her own country via the 'Supreme court, which is composed of responsible Canadians.
I have not a word to say in regard to the constitution of the Privy Council. People say it is a good thing that we can go there, and I give the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council credit for having time after time saved the country in the interpretation of the constitution from mistakes of her own parliament and legislature, but we are not always to be in the position of minors. After 57 years of experience under the British North America Act the statement is made, "Oh you are minors, you are colonials." Have we not advanced beyond the state of being minors or mere colonials? Has that state of affairs not ceased? Or when is it to cease? Are we not of age? In the old days we relied on the fathers of the constitution. They are all gone. We must take care of ourselves and work out our own salvation and our own autonomy exactly on the lines I have suggested to-day; but the matter has to be dealt with and considered in some way. I hope that never again will we be in the position that the interpretation of the British North America Act must be made by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I think now is the time to end that state of affairs, and I say that with all respect to the judicial committee and to the Mother Country. It has given greater rights to the other dominions. They are prepared to give the same rights to the Canadian people, and especially to these Canadian people who
2S8

B. N. A. Act Amendment
have the record that we have as a free state and as a great ally of the Mother Country. They are prepared to give it to us if we ask for it. Objections of one kind and another can be raised, and they are worthy of consideration, but the broad question i3 now up before this House and the other chamber.
I am appealing most of all to the right hon. leader of the opposition in regard to these matters, and perhaps he will be ab'e to let the members of another honourable House see that they should join the House in the proposal as I have set it out; and if he does so it will be easy to get ahead and make some improvement. I absolutely dissent from the statement that has been made in this House, in the country and in another place, that in some way Canada is still in a state of tutelage, and that we are minors and that we have the right to go to the foot of the throne as the Indian has the right. We are not Indians. We are full-blooded Canadians, and a hundred per cent Canadians, as I said the other day, and if this Canadian parliament in this year 1925 is not fit to make its own constitution, and if its courts are not fit to interpret that constitution, when will we be in such a position? Does the leader of the House, a Canadian, hold that view? Does the Minister of Justice hold that view? Are his colleagues of that view? Are hon. gentlemen on this side of the House and are our friends from the west of that view?
I should like to talk about some reports that have been mentioned in the press in regard to constitutional changes in this country, but I respect the question that I have submitted to the House too much to deal with these reports in any way. I may have occasion at the close of this debate to say a few words on the objections that may be urged* against my proposition, and when I speak about objections being urged against it I wish to say to my fellow countrymen that I am a Canadian and I have tried to protect all rights as set out in the original act. I have not made a single suggestion to repeal in any way anything which is calculated to protect the rights of the minority under this act. I think I wall have support in this matter, because a lot of other questions will come up. The constitution must be broadened. New aLlianees and new formations will take place, and I repeat that the only way to settle the constitution is to make this act the basis of it. You cannot go outside and create new acts, but it must all be embodied in this one act. You can expand it, and in expanding it you must protect the rights within that constitution. It must follow, as 
daylight follows darkness, and foe based on this act. The whole question before us now is this act and how we can amend it so as to make self-government more complete in Canada, and therefore make this a better country in which to live, and to work out the destiny which is in store for us. There may be still a great federation for us in the future in connection with the British Empire. I am not going into that. That would be based on federal ideas. But as we are now a federated nation and have federal laws and are living under those laws, nobody is so competent to deal with this question as ourselves. That being so I leave the motion with the House.


Mr. CARROLL:: Paragraph 2 of my hon.
friend's motion proposes an amendment of the act and reads:
2. The parliament of the Dominion may amend the said British North America Act when it may see fit to do so, but it is not empowered to pass any amendment affecting the rights guaranteed in said act to minorities.
The hon. member has only made reference to some assumed or alleged guarantee to the province of Quebec. Has he in view any other guarantees to minorities in provinces outside Quebec?


William Findlay Maclean: I absolutely
apply it to every guarantee in this act, and I believe that is the -feeling of every member of this House. Whatever rights are guaranteed in this act ought to be -carried out to the letter, and that is my contention. I have heard of some rights which Nova Scotia has. One of the rights of Nova Scotia-although I do not see how it can foe carried out in law, -as far as the constitution is concerned- is that there is an arrangement between the local politicians as to the alteration of appointments to the Senate. I do not know whether that is so or not, and I cannot say what parliament will do with it. But in so far as any rights of minorities are guaranteed in this act, [DOT] my -motion is absolutely for the preservation of those rights in any measure to take over the administration of the constitution, by both houses of parliament.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Mr. Speaker, the prime motive power actuating the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) in bringing forward this resolution seems to be a decision lately given by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in what is commonly known as the Industrial Disputes Act.


Mr.   MAOLEAN@York: I placed this
very resolution on the order paper in the last session before this decision was given.

B. Ar. A. Act Amendment
Mr. MARTEiLL:	The trend, however, of
my hon. friend's remarks has been an endeavour to show that we should not in any wise appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in matters of law in the Dominion of Canada. It will be well for us for a few minutes to consider how confederation was brought about and what is the present charter of the Dominion of Canada. It is a matter of common history that negotiations took place from time to time between what was then commonly called Canada, that is, Ontario and Quebec, and the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, looking to the consummation of a federal union. As a result of the Quebec conference, I think in October, 1864, certain resolutions were passed, and in accordance with these resolutions there was passed by the Imperial parliament an enactment known as the British North America Act. The British North America Act of 1867, under which Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario were federally united, is the charter or constitution of the Dominion of Canada. It is in the nature of a contract between the various provinces. The minds of the fathers of confederation, as we say in the law of contracts, eventually got ad idem, that is to say, they came to a common meeting point. Confederation did not alter in any respect our relationship towards Great Britain or weaken in any way the headship of the crown. There is in the British North America Act nothing which in any way vacates the supreme legislative authority of the British parliament over and throughout the British Empire. To say that our position as one of the nations within the British Empire is on an equality with that of the British parliament as regards legislative authority is to assert an anachronism. The British parliament can change the imperial constitution; it can also change the constitution of any of the daughter nations within the empire, whereas Canada cannot alter her own constitution nor in any wise affect the constitution of Great Britain. No legislative body can make laws repugnant to imperial acts, which by express words or necessary intendment are extended to the British dominions beyond the seas.
My hon. friend, moreover, has said that we are a nation, a sovereign nation. Every person who knows the primary essentials of international law must know that no nation is a sovereign nation unless it has the right to send and receive ambassadors, a right which Canada has not at the 4 p.m. present time. There are several acts which have been expressly applied to Canada, the chief of these being 19
the British North America Act, which is our Canadian charter or constitution. The resolution of the hon. member for South York, which embraces within its four quarters a draft petition to His Most Gracious Majesty the King, praying that Canada be given the right to amend her own constitution, is in itself a violation of the contract made between Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario at the time of confederation. This contract became law by the ratification of the Imperial parliament, and the contract is the British North America Act. It will be remembered that at the Quebec conference, held for the purpose of bringing about a confederation of the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, resolutions were passed which became the basis of what is known as the British North America Act. Prior to confederation each of the provinces of Canada was as plenary in its power of government and legislation as is the Dominion of Canada to-day and also the various legislatures; that is to say, the various provinces which now constitute Canada, particularly the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, at the time of confederation possessed all the powers of civil government embraced in the powers and authority of both the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures combined at the present time. The British North America Act may be termed the contract between the provinces and the federal authority.
To attempt in any wise to interfere with the British North America Act, which as I say, was an agreement between the various provinces of Canada, ratified and confirmed by the British parliament, without conference and agreement between the provinces constituting confederation and the federal authorities, would be a wrongful act. It would be a violation of the crassest kind of provincial rights, and without the concurrence of the various provinces constituting confederation, a petition based upon a resolution such as has been moved by my hon. friend would not be entertained by His Most Gracious Majesty in Council or by the Imperial parliament. Where there has been entered into between two parties a contract, the making of which has been the subject of a great deal of negotiation, it cannot be altered so as to give one of the parties rights and privileges without the concurrence ad idem of the other parties to the pact. In ordinary contracts between individual and individual, if a contract is reduced to writing, then one of the parties cannot of his own volition insert a new covenant without being guilty of a breach of contract. In a greater

B. N. A. Act Amendment

question where the rights of minorities, the rights of provincial legislatures are concerned, my hon. friend is endeavouring to have a unilateral change, so to speak, of the constitution or charter of Canada made between the parties at the time the confederation of Canada was brought about. At that time the various provinces which went into confederation surrendered rights to a central body, but they retained certain rights to themselves. The agreement or contract was the British North America Act, and surely no person would hold that one of the parties to that agreement has the right to alter it without the consent of all the parties interested. In an ordinary civil matter, to do so would be a breach of the agreement; then if this is so as between individual and individual, how much greater is the wrong when it affects the constitutional rights of sections of provinces of the Dominion of Canada?
The jurisdiction of the Canadian parliament to alter the Canadian constitution cannot be conceded and have the rights of the provinces protected. The will of the Canadian parliament in this matter is not omnipotent; the superior authority is the Imperial parliament. The question to be decided as regards any Canadian legislation, whether federal or provincial, is simply this: Is the act repugnant to the British North America Act? Does the act overstep the limits prescribed by the Imperial charter for federal or provincial legislation, as the case may be? A statute emanating from a legislature not having the power to pass it is not law. A legislative body cannot confer rights or impose liabilities where the legislature has no power to pass such a law. It is a nullitas nullitatum and cannot affect anybody. The British North America Act which has prescribed the bounds of the legislative authority of both federal and provincial legislatures imposes upon the judges of our courts the duty of seeing that those bounds are not over-ruled.
Now, Sir, I have dealt with the question of contract; let me come to the question of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That seems to be the chief theme of my hon. friend's discussion. It has been brought about by the declaration of the judicial committee that the Industrial Disputes Act of 1907 is ultra vires of the federal parliament. I am not going to criticise that act. Its object was commendable. But no matter how commendable the object, no matter what may be the desire of the people in any part of this country, it does not give to parliament the right to infringe upon the rights of other parties to the contract. I might
'Mr Martall.]
review the reasons why the decision was given. It was the subject of a dispute in the city of Toronto between the Hydro Electric Commission and its employees. A board of conciliation was appointed by the Minister of Labour of the day. The Hydro Electric Commission said that this was not in the best interests of the parties to the dispute, and they refused to appoint their representative. Under the act it is provided that once a board is appointed all things remain in statu quo. The Hydro Electric Commission contended that by virtue of clause 13 of section 92 of the British North America Act the provincial legislature was the only legislative authority capable of passing such legislation. Application was made to Mr. Justice Orde in chambers, and after hearing argument His Lordship granted a restraining order pending the trial. Mr. Justice Mowat tried the case, and he upheld the validity of the act, Appeal from his judgment was taken to the appellate court of Ontario, which upheld the trial judge, Mr. Justice Hodgins dissenting. The matter was then taken to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and their Lordships decided that the act was an infringement upon clause 13 of section 92 of the British North America Act, and was therefore ultra vires of the federal parliament to enact.
In the course of his disquisition my hon. friend said that the Privy Council was right in its decision. That in itself, Mr. Speaker, is one of the strongest arguments why the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be maintained. There is no clamour throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion for the abolition of such appeals. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is made up of some of the highest trained lawyers in the British Empire, men who have devoted themselves exclusively to the study and practice of law. The great barristers of England who are elevated to the bench are not men, as we often find in some of our courts, closely allied to corporations- business men rather than lawyers. The judges of England have been trained from their youth in the principles of Blackstone, of Coke and of Littleton. And it is an ideal state of affairs that we, whose forbears brought with them all the common law of England save that which was inapplicable to our status as a colony, should have these principles of common law made uniform in interpretation for the whole British Empire.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as at present constituted-and, Mr. Speaker, I take this from a speech made by one of the law lords in the House of Lords

B. N. -4. Act Amendment
many years ago-took its origin in 1833, and it is the general concurrence of opinion that that tribunal has performed its very high and important functions,-a great if not the principal portion of which has been the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in cases brought from the various portions of the British Empire-to the satisfaction both of Great Britain and her dominions beyond the seas. I submit that from the date when that learned law lord made that statement down to the present time there is not a single person in the Dominion who, if he is fair, wants in any way to interfere with the right of appeal to the Privy Council. We are satisfied with it, and we should devote ourselves to domestic problems, leaving the law as it is in that regard.
It should be the primary condition of all legislation throughout the British Empire to have the law not repugnant to the law of England. We have ample precedents for interpretation. It is easy to find a decision when we go to the English courts, because there has been the long trend of ages wherein interpretations have been made by the greatest lawyers of England. I say, Sir, it should be the primary condition of all legislation throughout the British Empire to have the law not repugnant to the law of England, save in so far as changes by statute are necessary from time to time in order to meet conditions obtaining in particular sections of one of the constituent parts of the empire. It is accepted that the first settlers brought to Canada. were bound by all the principles of the common law of England which were applicable to our situation at the beginning as a daughter nation of the British Empire, but they brought with them none of the English statute law save that which was made expressly applicable to their situation as a colony. If the principles of the English common law obtain in the greater portion of the British Empire, then is it not meet and proper that a final court of appeal be constituted so as to apply the general principles of the common and the statute law and thus have its decisions uniform? Moreover in the interpretation of a statute of great importance it would seem to be in the best interests of every portion of the empire to have a uniform interpretation of the phraseology or words of statutory enactments.
As citizens of the British Empire it is doubtful whether or not it would be in the best interests of the people to endeavour by any legislative enactments to take away, or to any great extent circumscribe, the right to an appeal to the Sovereign in Council, which is practically an appeal to the Judicial Com-19i
mittee of the Privy Council. The sovereign is said to be the fountain of justice and is constitutionally empowered to receive petitions and appeals from all his dominions and possessions, both in the Old Land and in the new, upon such regulations and conditions as may be defined by the authority of the Crown in Council. The petitions for appeal are referred to the consideration of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, upon whose report the decision of the sovereign is presumed to be pronounced. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could not, and is not permitted to, advise upon questions of general or political policy, for that is the special province of the cabinet council. Neither does it undertake to advise in criminal matters where no appeal to the Privy Council is allowed by law.
The statement that the appellate jurisdiction of the King in Council is retained for the benefit of the inhabitants of the British dominions beyond the seas, not for that of the Mother Country, cannot be gainsaid.
It secures to every British subject the right to demand redress of grievances from the throne.
When certain cases do not fall within the jurisdiction of ordinary courts of justice it provides a remedy.
It removes the influence of local prepossessions.
It is a great means of maintaining the uniformity of the law of England and those portions of the empire which derive their common law from Great Britain.
It enables suitors, if they so desire, to obtain a decision from a court which is the court of last resort so far as the British dominions are concerned, which said court is constituted of the highest judicial authority and legal capacity existing in the empire.
It is a controlling power over every judge in the empire, because he knows that his decisions are liable to be reviewed by it. Moreover, the great bulk of people in the Dominion of Canada have never exhibited a strong desire to part with the right of appeal from our courts to the king in council.
It has become the sole remaining power exercised through the crown over the British dominions.
We have ample power to establish, to abolish and to reconstitute courts of judicature and to provide for the administration of justice, but if a litigant's case is just, he should not fear its submission to a court such as is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The chief reason for the advocation of doing away with the appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council seems to
B. N. A. Act Amendment

have arisen in connection with the case of the Toronto Electric Commissioner vs Colin G. Snider and others in which the Attorney General for Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario intervened. This was an appeal taken from the decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court of Justice for the province of Ontario which, in effect, was an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Mowat and Mr. Justice Orde. Briefly, the whole case had to do with and turned upon the constitutionality of the Dominion Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of 1907, 6 and 7 Edward VII, chapter 20. Mr. Justice Orde, in his judgment on an application for inj miction, gave a decision declaring the Industrial Disputes Act to be ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada, as it was an interference with property or civil rights within his province and as such was an infringement of Clause 13 of section 92 of the British North America Act, which section sets forth the exclusive legislative powers conferred upon provincial legislatures.
It is well known that section 91 of the British North America Act contains twenty-nine clauses wherein the matters which the federal parliament can exclusively legislate upon are set out. Section 92 contains sixteen clauses wherein the matters which can [DOT] be exclusively legislated upon by provincial legislatures are set out.	There is also a
general clause under Section 91 of the British North America Act which is termed a non obstante clause, wherein authority is given to the federal parliament to legislate upon all matters not exclusively given to the provincial legislatures. It has been urged by some that this non obstante clause, or the general clause, the peace, order and good government clause; gives to the Parliament of Canada authority to pass legislation infringing upon provincial rights, even though the provincial authorities have under section 92 exclusive authority. But decisions of the Privy Council have in many cases held that this general clause can only confer jurisdiction upon the federal parliament where one of the twenty-nine clauses of section 91 is in direct conflict with one of the sixteen clauses of section 92 of the British North America Act. Otherwise the clauses of section 92 mean absolutely what they say, and in so far as any right to legislate upon any particular matter can be dealt with under section 92 it cannot be interfered with by the federal parliament.
Now, Sir, so much for that. That is exactly what occurred in connection with the matter of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. Learned judges in Ontario held certain things;
(Mr. Martell.]
they were not unanimous, therefore it was well that it was possible to get away from any court which might have prepossessions in the matter and get the interpretation of a court quite removed from local influences, quite removed from any pressure that might otherwise be brought to bear upon it-though I do not wish to say that pressure can very well be brought upon our courts. The method of interpretation of the British North America Act has been said by the learned law lords to be as simple a method of interpretation as would be applied to an ordinary statute. The same thing may be said as regards the constitution of the Senate. I submit to the hon. member for South York that neither he nor any other person in the Dominion of Canada has the right to interfere with the constitution of the Canadian Senate unless the provinces are first consulted and their unanimous consent obtained to an amendment. The method of appointment of senators in Canada is fixed by the British North America Act and cannot be changed or interfered with in any way without the consent of all the constituents. which went to make up our charter, the British North America Act.
The cursory review which I have made in regard to the appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council applies, as I have already said, to the Senate of Canada. The government of the day, in its far-reaching, excellent and comprehensive Speech from the Throne, admits as regards the Senate that an agreement with the provinces must be had before an amendment can be made. I am afraid that if the hon. member for South York had the opportunity of laying unholy hands upon it, the appeal to the Privy Council would be abolished. In fact, his resolution is simply a subterfuge to get away from this appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I am not, Sir, imputing to my hon. friend the mover of the resolution any sinister object-beyond that one little object I have just mentioned. But when I hear of any person asking for the abolition of the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, I feel that it is an attempt to break away from the British connection, for the tossing buoy betrays where the anchor is hidden.
May I say in conclusion:	Let us not be
prone to sing discordant misereres against the links in the chain which bind us to the empire, for be .they of law or of sentiment, they are well forged by laws of liberty for all, and equality for all; and above all, by the law of sentiment which is sadly needed by lesser breeds without law. A3 British subjects we are citizens of no mean country,

B. N. A. Act Amendment
and from the rising of the sun until the going down thereof let us devote our energies to the upbuilding of our country, along great commercial lines, relying upon the fact that no coercive measure shall ever be applied against us by the Mother of Parliaments, and that Canada as the leading daughter in the galaxy of nations that will forever surround the British throne will always as a glorious Te Deum hymn:
Whilst the language Whilst the arts That mould a nation's soul Still cling around our hearts,
And between let oceans roll,
Our joint communion with the sun But still from either beach The voice of blood shall reach More audible than speech " We are one!"


Mr. RENE MORIN (St. Hyaeinthe-Rou-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I am in accord with the mover of this resolution (Mr. Maclean, York), as to the necessity for Canada's obtaining the right to amend her constitution, but I differ from him as to the procedure which he suggests for that purpose. I have already claimed in this House that since confederation our status had been considerably altered, but it is not my intention on this occasion to retrace at any length the developments which have occurred.
Let me state, at first, that since confederation our constitution has only been amended, at our request, and to suit our purposes, and now we may safely assert that from a constitutional point of view the Imperial parliament would never think of altering our constitution except as we so demand, and that practically the Imperial parliament has lost that right. But satisfactory as this method may be in practice, it no longer conforms to our present standing.
The equality of our status with that of any part of the British Empire has already been proclaimed on many occasions, not only by Canadians, but by most of the prominent public men of Great Britain. Canada is now a member of the League of Nations and holds therein the same standing, the same rights, as fully sovereign nations. She has in the assembly of the league her own representatives enjoying all the rights of any of the other members. In the treaty of Versailles Canada appears as a unit, separate from that of Great Britain, though under the same king. She now negotiates alone her commercial treaties with foreign nations, and she signs these treaties by her own representatives, acting in the name of the King, but having received their full powers from him at the
instance and under the direction of the Canadian cabinet. AH these prerogatives are now fully acknowledged as belonging to us, but they are incompatible with the control which Great Britain can, theoretically, and in the eyes of foreign nations, exercise over us if she is the superior authority or the power which alone has the right to alter our constitution. Moreover, Australia, Sooth Africa and Ireland, now enjoy the right to amend their constitution, and Canada cannot continue to occupy the inferior itank of the dominion which is not empowered to exercise the rights which belong to the other dominions.
For these reasons it is necessary that we should take steps to obtain the right of altering our constitution by an internal pioeedure entirely under our control.
But the constitution of Canada has a special feature; it is the result of a pact between the different provinces of Canada; it has this character, at least for the four original members of the confederation. For these four provinces it is a covenant or agreement, and it follows that no amendment or alteration of importance can be made to this covenant without the participation and consent of the parties to it. The other provinces which came in later entered this covenant of their own free wild, and they should be entitled to the same privileges as the original members. It follows that no alteration of an important character can be made to the British North America Act, our constitution, unless it meets with the approval of the provinces which compose the confederation.
This conventional character of our constitution was also a feature of that of the Commonwealth of Australia, and if you refer to its constitution you will find that the right to alter the constitution has been surrounded by a number of protective measures, which preserve adequately the rights of each of the states which compose the commonwealth. The alteration of its constitution is made by a law, passed by an absolute majority in each of the two houses of parliament, and submitted to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the house of representatives, in each of the different states of the confederation, and this amendment comes into force if approved by the majority of the states and by the majority of all the electors who voted. It provides also, that in case of disagreement between the two houses of parliament, the Governor General may submit to the electora any proposed amendment passed twice after an interval of at least three months by any one of these houses.
B. N. A. Act Amendment

In Australia, as in Canada, there are some fundamental rights which must be preserved with yet more care. We would hold here as sacred rights:	The territorial limits of the
provinces:	The proportion of representation
of each province:	The rights which are attributed by the British North America Act to the provinces, particularly in matters of education:	The privileges of minorities; and
some others.
In Australia no alteration to the constitution which may in any way affect any of the rights which are considered fundamental can come into force as to each separate state unless it has received the approval of the majority of the electors in that state. So in Canada, our constitution should be so drafted that any alteration, which might affect some of these fundamental rights should necessarily receive the approval of the legislature of each province to which it may apply.
For these reasons, though I am in favour of the principle of the resolution, I cannot accept it as drafted, and I must register my vote against it. Moreover, I submit that any attempt to obtain the right to amend our constitution must be the subject of a conference between the provinces, and must meet *with the approval of each of the component parts of Canada.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I believe there is no demand for this legislation. Furthermore, I believe that if this legislature did have the power that is asked for here, it would sound the death knell in this country of the basis of confederation; it would sound the death knell of minorities; it would sound the death knell of provincial rights, and more especially of municipal rights, and we must remember that there has been a very large investment by municipalities from coast to coast throughout this country in public utilities. Now, there is no demand for this legislation; nobody is asking for it. I am an Irishman but I should be sorry to see thi3 country with a constitution such as Ireland has to-day. They have the right over there to make and unmake their constitution. What does the resolution of my hon. friend ask for:
The parliament of the Dominion may amend the said British North America Act when it may see fit to do so.
Under suoh provision as that would not this parliament have the right to deprive the provinces of the powers which they at present enjoy under section 92 of the British North America Act? Is it proposed that this Dominion should be able to brush aside with a

wave of the hand, the constitutional rights of the provinces and municipalities throughout this country? Let me give an illustration of what I mean. The municipalities and provinces in many cases are doing more to solve practical problems than is this parliament. The other day the leader of this government stated that the Dominion had nothing to do with the question of unemployment under the British North America Act. At present the control of the banking institutions of the country, of immigration, of transportation, of the tariff, and of the right to enter into international agreements, is vested in this parliament, and it ought to relieve the provinces and the municipalities of the problem of caring for unemployment. I am very much surprised that the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), an advocate of public ownership as he is, in view of the fact that the city of Toronto from which he comes has made an investment of $125,000,000 in light, power, and transportation; in view of the fact that his constituency has been beneficially affected by these enterprises, should' move such a resolution as this. Because, if the amendment to the British North America Act which he proposes had been in operation in Canada, there would have been no such developments in connection with light, power and transportation as have taken place in Ontario. The power to build, run and control these utilities would be usurped and interfered with by the Dominion and it would be possible for the Dominion by interference to wipe them out in the twinkling of an eye.
My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean, York) wants to know whether Canada is a sovereign state, whether it is a nation, and whether we can make and unmake our own constitution. No, Canada is not a sovereign state, and it is a good thing that it is not. Notwithstanding the fact that we have the right to sign halibut treaties, and other treaties, we are not a sovereign state. We are a nation in name only. We are dependent-just as is Australia to which dominion my hon. friend ascribed the possession of so much power-on the fleet of the Mother Country. Here we are talking about an amendment to the British North America Act, and in time of trouble we are the first to look to the old Motherland across the seas for protection and for the maintenance of the maritime freedom which we enjoy. And notwithstanding this protection we are content to sponge on the hard earnings of the British taxpayer for our maritime freedom without doing anything to relieve him of the burden. In this respect we are unlike the Commonwealth of Australia. What is their

B. N. A. Act Amendment
attitude in this matter? They have a fleet of their own and contribute to maritime freedom. Let me quote from wtiat the Prime Minister of Australia, Right Hon. S. M. Bruce, said as reported in volume 5, number 4, Journal of the Parliaments of the Empire, issued in October, 1924:
At no time throughout her history had Australia been in a position to provide for her own national defence. To-day, as in the past, they were dependent upon the protection afforded to them by Great Britain. They had to recognize that fact. It was useless for anybody to maintain that if they were an independent nation, with no connection with the British Empire, they would be in a position to protect themselves. The certainty that they could not defend themselves would be a considerable incentive to any country to take action against them. They had the most wonderful unprotected white man's country in the world, with only five and a half to six millions of people inhabiting it. Looking round the world, however, they saw teeming millions in other countries, and knowing the rate at which their populations were increasing, they in Australia recognized the difficulties with which those countries were faced in finding an outlet for their people. " Few of us " said Mr. Bruce, " fail to recognize that Australia, undefended, would be a great temptation to any country." We all subscribe to the " White Australia " quality, which we say shall never, under any circumstances be abandoned. We intend to keep this country white and not allow its people to be faced with the problems that at present are practically insoluble in many other parts of the world. . . . It is true that, in the past, our right to assert this policy has never been seriously challenged, but it has enjoyed immunity from challenge because we are part of the British Empire, and have had the whole force of Britain behind us throughout our history.
I am afraid there is altogether too much talk in this country with respect to abolishing appeals to the Privy Council which is calculated to have the effect of weakening the ties which unite us to the Mother Country. I am afraid that legislation such as is proposed here would make it possible to encroach upon provincial rights, and in the case of the province of Ontario reduce to scrap many valuable public undertakings. In a word it would be possible to reduce the provincial legislature and the municipalities of a province to the mere status of a county council. The highest judicial court in the empire recently gave a judgment on the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act holding matters wholly provincial in their scope and activity and affecting property and civil rights, employer and employee, as matters for the provinces and not for the Dominion under trade and commerce. I do not wish to criticise the judgment of the Ontario court of appeal, I would not say anything derogatory with respect to it; but I must express the opinion that the judgment of the Privy Council removed one of the most deadly menaces to provincial rights in affirming that the provincial court of appeal was wrong in upholding, as it did, the Industrial Disputes Act. That law was held to be a
bad piece of legislation by the Dominion by the highest court in the British Empire. On the other hand the judgment of the Ontario court of appeal would have absolutely destroyed provincial and municipal rights which we have enjoyed since the British North America Act first came into force. That judgment of the Ontario court of appeal has been upset by the highest court in the realm. This decision will stand for all time as a shining example of how the Privy Council protects 1he rights of minorities and provincial and municipal rights as well when threatened by the Dominion. We have had many statutes enacted by the Dominion tending to invade the provincial field. We have had the Combines Act which was more ornamental than useful. Since that act was enacted I am not aware that there has been a single prosecution instituted successfully under it.
Reverting to Australia, I may say that the commonwealth has appreciated its position much better than Canada has, and has established a fleet to protect its shores. According to the report of the Canadian Minister of National Defence Canada's expenditure on defence is only $1.46 per head of the population. Great Britain's expenditure for this purpose is $23.04; while Australia pays $3.30. If we are a nation, and this resolution passes, I suppose we should have the right to go to war, with the toy navy which we now have. The only thing this parliament appears to be ready to declare war on is on the rights of the provinces. That very clearly is what was done when the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act was enacted.
In the Old Country the press has been discussing the resolution of my hon. friend, and among others the Manchester Guardian. Well, I do not think there is any newspaper in the British Empire which knows less of Canadian affairs than the Manchester Guardian. In the present instance it is sympathetic towards the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council which would weaken the ties which unite Canada to the Motherland, because the Privy Council to-dfey is one of the remaining links binding Canada to the Mother Country. I think we are doing altogether too much to weaken the ties and relations between Canada and the Motherland.
It is said we can make our own treaties. I hope the day is far distant when Canada will be making its own treaties, because I think the treaties which are made by the Mother Country for Canada stand out by themselves and are beneficial to Canada. It is said we should have a Canadian ambassador at Washington. I may say I am opposed to that.
B. N. A. Act Amendment

That is another way of weakening the ties which bind Canada to the Mother Country, and is not in keeping with the spirit of the British North America Act which is one of the remaining links which 'bind together Canada and the Old Land. Some people want to abolish the offices of Governor General and Lieutenant Governor. I hope these offices will not be abolished, because they are two of the few remaining links which bind Canada to tihe Motherland.
Before any resolution of this character is passed by parliament I think the provinces should be consulted. The provinces are a part >of confederation. Under the British North America Act, sections 91 and 92, they have been given a written constitution and they should be consulted before any change is made in the act. Before we make 'any such change we should have a vote of the people, and no one is asking for a vote that I know of, or any change in the act as it stands to-day. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we are living in an age in which changes to our constitution will have the effect of weakening the ties which bind Canada to the Motherland. Many prohibitory laws are being passed. We seem to be living in an age when prohibitory legislation is a fad, too many prohibitory laws are being passed, and I think there is too much tinkering with the constitution. Nowadays people seem anxious to discipline their neighbours, but do not want to discipline themselves.
One of the reasons for the present resolution was the decision given in the Privy Council in the appeal of the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commissioners in a case involving a labour dispute, and it is held by some that the judgment declares the whole Industrial Disputes Investigation Act ultra vires of the Dominion parliament. I say that as far as that act dealt with Dominion matters, as long as it stayed within its own field and looked after the federal field and the rights of Dominion employees, it was all very well and proper. As long as the act was kept in its own federal sphere and 'applied it to the subject for which it was intended' under section 91 of the British North America Act-that is works declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, which came under the jurisdiction of this parliament, such as Post Office employees, railway employees and federal employees- it was perfectly valid. So far as that act went I believe it did some good work, although it has not been a success in some other ways.
The bill was framed by the hon. presiding officer of this chamber (Mr. Lemieux) a gentleman who has been a long time in public

life in this country, and who has all his life done a great deal to promote provincial good will and to advocate the principles of fair dealing between man and man throughout the country. The worthy author of this bill spent his life in the sendee of this country, and he never intended that that act should be utilized and used the way it has been, namely to stray out of the Dominion field and enter into the provincial and municipal fields and undertake to do work which it was not intended to do. The act was intended to function so far as it applied to federal matters under section 91 of the British North America Act, and so far as it applied also to any provincial works which were undertaken which were declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada. But when it left the federal field and invaded the provincial and municipal fields and dealt with municipal utilities-light, and power and many other things-and sought to constitute itself a court of appeal from the cities or towns, or a court of appeal in the province, then it crossed the border and entered a field where it did not belong.
I think the judgment given by Lord Haldane was sound where he deals with the matter of the protection of provincial and municipal rights in this country. I may say that the legislature of the province of Ontario is complaining, and I think they have good cause to complain, that this federal body is encroaching on their rights and dealing with matters which come under the provincial jurisdiction. I first refer to the St. Lawrence development, where eastern Ontario is affected. There was an application before- the government to build up the Morrisburg dam. Under the British North America Act as it stands to-day the surplus waters subject to the rights o-f navigation belong to the province and the banks and rapids and bed of international streams. That is one constitutional question of which Ontario is asking for some solution.
Another question in which there is trouble under the British North America Act in the province I come from is the question of insurance. That has been before the Privy Council on several occasions, and the Prime Minister of Ontario said that Ottawa had gone out of its way to veto provincial legislation when there was no occasion for it. I think there was no reason for interference in regard to the question of light, power and insurance problems of the province. There is another serious conflict regarding insurance, although the province of Ontario recovered a judgment before the Privy Council twice protecting the legislation we passed. I may say

B. N. A. Act Amendment
that among other matters affecting the province are the succession duties and the revenues of the province, and the control of the water. powers of the province. If this amendment carries it would interfere with all these matters. I say there is no demand for the legislation. Nobody is asking for it, and I do not know what good it would do if we did have the legislation. What we want during the present session is that parliament should solve some practical problems concerning the people of this country at this time. One most important matter is unemployment and another is the light and power question of this Dominion. We have many other practical problems to deal with instead of taking up a question which the people are not bothering their heads about.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Any proposal affecting the constitution of Canada is by its nature of considerable importance, and the mere fact that such an experienced politician as my hon. friend from York (Mr. Maclean) has fathered this resolution is a strong indication that the subject matter of this resolution attracts a substantial measure of public attention. I desire merely to point out some of the difficulties which are in the way of the proposal submitted by my hon. friend. If I do not agree with him in many of his statements, I do agree at least with the statement that he made that there is no difficulty whatever in this connection with the Mother Country. My hon. friend stated, and repeated, that we could have that right if we asked for it, and he is absolutely right. I think that the language of some of the resolutions which I have read in the newspapers as having been adopted by associations in this country is rather unfortunate, because it conveys the impression that the Mother Country is refusing something, and that we ought to claim the right to amend our own constitution. The question, as my hon. friend rightly said, is not and cannot be one between Great Britain and Canada. It is one and might be a difficulty between this parliament and the provinces if there is any conflict in that regard.
It is true that in Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and in the Irish Free State, those dominions can, subject to many restrictions, amend their constitution. Not so with Canada. The British North America Act says itself that the Parliament of Great Britain merely enacted, put into a statute, the wish of the people of the provinces of Canada. It is of our making, and it is after an understanding between the bodies representing the provinces of Canada at that time.
There were many obstacles in the way of achieving confederation. Everybody who knows something of the history of Canada knows what some at least of those obstacles were. The country was on the verge of civil strife. During the two years which preceded the Quebec resolutions, not less than four cabinets succeeded each other at the head of the affairs of Canada. The provinces got together; they tried to effect an understanding and they effected one. In the language of Sir John A. Macdonald, the very pact of confederation bears on its face all the marks of a compromise. The provinces relinquished some of the powers which were theirs and they retained for themselves other powers. The powers which they relinquished they relinquished subject to conditions which were put into confederation, some of those conditions being more or less important, others essential, and without such conditions confederation would not have taken place. They tried to combine federal strength with local freedom of action. Everything that was private, domestic, home rule, the provinces kept to themselves, and they saw to it that their powers in that regard should never be interfered with. It is to be noted that in the British North America Act, they have the right to amend those provisions which concern their own constitution, except as regards the office of the Lieutenant-Governor. Not so in the case of any of the provisions concerning the federal parliament; and there were reasons for that. If confederation was a pact, an agreement, is it possible for one of the parties to the agreement, or rather for the body which resulted from the agreement, to amend, to alter the conditions of that pact without consulting and without securing the consent of the parties to the original agreement?


William Findlay Maclean: What is the rule in the United States?


Ernest Lapointe: The United States never had the same position as had the provinces at the time of confederation. As regards the United States as well as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, they all agreed at the time of the enactment of the statute creating their constitution that they would have the right to alter it. They possess that right because it was made one of the conditions of the statute constituting them a state. Not so with Canada, because there were special conditions and difficulties in the way. I ask my hon. friend this question. Confederation was achieved and the new parliament was opened in 1867. Does he believe that two years aftewards, in 1869, for in-
B. N. A. Act Amendment

stance, this parliament could have fairly and reasonably amended the British 5 p.m. North America Act or have asked the Imperial parliament to amend it without the consent of the lour original provinces? Could he fairly say that that could have been done two years after the opening of this parliament? If it could not be done at that time, could it be done twenty-five years afterwards, or even fifty years afterwards, without the consent of the contracting parties in the pact of confederation?
I want to convey to the House one or two points and I desire every one of my colleagues not to lose sight of this. First, the British North America Act itself is not only the charter of the Dominion of Canada; it is just as much the charter of the provinces of Canada. We derive our powers from the British North America Act; so do the provinces. They have no constitution other than the British North America Act; all their powers they derive from that act. Would it then be fair for us to arrogate to ourselves the right to change the act which is just as much the constitution of the provinces as it is our own? Second, my hon. friend speaks of protection to minorities. That is not the only thing in the British North America Act in which the provinces are interested. They have all their powers which they have kept to themselves and which have been agreed by everybody to be their powers. Have we a right to amend the constitution without their consent, in the way, for instance, of taking away from them some of the powers which have been theirs since confederation.


Mr. CRERAR:: This parliament would
have that power in respect of all provinces excepting the four that originally1 entered confederation.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not agree with my hon. friend in that regard. The other provinces came later into a joint confederation, but they have the same status, powers and rights as the original four provinces and they should be consulted just as much as any other province if any substantial change is asked as regards the British North America Act.
Third, within their sphere the provinces enjoy the powers of self-government just as much as the Dominion parliament does, and if so, surely the Dominion parliament cannot take upon itself the right to change a statute which gives to those provinces the powers which they enjoy.
Perhaps I could not do better than quote three of . the leading propositions given by Professor Lefroy in The Canadian Constitution. They are propositions Nos. 2, 51 and 59, reading as follows:
(Mr. Lapointe.]
2. Although the British North America Act was founded upon the Quebec resolutions, and so must be accepted as embodying a treaty of union between the provinces, yet when once enacted it constituted a wholly new point of departure, and established the dominion and provincial governments with definite powers and duties both alike derived from it as their source.
51. The object of the British North America Act was neither to weld the provinces into one nor to subordinate provincial governments to a central authority, but to create a federal government in which they should all be represented and entrusted with the exclusive administration of affairs in which they have a common interest, each province retaining its independence and autonomy.
59. The Dominion parliament cannot either expressly or impliedly take away from or give to the provincial legislatures the power which the Imperial act does or does not give their, and the same is the case, mutatis mutandis, with the provincial legislatures.
If, Mr. Speaker, you agree with me, and if you agree with Professor Lefroy in the proposition which I have just stated, surely the conclusion is that we cannot ask for power to alter, without the consent of the provinces, the constitution which is their own constitution as well as it is ours. It also follows that if it is to be considered as a treaty, surely we cannot alter its provisions without at least seeking the consent of the other parties to that treaty.
Now, has it been considered as a treaty? I heard it suggested some time ago that this idea at confederation of a treaty is an antiquated idea. Maybe it is. But, Mr. Speaker, truth does not cease to be truth when it gets old; an old truth is always true. You cannot prevent facts from being facts whether you like them or not. I have here the Debates of the Parliament of Canada on Confederation. What did Sir John Macdonald think about it?


Mr. McMASTER:: May I interpolate a question? When the several amendments which have been made to the British North America Act were obtained from the Imperial parliament were the provinces consulted? I seek information.


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to proceed and I will answer him later. Here is what Sir John Macdonald
said, page 15-*
In answer to the member for Carleton-
That is, when the Quebec resolutions were laid on the table.
-the government desired to say that they presented the scheme as a whole, and they would exert all the influence they could bring to bear in the way of argument to induce the House to adopt the scheme without alteration, and for the simple reason that the scheme was not one framed by the government of Canada or by the government of Nova Scotia, but was in the nature of a treaty settled between the

B. N. A. Act Amendment
different colonies, each clause of which had been fully discussed, and which had been agreed to by a system of mutual compromise.
In the speech he made a few days afterwards, when moving the adoption of confederation,-page 31-he said:
I trust the scheme will be assented to as a whole.
I am sure this House will not seek to alter it in its unimportant details; and, if altered in any important provisions, the result must be that the whole will be set aside, and we must begin de novo. If any important changes are made, everyone of the colonies will feel itself absolved from the implied obligation to deal with it as a treaty, each province will feel itself at liberty to amend it ad libitum so as to suit its own views and interests; in fact, the whole of our labours will have been for naught, and we will have to renew our negotiations with all the colonies for the purpose of establishing some new scheme.
Sir George Etienne Cartier, Hon. George Brown,	and	aM	the	other Fathers of
Confederation used similar language. May I be permitted to quote a few words from the speech .made on	that occasion by Hon.
D'Arcy McGee, the centenary of whose birth will be celebrated in a few months? He said, at page 136:
We assembled under authority of that dispatch, and acted under the sanction it gave. Everything we did was done in form and with propriety, and the result of our proceedings is the document that has been submitted to the Imperial government as well as to this House, and which we speak of here as a treaty. And that there may be no doubt about our position in regard to that document we say, question it you may, reject it you may, or accept it you may, but alter it you may not. It is beyond your power, or our power, to alter it. There is not a sentence-aye, or even a word-you can alter without desiring to throw out the document. Alter it, and we know at once what you mean-you thereby declare yourselves anti-unionists. On this point I repeat after all my hon. friends who have already spoken, for one party to alter a treaty, is of course, to destroy it. Let us be frank with each other; you who do not like our work, nor do you like us who stand by it; clause by clause, line by line, and letter by letter. Oh! But this clause ought to run thus, and this other clause thus. Does any hon. member seriously think that any treaty in the world between five separate provinces ever gave full and entire satisfaction on every point to every party? Does any hon. member seriously expect to have a constitutional act framed to his order or my order, or any man's order? No, Sir, I am sure no legislator at least since Anacharsis Clootz was " Attorney-General of the Human Race " ever expected such ideal perfection.
There was some Irish wit in the last words of Mr. McGee. Since confederation what have our own statesmen thought about this matter? In 1906-7 Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, and his remarks will be found at page 2199 of the Hansard of that session:
In parliament here we can do as we please; we are in the majority; but are the members of this House prepared to ;:ay that if a. y province finds itself aggrieved by the terms of confederation, which have been accepted by all the provinces, they will ask the British parliament to alter the constitution in the way desired by that particular province? Such a
course might be followed by very serious consequences. Confederation is a compact, made originally by four provinces, but adhered to by all the nine provinces who have entered it, and I submit to the judgment of this House and to the best consideration of its members, that this compact should not be lightly altered. It should be altered only for adequate cause, and after the provinces themselves have had an opportunity to pass judgment on the same.
Sir Robert Borden-then	leader of the
opposition-speaking	in the same debate,
used the following words:
I agree with what has been said by the right hon. gentleman regarding the undesirability of lightly amending the terms of our constitution and am inclined to agree with him on the necessity of some consultation with the provinces, although of course all the provinces are represented here. But inasmuch as this is a federal compact which we are asked to vary, it is only right that each province should be consulted and its decision given, in the right of its separate entity.
At that time there had been an interprovincial conference which considered the question of increasing the subsidies to the provinces, and after an agreement between those provinces an address was voted by both houses of this parliament for the purpose of amending the British North America Act to give to the provinces an increased subsidy. This address was submitted to the Imperial parliament. The Premier of British Columbia, the late Sir Richard McBride, went to London at the time-not that he was opposed to the amendment altering the provisions of the British North America Act and giving an increased subsidy to the provinces, but his objection was that British Columbia should have more than was given to her under the agreement and under the act which was submitted to the Imperial parliament at the request of the Dominion of Canada. I wish to quote from the remarks of the Secretary of State for the Colonies at the time, Mr. Winston Churchill, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, just to show that the interpretation given to the confederation pact by the public men of the Dominion was also the interpretation given to it by imperial public men. On submitting the bill for its first reading Mr. Churchill said:
On the other hand, he would be very sorry if it were thought that the action which His Majesty's government had decided to take meant that they had decided to establish as a precedent that whenever there was a difference on a constitutional question between the federal government and one of the provinces,
He was referring to the objection of British Columbia.
-the Imperial government would always be prepared to accept the federal point of view as against the provincial. In deference to the representations of British Columbia the words "final and unalterable" applying to the revised scale had been omitted from the bill.

B. N. A. Act Amendment
His language was still more explicit on the second reading of the bill. He said: I quote from page 753 of the British Hansard of 1907:
Tlie hon. baronet, the member for the city of
London, asked why the bill came here at all. The British North America Act is the fundamental act governing the constitution of the Dominion of Canada, and different prime ministers of Canada voluntarily entered into that union. Adherence to the union was something in the nature of a. treaty, and when an alteration in the basis of the treaty is made, as it is by the revised schedule of subventions proposed, it was felt desirable by all the prime ministers in conference that such a matter should be ratified by the Imperial parliament in the most formal way.
That was the interpretation that was accepted by every interested person in Canada, and I submit to my hon. friend the mover of the resolution that it is even to-day the interpretation that is given by the public men of Canada in the provinces.
Two or three years ago one of my predecessors in the Department of Justice, Right Hon. Mr. Doherty, had contemplated some legislation along this line, and he communicated with the various provinces. The correspondence is of a confidential character, but I may say that Mr. Doherty and all the attorneys general who answered his letter were o; the same opinion, that nothing of this kind could be done without the consent of the provinces. The present Attorney General of Ontario was not then in the provincial government, but I have his opinion in a letter he wrote me last year concerning proposed legislation of this parliament. This is what Mr. Nickle says:
I do not need to remind you that the British North
America Act was a product of representatives from all the provinces as such, and not as representatives to a Dominion parliament. The government of this province is of opinion that the Dominion parliament should not act in the matter of obtaining constitutional changes, without the sanction of the provinces to its proposals to the Imperial parliament.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Would the Minister of Justice mind telling us what the subject of the communication, was? To what change did the Attorney General of Ontario refer?


Ernest Lapointe: It was in regard to a resolution which I moved for the purpose of making it clearer that the legislation of the Dominion of Canada should have extraterritorial effect; and he suggested the insertion of two or three words, which were inserted with our consent when the measure was before the Senate. In regard to the question of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) I may say that every time an important amendment was made it was first submitted to the provinces. I do not think there are many cases in which an amendment has been asked to the British North 
America Act without communicating with the provinces. If it was done it was only in cases where there could be no possible objection on the part of the provinces.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that if the British North America Act is a covenant, is of the nature of a treaty the provisions of which were essential for the acceptance of the whole scheme, have we the right to ask to be enabled to alter it without the consent of those who were parties to the agreement?


William Findlay Maclean: How are we to make progress?


Ernest Lapointe: I will make a suggestion to my hon. friend, and it is the only possible one so far as I can see. If the British North America Act is the charter of the provinces as well as the charter of the Dominion, I ask again, how can we alter it without communicating with the provinces?


Mr. LADNER:: If the minister will permit me, will that not apply in the case of each proposed amendment? Does the minister consider it advisable to lay down general clauses which will enable the provinces and the Dominion to amend the constitution, or would it not always be a question of amending the act only after consultation with the provinces?


Ernest Lapointe: 
William Findlay Maclean: By the men of
to-day.


Ernest Lapointe: By the men of to-day,
yes. I am not one of those who are riveted to the past and who are prepared to deny to our children the liberty of the future, but those changes the necessity for which may be seen as a result of our experience of sixty years cannot be made unless you proceed in a legal and constitutional way; they cannot be made arbitrarily; they cannot be made only at the will and at the request of the Dominion parliament; but those who are just as much interested as the Dominion parliament in this matter must have their say, must be consulted, and must give their assent.
I have read a very interesting work by Sir Clifford Sifton on this very subject. Sir Clifford is a constitutional authority, and has given much thought to this matter. He believes in the fullest degree of autonomy for Canada, and his work and his lectures are very interesting and very weighty. He admits as does Mr. Kennedy of Toronto university, and all the constitutional writers, that the British North America Act is a pact and must be treated as such. Mr. Kennedy, who has
written a very important book on the constitution of Canada, and who, like my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) would like Canada to have the power to amend its constitution, admits that the British North America Act is a covenant and a pact, and he sees the difficulty in the way. Sir Clifford Sifton too, in his work, admits that the British North America Act is a pact and must be treated as such, and what does he suggest? He suggests a conference of delegates elected by the popular vote of Canada. Parliament would divide Canada into a certain number of districts which would elect delegates to that conference by way of proportional representation, and those delegates would revise or frame a constitution for Canada, which would be submitted to the people for approval.
The other plan he suggests is that a parliamentary committee should be formed to which would be called all the men who are constitutional lawyers in Canada, and all those who are interested in this matter, to give their views. That committee would revise the constitution, but its findings would be subject to a vote of the people of Canada.
There is much to be said perhaps in favour of both these schemes, but they are defective in one main, principal point. Neither of these bodies suggested by Sir Clifford Sifton would represent all the parties to the pact of confederation. The body or conference or gathering which might be entrusted with the work of revising our constitution must be a body in which the provinces, as such, and not otherwise, shall be represented, as well as this Dominion parliament. That is the point upon which I differ with Sir Clifford Sifton.


William Findlay Maclean: May I ask a
question? The minister admits now that a new party to the constitution has been created other than the original provinces, and that party is the Dominion of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: It is the child of the
provinces: it is not their father.
It is stated in the Speech from the Throne, as has been mentioned this afternoon that a conference will be called of all the provinces of Canada with this Dominion parliament with regard to the constitution of the Senate. There is the body to which this resolution of my hon. friend might be fairly submitted. It is to such a conference, and to no other body, that my hon. friend should appeal for the purpose of amending the constitution of Canada.


William Findlay Maclean: Why not do it?


Ernest Lapointe: We will do it if my
hon. friend will merely give us time. If the
B. N. A. Act Amendment

session closes in a very short time, as I hope, perhaps my hon. friend will have the conference before it is too late. But I make now an appeal to all the men in Canada who are interested, and all Canadians should be interested in their own constitution, to study our British North America Act, to consider the question in all its particulars, to bring their minds together and to discuss fairly, without prejudice of any kind, 'the advisability of suggesting any amendments to the British North America Act when this conference is gathered. I appeal to all those who will have to speak in any authoritative way on this question not to put difficulties in the way by untimely and immature statements in regard to this conference which will take place. It ought to be a momentous gathering. Everybody should go there with a free, open mind, and convinced that they should listen to all the arguments which will be put before them and try if possible to come to an agreement and meet the wishes of the majority of the people of Canada. I think this is the only way, the only legal and constitutional way. It is the only way which will keep and maintain our national unity, and surely Canadians are able to come to some compromise in 1925 as they were in 1865.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister permit a question? Is it the intention of the government to submit some scheme to the approaching conference looking to gaining for Canada the power to amend its constitution?


Ernest Lapointe: Well, I think the resolution of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) is one of the subjects which might fairly come before that conference. If I remember well the language of the Speech from the . Throne, it is that a conference shall be called together for the purpose of considering amendments to the British North America Act with respect to the constitution of the Senate and other matters. Surely this would be one of the matters which the government would submit to such a conference. Under the circumstances and in view of the definition I have made of my own views, of my own position in the matter, I feel that I could not support, the resolution of my hon. friend at the present stage. The hon. gentleman has served his purpose, he has brought the matter before the people of the country, and I do not think he should press the resolution to a vote.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, last year, in connection with a motion which I had introduced, I took the opportunity to discuss this question at some length. It is not my purpose to cover
'Mr. Lapointe.]
the same ground to-day. I should like to point out, however, that on that occasion I took the ground that we should avoid a great man}' of these legal and constitutional difficulties by simply asserting the right of Canada to amend her own constitution. There is not the slightest doubt that Canada started with a colonial status as the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) has pointed out, but there is the larger question whether we intend to retain that status in any degree very much longer. I would ask why it should be necessary that we should make an appeal to the Privy Council in regard to constitutional questions when appeal has for all practical purposes ceased with regard to what should be regarded as perhaps equally important- criminal cases.
We have heard a good deal of the rights of minorities as guaranteed in this act, and there has been special reference to the province of Quebec and the Maritime provinces. I should like to ask, what about the rights of minorities that are not specifically guaranteed in this act? In the last sixty years we have had the growth of new sections and new classes in this community. We have had within the last thirty or forty years the development of the great Canadian west; and some of us who are from the west, representing peoples of the west who were not living in the country at that time, representing constituencies in provinces which were not originally in confederation, feel that our development ought not to be forever tied because of certain legislation which was drawn up fifty or sixty years ago. We want to ask: What about the rights of minorities other than those that were specifically mentioned in the British North America Act?
There has been a great deal of stress laid upon the sacredness of contract.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear; very much.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, very much.
We know it is very dangerous to suggest anything else in the presence of such a large number of the legal fraternity. However, I should like as a layman, to urge the right of the present generation to live, which is, I think, of infinitely greater importance.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Past generations gave
them that right.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Past generations
undoubtedly, as the hon. member for Brome has said gave us the right to live. I would also submit that we go on living after past generations have ceased to exist. Perhaps that is a merciful dispensation on the part of Providence, as we would never go very

B. N. A. Act Amendment
far if we were confined by the limitations of past generations. I would urge that there should be at least periodic interpretations of the terms of any contract. Contracts may be interpreted in a very literal and very narrow way, or they may be interpreted in a broad and generous manner in accordance with the underlying principles. I would urge that we retain the general principles of our contracts, but that we should not be forever tied by an adherence to the letter of the law:
The letter killeth but the spir't giveth life
Who then is best fitted to interpret, in the light of modern conditions, these laws of fifty or sixty years ago? Not, I submit, the men who live across the Atlantic, but the men who are living here in Canada and dealing with the everyday affairs of our Canadian people.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), in his speech, referred to some words that I used the other day in another connection, "Where there is a will there is a way". He seems to think that these words, which most of us learned in our school days and were then considered to be quite orthodox, carried some very sinister meaning; they remind him of the Germans. For the life of me I do not know just where the connection is, but I should like to say that he did not repeat other words which I used in connection therewith :
Where there is a will there is a way, and where there is no will there is no way.
I was at that time emphasizing the fact that very often we allowed legal and technical difficulties to interfere with the carrying on of our work and the meeting of real difficulties, and I submit that the Minister of Justice throughout his speech gave no light as to how we are to solve the very real and pressing problems that confront us because of the difficulties inherent in this British North America Act.
The minister referred to the fact that there were obstacles in the way of achieving confederation. We quite acknowledge that, but I should like to urge that there are obstacles to-day in the way of maintaining confederation, and we should try, to our utmost, to remove those obstacles and lessen as far as we may the causes of friction.
I was very sorry the other day when a member of this House introduced the question as to whether or not an hon. gentleman who was not bom in Canada had any right to consider some of the fundamental problems of the Dominion. I feel quite free to speak upon this incident because I happen to be Canadian
born and of several generations of Canadians, and as such, a Canadian of the Canadians, I want to protest against any narrowness of that kind. Our grandfathers, or our greatgrandfathers, came to this Canada of ours, but there are other men who are being induced to come here from other parts of the world and I submit that if we take them into our citizenship, we should accord them just the same right to speak on questions concerning the welfare of Canada as we native-born ourselves possess, and I would say-


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend
suggest that I ever said anything to the contrary.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Oh, no. I am not suggesting anything of the kind. The Minister of Justice is not responsible for the statement in question; it emanated from the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion). I would urge that the only way we can maintain confederation is to insist absolutely upon justice for all, for the newcomer as well as for the old timer, for the westerner as well as for the easterner, for those parts of the country which entered confederation more recently as well as for those that entered it when the British North America Act was passed. I believe in federation, I believe in still wider federation-I believe we all hope for an ultimate world federation-but these things can be accomplished only as we maintain a very large measure of home rule-and we ought to have home rule here in Canada. In order to obviate the difficulties that seem to face the Minister of Justice and several other members with regard to this resolution I beg leave to move the following amendment seconded by Mr. Shaw:
That the resolution be amended as follows: by adding the following words after thr word "Dominion" in the first line of clause 2 thereof, to wit:
Upon first obtaining the consent of all the provinces of Canada.
I think this will meet the objection raised by the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin). If that amendment were adopted we would not have any action whatever until all the provinces had consented thereto. Moreover, in accordance with the original motion, there is the further safeguard that there would be no power to pass any amendment affecting the rights guaranteed in the said act to minorities. Surely such a resolution, if it is not harmless-that is the only possible trouble with it-would absolutely safeguard the fundamental principles laid down in the British North America Act.
B. N. A. Act Amendment


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid that I
could not accede to that amendment. The resolution amended in that way would be a great improvement on the resolution moved by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), but there is this objection: I think it might be possible to get the assent of the provinces to such a change being made in the British North America Act with the amendment suggested by my hon. friend: that this parliament be enabled to amend the constitution after having secured the assent of all the provinces to the amendment made by parliament, but I say even to get this amendment before the Imperial parliament you must have the consent of the provinces. That is my objection to the proposal, even as amended by my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). It becomes a much fairer proposal, but the provinces have a right to be consulted before this is asked from the British parliament; and I submit even with this amendment the Parliament of Canada has not the constitutional right to pass an address to the Imperial parliament to amend the Act of Confederation without first submitting the proposal to the provinces.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I had not intended to speak on this debate, but there are one or two things that have not been said which I think perhaps ought to be said. I agree very largely with what my hon. friend the Minister of Justice has said. I think he has made it perfectly clear what the real situation is, in so far as parliament is concerned, in so far as the provinces are concerned, and in so far as provincial rights are concerned, apart altogether from any question of minority rights. There is a good deal more reserved in the British North America Act than the mere question of minorities; and with what my hon. friend has said in that regard I absolutely agree. But I would like to get a little more clearly defined what all the trouble is. What are we talking about? What grievances do we want wiped out? How far do we advance ourselves to clarify the issue by adopting this or any other resolution? Let us go a little bit further. Where is the real trouble in connection with any act of autonomy in Canada? It is in Canada and in Canada solely.	None of the different powers
of government to-day is retained by the Mother Country. We have them all here, either provincial or Dominion. What function does the mother parliament to-day serve? She really only performs the function of recording the conclusions that Canadian authorities, provincial and Dominion, agree
f Mr. Woodsworth.]
upon. Is there anything very much wrong with that? Is there really anything in that of great importance at a time when, as the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) says, we are chiefly concerned as to how people are going to live to-day? Is there anything in it of sufficient importance to warrant taking up very much time? How does this matter come up at any rate? There is no dispute certainly as between England and Canada, but a dispute having regard to the maintenance of provincial institutions in Ontario. That is what the dispute is about and nothing else. Does anyone here think it is worth while for a minute referring to the provinces the question of the settlement of that jurisdiction? It is settled. It always was settled. I have heard something said in the House to-day about the Privy Council. Well the Privy Council did not rnaike that law. We all understood the law. I am speaking now as a matter of recollection, but I think it was in connection with the trouble at Edmonton concerning a municipal activity, when we were about to do the same thing as was done in Toronto, and our own Department of Justice advised the government that the step ought not to be taken, that it would raise at once an issue under which the Dominion would be putting its hand directly on a municipal institution, and when you put your hand upon a municipal institution you are affecting something which is entirely read out of the jurisdiction of parliament in so many words. In connection with a municipal institution which is carried on for the purpose of getting cheap utilities and cheap light and power, it is idle to say that it has to do with the matter of Trade and Commerce, when the very act dealing with the matter, the British North America Act, says that municipal institutions are absolutely and entirely reserved to the province. It is not new law at all. It is the law as given to the preceding government by its own legal department. Just so long as we kept out of the field where our own federal officers told us we could not go we had a very useful act. Just as soon as we put our hands where we were told we had no right to go, we are told, and properly told, in effect that our own legal advisers were correct.
The thing now for us to do is to talk this over with the provincial parliaments, not talking about getting through any general resolution which will take us really nowhere, because no general resolution-and everybody knows that is perfectly correct-will ever be consented to by the provinces. Why should they consent? Why should they consent to

Questions
an abridgement of their rights by one single jot or tittle, until they know what they are dealing with? If we have concrete principles to submit to the provinces, there is some sense in submitting them; but we will never have any hope of getting through a general amendment to the British North America Act which will tell us that the sovereign power over these provinces is in this Dominion.
What is really the trouble? In Canada at present we are wasting a great deal of time just talking about constitutional questions, theoretical questions. Why are we doing so? Is there anything after all, about our connection with the Old Motherland that we are ashamed of or want to change? Whom are we trying to please? It is often said that these things do not hurt or do not matter. They do not at home. We know Derfectly well that some of us like to take a certain amount of intellectual exercise, just showing how wise we are about this problem and that problem, no matter what it is or what claim is put forward on behalf of Canada, looking to enlarged powers as against the Mother Country, and we know that the great bulk of the Canadian people are only too well satisfied to let things rest just as they are; that they desire to maintain the British connection, and that they are .proud of their connection with the British Empire. If they are not and if we are not doing this merely as a form of intellectual exercise, what is the teal trouble? What real grievance have we as regards our position in the British Empire as it stands to-day? Are we not free enough? Why, as the minister himself says, any request that comes from Canada to the British House will be respected by the British House. She is not tying nor holding us. We are free to do what we want. What do we want to do? What really do my hon. friends desire to do? I wonder if the Minister of Justice, dn connection with those other matters that are to be discussed, has also before him the question of the limitation of the right of a Canadian to appeal to the Privy Council.


Ernest Lapointe: That question has not
been considered.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON. I am glad to hear him say so. He has, however, an omnibus clause under which many things might be proposed, but I am glad he says that this matter has not been considered. While at home we all know that these things mean really nothing, on the other hand the stranger outside the gate does not know that, and many a thing is being said in Canada that is 20
being looked upon as perhaps the first sign of the disintegration of the British Empire.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, February 19, 1925

Annual report of the Ottawa Improvement Commission for the year ended March 31, 1924.-Hon. Mr. Robb.



PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved:
That Messrs. Anderson, Bancroft, Gordon, Putnam, Papineau, Rimfret, Vien, Wallace and Wilson be appointed to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant as far as the interests of the Commons are concerned and to act as members of a joint committee of both Houses on the restaurant; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
He said: The object of the bill is to make a few necessary changes in the act that went through on the last day of last session. I suggested these amendments at that time to the minister in charge of the biil, but he said he preferred to have the amendment this year rather than deal with it at the end of the session without consulting the officers of his department. He thought that if the amendments were (pressed at that stage the whole bill would have to go over until this year.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. MacLAREN:: What amount of freight, originating in Canada, passed over the Canadian National Railway to Portland, Maine, for transportation overseas, during the years 1923 and 1924?



Peace River Railway Outlet


George Perry Graham: Package freight	1 ons
1923		 105,623
1924		 84,774
Cattle	Head
1923		 9,820
1924		 6,921
Grain	Bushels
1923		 19,048,819
1924		 7,480,183


TAX EXEMPT BONDS
Mr. WALLACE:: What is the total amount of Dominion of Canada bonds outstanding free from income tax?


James Alexander Robb: 


$982,386,900. CATARACT POWER COMPANY
Mr. CHAPLIN:: 1.	Has the government a contract to supply water for power purposes with the Cataract Power Company?
2.	If so (a) when was the contract made? (b) when does it terminate ?
3.	What is the price charged for water?
4.	Is more water being used than the contract calls for?
5.	What amount of water in excess of contract wa3 used during the last previous year of the contract?
6.	What amount of money was collected for such excess water?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) December 31, 1902;	(b) December
31, 1965
3.	$30,000 per annum to December 31, 1923. Subsequent price under adjustment.
4.	Yes.
5.	Determination of this not yet completed.
6.	Nothing yet collected.


IMMIGRATION
Thomas Langton Church: What immigration came into Canada during the years 1922, 1923, 1924; (a) from the United States; (b) from the British Isles; (c) from the continent of Europe?


James Alexander Robb: Calendar year	Immigration from
U.S. Brit. Isles Europe
1922	
23,733	31,005	12,5521923	
20,307	70,110	39,2881924	
16,328	57,612	47.029


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. KELLNER:: 1.	What has been the total cost of acquiring land, and of construction, at the Buffalo park at Wain-wright, Alberta?
IMr. MacLarenJ
2.	What is the total cost to date of the Jasper park?
3.	What is the total cost to date of the Buffalo park near Fort Smith?
4.	What has been the cost of administration in each of the above parks?
5.	What has been the revenue derived from each of the above parks?
6.	What was the cost of the government buildings, fencing, etc., at Fort Smith?
7.	What is the amount of the contract entered into, for the moving of buffalo from Wainwright to the north park?


PEACE RIVER RAILWAY OUTLET
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton):: I would like to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) if he has yet received the joint report of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways regarding a direct railway outlet from Peace river to the Pacific coast? If not, what progress has been made in the preparation of the report and how soon will it be completed and in his hands?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railway and Canals): The reference to the heads of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways was not to find an outlet to the Pacific coast through the Peace river district; it was, if possible, to have some understanding arrived at between the two railways as to a joint development or otherwise of that district. A conference was held a few weeks ago in the Railway department the result of which, after hearing the various discussions, was that the heads of the two railways were asked if they could not come to some decision and make a recommendation to the government as to what they thought should be done, without duplication of railway lines. Their suggestions have not yet been received, and I am not in a position to say just how far the negotiations have proceeded, but I wrote the heads of both railways some days ago asking them to expedite a decision on the reference that had been made to them.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister say in
this connection whether the heads of the railways are asked to advise as to the best method of outlet assuming that some method must now be found, or are they asked to advise as to whether any method should be found?


George Perry Graham: I would rather think, from the discussions, that took place, that they both had in their minds that some outlet should be found for the Peace river district, either immediately or in the near future; but

B.NA. Act Amendment
the question referred to them was merely a conversation with the gentlemen who were present, and I believe they will give us their full views on the whole situation.


William Findlay Maclean: But more or
less on the idea of co-operation between the two companies?


George Perry Graham: I might say, yes, I think.


ALLEGED FRUIT COMBINE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Leon Johnson Ladner: Has the government received, and if so will it file, a report by Lewis Duncan, a commissioner under the Combines Act, who investigated charges affecting certain companies alleged to be in a fruit combine in western Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Labour
(Mr. Murdock) is not in the House at present, but I shall direct his attention to the question of my hon. friend, and have an answer given to him at a subsequent sitting.


ALTERNATIVE VOTE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: I should like
to know from the Prime Minister if he can tell the House when the government propose to re-introduce the alternative vote bill that had a first reading last session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I shall have to
say to my hon. friend that I am not able to give him an answer at the moment, but if he will "wait and see," I have no doubt it will not be long before he will find out.


GRAIN INQUIRY COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. 0. R. GOULD (Assiniboia):	I desire
to ask if the government will lay upon the table of the House the evidence submitted to the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission.
James Alexander Robb: I will direct the attention of the
Minister of Trade and Commerce to my hon. friend's question. Speaking for the Department of Finance, I should like to say-and I hope my hon. friend will agree with me- that as the commission was in session for over a year, if we were to print for distribution all the evidence taken, it would involve a very large expenditure, and I imagine that few people would read it.
20i	:


Mr. GOULD:: It was not my intention to ask for the printing of the evidence, but that the evidence be laid on the table so that it would be available to hon. members. Speaking for myself I would like to have an opportunity of looking over some of the evidence given.


James Alexander Robb: I will direct the attention of
the Minister of Trade and Commerce to my hon. friend's request.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from February 18, consideration of the proposed resolution of Mr. Maclean (York), and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Woodsworth.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, at the time the House rose yesterday I think we were all pretty well agreed at least upon one thing, and that is that it had been well demonstrated by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that no good purpose could be served by passing the resolution, but that on the other hand mischief might well result from it. I am disposed, however, to think that a good deal of good perhaps will come of the discussion which this resolution has forced upon the House.
The first thing that seems to be quite clearly established from what the hon. Minister of Justice has told us is that all our constitutional difficulties are of our own making. That is the first proposition which I think is absolutely and amply established.
The second proposition is that all such difficulties arise owing to the infringement of rights, either provincial or dominion. I take it that there can be no dispute whatever with that proposition.
There is a third proposition, which I hope will find just as immediate acceptance in the minds of all hon. gentlemen, and which I believe requires no demonstration; and that is that Canada to-day is content, and well content, to remain as Canada is, a part, and I hope a part of constantly increasing influence for good, but still a part, of the greatest political entity the world has yet seen, and I think will ever see-the British Empire. I hope again there is absolutely no room for doubt on that.
If we get these three propositions firmly in our minds, if they are really understood by our people, this will have been a very useful discussion.
Now, as to the first proposition. It seems to me that very little need be said in connection with that, namely that all our con-
B.N.A. Act Amendment

stitutional difficulties are difficulties of our own making. I do not think there was any member in the House who was not convinced and carried by the speech of the hon. Minister of Justice in that regard. It was clear, and he had a wealth of authority for every proposition that he advanced, indeed the fact is well known by everybody, or ought to be, that bur constitution, complain about it as we rtiay, is of our own making.
The second proposition I think is equally clear, and that is that the constitutional troubles which we have arise over questions which are founded upon infringement of provincial rights on the one hand or of Dominion rights on the other. Can there be any dispute about that? It is such an important thing, particularly at this present time that we should all thoroughly understand that our constitutional difficulties are difficulties each with the other-not only difficulties of our own making, but difficulties each with the other, and they never should be looked upon or made use of for one minute by anybody as a reason for creating discontent with Canada's status within the British Empire. Now is there any doubt about it? Every constitutional difficulty which we have is a difficulty which is founded either upon an infringement of provincial rights by the Dominion or upon an infringement of Dominion rights by the provinces. The whole history of decided cases shows that. What claim does Great Britain or the empire make to-day upon anything Canadian? What objection does either make to any Canadian activity? We all know there is absolutely none.
What are the two questions which have given rise to this issue to-day, which has taken, I think, a most mistaken form? The more immediate one is what has happened to the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. But what did we learn there? We learned nothing new but something we had always known, and that is that municipal institutions belong to the provinces and not to the Dominion. Is there any hon. gentleman in this House who would like to take the responsibility of declaring negatively on that principle? Is there any issue about it, is there anything to confer about in so far as municipal institutions are concerned? So far at any rate no public man in Canada has been bold enough to make that claim. Municipal institutions are the creations and the work of the provincial legislatures, which are all-powerful in that respect, and the act carrying out the agreement between those legislatures and the Dominion says so. Again I ask the question,

does any hon. gentleman want to debate the right of this parliament to interfere with local autonomy?-to interfere with the city of Toronto's waterworks, or the city of Toronto's electric light system, or the city of Toronto's police force, and the like? Nobody does, and if he did he would have no regard for his own reputation. It is inconceivable.
What is the other question? We learn that, under the agreement of confederation, property and civil rights are matters which are left to the provinces. Well, I wonder how many people think that the Dominion knows better than the provinces what ought to be done with property and civil rights. I wonder how many provinces would feel like handing over the control of their property and civil rights to the Dominion, or, conversely, how many people in the Dominion think the federal authority ought to try to wrest those rights from the provinces? The whole truth of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that Canada's difficulties are not constitutional, they are functional. It is not so much the structure, it is what we are doing with the structure, that is making trouble to-day in Canada-nothing else. Suppose we were to be asked to correct the troubles of Canada, how would we go about it? How would we characterize it? I think we would say, in the first place, lack of employment. I think we would say, in the second instance, the loss that comes from lessened employment, the diminished pay rolls and purchasing power. I think we would say, in the third instance, lack of population. I think we would say, in the fourth instance, the exodus to the United States. And I think we would say finally, burdensome taxation. Mr. Speaker, in the name of common sense what constitutional difficulties arise by reason of these troubles?-which I think will be generally admitted to be the chief troubles in the country. What constitutional difficulties confront us in connection with their consideration? None, absolutely none. All that is necessaiy to do is to put the question in order to elicit that response. That is not the trouble. We have got any amount of constitutional power to deal with all these questions, with all the questions which are due to our troubles to-day. No, it is not a question of law, it is not a constitutional question, it is a functional disease which afflicts this country very badly at the present time. In other words our constitution enables us to function, and if we are not functioning it is our own fault and not the fault of the constitution.
Now, suppose we go to the third point- I have no desire to speak at undue length- and that is that the general feeling in Can-

B.N.A. Act Amendment
ada to-day is one of perfect willingness to still continue to form an important-and as I said before an ever increasingly important- part of the British Empire, There ought to be no room for doubt as to that. I admit that we have a lot of dialecticians who go up and down the country cleverly arguing that black is white, and never content until they have proved it to their own satisfaction. I admit that, but I am also equally positive in affirming that the Canadian people want no such changes, they want to carry on business as they are carrying on business now, they want a fair chance of considering on their merits the real troubles, functional as they are, of this country, without constitutional and other difficulties being constantly drawn over the track. We know that the heart of Canad'a beats as strongly and as truly as it did in 1914. But there is the stranger that is without the gates, there is the man who does not know, there is the man who holds every ill-considered word, every effort to get something for nothing, as an evidence of the dismemberment of the British Empire. All you have got to do to see that is simply to read' the papers. I have heard some gentlemen say-not in this House I gladly admit- that it ill became the Canadian people to form part of a warlike empire like the British Empire. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine greater nonsense? I wish some of the gentlemen who talk that way would take the trouble to go over to the good old Mother Country, bleeding herself white, as she is, in order to honestly and fairly discharge her obligations to society-to society, yes, ana' to her own people,-to discharge her obligations to her own people as well as her international obligations. I should like them to go over there and consider exactly the plight the grand old country is in. Why, if there is a country in the world that is interested in peace, that is interested in commerce, it is Great Britain, Every man knows it. What is the reason of her position to-day? What is the reason there are 1,200,000 unemployed' men walking the streets of Britain supported by her ratepayers and a burden on her diminished commerce? Every thoughtful mind knows it. We know very well that we could have issues on fiscal policy, but over and above fiscal policy, there is the fact that of all the nations in the world the Mother Country is the great trading countiy, she traa'es in every quarter of the globe, and her markets as a result of the war are such that, workshop of the world as she has been called, she can scarcely function any longer with efficiency. I happened to be in England this year, and one thing that a man, no matter
how suspicious his mind might be, could not find there was anybody who wanted war, or further expeditions, or further incursions, or further risks.
No, no. The whole truth is simply this: that by taking our share and our part, I hope some day we will be able to so run things in this country, so adjust our financial affairs that we shall be in a position to play a worthy part; but I think the best thing for Canada to-day, not only for herself but for a world sadly rent by war, is to stay just where she is within the boundaries of the one great vehicle through which peace to-day can be ensured, the British Empire.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does the hon. gentleman
seriously argue that if we were given the right to amend our own constitution, which Australia and South Africa have, it would in any way weaken the ties of the empire about which he is talking so loudly?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are talking
frankly, and I am going to talk frankly to my hon. friend, and I tell him that he can find in the newspapers to-day, even in some newspapers in his own province, as we have heard from one gentleman sitting to my left, the affirmation that there was talk of secession, talk of sliding out of the empire.


An hon. MEMBER:: Secession.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Make it any
session you like; they are all evil sessions. I wonder if my hon. friend for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) thinks that would be a good thing.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: That is not the point. There is another joke.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
the hon. member-[DOT]


Henry Lumley Drayton: One at a time. What was the joke?-secession from Canada or from the empire?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I did not refer to that.
There was a joke about carrying this over to the next "session."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can the hon. gentleman tell the House what the exact reference to secession was? Was it secession from the empire he was referring to?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would refer
to both. I think both would be most mischievous. And I desire to tell my hon. friend another thing: there is no worse service than can be done not only to the world, not only to the British Empire or to Canada, than talk which of itself may be absolutely harm-
B.NA. Act Amendment

less, but which in the eyes of the outsider may be looked upon, and unfortunately has been looked upon, as evidence of a desire on the part of this country to sever at any rate some of the relations with the empire.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the fault I find with my hon. friend's speech at the present time. I do not think there is any such thing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon.
friend I am afraid does not want to get the point. I agree that there is none. I have been saying that there is none, but I do say that anything and everything which goes in the slightest degree to throw any question upon what I believe to be the absolute fundamental truth is bad all round, bad for both of our mother countries, and this country in particular. If England needs peace, France certainly needs peace; and to-day if there is one thing which is a nightmare in France it is the thought of the return of the Germans, and if there is one thing that gives a fair chance, a fair hope, of a solution of the whole difficulty, it is the co-operation of France and Great Britain. And if we do everything we can to assure the outside world that we are with those great countries to the fullest extent, that we, as part and parcel of the British Empire desire to see that everything is done w'hich would bring pacification so earnestly desired by both of those great countries, then we are playing the best part we can play. And in playing that part any suggestion that there is any desire to in any 'way weaken our ties with the Mother Country, with the empire, works harm to the general good, to Canada, to France, to Great Britain and the empire itself.
Let us recapitulate. Let us understand that none of these troubles are troubles which should be held against either the Mother Country on the one hand or the British Empire itself: that all our constitution difficulties, our difficulties of the moment, are difficulties of our own making; that all the troubles that give rise to these difficulties are the infringement of rights, either provincial or Dominion; and that Canada absolutely and fully is mistress within her own house.


William Charles Good: I may be tilting at a few more windmills, but I hope not to take so long at it as my hon. friend who has just spoken. I should like to suggest to the House that we should seriously consider the dangers of a too rigid constitution. I am not disposed to deny what I think is most generally accepted, that our difficulties are of our own making; but it does not make them
[Sir Henry Drayton.1
less difficulties, it does not make them less real; and I do sincerely hope we may avoid any possibility of friction and danger arising out of a too rigid constitution by taking the suggestion which was made yesterday by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and submitting this whole question to this conference which is to be called, in order that they may fully and frankly discuss it. I am satisfied that whatever may be the views of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) there is a feeling in Canada fairly widely prevalent that the situation at the present time is not satisfactory, that some modification ought to be made, and I am only going to throw out this suggestion. If, for instance, the reformation, the modification, or the abolition, of the Senate is under consideration in this country, and our constitution binds us so that one province can absolutely tie up the whole matter and prevent action for all time to come, we are face to face with a very serious practical difficulty and will have to meet it. The confederation pact or constitution may be a treaty. We shall have to observe our obligations. But it occurs to me that treaties need modification from time to time as conditions change. I have in my mind a little matter that some year or two ago gave considerable trouble to the government, namely the dispute arising between the Six Nations Indians in my own constituency and the Dominion as to the jurisdiction of Canada in that reserve. The Indians claimed that they were a separate nation, guaranteed all solemn rights by the Haldimand treaty. Although that might be so, a literal application of that contention would reduce us to such absurdities of practice that nobody in his senses would refuse to admit the need of modification. I do plead with the House with the member for St Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin) who spoke so well yesterday on this question, that we ought to face the situation from the present point of view, and perhaps there is no better way than that suggested by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I do trust, that the matter will not be overlooked and that the conference may not sit and ignore this really important feature.


Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):: In
speaking of the confederation pact, I think that we must approach it with great caution. I fully agree with the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that a pact which was entered into at a conference where all the component parts of what was then Canada were represented1 should not be lightly dealt with or amended, without a conference where

B.N.A. Act Amendment
the opinions of the representatives of all those provinces which now form part of the Dominion could be collected and fully considered. I do not believe that even the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) would guarantee that element of safety which all the provinces of Canada desire and need, namely that the constitution shall not be corrected or amended detrimentally to any of its component parts. The hon member for South York (Mr. Maclean) has suggested that this parliament should be empowered to amend our constitution. I do not believe that it was ever the intention of the Fathers of Confederation to give to this parliament power to change the basis of confederation, and it would be a radical amendment to give to this parliament such power. I do not believe, either, that this parliament, after obtaining powers from the various provinces, should be able to suggest an amendment to confederation. On the contrary, I would suggest that if any amendments are to be proposed, the best way is that suggested ;d the Speech from the Throne, by convening a conference from all sections of Canada and letting all those who will be convened there fully discuss the proposed amendments, consider the pros and cons, and come to a concrete and definite proposition.
It is very curious to read in the newspapers, as is suggested by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), that there is a state of unrest in Canada and that to remedy it we should amend the constitution.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not say
that.


Thomas Vien: I understood him to say that
he read in the newspapers talk of secession, *talk of many causes of unrest, and that the proposal of the hon. member for South York was simply a step to put into effect some proposed1 remedies to the grievances which, he said, are complained of in the newspapers. I do not believe that there is such unrest in Canada at present in respect of our constitutional conditions. True, the Senate has been sometimes attacked; true, it might be useful to amend it. As a democrat, I should like to see the upper house fully representative of public opinion in Canada. I do not believe in a Senate where the members are appointed for life, and some of them have certainly outlived, much longer than could be fairly anticipated, the period of the services that they were called upon to render. I believe that the Senate should be elective-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Thomas Vien: I hear some aspirants who
do not wish their chances to be impaired. But outside of those who have any aspirations, I believe every true democrat in Canada would like to see the upper house truly representative of public opinion in this country, and to obtain that end, we should make it elective. It is, perhaps, advisable that the period of tenure of office be not the same as that of members of the House of Commons. This is the case in many other countries, and we can take, with advantage, a lesson from the constitutions of some other countries. Consider, for instance, the constitution of France, where the Senate is elected for a period of nine years, renewable by thirds every three years. That will furnish the safety-valve, the degree of guarantee that at a given moment parliament will not be stampeded by a current of opinion. Apart from that, however, I do not believe that the laws of a democratic country should be passed by one of the Houses of Parliament which is not responsible to the people of Canada; but the best way to obtain that amendment is, as I say, that suggested in the Speech from the Throne, by convening a conference of all those who were a party to the pact of confederation and getting their opinions, so that the objections, if any, might be heard.
I, for one, would like to see some changes in our constitution. Some years ago, after the Treaty of Versailles, I heard in this House some hon. gentlemen then sitting on the treasury benches, for instance, Right Hon. Mr. Doherty and other members of the former administration, contending that Canada was a nation; that a dazzling light had been shed on this country showing her forth to the nations of the world a nation equal to all the others. These were fine words, and if they were not absolutely true, they expressed, I think, the ardent desire of all true Canadians who are proud to come out of the period of infancy, who want to become of age and to exercise all the powers that rest with a man and citizen. But these words, that Canada is a nation, do not mean, nor do I believe that any important section of public opinion in Canada holds them to mean, secession from the British Empire. So that when we hear the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) saying that there are important sections of the Canadian people who sincerely desire secession from the British Empire, I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken.


Arthur Meighen: I am sure the hon. member who is speaking is mistaken. The hon. member for West York made or suggested no such thing.
B.N.A. Act Amendment


Thomas Vien: What did he suggest?


Arthur Meighen: I do not propose to repeat his speech, but I should say he made it clear on several occasions that he only deprecated language which suggested that such a feeling existed'.


Thomas Vien: That is what I am referring to. The hon. member for West York deprecated the fact that many newspapers and many public speakers showed a tendency towards secession from the empire.


Arthur Meighen: He did not say that.


Thomas Vien: That is what I understood.


Mr. HOCKEN:: You are mixed up.


Thomas Vien: I understood him to say so. At any rate, I am glad if the hon. member believes as I do, that no important section of public opinion in Canada desires to see anything of this kind. We all do really desire to maintain the connection with the British Empire. But if we are a nation, if, to use the words of a former Minister of Justice, a dazzling light has been shed on this country showing her forth as a nation equal to all others among the nations of the world, then it seems to me that some amendments to our constitution should be brought about so that the facts may be made to agree with the assertions. What other nation under the sun is there, independent, equal to all others, which has to send in last resort its appeal to the tribunal of any other country? Which one, among all the other independent nations of the world, is obliged to pass through the machinery of some ambassador of a different country in order to be accredited to foreign powers? Which among the independent nations of the world is obliged to receive as its chief magistrate a man appointed at the suggestion of an authority which is not within the country itself? I say, therefore, that if we are really a nation, as I hope we shall become, and always within the British Commonwealth, I should like to see the Governor General of Canada appointed, not on the advice of the British ministry but on the advice of the Canadian ministers to His Majesty the King.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is the hon. gentleman's argument not tantamount to the fact that we are not a nation? And does it not go further and assert that when we do become a nation, in the way he asks that we should achieve that status, this will amount to an absolute declaration of independence and of secession?


Thomas Vien: Not at all.


Lewis Herbert Martell: There is no other way out of it.


Thomas Vien: Not at all. I say, however, that we are not a nation equal in all respects to some of the independent nations of the world. Even the little principality of Monaco has a greater independence than the Dominion of Canada. In 1920 I was in Paris and met a very distinguished Can-
4 p.m. adian statesman. He wished to have an interview with the President of the French republic and for this purpose he went to the office of the Canadian High Commissioner in Paris. The High Commissioner could not arrange the interview, however. Why? Simply because the Canadian High Commissioner in Paris is not accredited to the President of the French republic. This gentleman had to go to the British embassy and there request the British ambassador to arrange the meeting with the President of the French republic. Yet any citizen of the small principality of Monaco can go to the minister of that country in Paris and without any other formality have a similar meeting arranged. I do not contend that it is a matter of capital importance, but I do think that it is a matter of national dignity; and' it seems to me that our high commissioners abroad, in England. France and other countries, should have the same standing as the diplomatic ministers who represent Roumania, Greece, Belgium and other nations that are hardly of any greater importance to-day than Canada.
As regard appeals to the Privy Council, it may be in our interest to remain in the present situation in respect of appeals on constitutional matters as well as in respect of appeals of grace to His Majesty. The Privy Council advise His Majesty the King on certain questions, particularly in appeals of grace; and in matters of this kind it might be well for us to remain as we are. But I fail to see why we should uselessly multiply appeals in matters of civil rights and of local interest. Why should we multiply uselessly these appeals and ask a few gentlemen sitting in London, for whom I have the greatest respect, finally to dispose of questions of this character affecting civil rights, commercial rights and other affairs of that kind within the province of our own parliament and legislatures to pass upon?


Arthur Meighen: What are we to understand by an "appeal of grace"? It is a new term to me.


Thomas Vien: I am sure it cannot be a new
term to the right hon. gentleman. An appeal of grace is one, not of right, that is made to

B.N.A. Act Amendment
His Majesty the King and which His Majesty, as the fountain of right, can always grant to his subjects. It is one of the privileges of the crown of England to grant an appeal to the Privy Council when it chooses to do so, even when such appeal does not lie a-s of right. My right hon. friend must know that,
I am sure. And besides, there is the appeal of grace in criminal matters, in which His Majesty can always exercise that prerogative of pardon which everyone recognizes as inherent in the British crown. So that as regards the exercise of the prerogatives of the crown, I would by no means try to curtail them. Of course my right hon. friend knows that this grace is exercised on the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, who advise His Majesty in respect of them. So far as that is concerned I would maintain the appeal. I would maintain it also in matters which have reference to our constitutional rights. The tribunal in London may be more independent and more apt to render justice when questions arise with regard to the respective rights of the Dominion or of the provinces. In respect to that, some have quoted the example of the highest tribunals of France and of the United States, and we have pointed out that in those countries even constitutional questions are determined 'by the highest court in the land. On these three points, therefore, I think we might well correct our constitution with a view to having the Canadian nation conform in this respect to the status, which, it has been urged, she attained following the treaty of Versailles and the various other treaties which were signed thereafter. I do not believe we can fairly boast of being a nation equal to all others until some such changes as these take place; until then we are not equal to the other nations of the world. As to the method of bringing about any such amendment, I fully agree with that set forth in the Speech from the Throne and explained yesterday by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) as the only method by which we should proceed in any attempt to give all sections of the Canadian people who entered into the confederation pact of 1867 the right to amend it. As in the case of a contract between private individuals, you cannot change the British North America Act without first convening a conference similar to that as the result of which the act originally came into being.
Mr. H. C. HOCKEN; (West Toronto); Mr. Speaker, I have always had a high opinion of the intuitive qualities of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), and have regarded him as well able to interpret the
sentiment of the people. But I am afraid that his retirement from the field of journalism has somewhat weakened his intuitions.


William Findlay Maclean: But I continue to read the Orange Sentinel.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Then, Mr. Speaker, we may look for some improvement on the part of my hon. friend. But on this matter that he has brought before the House I think he has entirely misunderstood or misinterpreted the sentiment of the people of this country. What is all the clamour about, anyway? Is my hon. friend not satisfied that Canada is free? Have we not as much liberty as any nation in the world? Are we suffering because of the present state of affairs? If my hon. friend wants the House to adopt this resolution he ought to be able to show that we are suffering under some disability. I submit that we are not.


Thomas Vien: If my hon. friend will allow me, does he not know that the Canadian High Commissioner in London is complaining of the inferiority of his status in diplomatic circles there?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Well, I do not think the farmers or working men in this country are suffering because of that. If my hon. friend thinks that this country is standing upon its dignity and demanding some kind of recognition for the high commissioner.


Thomas Vien: If my hon. friend will allow me a correction, it is not so much a question of dignity as a question of practical usefulness.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If the present high commissioner is unable to perform his duties properly or usefully as a representative of Canada without some additional recognition, the best thing we can do is to bring him home and appoint a substitute. We never had any such complaints from his predecessors.


Thomas Vien: Does my hon. friend think that the substitute or the next appointee would do any better if he had the same status?
Mr. HOCKEN; I am not satisfied that this country is suffering because of the status of the high commissioner in London.


Thomas Vien: We are.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not see it.


Joseph Archambault: It is a lame joke.
B.N.A. Act Amendment


Horatio Clarence Hocken: So far as I have been able to discover, there are only three or four men in Canada

a very small group, at any rate -who want any change in our constitutional status. There is Mr. J. S. Ewart, who breaks out every little while; and Sir Clifford Sif-ton, who makes speeches at Rotary clubs, and so on; but apart from those two and my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean), I do not know anybody who is in distress about our present constitutional position. Unless it can be shown that we are suffering in some respects I do not see why we should consider any change.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the hon. gentleman address himself to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who recently discussed this question and said he was going to call a convention for certain purposes?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The Minister of Justice points out, as I understand it, that in accordance with the suggestion in the Speech from the Throne a conference of the Dominion and the provinces is to be called to discuss the position of the Senate.


Joseph Archambault: And other matters.
ML HOCKEN: Now, is the idea underlying this a desire for the independence of Canada?


Thomas Vien: No.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean, York) answer that?


William Findlay Maclean: I will answer it,
yes,


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Now?


William Findlay Maclean: Right now-no, I am in favour of giving to Canada complete autonomy in her own affairs by her having a voice in the making and in the interpretation of her constitution, within the bounds of her connection with the British Empire. The more freedom you give Canada in that way the stronger she will be within the empire.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am unable to see that our freedom is in any way restricted under the present conditions. If my hon. friend does not want Canada to become an independent nation so that we can send our own ambassadors to Paris, as has been suggested, at enormous cost to this country-a cost which is at present met out of the imperial exchequer, affording a service which is just as good as that which could be given by any person we would send-if he does not want Canada to be independent, why bother about this pro-
posed change? Up to the present time the British North America Act has answered very well in this country. I cannot recall any attack that has been made upon it as insufficient to meet the needs of Canada. We must remember that this was an act that the Imperial government passed in order to establish harmony in this Dominion. We had three different groups in Canada, all under different governments, and by this time we would have had four or perhaps five had the confederation not taken place. The British North America Act was passed to harmonize the groups that then existed and to start Canada on its way to nationhood within the empire. I submit that it has accomplished that purpose, and accomplished it better, perhaps, than any instrument that can be cited as a parallel in any part of the world. That being the case, why should we now begin an agitation to destroy the existing conditions and introduce something which in my judgment would be a greater cause of friction and inharmony in Canada than the British North America Act? If we want our constitution amended at any time we can have that done. We have had the act amended every time we have asked for it, and we can have it amended again in any particular at any time we ask for it. We are not tied down by some ironclad agreement that cannot be amended if the country as a whole desire to amend it. And if we had this new constitution it would not be right to amend it by the bare majority as my hon. friend suggests. That certainly would not lead to the continuance of harmony and good feeling throughout this country. I object on principle to the proposal of the resolution that these two houses of parliament can at any time amend our constitution by a majority. I think that;would be a dangerous thing to do. We must remember that we have in the Maritime provinces, in the western provinces, and in Quebec and Ontario, views that are widely divergent, and if by reason of a preponderance of members from one particular section, say the west, the constitution could be amended to the disadvantage of the Maritime provinces, as the people of those provinces might consider, then we would have a state of friction in this country that would be dangerous and that might lead to something a great deal worse than anything that is possible under present conditions. In the United States they can amend their constitution only if two-thirds of the states by a two-thirds majority agree to it. The most substantial safeguards are provided there against amending their constitution. There should also be safeguards in this country, and the

B.N.A. Act Amendment
very best safeguard we can. get is to make it requisite for this country to go to the imperial authorities under whom we live and move and have our being as a nation, and let them act as arbitrators in whatever it is desired to do ic Canada in the way of changing our constitution. Give Canada the right to change its constitution by a majority of these two houses of parliament, as my hon. friend proposes, and limit that as you will, provide as does this resolution that parliament would have no power to affect the rights of minorities, put that limitation in to-day, and there is no certainty, there can be no certainty, that that would be the limitation of the future. Give Canada the right to amend its constitution partially, and Canada will soon demand the right to amend its constitution wholly.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Why not?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I object to it to this extent. My hon. friend from South York put in that limitation, and why he put it in I think the House can easily appreciate, but I am pointing out that that limitation is of no value. It might be at the moment, but it could not possibly be permanently, so he might as well wipe out that limitation and let the resolution read that Canada would have the right to amend its constitution in any and every particular. Within the limits of the proposed resolution, this House with the Senate could change the representation in parliament. There is nothing in the resolution to prevent that. This House and the Senate might some day say: We will make the representation from the province of Quebec fifty or forty, and the other provinces in proportion. Where would that land the Maritime provinces? It would give them a substantial giievanee. Their representation, and their influence in this House, would be reduced enormously, and they would be able to say with justice that the arrangement upon which they joined in the Canadian confederation had been violated. They would have a distinct grievance which they might take to the imperial authorities, and perhaps they would ask for separation from this Dominion of Canada. It would certainly be to them a greater grievance than any they have had in the past or are likely to have under existing conditions.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Are the Maritime provinces guaranteed under the British North America Act any right to a specified number of representatives in this House?


Arthur Meighen: In the Senate


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I mean in this House.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: They are guaranteed this: The representation of Quebec is sixty-five, and the Maritime representation is in the same proportion to their population.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The same as all the other
provinces.


William Findlay Maclean: They could not
be deprived of their representation.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Under this proposal they could. I think you would be able to change the representation in this House, as part of our constitution, under the resolution of my hon. friend, and while the Maritime provinces have twenty-nine representatives under existing conditions, and Quebec sixty-five, :f you made the unit for Quebec thirty-five the Maritime provinces would then get only fifteen representatives. Instead of being represented on the floor of this House by twenty-nine members who could speak for them, they would have only fifteen members.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: And Ontario only forty-one.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Ontario proportionately
lower, just so. That would be a grievance you would hear about from the provinces down by the sea. At the present time they do not' think they are getting all they expected to get when they entered confederation. I think we will have to be careful about giving them any more substantial grievance. We have had from the west some talk of secession. A1 y hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Hoey) and my hon. friend from Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Millar) are both on record in different places that there is a strong sentiment in favour of secession there. Will the right to change our constitution remove that? If there is any such sentiment there, and I am inclined to believe it is very much less than reported, it is not due to the fact that Canada cannot change its constitution, it is due entirely to what my hon. friends think are economic grievances. So if that sentiment exists, it is not going to be removed by anything that can be done under the proposal of my hon. friend from South York. The only effect, as I see it, of his proposal is to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the British Empire.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Some of my hon. friends
laugh at that. They may not agree with me, but I am of the conviction that the British Empire has enemies in this world.


Louis-Simon-René Morin: Is Australia less loyal to
the British Empire than we are?
B.N.A. Act Amendment


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not know that they
are.


Louis-Simon-René Morin: They have power to amend their constitution.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am not saying that any
part of the empire is less loyal than we are. I am saying that outside of the empire there are enemies of the empire, and a proposal of this kind would appear to them as being the first step towards the cutting off of this Dominion from the commonwealth of nations which gives the empire its strength. For us to do such a thing would in my judgment be most injurious to imperial interests throughout the whole world.


William Findlay Maclean: Would the hon. gentleman abolish the preferential treatment given to England in our tariff?
_ Mr. HOCKEN:	I am not talking tariffs
just now.


William Findlay Maclean: As I see it, the hon. member is going to support that preferential treatment and smash the empire, according to his ideas.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I will talk preferential
tariff when the budget comes up.


William Findlay Maclean: Talk about the
question you have raised.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am doing so.


William Findlay Maclean: Follow it up.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I say to my hon. friend
that his proposal would be injurious to the empire and to Canada as well. I believe that the highest and best destiny for Canada is to be a part of the British Empire, not only now, but when she has double or treble or ten times her present population.
I believe that Canada can make greater contributions to civilization as a part of the empire than under any other status. All hon. members will admit that the British Empire has made-I was going to say the greatest-contributions to civilization of any nation, but perhaps I ought to be considerate of some of my hon. friends opposite who have another mother country, and say that her contributions have been enormous. She has given free institutions to the world'. She has developed them, and they have been copied by practically every other country. I am of the opinion that here in Canada we will in time by the admixture of the English, Irish, Scottish, French, and other blood develop a race of men that will be just a little superior to the race of the Old Land, and that as a result of our growth, individually and as a

nation, we will be able to aid in the development of a higher civilization to a greater degree than even the Mother Country has done. The Canadian breed has shown what it is capable of d'oing in the war, and the Canadian people in civil life have never given a greater demonstration of their endurance under difficult conditions than they are doing to-day. So that whether it is in war or in civil life Canadians have the right to hold up their heads as among the most enduring, the most intelligent and, I think perhaps, the most capable of the nations of the world. We cannot be regarded in the light of slaves, or serfs, or anything of that kind; Canadians demonstrated that in 1837.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: When the blood of the French and other nationalities becomes intermixed would my hon. friend be willing to have the French language taught in all the provinces of Canada?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Mr. Speaker, if it were necessary I could make an extended speech on that subject. But it will be sufficient, perhaps, to inform my hon. friend, if he is ignorant of the fact, that French is taught in every province of Canada. In reply to his question I have nothing more to say than that. Returning to my subject let me say that I believe Canada has more to gain, and that the empire has more to gain, by Can-ad'a's continuance in that empire, rather than by a change in a contrary direction. Our continuance in it, year by year and with every decade that passes, will strengthen that empire, and I do not see any reason why we should turn now and take the first step in the direction of independence unless we are suffering from difficulties that cannot be remedied otherwise.


William Findlay Maclean: I rise to speak on the amendment-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon member for Marquette has the floor.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, the question which we are discussing is one of the most important, that could be brought before us. We could discuss tariffs, we could discuss financial matters, we could discuss estimates and the ordinary bills that come before this House and still remain within the realm of matters that are purely domestic, matters which by common consent can be changed as soon as the will of the parliament is made apparent to that end. But the question that was raised by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) in the motion before us touches the very life of the nation, it goes to the very core of our national being,

B.NA. Act Amendment
and for that reason it is a question of first importance.
I must confess that in listening to my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) and to my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) I felt that they must have been very much in the realm of dreamland during the last ten years.


An hon. MEMBER:: Rip Van Winkle.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Pretty serious dreams.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The fact is that Canada
has moved forward tremendously in the last fifty years. Those of us who have read history know the circumstances in Canada that brought about the confederation of the then existing provinces. I quite agree with the argument advanced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) yesterday that the confederation pact was in the nature of a treaty. It was the result of different provinces getting together and agreeing upon a solution that would lead them out of their difficulties. But while that was one of the reasons behind the confederation understanding or agreement in 1867, there was also another aspiration behind it, and it was voiced, perhaps most strongly, by the great architect of confederation, Sir John A. Macdonald, for in large measure he was the architect of confederation, even if he could not claim credit for originating the idea. And what was that aspiration? At that time we had on the northern part of the North American continent several distinct governments-crown colonies if you like, crown colonies, I mean, in the sense that while they enjoyed in very considerable measure the right of governing themselves, they were, so far as their relations with each other were concerned, completely isolated. And one of the most important, one of the strongest ideas behind the whole conception of confederation was that these several provinces might be united in one whole and form a nucleus for a nation on the northern half of North America. That hope is set out frequently in the confederation debates: and the notion that Sir John Macdonald had, the notion that the other Fathers of Confederation had, that they were laying the foundation for the establishment of a nation, a free nation, in North America, has simply been carried forward from that time until this. And we have made great advances Mr. Speaker, as I hope I shall presently show, in the fifty-six years that have elapsed since confederation.
Now what are the advances that we have made? In the first place let me say that these
advances have come mainly, though not altogether by any means, within the last ten years, since the outbreak of the Great War in 1914. First, we raised an army, an immense army. We sent that army overseas, and it fought under the direction and under the control of the Canadian parliament. It was known as the Canadian army. It was not thrown in as part of the British army, nor was it recognized as part of the British army throughout the whole war. The second thing of even greater import that occurred was the fact that Canada claimed the right-


Arthur Meighen: Does my hon. friend say that the Canadian army was not under the same directing force as the British army on the field of battle?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It was under the same
directing force as the British army at first, and later, like the rest of the allied forces came under the one control.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Paid by the Canadian parliament.


Arthur Meighen: It certainly was part of
the British army.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In the same sense that the Australian and French forces were part of the allied army.


Andrew Ross McMaster: And paid by us.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The second point T come
to is that when the treaty of Peace was negotiated at Versailles, Canada's representatives sat at the conference and signed that Peace treaty on behalf of this Dominion. Is there anyone in his senses who would assert that that was in contemplation at the time confederation was achieved? There is nothing on the record, so far as I have been able to find out, that would support that view.
We have made further progress. In 1919, as a result of negotiations between Sir Robert Borden, who was then Prime Minister of Canada, and the British government-and it is well known the question was taken up at that time with the United States-Canada secured the right to send to the United States an ambassador who would handle all matters affecting Canada at the capital of our great neighbour to the south. I ask again, was that contemplated when the confederation pact was established in 1867? Another step forward has been taken since then, when my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, clothed with power from His Majesty, went to Washington and negotiated with the United States a treaty covering the halibut fisheries on the Pacific ocean,-a treaty that has since been ratified by both this parliament and the United
B.N.A. Act Amendment

States, and which binds only these two countries. That is another evidence of progress in the matter of nationhood. All the evidence, Mr. Speaker, goes to prove beyond any question of doubt that we have advanced beyond the state we were in in 1867, when the four provinces with organized governments in what is now part of the territory of this Dominion were brought together.
When I come to the resolution of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) I say at once that I agree, wholly with the purpose he has in mind. I think this country has risen to the state and the dignity, not only in the estimation of the people of Canada, but in her relations with the outside world, where we should have the right under certain conditions which I shall presently mention, of fixing and determining our own constitution. I do not agree with the method my hon. friend suggests. I do not think for a moment that it would be wise-and in this I quite agree with the objections raised by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken)- to leave the question of amending our constitution to an open vote in this House or in the other branch of this parliament.


William Findlay Maclean: Would the hon. gentleman expect a skeleton motion to be in the form of a detailed constitution?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, but my hon. friend points out very definitely the plan he proposes to follow in securing the object he has in mind, and I would much have preferred if my hon. friend's resolution had simply been in a form to assert the right of the Canadian people to amend and change their own constitution under certain safeguards and certain conditions.
My hon. friend the Minister of Justice yesterday argued that confederation was in the nature of a treaty, and I agree with him in that assertion. That- being the case, his suggestion that the matter be approached through the avenue of a conference with all the provinces is the first step that should be taken in dealing with it. It is quite clear that in any consideration of this matter we must be governed by the circumstances of our situation. I can quite appreciate the anxiety, or, shall I say, even the fear, that my hon. friends from the province of Quebec may entertain as to the position which that province would be in in respect of the peculiar rights it enjoys under the constitution today, were we placed in the situation in this country where the constitution could be amended by the ordinary means of majority rule. Consequently I wish to state very

clearly upon that matter that, in my humble opinion, the safeguards that our French Canadian fellow-citizens enjoy to-day under the federation arrangement should abso'utely and irrevocably be provided for and maintained. There is no fair-minded person in the whole Dominion of Canada, I am convinced, who would wish for a single moment to deny them that right. I am convinced that a way can be found whereby the rights enjoyed by our French Canadian citizens which they naturally hold very dearly, can be safeguarded and the fullest protection given to them in that regard. We frequently ask ourselves the question- and, Mr. Speaker, let me point out that not only do Canadians ask themselves the question, but other countries are also commencing to ask the question-is Canada a nation? And notwithstanding the eloquent speeches delivered by my hon. friend for West Toronto and my hon. friend for West York we cannot escape giving an answer to that question. I dissent wholly from the view expressed by my hon. friend for West York and the view expressed by the hon. member for West Toronto that any suggestion that Canada be given the power to amend her own constitution is evidence of disloyalty to the Motherland. Sir, I resent that argument.


Joseph Archambault: It is the old argument.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, but I resent it.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: So far as I am concerned,
I did not say that.


William Findlay Maclean: What did you
charge me with?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I certainly, Mr. Speaker, would be the last man in this House, to impute to my hon. friend for West Toronto anything I should not impute, and I think he appreciates that fact. But in one of those eloquent periods in my hon. friend's speech, he argued that we should not supoort the motion of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), not because he disagreed with the method, but because he disagreed with the principle of it.


William Findlay Maclean: And the consequences of it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He said: This will be the first step in breaking Canada away from the Motherland. Further, he dwelt upon the imperial authorities where we have to go to safeguard all the liberties and privileges that we enjoy at present, the imperial authority, he said, under which we live and move and have our being. I do not for a moment agree

B.N.A. Act Amendment
with my hon. friend in that respect. It is not disloyal to discuss a question that is of vital moment to the development of this nation. I like to think of Canada as a nation; I like to visualise the idea that we are going to grow as a nation, as a Canadian nation. I want to hear "O Canada," sung in every school in Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And I say to the hon. member for West Toronto and those who agree with him, that when I say that, I am not disloyal to Britain or British institutions. After all, what are the ties that bind us to the Motherland? They are not the ties of statutory enactments. Those ties are the weakest kind of ties that can hold this empire together. Those in Canada or elsewhere who rely upon statutory enactments to hold this empire together are building on the sand. What is it that binds us to the Motherland?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Liberty.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: God Save the King!


Thomas Alexander Crerar: God Save the King, yes,
if you like. But more than that: there is a common language; there is the fact that we derive our parliamentary institutions, our whole system of jurisprudence, our literature, our art-everything that we have that makes life worth while, from the Motherland. I agree wholly with the remark made by the hon. member for West Toronto, that the greatest contribution Britain has made to the public life of the world is the spirit of free institutions she has given to the world. Those are the ties which hold Canada to the Motherland and that will hold the different parts of this far-flung British Empire together.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend has
recited the ties which, he says, hold Canada to the Motherland. Do not all of those ties also bind the United States to the Motherland?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


Arthur Meighen: Which one does not?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Most of them do, and
should.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As a matter of fact, I
think that in the relationships of the United States and the Motherland, blood is thicker than water and has proved so and may prove so again. The fact that the United States draws its traditions of parliamentary government, of justice, of literature, from British institutions and ideals, is a link that binds the United States also in a degree that other nations are not so bound to the British commonwealth of nations.


Air. JACOBS:: It was because Great Britain refused to recognize the wider form of constitution which the United States desired that the latter became an independent nation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is quite
right.


Arthur Meighen: Who is refusing Canada
anything?


Samuel William Jacobs: It was just an interjection.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is just one other
point that I wish to make, as I do not desire to participate now at any length in the debate, as a matter of fact, I had scarcely expected to take part in it, but I could not sit in my seat and listen to the arguments of the hon. member for West Toronto without challenging them. What are we in Canada? We are all good Canadians who want to see this country prosper. We realize the economic and financial difficulties which the country is passing through. We realize the difficulties in government, in maintaining a national unity, that arise from our geographical conditions and also from the-shall I say? -mixed character of our population. We have the great province of Quebec, with its three million Freneh-Canadians, as loyal and fine a class of citizens as we have in the Dominion. We have the citizens of Canada of Anglo-Saxon origin. We have, in addition to that, hundreds of thousands of citizens, people who have come to this country from alien lands to make their homes here, to grow up and develop as Canadians. What is the thing that will best draw all these elements together? Is it not some pride in a national spirit, some conception of a national entity? Can you develop that under any conditions of inferiority? I submit it is a condition of inferiority that the Canadian people of their own free will, cannot amend their own constitution without reference to another authority. What is the position of Canada in the outside world? Where is Canada's status internationally to-day? We send our representatives to the League of Nations, where they sit in and discuss questions on a basis of absolute equality with representatives of all other nations of the world who are present at that conference.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What more does the hon. member want?


William Findlay Maclean: What Australia
has to begin with.
B.N.A. Act Amendment


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We are in the position
that we claim our right to sit in the League of Nations and we are regarded internationally as an inferior state. Consequently for the purpose of building up a united Canada, of creating a national spirit, of making this Dominion what we all wish to see it become, I am strongly and heartily in support of the principle of the motion advanced by the hon. member for South York, although 1 do not agree with the methods by which he proposes to achieve the object he has in view.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Mr. Speaker, I have had occasion to give some little thought and study to this particular question and that is why I participate in this debate this afternoon. The question is an extremely complicated one, and any member of this House who has taken the trouble to study the constitution and development of Canada and of Great Britain must realize the difficulties encountered in an effort to pass a resolution of this kind which embodies the terms of an amendment which it is sought that the Imperial House should pass concerning our constitution. When confederation was brought about, three important resolutions were passed at the Quebec conference in 1865. They are of sufficient importance and so fundamental to our constitution that I propose to read them, particularly as they are short. They state, with reference to the North American provinces:
1.	The system of government best adapted under existing circumstances to protect the diversified interests of the several provinces, and secure harmony and permanency in the working of the union, would be a general government charged with matters of common interest to the whole country, and local governments for each of the Canadas, and for the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, charged with the control of local matters in their respective sections.
2.	In framing a constitution for the general government, the conference, with a view to the perpetuation of our connection with the Mother Country, and the promotion of the best interests of the people of these provinces, desire to follow the model of the British constitution so far as our circumstances permit.
3.	The executive authority or government shall be vested in the sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and be administered according to the well-understood principles of the British constitution, by a sovereign personally, or by the representative of the sovereign duly authorized.
There is one feature of this debate which I do not think has been emphasized and it is vital to the consideration of the resolution before the House. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) touched on it lightly. Our constitution involves mot only the British North America Act, which is the written or fixed or inflexible portion of our constitution, but the unwritten part of our constitution. In other words, our constitution comprises the

written portion, which is the British North America Act and which is specific, and the unwritten portion, which we find in such institutions as the cabinet. In the government and constitution of this country, we have in practice precedents, conventions and understandings that you will not find anywhere in the British North America Act. Take, for example, the institution of the cabinet. You will not find that word written anywhere in our constitution. You will not find the word "cabinet" in the British constitution, yet it is the governing and controlling factor in the government of this countiy. Supposing, for example, that there was an adverse vote in the House, what would follow? There is no law to oblige the government to resign, but the precedents and understandings of our constitution make it necessary. But if the government in the face of such adverse vote was refused supply and still endeavoured to enforce by act of parliament the collection of taxes, the courts of the land would be available to enable our citizens to refuse to comply with such an attempt.
The cabinet is the central pivot of responsible government.. It dates back in Great Britain to the time of Charles I. Before then the cabinet had been responsible to the king but through the efforts of the Cabal of that day the responsibility was shifted, and the ministry was made answerable to parliament. Some may not know that in Canada cabinet responsibility to the legislative institutions of the country did not become a fact until 1842. Prior to that date the cabinet was responsible to the Governor General. So that in the course of the constitutional development of this country there have become embodied in the constitution fictions, conventions, precedents and understandings which have all had a practical part in the government of the country. Now the resolution which is before the House proposes to alter the written portion of the constitution, that portion which has been enacted by the Imperial parliament. And as one speaker after another has indicated, that enactment did not originate with the Imperial government, it was not something super-imposed upon this country, but was an understanding or agreement arrived at between the component parts of the British North American provinces which entered into confederation. This fact is clearly expressed in the preamble to the act:
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom.

B.N.A. Act Amendment
In that principle you have the unwritten portion of the British constitution, the flexible portion which proves so practical and useful in every dominion wherein it can be adapted to the peculiarities of race and people concerned. And the fourth paragraph reads:
And -whereas it is expedient that provision be made for the eventual admission into the union of other parts of British North America-
You have, therefore, in this paragraph a very clear statement or understanding of the situation and we cannot as a Canadian parliament change our constitution and pass legislation of the kind proposed, even with the suggested amendment, which provides for the consent first of all the provinces. I submit that the complications are too numerous and the problem is too wide for us to undertake anything of the kind at this time. I am sure that hon. mem'bers must be fully sensitive to their duty and responsibility to precipitate an ill-considered debate on this subject at this juncture. The present discussion will be reviewed from one end of the empire to the other, and it would be distinctly unwise for us to jump to any hasty conclusion in dealing with this question. I think we would be rash in approving a resolution which is uncertain in its terms and indefinite in its meaning. I would ask the House to refer to the resolution for a moment. It provides:
The parliament of the Dominion upon first obtaining the consent of the provinces may amend the said British North America Act when it may see fit to do so, but it is not empowered to pass any amendment affecting the rights guaranteed in said act to minorities.
Does this mean that every specific amendment would have first of all to be approved by the provinces and then submitted to this parliament? Or does it mean that a general power of amendment would first have to be approved by the provinces before being submitted to parliament? Some hon. members nod their heads to the second proposition. But the question is, which is the true interpretation of this proposed bill which seeks to change the constitution under which we have been operating since 1867? Which is the true proposal? I submit that as soon as you undertake to place before the provinces of Canada a proposed amendment such as is set out in this resolution you will create endless confusion. I am convinced that interminable discussions would arise which would prove adverse to our interests. There would be speculative debates on theories of our international relationships and the relationships of this country with the Mother Country, to say nothing of a number of other problems which would follow in consequence. At this 21
time when the nations of the world are suffering economic distress, when there are grave troubles in Europe and elsewhere, when Canada itself is faced with a great national debt, a huge railway problem, and' economic difficulties of a severe nature, it would be exceedingly unwise to open a question of this kind, especially since it has not been shown in one single statement that there is any 5 p.m. demand for the action which the resolution proposes, or anything to warrant such a change.
When we broach the question of amending our constitution by changing it only in part, that is to say, the written portion of it, we are at once in the realm of international relationships; not only is our relationship with Great Britain involved but our international relationships are also brought to the forefront. There has been a gradual development of our position in that respect, and I would commend to the attention of the House a little book of Sir Robert Borden's entitled Canadian Constitutional Studies. From that book it will be seen that in 1917-18 Canada in fact obtained the recognition of the principle of nationhood and complete autonomy in the empire. I quote the following from page 111:
During 1917 and 1918, the Imperial War conference also proceeded with its deliberations. Its most important discussion in 1917 was concerned with the question of future constitutional relations and resulted in the following resolution:
" The Imperial War conference are of opinion that the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the empire is too important and intricate a subject to be dealt with during the war, [DOT]and that it should form the subject of a special Imperial conference to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities.
" They deem it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based upon a full recognition of the dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial commonwealth and of India as an important portion of the same, should recognize the right of the dominions and India to an adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations, and should provide effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several governments may determine."
I propose to read a few of these sections because they are the words of a great authority on the subject and have a bearing on the resolution in question.
This resolution establishes the basis of future cooperation; it gives clear recognition to equality of nationhood between the dominions and the Mother Country; and it marks one of the most important, and possibly one of the final stages in the evolution of constitutional relations within the British commonwealth. In 1921 the same principle was re-asserted. Lord Milner, speaking on this important matter in

B.N.A. Act Amendment

1920 (before the representatives of the overseas dominions, emphasized the same view in these words:
" The only possibility of a continuance of the British Empire is on a basis of absolute out-and-out equal partnership between the United Kingdom and the dominions. I say that without any kind of reservation whatsoever. It is very easy to say that; but undoubtedly the working out of it in practice without bringing about the severance of relations between us and the dominions will be one of the most complicated tasks which statesmanship has ever had to face. I am not afraid of it, and yet I have to admit that the difficulties are such that our best efforts may end in failure. I hope not. At any rate, there is no other way out.
At a later stage the powers of the Dominion with respect to treaty making had developed, and I again quote the words of Sir Robert Borden, which summarize the situation very nicely:
A further development relates to the signature and ratification of the various treaties concluded at the conference. In view of the new position secured, and of the part played by the dominion representatives at the peace table, it was considered that the treaty should be signed by dominion plenipotentiaries, and should be submitted for approval to the dominion parliaments. Accordingly the Prime Minister of Canada proposed that the assent of the King as high contracting party to the various treaties should, in respect of the dominions, be expressed by the signature of dominion plenipotentiaries, and that the preamble and other formal parts of the treaties should be drafted accordingly.
The treaty making power of the Dominion is not a new one. Then we gained a new position in the League of Nations. Sir Robert Borden says:
The new status of the Dominion is manifested again in the constitution of the League of Nations. Having gained at the Peace conference the position of " powers with special interests" the dominions took the ground that they should be similarly accepted in the future international relationships contemplated by the league. The League of Nations Commission, while inclined to admit this position in principle, did not at the outset accept all its implications. ... In its final form, as amended and incorporated in the treaty of Peace with Germany, the covenant fully recognizes the status of the dominions.
Now, I want to draw the attention of the House to another point which is interwoven with this question of amending our constitution. As soon as you enter upon the programme of changing the British North America Act, apart altogether from the relationship of one province with the other you have the great question of Canada's relationship to foreign countries and a nurhber of other far-reaching problems which should also be considered. I suggest to hon. members that before giving their approval to the resolution that has been proposed or the principle which it involves they should consider this matter in the light of the conditions which confront the country and from the practical point of view.
What is to be gained by passing a resolution of this kind? There are no practical

questions out of which this proposal has arisen. All that can result is discussion and controversy from one end of Canada to the other on the question of loyalty to Canada's relationship to the empire and things of that kind. Here we are assembled with extremely grave and important questions of a practical nature confronting us. I referred to them a moment ago-our taxation, our railways, our economic difficulties, the tariff, if you will, and so on. What is to be gained by this resolution, beyond some political effect in some parts of Canada, an effect which may carry with it the arousing of feelings of prejudice and the expression of likes or dislikes in different sections of the country?
I believe this resolution should be refused by the House. If the government are serious in announcing their intention to bring down legislation calling upon the provinces to consider the matter of the amendment of our constitution; if it is not merely a political intention, then when they bring down that legislation I hope they will be able to submit something of a substantial character in the way of a demand from some section of the country for such a change in our constitution as is proposed. For my part I cannot but believe that the problem is fraught with too grave difficulties. The history of the development of our constitution is such that the man of business should hesitate at this juncture, having regard to the conditions in the world generally. I heard Mr. Ewart give a most interesting discussion of conditions among the countries of Europe and an outline of how the nations of the world had been chopped up as a result of the war, how the elements of conflagration exist in many parts of Europe. With all these national and international questions of a practical nature awaiting solution, why should this House occupy its time in the discussion of such a resolution as my hon. friend proposes?


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, the question before the House in undoubtedly one of very great interest. Though I have given it some consideration and have some opinions upon it, I refrain from giving those opinions now for the simple reason that I have been assured, and I think rightly, that this parliament has no power to do what I or anybody else might think it well to do in regard to our constitution. We have been assured by the authorities on constitutional law-and I think this is the attitude they take so far as they have spoken in this House -that the British North America Act is a sacred compact and that it cannot be altered

B.N.A. Act Amendment
by this parliament alone; that if an alteration is to be made all the parties to the pact must first be consulted and their consent to the change obtained.
In the Speech from the Throne there is an announcement that a conference is to be held at which representatives of all the different parties to the compact known as the British North America Act are to meet. It has been suggested by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that the issue involved in this resolution would be a proper question for that conference to consider. In view, therefore, of these considerations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Kennedy):
That the following words be inserted after the word " minorities " in the second .paragraph of the resolution: " and that, before further action be taken on the proposed resolution, the same be referred to the conference proposed in the Speech from the Throne for consideration and recommendation.''


Mr. HERBERT MARLER (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, at the commencement of this discussion I had no intention of taking part in it, but several matters have come up in the course of the remarks of hon. members, particularly as regards the province of Quebec, and it seems to me that one should have these matters well in mind before even suggesting that the resolution now before the House should be submitted to a conference as is proposed.
It seems to me that those who have discussed this resolution particularly some hon. members from this side of the House, have utterly failed to remember what were the circumstances of history and what were the facts which led up to the British North America Act of 1867. While perhaps many hon. members in this House may recall to mind those facts, I do not think it would be very much amiss if I, in the very few minutes I propose to take part in this discussion, should ask particularly those gentlemen from the province of Quebec to bear those facts in mind, because they are very salient indeed, and are very germane to this resolution we are discussing to-day, indeed, very germane to any question of conferences which might take place in the future apropos of any amendments to the British North America Act.
What are those historical facts leading up to the enactment of the British North America Act? Our first constitution in this country was the Quebec Act of 1774; I am speaking from memory as regards dates. That act took in, as I am very well aware, a great stretch of country running westward almost to the Missouri river. The limits of that
21i
country were changed by the treaty of Versailles in 1783, which made the westerly limits of what was then the province of Quebec the Great Lakes. After that we come down to the Constitutional Act of 1791, which divided the two provinces of Canada into Upper and Lower Canada. That act ran its course. Various matters came up in the administration of this country, ideas were engendered between the two races, and the culmination of this act of 1791 was the fight for responsible government in 1837. That was the result of the Constitutional Act of 1791.
Then we come down to the Act of Union in 1841, which brought the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada into one province, as the result of the Durham report. There again we found all kinds of difficulties brought up and ideas engendered between the races, ideas of religion, ideas of representation by population, and half a hundred other questions, until finally responsible government absolutely broke down. The suspicions engendered between the provinces and between the races under the Act of Union of 1841 were such as to render it utterly impossible for this country to proceed in any normal sense of the word with government at all. Out of all those difficulties that took place issued the Quebec resolutions. Those same difficulties took place in the Maritimes also. There also they decided they wanted a union, and the conference at Charlottetown took place, to which conference certain delegates went from Canada, and those delegates subsequently joined together at the Quebec conference, and it was from the Quebec conference that the Act of Confederation of 1867 was brought about,
Coming as I do from the province of Quebec I would like my hon. friends from that province to bear in mind these historical facts which brought about our Confederation Act. I would like them to bear in mind also the various difficulties and the various safeguards that were provided as regards our own province of Quebec. That is an extremely important matter for them to remember. I am of the province of Quebec. I live there with my French-Canadian compatriots in peace and harmony, and I say this; there is nothing so far as I can see in the British North America Act that can be changed to assist us in the very least in the province of Quebec in particular, to say nothing of the rest of Canada.
I listened with a great deal of pleasure this afternoon to the speech of my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar). He stated' among other matters that we should have the right to fix our own constitution. I assume he meant by that the fixing of our
B.N.A. Act Amendment

constitution for interior matters only; he could have meant nothing else at all. We cannot fix our constitution for exterior matters in any respect, but as regards exterior matters I will speak in a moment. I would ask in what way, and with what advantage, can we change the act at present in force? Where will any province be assisted? You can imagine how a province might be injured in many ways. You can well imagine in the event of a conference taking place, and in the event of various opinions coming forth at that conference, that matters might happen in such a way as to reopen very many of these selfsame questions that came up at the Quebec conference, and which were settled by compromise at the Quebec conference itself, and as a result of which the British North America Act came forth. I repeat, what advantage is to be gained by any province by trying to give ourselves here in this parliament the right to change the act which was the result of compromises of a most severe nature, compromises which were the result also of events which took place and which led up to that conference, events of a most serious and foretelling nature.
My hon. friend from Marquette in his very masterly way also said that it was vital for the development of this nation that we should have the power to amend our constitution. I fail to see how this nation can be developed in the slightest degree by amending from the interior our own constitution. As a matter of fact, this nation was built up under that very constitution. That constitution has been the very cornerstone of all the rights of the various provinces within the nation. Nothing can be added to the rights of the provinces by amending that constitution, but something may be taken away. What assistance, what increment can be given to the provinces? No one in this House will venture for one moment to suggest that anything can be given to a single province by undertaking, ourselves, from the interior, to amend our constitution ; but on the other hand we can very easily imagine that some particular province will have some particular right taken away from it, providing the majority on the other side so desire. Where, therefore, is the gain in so far as the vital development of our nation is concerned by our having the right to amend our own constitution?


William Charles Good: Would my hon. friend contend that no province is at all interested in the reform of the Senate?


Herbert Meredith Marler: No, I do not contend that at all. What I do contend is this, that perhaps the reform of the Senate is a very

minor item compared with what might happen by throwing into the melting pot again the British North America Act. By deciding to submit to conferences and to the rule of the majority results might happen which would be far more serious to any province than having the Senate go forward in its present way.


William Charles Good: Can we not trust ourselves?


William Findlay Maclean: Can no constitution anywhere be thrown into the melting pot? Must all constitutions remain fixed for all time?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Certainly they are not fixed for all time; there is no question about that at all, but I fail to see anything that has been brought up in the course of this debate, outside perhaps of what my hon. friend for Brant (Mr. Good) has said, and which may be a source of discussion, I freely admit-I fail to see one single point that any member has brought up that would show we were suffering any injury as a whole by reason of the British North America Act. On the other hand, I do say that a province may suffer grave injustice and grave injury at the hands of the majority in the event of the British North America Act being reopened.
Then my hon. friend from Marquette spoke about the pride of national spirit. Well, I cannot understand how the right to amend the British North America Act will in any way assist in strengthening the pride in national spirit.
Another question which has been brought up in the course of this debate is whether we are or are not a nation. We are a nation for interior purposes. We might as well make up our minds immediately that we are not a nation for exterior purposes. If we are a nation for exterior purposes we have to make up our minds to undertake the responsibilities which that status involves; and if we want to call ourselves a nation, both from an interior point of view and an exterior point of view, we have not only got to provide for defence from the interior viewpoint but undertake an active part in offence from the exterior viewpoint. Are we prepared to do that? I do not think we are at the present time.
Then there were the various points my hon. friend the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) brought up in his remarks as to whether the high commissioner should 'be representative in this way or representative in that way, or whether we should be represented by an ambassador. Of what advantage would this be to us? Are we not better employed in

B.N.A. Act Amendment
minding our own business in this country, in building up this Dominion as it should be built up, and in making Canada as strong a nation interiorly as we can make it? Are we not assisting the British Empire infinitely better by, as I say, building up this country in an interior way instead of trying to dissipate our energies by interesting ourselves in various matters abroad? The time has not come, as far as I can gauge it for us to take an active and energetic interest in foreign affairs relating to the empire. Those foreign affairs at the present time, as a matter of fact, are in good hands; but for us to say that we desire to be consulted here, or we desire to be consulted there, and at the same time come forward and say " No we will not bear the responsibilities in certain ways " is simply a series of contradictions.	*
I want to repeat again what I said in the first place. As regards the events which led up to the British North America Act those events were historical, those events were drenched in blood, those events were matters of compromise of the most serious nature. I for one see nothing but difficulties ahead of us if we take it upon ourselves by conference, by act of parliament or otherwise, to attempt to change those various matters which were brought about, which took place, and which were settled by those very particular compromises. I can see no advantage to be gained but I can see disadvantages may come to certain provinces und'er certain conditions. I therefore conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that not only do I intend to vote against the resolution, but I also disapprove of submitting a resolution of this kind to a conference with the object in view of changing the British North America Act.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Speaker, I know that the apostles of things as they are and the disciples of subordination do not all belong to one side of the chamber. I trust that the distribution is uneven; I am sorry to see that it exists.


Samuel William Jacobs: They belong to one side
of the chamber but they sit on different sides.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have listened with a
great deal of interest to this debate in which, I may say, I had not thought I would have the privilege of taking part, but there have been some arguments advanced this afternoon to which I will endeavour to very briefly reply. I must congratulate the hon. member for St. George-St. Lawrence (Mr. Marler).


Herbert Meredith Marler: You have reversed the
order.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I was following the
alphabetical order, but I apologize if I made a mistake.


Herbert Meredith Marler: "St. Lawrence" is the
more important saint.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think a "St. Lawrence" did not belong to the British Empire but "St. George" did. Is it loyal to prefer St. Lawrence to St. George? I have listened with some attention to what the hon. gentleman has said and I congratulate him upon his historical knowledge. But the impression made upon my mind is this, that from 1774 to 1867 we required no less than four different constitutions. Those constitutions were made for Canada, and every one except the last proved unsatisfactory. It was only when the Canadian people got together, representatives of the Maritime provinces and of the old provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada which then formed a United Canada -when these men got together and drafted their own constitution and had that constitution ratified by the British parliament, it was only then and not till then that we got a fairly satisfactory constitution which has remained largely unchanged for some sixty years.
May I point out a matter which I think is of some considerable interest in connection with this question. When our delegates went over to Great Britain they had, I will not say the assistance, the co-operation of British law officers in preparing different drafts of the British North America Act; and if one will read these different drafts side by side one will see some very striking dissimilarities. The British law officers said that it was in the interest of Great Britain to join the colonies of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Canada, but that there should be a united "colony". That was the proposition in the draft of the British law officers. They used the word "colony" and they stressed the idea that the proposed union would be in the interest of the United Kingdom. The proposition in the draft of the delegates was that the provinces should not be united into one "colony". The idea of Sir John A. Macdonald was, and he belonged to the school of Tories which the hon. member for South York belongs to-


William Findlay Maclean: Was Sir John
up-to-date?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The gentleman who has led this important discussion belongs to the school of Toryism of that day. I think they called themselves Liberal-Conservatives. That is what Sir John Macdonald called himself, a Liberal-Conservative; and of the members
B.N.A. Act Amendment

of that party some are rather more liberal, others rather more conservative. The gentleman who has led this debate belongs to the more liberal wing of the Liberal-Conservative party. But the point that I want to make is that Sir John Macdonald suggested that we should be united not in one "colony" but in one "kingdom". That is the word he wished to adopt. The word "kingdom" denoted an idea not of subordination but of equality, and that is the only basis upon which I was going to say-I had almost used the expression which the rigfht hon. leader of the opposition often uses "red blooded Canadians"-it is the only status that self-respecting Canadians will enjoy.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member
think the word "dominion" has any more *uggestion of subordination than the word 'kingdom"?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I was speaking of the
fact that the choice of the word "kingdom" has a very interesting historical association. I would not say that the word "dominion" had any greater tincture of subordination than the word "kingdom"; but as we have the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" the adoption of the word "kingdom" would have seemed to put the idea of subordination perhaps more completely out of peoples minds than did the word "dominion." But it was thought by the British authorities of that time that the word "kingdom" might possibly offend the republican sensibilities of our neighbours to the south; at least that was the statement given out at the time. And they looked around for another word. Sir Leonard Tilley was reading the Psalms of David one day, and he came to the psalm where it says:
And thy dominion shall stretch from sea to sea.
"Oil" he said, "that is the word for us." And that was picked out as the word for our country, from the Psalms of David, which will have the approval of the member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). I will endeavour to follow the argument of the previous speaker. His argument is against any change, and not only against any change, but against the possibility of any change, because he is afraid that difficulties may arise if a change is even suggested or discussed. He was asked I think by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) "Do you regard the British North America Act as something which must always exist in its present condition?" And his answer was no. I was a little surprised at that negative, but that is what he stated. He said "The British North America Act is not like the law of the Medes and Persians. It is possible to amend it."


Herbert Meredith Marler: I said that it was not
well to interfere with the British North America Act until the absolute necessity for it arose. That is what I intended to convey, and I do not think the absolute necessity exists at the present time.
Mr. MoMASTER:	That is not quite what
the hon. gentleman said when he was making his speech, but it seems to me that is a more reasonable position to 'assume. But I may reply to that in this way. If the British North America Act is susceptible of amendment under certain circumstances, which some of us may think have arisen now, and which some of us think have not arisen yet, if it is potentially amendable-I think that is the way to put it-then who should amend it? Ourselves or someone else? That is the question. There may be possible arguments of convenience about having it amended by an outside legislature who would merely ratify the agreement to which we might come. There may be some possible advantage by way of the facility with which it might be done, but I do not think that it would be wise to adopt that method, in view of the depreciation of national status which such a course would imply.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Would the hon. member
define our national status?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I will take that up in
a moment. I will endeavour to treat with our national status both external and internal just in a moment. If our British North America Act may have to be amended in future, then it seems to me we should be able to do it ourselves. I do not think that this parliament, the House of Commons, the Senate and the .Governor General should have the right, without references to the provinces, to change our constitution. I do not agree to that. I think it should be amended in this fashion; that after the conference in which the provinces would take their part, an agreement should be arrived at-I trust it would be arrived at-whereby we might lay down the conditions under which and the machinery by which the constitution should be amended.


William Findlay Maclean: Who would call
that conference?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think it would be quite proper to have it called by the Prime Minister of this country. I think he would be the fit and proper person to call that conference. As a matter of fact he proposes to call a conference for one specific object, and other similar objects which phrase has been inter-

B.N.A. Act Amendment
preted by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe)-who no doubt is the legal interpreter of what the government has in its mind-to include such a subject as we have under discussion this afternoon.


Arthur Meighen: What protection would
the minorities have? Would they not have to trust to the fairness of the majorities?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes, if the minorities in Canada cannot trust their Canadian fellow-citizens, whom can they trust? We should not have any craven fears of any injustice being done in this country in that regard. The more we take that view I think the better for the whole people.


Arthur Meighen: Who would decide whom the minorities must trust? The minorities themselves or whom?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The minorities themselves-


Arthur Meighen: How would a provincial
conference accomplish that? There are minorities in the different provinces.


Andrew Ross McMaster: There are minorities
even in the small provinces. There may be certain minorities in Prince Edward Island.


Arthur Meighen: There may be minorities in a province and vast majorities.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Does the House not realize that the people of Canada to-day are just as united as the people of sixty years ago? If reasonable provisions were made for the protection of minorities sixty years ago, is there any reasonable ground to believe that that protection will be removed by Canadians sixty years later?


Arthur Meighen: Who decides on the
reasonableness of the assurance? Has the minority itself not the right? Can anybody take it from them?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would presume that
in such a conference all the provinces and all elements would be represented. All the minorities in the provinces would be represented. Let me give the House an instance, from my own little county in my own province. In the last by-election we had in that county for the Quebec legislature, it was felt 'by some that it would be only fitting and right, as the county was represented by an English speaking Protestant at Ottawa that a French Roman Catholic should represent the county at Quebec. The difference in population was not more than 60 English speaking Protestants to 40 French speaking Catholics. We had the leader of the party
in power in the province of Quebec coming to the county of Brome, telling his own co-religionists and compatriots that the Protestants of Quebec had already too small a proportion of the membership in the Quebec legislature, and asking them not to change the old custom, but to see that the English speaking Protestant was elected, and he was elected. And that is the principle which has ruled us in the province of Quebec. It is the principle, I believe, whoch animates the people of Canada, and that is the spirit which we have to trust in all constitutional matters. Now the hon. member who has just resumed his seat said that in any conference the rights of a province, if any changes were made-and I do not contemplate that there would be any serious changes made-


Herbert Meredith Marler: Then why take the right
to make changes?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Just because I want
the right to make changes if changes are necessary, because I believe in freedom and not in restriction, because after all I am a Liberal and not a Tory, because I believe that freedom is not only good in itself, but it is the thing that has contributed more than anything else to develop our national institutions and to advance our national progress. We want to be free. Why, when the populations of many of the countries of Europe were under despotisms, it was the pride of an Englishman to say that he was a free man, a free Englishman, and he was proud of the comparative freedom of his institutions as compared with those of other countries. When Australia, the United States, Great Britain and France have the right to amend their own constitutions, I do not, for the life of me, see why Canada should not have the same right.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Later on in his admirable address, the hon. member will probably tell us of the obligations which freedom brings about.


William Irvine: Is the hon. member afraid of them?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I will tell of the obligations which freedom brings about and' those obligations have never been declined by this country. When some ten yeans ago, it is going on now for eleven years, there came a great conflict in which we believed we were in the right and in which the peoples who were associated with us by blood on the other side of the world were also engaged, I do not believe we took refuge in any subordinate condition of our constitution to evade the
B.N.A. Act Amendment

necessities of the situation. My learned and hon. friend said this: "In a conference of the provinces of the Dominion, the provinces would inevitably lose rights and the Dominion would acquire rights."


Herbert Meredith Marler: Nothing of the kind.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I listened to my hon. friend"s remarks with great attentiveness, and my recollection of his argument is that he said it would be dangerous to have a constitutional conference because, in that constitutional conference, provinces might lose rights which they now enjoy. It is just as possible that at such conference provinces might gain rights which they do not now enjoy. If we had the right to amend the *constitution, the sovereignty being divided now between the Dominion and the provinces, if it was thought best to give to the provinces certain rights -which they do not now enjoy, it would' be quite competent to give them. If it was thought best in the interest of the whole country to take certain powers now exercised by the provinces and give them to the Dominion, that could be done as well. There is no foundation for the assertion that a conference of the provinces with the Dominion would, of necessity, result in a depreciation of the powers of the provinces.


William F. Carroll: Supposing that there was a conference of the dominion and the provinces and they agreed that Canada should be allowed to amend its constitution by federal act, would my hon. friend then say that this House of Commons, the Senate and the Governor General should be allowed to amend' the confederation of Canada and the provinces without reference to the provinces?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, I would not. My idea would be that the provinces and ourselves should decide upon some method which required the concurrence, not only of a majority, but of a large majority of the provinces, and not only of a large majority of the provinces, but of a large majority of the people of the provinces I would have it very much along the same lines as that which gives to the American people the right to amend' their constitution. I would not have it require the concurrence of all of the provinces, because that would mean that one province could set itself up against the rest and demand better terms.


Thomas Vien: On that, my hon. friend will surely not contend that if one province refuses an amendment, a majority of the others can compel it to accept such an amendment.

A contract between contracting parties cannot be amended' without the consent of all of the parties.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I know that and I propose to have a new contract between the Dominion and the provinces whereby, under certain conditions, changes could be made, not upon a bare majority, but upon a majority of say two-thirds, not only of the provinces themselves, but of the people of the provinces.


Thomas Vien: That would never be accepted.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If that was never accepted', the matter would fall; but I do not believe, in a progressive country, one can say: We have a constitution and we are going to make any change so difficult that it can never be changed.


Thomas Vien: We are a contracting party and nobody can compel us to change the contract except with the unanimous consent of the contracting parties.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I agree with that
absolutely, but I would have a new contract. I was asked to speak about when Canada was a nation. According to the last speaker we are a nation for internal affairs, but not for external affairs, and it is argued that we should devote our time and attention to building up internal affairs and not bother about external affairs.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Or assume the responsibility.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The answer I make is
that, whether we like it or not, without any control at- all upon British foreign policy, we have been exposed in the past to the hazard of war and, on the whole, whenever war has broken out, we have done our fair share. So far we have had a position of subordination that, whether we liked it or not, we have been drawn into war, and I think my hon. friend will agree with me that that is so. I doubt if there is any way which human ingenuity can devise whereby we shall have a joint control of foreign policy, but that is a question which I do not wish to enter upon at the present time. It seems to me that this question at any moment may become a practical one, although it has been regarded by some as purely theoretical. The question of the constitution of the Senate in Canada is not purely theoretical. At any time we may find the majority view of this House, as expressed by this House, as expressed by the elected representatives of the people, flouted by men

B.N.A. Act Amendment
who do not represent the people who have been appointed fotr life, the majority of whom, perhaps, have been appointed for life by a part} which represents views absolutely at variance with those held at this time by the people of Canada. Surely that is a practical question and there is ground for examining into the opportunity of changing such a situation. If we cannot examine into the wisdom of changing such a situation without an amendment to our constitution, it follows that we should have the right to amend our constitution.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two thoughts which I wish to express on this question as I shall have to vote against the resolution as it stands. There are some who have the idea that Britain is withholding from us something which we should have. She is not doing that; in fact, Britain is anxious, nay eager, that the overseas dominions to-day should assume and exercise the responsibilities of nationhood. There is no need yet for a change. Our dignity in the past has not suffered; in fact, I think we have in the world of commerce a prestige that we would not otherwise have had.
We should in the first place, I think, decide whether or not we want the responsibility of nationhood. The inconsistency of the whole agitation lies in this fact, that the Dominion is composed of what are or ought to be autonomous parts, and before any change can be made in the British North America Act a conference of the provinces will have to be called to decide what it is we need and desire. I shall have to vote against the resolution, because my province does not to-day stand on an equal basis with the rest of the Dominion; nor does the province of Alberta: we are treated as minors. The old provinces of Ontario and Quebec sixty years ago held these portions of the Dominion in trust until such time as their population would warrant their being formed into provinces; and that old confederation assumed the right of ownership. To-day, therefore, we are not on a footing with the rest of the provinces.


William Findlay Maclean: That is an injustice.


John Evans: It is an injustice which will
have to be removed before we can with any consistency ask for greater autonomy for Canada or for the full status of nationhood. The old confederation of Ontario and Quebec has dominated the rest of the Dominion since the union and has taken the means to make that domination continuous. We should have
an equal right with any other province in the Dominion to full representation in the Senate. That we have not, and until such time as our standing is secured on an equal basis with the rest of the provinces in this Dominion, I, for one, shall feel bound to vote against a resolution of this kind.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. EDMUND BRISTOL (Centre Toronto) :: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to
make any observations on this subject, but so many speeches have been made with regard to it that I thought perhaps it would be proper to say a word or two.
I think everyone here must agree with the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) when he says that the British North America Act was really a treaty in which every province took part and that no important or serious changes can be made in that act except with the consent of every province interested. It seems to me that the Dominion itself is getting so set up on its greatness and power that it has lost sight of the fact, that it was the creation of the provinces, the child, so to speak, and that the provinces were the father and mother of confederation. On that fact rests an important point. Under the amendment suggested by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) it would be quite possible for this House and the Senate to amend the British North America Act in respect to any matter except, perhaps, the question of education. In other words, they could make changes in the Senate; they could change the number of representatives to be elected from the different provinces-in fact, the majority in the Senate and in the House of Commons for the time being could make any changes they wished to make. I suppose if it happened to be a Liberal majority they would take one point of view; if it was a farmer majority they might take another point of view, and if the Conservative party was in power they might take a totally different attitude. So it seems to me that the proposal as presented to the House is not fair or practicable so far as the provinces which formed the confederation are concerned. I cannot see anything in the suggestion beyond this: It seems perfectly evident that if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) calls a conference of the Dominion and the provinces, he will not be able to get anywhere unless the
B.N.A. Act Amendment

consent of all the provinces is obtained. That is, of course, assuming that they are willing to accept the argument of the Minister of Justice that all the provinces must consent to any change that is to be made-a practice, I believe, which has prevailed ever since confederation. So that even if the provinces did get together and we had the power in this parliament to make the desired amendments, the only difference is that we would not have to send them over to England and say to the imperial authorities: "The Dominion and the provinces are desirous of having a change made in the act; this is what they want; will you kindly put it through?" That is about what it amounts to; because I have not heard anyone suggest that the British government has ever objected to any of the slight amendments that have been made to the act at our request. It seems to me, therefore, that there is practically nothing in the proposal.
Some reference has been made to the de-sirablity of having a Canadian ambassador at Washington. Well, I think that at this time we need the backing of the 'whole British Empire at Washington. For some time the city of Chicago has been taking large quantities of the waters of the Great Lakes. This is not a legal question at all; it is something like the case of two farmers living side by side-one of them cannot take more than his proper share of the water of a river running between the two farms. For years they have been taking this water, which belongs as much to Canada as it does to the United States, and they have been running it down into the Mississippi and utilizing it in the production of power. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is high time for this country to take the position as part of the British Empire that not one foot of water should go through Chicago from the Great Lakes down into the Mississippi. It is not, as I have said a legal matter; it is not a question of a treaty. But that water is our property, and the government of this country should get busy in the matter. Do not bother with an ambassador at Washington, but say to the British govem-men: "Look here; get into this. We will help you by supporting the British navy instead of sponging upon you as we have done for a hundred and fifty years." If you get the British Empire as a whole behind you perhaps you will get something done. They might tell the United States: "We will not pay you anything more until you get that difficulty with this part of the British Empire settled." Great Britain is paying millions to the United States every year; it is the only country in the world that is paying its war

debts, and we should get the whole British Empire together shaking its fists in a pleasant and agreeable way at Washington, and saying: We want that water back. It is costing us millions of dollars to deepen our canal system and our ports because of the water they are taking down there, and we sit calmly here and waste our time in this debate which might better have been conducted in a school with a prize for the one who makes the best speech. It gets us nowhere. The thing we want to remember is that we are a part of the British Empire, and we Want to stick to the British Empire. We do not want to bother with a Canadian ambassador at Washington; we want the whole British Empire behind this country all the time. I cannot see what particular happiness or pleasure any man in this country gets over the signing of a treaty with the United States by our own plenipotentiary, when we allow the British people to pay practically the whole cost of the British navy. We are not commencing to pay our share of the cost of the defence of this country; at no cost to us we have been defended by the British navy for a hundred and fifty years.
What made the United States break away from England? It was simply because England started to put a small tax on the United States, which had been in existence as a British colony for a hundred years. A small tax was put on practically for the purpose of defending their coasts so that they could become a great and prosperous country, and the colony thereupon broke away from the Mother Country, and as soon as it became prosperous it started in to have a rebellion of its own. Are we going to allow the British people to pay the whole cost of the British navy until we become prosperous, and then say: We do not need the British navy; we are going to run our own country. Fortunately, we have not arrived at that stage yet. I think it is time we recognized our position as part of the British Empire. Great Britain having learned a lesson from the breaking away of the United States will not attempt to put a tax on us, but are we going to allow the British people to pay the whole cost of that navy which defends our coasts and allows us to become great and prosperous? It is time that we paid our share, instead of running a little artificial navy. Who wants to get on ships in this country? No one that I know of. People can make so much more money on land that they would rather stay on shore and make money. The British navy is for the defence of the whole empire, and as we do not want to go on ships and have a navy of our own.

B.N.A. Act Amendment
as we want to stay ashore, like the Americans, and make money, it is only fair that we should pay our share. That is what we should be considering, instead of whether we should have the power to change the British North America Act. When we want any change made we have simply to ask Great Britain to make the change, and Ae will do it.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, those who have in this debate, up to now, sided with the mover of this amendment, have to their credit the fact of having strived for the principle of self-government, but is this principle of autonomy referred to by the supporters of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), the only one which must be taken into consideration by this House? I think there is another principle which certainly demands our consideration, and it is, that the privileges which were granted to us by the British North America Act are part of a sacred pact not to be altered or amended by a majority in the House of Commons. The Fathers of Confederation, at the time, in order to obtain the full co-operation of our compatriots of the various provinces, offered the following guarantee, that under the control of both the Commons and Senate, certain vested rights would be maintained in favour of the various nationalities lit the provinces. The British North America Act was enacted by the Fathers of Confederation, after a number of meetings and much discussion, and this Act created the general impression, in this country, that it was the safeguard of our traditions and vested rights, especially for the old provinces of Lower and Upper Canada. It is because they believed that this principle was embodied in the British North America Act, that the various provinces welcomed Confederation and, since 1867, joined it of their own free will. The present generations, like the one of 1867, wish to maintain for these nationalities in the various provinces of Confederation, the same pledges in regard to their vested rights and sound traditions.
The resolution which is submitted to us, while evidencing a desire not to wound the feelings of the provinces interested in this confederation pact, nevertheless introduces an element of a nature to diminish the safeguards which we possess, is a source of anxiety and apprehension to the various component groups.	So far as I am concerned, the great confidence which I place in confederation, under the high protection of the British crown, the faith I repose in it as an upholder of the traditions and the vested rights of the French population co-operating
with the English in this country for the good administration of the Dominion, this reliance I could not place in the legal status which the present motion tends to establish, because with such a legal status the various nationalities in the provinces would be at the mercy of the changeable and often ill-inspired views of the majorities holding power in parliament. This is why I am opposed to the motion to amend our constitution.
The Confederation Act of 1867, in the eyes of the provinces, is a sacred one which must always remain intact. It gives us rights to which we are attached, it strongly contributes to the maintenance of peace and harmony in this country, it is the shield of our customs and rights, and, it is because it remains unaltered that the provinces adhere to the pact It would therefore be, in my opinion, a mistake for this House to assume the right to change or amend it at will.
Moreover, we have, in this country, existed! as a confederation for almost sixty years. Since the year 1867, the provinces have been united, forming a confederation pact under the aegis of this British North America Act. Since then have we had occasion to complain? On any occasion when the Canadian people expressed a wish to amend their constitution, have they ever been denied that right, by the British Crown? Have we any reason to believe that in future the British crown might be guilty of injustice towards us. Whatever may be the very sincere considerations which have prompted the movers of this resolution, I cannot help considering as a slur on the Imperial authorities, the fact that some among us wish, after sixty years of existence, to claim the power to amend our constitution. It looks as if we wished to tell them that we had no further confidence in their authority, that we have special reasons to complain; as if, in the course of these sixty years, we had been requesting of the British crown amendments to our constitution which they had refused! Now, Sir, Canada is not in that position; it is fully satisfied with the charter obtained in 1867, which has contributed to the development of our country, safeguarded autonomy in all the provinces and largely helped to maintain this harmony so necessary to the welfare of the country; the Canadian people are happy to possess such a charter, because it is a pledge of peace and harmony; a safeguard of the traditions and vested rights which are theirs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before a vote is taken on
B.N.A. Act Amendment

the amendment to the amendment which has been moved by my hon. friend the member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) I should like to point out that there seems to be three entirely distinct and separate questions which have come to the fore in this discussion and which, if I may be permitted to say so, are being more or less confused. The resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean, York) as drafted, gives rise to them in a natural way. It is important we should see that the consideration of any one of thie three questions does not necessarily involve a like point of view with respect to the others.
There is in the first place the question of the right to amend our own constitution, a question which one might describe at present as theoretical or academic, although it may come to have in the course of time some very practical bearings. There is secondly the question of the method by which this country should proceed to secure amendment of its constitution should it decide such a step to be desirable and necessary. There are two methods that have been suggested. One is contained in the resolution of my hon. friend to the effect that a resolution of both houses of parliament should be addressed to His Majesty the King praying the British parliament to amend the constitution in the manner set forth. As has been pointed out in setting forth the other method, that method ignores altogether the relationship of the provinces to the Dominion in the creation of the constitution itself. All of that particular phase of the question was so fully and conclusively argued by the Minister of Justice yesterday that this House, I believe, is practically unanimously of the view that if an amendment of the kind is to 'be sought, due regard should be had to the view that a compact was made at the time of confederation, and that an amendment of the importance that such an amendment certainly would have, ought only to be proposed after there had been a conference and agreement between the Dominion and the provinces.
The third question which has come up in discussion, and which seems to be entirely separate and distinct from each of the others, is, assuming the House or the country has come to the decision that the constitution should be amended in a manner which would permit of its amendment within the boundaries of our country, so to speak, without going beyond to apply to the British parliament, and assuming that we had agreed upon the method by which the British parliament should be approached in that regard, what then are to be the terms of the amendment 
itself? What are to be the conditions by which the people of Canada, when they come to amend their constitution, shall be prepared to abide in any amendment they may have under consideration. Perhaps I can illustrate this point by a reference to the resolution of my hon. friend. The third clause in the resolution says.
" The proposed law for the alteration of the said act must be passed by an absolute majority of each house of parliament."
My hon. friend says that if the constitution is to be amended at any time it must be by a majority of this House and of the Senate. Some hon. members who have participated in the discussion have thought that instead of a bare majority, a two-thirds majority might be required. If not a two-thirds majority in all cases possibly a two-thirds majority in some cases, and a simple majority in others. All I wish to point out at the moment is that the question of terms or conditions is a question apart altogether from what I believe to be the question the hon. member for South York wished to have discussed, namely-whether the constitution of Canada might upon terms and conditions to be agreed upon, be amended within the confines of Canada itself, and without the necessity of any request to the British parliament to make the amendment. I would feel that my hon. friend's motion as it stands could not be accepted for the reason, if for no other, that it is, inadvisable for this House at this time to commit itself as to the terms or conditions on which any amendment should be made to the constitutions; very full opportunity at the right moment should be afforded for considering and discussing that important feature. Similarly I would feel that my hon. friend's motion should not pass this House, even in the amended form namely, providing that the consent of the provinces must be obtained, without in the first instance permitting the provinces to confer with the Dominion with respect to the address that should be presented to His Majesty.
May I add one word in regard to the amendment to the amendment which has been moved by my hon. friend for East Calgary because I think it, too, helps to illustrate the confusion, which has arisen in the discussion of this matter. My hon. friend suggests that the resolution should be amended by adding to sub-section 2 the words:
And that before further action be taken on the proposed resolution the same be referred to the consideration of the conference proposed in the Speech from the Throne for consideration and recommendation.

B.N.A. Act Amendment
I do not know whether my hon. friend for East Calgary has noticed' that what he is proposing to do is to ask the two Houses of parliament to send a petition to His Majesty praying that the British House will amend the constitution in the way the member for South York has suggested with the words of ' my hon. friend for East Calgary included. The resolution of my hon friend from South York is: That a humble address be presented to His Most Excellent Majesty in the following words-and the words which my hon. friend from East Calgary has moved as an amendment are part of the words which under his amendment are to go into the address to be presented to His Majesty the King. I am sure my hon. friend the member for East Calgary never intended and does not wish anything of the kind; that, nevertheless, is the effect of his amendment. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I do not think my hon. friend's amendment will appeal to the House. I am equally sure it will not appeal to himself once he sees its effect.
The point at issue, it seems to me, narrows a'own to whether or not this country should have the right to amend its own constitution, without in that connection asking any assistance of the British parliament. In a discussion of this kind I think we ought to have regard for the impression which our words within these walls may create in the minds of those who may read them beyond the precincts of this parliament. The simple discussion of whether or not we should have the right to amend our constitution may be differently interpreted. Some persons reading this debate, or possibly reading the headlines of the debate as they will doubtless appear in the press in different parts of the world, would assume that this parliament, or rather that the people of Canada had not the right to amend their own constitution. Very much depends upon what we mean when we use the word " right " in that connection. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that we have the right to amend our constitution; and I will not go further than the resolution of my hon. friend for South York (Mr. Maclean) to give the House evidence that at least, we think we have that right. By his resolution my hon. friend is proposing that we should amend' the constitution, and he is taking what he believes to be the constitutional method of securing an amendment. We could not amend' our own constitution in the manner in which my hon. friend suggests, if we had not that right; and yet this discussion might create the impression abroad' that the people of Canada have not the right to amend their constitution. I do not profess to have very
much knowledge of constitutional law, but I recall at the moment a distinction made by constitutional authorities which I think is pertinent to the present discussion; and that is the distinction made between what is referred to as the law of the constitution and the conventions of the constitution. So eminent an authority as Dicey on the law of the constitution, as I remember his writing, has intimated that even a lawyer pursuing the study of the law of the constitution into a consideration of the conventions of the constitution would come to see that he had but proceeded a little further on the one path.
So far as the letter of the law is concerned, the Canadian people, technically speaking, have not the right or power to amend the constitution without asking the British parliament to pass a law for that purpose and without the consent of the British parliament. If that were taken to imply that the British parliament itself might, whenever it wished to do so, amend our constitution without any reference to Canada, or that the British parliament, when it was requested so to do might with respect to an amendment refuse to carry out the wishes of the Canadian people, then we might say that we had not the right to amend our own constitution; that some other body, namely, the British parliament possessed that right. But where the facts are as we know them to be that this parliament approaching the British parliament in a constitutional and regular way, by an address of both Houses requesting any amendment to our constitution, will have the amendment carried out in accordance with its wishes, it cannot be said that we have not the right or the power to amend our constitution. We have both. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the conventions of the constitution are just as important and binding as the law in a matter of this kind, and that the convention governing the amendment of the Canadian constitution to-day is that whenever the people of Canada proceed in a constitutional way to ask the British parliament as their	agent-because it is
practically as their agent that they ask the British parliament to do this-to amend the constitution in a particular way, the British parliament will always proceed so to act in accordance with that request. That being the case, this country has the full constitutional right to amend its constitution.
The real question at issue narrows down therefore, to a very small compass, namely to whether we desire in Canada to amend our own constitution, confining the transaction strictly within the boundaries of the Dominion, or whether we would rather main-
B.N.A. Act Amendment

tain the procedure which is essential at the present time in consequence of the historical facts and circumstances governing the matter, namely, of proceeding beyond the boundaries of the Dominion to the Mother Country to ask the British parliament to make the desired amendment in accordance with the expressed wish of our own constituted authorities. Now that is a question that seems to admit of discussion. There is much to be said on both sides. Personally I cannot but feel that for a number of reasons it would be preferable to save the British parliament, in connection with its business, growing as it is from day to day, the necessity, of troubling itself with respect to any matters which are distinctively a part of our own self government. I appreciate the feeling, I think it is a natural feeling, that many citizens of this country have, that the Dominion holding the position it does in all other particulars should not suffer under even a theoretical limitation in this particular matter. So far as I am concerned, I confess I do not see in it at the moment anything more than a theoretical limitation. There is no practical problem that has arisen up to the present time that I am aware of that in this regard has occasioned the necessity for any sudden action on the part of the Parliament of Canada. I think it is all important that this should be made perfectly clear, that it should be understood in the Old Country as well as here, that so far as the Old Country is concerned, we know that Britain is prepared to do in this matter whatever the people of Canada may wish to have done, and that if no change has come about thus far, or if the situation is what it is at the moment, it is, as has been said many times in the course of this debate, entirely of our own creation I think the further fact should be made clear, namely, that as a people we cannot be held to be making any sort of a complaint or entertaining a grievance with respect to the existing situation, but rather that this discussion is one practically, as has been said to-day, largely academic in character. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the question is one which very properly would come before a conference to be arranged by the government between the federal and provincial authorities, such a conference as in the Speech from the Throne it has been announced it is the intention of the government to call. I hope that with the assurance to my hon. friend, seeing that the matter has elicited the attention it has in this House in the last day or two, that the government will make it one of the subjects to be referred to such a conference, he will see the wisdom of not pressing his resolution to a vote, 
but will feel that he has already served the very admirable purpose which I am sure he had in view in making the motion, namely that of creating that interest in discussion and otherwise which is most essential to an adequate consideration of this important question.


Arthur Meighen: The presence of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) accompanying this motion assures it a respectful hearing on the part of members of this House. The hon. gentleman has enjoyed for some years the distinction of being the oldest parliamentarian in this Dominion, and enjoys as well a position of high esteem among all members of the House of Commons.
I am afraid I cannot congratulate him on the degree of unanimity with which his resolution now before us has been received in favour by members of parliament. Whatever [DOT]importance the motion may have, the discussion of it has had this shattering result; it has split the Labour party in two. Their views are now so multiplied that the rest of us cannot present an amendment at all. I have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion as to the merits of the motion and both amendments. I would not make any request of the hon. member for South York. So far as I am concerned the pressing of the resolution to a division is a matter entirely within his own pleasure. With some regret, so far as he is personally concerned, I have to say at the outset, that I will vote decisively against the motion, the amendment and the sub-amendment.
A part of the discussion, I think, has not been very relevant, and I say that with all deference to previous speakers. I do not think we have before us anything that touches, even remotely, the question of the wisdom of preserving an appeal to the Privy Council. My view on that question I may indicate later, but the subject has no relation to the motion before the House. The hon. member who moves this resolution referred to it some days ago and lodged a complaint that the law lords of the Privy Council had shot holes through the constitution of Canada. If they have, their action is wholly null because they were never vested with such power. It is their duty, if appeal is made, to decide what the meaning of the British North America Act is. That, in the case in dispute, the appeal on the Industrial Disputes Act, they did and they gave their reasons therefor. I think it is unfortunate that there should be anything in the nature

B.N.A. Act Amendment
of an attack because of that judgment. For myself, I would have deprecated the carrying of the case to the Privy Council, indeed, into litigation at all. I believe it has been the balance of opinion of the Justice department for many years that if the Lemieux Act, so-called, got into the courts, its fate was very doubtful, indeed, was probably sealed. I have no reason to think they have varied that view in the present instance, and I think the carrying of the Industrial Disputes Act case in the matter of the Hydro-Electric Commission employees was an impetuous adventure from which we have returned in discomfiture with nothing left but a feeling of remorse and a bill of expense.
But all this has nothing to do with the case before us. We have to vote "yes" or "no" to a resolution, an amendment and a sub-amendment, and in determining what we do, we must read each of the three, because our vote, if in the affirmative, means support of whatever one we vote for as it reads. It does not mean support of some more or less nebulous principle which we think the mover may have in the back of his head.
The resolution itself calls upon this House to petition they British parliament to give us power to amend the British North America Act by a majority vote. I have not heard any hon. member, save the mover, support the resolution in those naked terms. The speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is decisive in the negative. He raised only the one objection-no other is needed. He laboured it, perhaps, too long, but he presented it most forcibly and well. No one in this parliament of Canada could dream, for a moment, of asking the British House of Commons and House of Lords to tear up the securities to which we and others are parties on the mere demand of this House itself. Undoubtedly, the pact of confederation is a contract and there are rights involved therein not represented by the Parliament of Canada. We could not put ourselves in the position of asking that rights so secured should be disturbed on our motion alone. The speech of the Minister of Justice determines, I think, without power of dispute, that there should never be suggestion of amendment affecting other parties to the contract save after conference and consent of those other parties. As he delivered that speech, I could not help regretting that he had not made it before the famous challenge of the powers of the Senate which rang through this chamber last July. I could not help regretting that he had not made it in the hearing of the Prime Minister before he went through western Canada and delivered those blood-and-thunder speeches about curtailing the authority of the upper house. There was no suggestion then while he was on the stu'inps of western Canada about a conference of the provinces before this assault on the Senate was to be made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was always contemplated.


Arthur Meighen: It was always contemplated?-but never suggested.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it was.


Arthur Meighen: One is not able to tell
what is contemplated by the actual words of the Prime Minister when on the stump. That threat, however, is now reduced to the suggestion of a conference which, I think we are all pretty ready to admit, means nothing more than a kiss good-bye to the whole terrible campaign. So much for the resolution.
The amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) is more cautious, It is to the effect that we shall petition for power to amend at our will within certain limits the British North America Act, but shall do so only after having obtained the consent of all of the provinces of Canada. Even then the amendment proposes that we have authority to change only within the limits of a rather contracted circle. We are not to ask even with the approval of all the provinces for unlimited power of amendment, we are to ask only for power to amend in so far as we can do so without interference with minority rights. This is the undoubted result of the language in which the amendment appears as suggested by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg. In the first place, I do not think it would be a matter of convenience that the whole of the provinces of Canada should in every case consent. If we are going to put those obstacles in front of our course, we are going to add to the difficulties if any did exist, that we have had in the past. We have amended the British North America Act many times upon address of this House without speaking to the provinces at all. Why? Because the amendments we asked for did not affect in any way minority rights, did not affect in the remotest way provincial rights, were amendments in which the provinces or minorities were not concerned at all. It would be cumbersome indeed in such cases to be compelled to pass first from province to province and obtain universal approval. Besides, I do not think we are going to gain anything in the world by asking for power to be vested in this House to amend, in relation to one sphere, a constitutional right while, in relation to another sphere, we must
B.N.A. Act Amendment

pursue the course we have pursued in years gone by. It seems to me that then would develop an anomalous situation and it is merely fanciful and illusory for us to dream that, after we have such result, our status would be in the least elevated or that we would be more of a nation than we aTe today.
The third amendment moved by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) has, I think, in effect, the interpretation given to it by the Prime Minister. If the hon. member for East Calgary agrees, I am satisfied that he will not himself ask that we shall vote upon this amendment. I know he did not intend such effect. If I have his puipose aright, he intended that we should express ourselves the opinion that this parliament should have the right to amend the British North America Act, but that we should not convey that opinion to the British House until the provinces of Canada agree. To that also I am emphatically opposed. I do not think this parliament should have the right of its own will and motion, under any conditions, without reference to the provinces, even though they might presently grant us that right, to amend in any way we choose the British North America Act. Though the provinces might agree that we should go to the British House and ask for the right to be vested in this parliament alone, I would not be a party to the assertion of such a right. There are, in this Dominion, minorities whom no provincial legislature distinctly represents. The voice of those minorities is heard even in the midst of this debate. Are we to assume that because certain legislatures, which do not speak for those minorities, tell us to take to ourselves the right to amend the British North America Act at will we ought, therefore, to do so? I do not think so at all. So that, in the form which the three propositions now before the House take, I could not vote for any of them.
There still remains, however, the question at large, should we seek by some channel or other to obtain these powers? It perhaps is not worth discussing in so far as deciding the vote of any one on what is before us is concerned, but it has been discussed and I do not want to evade it in any degree whatever.
I am afraid myself that if we launch very far into this question and seek to set up some other method than that already pursued we are only going to get further and further into the morass; and any substitute which we are able to invent will be far more cumbersome and even less dignified than that to which we have subscribed through all these

years. We differ from Australia and South Africa. We are a federation of a variety of minorities and majorities. A suggestion has been made, I believe, by Sir Clifford Sifton,- and I cannot help but note the more brotherly language and Christian spirit in which his name is spoken of by hon. gentlemen opposite now than characterized similar references just a few years ago,-that there should be some divisions created throughout the Dominion and some proportional representation election; and that the delegates so elected should re-draft our constitution. Well, it seems to me that if such were done the very securities that now prevail would be insisted on again. There is no reason in the world to assume that any different securities could be substituted. And why is this the case? Simply because you cannot erect any structure of balances and referendums as simple and effective as the method which obtains to-day. Imagine an agreement to which any minority in this country could logically be asked to subscribe, an agreement under which there would be a reference to the provinces and then a reference to minorities, all entailing weeks and months, perhaps years of labour, all giving rise to disputations and controversies, section against section-that is to say, if the change proposed amounted to anything at all. Imagine a system such as that to which any of the various minorities of Canada would likely subscribe at any conference! No matter how you go about it, whether by a new system of divisions or by the legislatures as they exist in conjunction with this parliament, you will arrive ultimately at just the same difficulty which confronted the Fathers of Confederation and which they surmounted by the instrumentality of the British North America Act.
Is it all worth while? Are we going to be any better off after this is all done than we are now? The answer comes in the speeches we have heard this very day. One hon. gentleman, even the mover himself, rises and says: "All I ask for, and I ask it in the name of the dignity and nationhood of Canada, is that in matters which do not affect minorities we shall have the right to amend our constitution". And he declares that to the outside world our status will be enhanced; it will all appear a whole lot better to 9 p.m. the world at large, who will look on us as higher in rank among the nations, more independent, more autonomous, less subordinate to the Motherland. I do not follow this reasoning at all. If we would still have in all important cases to go through the circuitous journey which we take now,

B.N.A. Act Amendment
why should we not do the same in every instance? If the outside world sees us take this course in all matters of consequence, I do not think that we are likely to be elevated to any position of superior dignity because we do not have to submit to the same necessity in matters which are merely minor. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) says that there are certain subjects which he never would commit for decision to the Parliament of Canada, no matter who else might consent to this being done. We rest, says he, on the security which is found in the British parliament so far as these particular matters are concerned. But, says the hon. member, as to other subjects, "for the sake of our position before the world, I beg of you to adopt some new means whereby we can change the act at will". For the life of me I do not see anything to be gained at all so long as there is something reserved.
But if there were nothing reserved, if all minorities would agree to something definite -and this to my mind is purely visionary- if all were unanimous that we abandon recourse to the British parliament altogether, and, through some system at home, vest in the various legislatures and the Parliament of Canada the right to amend the constitution, would we really be further ahead than we are now? The Prime Minister says, and I support him to the full, that we have today an absolute constitutional right to fix the terms of our constitution. Speaking for the people of Canada, satisfying the British parliament that we so speak-and there is no difficulty in doing this if the voice of objection is not heard-we have the right as a parliament to decide what goes into that act and what stays out. Such is our position to-day. Hon. gentlemen say: "Yes, but that only rests on the foundation of constitutional right; by law we still have to go around the route to the British parliament, and we do not want to rest on the insecure basis of mere constitutional right. We want our legal rights plainly defined' before the world." Let us inquire into that contention. In my judgment our legal position would not be one whit the stronger in that case than it is now. True, it is by virtue of constitutional right that we can now dictate virtually any amendments to the act, provided we speak for all Canada and the voice of minorities raises no objection. But the sanction of constitutional right within this British Empire is just as firm, just as lasting and just as dependable as the voice of law itself. But I go farther. When we have gone through all this and got our substituted system, when we have obtained the 22
legal right to amend in our several parliaments this British North America Act, the legal foundation is not one iota better than it was before. Why do I say that? Though the British North America Act may be amended, in such a way as to give the Parliament of Canada, after a long series of provincial approvals, the right to amend the act, after that is all done the legal power would still remain in the British parliament to change the act at will. And nothing could restrain them save a regard for constitutional authority. In other words, we would still be protected by constitutional right and constitutional right alone; the legal power in the British parliament would remain to amend the act or to repeal it. So that after all the sanction we would have would be the very sanction we now enjoy. The legal right exists to-day, for example, on the part of His Majesty to veto any act of the Parliament of Great Britain. Though the legal right exists, however, the constitutional right has died; it is antiquated and obsolete and virtually does not exist at all. And it would be just as true to say that the Parliament of Great Britain to-day is a mere instrument and tool of monarchy as it is to say that this parliament, speaking for the people of Canada, has not the right to amend our constitution. We have the right, and before the world we could be no better off or better protected if any scheme whatever of the nature now proposed were adopted.
I may be old fashioned in this matter and if I am I will take the consequences. But I am not very anxious to strip the British Empire of those emblems of unity which today dignify it before the face of the world. I do not want to do anything of the kind unless there is something to be gained, something material and practical beyond all that is lost. For my own part I think we have travelled far enough along this road. Rather, I believe that it has-on ourselves and on the world without-a wholesome effect to see these visible signs of our unity remain, to see our appeal to the Privy Council preserved, to see our power of amendment exercised through the old British parliament; to see in a word that the British Empire is the British Empire still.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get the House into a muddle over this question; I want to see that due respect is paid both to the House and to the question itself.
From what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said and from what the

B.N.A. Act Amendment

right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) have said, it would appear that this country, this parliament, are in a helpless condition, are impotent and cannot deal with the very fair question that I have brought to the attention of the House and the country. If the British parliament has granted this power to the dominions that have been created since Canada was made a confederation by the British North America Act; if Australia, South Africa and the Irish Free State are able to amend their respective constitutions, within certain limitations and protections that have been provided, why should not the first of the dominions, this Canada of ours, have the privilege not only of amending her own constitution but also of interpreting it in her own courts rather than being obliged to have it interpreted by a court in the formation of which she did not have a single voice?
Lawyers can put up arguments on all kinds of cases, and we have a good many lawyers in this House. The Minister of Justice led the lawyers who spoke on this question, and the leader of the opposition followed the same line as the Prime Minister-they are all trying to get past the issue. They forget that we are living alongside the United States, a great country which has achieved something in the way of better conditions for the world. Some people may say they have not entirely succeeded; perhaps not. But they have done something. Out of a condition similar to ours they evolved a constitution which they themselves have power to amend. They have amended it, and have continued to amend it. Instead of being governed as they were in the first place by the thirteen original states, they are now governed by the senate and congress of the United States. In other words, the people of the United States can make, amend and interpret their own constitution. But leading members of this House, especially its legal lights, say that in that respect Canada is helpless; we cannot do it. As a Canadian I resent that doctrine, and I hope I shall live long enough to see a change made.
I did hope to hear something from my friends down to the left, the Progressives. They know they have grievances; I have heard them mention them within the last two or three days. For instance, they disagree with a decision given by the Privy Council in regard to certain matters affecting their interests. They know about the case where the Canadian Pacific Railway Company refuses to pay the taxes on or take the deeds of their land, a great deal of their

property escaping taxation in that way. I would ask the leader of the Progressives if that is not so.


Robert Forke: That is so.


William Findlay Maclean: He knows the
case. There is an occasion for a real grievance in respect to a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There are many oases of that kind and, the more this country grows the more will it be dissatisfied with the decisions made across the ocean when we have in our own country a Supreme court which is competent to deal with these matters and can better interpret our constitution than can the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. What is good enough for Australia and South Africa is surely good enough for Canada, which preceded them in establishment as a dominion and has grown up the greatest daughter of the British Empire.
Lawyers and newspaper men may argue: "Oh, the member for South York is trying to smash the British connection " I not only heard hints of that, but the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), in the most pedantic way, undertook to lecture me last night for indulging in intellectual gymnastics in this House. Well, now that we are talking about gymnastics I must come back at him. He himself has indulged in a species of gymnastics. I get that information from a document that came into my hands a few days ago, entitled Report re North Atlantic Steamship Combine, by W. T. R. Preston. I was reading that report, and at page 7 I found the following:
In consequence of the continued discrimination against the products of Canadian flour mills by the North Atlantic steamship combine, the Canadian government was pressed, in 1913, by the milling interests to immediately investigate the operations of the North Atlantic steamship combine. The chairman of the railway board (now Sir Henry Drayton), was selected to undertake the inquiry, particularly with respect to Canadian overseas trade. Sir Henry proceeded to London with the object of securing such information as might be available in British government departmental records, and also in the hope of securing the assistance of the Imperial government in bringing about a more satisfactory condition in ocean transport.
And then the report goes on to say something of the-not intellectual gymnastics but physical gymnastics of the member for West York, who, under the guidance of W. T. R. Preston, went around London to smash the combine that existed in the north Atlantic steamship trade. I have heard a great many people talk about, "The flag that braved a thousand years, the battle and the breeze" meaning, mainly, the navy of Great Britain. But there is also a flag, the mercantile flag of Britain, which is older even than the

B.N.A. Act Amendment
navy, and which has braved the breezes of more than a thousand years. The statements that Mr. Preston puts in this document are the result of the visit and gymnastics of the member for West York at that time, and these gymnastics are still going on. That is the greatest attack that has been made on the British flag that I know of, and apparently it was made by the hon. member for West Y'ork (Sir Henry Drayton), who undertook to tell me what I ought to do in the matter. I refuse to be told by him or by the ex-mayor of Toronto, now the member for North Toronto (Mr. Church), whether I am loyal or not. I do not have to go to these gentlemen for certificates of loyalty. I still represent in this House 120,000 people, who constitute the largest eonstituteney in Canada, and most of them are British bom. The riding of South York is made up almost altogether of the township of York, which includes the main suburbs of Toronto, and I know these British-born men; I know what their views are. They are very British, and I had the fairness to tell some of them the other day that when they [DOT]were fighting for their personal liberties in regard to certain legislation of the province of Ontario I had a great deal of sympathy with them.
My hon. friend the member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) who also read me a lecture, has also told these people in the last day or two in his paper, and it is a good paper, that he has a lot of sympathy with them in their fight for their liberties in Toronto. These British-born people in the township of York, and the majority of the electors there are British-born, have not a word to say against me when I have the courage to say we ought to have what the English people have, the right to make our own constitution. I am as British as they are; I am as British as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) on this subject; but I am enough of a Canadian-a one hundred per cent Canadian- to say that the constitution of Canada must be made in this country, and must be interpreted in this country by a Canadian court. We have a right to make our own court and to express our confidence in it. Now am I a disloyal Canadian in saying that? Yet that is the impression some of my friends on this side of the House have sought to give of myself. Well, let them say so; they have a perfect right to say so, but as long as I am the member from my riding I have the right to say what I think on this question.
A lot of these electors in York township that I spoke of are market gardeners and fruit growers, and these market gardeners and fruit growers in the township of York believe in 22i
a national policy; they believe in a tariff to protect the home producers of this country, and they are not going to condemn me, because I am just as British as they are. I am British enough to think that what is good enough for the great Mother Country is good enough for Canada, especially when it is good enough for Australia and even for the new state of South Ireland. The State of South Ireland is not limited in a single direction in the amending of its constitution, except in one respect; it cannot wipe out the king's prerogative; the king is the head of the state. This new state has absolute autonomy in every direction excepting that one thing. Australia also has the same right, and they are vindicating it. Are they disloyal for that? Will the hon. member for North Toronto say that the people of Australia are disloyal. Will the hon. member for West York say the same thing? Yet he has been trying to say that in the most pedantic way; I never heard such a pedantic speech as he made this afternoon. He endeavoured to say I was disloyal in such an insinuating way. He is a clever lawyer; I give him credit for that. But it is absurd to say that we in this country of ours, and that your sons and my sons after we are gone, are not to have a say as Canadians in the framing of the constitution of Canada, and I say that with all respect to my fellow countrymen of Quebec and other portions of Canada which have guaranteed rights in our constitution.
I presented only a skeleton proposition to the House. I have had a good deal of experience in this House, and time after time I have seen a man who had some proposition to put before the House sidetracked by thirty lawyers, and thirty more echoes of them. Why every silly Tommy can get up here and say the same thing. We have heard these silly Tommies charge people with being disloyal. When a proposition of this kind comes up we have to sit in this House and listen to the best lawyers we have, in the person of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and in the leader of the opposition, a gentleman for whom I have the greatest respect-I think he is the ablest parliamentarian in this country-but he is not in accord, he does not mesh to-day with the hon. member for South York on this question. Again I say, this is only a skeleton proposition that I have put before the House, and I would like to know how you can get a hearing in this House unless you have a skeleton proposition, and have the courage to put something in writing which you believe in. Having this proposition before us, I have no doubt that the Parliament of Canada, made up
BN.A. Act Amendment

of this House and the other House, and guided by the electors of Canada, and by the discussion that goes on in the country, and by the fairness of the Canadian people and the respect they have for minorities and for the pledges they have given in the past-I have no doubt that this parliament and the citizenry of Canada will be able to deal fairly and justly with a question of this kind. But we have had to sit here and listen to these lawyer statements-and you can get a lawyer to make any kind of a statement, and he will give you the very opposite opinion the next day, for a retainer. It may be a laughing matter:	It
it is to me a laughing matter to see such a collection of arguments coming up on a serious question like this. I have presented this question in the most serious way. I did not raise it because of any recent decision in England. I have taken pains to study the question; I have worked on it and I got advice on it a year ago, and then I framed up a skeleton proposition which I thought was a good proposition on which to get a discussion of this question, and that it is a live question is shown by this full House here to-night. If I were talking rot would there be any person in the House?


Mr. SHEARD:: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: My hon. friend would' be here. I never saw such a good judge of rot as he is. But in all seriousness I beg to say to my fellow members that this debate does not end this question. I am going to say the same thing to my constituents, to the electors of South York, when I go back into that part of South York which I have represented for thirty-three years and which may go into West York and I will be very glad to have my pedantic friend express his view. I d'o not know what the dictionary derivation of " pedantic " is, it probably comes from one of the old Greek roots; but the dictionary tells us that a " pedant " is one who assumes an air of superiority over others with whom he is associated. I hope that I have never been guilty of assuming an air of superiority over my fellow members; I have been a pretty fair friend even to some hon. members who have undertaken to flagellate me for what I have said here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


William Findlay Maclean: Will these hon. members undertake to stand' up and say that I am disloyal? Will the hon. member for North Toronto arraign me before the electors of the old town of North Toronto, still in my constituency, on the charge of being disloyal? Will the hon. member for West

York also do that? And yet that is practically the argument of my hon. friends- that I was disloyal, that I was preaching disloyalty, because I thought that my country, that your country and the country of your sons and daughters, ought to have the same status in regard to her constitution and the interpretation of it as the Mother Country, as Australia, as South Africa, and even the Free State of Ireland have.
Now that is the issue. You can do what you like with it. You can vote it down. The feeling of the House may be that this question should be allowed to drop to-night. I would' not object to that, but if it is done the verdict of the people' will be that this House had not the courage to deal with the issue that the member for South York presented on this occasion. I want to know whether the Progressives are prepared to deal with this question? Do they know anything about any injustice that was done to them by the Privy Council that I hinted at a little while ago? I think they know, and this House knows, and the Prime Minister and his party know that there is something wrong when they have intimated in the press that they are going to summon some kind of a conference of the provinces to consider this question. That is my justification to-night, the Prime Minister and his party say they are going to do something in the way of reform. They are going to do something in the way of reform to the upper house, and I agree with one of the hon. members from Quebec in what he said this afternoon. There is something wrong with the upper chamber. I am quite frank in speaking about these things, and I do not think I am guilty of any breach of privilege in alluding to the question. The people of Canada believe not only in the right to make their own constitution but in a .senate elected or selected by the several provinces. The Senate has just as much need to be elected as the House of Commons has. It should not be appointed as it has been. It was all right to start with, but now the system is a wrong one and the wrong must be righted. The several provinces of Canada are entitled to elect their own senators just as they do in the United States. And we are located alongside that country and this parliament is confessing that we should not amend our own constitution and should not choose our own senators in the way they do. And speaking of the House of Lords in the Old Country the growing feeling in England is that the House of Lords as at present constituted must be changed. The principle of election, even of an upper cham-

B.N.A. Act Amendment
ber is growing in England itself, and it is growing all over this world. There is a time when a man's usefulness may be near its end, but it never ends so long as he holds an appointed seat in the Senate of this country. That is not a very pleasant thing to have to say, but I have enough courage to say it; and if the Prime Minister states "I am going to call a conference of the various provinces to deal with one question and that is the selection of the Senate in this country" I believe he makes the first step in the desired direction. The Prime Minister says he is going to make it. On the other hand the right hon. leader of the opposition declares that he has simply made the promise and that will be the end of it. Well, I am going to "wait and see." That is what the Prime Minister has laid down to-night. But how long have we got to wait and when shall we see? Talking about "seeing" I do not see the Minister of Justice here to-night. He gave a fine legal opinion last night, but he is not here to-night to uphold it. Where is he?
Mr. MACKENZIE KIN1G:	He is at the
West Hastings banquet.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope he will
have a good time, but that is not discharging the duties of Minister of Justice for Canada when an important question like this comes up; and if he goes to many banquets we shall have to wait a long while to see. I could talk on this line a great deal longer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Findlay Maclean: .No, I am not
going on, but I am going to say what I have said here in my own constituency, I am going to say the same thing elsewhere in the country. My good friend from West Toronto made reference to a newspaper with which I was once connected and to the views which it advocated. I have a faint suspicion that some day the Toronto World may revive and take the lead in the campaign which I have started in this House.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: When will it start?
M,r. MACLEAN (York) : "Wait and see." I could say something more about newspapers if I cared to but I do not want to talk about that subject; the people are getting wise to it now. I am going to leave this question now with the consent of the mover of the resolution. I want to . thank the hon. member for 'Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), the only lady member of this House, for seconding my motion. I have got more support from the women in this matter than I have from the
men. We are going into an election here and in England, and there is this surprising feature about it: In the next election in Canada there will be more names of women on the voters list than there will be of men. In my own constituency right now there are lots of women voters and I go out and talk to them. And they talk too, they talk about the tariff and the constitution of this country, and they listen. A lot of women are going into the next election and much will depend on the question that I have raised here, whether Canada is a nation or not, whether this parliament is competent or incompetent, and on questions of that kind. This subject may be dropped to-night, but great headway has been made by Canada to-day toward the achievement of independence in her own sphere, while still remaining the strongest support of the Mother Country. We are able to administer our own constitution, able to make it, able to interpret it and able to live up to it and to make Canada the greatest country on the face of the globe to-day. I will withdraw the motion and leave the responsibility on parliament for its treatment of it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Since the main
motion has been withdrawn I feel that no good purpose will be served by retaining the amendment. The Conservative party seem to be so hopelessly shattered, and the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition so hopelessly united, that I think we cannot proceed any further in the matter.
Amendment withdrawn.


William Irvine: In view of the fact that
the promise given to the House by the Prime Minister was virtually what I included in my amendment, -with the consent of the House I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment to the amendment withdrawn.


Mr.   PQRKE@: May I say a word now?


Hewitt Bostock: The resolution is in possession of the House and can only be withdrawn by leave of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.
Motion withdrawn.



COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER moved the second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend and 'make operative certain provisions of the 'Copyright Act, 1921.
Arthur Meighen: I do not pretend to
know very much about the law nor about the Copyright Act as it stands, but I do know
Copyright Act Amendment

this, that very strong representation has been made against this measure, and it seems to me that before the second reading is passed, which virtually confirms the principle of the bill, the state of the law should be briefly expounded, the effect of the amendment briefly explained and the judgment of hon. members who have followed this law given for the benefit of us all.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: In view of the statement that has just been made as to the opinions of lawyers, I feel rather diffident about expressing an opinion now, but I quite agree with the words of the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) that the copyright law is at present a very complicated matter. If I had to quote authority for that I would refer to the debates that took place in this House and in the Senate in 1921 and 1923 when a number of distinguished members took part in the discussion including some ministers and ex-ministers, and the statement was made that nobody in this House apparently understood this law. It is rather a difficult situation to be placed in to be asked now to explain this law, but I think a synopsis can be given in a very few words. In 1886, at Berne, a convention was arrived at relating to international copyrights in which the leading nations of the world took part and became adherents to that convention. Britain was one of the parties to the Berne convention and extended to Canada the operation of this international copyright law. Canada nevertheless had its own domestic copyright law, chapter 88 of 30 Victoria, 1875. In 1908 the Convention of Berne was revised. Britain continued to adhere thereto, but did not extend the dispositions thereof to Canada. It was not until 1921 that the present Copyright Act was passed, containing most of the dispositions of the Berne convention but containing contrary to the convention the licensing clauses. The object of this bill is to correct these objectionable features, which are objectionable to those for whose benefit the copyright law was first instituted. I refer to sections 12, 13 and 15. Moreover, all through the act definitions have been left out as well as means of remedy. There have been omitted also certain rights of authors, of printers and of people who may enjoy the benefit of the reproduction of works. After all the main point at issue is really the repeal of the licensing clauses. It would be presumption on my part to endeavour to explain the intricacies of this legislation at this time, although if the House will bear with me I will endeavour to do so.

If the House will permit, I think the best way of dealing with this legislation will be to submit it to a special committee. When this law came up in 1923 it was discussed fully, and I find the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) stated at that time:
In the meantime my suggestion to the minister in this matter would be, seeing the bill is going to raise a good deal of controversy upon very difficult points, to refer the measure to a small select committee, (representative of the different parties in the House, and ask the authors, the publishers and the printers to state their case.
Then the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) said:
I would like to support the suggestion of the hon. *member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) that a small select committee be at once appointed.
And then later on in the debate the suggestion was repeated.	This time the hon.
member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said:
I was satisfied when the bill was up before, and I am just as firmly satisfied now that apart from the minister himself there is not a man in the committee at this present moment who understands this legislation.
Further on, he said:
I have tried to g6t to ' the bottom of this matter;
I have spent a lot of time on it and I confess I do not fully understand it now. My suggestion to the minister, when the bill was last up, was that he appoint a small committee, as was done in 1921, before whom the authors, publishers and printers can appear and state their claims. The committee will have to go to the bottom of the matter and report on this bill. I understood that my suggestion on that occasion agreed with the view of the minister. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) backed up the proposal very emphatically. He said that he did not understand it, that the committee did not either, and he refused to commit himself to legislation which he did not understand. I do not know anything quite as complicated or quite as involved as the copyright question.
He requested that a committee be appointed. For the same reasons I now ask that the consideration of this bill be left to a special committee.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my attention was not called to this bill until a moment ago, and I have just had an opportunity of glancing over it very hurriedly. I remember when the bill was before the House some two years ago. At that time I took some interest in it and some part in the discussion, and I think my hon friend (Mr. Chevrier) has correctly quoted me. The opinion which I then held, I still hold, that this, bill deals with one of the most involved and intricate matters that can come up for consid'eration by this parliament. I am quite satisfied that the proper mode of procedure is by a special committee. Personally, I would have no objection whatever

Copyright Act Amendment
to the motion that this bill be referred to a special committee. I see that the very sections which, after a great deal of consideration and much discussion, we enacted two years ago, the present measure seeks now to repeal. I know that as soon as the fact becomes generally known throughout Canada that it is the intention to repeal those sections, many interests which are now d'ormant will take an interest in the matter, and one of them in particular. The effect of the amendment, as I am able to determine it from a mere glance at the provisions, is to change those provisions of our former act which compelled the manufacture of the literary work in the Dominion of Canada. The object of the main section of the former bill was to compel the manufacture or the printing of the literary work in this country under a system of license which was approved by the House at that time. The main object of the present bill is to take away that protection which we then afforded to the printing establishments and printers of this country and to allow authors to have their works printed' in foreign countries and sent into Canada on particularly favourable terms. I do not wish to be one of those who are going to assent to the principle of this bill at present; but subject to that, I think the hon. member who has introduced the bill has taken the proper course in asking that it be referred to a special committee of this House.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Mr. Speaker, before this bill goes to a committee, I should like the House to understand its significance. As my hon. friend has stated, this bill was passed in 1921, but it was found' that in one particular it infringed the provisions of the Berne convention, so the act was not brought into operation. But in 1923, as you will see if you examine a copy of the bill, certain amendments were made to bring it within the Berne convention. My hon. friend has told the House that the bill bears hardly upon the authors. I do not think he can maintain that position. At the present time a Canadian author who sells his work to a United States publisher must throw in his Canadian rights. Und'er this law he may throw in his Canadian rights, but unless the American publisher publishes the book in Canada, some other publisher may take it and print it; but if he does so, the author must be paid for that. Therefore, if his work is sold to the United States and published on this sid'e by another publisher, the author gets not only his price from the American publisher, but the license fee from the Canadian publisher.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Who controls the price
which he will receive for selling his rights under the license system?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I understan5 there is in
the Copyright branch an official who referees in matters of that kind and surely we can leave it to him.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Can my hon. friend say why the estimation of the monetary value of the product of the brain should be left to an officer of a department, whereas one can sell boots and shoes at any price one wants?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That rather begs the question because, if the work is sold in the United States, if the licensing clauses are repealed, the author is done. He does not get anything more than what he gets from the publisher in the United States. If the licensing clauses remain, there is a chance, if his work is of any value, of its being published in Canada and his receiving that additional sum. Whether it is one official or another that decides what the amount is, there will be some amount, and whatever it is, great or small, the author is that much to the good. I do not think it can be maintained that any author has suffered, in the slightest degree, from the operation of this section.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: If it is such a good disposition in favour of the printers and others, how many licenses have been asked for during the last two years? The authors certainly would not ask for licenses.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I may point out to my
hon. friend that this licensing section and this act have not been in operation for two years.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Since 1921.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It was passed in 1921 but it was not brought into operation then.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Does my hon. friend
know that not one license has been granted?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I do not. On the contrary I know that some licenses have been granted, certain works have been published and certain publishers have been able to make arrangements to publish those under the licensing sections. At a later stage, I might give my hon. friend the names of the books and stories and of the publishers.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Serials.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Let me point out to the
House that this act with its licensing sections, has been in force only one year. The thing is new to the Canadian publisher. You

Copyright Act Amendment
cannot really expect many or great results from the operation of an act of this kind in one year's time. Therefore I do not think it is fair to say that if there have not been many results, the thing is a failure, and I do not think it can be shown by any person that the author of any work in the Dominion of Canada has suffered in reputation, in pocket, in any way. On the contrary his works are now available for publication in Canada if his United States publisher refuses to come here and do that work. Of course, I have no objection to the bili going to a committee; but, like the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), I do not propose to accept the principle of the bill and I will give it such opposition as I can, because if the author suffers nothing, as can be maintained, there are other interests, the interests of workingmen who set the type, who do the binding, the press work, and there are the interests of the publishers of this country which are in a sad enough state, as we all know. Those must be considered as well as the interests of the author.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: There are nineteen
amending sections in the bill and I understand the hon. gentleman to take exception to section 5, so that there are eighteen other sections to which he makes no reference. Does he imply that those eighteen sections do not interfere with his rights at all but apply solely to the authors themselves? If that is the case, why throw out the bill?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am referring to what I think is the most important and serious proposal the hon. member makes. I do not think that the House expects us to deal with the subject exhaustively to-night but I do wish hon. members to know, before the matter goes to the committee, that the bill was passed after serious consideration by a committee of this House, and that in its operation no Canadian author is injuriously affected whereas, on the other hand, many interests, including the works of working men in this country, are assisted in the process. If that can be shown then I submit that this House should hesitate before making the changes which my hon. friend proposes.


Mr. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: With reference to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Hocken), I would remind the House that this bill was passed in 1921 in a spirit of compromise and that it was put into force in 1923, again in a spirit of compromise. It was a very comprehensive measure as it %vas brought into the House by the Hon. Mr. Doherty in 1921, and it was sent to a special

committee of which I happened to be a member myself. We were able to agree on practically every clause except the licensing sections, and we agreed at the time in committee that when the bill should come before the House exception would be taken to these sections. Exception was taken at the time; I voiced it myself, and other members spoke as well, pointing out that they were not in conformity with the Berne convention; and the Minister of Justice of that day agreed that if this allegation could be proved the clauses could be withdrawn later on. He suggested, however, as a matter of compromise-and I insist on that-that we should let the bill pass anyway and be incorporated in the statutes. That is why the bill as it passed in 1921 contained in section 50 the proviso that it would come into effect only on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council. Then there was a change in the government of the country and in 1923 I placed a resolution on the order paper proposing to withdraw the licensing clauses. The then Minister of Trade and Commerce brought down a bill to the very same effect and this obviated the necessity for my resolution. When that bill was discussed in the House exception was taken to it by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and other hon. gentlemen. Finally the government brought in an amendment to that bill, which was virtually an admission that the licensing clauses as they stood in the 1921 bill were not in accordance with the Berne convention.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That has been remedied.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am coming to that. I hold in my hand the official document from Berne to that effect. It was contended that if Canada wished to adhere to the convention the terms of the licensing clauses should not apply to other nations, although there was nothing to prevent this country from applying it to its own writers. The effect of the amendment brought down by the then Minister of Trade and Commerce was precisely in the terms I have stated, namely, that these clauses should apply to none but Canadian writers.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: And those of the United
States.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes. At the time of the third reading of the bill I did make a statement to the effect that that amendment would 10 p.m. certainly not suit the purpose of Canadian writers. We took the stand that as the Copyright Act as a whole was quite comprehensive, as it touched other interests, in the field of phonograph records, for instance, as well as in other directions, we were very

Criminal Code Amendment
anxious to have the bill go through as it was tentatively. For that reason we did not press the objection. I must repeat, however, that we never agreed to the special clauses that are now dealt with in the bill brought down by my hon. friend (Mr. Chevrier), and I take exception to the statement that has been made, that this matter was dealt with by parliament and was practically decided on. That is not the case at all. It was shelved and put aside and we agreed to come to it later on. We did not want to block the bill as a whole and that is why it was adopted in 1921 and again, as amended, in 1923, and put into force in 1924, early in January. We are moving for special amendments of a minor character and we also wish to deal with the licensing clauses. As has been stated, however, the matter is a very complicated one and for that reason we desire to have it thoroughly discussed before a special committee. This,
I think, is a fair statement of the case. I am not prejudiced at all; I may be convinced tomorrow that the sections in question should remain in the act. But I think it would be a good thing to take them up before a special committee, and that is why I propose that the bill be read the second time and be referred to the committee. I shall have the honour to second my hon. friend's motion.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Since the bill was introduced I have read it carefully and I agree with hon. gentlemen as to its complexity; it undoubtedly is both complicated and technical. I do not agree with the view that in allowing the second reading of the bill we are necessarily committing ourselves to its contents; in adopting the motion for second reading we are merely approving the necessity for an amendment. It would be impossible to discuss this measure properly in committee of the Whole and it would seem desirable to refer the matter to one of the standing committees. These committees, however, are rather large and I can see no objection to a special committee being appointed. For myself, however, I want to make it perfectly clear that in accepting the second reading of the bill I do not thereby necessarily accept the measure in detail. It seems to me that the bill is one that should receive very careful consideration.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time. Mr. Chevrier thereupon moved that the said bill be referred to a special committee with power to send for persons, papers and records, and to hear evidence and report from time to time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi) moved the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Criminal Code*-Printer's Liability.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill, which I introduced last year and which did not go beyond its second reading on account of private members day having been absorbed by the government, simply requires that every document or circular printed for publication and distribution shall bear on it the name of the publisher. There is also a provision requiring the printer or publisher to retain for six months a register of those who have employed him to do this printing, in order to afford facility to find out who the author of any particular document of that kind is. The reason for this legislation is as follows: During the war the public came to appreciate more perhaps than ever before the %m!ue of propaganda. And it did not cease with the war; it is a common practice nowadays, by means of anonymous documents, to seek to promulgate propaganda which is not always of a desirable character. False statements, libelous statements, scandalous statements, can be circulated in that way without recourse against the author w*ho remains anonymous. They are also used for the circulation of seditious statements. I have in my hand one of these pamphlets which has been circulated. I shall not weary the House by reading it all, but I shall just quote one or two sentences. It goes on to state that the late war was all the cause of England. It says:
Kaiser Wilhelm's telegram to Kruger, the president of the Transvaal, was the answer of brave Germany to the treacherous English.
Again I find this expression:
Under the circumstances it is very logical to find this English monster, with all his power of wealth and cunning craft, acting against the interests of humanity.
And again:
He will ruin the industries of all the nations for the benefit of tiny England. He will try his best to perpetuate disunion between different peoples. It will be, indeed, a hell on earth.
He winds up with the expression:
I simply speak in the interests of our common human family.
The gentleman who sent me this document writes in part as follows-and I would particularly commend the opening paragraph to my hon. friend the member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). He says:
Enclosed find a small pamphlet which might come in handy if some of our well-meaning but ill-informed M.P's from the east should again bring forward the matter of giving the supposedly greatly abused and loyal Hindus of British Columbia the right of franchise.
Criminal Code Amendment
[Stage Direction]
Of course I am now dealing with the matter from another aspect. Further on he says:
It would be well within the lines of conservative truth to say that the sentiments of this pamphlet are cherished as gospel fact and concurred in by ninety per cent of the Hindus of British Columbia. I myself, after working with them for eighteen years and after having conversed with many of the smartest men, have invariably found this so. The enclosed pamphlet is receiving wide circulation in Hindu among their own people and also in English among the Asiatics who can speak our language. Read and judge for yourself its effect upon ignorant people.
If precedent is needed for this legislation I can point to the Dominion Elections Act, which makes it a criminal offence and, I think, disqualifies a man for seven years, if he circulates practically any statement about his opponent. If it is considered wise to prevent even the making of a remark about your opponent during an election in the form of a circulated document, it surely cannot be very far wrong to take steps against anonymous utterances against your neighbour in a community.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that the bill does not prohibit the publication of those statements, because it might be a question whether they were right or wrong; it only affords some clue, so to speak, as to who is the author of them. I might further mention, in the matter of precedent, that the act upon which this is founded has been in force in Britain since 1839 and no fault has been found with it in that regard.
I may say further that subsection 334 of the bill provides ample exemptions to take care of any possible injustice that could occur. You will see that everything ;s provided for that could reasonably require consideration in that connection. I have pleasure in moving the second reading of the bill.
Mr. SHAW:: May I ask my hon. friend
before he concludes whether he has received any legal advice as to whether or not this bill is within the competence of this parliament?


Alan Webster Neill: It has been suggested to me
that the bill might meet the fate of what is known as the Lemieux Act, on the ground- and I think the argument is somewhat farfetched'-that it would traverse the jurisdiction of the provinces, which has to do entirely with civil rights, and might therefore 'be ultra vires of this parliament. Well, I think that is carrying to an extreme and absurd degree the principle on which the Lemieux Act was thrown out. If we are prepared to accept a decision of that kind we may as well tear up half our statutes, notably the Criminal Code.
I picked up at random a few instances of 
clauses of the Criminal Code which might equally be held to be ultra vires if this one is. Here are some of them: The Criminal Code makes it an offence to disturb divine worship. I think it will be generally agreed that divine worship is a civil right rather than one of Dominion jurisdiction. Again, a breach of contract is made an offence under the Criminal Code. Well surely a breach of contract is a civil right and would therefore be held to be under the jurisdiction of the provinces.	The matter of issuing trading
stamps should, I think, be considered one of civil rights. The sale of a wreck without sufficient title comes within what may be regarded as civil rights. The leaving of a quarry unguarded; writing on or interfering with municipal election documents, interfering with private fishing, or, to come down to such small items as these, interfering with a grape vine or a vegetable-I should suppose that any rights with respect to grapevines or growing vegetables would be under the provincial jurisdiction. There is also a somewhat similar item to what I am discussing now; anyone who prints an advertisement offering a reward for a stolen article and undertakes to ask no questions, is liable to prosecution under the Criminal Code. Well, if the matter dealt with under my bill is a civil right, I presume that one would be also. I could refer to a number of other similar instances, but I have given enough to illustrate the idea that if we are going to accept the suggestion that this bill is only intra vires of the provinces, then we are going to eliminate half the Criminal Code, and many of our statutes would be in the same danger. I would suggest that as the question has not been raised in any authoritative way, it would be well to proceed with the act and it would be upon anyone who suffered from its provisions to raise the questions and take the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council-which I think is an extremely unlikely thing to happen.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 4, respecting Divorce.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary):	Mr. Speaker, I have been requested on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to allow this order to stand. I am glad to accede to that request.

Dominion Elections Act

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary) moved the second reading of Bill No. 5, an act to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Mr. McMURRAY:: Explain.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, in moving the
second reading of this bill I would like to make it clear that I do not by any means think that if we were to pass this bill we would have a very good Elections Act. I think there are -many other points in it that might well be dealt with, but I am proposing the repeal of these clauses 10 and 11 because they are more discriminatory against organized labour. Large corporations have had for a long time the name -of corrupting political parties by their donations. I do not know whether they have done so or not, but I must confess I feel a little -afraid1 as a member of the Labour party lest the Bankers' Association or the Manufacturers' Association may make large donations to us before the next election and possibly help corrupt the Labour -party by donating too much money. At any rate there is a possibility of that.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Remote.


William Irvine: I agree it is very remote,
but we ought to be very7 careful even against remote dangers. However, I will take the risk and ask that these clauses be removed from the statute book.
The purpose of clause 10 of the Dominion Elections Act evidently was to prevent large corporations from making donations to political parties. If this was not the intention, then it was the excuse for inserting this clause, and the covert purpose would be to prevent farmer and labour organizations from taking political action and from financing their political movements. I assume the original intention was to prevent large corporations from contributing -to party funds. I ask that this clause be repealed because of its impotence to do that for which it was intended. It may, of course, be debatable whether or not a company should be prohibited from contributing to a political party which adopts policies which may be favourable to the interests -of that company, but granting for the moment, for the sake of argument, that it is not advisable that a company should contribute from its funds for -political purposes, I contend th-at it is not practicable to prevent them from so doing by clause 10. The best th-at section 10 could possibly do would be to effect an alteration in the manner in which the companies contribute. The
funds would flow a little -more circuitously, but they would -be none the less bountiful than they were before this clause was inserted in the law. Economic interest is a much more potent factor in political affairs than pious wishes or legal clauses drawn on moral grounds. We cannot make a corporation moral by a legal clause, any more than we can make an individual moral by a legal clause. I affirm -that new ways of contributing have been found, and new ways will be found of evading any such legislation. The letter of this particular section of the law is being praised, and its spirit is being mocked. Not only should this clause be repealed because it does not hinder corporations from contributing, bu-t it should be repealed -because of its influence towaids anarchy. It is much better I think, and I am sure the House will agree with me, to have no law than to have one that people enjoy evading, a law that people actually play with as a game to see how easily they can get -around it. Clause 10 affords such a pleasure to those who might be making large contributions to election -funds. By this clause the pain of contributing would b-e offset to a considerable degree by the amount of pleasant excitement which the donor would receive from dodging the law in giving. It becomes a game to break the law. There w-ere too many of these l-aws before this one came. I am not convinced, Mr. Speaker, that manufacturers or any corporation should be stopped from contributing to political parties; I am convinced that they cannot be stopped by legislation of this kind. I -am also convinced that we should stop trying to stop them from contributing if they want to, and for -that reason I ask that this clause be repealed.	_	_
But there is another reason why this bill should pass and that is that clause 10 of the Dominion Elections Act is much more effective against labour than it is in preventing corporations from contributing to -election funds-the purpose for which it was presumably drawn. Large amounts could now be contributed under clause 10 by individuals for corporations and the penalties of the i-aw be very easily evaded, but this is not so in connection with labour unions. This cannot happen in the case of labour because we have no very wealthy labour men who are prepared to donate five or ten or one hundred thousand dollars to an election fund. Election funds in the case of labour have to be collected in twenty-five or fifty cent pieces from individuals. Consequently, while this section may be very easily got over by those corporations against whom it was drawn, labour cannot avoid it quite so easily. It is
Dominion Elections Act

true, of course, that provisions are made for the incorporation of any association of people for political purposes, and this incorporation would afford them the right under the law to contribute and collect funds. 1 want to point out that the labour organization in Canada are not in a position to avail themselves of this part of the election law. The labour organization is an industrial organization, it is acting under an international constitution, and that international constitution prohibits it from becoming incorporated for political purposes. For this reason the labour organization is unable to do what the organized farmers had to do in order to avoid the penalties of this section. The latter body became incorporated for political purposes and thus fulfilled the demands of the Dominion Elections Act. But labour is not in a position to do that, and consequently this section causes a particular hardship to fall on the labour organization. Now labour people hate to have to dodge the law for the contribution of a quarter or fifty cents as the case might be. If it were $100,000 or so, it might :be worth the trouble, but when it is the case of a small donation, perhaps given by a trade union voluntarily, it is impossible for them to get around this act without a great deal of inconvenience. I contend, therefore, that this section should be repealed in order that a labour organization might voluntarily vote money to the funds of any party-Conservative, Liberal, Progressive or any other party-that they might wish, and that legislation -which stands in the way of this voluntary action is certainly reactionary.
There is another point to which I would like to draw the attention of the House in this regard and it is, that this as one more means which stands in the way of preventing organized labour from seeking to take action in a constitutional manner. Much talk has been uttered in the past about the industrial action which labour men throughout Canada had taken at various times; it has been contended that they should adopt political methods, and that they should take political action and bring their grievances to parliament. But when they begin to take such action as is termed constitutional they find section 10 prohibits them from adopting that method. Perhaps at this point I had better read section 10 in order that there will be no misunderstanding as to what its import is. It reads as follows:
No unincorporated company or association and no incorporated company or association other than one incorporated for political purposes alone shall directly or indirectly, contribute, loan, advance, pay, or promise or offer to pay any money or its equivalent 
to, or for, or in aid of, any candidate at an election, or to, or for, or in aid of, any political party, committee, or association, or to, or for, or in aid of, any company incorporated for political purposes, or to, or for, or in furtherance of, any political purpose whatever, or for the indemnification or reimbursement of any person for money so used.
Every director, shareholder, officer, attorney, or agent of any company or association violating the provisions of this section, or who aids, abets, advises, or takes part in any such violation, and every person who asks or knowingly receives any money or its equivalent in violation of the provisions of this section, is guilty of an indictable offence against this act punishable as in this act provided.


Joseph Archambault: Do I understand that the principal object of the bill is to allow labour organizations to contribute to electoral funds?


William Irvine: Yes, the principal object I am seeking to gain by asking a repeal of this section is that labour may be allowed to contribute to election funds.


Joseph Archambault: May I suggest to my hon. friend that an amendment to the section would serve his purpose, an amendment just putting in two or three words after the following:
No unincorporated company or association and no incorporated company or association other than one incorporated for political purposes-
I suggest the addition there of the words: " or labour organization ", That would serve the purpose of my hon. friend.


William Irvine: I am quite aware that such would have served my purpose, but having discussed this matter with a goodly number of the members of the House I found they would be more willing to repeal this clause than to grant a particular privilege to labour or to any other group of people in the country. I felt also that I did not wish to ask even for a labour organization what I was not prepared to grant to similar organizations throughout Canada. Therefore I came to the conclusion that the best thing to do would be to repeal the whole clause.
I would also d'raw attention to section 11 which this bill also proposes to repeal. Perhaps I had better read that section. It says:
Any person, not being an elector or a candidate, who resides without Canada and who, to secure the election of any candidate, canvasses for votes or in any way endeavours to induce voters to vote for any candidate at an election, or to refrain from voting, is guilty of an indictable offence against this act punishable as in this act provided.
I do not know any case where this has been enforced; I think it would be too absurd to be enforced. We often have labour men from Great Britain who write to our papers at election time. They might possibly be coming to this country during an

Dominion Elections Act
election, and we could' not ask even Ramsay MacDonald, the ex-premier of Great Britain, to take part in an election in Centre Winnipeg, because this particular section would prohibit us. That I say is absurd.


Samuel William Jacobs: Would it not be the height of bad taste for Mr. Ramsay MacDonald to come in here and assist any person to carry an election?


William Irvine: Possibly it would. It is
not a matter of taste that I am dealing with, it is the matter of the absurdity of this provision in the law. I think we can take it for granted, however, that if taking part in an election involved any flagrant departure from good taste a man of the calibre of the expremier of Great Britain would not take advantage of it. Consequently we do not need to have any precaution against that kind of thing. I want to say to my hon. friend that it is not unknown for Canadians to take part in elections in Great Britain, and there are no provisions in their statutes which prohibit us from doing that. I do not see why we should have such a ridiculous provision as this which might be used against perhaps very eminent men or women from Great Britain. I do not think it is necessary to argue this thing. I repeat that it is absurd. It is not enforced because of its absurdity, and why it should be here as a club over the labour organizations I fail to see. In conclusion let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the Election Act of Great Britain provision is made for labour people to contribute to election funds. I would also point out that in the memorandum submitted by representatives of organized labour in Canada to the government this year the repeal of these sections is urged. I hope the House will agree with me that it is in the interests of good law and the interests of Canada as a whole that sections 10 and 11 should be repealed.


Edward James McMurray: The bill which the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) has presented to the House for second reading is one of great importance and very sweeping. Sections 10 and 11 of the Dominion Elections Act of the year 1920 were passed in this House under the guidance of my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), who was then Solicitor General, and they were fully debated and carefully considered by the House at that time. Even then there was nothing new in the matter then incorporated into those sections. They both came down from the year 1908 with some slight amendments. In fact I think the first one went back as far as
1898. The provisions made in those sections are really very essential and very necessary The debate held in 1920, when the whole Elections Act was drafted, dealt with the necessity of preventing corporations using their funds in elections. The necessity of that is very apparent. It was a fact that in this country, and in the United States and other countries, large interests and corporations had not hesitated at times to use their funds in election matters, and the following section was passed:
No unincorporated company or association and no incorporated company or association other than one incorporated for political purposes alone shall, directly or indirectly, contribute, loan, advance, pay, or promise or offer to pay any money or its equivalent to, or for, or in aid of, any candidate at an election.
A political association can be formed and moneys can be contributed' by that association, but this went further and said:
Every director, shareholder, officer, attorney, or agent of any company or association violating the provisions of this section, or who aids, abets, advises, or takes part in any such violation, and every person who asks or knowingly receives any money or its equivalent in violation of the provisions of this section, is guilty of an indictable offence against this act punishable as in this act provided.
And the fine for the violation of this section was increased, I think rightly and properly so. The reasoning of this would be very apparent. This is not aimed at labour, as my hon. friend the mover of the bill suggests at all. It is broad and involves all corporations. The necessity is plain. Funds in a corporation, and funds in a labour union are there for specific purposes. What right has a corporation to use funds for election matters when these funds were subscribed for an altogether different purpose? Now section 11 reads:
Any person not being an elector or candidate, who resides without Canada and who, to secure the election of any candidate, canvasses for votes or in any way endeavours to induce voters to vote for any candidate at an election, or to refrain from voting, is guilty of an indictable offence against this act punishable as in this act provided.
The notable point about that section is that it deals with the period during which an election is in operation, and that is defined by clause (d) of the interpretation, which says:
" During an election " or " at an election " or " throughout an election " includes the period after the issue of the writ for an election, or after the dissolution of parliament or the occurrence of a vacancy in consequence of which a writ for an election is eventually issued, until the elected candidate is returned as elected.
That simply prohibits people from outside of Canada, at the very period when an elec-

Dominion Elections Act
tion is going on in this country, a matter of 30 or 40 days, from coming here and canvassing for votes, and taking a part in the election, and the reason for it is very apparent. We have embodied in this act measures to see that elections are conducted properly, and that no irregularities shall occur, and if outsiders were allowed to come to Canada they would be at liberty to conduct elections in a way that people at home here in Canada could not do and readily escape back to their own country. This applies not only to labour, but it is applicable to all classes of people. Wealthy corporations in the United States, with branch offices in Canada, cannot come into this country and canvass and take part in an election or induce the people to vote or to refrain from voting. The hon. gentleman who promotes the bill has laid stress on these two subsections as being calculated tc injure labour. That was not the intention at all. The very language of the clause does not indicate that. It applies to all sections of the community, to all occupations, to every type of citizen at an election time. As another hon. gentleman pointed out, it would be very easy for the mover of the bill to have excepted labour unions or trade unions in this clause. Not content with doing that he actually proposes in this House to sweep out all these safeguards that protect us from fraud, and so on, at an election time, and in that way I say that the bill he has proposed is very vital and very serious.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: May I ask the minister if
an exception with respect to labour were incorporated into the existing legislation would he approve of it?


Edward James McMurray: I would say to my
hon. friend-and I intended to mention it in any event-that the government proposes before the close of the session to introduce a bill introducing some amendments to the Elections Act. There have been several reports made by the electoral officers since the Dominion Elections Act was passed. There are some amendments not of a sweeping character that we feel the House would concur in fully, and when sufficient information can be gathered a bill will be brought down in due course, but I would suggest to the mover of the bill that it would be better possibly if he would drop the bill; and consideration might be given to hi? proposal. I cannot urge him to drop it. The government bill will be considered in committee, and he will have a chance in committee when the bill is brought down to discuss the question he has raised in this House. But the House will see that this 
bill as drafted is simply sweeping away what has been on our statute books for a long time and exists there of apparent necessity. The government could not consent to the passing of the second reading of this bill at the present time.


William Irvine: Since this legislation has been on the statute books for so long, can the minister say that he thinks it has been effective?


Edward James McMurray: I think there is no doubt of that at all. I cannot tell what corporations might have done if the act had not been passed. We find it necessary to pass many laws against crimes of all kinds and generally they are effective, and I presume this law has been effective in this case. Surely the hon. member would not propose to throw down all the safeguards that we have.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the minister find any objections to provision being made by which labour organizations could provide funds for political purposes, such as is proposed in principle by the mover?


Edward James McMurray: That is a matter for the deliberate consideration of the House. No man in this country is more friendly to labour than I am.


William Irvine: Answer the question.


Edward James McMurray: There would be great difficulties in that. Supposing my hon. friend was a member of a trade union and he put his money in it for the purposes of trade union work. Would he want the directors or officers of that union to vote it away for an entirely different purpose?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Would the members of the union not decide that for themselves?


Edward James McMurray: That is where the
difficulty arises.


Robert Forke: The matter contained in this bill may be viewed from two different angles. I can say frankly that when this measure was introduced in 1920, I think it was, political movement was pretty lively out on the prairies and the farmers were taking a stand to go into politics actively. There was some suspicion at that time that this law was aimed at movements of this character. Since then I have viewed the matter very carefully and we found a way of getting around it in a perfectly legal manner by becoming incorporated for political purposes. That may seem, on the face of it, to be a rather cumbersome way of carrying on political activities Thinking the matter over, I have now come

Dominion Elections Act
to the conclusion that, perhaps, it is just as well to avoid the very appearance of evil, and if people wish to go into politics actively in a body, I do not think there is any great hardship in asking that they should become incorporated if they wish to collect funds for that purpose. I quite sympathize with the ideas of the promoter of this bill in that he may think it a hardship that they should be compelled to incorporate for this purpose. Nevertheless, I am inclined to believe that the law as it stands now may have a very good effect as a warning to corporations and bodies of individuals who may wish to contribute towards political funds for the purpose of corrupting the public. In fact, I would be inclined to allow the law as it stands in section 10 to remain as it is.
As regards section 11, I am not so sure. I cannot, however, see that a great deal of harm would occur in allowing outsiders to come in and take part in our elections. As has already been said, Canadians go over to Great Britain, take part in the elections over there and get elected as members of the Imperial parliament. It is, perhaps, an open question just how far that should be allowed. I have listened to remarks made by the Solicitor General as regards foreigners coming in here, acting in a corrupt manner and then leaving abruptly so that they cannot be punished for what they have done. That may be perfectly true, but at the same time I would allow liberty of action in a matter of this kind and I would be inclined to be in favour of section 11 being withdrawn.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I have been in public life in Canada longer than the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine), and I will give him the reasons why this section prohibiting outsiders from taking part in our elections was placed in the statute book in the first place. As a matter of fact, it was to prevent any party from bringing men, lately from across the border, to take part in our elections. Many years ago, when this act was first passed, each party was charging the other with importing men trained in election manipulation from various cities in the United States to assist them in doing in the campaign in Canada, work which the Canadian under the law would not dare to do himself. That was the basis of this law. My hon. friend will say, of course, that if a man was caught plugging, he could be arrested, but the difficulty was that he would do that kind of work, every person would know that he was in the country doing political work for
some of the parties, but they could not discover until election day, perhaps, a direct violation of our law. Under the statute as it stands now, he could be arrested if he was found taking part in an election and you would not have to prove a direct violation of our election law in order to arrest him. If my hon. friend had passed through the experiences, particularly in the border counties, that many of us in Canada did years ago, he would not think of removing this restriction. There has been a great improvement in election methods since it became a part of our statutes. It never was intended to apply to a man like Ramsay MacDonald or any other man who, passing through the country, wished1 to make a speech, and a law is only justifiable in the way it is enforced. A law must be enforced With common sense or it will not remain law very long. I might warn my hon. friend that if he would persist in removing that section, we might have a return to the days when we were infested at election time with men brought across the border to do certain work that Canadians would not do themselves.


William Charles Good: In connection with tire time at which the first section was adopted, my recollection is that it was adopted in 1920, and I was rather surprised to hear the Solicitor General state that it dates back to 1908. Perhaps he or the hon. member lor South Wellington can give some authoritative information on that point.


Edward James McMurray: The present Dominion Elections Act was drafted' in 1920. This particular section 10 comes, I think, from the Elections Act of 1908, with a slight amendment dealing with the opening words, "an unincorporated company or association," and the penalty was increased. Section 10 is substantially as it stood in the prior act. There is nothing new in the enactment in the statute of 1920. Section 11 is also the same.


Hugh Guthrie: If my recollection serves me, clause 10 dates further back than the Elections Act of 1907. it was passed in 1898 and has been carried now on the statutes for over a quarter of a century. The other clause was passed in the year 1907 or 1908. My own opinion is that in view of the suggestion of the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurray), the hon. member who has moved this bill (Mr. Irvine) would do well to drop the matter pending the bringing down later on of the bill which the government proposes to introduce during the session. I assume that there will be quite a number of amendments to be pro-
Motions

posed to the Dominion Elections Act. Some the Solicitor General says are of minor importance while others may be of greater significance. But there will be an opportunity then for the hon. member to move an amendment in the ordinary course as in the case of any other public bill. I think he would be well advised in the meantime to let this bill drop with the idea of reviving it, if he sees fit, when the general bill is under discussion. In the meantime we could give the matter further consideration.
Motion (Mr. Irvine) negatived.



MORRISBURG DAM

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Church:
For a copy of all papers, agreements, correspondence, telegrams and letters exchanged between the government of Canada, the governments of Ontario and the United States, and the Hydro-Electric Commission regarding the generation and distribution of power at what is commonly known as the proposed Morrisburg dam on the St. Lawrence river.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The wording of this motion contemplates something more than it is possible for the government to comply with. It calls for all correspondence and so on exchanged between the government of Canada, the governments of Ontario and the United States and the Hydro-Electric Commission. We clearly are not in a position to bring down papers exchanged between the government of Ontario and the Hydro-Electric Commission, or between the United States and the commission. In other words, we can bring down only such papers as have passed between the government of Canada and any of the bodies mentioned in the motion that is to say, any correspondence to which this government has been
11 p.m. a party. If the hon. member will amend his motion to carry that meaning it may pass. I suggest that he insert after the words " the government of Canada " the word " and," and substitute the word " or " for the word " and " before the words " the Hydro-Electric Commission." If the motion is amended in that way it may be adopted.
Motion as amended agreed to.



UNEMPLOYMENT CONFERENCES

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Church:
For a copy of all papers, agreements, correspondence, letters and other data exchanged between the government of Canada and the governments of the municipalities or provinces, relating to unemployment, including a return as to what action was taken at conferences between the aforesaid governments on this question, and showing the amount spent on unemployment by the government of Canada during the past four years for unemployment relief.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not like to be critical, but my hon. friend uses an expression which is hardly appropriate-" the governments of the municipalities or provinces". I would suggest that he drop the words " governments of the ".
Motion as amended agreed! to.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Church:
For returns showing-1. The amount spent by the government of Canada in relieving unemployment in Canada in Winnipeg, Hamilton, Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal during the past six years.
2.	What sum respectively was spent by the (a) Dominion government, (b) the provincial government, (c) the municipalities aforesaid, relieving unemployment in these five cities the past six years.
3.	Whether the government during these years had any agreement with the provinces and municipalities as to any form of relief; if so, what the arrangement was.
4.	Whether any steps have been taken during this winter by the government alone or with the provinces or municipalities to take care of unemployment, and to regulate and prevent the dumping of those out of work in the larger centres of population.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has a genius for asking for material to which he is not entitled. Section 2 of this motion asks for information regarding moneys spent by the Dominion government, certain provincial governments and certain municipalities. This government has no information and is not in a position to supply any in regard to what was spent either by the provincial governments or by the municipalities; and the rest of the second paragraph is therefore only a repetition of the first. If the hon member will delete the second! clause altogether the government will be prepared to comply with the remainder of the motion. I suggest, therefore, that the motion be amended accordingly.
Motion as amended agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Friday, February 20, 1925