1923-04-30

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Gauvreau, the second report of the Joint Committee on Printing was adopted.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I
should like ,to point out to the government that it will be three weeks to-morrow since the by-election in Moose Jaw was held. I made inquiries of the Chief Electoral Officer to-day, and no notification has come to him of what happened at that by-election. In the case of the North Essex by-election the member was in his seat within two weeks of his election. I wonder if the government can give us any information as to why this delay has taken place. The House is now in session but Moose Jaw is not represented, and it seems an injustice to that constituency that the member should be kept so long from his seat.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I agree with my hon.
friend that there does seem to be an injustice in the delay, but the government has no information as to the cause of it. I imagine that the returning officer has had some difficulty in getting full returns from the outlying parts and has been a little late in sending in his return. I have no doubt that my hon. friend's question will come to his attention and probably hasten the return.



CABINET APPOINTMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might mention, in anticipation of a question by my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) and in confirmation of a report which is in the morning paper, that Hon. Mr. Graham has been appointed Minister of Railways and Canals, and Hon. Mr. Macdonald Acting Minister of National Defence.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: I just want to call the governm'nt's attention to the fact that Supply is not called to-day. Doubtless the government will be wanting to go into Supply on Thursdays and Fridays, and I desire to point out that the usual practice is that Supply should be called on Mondays and Tuesdays so that members having different matters which they have a right to bring to the attention of the House shall have an opportunity of doing so upon thos'e days. Of course, if Supply is not called they cannot do so. I spoke about this matter in the House on Friday night and I just wish to call the government's attention to it now. I do not suppose that this course is intended to be adopted as a practice.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: I understood that the hon. gentleman and the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) had come to an understanding that Supply was not to be moved to-day, and we desire to confirm that arrangement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, no, it was to the contrary. The position was this: I was intending to bring to the attention of the House the disallowance of certain statutes of the province of Nova Scotia and to discuss a constitutional question of prime importance. The Minister of Justice could not be here last
Hudson Bay Railway

Monday, nor last Tuesday. Therefore I did not take advantage of the motion, I was expecting to go on to-day. As the matter now stands, if Supply is called to-morrow I shall be perfectly satisfied.


William Stevens Fielding: On reading the Hansard containing the proceedings of last Friday night I saw that there was some reference to the business to be taken up to-day and the ex-Minister of .Finance referred to an understanding, or conversation, he had with the Minister of Finance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a mistake.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not understand what was meant by that so I telephoned to my hon. friend and he said it was the Minister of Justice to whom he referred, that the reference to the Minister of Finance was a mistake. My hon. friend, I understood, had had a conversation with the Minister of Justice with the object of bringing forward his motion to-day but hearing that the Minister of Justice was not likely to be here to-day he decided not to do so. It was in that sense that I spoke of there being an understanding.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is quite fair. There is no real understanding. I certainly would not go on with the matter in the absence of the Minister of Justice.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Perhaps my recollection is wrong, but when, on the announcement on Friday night of the business for to-day, this question came up, I understood the sugges-ion to be that we take Supply on Tuesday f'Ut that my hon. friend rather demurred to it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, no. If we take up Supply to-morrow it will be perfectly satisfactory to me.


George Perry Graham: As I understood it the Minister of Justice was prepared to go on on Tuesday but my hon. friend demurred to that and it was then decided to take Supply on Wednesday. There need be no trouble about it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If you take Supply to-morrow it will be perfectly satisfactory.


William Stevens Fielding: Then it will be understood that we take it to-morrow.
HUDSON BAY RAILWAY On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert):: I would like to draw to the attention of the House a despatch which appeared in the western papers from the Associated Press deal-

ing with the Hudson Bay project. It says that on the 332 miles of steel which have already been completed there has been an expenditure of 130,000,000. I would like to correct that statement because it is generally known and acknowledged that the cost of the railway was roughly speaking only $14,000,000, and the cost of the terminals some $6,000000.



TARIFF COMMISSION EVIDENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome):: I wish to draw the attention of the government to this fact: In the committee which is examining into agricultural conditions in Canada we have references made from time to time to the tariff, and the year before last an extensive examination into tariff matters was conducted by the former Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) who took evidence in different parts of the country. As far as I am aware the information-valuable no doubt- obtained by that commission has not yet been made available to members of the House. I was wondering whether it would not be possible to have the evidence made available by placing it upon the Table in order that reference might be made to it and duplication of work avoided.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not, perhaps, as well qualified to speak on that question as the exMinister of Finance. I know that in the case of former tariff inquiries the evidence was not printed but it was available in the department. If the evidence in the case of the inquiry conducted by. the ex-minister is available, I will be happy to place it at the disposal of the committee. I am quite sure that my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance is better informed as to that than I am.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is quite right. I think three copies were made and I suppose one copy is now available in the department. A copy of the evidence was made for each commissioner, but it never was printed.


William Stevens Fielding: If the evidence is available I will see that it is placed at the disposal of the committee.



UNITED STATES LABOUR DELEGATES DETAINED

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: I understand, from a resolution passed yesterday by a mass meeting of the miners in Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, that they are

Questions
protesting against the detention at the border of Mr. Howat, past president of the Kansas Miners, and a colleague of his, who are on their way to fulfil an engagement in Glace Bay. They believe this to be an infringement of the rights of public speech. I should like to know for what reason these men have been detained and what the government proposes to do in the matter?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: It is quite true that Mr. Alexander Howat and Mr. Thomas Myerscough have been detained at McAdam Junction. They have sought entrance to Canada and have announced they are coming here for the purpose of speaking to the organization known as the United Mine Workers of America. They admit-at least Mr. Howat admits-that he has served a sentence, in the state of Kansas, I believe, and that he has been deposed as an officer of the United Mine Workers. Further than that we have no information. I am asking for more information before finally dealing with the matter.



GRATUITIES TO GRAND TRUNK DIRECTORS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I see the government has appointed a commissioner to inquire into those Grand Trunk gratuities and that Mr Congdon, ex-M.P., has been successful in getting this benevolence. Will the government be good enough to bring down the Order in Council, I presume under the Inquiries Act, making the appointment so that the House may know the scope of the commission.


George Perry Graham: Surely.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 119, to change the name of the Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo Telephone Company-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 120, respecting Montreal, Joliette and Transcontinental Junction Railway Company-Mr. Denis (Joliette).

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 137 (from the Senate), for the relief of Eliza Harvey Northgraves.-Mr. German.
Bill No. 138 (from the Senate), for the relief of Olivette McMaster.-Mr. Hocken.

[Stage Direction]
Bill	No.	140	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Mahlon Beach.

Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill	No.	141	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Alfred William Kelly.-Mr. Duff.
Bill	No.	142	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Wilmot Austin Pickell.-Mr. Martell.
Bill	No.	143	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Annie May Vogelman.-Mr. Duff.

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

Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	Were the services of any men in the employ Of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment at Vancouver, British Columbia, dispensed with on or about March 1st, 1923?
2.	If so, what were their names?
3.	Did the government take steps to ascertain whether they were ex-service men, pensioners, or men with families?
4.	If so, which of them are: (a) ex-service men;
(b) pensioners; (c) men with families dependent on them for support?	[DOT]
5.	Since March 1st, 1923, have any appointments been made to the staff of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment at Vancouver, or have any employees been taken on?
6.	If so, what are the names of the appointees?
7.	At what salaries are they employed and in what
capacities?	,
8.	Were any recommendations made to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment on behalf of such new appointee or appointees?
9.	If so, by whom were such recommendations made?
10.	On whose instructions were such new appointments made?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.
5.	Yes.
6.	(a) Barter, Miss Beatrice, Alberta; $60 per month: Junior clerk stenographer. Previously employed in the department, was reappointed March 26, 1923, on the recommendation of the Unit Medical Director, Vancouver to replace Miss Violet Helen Carr, resigned.
(b)	Bentley, Frank McPhail: $90 per month' 2nd class medical orderly, Shaughnessy hospital. Appointed April 1, 1923, on the recommendation of the hospital superintendent to replace James Dennis, promoted to fill the position vacated by William Clement Bamber, resigned.
(c)	Bell, James: $90 per month: 2nd class medical orderly, Shaughnessy hospital. Appointed April 6, 1923, on the recommendation of the hospital superintendent to replace Robert William Hudson, dismissed March 31 1923.
Questions

(d)	Hayward, Franklin Henry: $80 per month: clerk, unit headquarters. Appointed April 10, 1923, on the recommendation of the unit medical director to fill the position vacated by John Arthur Rylands, resigned.
(e)	Smith, John Wesley: $208.33 per month: Head clerk. Appointed March 21, 1923, pursuant to instructions issued by the honourable the minister.
7.	Answered by No. 6.
8.	No.
9.	Answered by No. 8.
10.	Answered by No. 6.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS- OPERATING DIVISIONS
Mr. HANSON:: What were the earnings and the expenses for the last fiscal year, or last accounting period, of the following divisions of the Canadian Government Railways: (a) the division from Montreal to St. Flavie; (b) from St. Flavie to Moncton; (c) from St. John to Halifax; (d) from Truro to Sydney?


George Perry Graham: As pointed out by a former Minister of Railways on March 21, 1921, railway accounting methods do not provide for the presentation of receipts, expenses, surplus or deficits by operating divisions.


MONTREAL POST OFFICE-PROMOTIONS
Mr. DENIS (St. Denis):: 1.	On what date were the last examinations, for the promotion to senior Clerk in the post office of Montreal, held?
2.	What is the name of the successful person?
3.	How many years had the said person been employed at the Montreal post office?
4.	Was the said person, after promotion, paid the sum of $1,100 in payment of arrears of salary?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM (for Postmaster General) :: 1.	November, 1922.
2.	J. A. E. Lamontagne.
3.	Eleven years.
4.	Mr. Lamontagne received no arrears of salary.


APPOINTMENT, AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. BEAUBIEN:: 1.	How long has the position of Auditor General been vacant?
2.	Can it be left indefinitely vacant without injury to the public interest ?
3.	Is not the Auditor General an official of Par-liment though his appointment is made by the government on the advice of the Minister of Finance?
4.	Is it proposed to fill the vacancy by promotion?
5.	When will the appointment be made?


William Stevens Fielding: .
1.	The office has been vacant for several months, since the death of Mr. Sutherland. The duties are being performed by the Assistant Auditor General.
2.	No.
fMr. Belancl.]
3.	Yes.
4.	Possibly, but not necessarily.
5.	Shortly. Some legislation relating to audit may have to be proposed.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. DESLISLE:: 1.	Has the government, since peace was signed, ever considered the utilization of Valcartier camp grounds? If so, what was the result of such consideration?
2.	Is it a fact that this land, formerly under cultivation, is now a complete loss to agriculture as well as to the municipality of Ste. Catherine, on the outskirts of the city of Quebec?
3.	Is it true that the waterworks system on this property will soon be worthless?
4.	Is it a fact that the whole property, situated as it is, only a few minutes distant from Valcartier station and lying on both sides of Jacques Cartier river, could be sold advantageously?
5.	Has the government received any offer for this property or have any representations been made on this subject?
6.	Who is the present caretaker of the said Valcartier camp? Under what circumstances and by whose influence was he appointed? Is his appointment subject to cancellation at the pleasure of the government? What are his duties? Who is his immediate superior? Does the government receive regular reports concerning this camp and this caretaker? Has the caretaker any assistants? If so, what are their names and by whom were they appointed? Is the said camp, as a military property, inspected from time to time? Are reports made to the Department of Militia? Is the government aware that last summer, 1922, there were a large number of people occupying the various camp buildings? In what right and under whose authority were said buildings occupied?
7.	Has the Commanding Officer of military district No. 5 any supervision over this property and does he make reports? If so, will the government produce such reports? Is there any correspondence between the Department of Militia and the Department of Agriculture, concerning this property? If so, will the government produce it? What is the salary of this caretaker and of his assistants?
8.	Is it a fact that one of the buildings on this camp was destroyed by fire in the month of January last? Was a military inquiry made as to the causes of this fire and to that end were all witnesses sought for or was the department satisfied with a mere report? Are there any correspondence or documents on the subject? If so, will the government produce them?
9.	Is it a faet that in 1915 a road was built from the said camp to Quebec and that the Ste. Catherine public road between range IV and St. Michel was then closed by the Military authorities and that since that time the camp road alone is and can be used? Is not this road the property of the government and as such must it be looked affer by the government winter and summer. Were orders given to this effect and is there any control over the execution of the orders given? Is it the caretaker of the camp who is responsible for the maintenance of this road?
UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS PAYMENTS TO NEWSPAPERS Mr. d'ANJOU:
For a return showing the names of newspaper companies and printing companies who have received federal moneys for printing since January 1st, 1918, with the respective amounts received by each of said companies

French Treaty


LACHINE CANAL-BRIDGE
Mr. MERCIER:: For a copy of all letters, papers, telegrams, petitions, orders in council and other documents regarding the construction of a bridge on the Lachine canal, in St. Henry ward, in the city of Montreal, at De Courcelles street.


JUSTICE DEPARTMENT-CORRESPONDENCE
Richard Burpee Hanson: For a copy of all letters, correspondence and documents passing between Justice department or any officer thereof and any other minister of the Crown, having reference to a commission presided over by the late Augustus Power, K.C., investigating charges of the alleged maladministration of F. C. Congdon, K.C., during his term as administrator of the Yukon territory, and copy of the report of the said Power commission.


GRAIN ACT LICENSES
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: For return showing the names of grain dealers in the western inspection division who have taken out a license under the Grain Act. Also a list of those operating in grain and who have not taken out such license.


ILLICIT STILLS CASES-REMISSIONS
Mr. LADNER:: For a return showing a list of cases where remissions have been granted to persons convicted and fined for breach of the Inland Revenue Act in establishing or conducting or being connected with the establishment or conduct of illicit stills or illegal stills, and showing the names of the persons in respect of whom such remissions were made, and the counsels or lawyers acting for such persons; in each case, said return to cover all cases since the first day of January, 1922, and to show the person or persons directly benefiting in each case from such remission.


FRENCH TREATY
[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 23, respecting a certain Convention of Commerce between His Majesty and the French Republic, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
William Stevens Fielding: We were on section 2 when this matter was last before the House The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) asked for certain information which I have prepared and will be happy to send to him when he takes his seat.
.Sir HENRY DRAYTON: I think that when we adjourned we were discussing the effect of the provisions of the act having regard to equality of treatment, and I asked my hon. friends a question as to what they thought the effect of the contract was in regard to the sales tax. I do not think we have any information on that point.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a slight inequality between the local taxes in France
and the sales tax in Canada, and in order to guard against any misunderstanding a clause was put in to provide that the existing condition of affairs should not be prejudiced. The essence of the arrangement is that we shall apply the same rate as sales tax on the French goods as we would on other goods and our own. If any change is made in'the sales tax, then the tax would apply on the French goods at the same rate as on our own.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Do I understand that the sales tax of Canada is to apply to the French goods just as it applies to the Canadian goods?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, if there be any change. It is true to-day, except, as I say, that there is a little inequality, and it was because of that the last part of the sentence was put in. But practically speaking the last statement of my hon. friend is correct. The present sales tax rate will apply to imports from France the same as to Canadian imports from other countries.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend, if I understand him correctly, says that the changes in the present sales tax rate would apply to Canadian goods as to French goods. I was referring to the question of the operation of the sales tax in Canada. Is the same tax to be levied in Canada on the goods of France as on the goods of Canada in Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: There is a difference in our sales tax between manufactured goods and imported goods; but the law will apply to the imported goods from France the same as to imported goods from all other countries. For all practical purposes, in our internal taxation we put France on equal terms with ourselves.


Arthur Meighen: I want to get this clear myself. I know the minister intended anyway to say in his first statement that the sales tax on imported French goods will be the same sales tax as if the goods were imported from any other country?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: In his next statement he said that they would be treated the same as Canadian goods.


William Stevens Fielding: As Canadian imports.


Arthur Meighen: It is quite clear the minister so intends. I must say I had doubt as to his power to do so after the reading of the clause to which my hon. friend referred last Friday, and whether he was not going
French Treaty

to be compelled to reduce his sales tax on imports to the same level as his sales tax on Canadian manufactured goods.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think that is the spirit or intention.


Arthur Meighen: I know what the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) asked for, and I do not see him in his seat as yet. Would it not be possible for the minister to give the information to the committee? I should especially like an answer to the question regarding cobalt.


William Stevens Fielding: I will first hand the statement to my right hon. friend for his perusal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: While the right hon. member (Mr. Meighen) is reading that, I might go on to another clause. What is meant by the use of the words "prevention of unfair competition?" Does this in any way imperil the bringing down of the Combines Act or anything of that kind? In Article No. XXI we obligate ourselves to prevent unfair competition.


William Stevens Fielding: That means that any laws there might be as regards unfair competition at home would apply to them as well. We would be on equal terms concerning it. They have in France some special provisions-I do not recall the exact terms at the moment- regarding unfair competition; but if anything were to arise under the Combines Act, this would mean simply that we would treat the French as we would ourselves under similar conditions.


Arthur Meighen: I have just had time to make a hurried perusal of this statement. As I read it, the minister has secured nothing as regards certain oxides of cobalt: zaffre, silicious oxide, vitrified oxides, smalt and azure, impure. That is to say they were always free and they are free now, going into France. But on the pure oxides of cobalt there is, under the treaty, an increase of 100; that is to say, the minimum was 350, but this has been increased to 450, which is an increase of about 30 per cent in the duty on pure cobalt going into France. I do not know whether the hon. member for Lincoln would know what our exports consist of; but from what I know of the treaty, I would be willing to take a guess that what we are selling is the real cobalt; that these other things we do not sell.


William Stevens Fielding: I would have to make a special study of the matter if my right hon. friend thinks it is of importance. I under-

stand him to say that there is an increase as compared with the present rates?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: That brings us back to the old question whether we can compare these with the old rates or not.


Arthur Meighen: There is an increase of 30 per cent in the duty on cobalt, which is an important product of Canada. I do not know in what form it is exported, but it is one of our chief mineral products, and it is somewhat serious to have so substantial an increase in the tariff. I think this should have been mentioned in the original details. I would presume the information that is given in this statement as to wheels and tires is taken right out of the details.


William Stevens Fielding: Out of the French treaty.


Arthur Meighen: A slip has been pasted in. If it is not out of the details, nobody can tell what it means.


William Stevens Fielding: The words used are those of the French tariff. Sometimes an item in the French tariff is very comprehensive, and you get only a part of it.	,


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what this item No. 214-wheels, tires and so forth- means, because there are no headings to the various columns. If the headings should be the same as in the details, then, of course, I can translate.


William Stevens Fielding: I am sure that is so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am sorry that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) is not present to-day. I have been pursuing him with the question as to the allegations made in his speech, and I thought I had covered everything pretty well. I was going to see now, after his admission that it was impossible for any hon. member to know from the government returns how much of the silk imports took the 20 per cent duty and how much the 27i per cent duty, if it were possible to get some information of a definite character as to this most important clause. The hon. gentleman told us that somebody had told him that 90 per cent came in under the 27^ per cent rate and that 10 per cent came in under the fixed rate of 20 per cent. I think the committee is entitled to a little more definite information as to that. I want to find out just exactly how that amount is made up. If we had been given even the common courtesy of being told that Mr. So-and-so knows about this; if the minister had said: "Mr. So-and-so supplied me with this

French Treaty
information, and he has figures to support it," we would be at least on the track of finding where the truth lies. I can, however, get nothing from the government returns, and that is now admitted by the minister. He has made a statement as to the fact which is, so far, absolutely unsupported.


William Stevens Fielding: I regret the minister is not present to answer that. I can only say that, if there is any information which is available in the government returns and which my hon. friend would desire, I would be happy to get it for him.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
will see that the accuracy of hon. gentlemen was challenged in this House by a responsible minister of the Crown. Afterwards he admits that the public accounts do not give that information. He cannot get it nor can hon. members. But he says it is wrong because someone whose name he will not give declares that it is wrong-somebody in one of the departments, I do not know at the moment which department. Now surely, we are entitled to know who that someone is so that we can get a proper basis of calculation. It is a matter of moment to know just what volume of silk will come in under the 20 per cent and under the.274 per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: I can only offer such
information as the customs returns will give. As to the controversy between my hon. friend and the Minister of Marine, of course I must not cut into that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, the hon.
gentleman must surely know where he leaves the matter when he takes that position. He tells me he will give me the information which the public accounts show. But the public accounts show nothing, according to the later admission wrung from the Minister of Marine. The hon. minister has had a conversation, however, with someone whose name apparently he is ashamed to give. I do not know why he does not divulge it, and I think the House is entitled to know whether the statement was just simply a cheap remark made by the minister, entirely unsupported by fact. I should be sorry to think anything of that kind; I do not want to think it. I want to get the truth in connection with the matter, and I have tried to follow up all the items with this end in view. This is a matter in regard to which the Minister of Finance knows a very great deal more than the Minister of Marine. If the figures in regard to this particular item had come from my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) I should have had good reason
to suppose that he had got it from his expert and was not simply talking of something about which he knew nothing. And I should have thought the same so far as the Minister of Marine is concerned; I should have supposed that he was in the same position. I must confess however, that I have doubts when I find that I cannot get the information.


William Stevens Fielding: In all frankness, I must say that this particular point has not engaged my attention. I know that there is a controversy between my hon. friend and the Minister of Marine, and if the facts in question were available in the returns I would gladly look them up for the hon. gentleman. As it is, however, I can only leave the matter between him and the Minister of Marine; I have not any special information in regard to the particular point in dispute, nor have I given it any special study. I made the statement rather relying on what the Minister of Marine said, and which I believe is correct, that the greater volume of silks comes under the 274 per cent; as to what the exact percentage is I have not the information. As a matter of fact I do not know where my hon. friend the Minister of Marine got the information; I think he said he got it from someone in the silk trade, but I am not sure. Personally, however, I say in all frankness, I have made no special study of the point.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought I had exhausted everything else that was in controversy the other day, but the Minister of Marine went on to say that the percentages of ten and twenty just about portrayed the degree of accuracy in the rest of the statements I gave the House. So far the Minister of Marine has been entirely unable to show the slightest inaccuracy anywhere else, and the Minister of Finance has taken for granted that my figures are correct. I am not going to ask him if he knows of any further inaccuracy of statement made by me in connection with this treaty; I am only trying to find out what the truth is, that is all. If my hon. friend has no further allegations of inaccuracy we will know it comes down to the question of this percentage which someone has told the Minister of Marine,-someone whose name he will not give.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think I made
any charge of inaccuracy or misstatement against my hon. friend; I simply stated that from his arguments I thought his inferences were wrong, if I may be allowed to use so strong a word. I did not however challenge any statement of fact made by my hon. friend.
French Treaty


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think so.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not recall having
done so, because I have no doubt whatever that his statements as to matters of fact were all made with the best intentions. What I was objecting to were his arguments, his inferences and his contentions, and I regretted to say that I did not think that in these respects he was right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not speaking about that, nor am I complaining of anything that my hon. friend has said. He has been kind enough to give me the source of his information; he has been frank in the matter, not desiring to withhold any information from the committee. But the Minister of Marine did. Now, I was asking the hon. gentleman, who knows about the treaty, whether he knows of any inaccuracies or misstatements of fact in reference to it on my part, and I gather from his answer that he does not.


William Stevens Fielding: I think my hon. friend is over-sensitive. Many statements are made in the course of debate which may not strictly be accurate but which, nevertheless, are made with no intent to mislead. I believe I could quote statements made on the other side of the House, statements uttered hurriedly, and which while of no great importance are yet inaccurate. Still I do not think that such statements are made with any intention to deceive, nor do I attach any great importance to them. It was merely the arguments and contentions which I thought were mistaken, but I made no accusation whatever against the hon. gentleman implying any misstatement of fact.	[DOT]


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have no issue with my hon. friend; the issue I have is with the Minister of Marine, and it is this, that the House has a right to expect accuracy and facts from a responsible minister of the Crown in support of governmental legislation. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the statement made by the hon. gentleman when he carried the remark to the length he did was absolutely untrue, whether he knew it or not.


William Stevens Fielding: That is harsh.


Arthur Meighen: It has been drawn to my attention that in addition to the treaty imposing a disability on growers of fruit for purposes of manufacture into homemade wine, who are at a disadvantage of some 15 cents as compared with the importer of the French article, the treaty gives a further substantial [Mr. Fieldine.1
advantage to the importer of brandy from France or any of the favoured nations over the producers of Canadian rye whiskey. There are many in Canada who, instead of any favour given the producer of Canadian rye whiskey, would like to see him pushed out of the market and off the earth. But I do not think they would like to see that done by the successful invasion of French brandy. Whether we favour the retention of manufactured liquors or not, all of us must say that we do not favour putting disabilities on the Canadian manufacturer of this class of goods in favour of the imported article, any more than we would favour putting a disability on the Canadian manufacturer of any other class of goods in favour of importations. I think it will be admitted at once that there is a distinct preference here given to French brandy over the present excise duties on Canadian rye whiskey. Does my hon. friend intend to remove that disability or not?


William Stevens Fielding: If, as a consequence of the treaty, any disadvantages be imposed upon any home industry, that is a matter that deserves consideration and will receive it in connection with the budget. It does not follow that because a duty is reduced in the treaty it is not going to be reduced anywhere else. Touching brandy, I may say that the French treaty does not propose a general reduction on brandies. There is a particular French brandy which is likely to come in to a very moderate extent; it requires a certificate of purity, and it is a matter of pride with the French that this is not like any other brandy in the world, and they ask for special consideration for it. If any injustice is done any existing industry in Canada by the operation of the treaty then undoubtedly it will be our duty to consider the matter at the proper time.


Arthur Meighen: I understand that this brandy which it is proposed to reduce in the treaty is very widely used and is a very popular brand-I cannot speak of my own knowledge. But I also know that the government of the province of Quebec affects at least to be engaged in an effort to reduce consumption of these classes of strong liquors -brandies, whiskies and the like-in favour of light wines and beer. I hope the minister realizes that by this treaty he is just doing that much more to balk the wishes of the Quebec government.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend's zeal for the province of Quebec is very encouraging.

French Treaty


Arthur Meighen: It is evidently more real though less flamboyant than that of the minister.


William Stevens Fielding: Let us hope so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Repeal:
Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister give us the effect of this?


William Stevens Fielding: That is merely the repealing clause.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but what are we doing by repealing these acts?


William Stevens Fielding: The old treaty was in part continued by the modus vivendi. All the old acts are repealed now and this will be the only French Treaty Act.


Arthur Meighen: There is no revenue act repealed?


William Stevens Fielding: No, I think not.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Suspension of inconsistent laws:
Henry Lumley Drayton: That is rather an omnibus section, is it not?


William Stevens Fielding: I think it is necessary there. It certainly can do no harm. It makes everything absolutely clear.


Arthur Meighen: This clause 8 may have been used before, but I never saw it. "The operation of all laws inconsistent with the giving to the provisions of the said convention and of this act their full effect shall from time to time be suspended to the extent of such inconsistency." Really that is a pretty dangerous clause and would, I think, likely make lots of work for lawyers. If the minister has not that clause there at all then the ordinary rules apply-rules that have been interpreted times without number and, as to which the law is clear: the specific overrules the general; where there is conflict, and nothing else to weigh on one side or the other, the last legislation overrules the former, and so on. Now, the benefit and effect of all those rules of law obtain to-day and would apply to this bill. Why does the minister want anything further?


William Stevens Fielding: My impression is that it is not an unusual thing to make a general clause suspending the operation of all laws inconsistent with the proposed enactment. It may not be necessary. The most I can say for it is that it makes assurance doubly sure.
If my hon. friend thinks it is gravely objectionable I would come back to it on the third reading of the bill and in the meantime have it looked into.


Arthur Meighen: I have seen a clause to the effect that anything inconsistent is repealed, but I do not know that that has any real force. This is a new section.


William Stevens Fielding: This particular clause was the work of the legal advisers of the department. In view of what my hon.
4 p.m. friend has said, before the third reading of the bill is moved I will have the clause inquired into.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Do I understand correctly that the special tariff applies only to goods that are imported directly through Canadian ports?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. The provisions of this act as respects French imports are restricted to goods coming directly to Canadian ports. That clause was in our old treaty and is continued in this.


Murray MacLaren: And through our own ports only?


William Stevens Fielding: Goods may come through Great Britain, for example, or from France direct. If goods come direct from France or be sent via London, they are entitled to the benefits of the treaty; if sent by way of the United States they would not be so entitled.


Murray MacLaren: These goods must be imported through Canadian ports to receive the benefit of the special tariff. That being the case, and this treaty applying to other favoured nations, Japan, Switzerland and so on, will this condition also be required of the other favoured nations?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, they can only receive the same privileges by accepting the same responsibilities. I may say to my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) that I find in regard to the omnibus clause that in the act respecting the old treaty of 1908, chapter 28, the following clause appears:
The operation of all laws inconsistent with the giving to the provisions of the said convention and of this act their full effect shall from time to time be suspended to the extent of such inconsistency.
So our legal advisers have merely copied the old clause. I think it can do no harm, it simply makes assurance doubly sure.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On schedule D:
Arthur Meighen: There is only one schedule in the bill.

French Treaty


William Stevens Fielding: One schedule covers all in the bill.


The CHAIRMAN:: These separate schedules are part of the general schedule.


Arthur Meighen: So they are all carried in the one schedule.


William Stevens Fielding: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported.
George Newcombe Gordon: When shall the bill be read a third time?


William Stevens Fielding: Is there any objection to its being read now?


Arthur Meighen: Next sitting.


ITALIAN TREATY
William Stevens Fielding: I have not given notice, but perhaps the House will be prepared to take up the Italian treaty at once. I do not think it contains anything contentious.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As I take it- my hon. friend will tell me if I am wrong- what is done in the Italian treaty is in short to make Italy one of the most favoured nations.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, to give and receive favoured nation treatment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is free of a lot of objections that can be urged in connection with fixed duties?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not wish to press it. I have not given notice of it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But I do not know what other members think of it.


William Stevens Fielding: Let it stand for another day.


TESTING AND INSPECTION OF SEEDS
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 12 respecting the Testing, Inspection and Sale of Seeds, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Definitions:
Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the minister
would explain for the benefit of those of us who are not on the committee on Agriculture what is the effect of the amendments that have been made, prefacing that by a general statement of the purpose of the bill.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I did not expect to go into committee on this bill to-day and I have only a copy of the amended bill here without the new sections underlined, as I

generally have them in a case of this kind, so I shall have to ask the chairman to read the amendments made by the committee.


George Newcombe Gordon: Section 2 was amended in committee by striking out paragraph (h):
"Plants" means any agricultural or horticultural plant.


William Richard Motherwell: "Agricultural plant" means a plant from a hot house or one of a supply of such as cabbage plants or tomato plants. It was thought by the horticulturists that plants should not be included in the Seed Act.


Arthur Meighen: What is the general purpose of the legislation? Has the minister done away with the Seed Commission of western Canada and if so why?


William Richard Motherwell: This has nothing to do with the Seed Commission. This is the Seed Control Act dating back to 1903, I think, and has to do with the grading and specifying the grades and the qualifications of the various seeds that are placed on the market by our ' seed. merchants. That is the main feature of it. The act has been consolidated twice. It was first consolidated eleven years ago, and this is the second consolidation. It specifies, particularly, the seeds for export and import; also the quality of the seeds sold by our various seed merchants throughout Canada; indicates the quality of those seeds and the name of the grades. The Seed Commission that my hon. friend refers to has to do more with the disposition of what we call commercial seed grain distributed from our different systems, mostly in western Canada. Well, not necessarily all western Canada; it has been distributed all over Canada but mostly from the West as a base of supplies. That has not been dispensed with. The commissioner is employed and paid a per diem allowance when his services are required. There has been very little distribution of seed this year. Owing to the fact that the crop was so generally distributed over the West there has been very little demand for the use of this commission. However, it is in existence yet and can be called into requisition at any moment.


Arthur Meighen: This is the work that is under Mr. George Clark, is it not?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. Clause 3 contains provisions as to the sale of clovers, grasses, seed grain and fodder seeds. An addition has been made to clause 2 of the bill a provision to the effect that "grass, clover and alfalfa seeds that may be graded Registered

Inspection oj Seeds
Extra No. 1, or No. 1, shall be free from the seeds of primary noxious weeds." This is for the purpose of designating a standard quality of grass seeds. Formerly it applied to clover seeds and cereals. Now the idea is to extend it to all grass seeds and clover seeds, and also to field and garden seeds, as to the grade and quality that constituted a standard grade. When a seed merchant sells a consignment of seeds of a certain quality, and it proves not to be up to such quality, the purchaser can get redress by calling for a survey, and all the usual procedure involved in the event of seed not coming up to the standard.


Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):: 
William Richard Motherwell: We could not very well take the provincial noxious weed list because it varies so much. We would have to have a government standardized list. As to the federal act it has not been before this House since I have had anything to do with legislation of this kind. I am not familiar, I may say, with the entire list of noxious weeds as defined by the federal act. But that is what it refers to here.


Charles Wallace Stewart: Is it a fact that noxious weeds are defined in a federal act?	_


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Charles Wallace Stewart: And also
"primary noxious weeds?"


William Richard Motherwell: The federal list
does not necessarily correspond with the list in provincial acts because there is such a variety of weeds in the various provinces that it would take a list of tremendous length to include them all.
1474,


Mr. TOLMIE:: There is a list of "noxious weeds" given in the regulations on the back of the old act.


William Richard Motherwell: What was the reference, Mr. Chairman, in the old act to "noxious weeds"?


George Newcombe Gordon: We do not happen to have the old act here. What I have is simply the bill as it went before the committee.


William Richard Motherwell: Certain features of these acts are adjustable by regulation. The hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) has just sent me over a copy of the Seed Control Act of 1911 and on the back of it is given a list of the noxious weeds referred to. I find the reference to it reads:
The species of farm weeds which shall for the purpose of the above mentioned act be included within the meaning of the term "noxious weeds" shall be as follows:-
It goes on to enumerate:
Wild oats; twitch or quack grass; docks; Russian thistle; purple cockle.
And so on. That appears in the regulations.


Charles Wallace Stewart: It does not . appear in the statute?


William Richard Motherwell: It has the same effect in law. Regulations passed in pursuance of the provisions of any statute have the same effect as law. Of course the act itself grants authority for the enforcement of regulations based upon its provisions. Such regulations must not be inconsistent with the act. In order to afford facilities for a quick adjustment a great many of these provisions are left to regulations rather than embodied in the act itself. That is so that in case any new weeds spring up they can be included by regulation instead of waiting until next session for a parliamentary enactment.


Charles Wallace Stewart: Is the term "primary" defined, or is it a loose term which may be subject to adjustment from time to time?


William Richard Motherwell: It is not defined in the statute, so far as I can see. There is a list of about twenty-five weeds enumerated, but I do not see the word "primary" mentioned. If my hon. friend wishes we can allow that sub-section to stand until we realize what the significance of the word "primary" is. I should think myself it would be "of first importance."


Charles Wallace Stewart: I think the point is very important. I think the minister will also agree that when large quantities
Inspection of Seeds

of grass arid clover seeds are being imported into the western provinces the purchasers should be protected against the possibility of those seeds containing weeds which, for example, although noxious there, may not be noxious in the place where the seed was grown. I think the term should be thoroughly understood and defined before it is used.


William Richard Motherwell: I think the list is quite complete. There are certain weeds that are very prevalent. For instance, wild buckwheat is very prevalent but is not considered to be a very noxious weed except in some places where it has proven to be so. If you include the whole list of noxious weeds the lists might be made very burdensome. The word "primary," I presume, has reference to the list given in the act. It is possible that some weeds may have to be added to the list when the new regulations, under the new act, are drafted. I have the list given in the old act if my hon. friend would like it read. It is as follows:
Cow cockle, stinkweed, false flax, ball mustard, wild radish, wild mustard, hare's-ear mustard, tumbling * mustard, wild carrot, field bindweed, dodder, blue burr or stickseed, blue weed, ribgrass, ragweed, ox-eye daisy, Canada thistle, perennial sow thistle.


Mr. MARTELL:: What is the method to be pursued by farmers in the province of Nova Scotia, particularly in the most important part of the province, the county of Hants, if they wish to get some seeds for new varieties of oats, or other seed, for the purpose of experimentation? From the experiments it carries on, the Department of Agriculture would undoubtedly know the best seeds to be used in certain sections of Nova Scotia. Having ascertained that fact, what would the farmer have to do in order to get some new samples of seed?


William Richard Motherwell: It depends whether he wanted to deal with a regular recognized seed merchant-


Lewis Herbert Martell: He would want to get them for nothing.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think we have any such method, except by getting small samples from the experimental fafm.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I think the minister stated that if certain progressive farmers would apply to the experimental farm they would get samples.


William Richard Motherwell: The season is pretty well advanced for distributing samples of seed. A certain distribution is being made yet, although not so prodigal as that of a number [Mr. C. A. Stewart.1
of years ago. It was thought there was a good deal of waste in the general distribution of these small five-pound samples of seed. The quantity distributed has been reduced, and distributed early enough so that it will be ready for seeding in the spring. It is rather late now.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Can the hon. minister tell me how I would get it? The season is not very far advanced in Nova Scotia.


William Richard Motherwell: I understand the season is late there this year. They have a supply still on hand at the experimental farm at Ottawa, and if my hon. friend will send an application to the Director of Experimental Farms, Ottawa, I have no doubt they would strain a point for my hon. friend, even if it is a little late.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince, P.E.I.):: When this bill was up before the committee on Agriculture, the question regarding the taking over of inspection of seed potatoes for shipment to the American markets was discussed, and we from the Maritime provinces were disappointed that the inspection of seed potatoes was not taken over by the Seed branch. We found it impossible in this committee to have the inspection taken over by the Seed branch. I just wish to ask the minister if he has given further consideration to this matter, and if he has not received numerous communications from the potato growers association in the Maritime provinces asking for this. They believed they could get better inspection and they would have the men right on the spot the whole year round, or on the days the potatoes were shipped out, and it would be a far better method than the present system where the plant pathologists are only there for part of the season. They are very anxious for this to be taken care of by the Seed branch under Mr. Clark, and I hope the minister will still give it favourable consideration.


William Richard Motherwell: Officials of the
Department of Agriculture have gone into this matter very carefully, and inasmuch as it will require additional plant pathologists to perform these services under the Seed branch, it would be more expensive to carry out my hon. friend's suggestion. At the present time seed potatoes are under the department of the plant pathologists, as it requires the services of a pathologist to identify potato diseases. It does not require such an officer to take care of the Seed branch, because if the potatoes were transferred to the Seed branch we would have to take on a new staff of

Inspection oj Seeds
plant pathologists. The chief reason that it is not advisable at this time to transfer potatoes to the Seed branch is the additional expense involved. I recognize that Mr. Clark's staff is quite competent and quite efficient to deal with that question, but we cannot give the service through the Seed branch without a very heavy additional expense.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Are any experiments proposed to be carried on in Nova Scotia or in the Maritime provinces to ascertain whether or not certain varieties of apples could be grown so that young farmers of the provinces could conduct experiments on their own farms, with a view to adopting promising new varieties? I make the same inquiry with regard to plum trees and pear trees in Nova Scotia. Could the minister inform me if anything has been done in his department towards getting cheaper rates on nitrate of soda? That is a very valuable product for fruit growers in my part of the country, and in fact for all the fruit growers in the province, and the freights are found to be excessive. Is the department doing anything in the way of negotiating with the various municipalities with a view to taking up with the railways the question of freight rates on nitrate of soda? This matter may not be considered apropos of the question before the committee, but apple growing is somewhat akin to it. If the minister could do something for us in that regard, in order to introduce new classes of fruits in Nova Scotia, I think it would be a good thing.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know how far, Mr. Chairman, you will let me take up these various matters. There is the Fertilizer Act and the Seed Act and other acts, but fruit has been disposed of by the act passed recently. There is a very substantial amount of experimenting with apples being conducted constantly, apart from the experimental farm. At the exhibition last fall I saw a number of very choice boxes of apples which looked very tempting, and I think their cultivation might prove very successful in many parts of Canada. The same experiment is being conducted on the experimental farm, and in the Maritime provinces. I think I have dealt with my hon. friend's question.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Provisions as to use of established variety names and the licensing of new variety names:
William Richard Motherwell: This section has
been amended in committee by adding in the third line the words:
Agricultural or garden vegetable seeds or plants.


Mr. MacKELVIE:: What does that mean?


William Richard Motherwell: This is to permit of the registration of new varieties of plants through the Canadian Council of Horticulture, which is making provision for registration of both plants and trees, so that a record may be kept, just in the same way as there is a registration of animals. I think this is the first of its kind, not only in Canada, but on this continent.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: What steps have to be taken by an applicant for registration?


William Richard Motherwell: I was mistaken in saying that this work was not done in the United States. It has been started there, but the proposal is to make it international. The secretary of the Canadian Council of Horticulture is Mr. Burrows of the Fruit branch, and any communications addressed to him would secure the information desired. I think they, are not quite organized yet. In the estimates, there is an item, which I do not think we have yet reached, covering an additional grant to the Canadian Council of Horticulture to carry on this work.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Is a regular standard established, or under what conditions will these registrations be accepted? I presume some varieties will be eligible for registration and others not. What will be the line of demarcation?


William Richard Motherwell: The idea is to
make such a thorough description of a variety that the party who has discovered it cannot be defrauded. A man may have spent years of toil in propagating a new plant, and this is to prevent others who may find out about it from stealing it. Cases where such a new variety has been stolen overnight have been known. This registration applies to apple , trees, etc., bulbs and plants of all descriptions. Section agreed to.
On section 8-Provisions as to sale of seeds for export when purported to have been inspected and graded:


John Armstrong MacKelvie: Will these seeds, when exported, be marked as Canadian, so as to establish a standard for our home-grown seeds?


William Richard Motherwell: Under paragraph
(a) the name and address of the seller will be on the package, and under paragraph (e)
Chinese Immigration

the package must be marked with the name of the province and country where the seed was grown.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-Time limit complaint may be made against person from whom seed purchased :
William Richard Motherwell: This is to give a longer time for prosecution, and there is also a, provision under which a purchaser in good faith shall not be liable to prosecution.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-Official samples to be taken in presence of witness:
John Armstrong MacKelvie: What process will be necessary to satisfy the terms of this provision?


William Richard Motherwell: Simply as outlined, in the presence of a witness, so that it may be certain that the sample was taken correctly, and that the sample is what it pur' ports to be.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved the second reading of Bill No. 15, respecting Chinese Immigration.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Definitions:
Mr. McQUARRIE:: Will the minister make a statement as to how this bill will affect the entry of Chinese into the country?


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member might wait until section 5, "Entry and landing", is called.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Powers of Governor in Council:
Henry Herbert Stevens: There is one question I want the minister fully to elucidate and that is in reference to subsection (b) of section 3 which gives power to the Governor in Council to appoint officers in countries other than Canada for the puiposes of endorsing passports or performing other duties under the act. I wish the minister would explain as fully as he can that subsection, having in

mind the experience of the department during recent years, particularly I believe in 1920 and 1921, when the British Consul vised the passports of intending immigrants with the result that there was at that time an increased influx of merchants from China.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not very clear as to how that occurred, but it would appear that approximately 1,200 Chinese registered as merchants in the year 1920-21. I have a record taken from the reports of the department with regard to this matter, but I may say that our intention is that the officer in China shall be responsible for the carrying out of the provisions of the act; that is to say, before a national of China can leave the country of origin, he will have to have his passport vised by our officer. That practice obtains to a certain extent now; the passport is vised by the British consul. But we believe that the British consul's duties are too numerous to allow him to devote the same attention to this matter as could be given by a Canadian officer stationed in China for the particular purpose, and there would be greater probability of the law being rigidly enforced by the appointment of a Canadian officer than would otherwise be the case. That is all we have in mind in connection with the appointment of an officer in China. When the bill was drawn up I assumed that the appointments and the fixing of salaries would come under the Civil Service Commission; and that is as I desire, with the single exception of the chief controller. I propose to amend subsection (a) of section 3 by striking it out and substituting the following:
Appoint any official of the Department of Immigration and Colonization to be chief controller.
_ That is the only reservation in the bill in regard to which I desire to have control, because this official is more or less in the position of a deputy minister. He will be selected from the Department of Immigration, so that we are not going outside the service that exists to fill the position.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the officers in other countries be appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. I move that the subsection be amended as I have proposed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Before we leave this section I want to make this observation.' I am very sceptical of the success that will attend the appointment of this officer, and I do not

Chinese Immigration
say this by way of criticism of the minister;
I make the statement simply from past experience and from the known difficulty that attaches to this matter. I think that very great care should be exercised in the choice of the person or persons appointed and in the making of the regulations which will surround their activities on the other side.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend is speaking of the officer who will be in China?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. I can furnish the minister with evidence which is in the possession of the department to show that persons in Canton were in touch with people in this country for the purpose of advising and indeed of helping Chinese to evade the head tax, and this by deliberate design. This happened, too, a year or two ago. So I merely refer this to the minister in order that he may be fully seized of the significance of the move.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many appointments does the minister contemplate making? I suppose he is going to confine this to very, very narrow limits in China.


Charles A. Stewart: There will be only one official in China. I want to strike out subclause (e) dealing with the fixing of remuneration. I want to make this conform to the Civil Service Act.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Mr. Chairman, from what took place in this House last session I understood orientals were to be excluded. Why, then, are we arranging to send people over to China to encourage Chinese immigration into this country?


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend will look at section 5 he will observe that the class of Chinese to be allowed entry into Canada is very much restricted. There was no promise made last session that there would be total exclusion of orientals.


Thomas George McBride: Yes, I see that you are allowing Chinese merchants to come in all right, but from the tone of the debate on the immigration policy of the government which took place recently in this House I understood that we did not want immigrants to throng our cities. Then why let Chinese merchants come in to run our business? In the West we have quite sufficient of them at the present time in our cities.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would suggest' that section 5, entry and landing, will afford hon. members wide scope for debate on the whole question.


Charles A. Stewart: I want to amend subsection (b) by inserting after the word "appoint" the words:
-and fix the salary and remuneration of
_Mr. STEVENS: I think the minister must have misunderstood my question. I asked him a moment ago if under subsection (b) these officers would be appointed by the Civil Service Commission.


Charles A. Stewart: My understanding was, Mr. Chairman, that without special reference at all these appointments would automatically come under the Civil Service Commission. I find that is not the case. Therefore we have to make these changes. The only officer who will come under their control is the chief controller. I have had the section carefully reviewed by Mr. Edwards of the Justice department with that object in view.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the chairman kindly read subclause (b) ?


George Newcombe Gordon: Subclause (b) as proposed to be amended is as follows:
Appoint and fix the salary and remuneration of officers in countries other than Canada for the purpose of endorsing passports or performing other duties under this act.


Charles A. Stewart: I am afraid Mr. Edwards has gone wrong there. I would ask that the clause be allowed to stand.


George Newcombe Gordon: Section 3 stands.
On section 5-Entry and landing-Immigration confined to certain classes, etc.


Mr. BAXTER:: Going back to clause (e) of the interpretation section, I find that a Chinese immigrant is defined as meaning "any person of Chinese origin or descent entering Canada for the purpose of acquiring Canadian domicile." Then follows "a person shall not be deemed to be of Chinese origin or descent merely because his mother or his female ancestors or any of them were of 5 p.m. Chinese origin or descent." That has a bearing of course on section 5 as to persons of Chinese origin or descent. I ask the minister whether it is wise to continue-I suppose it is from an old act-that definition. After all, we do not want any more Chinese here than we can help. Well, do we want half any more than we want full-blooded Chinese?


Charles A. Stewart: Is it not
generally understood that nationality descends on the father's side?
Chinese Immigration


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: So far as national status is concerned it would depend on the father,
yes, but-*


Charles A. Stewart: There are many cases where Englishmen are married to Chinese women. Their offspring would be barred if there were not such a clause in the bill.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If whites choose to let
down the racial standard to that extent, should not they keep their progeny in the East instead of bringing them in here? Does the minister think the bill is quite definite enough as to the exclusion of Chinese women? Of course they have to fall within the definition of merchants or students, but even as merchants I fancy we do not want them here. Would it not be well to make it absolutely clear that Chinese women cannot come in under any circumstances? I am very glad to see that section 5 begins with a declaration that Chinese origin or descent is to be irrespective of allegiance or citizenship, so that we cannot, as I understand it, have under this section any so-called Hong-Kong Chinese claiming British citizenship. That is a very good provision, but I would suggest that it might be made a little more emphatic as to the exclusion of women. I would also suggest that the minister reconsider the definition clause.


Charles A. Stewart: Since the bill was published a great many representations have been made from people in British Columbia-I am bound to say that they have no other motive apparently than that of a desire to be generous-asking particularly that the wives of Chinese merchants be admitted. Such women are not provided for in this bill. There is a fairly wide clause in section 9 of the Immigration Act which gives the minister discretion to admit anyone whom he may think it wise to allow to enter Canada.


Mr. NEILL:: Could the minister give us an idea of who these bodies are in British Columbia who are so generous as to want the wives of Chinese merchants admitted?


Charles A. Stewart: They are
mostly representatives of religious bodies throughout Canada who are interested in this question. In addition there are a great many legal gentlemen, who no doubt are interested because they have Chinese clients. In fairness I ought to state that to the committee.	-


Mr. LUCAS:: Are these bodies in British Columbia?
fMr. C. A. Stewart.]


Charles A. Stewart: Quite a
number of them.


Mr. CLARK:: Have any legal bodies in British Columbia made representations? I never heard of them doing so.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: What organizations?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not suppose I have this in confidence; I have a letter from Tupper & Tupper, of Vancouver, appealing on behalf of certain clients of theirs. I suppose it is a matter of business with them.


John Arthur Clark: I was not asking for individuals, but for organizations. Have any representations been made by the Law Society, for instance?


Charles A. Stewart: Only religious organizations, or representatives of religious organizations.


William Garland McQuarrie: Has the minister heard anything from Bishop A. U. de Pencier, of Vancouver?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister knows that he has publicly stated that in his opinion orientals should be excluded from British Columbia. I think the minister has been furnished with the newspaper reports of the bishop's speech.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: I would like the minister to explain what changes will be made effective by reason of the passing of this bill. As I understand it, at the present time Chinese labourers are not admitted to Canada. As a matter of fact, under the regulations as they exist now the only classes admitted are merchants and students. If I am right in that respect, is this bill making any changes at all? Is this bill carrying out in any way the terms of the resolution which was passed last session calling for effective restriction of oriental immigration, and if so in what way?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend is quite right. Under the regulations merchants and students are practically the only people to be admitted. Under the old act, as my hon. friend knows, the admission of Chinese was permitted upon payment of a head tax of $500, and there was no restriction as to numbers; so they came in. By regulation we have been doing this for the past two or three months, but we have no statutory-enactment under which we might act. We

Chinese Immigration
have simply been acting under the regulations.


William Garland McQuarrie: What you propose to do now is to abolish the head tax altogether?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, we will not charge a merchant or a student the $500 head tax.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: You do not limit the time a merchant may stay in the country do you?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Under the section that the minister referred to, authorizing him to grant a permit irrespective of the other provisions of the act, there was a limitation; but after all, what is a merchant? If a man chooses to come to Vancouver for instance, and open a little fruit store he is a "merchant," I suppose. He can get in and stay there as a merchant. Is a laundry man a merchant?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would not think so; he does not buy or sell anything. Just what is going to happen to us? Will we be fed on Chinese fruit and go unlaundered, or what is the object?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was rather waiting for the reading of the clause to be proceeded with, for as far as I am concerned the main contention will be around sub-clause (c) of section I as to the word "merchant." That is really the crux of this whole bill, or very largely so. There are other points that will arise as we proceed. Unless the minister has some definition to supply in regard to merchants I am afraid the measure will be received with considerable alarm by a large section of the public. I wonder, would the committee be interested if I just gave a few figures-I think they have been given before by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) but it is just as well to refresh our memory-as to the, number of Chinese merchants in Vancouver. In Vancouver alone there are the following businesses carried on by Chinese:
5 garages, 40 butchers, 65 barbers, 172 grocers, 144 candy, ice cream and fruit, 63 gents' clothing, 9 hardware, 30 jewellers, 89 restaurants, 38 express and dray, 201 tobacconists, 29 wholesale dealers, 154 hawkers and peddlers, 5 printers and publishers, 50 boot and shoe dealers, 54 stationers, etc. etc.
These are all in the city of Vancouver, and when you consider the number operating in a city like that, it must be clear that there is no necessity for special provision for merchants to be admitted to engage in merchandising in this country. I think what the minister has in mind, and what we all have in
mind, is the facilitating of international trade, trade between China and Canada, and I think we are quite prepared for the admission of such business men as are required to carry on that trade. But that is not at all what is in the mind of the Chinese when he suggests that merchants be allowed to enter free. What he means is to build up in Canada a merchandising group in all centres as far as he can. I was down at Kingston near here last year, where there are over 300 Chinese engaged in business in the city, including laundries, which were not included in the list I have just read. These men are running restaurants, fruit and grocery stores particularly, and tailoring shops. The same thing applies to many other eastern cities, and most of this, in fact all of it in the East, has grown up I think in the last ten years, and (he impetus will increase as the years go by unless the movement is checked.
I fully appreciate the difficulty of facing this problem with the officials from China, and the same thing applies to Japan. It is difficult, but unfortunately we have got to speak plainly and as far as I am concerned I do so,
I think, without passion. It is merely a question of economic necessity to further restrict this class. I think the whole answer to their contention that they have no intention of abusing the privilege is found in the records. I am quoting from memory, but I know I am not more than one or two out. Prior to October or November, 1920, the record shows that about two or three merchants a month were admitted to Canada. During that year we succeeded in stopping the movement whereby they had been bringing in a lot of Chinese students in direct violation of the correct interpretation of that privilege. When that was stopped they found a method of evading the regulation regarding merchants, and they switched to that. Up to that time, as I say, they were coming in at the rate of two or three a month. Suddenly the number rose to 25, 30, 40 and even as high as 400 a month for some months, until one year I think 1,400 came in, or approximately that number. The point I am getting at is this: If during that period only two or three a month came in, if that was the number covered by the normal movement without any undue restriction at all and then suddenly it increased to 300 and 400 a month it would seem that the entrance of such numbers is for some other purpose than merely trade. Now that is a feature we have got to face, and face very frankly in regard to this bill. I have not an amendment to move; I understand there is an amendment to be pro-
Chinese Immigration

posed by the member for New Westminster. I want to say, as far as I am concerned, that I am not offering this opposition in the way of captious criticism or in order to add to the minister's perplexities, but with a genuine desire to try and solve this point-for I think this is really the main point in the whole bill, if we could solve it. Then the bill would probably be a step forward in the handling of this problem. I still maintain together with no doubt many others-I think all the other members from British Columbia-that the position Canada must come to sooner or later-and I believe it is long past due-is the position of exclusion. I cannot see any other way of surmounting this difficulty. But the government is offering this bill with assurances that it is doing its utmost, and we are desirous of meeting them, for the time being, half way without abandoning our principles in the matter. But we do wish to make this a fully effective measure-that is, that the intent in the minister's mind and the intent, I think, in the minds of most members of the House, shall be carried out. Now, unless the minister has something more effective to give us in connection with this subclause C it will be necessary, I think, to find some amendment during the consideration of this bill by the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might take advantage of this moment to say just a word as to the point of view from which the government has introduced this legislation. In dealing with the subject of immigration from the Orient there are two aspects which it seems to me, the committee will do well to keep more or less continuously in mind. First there is the aspect of our international relations with the great countries that lie on the other side of the Pacific. There is the other aspect, which perhaps appeals more immediately to us, of our own economic conditions and the problems in this country that arise therefrom, particularly where certain classes of our labour are brought into competition with labour from countries which have standards different from our own. As long as we keep these two points of view clearly in mind and distinguish between them-as my hon. friend who has just taken his seat has in the main distinguished-I think there should be little difficulty in solving the problem as between the Orient and ourselves. If, however, we lose sight of the international aspect and use expressions-either unguardedly or for other reasons-which are certain to be repugnant to peoples of another part of the world,
I am afraid that instead of helping to relieve a very serious situation we shall only be cre-
ating-perhaps not for ourselves but for others-a situation which will be infinitely worse.
For years past it has been recognized that it is not in the interest of Canada to admit to this country large numbers of persons from the Orient. Different methods have been attempted to restrict immigration. One method adopted in the case of the Chinese was that of imposing a poll tax, not of a very large amount at the outset, but which has amounted to something like $500 in recent years. That was found to be an ineffective method. So far as that method is concerned I would like to say to the committee it has always seemed to me it was objectionable from a point of view altogether apart from any economic consideration. It was objectionable that a country calling itself a Christian nation, should attempt in such a manner to deal with a problem which immediately affects oriental civilization. I could never see how Canada, from any self respecting point of view, could impose a poll tax on working people coming from another country, and at the same time have its population subscribe to funds for missionary purposes to teach the heathen the most elementary principles of Christianity. The government has shared that view, and has felt that any indiginity of the character of the imposition of a poll tax upon a people in any other part of the world was something to which we, as a Christian community, should not lend our approval. So we have decided to abolish the head tax for that reason if for no other.
However, from the economic point of view, the position we have taken is that the head tax is ineffective as a method of restriction, and that some more effective method should be adopted. The question has mainly to do with industrial problems; with the classes of oriental labour that come into competition with our labour. Hon. members will perhaps recall that when the Chinese Minister resident at Washington recently visited Ottawa, he gave an address in these buildings in which he announced that speaking for China, he was prepared to say, that China would forego the privilege of sending a single coolie or wroking man into Canada rather than sacrifice the friendship of this country, if the sending of any labour whatever into Canada was liable to be at the cost of that friendship. He took the broad view that what the Chinese were anxious for was the good-will of other countries with whom they hoped to have dealings of different kinds. He recognized the immigration problem, and he said quite frankly that the Chinese people would not take offence at a law which was

Chinese Immigration
aimed at restricting immigration. He let it be clearly understood, however, that the Chinese would still desire to have the just respect of other countries, or of the peoples of other countries, and would not want to be subjected to the indignity which exclusion from another country would involvle. I do not think it is possible to talk of excluding the peoples of any country, of excluding all of the 'people-regardless altogether of what their standing or standards may be -and not offend the entire nation concerned;
I do not think it is in the interest of Canada, or of any part of the British Empire, that any Dominion of the Empire should knowingly pass an act, which is certain to be regarded as an act of offence to an entire nation.


William Garland McQuarrie: What about the United
States?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking of British freedom at the moment. I am speaking of the conception of British freedom as I understand it; I have never known a time when the British flag has stood for inflicting anything in the nature of an indignity upon the people of any country in the world.


William Garland McQuarrie: What about Australia and New Zealand?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think my hon. friend can point to an act of exclusion of all Chinese from Australia or New Zealand.


William Garland McQuarrie: No, but that is the effect of the legislation in 'those countries at the present time, is it not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not saying what the effect of this legislation may be when it is passed. What I am saying is that no country that I know of, under the British flag, has ever attempted, or in the name of British justice and fair play, ami fair dealings with the peoples of other parts of the world would attempt, to enact an exclusion law against another nation, regardless altogether of the status or standing of the classes that may be affected.
So far as labour, so far as the question of economic competition is concerned, the Chinese themselves have stated that they- do not object, and will not feel that they are being subjected to any indignity by this parliament taking whatever action it thinks best in the matter of restricting immigration; and we are taking by this bill, a step which will mean the effective restriction of all Chinese immigration, indeed of all classes of
Chinese, coming to this country other than such as it is admitted, come to this country in our interest as much as in the interest or the Chinese themselves.
. We hope to have trading relations with the , Orient. We hope in some way to make our contribution to their civilization along with what other countries may be doing in that regard. We have no desire to exclude from Canada the scholars of China. We have no desire to exclude the young men and the young women of China who may wish to come to our universities and study here with a view to gaining some of the enlightenment of which we boast so much, to carry that enlightenment back to their own country. If in the matter of world competition we are going to hold our own with the Orient eventually, it will be by the standards in the Orient being raised, rather than by any other means, that that great end will be achieved. To the degree that we help the Orient in this particular we will be benefiting ourselves. In the legislation being brought forward, we have made provision that certain of the classes whom it is in our interest as well as in the interest of the Chinese to have come to Canada, may be permitted to come, but permitted to come within such limits as the government at all times thinks wise-and not beyond that. The head tax is repealed by this law. In its place the bill provides that only certain persons are to be allowed to come to Canada. It makes no mention whatever in that connection of the labour class. To that extent the law is a complete exclusion of all labour coming from China. It is as regards Chinese labour in effect an exclusion law. On the other hand it does mention two or three classes which we think should be permitted to come. In regard to those classes, it leaves the control of the situation in the hands of the minister administering the Department of Immigration and the officers of that department. It is proposed to send to the Orient an officer under the control of the Minister of Immigration who will have to vise every passport before it will be accepted on this side. The minister has it in his power and will continue to have it in his power to make regulations under this act, with respect to any particular class that may be permitted to come in. Take the class to which my hon. friend has just referred, that of merchant. I agree with him absolutely that the list he has gone over is a list no government could ever countenance for one moment under the head of "merchants''. I do think it is desirable, if we hope to trade with the Orient, that men who are in a position to carry on export and import trade to an

Chinese Immigration
extent that is likely to be of service to both countries should come to this country and by so coming promote further trade relations. I think if we permit them to come we ought to permit their wives and children to come with them. I do not think we should take the position that we will allow a merchant, a man of high business standing, to come to our country and start up in business, and subject him to the indignity of not being permitted to bring his wife and children with him. I would stand for a very rigid guarding of that provision, to see that the law was carried out to the letter, but this should always be taken into account as respects the legislation we are now proposing; namely that those who will be permitted to come to Canada from China will be determined, not after their arrival here, but before their departure from China, and will be determined by an officer of the government itself in accordance with the regulations which the minister may think it wise to lay down.
With regard to merchants, I think it should be understood that only those who would come within the category I have mentioned, of persons carrying on business in a large way, the business of import and export as between Canada and China, should come within that definition. I think it would be wiser to leave it to the minister by regulation further precisely to define what comes within that broad definition, than that we should attempt, in the statute, to insert words which might occasion offence to the Chinese. Similarly in regard to students, where we reserve to ourselves the right to vise the passports of those who come, by an officer of our government stationed in China, who has to be statisfied as to the bona fides of the student being admitted. I think we ought to be prepared to allow a certain latitude to the minister as to whom to admit. The United States, Great Britain and other countries have all felt it to their advantage, not merely to admit these students, but to encourage them to come. After the Boxer uprising, the United States' government thought it was a wise thing to turn over for the purpose of encouraging Chinese students to come to the United States, all the money which came to it by way of indemnity. These Chinese students have come, have studied in the universites and have gone back, and they have been missionaries, not merely of the gospel, many of them, but also missionaries of trade, so far as the United States is concerned. I remember having a few years ago the privilege of travelling in China, and seeing something of the country, and how great was my surprise FMr. Mackenzie King.]
to see the extent to which the supplies ,in the trains were American merchandise,-the glassware, the cutlery, stoves, clocks, many different kinds of manufacture. Wherever one went in one's travels, in the hotels, and elsewhere one found traces of American manufacture. That applies also to canned fruit, vegetables and the like. Why should Canada not share in that great trade, as well as the American people? We cannot share in it if we are going to shut everybody out and adopt a system of complete exclusion.


William Garland McQuarrie: How did the Americans get that trade? They exclude Chinese.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member has not listened to what I have just been saying in regard to the American government encouraging the students to come. They have gone by hundreds to the universities in the states. What is the sense of talking of American exclusion? They are being encouraged at this very time to come.


John Arthur Clark: What have the students to do with the trade of the country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely the hon. member has intelligence enough to see the bearing of a matter of that kind.


John Arthur Clark: I asked a question and I thought I might get a courteous answer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought I was giving a courteous answer. If the hon. member wants me to explain in A. B. C. fashion I can do so.


John Arthur Clark: I was asking the question without any reflection on the minister's intelligence, and I thought I might get an answer without any reflection on my intelligence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg pardon if I have reflected upon the hon. member's intelligence. I did not intend so to do. If the hon. member were to spend three or four years in China as a student, coming in touch with the commercial, industrial and social life of China, when he returned to this country, let us assume as a professor, a teacher of economics or any other subject in one of the universities, he would be the very first to tell his pupils and to tell those with whom he came in contact, of the products, manufactures and other commodities which China was in a position to send to Canada. He would be in a very short time, unless I mistake altogether his character in that regard, a missionary in respect to many of the questions which affect relations between Chjna

Chinese Immigration
and ourselves. The extent to, which the Chinese students have studied in American universities is vitally affecting the relations between the United States and China to-day. They go back to China educated men, the men who control the press of their country, who find their way into parliament, who become the diplomats of their country. They are the ones who are in the position to control, in a very large way, the whole question of trade relations between the countries. I think we have already suffered a great deal in this country^ through not having given a like encouragement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I may be allowed to interrupt, I wish to say that we admitted students, but where the hon. gentleman is in error both in regard to students and merchants is this: We are not objecting to the bona fide student as described here, in a Canadian institute of higher education at all, but the Chinese themselves deliberately evaded the regulations and brought in hundreds, indeed thousands, of Chinese who never went to any institute of learning. They were admitted on that understanding; but while they, perhaps, attend one of our public schools for a few days or a short time, they are afterwards found here and there in ordinary labour.
The evasion in the case of merchants is of a similar character, and the difficulty is this: The Chinese put an altogether different interpretation on the prefession of merchant from what we do. For instance, a dozen China-ment will form a little company to run a store, and every one of them individually is a merchant. We would say that there was one merchant there and eleven clerks. They say that there are a dozen merchants, and in this way they evade and have evaded the regulations. I pointed out a moment ago that we used to have only two or three merchants coming in a month, whereas the number suddenly leaped to 400 a month, showing that there was a deliberate conspiracy to evade the regulation. Therefore, if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will catch our complaint, it is not against merchants or students, if we can pin down the correct interpretation. In this regard I think students are correctly defined, but merchants are not. That is the point that I tried to raise a moment ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am absolutely at one with the hon. member in what he says about preventing evasions and the like. I would not countenance for a moment any evasion of the law by either student or merchant. I am pointing out to him that
this legislation differs from anything in the nature of regulations we have heretofore had, in that under its provisions we contemplate placing in China an officer of our own government who will himself have to vise every passport. He will be under the direction of the minister, and, if so desired he can be in communication with the minister, by cable day by day. If he finds that merchants are making application to him in too large numbers, he can take his time to find out the standing of the men who are coming, and if the minister's regulations are not broad enough to cover what we all understand and what we want to have understood as coming within the provisions of the law, the minister will have an opportunity of amending his regulations accordingly. What I am asking the committee to consider at the moment is the international aspect of the language we use in the statutes. These enactments are read in China as well as in this country. If we can by regulation meet effectively the object that we in Canada are all aiming at, and avoid what is invidious and what makes for international illwill, surely it is to the interest of all classes in this country that we do so. I cannot think of anyone who will take exception to that point of view. The government has adopted an effective method of restriction by undertaking to see that passports are vised in China before the persons to whom the passports are given leave that country. If we can agree upon the status of the man, for example, who is to be included within the merchant class, we ought to treat him in a generous way, and we ought also to take a broad and liberal attitude as regards students.
When I was interrupted, I was about to say that I know General Sir Arthur Currie of McGill and Sir Robert Falconer of Toronto both feel very strongly on this subject. They have represented to the government that they would be glad to see Chinese students coming to their respective universities. We must go this much further. If we are to expect students to attend our universities, we must give them the privilege of attending some [DOT]preparatory college for a short time before they are admitted to the universities. All of that need be only a matter of regulation; it need not lend itself to evasion unless a government wished to lend itself to that, and I do not think any government would do so. The point I wish to make at the moment is the wisdom of recognizing the dual aspect of the legislation we are discussing, the economic and the international aspects, the care that must be taken in discussing international questions, while dealing with matters
Chinese Immigration

which on this side are primarily of economic concern.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: British Columbians as a whole are anxious to maintain international relations and also to maintain our high standard as a Christian community; but we do not want to do that at the expense of giving up our country to the Asiatics. I will just read this telegram from the Retail Merchants' Association of Victoria:
Retail Merchants of Victoria strongly opposed to Bill 45 feeling that the word "merchant" is much too vague. Oriental question in British Columbia has become alarming.
H. O. Kibkham,
President.
We might glance just for a moment at the result of past legislation. In 1885, we had a head tax passed of $50 a head on Chinese. In 1901, this was increased to $100; in 1904, to $500, and in 1919, an order in council was passed keeping out skilled * and unskilled labour. Then certain privileges were extended to students, and as has already been pointed out by one of the representatives from Britisn Columbia, the Chinese abused that privilege. After a "student" came in he would attend a school for a short time, and then he would be found peeling potatoes in some hotel kitchen. He was not a student at all, but simply a labourer. We extended certain privileges to merchants, and in one year, 1921, no less than 1,145 "merchants" came in under that heading. In 1904, the Chinese population of Canada was only 14,000. It is now 58,000 and 38,000 of those are located in British Columbia. This indicates that our past legislation has been totally inadequate to meet the situation. 1 feel, like some hon. gentlemen who have spoken already, that if we do not have total exclusion, we must have something as close to that as possible, if we are going to get along and attain the ends we desire.
In the present bill before the House, the clause dealing with merchants leaves the question pretty wide open. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Prime Minister, and I must say that if this inspector whom he is going to send over to the other side is to keep out Chinese merchants or to have them come in only under the proper head, strict regulations will have to be made and carried out to the letter. This is of the utmost importance to us in British Columbia. I have lived in British Columbia all my life, and I can remember when in Victoria there was only one Chinese merchant; now we have thousands of them located there, and there are thousands of them in Vancouver. We have them controlling several lines of

agricultural work; we have them controlling practically, or very nearly, the whole of the fishing business and gaining on us every year, and they are becoming more powerful now that they have money as they did not have before. If the white people of British Columbia are going to be able to compete with these Chinese, they must lower their standard of living, live under cheaper conditions and in cheaper houses, wear cheaper clothes and eat less food. The Chinese do not and never will assimilate with our people, as has been proved to be the case in every country in which they have settled. We quite understand that, the application of regulations that will be necessary will bring hardship on some people; but we must meet the situation courageously and apply those regulations in an effective manner. The whole aim of our immigration regulations and laws is to keep out the bad and undesirable people, and to let in those that are good.
I might refer for a moment to conditions existing across the Pacific, the tremendous populations there. In China alone there is a population of 400,000,000, many of whom have been kept on the edge of starvation owing to the heavily populated condition of the country, with the result that it has been found in all countries where they have settled, they are able to put up a class of work more cheaply and under rougher conditions than any other labour that is to be found in the world.
Let us consider what might happen in the case of a little laxity in our immigration laws. In the United States at the end of the Civil War, there was a coloured population of only 400,000. This has increased until at the present time there are over 10,000,000. Surely that is enough to make Canadians sit up and take notice of this Asiatic question. We cannot be too particular in allowing immigration to come to this country, for the reason that the very same men whom we are allowing in now, and their offspring, will in the future play an important part in building up the national life of this country, and the standard of our national life should be jealously guarded in every possible way.
I quite agree that we should like to have oriental trade, but if we are going to permit any laxity in connection with Chinese immigration or make too many concessions in order to get this trade, we shall find in all probability that we shall secure this trade at the expense of many of the industries of the country. My experience of Asiatics, and particularly the Chinese, has been in the past that they will buy where they can get goods cheapest. If we have goods to sell at prices that appeal to the Chinese, the 400,000,000 on

Chinese Immigration
the other side will not spend much time arguing about the privileges extended to the 50,000 or 60,000 Chinese here. One of our principal troubles in the past has been I think the inability of the people east of the Rocky mountains to grasp the Asiatic situation in its full significance. Many persons in the professions have contended that we should allow more Chinese to come into the country.
I can quite understand that, because there are no Chinamen in this country engaged in these professions; and the professional people have taken good care to preclude Chinese competition against themselves, having fenced their professions around with various regulations to render such competition impossible. But the farmers, the labourers, the laundry people, the restaurant people, the tailors, and now even the merchants of the country are feeling this competition. In British Columbia we have passed year after year certain legislation asking the federal government to put into effect a proper exclusion of Asiatics. This matter has been urged principally by the business organizations who have passed resolutions and forwarded them to Ottawa. The business people have fallen into line behind these resolutions but with no definite results, for we find to-day that the Chinese are still coming in across the Pacific and locating in our country in large numbers, in spite of such regulations as have been enforced; which proves that our laws have been inadequate in the past to meet this situation. The Chinese question has now assumed very serious proportions, so that we have to-day a difficult oriental problem to solve. I think that the people of Canada must wake up to the danger from this Asiatic invasion from across the Pacific. If we hope to preserve this country to the white man, our legislators and the members of this House should realize the great responsibility that rests on their shoulders not only for the protection of those people who are now in this country, but in the interests of the generations to come. I must oppose the bill in its present form and hope the minister will have a suitable amendment to offer.


Charles A. Stewart: I think it
goes without saying that the experience of the past has taught us that regulations and even statutes do not always accomplish what they are intended to do; and in discussing this matter with the law officers who drafted the bill I thought it would be preferable that the definition of the word "merchant" be left to regulation rather than embodied in the statute. I take it that the object to be attained is not to interefere with trade but as
far as possible to restrict the permanent immigration of Chinese nationals into Canada. There can be no objection to the student body, nor do I hear anyone voicing any such objection. Rather, there is a feeling that we should encourage Chinese students to come to Canada to take advantage of our educational institutions in order that they might go back and be emissaries to assist in the development of trade. But I can hardly agree with some of the views expressed opposite that if we go practically to the point of total exclusion there will not be a falling off of trade between Canada and China, which is beginning to be an important factor. However, I am not stressing that point; I merely say that we are agreed about one class at all events, namely, the students who will go into the universities.. It has been pointed out to us since the bill was drafted that the qualification of the young men or young women passing out of the high schools of China is not sufficiently high to permit the immediate entry of Chinese students into our universities, and we shall have in some way to provide for their attendance at a school for a period of six months or more to qualify them for the university. This is necessary; but I wish to assure the committee that care will be taken that no students coming to Canada to enter the university shall be allowed, as the hon. member (Mr. Tolmie) pointed out, to alter . their purpose as they have done in the past and enter some occupation after five or six months. It is the intention of the department to follow up by registration each national of China resident in Canada. Whether he is a British subject or not, the Chinese resident in Canada will have to register. I have been endeavouring to keep in mind the objection raised, particularly in British Columbia, and indeed it applies to other parts of Canada, that the Chinese are entering into active competition with the citizens of this country in practically every mercantile pursuit. Having that in mind I thought it fair to the committee that I should intimate the kind of regulation which would be forwarded to the official in China whose duty it will be to vise passports before Chinese may be allowed to come to Canada. This regulation is to define as nearly as possible the sort of person we propose to allow to enter this country. The following gives an idea of what we intend to provide in this respect:
It is contemplated making an agreement with China to limit the number per annum of Chinese merchants to be admitted to Canada, and in such an event the government of China would be asked to issue passports to none but bona fide merchants who devote their undivided attention to mercantile pursuits, who have
Chinese Immigration

at least $2,500 invested in business in China and are prepared to invest a like amount in Canada in a business dealing exclusively in goods grown, produced or manufactured in China.
Hon. gentlemen will see that a merchant according to this definition would be a man who had been engaged in mercantile pursuits in China previous to making application for passport from the Chinese government; and having that passport vised by the Canadian officer he would require to have been in business in China and had $2,500 invested therein. In addition, when he came to Canada he could engage only in business dealing in goods grown, manufactured or produced in China.


William Garland McQuarrie: Have you any control
over him?


Charles A. Stewart: Absolutely. The act provides also that if he fails in any respect in carrying out the provisions under which he entered Canada-and my hon. friend will realize that not very many will qualify under that provision-he shall be subject to deportation.


William Garland McQuarrie: If he engages in any
other occupation?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. Once
he departs from the provisions surrounding his entry into Canada, in other words, if he engages in any other business than that described, the provision of deportation shall apply.


William Garland McQuarrie: What section has the
minister quoted?


Charles A. Stewart: What I
have read is not in the bill; I am giving the regulation which we intend putting into effect to define the word "merchant."


William Garland McQuarrie: But the deportation clause?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend will find it in section 27, if I remember correctly.


Alan Webster Neill: I understood the minister to say that he proposes to make an arrangement with the Chinese government to limit the number of immigrants coming in per annum. What is the limit?


Charles A. Stewart: I. was quoting from the memorandum dealing with the definition of a merchant, namely, an individual engaged in mercantile pursuits. He might be engaged in any mercantile pursuit in China, but whatever line he was engaged in he had to have $2,500 invested in his business.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister began by saying; It is proposed to make an arrangement with China to limit the number. Will he look at that memorandum again and tell us what is to be the limited number?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will have to treat that in the larger sense. Of course, there is a very great limitation of numbers in regard to Chinese immigration bcause it is confined now to merchants, students and members of the diplomatic corps.


Alan Webster Neill: Clearly the minister proposes to make an arrangement to limit the number of Chinese merchants that are to come in in any year.


Charles A. Stewart: No, my hon. friend has taken the wrong interpretation.


Alan Webster Neill: "Will he read it again?


Charles A. Stewart: Certainly; but it does not deal definitely with the word "merchant". There is a definition of the word " merchant " by regulation. This is a restriction all around.	-


Alan Webster Neill: Will the hon. minister read the first few lines of that regulation?


Charles A. Stewart: I know perfectly well what my hon. friend has in mind The reference to numbers means numbers of merchants.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: But that is not our intention.


Thomas George McBride: The right hon. Prime Minister stated that he would allow merchants to bring in their wives and families. I understand there are very few Chinese merchants in Canada that have not two or three wives. Would the Prime Minister admit to Canada only the children of the merchant by one wife, or would he let in the whole of them?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would allow him one wife and any children by that wife.


William Garland McQuarrie: Which wife?


John Arthur Clark: Did I understand the minister to say in introducing this section that this bill is merely intended to enact regulations which are already in existence?


Charles A. Stewart: No. The old act provides for the entry of Chinese on payment of head tax; there was no restriction on the number of immigrants so long as they each paid the stipulated head tax. Within

Chinese Immigration
recent months we have refused admission of Chinese immigrants under a general regulation. Now we are by this bill naming the individuals who may come to Canada.


John Arthur Clark: The effect of the regulation and the bill is the same?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend does not see that the general regulation can be used the other way at any moment. At the present time the general regulation is taken . advantage of to exclude labourers. The government has taken that step within the last three months; but another government might take an entirely opposite line under that general regulation. The purpose of this bill is to do away with the possibility of letting in any number of Chinese labourers regardless of regulations.


John Arthur Clark: This particular section :'s objectionable in that it gives full power to the minister or a representative of the department to say what class of merchants are to be admitted. The minister has given us a regulation which he proposes to bring into force. It does seem to me that there should be no doubt in the minds of anyone here as to the meaning of the term "Chinese merchant." I think that should be clearly defined. I am not sure whether the minister's definition goes far enough or not. but I think we should define what a Chinese merchant is, and if the definition does not work in practice next year we can amend n. Rut it will have this result, we will all know what the effect of this measure is. If the minister is allowed to make regulations he may change them from time to time, or another government might disapprove of the spirit of this bill and by changing the regulations change the whole law. It really comes down to order in council government. It savours of autocracy-the very thing my hon. friend has taken exception to in the past.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Garland McQuarrie: I listened with much interest to the remarks of the Prime Minister and particularly what he said respecting students. I feel that we are all agreed on the advisability of allowing students to come into this country under proper safeguards, providing they are bona fide students who are attending our universities. Even in the resolution which I had the honour to move last session asking for the exclusion of orientals 148
it was distinctly stipulated, if not in the resolution itself, in the discussion which took place upon it, that we were not at all opposed to the entry of students. But we all know that there has been a great deal of illegal entry under this head in years past, and I am afraid that the same kind of thing has kept up. I have in my hand a telegram from the secretary of the Retail Merchants' Association of New Westminster dated March 24th of this year, reading as follows:
On Thursday March 22nd Chinese employees at Rainbow Shingle Mills Port Coquitlam struck work owing to a white man having got a job on a saw cutting twenty-four inch shingles, which saw one of their nationality was removed from and put to another machine to cut shingles of smaller size. Mills meantime closed down but expected to resume Monday with white crew working. At United Shingle Mills here as packer Chinese boy who entered country as a student one month ago. Association desire you be acquainted of these facts in view of present bill before parliament.
What does that show? It shows that a Chinese boy admitted as a student was found one month later working in a shingle mill at Port Coquitlam, and not only was he working there, but he was the cause of a strike in that mill because of the fact that his employer had the hardihood to change him from a saw at which orientals had been previously employed and put a white man in his place. That shows that we must be very careful in admitting students. I am sure the minister realizes that to the full and that the proper precautions will be taken. I took occasion to draw this telegram to his attention, and he has I think made some investigation. He has asked me to get him further particulars, for which I have sent, and, I am sure that when this Chinese is located the minister will take steps to have him deported.
As has already been stated, we have a large number of Chinese merchants in British Columbia. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has told us about conditions in the city of Vancouver. I might add that since the figures which he quoted were compiled it appears that the orientals have been invading still further the business life of Vancouver, and at the present time there are something like two thousand trade licenses issued to orientals in that city alone. The same condition applies to other cities and towns in British Columbia, except, of course, that the other places being smaller have fewer oriental merchants, but the proportion keeps up. I know that in the city of New Westminster we have a great many oriental merchants. They are engaged in various lines of business and in almost every trade, and seem to be acquiring a very strong foothold.
r.EVISED EDITION

Chinese Immigration
I have tried to approach this subject from a non-political standpoint; I think we have all done that. We are not trying to make political capital out of it. On various occasions I have even gone to the extent of making excuses for the Minister of Immigration by pointing out that he had a very difficult duty to perform. I have also on many occasions stated my belief that he was approaching this question in a conscientious way and was trying to do his very best to keep the orientals out of this country. Perhaps I went too far in that direction. Possibly I have been blamed to a certain extent for the want of initiative on the part of the minister, but I still believe that he is really trying to do something in this important matter.
I have in my hand a telegram from the secretary of the Retail Merchants' association of New Westminster dealing with this particular bill. It is dated April 24 of this year and is addressed to myself:
Being advised from Ottawa that the government will not eliminate or change the word "merchant" in bill No. 45 we the Retail Merchants Association of New Westminster notwithstanding your assurance of the fair-mindedness of the Minister of Immigration-
I would draw the minister's attention to that statement and remind him of my previous remark, that I have always endeavoured to point out that he was fair-minded on this question and was trying to do his best:
-cannot but feel that Department of Immigration in proposing to allow Chinese merchants to enter into this country do so as a direct reproof to the great body of retail merchants of Canada for their concerted action last year on the oriental question, and as free Canadian citizens we resent and protest with all our power this aggression on the part of the government. However we still hope and pray that the government will see fit to change this act so that the menace to the retailer and to the people of Canada of an ever increasing army of Chinese merchants will be eliminated. Feeling very intense here. We feel every effort should be exerted now. Wire us our expense if there is anything further we can do we have also wired Premier and the Minister of Immigration as follows:
"We the Retail Merchants Association of New Westminster with a membership of 102 employing upward of 900 wage earners as a class resent the action of the government in drafting a Chinese immigration bill that will allow Chinese merchants to enter Canada to open up business in direct competition with Canadian merchants and we respectfully implore that the word 'merchant' be changed to the wording submitted by the Retail Merchants Association of Canada".
I have here that proposed amendment and I intend to suggest this amendment to the committee:
That section 5 be amended by striking out subsection (c) (1) and substituting therefor the following:
(c) (1) Trade representatives-
It replaces "merchants" by "trade representatives"-

Trade representatives shall include sales agents and purchasing agents while representing bona fide Chinese exporters and importers carrying on international trade between Canada and China, buying from or selling to persons, firms, or corporations in Canada. No trade representative shall conduct any retail, wholesale, or jobbing warehouse or shop in Canada.
I suppose we are all agreed that trade between the countries should be encouraged, but the objection which I have is this: If the bill goes through in its present form we will have a further influx of Chinese merchants. They will not come for the purpose of doing business with their own people because there are enough Chinese merchants in the country now to attend to the wants of the Chinese who are here, and as we are not going to allow any more Chinese to come into Canada we cannot expect that there will be an additional growth of business for Chinese merchants. So that there is really no necessity for that class of merchants in this country. If the Chinese merchants are confined to international trade then, of course, it will be quite in order to allow them to enter Canada.
In this same connection I have a statement which was made by the late Theodore Roosevelt dealing more particularly with the Japanese, because the Chinese have been excluded from the United States for a great many years. To-day they have no Chinese question there. They have a Japanese problem which is very serious, particularly in the Pacific states of Washington, Oregon and California. That situation was brought about by the restriction of Japanese immigration as against the exclusion of the Chinese, and it is a very clear and convincing demonstration of the utility of the two methods. Now, Theodore Roosevelt was a friend of the Japanese. He was a student and was one of the greatest Americans of the present generation. In a letter written on the 11th of February, 1909, he expressed himself in a very fair-minded manner wffien he declared himself as follows:
Let the arrangement between Japan and the United States be entirely reciprocal. Let the Japanese and Americans visit one another's countries with entire freedom as tourists, scholars, professors, sojourners for study or pleasure, or for puposes of international business-
That is what my amendment suggests, for the purposes of international business.
-but keep out labourers, men who want to take up farms, men who want to go into the small trades-
I call particular attention to that.
-men who want to go into the small trades, or even in professions where the work is of a non-international character; that is, keep out of Japan those Americans who wish to settle and become part of the resident

Chinese Immigration
working population, and keep out of America those Japanese who wish to adopt a similar attitude. This is the only wise and proper policy.
It is merely a recognition of the fact that, in the present stages of social advancement of the two peoples, whatever may be the case in the future, it ^s not only undesirable, but impossible that there should be intermingling on a large scale, and the effort is sure to bring disaster. Let each country also behave with scrupulous courtesy, fairness and consideration to the other.
It seems to me that we can adopt exactly the same attitude in this country without in any way expressing any antagonism towards the Chinese; and I may say that I appreciate the good qualities of the Chinese in many ways, particularly in a business sense. The Chinaman is a good business man, he is a fair business man, and when he sells you an article you get what he represents it to be. He is thoroughly honest and in every way is a good business man. I have every respect for the industry of the Chinaman, and as far as it goes in their own country, the Chinese no doubt are very estimable people. The great difficulty is that in this country they cannot be assimilated and therefore they always exist as a foreign element in our midst. It is a bad thing for us to encourage Chinese merchants to come to this country because they do not help to build up Canada. What money they make here, or a great proportion of the money they make here, goes back to China. The same thing applies to a great extent to the Japanese. If inquiry were made at the post offices in British Columbia cities or towns we would be surprised at the large sums that are sent out weekly and monthly by the Japanese and Chinese. In the case particularly of the latter, the money that they make here goes back in great part to China. As far as the Chinese are concerned their great ambition is to return to their native land after they have made a fortune in this country. They live in an altogether different way to what we do. In a great many eases the Chinese, and the Japanese also, live in their own stores. A Chinaman can make a success of his business on such a small margin of profit that a white man cannot compete with him; that has been demonstrated very clearly out in British Columbia. I would say to the minister "Let us encourage trade with China as far as we can do so, but do not let us sacrifice this country simply for the purpose of endeavouring to pander to the Chinese."
I would say that if this amendment is adopted it will strengthen the hands of the government. It would be better and less 148*	.
embarrassing for the government to have a provision of this kind in the act itself rather than in the regulation. I am opposed to the principle of putting such an important enactment in a regulation rather than in the act itself. It seems to me it' would be more satisfactory for the government to be able to point to an act rather than to have to say "Here is a regulation which provides certain things." Because the answer is always ready "Well, a regulation can be changed by order in council. Why not pass an order in council amending your regulation bo as to give us the conditions as we desire them?" I would strongly impress upon the minister the advisability of clearing this thing up. I think it would be a great mistake to allow the bill to go through in its present form. It would be embarrassing to him, and I am sure it would bring about a condition of affairs which later on would be very disturbing. We have enough Chinese merchants in the country now, certainly in British Columbia and I think from our experience you should know that the Chinese, and the Japanese for that reason, are not going to be kept out of this eastern country merely because of the climate. I think you will find, if this thing goes on, that later on you will have here a great many Chinese merchants. You are getting them now. You have them in Ottawa, you have them in Toronto, you have them in Montreal. They are getting into all the large cities, and if you allow more of these Chinese merchants to enter the country you are going to be in very bad shape in a few years.
There is another thing that appeals to me and that is, that after a man comes here as a merchant, you have a great deal of difficulty in keeping tab on him. If a man cannot make a success as a merchant, what are you going to do with him? Are you going to send him back to China? I think you will find a great deal of difficulty in doing that. You are finding it very difficult now to deport drug addicts. Objections of all kinds are raised, and, as far as my information goes, you have been unsuccessful in deporting drug addicts. When you get them' into the country you have practically no control over them, and if a man is allowed to come into Canada as a merchant you have no guarantee that, in a very few years, or a very few months for that, matter, he may not be engaged in some other business. I think the proper thing to do would be to insert some kind of an amendment. If this amendment proposed is not satisfactory to the minister, possibly he can word the amendment in some other way, but
Chinese Immigration

the result to be desired is that we shall not allow Chinese to come here as merchants, to compete with our own people. It is too dangerous.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: I merely desire to
place on record a communication received from the Retail Merchants' Association of my town, similar in purport to that read by other members from British Columbia this afternoon. It reads:
Re Bill 45. We view with alarm government proposal permitting Chinese merchants entry to Canada. Feel confident you will strenuously urge elimination of term "merchants" or request amendment clearly defining status of merchants entering Canada for temporary or permanent residence.
In view of what has been disclosed by the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), and the member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie), regarding the rapidity with which the retail business of Vancouver and the other coast cities has been gobbled by orientals during the past few years, it is not surprising that the retail merchants of British Columbia towns view this bill with a great deal of well-grounded suspicion. Indeed, in my own city of Vernon, they have an added reason for feeling dubious as to the results, because they have an object lesson before their eyes in the manner in which the vegetable productions of the Okanagan country have been practically taken control of during the past few years by the Chinese and Japanese population.
I feel diffident and hesitant about speaking on this subject again this session. I have already spoken on two occasions regarding oriental immigration since this session opened, and I will restrict my remarks to a very small area, indeed. I merely desire to say that all past efforts in the way of restrictive measures have proved almost futile, that the wily oriental has found some means or subterfuge to circumvent any regulations that may have been imposed upon him, and he certainly will find in this word "merchant" in this act a loop-hole which will enable orientals to come, in increasing numbers, to British Columbia, unless his status is more definitely defined than in the statute. We feel that the minister and the members from the East can hardly realize the situation, and while we feel perfectly confident that it is the duty of the minister and of the departments of government 'to encourage trade and commerce with other nations, we also realize that you can purchase commerce at too dear a price, and the fact remains, and is staring us in the face in British Columbia, that if oriental immigration is to be allowed to continue, with the present spread and growth of the population already there

by natural increase in a very short time indeed there will be very few white people in British Columbia with whom any oriental nation can carry on trade.
I do not know exactly whether the amendment proposed by the hon. member for New Westminister is the remedy that should be applied in this case, but I feef certain the minister will discover that, when he sends the administrator of this act to China, he will find that that gentleman, no matter what his qualifications may be, no matter how strong a character he may have, or how he may endeavour to fulfil his obligations, will be subjected to very great pressure indeed and will be offered all kinds of inducements to relax the restrictions. I regard that as altogether an unsafe way to carry on business. I should like very much to see the regulations which the minister proposes, and which seem reasonable in one respect, at least, to be embodied in this bill. I believe it is infinitely preferable to have a large tax imposed rather than to deal with the matter by means of regulations. The public men will know exactly what they have to depend upon, and I have little apprenhension-in fact I have none-as to any danger of offending the pride of any foreign nation by restrictive measures as to immigration. Surely, it is conceded that any country is privileged to impose such restrictive measures as it deems fair to itself, and no exception can be reasonably taken to any method to keep in our own hands the control of immigration into this country.
I am not going to labour the question any further. I merely rose to enter upon and record the protest received from the Retail Merchants' Association of my town, and to say that I am thoroughly of the opinion that it is far better to strain the act to the utmost in the way of restrictions than to leave any loop-hole, such as is permitted in this bill under consideration.


Alan Webster Neill: I was under the impression when this bill was introduced that it was one to restrict Chinese immigration, but listening to the speeches this afternoon and evening I was beginning to wonder if, at least in British Columbia, or in some parts of British Columbia, there is not an impression that it is intended to increase Chinese immigration. We were told this afternoon, not from one, but from three or four sources, how the Retail Merchants' Association of this place or that plaee is all "het up" on this subject. One hon. member's wire said that they were "strongly opposed to the whole of Bill No. 4.5," and another member tells us they view the bill and its provisions with alarm. The

Chinese Immigration
retail merchants associations of British Columbia are to a certain extent, or to a considerable extent, very strongly affiliated with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and we all know the scope, the policy and the politics of that particular body. I do not think we should give the impression from British Columbia that any strong body of the people there are opposed to this bill. Far from it. There are minor faults or minor flaws in the bill which I hope the government will see their way to remedy. That is what-the committee is for. I would suppose, having introduced the bill and admitted the principle of it, the government will be consistent enough to see that it is made workable.
But apart from the minor faults, which I will briefly refer to later, I will say that the only fault I have to find is that the minister did not insert the words "Asiatic origin" instead of the words "Chinese origin" which would make it apply to Japanese. If he had taken that step how he would have immortalized himself in western Canada! We would have been hanging halos around his hallowed brow for all time to come. But apart from that feature, I think it must be admitted that this bill is a sincere attempt to carry out the assurances given last year by the Prime Minister, and it will meet with a certain measure of support in British Columbia so far, at least, as it goes. Just last week I picked up a British Columbia paper. You know they carry a column headed "Twenty Years Ago," and in that column it mentioned that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had moved in the House-this is about three weeks ago now-a motion to increase the Chinese head tax from $100 to $500. Of course the paper at that time applauded the increase. That, so far as I know, has been the only genuine attempt to deal with that question from that day to this, and twenty years have come and gone since then. It is only twenty years after that occasion that we again find a Liberal government taking hold of the situation.
There are one or two clauses that, I wish to point out, could be improved. Paragraph (b) of clause 5 says:
The children born in Canada of parents of Chinese race or descent, who have left Canada for educational or other purposes, on substantiating their identity to the satisfaction of the controller at the port or place where they seek to enter on their return;
I think that should be made more definite. Only to ask them to substantiate their identity when they return is not sufficient. They ought to substantiate it before they go. Until recently, at all events, if we went home to Great Britain, which might be our native
country, we had to have passports and to go through considerable red tape to get them. Surely it is not too much to ask Chinese children, who go to China intending to return to Canada, to substantiate their identity before they go, so that possibility of evasion when they return might be made less easy.
Paragraph (c) of clause 5 is the one that deals with merchants and students. That has been badly printed. By a mistake in the way it is printed, the intention is mateiially changed. The word "degrees" at the top of page 4 should be the end of a line, and then it should begin "who shall," in such a way that the words "who shall substantiate" would apply to both merchants and students. As it reads now, it gives the impression, which I have heard repeatedly commented upon, that the word "merchant" in subclause (1) has absolutely no restriction on it whatever, and that is the meaning of it as the paragraph is now printed. It goes on to say "students. . who shall substantiate" but for lack of precision in printing and its being printed in the way that I have mentioned, a wrong impression is given-it is really intended to say that both classes, merchants and students, shall substantiate their status. The way the paragraph is printed, it applies only to the one word "student," and this has given rise to the impression that the merchant is going to have a very wide-open door.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that it was decided to determine who should be considered as merchants or students before they left China, and the drift of his remarks was that their status would be ascertained, if not decided, in China. As regards that clause, I was glad to hear that explanation; but the clause says only that the passports shall be endorsed or vised by a Canadian immigration officer at the place where the Chinamen leave. But it also says that the final decision shall be at the port of entry, because there the Chinamen shall substantiate their status to the satisfaction i>f the controller, subject to the approval of the minister. We have there a sort of dual control. Certainly it would appear to me that the first officer in China had little or nothing to do except to put his imprimatur on the passport. If it was intended that he should be the deciding official, his powers in that regard should be better defined. As two men are involved, this matter of putting the vise on the passport will drift into a mere formality. He will do what is formally known as vise-ing a passport; he will simply put his name on it. I think the bill could be improved a great deal in that respect.
Chinese Immigration

As regards students the clause says that students coming to Canada properly endorsed, and so on, shall be allowed in free. The provision should be made not only to ensure that they continue to be students while in Canada, but that they leave Canada at the end of their period of education. As the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mc-Quarrie) pointed out, there was a case quite recently where a student, not lopg after coming into Canada turned out to be labouring in a mill. Under conditions as outlined, there is no real check.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under clause 27, the moment a man ceases to belong to any of the exempt classes, he is liable to deportation.


Alan Webster Neill: He is liable under clause 27 to be picked up in the street if he is found to be in Canada without any right, so to speak. But who is to find him and who is to pick him up? I would make this suggestion: Supposing 200 students come into Canada and they enter a college for a fixed period. If they are really genuinely going to be educated, the Chinese comptroller in Vancouver should have knowledge of those boys, of where they are and to what schools they are going. He could once a year or so check the records of the school or university in order to find out if they are still students. Let him keep in touch with the schools or universities and if so many graduate say this year, he will expect to see so many educated Chinese boys leave the country. The way the situation is at present, they come in and as my hon. friend for New Westminster says, they drift away, they sneak away, and if they do put in a perfunctory education for a few months, they leave then.' There is no possible means under clause 27 of keeping in touch with these students. A Chinaman may get into court for some offence and you can ask him where his papers are and so on; but it would be more satisfactory, easier and cheaper, to check him up in the college from time to time than to chase him all over the province, in the hope of finding him in some odd corner.
The definition of "merchant" should have been in clause 2, amongst the other definitions. I can not say that I altogether agree with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster. I think it is desirable that we should encourage our trade with the orient. We all admit that and I do not think the suggestion of the hon. member for New Westminster quite covers that, because he restricts the definition to a man act-
TMr. Neill.]
ing practically as a commision agent. There would be no objection to a man acting as a wholesaler of Chinese or oriental imports in Canada, provided that there was no evasion.
I think the regulations mentioned by the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) this afternoon, although I could not get him to read them the second time and I only heard them read once, seemed to be quite appropriate and sufficient to check fraudulent entry of merchants. He should, however, put that regulation, which he says is in existence, into the bill, and it would meet the whole situation. The worst of a regulation is this: that it is liable to be abrogated at the whim of one man. This minister might be all right; but the next one might not, or his deputy might not and it is not wise to have the whole substance of a piece of legislation depend upon the whim of one man in the department. If the definition is sufficient to effect the purpose aimed at, and it can be put in a regulation, surely it can be put into the bill, and in that case there will be no trouble about the matter. I would also suggest that the number entering in one year should be restricted by joint agreement, so that not more than so many shall be allowed to enter in any one year.
The minister might well consider the idea of holding over this clause until the next time the bill comes down and having printed his amendment and that of the hon. member for New Westminster so that we could study them to better advantage. There are several other small things in this bill that need re-adjustment, but we can deal with them as we come to them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With most of the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Neill), I for one agree. He clearly draws a distinction between an evasion of the law through the endeavour of some Chinese coming into the country to act in a fraudulent manner, and an effort on the part of the administration to permit those who, in the interest of the country, should be allowed to come in, to enter in a way which will be thoroughly honourable and in accordance with recognized procedure. The various communications that have been read have, for the most part, come from Retail Merchants' Associations, and evidently it is the retailers who are afraid of Chinese competition in their trade. If that is the case, might I suggest to my hon. friends from British Columbia that, perhaps, if the word "merchant" were changed to read "merchants engaged in import and export trade," that would remove any of the serious or justifiable alarm which retail merchants have

Chinese Immigration
and at the same time permit international trade of a character which it is eminently desirable to foster between the two countries? I would not object to the greater part of the amendment my hon. friend has suggested, were he to couple it with the words I have used, so that the section would read:
Merchants engaged in import and export trade, including sales agents and purchasing agents while representing bona fide Chinese exporters and importers carrying on international trade between Canada and China, buying from or selling to persons, firms or corporations in Canada.
If these two sentences were incorporated in the act they would pretty effectively cover what the committee is aiming at and at the same time they would not be invidious in any way to persons who might be sensitive on matters of this kind. In proposing this I would draw the attention of the committee to the last part of section 3 which has not yet been enacted but which will undoubtedly pass substantially as it is later on. It gives to the Governor in Council, in other words, the minister, power to make regulations providing for the payment of fees for the furnishing of substantial certificates, endorsing passports, "and other administrative work in connection with the carrying out of this act." Under that power the minister, with this definition of merchant before him, would be in a position to supplement the definition by whatever regulations appear to be demanded by the necessities of the case. My hon. friend in referring to the students has mentioned the desirability of keeping track of this class of immigrants as they come into the country. I can hardly imagine a minister who would not make regulations which would contemplate that course being followed. I believe however that it is preferable to leave to the minister the making of such regulations rather than to have the act itself declare that every Chinese student, regardless of who he may be or of the home from which he comes should be kept track of from day to day and year by year, by some system of registration, from the moment he comes to the country to the moment he leaves it. I think that regulation can effect all that is necessary in this regard. If this broader definition would meet the situation, the government would be agreeable to incorporating the words I have cited in the act itself. I hope that this meets with my hon. friend's approval.


William Garland McQuarrie: Would not the Prime Minister and the Acting Minister of Immigration be willing to leave this matter over as suggested by the member for Comox-Al-berni so that we might study the proposed amendment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I merely
wished to present it to the committee with that end in view. I think it would be well to leave it over and proceed to the other sections.


Charles A. Stewart: If hon. gentlemen have any suggestions to make regarding students I should be glad to have them now, because if I have any amendments to make I desire to have all the views of hon. members before me.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would call the attention of the minister to the last three or four lines of the section which refers to a passport:
Issued in and by the government of China and endorsed by a Canadian immigration officer.
If I am correctly informed, the government of China with headquarters at Peking is not functioning in the Canton district from which practically all immigrants to Canada come. There is a de facto government at Canton, a rebel government one might call it, I suppose, which controls the district, a very large area comprising two or three of the southern provinces; and I understand that the Peking government is not in control of that part of the country at all. Under these circumstances how could you get the endorsation of the Chinese government in respect of matters affecting immigrants from Canton?


Charles A. Stewart: Of course, the act is looking more or less to stable government in China. The first provision is that the passport shall be issued by the government; that is the first requirement that the student must comply with. I doubt myself that this would be practicable at the moment, with existing difficulties in China. As a matter of fact there are two governments there at the moment, and I presume that either government issuing a passport would have to be recognized.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am afraid my hon. friend would find himself in .serious difficulty. How can the Canadian government recognise a government which is at enmity with that government which is represented by the Consul-General from China in this country? The Consul-General with whom my hon. friend has been negotiating is the representative of the government that has its headquarters at Peking; and if my hon. friend were to recognize passports issued by the so-called rebel government of the south, from which district alone practically this immigration comes, I anticipate trouble. Frankly, I really apprehend serious difficulty when my hon. friend comes to place his officer over
Chinese Immigration

there. We had a great deal of difficulty in years gone by and I am very sceptical about the success of this movement with an officer of the Canadian government in that country.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
share my hon. friend's apprehension concerning these difficulties. I think he will notice that the final test in this case, as indeed it is with regard to all other nationals entering Canada, is at the port of Vancouver. That is where the final disposition of any national of China will take place; and as a matter of fact the port of landing in this country is the place of final disposition of the national of any other country coming to Canada. At the moment the British government is doing business with China and passports are being issued by that government that are recognised so far as China is concerned. I admit, of course, that there is a serious difficulty, but the act is looking to a settled condition of affairs in China. If conditions do not become settled there the result may be that we shall receive few people from that country, which I suppose would satisfy my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, absolutely. But this act is intended to repeal the present statute which does away with the $500 head tax, and there is a danger that in the hiatus between now and the time when there are settled conditions in China the courts may declare that it is possible for those immigrants to come in. We know from experience that unless legislation is very carefully drawn, applications will be made to the courts and my hon. friend's hands will be tied, as his predecessors' have been time and again. At the present moment the minister finds it impossible to deport some couple of hundreds of people convicted under the Drug Act, and this through no fault of his particularly-


Charles A. Stewart: We had
nothing to do with it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -but because of the fact that the act has been so interpreted by the courts as to prevent the minister's acting. That is what I am afraid of here. I fear that the minister may find himself faced with a difficulty of that kind, and we might have thousands of Chinese landed here and experience another riot such as occurred in 1908.


Charles A. Stewart: The provisions of the act are being very much restricted; they apply practically to two classes of citizens of China.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite understand all that. I am merely calling attention to this matter
fMr. Stevens.]
and if .the minister is satisfied I want to tell him that I am not, and we will cry quits so far as I am concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does not my hon. friend know that the existing act is not repealed until this act comes into force? The moment this act comes into force the class of Chinese admitted to come in under the head tax will be excluded. So that the hiatus my hon. friend talks about is a pure figment of the imagination.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I hope it is, but probably I shall have the pleasure of recalling this conversation to the attention of the government at some future date.


Thomas George McBride: Mr. Chairman, I have not very much to add to what has already been said on this subject. A number of telegrams have been read with respect to Chinese immigration; I have four along the same lines, but I shall refrain from putting them on Hansard. Expression has been given here to the opinion that it is quite satisfactory to the people of British Columbia to allow the entry of Chinese students. Well, I cannot see the matter in that light. Why should British Columbia educate the people of the Orient? Why cannot the orientals build schools in their own countries and get European teachers to come out and teach them English and French if they want to learn those languages? These orientals make very strong objections unless their children are allowed to be educated in our schools and colleges with our own boys and girls. I do not think it is right that oriental students should be allowed to mix with our young people. In Victoria last summer the orientals refused pointblank to be segregated from Canadian school children. To give the committee some idea of what the people of the East think on this question I will read a few extracts translated from an article which was published in an oriental paper. It stated:
There is danger ahead. Discrimination has been shown in the school question and in the fishing question. This question is a life and death struggle to us Japanese, and we should determine our objective.
This is rather strong languege from people who come into our country although they know we do not want them here. The orientals must know that they are not wanted in British Columbia. And what is their object in coming into this country if they are putting up a "life and death struggle" as they call it? In my opinion their object is to get control of the Pacific coast, including all British Columbia.

Chinese Immigration
I do not think orientals should be allowed into this country under any conditions. We do not have to bring people into our own houses simply because we do business with them and there is no reason why these orientals should come here and occupy our country simply because they want to do business with us. I see the South African authorities are talking of giving the orientals there a bonus to return home. I think this government could well afford to give back to every Chinaman here what we got from him-the $500 he paid to enter the Dominion-on condition he would leave, and thus rid the country of a whole lot of Chinamen and do ourselves a good turn.
In South Africa the people are talking of segregating the Chinese; that may have to be done yet in British Columbia, for the two races should not be brought together. It seems to me that if the good Lord had intended orientals and white people to live in the same country he would not have put the Pacific ocean between them. I think the people of the East should remain in their owe countries. I do not see why we should admit them here and educate them in our own schools and colleges. I could cite a number of cases where the mingling of oriental children with our children in British Columbia has been a great detriment to the latter. The eastern ideals of morality and citizenship are entirely different to ours, and I do not see why our children's ideals should be lowered by their contact with the children of orientals. In China and Japan the men can have as many wives as they want, and there is no question but that this and similar views are drilled into our children where they are educated with the children of orientals. We do not want such ideas to be propagated here. Therefore I take very strong exception to allowing oriental students to come into this country to be educated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I should like to remove a misapprehension under which my hon friend is apparently labouring. He seems to think that it is the intention to have such students educated in British Columbia. As a matter of fact the clause in the bill relating to students has reference to universities conferring degrees. Undoubtedly if any university hesitates to take Chinese students they will not be admitted there. For instance, if the University of British Columbia thinks well not to admit Chinese students, why certainly these students will not go to that university. But Toronto, Kingston
and Montreal universities are willing and anxious to take Chinese students. It seems . to me it would be a mistake on the part of our people if we prevented educated young men and women from China getting the benefits of higher education here and then returning home to do what they can to acquaint the Orient with what my hon. friend has spoken of as the higher standards of living on this continent. I think we ought to be prepared, if we have it, to spread the light of our civilization in the Orient, and so far as I can see it our universities afford one of the best means to that end.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-At Vancouver and Victoria only, with sdveral exceptions:
Arthur Meighen: What is the idea of this?


Mr. HUMPHREY:: What is the idea of specifying Vancouver and Victoria?


Charles A. Stewart: They are
the principal ports at which most of the nationals of China will make application for entry. It is the intention of the government to keep a staff of officials at these ports to conduct proper examinations. It would be a very expensive proposition, for example, if we had to keep similar staffs at St. John, Halifax, Quebec and other ports.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We would be delighted
if the minister would substitute St. John and Halifax for Vancouver and Victoria-or what might be better still, Montreal and Toronto.
If that suggestion is acceptable to the minister I shall be very glad indeed.


Charles A. Stewart: I think it will be admitted that the two ports mentioned are the natural ports through which most of the nationals of China do enter Canada.


Levi William Humphrey: It is my opinion that if the government would incorporate in this bill one or two of the eastern ports the people of British Columbia would take it upon themselves to exclude the Chinese from entering their province from the east.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Prohibited classes:
Arthur Meighen: What is the need of such prolixity in this clause? Are not these classes just the same as those prohibited from all countries?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.

Chinese Immigration


Arthur Meighen: Why does not the clause simply read:
Classes prohibited under section so-and-so of the
Immigration Act.


Charles A. Stewart: Not being a lawyer I cannot answer my hon. friend, except to say that you have within the bounds of the one act all the prohibited classes named without having to refer to the general Immigration Act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are no exemptions
from the regular act?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Arthur Meighen: It seems to me the better method of legislation would be to have one immigration act and then have, if there is going to be a distinction between China and other countries, parts applicable to
9 p.m. China or to any other country as to which special legislation applies. It would be a much more compact and comprehensive way of getting legislation on our books.


Charles A. Stewart: To some extent I agree with my hon. friend, but he will notice there are provisions under the Chinese Immigration Act which do not appear in the other act. I can see no other reason for going to the trouble of inserting the prohibited classes of the general act, except that it saves the trouble of consulting the latter act in so far as Chinese immigration is concerned. It will also be noted that practically all the clauses of this bill apply peculiarly to Chinese immigration, and to it alone.


Arthur Meighen: Does the government contemplate further legislation on Japanese immigration?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not further legislation at present, but I will have an announcement to make later with regard to Japanese immigration.


Arthur Meighen: Will there be further legislation following that announcement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might perhaps state to my right hon. friend that as I mentioned here some little time ago, negotiations have been carried on between this government and the Japanese government, and as a result of those negotiations the Japanese government themselves have offered to place a greater restriction on the classes of labour coming to Canada than has hitherto existed. They have expressed the hope that it will not be found necessary for the parliament of Canada to legislate in a manner which might ere-
ate serious embarrassment to the government of Japan in Japan itself and they would hope that such restriction as they are prepared to place on the classes of labour to which we object will in the eyes of our government prove sufficient to prevent the necessity of introducing any invidious legislation. The government is prepared, at least for a time, to give the Japanese government the opportunity of revealing its intentions and good faith in this matter. If it should appear from the figures themselves, which probably will prove more eloquent than any words, that the restriction which the Japanese government itself is contemplating is not sufficient to meet the needs of the situation, then legislation may be necessary at a later stage.


Arthur Meighen: I am not very familiar with the legislative history of the matter. Is there special Japanese immigration legislation now?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Arthur Meighen: The Japanese just come in under the general Immigration Act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is an agreement.


Arthur Meighen: Subject to the mysterious agreement. Perhaps while I am on my feet I might make a few remarks as to the general principles that I think should underlie this character of legislation-in fact, the one principle; I do not think there is more than one. There has been some discussion as to how far we should go and how far we ought not to go in' restricting immigration. It has not been carried on with a view to making any contrast of party history except on the part of the hon. member for Comox-Allberni (Mr. Neill) and there is no need for such contrast at all. There have been progressive restrictions all through the last three score years. The last restrictive enactment on Chinese immigration was in the year 1921, when substantial effective restrictions were put on, not effective enough I know. There were other restrictions in 1917. These were under the late government.
Now I want to lay down this principle which I think is sound, which I think other countries have followed, and which our country must follow; that we should determine our immigration law not out of animosity to any country or to any race, not out of prejudice to any country or to any race, nor on the other hand out of a fear of the sensitiveness of any country or of any race, but solely out of consideration for our own internal domestic

Chinese Immigration
necessities. We have done that; we have done it all along, and we ought to continue to do it. Other countries have done it. Other countries have gone much farther than we.
How could it be said, for example, that in the legislation we have here consideration is shown for the sensibilities of China, that we have taken care not to offend the Chinese Empire, that there is no invidious distinction? Why, the whole bill is invidious, if you can have anything invidious in immigration legislation. I do not complain of it on that account. As long as the bill is founded on the just needs of our country from its domestic internal standpoint that is all that is required. But to argue that a bill excluding merchants would offend China but that this bill is all right and will not offend China, because under it merchants are admitted though it keeps out farmers, labourers, clerks, salesmen, professional men, laundrymen, all sorts and conditions of men, seems to me to verge on nonsense.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think that can be said.


Mr MEIGHEN:: Well, if there is any
offence in the world the offence comes from distinctions between China and any other country. But we have to do it, and we have to do it on the basis of our own needs, and if it meets our own needs better to keep merchants out. then we ought to do it, and China would have no just cause of offence. China has an equal right so far as we are concerned to do the same thing. I believe-I will not say I believe, but I would not be very much surprised if in the course of time public opinion which is built upon and which grows out of public necessities, will demand more and more restrictions than any that are called for by hon. gentlemen behind me. It does not so demand to-day. Public opinion to-day is prepared in view of other things to be gained thereby to admit students, to admit trade representatives; not merchants, but trade representatives, for the sake as respects the first of making Canadian learning known throughout the world, for the sake as respects the second of developing the trade of our country. If other considerations later on weigh more heavily than those, two, then public opinion will demand the exclusion of both. But the reason we exclude now until we get right up to trade representatives and up to students is simply because we have to do so for our protection in this country. That is the only principle that really governs us, and do not let us pretend that any other
does; I do not think any other ever has. Just as soon as you select a country or a race and you place around it barriers and restraints that you do not apply to immigration in general, then as respects that country or race there is something invidious. But because it does exist it does not mean that it arises out of any feeling of unfriendliness, any feeling of international animosity or anything of that kind. It arises out of conditions peculiar to ourselves which we have to take care of in the interests of ourselves and of the world. I hope I have made myself clear.
I would define "merchant" if I were the minister. I am glad the government has consented at last to do so. It is simply foolish to argue that the Chinese are quite satisfied if merchants are defined by regulation, but that they would be offended if they are defined in the bill. We cannot stand on a foundation of that sort. I would define "merchant" if I were the minister, and I would define it most specifically so that there can be no dispute, for I say this to the minister: You are going to find your representative in China clothed with remarkable, extensive and very perilous powers, very perilous powers indeed, and you may find yourself in serious trouble for that reason. Do not have those powers any wider than you can possibly avoid. Let this parliament speak as to what a merchant should be. It really is intended to be defined for according to the statement of the minister himself, according to the proposal the Prime Minister later suggested to the committee,. what is really intended is, not a merchant but a trade representative, a merchant, if you may so describe him, in the international sense as between two countries and two alone, China and Canada. Consequently I would define "merchant," and I would have some other definitions that we will arrive at before we reach the end of the bill. It would have been better if we had not passed clause 2 because it is clause 2 that will need to be amended. There must be something left to regulation, I admit, but the minimum should always be left, and if ever there was a bill where the least should be left to regulation it is such a bill as this.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Minister may authorize admission for specified period:
Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I correctly interpret the minister's intention when I say that the purpose of this clause is to reserve a right to admit persons under special reques* such as, clergy or the wives of some merchants, and
Chinese Immigration

so forth, who may be excluded by the provisions of the bill.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not think it is the intention of clause 9 to permit the permanent admission of any persons.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was just coming to that. I would like, however, to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that this clause does permit of the admission of indentured labour. Now it does not so state, and it may not be in his mind to do so, but the clause as it stands would permit the entry of indentured labour. I am looking forward and this clause, perhaps, is one that will not be invoked very frequently and may become, for the time being a dead letter; but at some time, under pressure of some, perhaps by reason of ordinary circumstances, an application may bfe made to the Minister of Immigration who may be tempted to admit some indentured labour under this clause. To that I am most bitterly opposed; I do not believe in indentured labour under any circumstance. We had the experience many years ago of Chinese indentured labour and we want no repetition of that experience. Does the minister really consider this clause necessary?


Charles A. Stewart: I would like to say to my hon. friend that I have steadily stood out against representations made to widen the classes of people who would be admissible under clause 5-that is merchants and students virtually and the diplomatic corps; but there is one contention, and there seems to be good reason for it, that missionaries and teachers of Chinese origin might very well be admitted. Thelefore, I think, under clause 9, for a restricted period, the minister might have that authority. Then again there is the case of tourists who wish to come and visit the country; they might be admitted under a permit. If my hon. friend sees an opportunity, at some future time, for some corporation, perhaps, to come to the minister and say "We want 100, or 150, or [DOT] 200 labourers temporarily" that might be provided for in the bill if it is thought the power is too wide but I do think that clause 9 will be necessary and will be needed for legitimate purposes, although I may say frankly I would not for a moment consider that indentured labour should come in under its provisions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will admit that it could; the power is there. I know that it is not in his mind, but we have had the witness to-day of the transfer of one minister, a very excellent gentleman, from one

department to another. My hon. friend may be Minister of Agriculture next session; we can never tell.


An hon. MEMBER:: Minister of Justice.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No he would hardly be Minister of Justice because I do not think he has-shall I say?-the technique for that portfolio. But we might have a minister here who was prejudiced against the ideas of this bill; such a thing might possibly happen. So I would like to see that provided against, if it were possible. I am not prepared with an amendment offhand. The clause reads:
The minister may authorize the admission to Canada of any person of Chinese origin or descent without being subject to the provision of this act-
It is a very broad clause, it ought to be restricted in some manner.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no notion the power would be used for any other purposes than those I have named; and really the object of the clause is to avoid specifying in the bill any classes of people who might come into the country temporarily. However, it could be used for the purpose which my hon. friend has mentioned.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We might add the words:
Provided however that this section shall not apply to the admission of labourers or artisans.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Labourers are excluded as the bill stands.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, if the Prime Minister will look at this he will realize my point. Under this clause all other provisions of the act can be ignored. Let me repeat: I am not suggesting that that is the idea in the minister's mind at the present time because I know very well it is not; but the time might come in the future when perhaps some emergency, or imagined emergency, might arise and such an application might be made to bring in 50 or 100 Chinamen, something of that character, and it would just be the opening of the way for the abuse of the very idea that forms the basis of this legislation. I frankly feel that this clause should be restricted very considerably.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is there not in the knowledge of the strong feeling that there is on the part of the country against the admission of any number of orientals a very good guarantee that the minister will not use his powers unduly? I think that constitutes a guarantee that the minister will not go too far in the matter. Cases might come up-unforeseen cases-where it might conceivably be in the interests even of British Columbia that

Chinese Immigration
a few Chinese might be permitted to come in for some emergency purpose. I do not assume that the clause will ever be used in that way; there are, however, individual cases which come to the attention of the department -such, for example, as clergymen or tourists coming through on some special mission. I should think some latitude ought to be given to the minister to admit a few persons of that class, and it is better to give the general authority rather than to be too detailed and specific in the classes that are mentioned.


Alan Webster Neill: Could not that be done by order in council in specific cases?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It virtually comes to that; the minister has to give his sanction. I do not, however, think we had better add to the number of orders in council which it is necessary to pass.


Arthur Meighen: The minister will remember, of course, that he cannot deputize this responsibility; he cannot authorize anybody else to act.


Charles A. Stewart: We are doing this purposely. We got into trouble under the general act over this matter, and I think this power should be confined to the minister. This particular case is one in which the minister should act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-Appeal to minister:
Arthur Meighen: This is the Immigration Act section is it not?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Is clause 11-no appeal in certain cases-the Immigration Act section also, and if it is not why is there a distinction made?


Charles A. Stewart: (Reading).
There shall be no appeal from the decision of the controller, as to the rejection or deportation of any immigrant, passenger or other person found to be of Chinese origin or descent seeking to enter or land in Canada when such decision is based upon a certificate of the examining medical officer to the effect that such immigrant, passenger or other person of Chinese origin or descent is afflicted with any loathsome disease-
In that particular case it is concluded that the evidence is sufficient to bar the entry into Canada of the Chinese immigrant. I may say there has been some criticism of this from the Chinese themselves. I think it should stand.


Arthur Meighen: Do you mean that clause 11 should stand?


Charles A. Stewart: No; I think the provision should remain.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-Identification and registration of Chinese immigrants.-Certificates to be delivered to immigrants permitted to land:
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Does the minister propose to use the finger print identification system?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Is anything else trustworthy in the case of Asiatics?


Charles A. Stewart: Identification is difficult, I admit, but after considering the matter I came to the conclusion, from representations made, that it was going a bit too far, because, as my hon. friend knows, it is only used in cases of criminals.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Quite so.


Charles A. Stewart: And we do not want to have the oriental people classed as criminals.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This clause says-
And such certificate shall be prima facie evidence that the person presenting it has complied with the requirements of this act.
Now, what the minister will have to face, without question, is the system of transferring those certificates. There is no question in my mind that if a Chinaman dies, or if, as has been going on for years, he is smuggled across into the United States, or into some other country, the certificate will be passed on. We have been passing a steady stream through this country, without the knowledge of the government of Canada. They will get these certificates, will pass them on and they will be held and used, just as sure as we are sitting in this House to-night, for illegal purposes. Experience teaches us that and I think that these Chinese should be compelled to carry the certificates or an identification card on their persons.


Charles A. Stewart: They have to carry their certificates with them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And check up occasionally. I had a reference, which for the moment I have lost, which I wished to refer to in connection with this matter. I am very much afraid that there will be a continued evasion of this clause. Has the minister any definnite idea in mind as to how this could be prevented?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend will recognize the difficulty of pre-
Chinese Immigration

venting exchange of certificates, owing to the similarity of the appearance of the Chinese. If a man is in possession of a certificate, it is a most difficult thing, unless you have some other evidence, to detect fraud. We discussed the matter of taking finger prints, but afterwards dropped it. The mere fact of making the Chinaman produce the certificate on demand is not evidence that the individual holding the certificate is the one who entered under it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no penalty for forgery or transfer?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh yes, I think there is a very severe penalty for the transference of a certificate. I quite appreciate the difficulty of proving that the man presenting the certificate is the man who really owns it.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Section 32 provides the penalty.


Charles A. Stewart: One year after the act goes into force there is to be a general registration, and each individual in Canada will have to show his certificate. If he goes out of Canada, and some one comes in and uses that certificate in place of him, I confess it will be a very difficult thing to prove.


George Perry Graham: What about the photograph?


Charles A. Stewart: I know the photographs are there.


Arthur Meighen: The minister does not expect any of them to die. I am told they never die. Those who have British citizenship to-day are endowed with immortality. The certificate always passes to some one else who looks exactly like the original party. I fancy you will meet with that difficulty. There will be no emigration from that part of the country. All the certificates will remain, and those who died will have their counterparts in possession of the certificates.


William Garland McQuarrie: I cannot see why there should be any objection to the finger print system. The idea in taking the finger print is that we should have some positive means of identification. We have had the experience in British Columbia in regard to naturalization papers. I have a return here, No. 187, which I got the other day, containing certain correspondence in regard to naturalization in Vancouver between the Under Secretary of State and one of the county court judges there, his honour, Judge Grant. It appeal's from that correspondence that in

some cases naturalization certificates had been granted to Japanese who had never left Japan at all. Some friend had got the naturalization papers for them.
In regard to fishing licenses, we had a great deal of trouble, and it was admitted before our British Columbia Fisheries Commission last year that there had been many cases of abuse of this kind. There were many instances of naturalization papers being transferred, for the purpose of enabling the holders for the time being to obtain fishing licenses. A photograph is of no material assistance. The photographs that will be attached to the registration certificates under the section we are considering, will be so similar that it will be almost impossible for any one to determine whether the holder for the time being of the certificate is the person who is legally entitled to that certificate or not. I cannot for the life of me see why there should be any greater indignity to a man by requiring him to allow records to be taken of his finger prints than by requiring his photograph. I think where there is this method of obtaining positive proof of identity, it should be made use of. Certainly the finger print system seems to be one that no person, not even an oriental, can beat.


Alan Webster Neill: I would like to endorse the
stand taken by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). I think we should provide that the Chinaman should carry his certificate on his person and produce it on demand. The minister says truly enough that the production of it will not be any evidence that he has not obtained it by fraudulent means. That is true, but there is another phase of the matter. It is at least a certificate that he has one license, let him get it where he likes. It has this advantage: If you have a Chinese prisoner, and you ask him where his certificate is and he says it is at home and you let him go and get it, he will be sure to produce a certificate. But if you arrest him, you ask him to produce his certificate and he does not have it on him, that is evidence that he does not have one. If you let him go home where there are a couple of hundred Chinamen, he will certainly get a certificate, and there will be no way of discovering whether he did not simply borrow it. During the war every white man in Canada had to have a registration card and to produce it on request. No injustice was done and there was very little inconvenience. If provision were made in this legislation that a Chinaman must have his certificate on his person-and I certainly think such provision

Chinese Immigration.
should be made-that would be a means of detecting a great deal of this illicit work of shuffling around certificates, because a Chinaman might lend a man a certificate when he was going to court, but he would not give it to him if he himself had to carry it permanently on his person, as he himself might be caught without it and deported. I'think such a provision should be inserted in the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might point out to my hon. friend that if this legislation were admitting any large number of Chinese, probably there would be some force in what he has just said. But the bill contemplates the admission of only the classes mentioned, and they will be very limited classes. They will be either of the student or the merchant class, and in all probability a very complete record will be kept of those individuals. There will, therefore, not be the same need for possession of a certificate on the person of an individual entering Canada under those classes as there would be if the persons being admitted were, for example, coolie labourers.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-Chinese to register within twelve months of date of the act!
Alan Webster Neill: I should like in this connection to remind the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart), or more properly the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that this would be a suitable occasion, when this registration is taking place, to give effect to the recommendation of the Duff Fisheries Commission of British Columbia last year that, as we had found so many cases of fraudulent naturalization papers, an opportunity should be taken to recall all those in British Columbia and revise them. The inference was that where it was found they were patently fraudulently obtained, for instance, if a man who was, say, twenty years old, had a certificate describing him as being fifty-five or sixty years of age, his certificate would be revoked. This would be a good occasion, when the registration by Chinamen is being made general, to have these papers revised as regards both Chinamen and Japanese. The recommendation of the Fisheries Commission in this regard was accepted by the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 19-Number of immigrants to be carried on each ship limited:
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is there any need of this clause? What is the idea of retaining it?


Charles A. Stewart: It is merely one other restriction on the number who can enter Canada..


Arthur Meighen: Is this an old clause?


Charles A. Stewart: In the former act the tonnage was fifty. It is now increased to two hundred and fifty.


Arthur Meighen: It is built on the old section. Really, this seems a very absurd way of going at the subject. You might as well say that the number of immigrants must be regulated by the number of hairs on the captain's head.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 20-Chinese persons not to leave ship without permit:
Arthur Meighen: What is the explanation of this clause?


Charles A. Stewart: This clause prohibits officers of any ship carrying Chinese to Canada permitting Chinese to leave the ship before all the formalities of the regulations have been observed. We have had some difficulty in connection with this in the past. This is to prevent Chinese sailors deserting at a Canadian port, and dishonest captains from permitting stowaways and others to leave the ship, and, in. this way, obtain surreptitious or illegal entry into Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 21-Conductor to furnish list of Chinese persons carried:
Arthur Meighen: What is the explanation of this clause?


Charles A. Stewart: This is to prevent conductors of railway trains allowing Chinese to obtain surreptitious entry into Canada by such trains.


Arthur Meighen: Are the provisions of clauses 20 and 21 in the general Immigration Act?	\


Charles A. Stewart: Not in such enlarged form. This is a much stiffer provision as regards both captains and railway conductors.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 24-Re-entry:
Henry Herbert Stevens: As I read this clause, it constitutes really a further extension of this permission to return. If the minister will refer to sub-clause (3), there was a period about 1914 when conditions were pretty bad on the Pacific coast and permission was given
Chinese Immigration

to a large number of Chinese to return again to Canada within one or two years. That permission was extended by P.C. 697. If I recall the situation corectly, P.C. 697 has virtually expired but by this clause we are permitting return to Canada for the further period of a year from the coming into force of this legislation. I really do not think that should be done, and I will tell the minister once again why. What I have said before very largely applies to this. I doubt whether many who have not yet returned will return but substitutes will come who never were in the country before. I want to assure the minister that we are not overstating the case in constantly referring to this ability on the part of the Chinese to substitute one for another in these various matters. I am certain tl^at this will mean the entity into Canada of a considerable number of Chinese. A man will make a competency and go back without any intention of returning, but he will return in the person of another Chinaman; or he may go back and die, and there is always someone else to fill the gap. These are the things we are so bitterly opposed to. I see no reason whatever for this added permission and I would ask the minister, if it were not inconsistent with the legislation, and I do not think it is, to strike out subsection 3.


Charles A. Stewart: Subsection 3 provides for the return of Chinese who registered out between April first, 1914, and March 31st, 1919, and who, under the provisions of an order in council, P.C., 697, passed under the authority of the War Measures Act, were accorded the privilege of prolonging their return to Canada until one year after a proclamation had been published in the Canada Gazette declaring that a state of war no longer existed. No such proclamation has yet appeared in the Canada Gazette and it is possible it may never appear. There were at Vancouver registrations covering 572 Chinese who left during the period I have stated and who are still absent from Canada. The present section is to provide that they shall return within one year from the date of the coming into force of this act. They have under the order in council the extended time of one year after the publication in the Canada Gazette that a state of war no longer exists, but in view of the fact that such a declaration may not be published we are limiting the time of return to one year after the passing of this act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What form did the termination of the war take? Our signing of the Peace Treaty ended the war, but I sup-

pose that when this terminology was used in the order in council it was prior to the conclusion of the war. I take it therefore that it was assumed that the publication of a declaration in the Canada Gazette would be the method of declaring the war at an end. Undoubtedly the intention of the order was to end the privilege with the termination of the war. What we are really doing by this legislation is extending the period for another year, and I think we ought to cancel now absolutely the privilege to any that have not returned to Canada because certainly they know perfectly well that they should have returned before now, and they are only taking advantage of a very strained interpretation of the order in council.


Charles A. Stewart: We will let this stand so that I may make further inquiry.
Section stands.
On section 2.5-Chinese sailors on Canadian vessels:


Arthur Meighen: Does this section admit Chinese assailors?


Charles A. Stewart: No, it provides for the outward registration of Chinese sailors employed on Canadian vessels operating between Canada and the United States. The Canadian Pacific Railway in British Columbia have ships operating between Vancouver and Seattle, making a round trip daily, and under the present act a Chinese sailor employed on such a ship must register daily. The cost of registration being a dollar it is proposed to change this and provide for the issuance of a certificate for a period of two years at a fee of $2.


Arthur Meighen: Would that apply to Chinese immigrants?


Charles A. Stewart: No, merely to men sailing between ports.


Arthur Meighen: Could not a Chinese immigrant come in and instead of landing on shore land in a boat and become a sailor and thereby become entitled to registration under this section?


Charles A. Stewart: It would not be possible for him to do that because he would of necessity first - need to be in possession of a passport before he could make application for the certificate.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 26-Arrest and deportation of any Chinese who has illegally entered or remained in Canada:

Chinese Immigration
Alan Webster Neill: Instead of "officer" in this section I think it should be "police officer". It is no use in the wilds of British Columbia to send two hundred miles to get a Chinese immigration officer; a police constable should be allowed to act under this section. The definition of officer in the interpretation clause is simply an immigration officer and such an officer would be found only in Vancouver, Victoria and possibly Nelson.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my hon. friend mean that any police officer might demand the production of a certificate from a Chinese in Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend will have to pardon me for referring to our experiences so often, but we learn by experience. Only a few years ago quite a number of- Chinese or Japanese, I forgot which, landed on the west coast near my hon. friend's home. They did not touch a port of entry at all; they landed off the west coast of Vancouver Island, or Queen Charlotte Islands. There are constantly vessels running back and forth on the fishing grounds between different points, and as we are by this act restricting the ports of entry to Vancouver and Victoria, the only possible way of apprehending such people would be for a local officer to have some definite powers. If he were in the Queen Charlotte Islands it would take him in winter from two to three weeks to communicate with Vancouver.


Alan Webster Neill: Or Prince Rupert.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There would be no Chinese immigration agent there. It would be hopeless for any person to apprehend immigrants or control immigration of that kind under this clause. '


Charles A. Stewart: Would provincial police officers be satisfactory?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think so.


Charles A. Stewart: I see a difficulty in keeping up a force of immigration officers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Either provincial, municipal or Dominion police officers would do. I would suggest to my hon. friend that he keep an immigration officer at Prince Rupert.


Alan Webster Neill: This section would not give the policeman any drastic power because he can only arrest. Further down it is provided that the officer may detain an arrested person in custody and bring him before the nearest controller for examination. So that the man's rights are absolutely protected, and if a 149
police constable cannot be trusted to do this much he is not fit for the position.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not taking exception to the suggestion. I see the impossibility of patrolling a large area like British Columbia with immigration officials whose duty it would be to arrest people who obtain illegal entry.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would suggest the words "police officer."
Section stands.
On section 27-Arrest and deportation of Chinese who ceases to belong to exempt or admissible classes:


Charles A. Stewart: Some exception has been taken to this section, and I do think that it is somewhat drastic.
Any person admitted as exempt from the tax under the provisions of the Chinese Immigration Act or any amendment thereto or under this act,-
It embodies the whole of it.
-and who at any time after admission ceases to belong to any of the exempt classes as defined by the Chinese Immigration Act or any amendment thereof or by this act,-
It seems to me this goes so far that if a Chinese merchant after being here for twenty years failed in his business and was obliged to become a labourer he would be subject to deportation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That would be a very good thing.


Charles A. Stewart: I hardly
think that is just.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are thousands who have been admitted by the officers of this government as merchants, who have deliberately abandoned that calling and are to-day labourers and never intend to be anything else. So there would be no hardship; my hon. friend need not waste any sympathy on them whatever.


Alan Webster Neill: I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that this is the section the hon. minister referred me to early in the afternoon when I asked him what means he had of checking up those who were admitted a. students, he said section 27.


Charles A. Stewart: This will apply to the person who enters as a student.


Alan Webster Neill: It will not apply if you alter it.


Charles A. Stewart: I was not thinking of altering it as applying to those



Chinese Immigration
entering under the provisions of this act, but I thought some hardship might be imposed upon individuals who had been in Canada for, say, ten years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will not apply, for this reason: you are not going to register these people under the calling upon which they enter the country. I wish it were so, but ic is not. They will simply be registered as students. So the fact that they have changed their calling will not penalize them in any sense under this clause. My hon. friend need not lose a particle of sleep over any Chinese that are in the country.


Alan Webster Neill: In line 6, page 12, I think the word "the" before "controller" should be changed to "a," or else there is likely to be confusion. I would also point out that the word "officer" occurs there, and if the minister changes the previous section and makes it read "peace officer" the same amendment ought to be made in this section.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of the committee that line 6 page 12, section 27, be amended by striking out "the" before controller and substituting "a"?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend (Mr. Neill) suggests "peace officer." I think that ought to be included.


Charles A. Stewart: I will look into the amendment suggested by my hon. friend to section 26 as well as to this section. It is usually well to exercise a little care. I have no objection to this standing for the purpose if need be.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The point may already be covered if the Immigration Act provides for "officer" including peace officer.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
where it should go.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no objection to its being carried with that understanding.


George Newcombe Gordon: Section 27 stands.
On section 30-Liability of transportation companies:


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the same as in the old act, Mr. Chairman?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 31-Liability of railway companies :
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this the same as in the old act too?


Charles A. Stewart: I think the increased penalty is the only change.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 32-Chinese landing in violation of act, etc.:
Henry Herbert Stevens: I would suggest that we might strengthen the latter part of subclause (b) "and shall also foe liable to deportation when so ordered by the controller," and make it obligatory that the party so offending should be deported. Anyone who deliberately violates the provisions of this act ought to be deported without any consideration.


Charles A. Stewart: We might strike out the words, "when so ordered by the controller."


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have more objection to the qualifying words, "shall be liable." Why not make it read, "and shall be deported." Make it a positive statement-obligatory. If not my hon. friend will find himself deluged with all manner of appeals for clemency. There is no minimum either; it is a fine not exceeding $1,000. The fine might be only $1.
The wording of the clause is to
10 p.m. lean towards clemency. What we want in these penalties is something drastic and definite, because that is the only way in which we are going to get effective restriction under this act. We invite the odium of the criticism referred to by the Prime Minister, and yet we do not obtain the full effects that we are seeking.


Charles A. Stewart: It does not matter who the national is, if he wilfully misrepresents-


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. This section begins, "Every person of Chinese origin or. descent who-"
Mr. STEWrART (Argenteuil): Yes, but 1 am making reference to the fact that any national who obtains entry under a fraudulent certificate or who wilfully misrepresents himself should be punished. I have no particular desire to shield such an offender.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would point out to the minister that the two clauses of this section are inconsistent one with the other on the basis of his own suggestion. For instance, the first clause refers to every person of Chinese origin, and that includes liability to deportation. The second clause refers to persons who aid and abet, having in mind, no doubt, persons who are not of Chinese origin, and there is no question of deportation there. That shows a distinction between the two. Of course, that person might be a citizen of

Chinese Immigration
this country or he might be a foreigner, an alien of another race. So to carry out the minister's argument of a moment ago deportation ought to be included in the second clause as well.


Charles A. Stewart: You could
not deport a Canadian citizen.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, an alien, a Swede,
a German or a Frenchman.


Charles A. Stewart: You would
have a double-barrelled clause, one for the Canadian citizen who aids and abets and one for the foreigner?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is double-barrelled now. You do not deport a Canadian citizen anyway. You only deport an alien.


Mr. BLACK:: You might cover it by saying that if of foreign origin he shall be liable to deportation.


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps it
would be better to alter that section making deportation obligatory.
Section stands.
On section 35-Organizing, etc. unlawful courts as to offences by Chinese:


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister give
us a brief explanation of this clause?


Charles A. Stewart: This is in
our present act, and is to prevent unlawful organizations of Chinese in Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This deals with the tong
war question, war between the different tongs of Chinese; it is very necessary. I would again draw the minister's attention to the fine. It may be only one dollar. There is no minimum fine provided. I think that in both these sections there should be a minimum and a maximum fine if possible.


Charles A. Stewart: This section is hardly in the same category with section 32. I have no compunction about section 32. I am prepared to put the maximum there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: For instance, you might fine a man one dollar only and he is penalized under this section. There is no minimum as regards either imprisonment or fine. I grant you this section is not as important as the other one, but in redrafting perhaps the minister will keep this point in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 37-Violation of act, order or regulation:
Henry Herbert Stevens: We have the same wording again here: "Every person who violates any provision of this act or any order or regulation made thereunder for which no special punishment is herein provided, is guilty of an offence, and liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months." There is no minimum in either case. Is there any particular reason for that?


Charles A. Stewart: Again I
think my hon. friend will admit that this is not in the same category with section 32. There is a vast difference between infractions of these two kinds, and some latitude will have to be allowed the court in this case. That is the way it appeals to me. There might be a case in'which ten dollars would be a sufficient punishment, but in a serious case a fine of a thousand dollars or imprisonment might be necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 38-Jurisdiction of courts in cases of rejection and deportation restricted:
Richard Burpee Hanson: There might be a case where the minister or the controller acted wholly without jurisdiction notwithstanding the provisions of _thia section. I would submit that the court of record would, have the right to have the King's writ run. For instance, habeas corpus might lie. Is it the intention to deprive the accused of the right of habeas corpus. If so, it ought to say so in express language.


Charles A. Stewart: A great deal of difficulty has been experienced in connection with this matter. The minister's decision I think should be final. It perhaps looks like a hardship to say that a man must be bundled out of the country on the order of the minister, but the very same thing applies here as in the case of the head tax. The head tax has been abused and been made the means of a sort of slavery among the Chinese who are in Canada, and the same applies here. It is being repeatedly abused. If my hon. friend was in my office for twenty-four hours he would see just how much it is being abused daily. I am not anxious to have the power conferred here, but I think it would be very much to the advantage of the nationals of China themselves.


Levi William Humphrey: In connection with this clause I should like to place on record a resolution I received a few days ago. It may not
Chinese Immigration

have a direct bearing on this particular clause but it concerns the bill generally, and shows the very strong feeling of the people of British Columbia upon this question. It is under date of April 7, 1923, and is a resolution that was adopted at a public meeting at Sil-verton, British Columbia, which was held to discuss the immigration of orientals into Canada. It reads as follows:
Whereas many orientals make an easy living trafficking in drugs, liquors and vice, and,
Whereas such creatures, having no citizenship in this country, no reputation to lose and no position in the community to maintain, easily lend themselves to the profit of a few disreputable citizens who are thus less subject to detection, and,
Whereas such tolerance is demoralizing to the community and the rising generations.
Therefore, be it resolved that we request the Federal authorities to enact such legislation as will permit local magistrates to order the deportation of such orientals as are known to be a menace to the community.
ft
It is signed by the secretary of the meeting.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not like this thought of placing any one official in such a position that the public generally have no opportunity of taking active steps or appealing against his decision. It seems to me that the action of any minister ought to be subject to review by a court, or by some other body in this country. I do not like this kind *of legislation that we seem to be passing in *one or two instances this year, placing the minister in a position of absolute arbitrary authority.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that in conformity with instructions given the Speaker on April 26th, I caused the following cablegram to be sent to the Right Hon. Bonar Law, Prime Minister, London:
The Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada presents his duties to Their Royal Highnesses, the Duke and Duchess of York, and begs to forward the following resolution which has been unanimously adopted by the House of Commons of Canada:
That this House extends its congratulations to Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York on the occasion of their marriage, and that the expression of the wishes of the Canadian Commons be communicated to Their Royal Highnesses by His Honour the Speaker."
To-day I received the following answer by cablegram:
f\Ir. Humphrey.]
Speaker,
House of Commons, Ottawa,
Please convey to the members of the House of Commons of Canada our warm thanks for the resolution of kind congratulations and good wishes which are greatly appreciated.
Albert and Elizabeth.



CANADA HIGHWAYS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of
Railways) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide that the time within which the various provinces of Canada may earn and be paid the sums allotted to the said provinces under the provisions of The Canada Highways Act, chapter fifty-four of the statutes of 1919 be extended for a further period of two years.
Motion agreed to and House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister kindly give the reasons for this legislation, also a statement as to what has been expended and how much the various provinces have taken up of their respective quotas?


George Perry Graham: In 1919 an act was passed by the federal House providing for the payment to the various provinces of $20,000,000 to aid in the construction of roads. The grant was for a period of five years, which term expires in 1924. It will be necessary, however, for the provinces that are dependent on federal aid to know at this session what aid they can expect in arranging their plans for the years succeeding 1924. Several of the provinces have used up, or will have used up by the end of 1924, the various amounts to which they were entitled under the legislation of 1919. On the other hand, a number of them will not have expended the amounts to which they were entitled. The bill to be based on this resolution will extend the act of 1919 for two years to give those provinces that will not have used up the amount to which they were entitled by the end of 1924 an opportunity, during the next two years, to earn that amount. The amounts practically appropriated for the various provinces under the act of 1919 were as follows:
Province-	Amount
Alberta	 $1,477,310
British Columbia	 1,251,955
.Manitoba	 1,602,265
Nova Scotia	 1,468,720
New Brunswick	 1.163,845
Ontario	 5,877,275
Prince Edward Island	 603,455
Quebec	 4,748,420
Saskatchewan	 1,806,255


Arthur Meighen: The total will be $25,000-
000.
%

Canada Highicays Act


George Perry Graham: No, $20,000,000. The
amount earned by each province up to the end of 1922 stands as follows:
Province

	Amount
Alberta		Nil
British Columbia	
$1,116,383	87Manitoba	
525,964	27Nova Scotia	
1357,633	57New Brunswick	
1,107,479	36Ontario	
5,841.577	88Prince Edward Island	
254,871	53Quebec	
2,452,477	62Saskatchewan.. ..	
766,343	79
The amounts paid to the various provinces up to the end of 1922 total $9,788,404.98. The situation in regard to the amounts it is estimated the provinces will not have earned from the apportionment of their grants stands as follows: Alberta has not been able to undertake any great work as yet. Manitoba still needs $500,000 to complete its apportionment. In the case of the other provinces the amounts are:
Prince Edward Island	 $125,000
Quebec	 800,000
Saskatchewan	 *	700,000
At the end of 1924 British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario will have drawn their full apportionment. The object of this act is to allow the provinces which, at the end of 1924, will not have been able to earn their entire appropriation, to have two years in which to earn it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This seems to be an appropriate occasion to ask the government what decision has been reached with reference to the request of the provinces, made here within the last few weeks, to extend the principle of this legislation. I understand a very large delegation came before the government since the Easter vacation, which delegation asked for the modest sum of $40,000,000. I do not know what encouragement they got from the government, as I was not present, but I think the country should know if the government reached a conclusion, and this would be an appropriate time to make the statement.


George Perry Graham: To put it briefly, this resolution is the answer of the government. After full deliberation considering the vast obligations of the Dominion it was thought advisable, and quite just and fair that this act should not be extended further than to allow those provinces which will not have been able to earn their apportionment by the expiration of 1924 to have ample opportunity to earn that portion of the appropriation. The deputation to which my hon. friend refers, I think, went away without any mistaken view as to what the attitude of the government was. The reply to their request was made by the Prime
Minister, who pointed out the fact, as I have stated, that our federal obligations were so great that the government thought it was time the provinces should look after the further development of good roads, and that the federal authorities should devote their attention and their expenditures to those things which necessarily come under federal authority. It was further pointed out that, while the war affected all parts of Canada, directly the expenses of the war fell upon the federal authorities, and the burden of taxation had risen to a point where the government believed it would not be justified at the present time in giving further aid to those things which are essentially provincial. That is the attitude of the government, as I stated before. We thought it would not be just to the provinces who had begun to develop a plan for good roads, believing they would have the entire amount of this appropriation at their disposal, to cut them off before they had their plans developed. This resolution is based on that principle, and it is proposed to extend the time so as to place all the provinces on an equal footing in regard to their ability and time to earn the amount of this appropriation.


Arthur Meighen: Whatever may be said for the government's decision, it cannot be said that it contributes to the relief of the tax-payer of this country.


George Perry Graham: It does not add any more to it.


Arthur Meighen: There might be economies effected by the government that would, but anything effected by simply reducing what assistance has been given to the provinces merely adds to the tax burdens the provinces have to impose. It is a change in the taxcollecting agency, and that is all. A far better form of curtailment would be in those things that are federal, those things that have to do with the machinery and upkeep of government. This is merely a shifting of the instrument of collection.


George Perry Graham: To the place where it belongs.


Arthur Meighen: From the federal authority to the provincial. Constitutionally the obligation of roadmaking and upkeep of roads is of course provincial, that cannot be disputed, but of course the Dominion has very frequently assisted the provinces in more than one of the functions the provinces carry on. For instance, we are making grants for agricultural education. We are conducting agricultural services. These are fundamentally provincial. But that is not the point I rose to
Canada Highways Act

emphasize, which was that this proposition may take a burden off the government, but it does not take any burden off the people. It may make the estimates of this government that much less, but it is not by economizing that the government brings it about. It is merely bj>- shifting to the provinces the load that, for general purposes and in the public interests, the federal government assumed in 1919.
This policy has resulted undoubtedly in a stimulus being given to road building in this country. We were very far behind the United States, and I do not doubt for a moment but that this country is suffering now, in comparison with the United States, in the retention of its population, in the attraction of new population, in business activities, from many reasons, one of which is the superiority of transit on the roads in that country. In Canada we are far behind them indeed, and the object of the legislation was to give such an impetus to them, and to have such a momentum aroused, that the provinces would go on and continue the work of roadmaking on a permanent interprovincial and lasting basis. It has had that effect to a degree. It has had it to a very considerable degree. I apprehend that the breaking of it off will result in the patch-work character of roads in Canada. I knew the time would likely come sooner or later when the matter would be again left to the provinces, but I fear the high cost of roadmaking of recent years-that is the extent to which that high cost was unexpected and was unprovided for-will all be reflected in a broken patch-work system of roads. We shall find the country with pieces of road here and pieces there, but nothing linked up. That will likely be one of the results; but whether or not it is justified, I want only to emphasize that it is not brought about by any economy of administration, it is simply shoving back on the provinces a load that in other days we undertook to carry.


Robert Forke: It seems to me, on this question of road building, after all the people pay. It does not matter whether it is the Dominion government or the provincial government, the money comes from the people. In connection with municipal affairs, I have had some little experience in bulding roads, and I do not know that government aid is just the best thing in some circumstances. I believe Manitoba would to-day be in a better position if it had a good many roads yet to build that it has already built, and built at a time when wages were high and expenses of every kind 
enormous. With the fillip that it got from advances from the Dominion government and advances from the provincial government, the idea was: Go on and build the roads; go after all those grants, and, of course, in that way the province ran into pretty large expenses and debts. I am a believer in good roads. The measure of a country's civilization is known by the way in which it goes about road building. At the same time I want to point out the fact that nearly all the big road building that has been done in the Dominion of Canada has been done at the most expensive time when it could possibly have been done, when help was scarce and when it cost an enormous amount of money to get the work done. In the municipality in which I was interested, we used to get the work done for 20 to 25 cents a yard; whereas during the time the great bulk of the road building was done, this cost 40 to 45 cents a yard. This shows the enormous cost of carrying on road building. The government in this case is neither to be praised nor to be blamed. I think about the right thing to do is to drop this policy in the meantime.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think the government is to be congratulated on bringing to an end on fair terms a system whereby one power supplies the money and another power spends it. That system is essentially unwise. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) seems in a half-hearted sort of way to blame the government for its declared intention of bringing this system to an end. In this country we have more or less gone transportation mad. We have applied to transportation systems, whether railway, canal or otherwise, far more of the public revenue than it was wise to do. I am thoroughly of opinion that we shall put the finances of this country on a sound basis if we adhere, more largely in the future than we have done in the past, to the principle which forces the government that is spending the money to the unpleasant task of raising the money. I cannot help congratulating the government on its declared intention, as I understand it, of' bringing this system to an end. This legislation of 1919 may have had a good effect. It may, however, have had the effect of encouraging provinces to embark in schemes of expenditure which they did not want, and which it was unwise for them to embark upon. The question of roads is, in its primary aspect, the question of a good road to market, to church and to the station, and a great deal of our expenditure on great-trunk highways which serve largely as plea-

Canada Highways Act
sure roads for pleasure travel is in my humble opinion, an extravagance of which a country in our financial condition should make the most sparing use.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: How much remains to be drawn for New Brunswick?


George Perry Graham: About $300,000. It is estimated that it will be expended fully by the end of 1924.


Mr. FORTIER:: I see by the statement of the minister that in Quebec there is still a balance of about $2,500,000 unexpended. Has the minister approved any plans for the construction of any new highways, especially those highways that have been already mentioned, betwen Montreal and Mont Laurier, and between Hull and Montreal on the north shore of the Ottawa river? I would be glad if special attention be given to those highways, because for the last ten or twelve years the construction of those roads has been advocated by the citizens of the Ottawa valley. They are most important, and I trust the department will assist the provincial government in the construction of thosd highways. As a matter of principle, I approve this resolution of the government. I think it is in the interest of the rural districts of my province, and I am glad that this policy is continued.


George Perry Graham: The method adopted is for the province to outline its plans for roads for that section, and after that has been done, they either have been or will be approved if they are within the amount yet to be drawn by the province.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is any discretion exercised by the department as to approving what roads will be called trunk roads?


George Perry Graham: An arrangement is come to between the provincial and the federal authorities; but the province is the real authority to say where the road shall be established, although approval has to be given by the federal authority. It is the standard of road and the amount of expenditure to be made that comes more intimately within the purview of the federal authority.


William Garland McQuarrie: What is the position of British Columbia?


George Perry Graham: The amount due to British Columbia under the federal agreement was $1,251,955. British Columbia has earned $1,116,383.87. It has been paid $1,116,383.87. It is anticipated that by the expiration of 1924, British Columbia will have earned all Its appropriation.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is it proposed to give Brtiish Columbia any further assistance in road building?


George Perry Graham: The government's proposal as outlined in the resolution is to extend to those provinces that have not earned the amount of their appropriation, a period of two years in which to earn it. No further grant is proposed to provinces which will have earned their proportion of the appropriation of $20,000,000.


William Garland McQuarrie: I do not agree with the stand taken by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) and other hon. gentlemen, that the Dominion should not do anything further to assist in building good roads. In British Columbia particularly there are reasons why we should receive assistance. The country there is of such a nature that road-building is very difficult and very expensive. I do not know that there have been any allegations as to the misapplication of funds or the throwing away of money in connection with the building of roads in the province. If there has been anything wrong in that connection, then of course the Liberal government must be responsible for it, because we have had a Liberal government there all that time. But I suggest that the money which has been spent, although it may have been spent in an extravagant way, has possibly been spent to advantage; that is to say, we have received benefits from the work which has been done. In British Columbia some very good roads have been built which are not in all respects of a provincial character. For instance, the Pacific highway which connects with a road from Vancouver to San Diego in southern California, a distance of some two thousand miles, is one of such roads. I think the construction of that road is going to be a good thing for British Columbia and consequently for Canada. It is going to bring in a great many motorists who are all going to spend money and some of whom will undoubtedly remain in the country. The construction of that road I believe was a splendid thing for Canada.
Another road is required and that is across British Columbia from the east to the west. In my opinion the rest of Canada is interested in that road to a certain extent. Certainly the mountainous scenery of British Columbia is unsurpassed in the world and is a great asset to Canada as a whole. It seems to me a matter for regret that in order to get from British Columbia to the province of Alberta it is necessary for us to go through the United States if we wish to travel by motor. It would be a good thing if a road
Canada Highways Act

could be built across British Columbia, and I think that the Dominion should do something to assist in the construction of such a road. The same principle would apply to other provinces. I am firmly convinced that money spent either by the Dominion or by the provinces in the construction of good roads is as well expended as any money can be. In this country we are not as far advanced in this respect as they are in other places, and this government should consider extending the programme of assistance federally to the provinces for the building of roads.


Mr. GARDINER:: Has Alberta taken advantage of the Dominion grant?


George Perry Graham: The province of Alberta has not to any extent earned any of her appropriation. The bill which will be founded on this resolution extends the time for two years within which that province can take advantage of the act of 1919.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In view of the principle
which has been laid down by the minister and supported by the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) I would ask what principle is to be adopted with respect to the building of international bridges between the various provinces and adjacent states of the union. For long distances on the border between New Brunswick and the state of Maine the St. John river is the boundary, and at another stage the St. Croix river is the boundary line. In days gone by the Dominion government had paid one-half of the expense of building new bridges across the boundary line where a river divides the two countries. One has just been completed at Edmundston, New Brunswick, and it is a fine bridge indeed. Another one was required across the St. Croix river between McAdam and Vanceboro in the state of Maine. I have been endeavouring to get the Minister of Public Works to include a small appropriation of $17,500 to pay one-half of the cost of that bridge, our neighbours in Maine having already voted their share.


George Perry Graham: The state of Maine?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


George Perry Graham: And why not New Brunswick?


Richard Burpee Hanson: New Brunswick absolutely refuses to shoulder any part of the burden, I presume because they consider this an international matter and because of the example which they have in precedent -of former years.

I would press upon the government the necessity of meeting our Maine neighbours halfway.


George Newcombe Gordon: This can hardly be considered altogether relevant to the subject matter of the resolution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am asking the minister
to lay down a principle and if he does not object I do not think the chairman should.


George Newcombe Gordon: There are several
hon. members who might object.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No one has objected yet.


George Newcombe Gordon: I rule that the hon.
member is out of order.	.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I would ask the
minister a question. Would he lay down a principle to-night so that we may know hereafter whether any federal aid will be extended towards the building of international bridges?


George Perry Graham: I have not been discussing international bridges, but I do not think that any principle I have laid dowm would prevent any government dealing with a case as it arose.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: Has the minister had
any communication from the authorities of British Columbia in regard to what is known as the Hope-Princeton highway there asking for an extension?


George Perry Graham: I have no recollection of any such correspondence; possibly it may be in the department.


Robert Gardiner: I understand that
the province of Alberta has not taken advantage to any great extent so far of this federal scheme for assisting in the building of highways. We in the province of Alberta have a peculiar situation with legard to the building of roads. No doubt hon. members will realise that in the matter of railway facilities we are perhaps worse off than any of the other two w'estem provinces, and we have found it necessary to use oui funds for the building of roads for the purpose of constructing market roads for the farmers. Under these circumstances we have not been able to take advantage of this particular scheme to any great extent. We contend that in our province the farmers, who produce the wealth, should -receive first consideration, and we have had to spend money providing them with roads because of the lack of transportation facilities by rail. I would suggest the possibility of extending this federal aid scheme in the western provinces to assist in the building of main

Copyright Act
market roads so that the farmers can haul their produce to the nearest delivery points.
I repeat, we have fewer transportation facilities in that province than there are in other provinces, and consequently have had to spend our money to a large extent in the construction of market roads. Under these conditions therefore some consideration should be given the province of Alberta to assist in tne building of roads.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 151, to extend the period of the Canada Highways Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the third reading of Bill No. 24 to amend The Copyright Act 1921.
Mr. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, before this bill is read a third time perhaps the House will bear with me while I make a short statement in an endeavour to somewhat dissipate a conclusion that seems to have been reached as regards certain features of this bill and the act of 1921 which this measure is supposed to amend. It is not customary to present any remarks on the third reading of a bill, but I may be excused by the fact that I was prevented from being present when this bill was before Committee of the Whole for a reason well known to all hon. members-that at this stage of the session so many committees are sitting concurrently that even with the best will imaginable it is impossible to attend to all one's duties in this House.
I wish to state first that the main desire which, in my humble opinion, should inspire the House in regard to the question of copyright is to adopt and put in force this year a new copyright act. You know that at present our copyright law is the law embodied in the Revised Statutes of 1906, which is nothing but the embodiment of the law in the Revised Statutes of 1886, which in turn merely embody the original law of 1875. I need not stress the point that this indeed constitutes a very antiquated form of copyright which it is imperative for us to renovate and modernize. Efforts have been made session after session to put through this House a new copyright bill, but all these efforts have failed.
I do not propose to repeat the history of this law. It is well known to many members, but I wish to bring
back the attention of the House to what took place in 1921, when the Hon. Mr. Doherty, then Minister of Justice, moved for leave to introduce a copyright bill. That bill was referred to a special committee of which I was a member, and we gave it quite a lot of study. Many new features were introduced in that bill, for the very reason that since 1875 so many new forms of reproducing the works of artists had arisen that it was necessary to provide for protection along new lines. For instance, there was nothing in the old copyright law covering the reproduction of musical compositions by talking machines, and so on. Finally we arrived at an agreement on every clause except what are known as the license clauses, Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 27, which are now under discussion.
The other night an hon. member in committee stated that all parties-printers and authors-had been agreed on those clauses, and that it was only later on that someone found out that they were in contravention of the Berne convention and should therefore be dispensed with. I may say that these are not the facts at all. The printers and authors presented their case before the committee, and we could not come to an agreement on the clauses, except to the extent that we decided we would not retain them in the bill if they were in contravention of the Berne convention. That is made very plain by the discussion that took place on that bill' on the 25th May last, when, voicing the opinion of myself and the authors, I stated:
I still think it wrong to pass the bill with the clauses to which we object, and I feel confident that the minister will find out they are in contravention of the Berne convention, and that he will have to do away with them if we wish to adhere to that convention.
To which Mr. Doherty replied:
If I find I have to do that, I will. In saying it was a compromise I did not mean to suggest that it was a compromise reached by the authors and publishers after a conference. It was a compromise effected by the committee between the respective contentions.
The bill at the time was passed with the very clear understanding that these contentious clauses would be referred to the Berne office for interpretation. That was done in the meanwhile and Friday I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) produced the result of that submission. I have in my hand a copy of Le Droit D'Auteur of the 15th July, 1921, in which the bill of 1921 is studied and analyzed. The other day some suspicion was expressed as to the official character of this paper. I may say that it is the official organ of the International Bureau of Berne on Copyright. As
Copyright Act

for the bureau itself, there cannot be any discussion as to its official status. It will be found in our bill of 1921 in the second schedule which reproduces the revised Berne convention with Articles 21, 22, 23 and 24, recognizing the official authority of the bureau. I will read Article 21:
The international office established under the name of the "Office of the International Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works" shall be maintained.
11 p.m. That office is placed under the high authority of the government of the Swiss Confederation, which regulates its organization and supervises its working.
Le Droit D'Auteur is the official organ of the International bureau. It has a correspondent in Ottawa. It was stated in committee that this correspondent was a mere civil servant and it was somewhat implied that we did not have to pay too much attention to his opinion. I do not believe that corresponds with the facts at all. The only duty of that correspondent who is the official correspondent of this paper is to supply the office with documents in order to enable them to pass judgment upon them or to express an opinion over them. Anyway I know for a fact that that is what took place, that the Canadian bill was sent to Berne, was analysed there, and, this paper expressed its opinion as to these contentious clauses. It does not matter much, Mr. Speaker, who happened to write the article; so long as it was 'printed in this paper it has the full authority of the International bureau.
The opinion expressed by Le Droit D'Auteur very plainly was that the license clauses as they passed the House in 1921 came in contravention of the Beme convention. Perhaps I might explain in a word if I do not detain the House too long, what the license clauses are. They are for these purposes: If a Canadian writer chooses to publish his work in another country than Canada the Canadian printer may apply to the minister who has the Copyright branch under his jurisdiction to obtain permission through license to print that work in Canada, providing he gives the author due compensation for the work. That seems very fair at first sight, but the contention of the authors is that they are full masters of their work, that they alone must decide whether they publish in Canada or elsewhere, that they alone must keep the control of the work of their brains. The contention of the printers, on the other hand, is this, that by the authors publishing their work in another country than Canada they do not give to the printing business sufficient encouragement, and that a kind of protectionist measure by the government in
TMr. Rinfret.]
this way would give a chance to the printers to have their share of the printing of Canadian works.
As far as our connection with the convention of Berne was concerned, we did not have to pass an opinion on the principle of the license clauses. I insist upon that point. All that we have had to do was to obtain an opinion from Berne as to whether we could adhere to the convention and at the same time retain these clauses in the bill of 1921. Last year and again this year I moved a resolution, after taking cognizance of this opinion expressed from Berne, that we should not delay further putting into force the bill of 1921, but that we should drop the license clauses and put the rest of the bill into force. This year a few weeks after that resolution was put on the order paper the Minister of Trade and Commerce brought down a bill to that very same effect, the bill that is now before us for third reading, in which bill there was a clause doing away with the license clauses, and another clause to the effect that the Copyright Bill would be put into force on the 1st day of July. But renewed opposition came from the other side of the House on the ground that no official authority at Berne had expressed an opinion on the matter, and that therefore there was no good reason for the government doing away with the license clauses. I have tried to show previously what the expression by that paper meant, and to what an extent it had an authority which should guide us. I must add that if I am not mistaken, that is the interpretation that has also been given by the Imperial authorities and by the officials of the government at Ottawa. But the minister in order to meet the situation moved an amendment on Friday, which is also in my opinion in full accordance with the requirements of the Berne convention, to the effect that instead of dropping the license clauses they be kept in the bill but should not apply to a British citizen who is not a Canadian or to a citizen of any other country which has adhered to the convention.
A great deal of speculation arose in the House as to the exact meaning of that amendment. As far as I am concerned I must admit myself that it is susceptible of two different interpretations. It may mean that when a Canadian author publishes a book in the United States for instance, that is in a country that has not adhered to the convention, these license clauses may apply; but if he publishes his book in p country which has adhered to the convention the license clauses would not apply. That is one interpretation. But a close

Copyright Act
scrutiny of the amendment strikes me that it may go much closer and mean this, that we cannot in this country apply for a license to reprint a book published by a British citizen who is not a Canadian or by the subject of a foreign country that has adhered to the convention, but that as far as Canadian authors are concerned no matter where they publish their work the printers in this country may always apply for a license to reprint them. Now I am not to speak for the government, but I do not think they intended to go that far. I am afraid that as far as the Canadian authors are concerned this amendment leaves them exactly where they were in the bill of 1921. At the same time I wish to impress this on the mind of the House, and it is the very crux of the situation. As I have said, we are still under the effect of an old copyright law which goes as far back as 1875. We are all willing to adhere to the convention of Berne, and as far as that is concerned this amendment meets the requirements very fully. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, although I wish to make a strong reservation as to the meaning of this amendment if it can really be interpreted in the last sense I have just given, at the same time for the sake of the fifty clauses of the 1921 bill, for the sake of the rights that were granted by the 1921 bill to the son*' writers and to the musical publishers who had no protection at all, and who do not enjoy any protection at this moment, and because of a desire not to delay any more this legislation, I would suggest that this House pass this bill on its third reading without division with this in mind, that we must help with all our force to have a copyright bill assented to at the end of the session and put into force this year that shall have nothing in it that would prevent Canada from adhering to the convention of Berne. If I may be permitted to make that reservation, I hope that when the bill reaches the Upper House this amendment will be very carefully scrutinized and redrafted in such a way as to indicate clearly that the license clauses do not apply to the countries which have adhered to the Berne convention and that Canadian writers shall not be prejudicially affected in any way. I do not know whether I have made my meaning clear. What I mean is this: If the amendment merely deals with the relations of the Canadian writers-


Andrew Ross McMaster: Has the hon. member the terms of this amendment?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes, I have it here.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Read it.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It is as follows:
That clause 2 of the bill be struck out-
That, clause is the clause which purported to repeal the license clauses-
-and the following substituted therefor:
2. Sections thirteen, fourteen, fifteen and twenty-seven of The Copyright Act, 1921, shall not apply to any work the author of which is a British subject, other than a Canadian citizen, or the subject or citizen of a country which has adhered to the convention and the additional protocol thereto set out in the second schedule to the said act.
I think that the only intended effect of this amendment was to deal with the American , situation-to deal with the case of a Canadian writer publishing his book in the United States, and the case of the Canadian printer who is anxious to have that book printed in Canada. But I am afraid that it may mean much more, and that it would apply to the Canadian writer publishing a book in France, or in Belgium, or in England, or in Germany because this amendment says that the license clauses will not apply to any work the author of which is a British subject, other than a Canadian citizen. That, it seems to me, will apply to a Canadian citizen no matter whether he publishes his book in an adhering country or in a non-adhering country. Again I say I do not think it was the intention of the government to go that far. Therefore-and I can only speak for myself

I am so desirous that this bill be put into force, for other considerations that I have mentioned, that as long as this amendment assures our adherence to the Berne convention, and that there is nothing in it to prevent us from doing so, I am perfectly willing to approve of the third reading of the bill but with the reservation that in the Upper House this amendment will be carefully scrutinized and if necessary changed so as to restrict its meaning to what was the original purpose; that is to say, to deal with the case of the Canadian writer in regard to the United States. As soon as the United States adheres to the Berne convention that would do away with the necessity for the amendment, if I might use that term.' If the United States do not adhere to the Berne convention then it would be necessary for this country to pass a special agreement with that country. As the amendment now reads it seems to me that there is danger that it may lead to more confusion. Personally, although I fully approve of the bill of 1921, as amended by the present bill, No. 24, yet I desire to make a strong reservation concerning the possible interpretation of the amendment in question.


Arthur Meighen: This is a subject that. I have not had the privilege of following
Copyright Act

closely through its somewhat long history in this House, and particularly through its recent course of the last few weeks. The hon member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) have made a study, in some degree, of it. It is unfortunate that owing to other engagements the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) was not able to be present at the last discussion, and that the .other two hon. members to whom I referred are not able to be present tonight. It is quite clear that the hon. member who has just sat down has made a detailed study of the subject, and he certainly has made an able presentation of his case to-night. I do not like the idea though of passing a bill in the hope that the Upper House will, if we are wrong, save us from our folly, or in the expectation that later on in the same session another bill of a better character on the same subject will be introduced and adopted. It may be that I have not caught the latter reservation of the hon. gentleman correctly. It would appear to me though that under the circumstances the third reading might wait until to-morrow until the speech of the hon. member can be read by those here who take special interest in the subject of copyright, and that the minister will be well advised to let the third reading stand to that end. i


Mr. ROBB:: The government have no
desire to rush this bill through. I may say for the information of my right hon friend (Mr. Meighen) that the former Minister of Finance, who was leading the House on Friday night was willing that the bill should get its third reading then-that was my understanding. The situation when the bill came before the House on Friday night was that my hon. friend for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) made a strong plea on behalf of the printers while my hon. friend for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) made a plea on behalf of the authors. I have no knowledge whatever of the law on this subject, particularly the international law, but I am assured by the Commissioner of Copyright, who has had twenty-five years' experience in this department, and has made a close study of international copyright law, that the proposed amendment will enable Canada to join the Berne convention, and that the fear just expressed by my hon. friend (Mr. Rinfret) as regards the rights of the Canadian author in countries other than those that adhere to the Berne convention, are unfounded, that as to the United States-we may as well be frank, it is the United States that we are particularly interested in-the [Mr. Meighen,1
authors will not be affected, that they will have their rights in all other countries, and that the license clauses will apply only to such countries as are not members of the Berne convention. As soon as the United States joins the Berne convention-and at the last session of their congress a bill for that purpose was introduced but was not pressed to conclusion because of the amount of legislation that required to be dealt with-then these licensing clauses all disappear. Of course, if my hon. friend insists upon it we will-


Arthur Meighen: Who is the Commissioner of Copyright?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. O'Halloran.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister had an opinion on the subject from the Department of Justice?


James Alexander Robb: My recollection is that Mr. O'Halloran told me that a copy of the bill had been referred to the Department of Justice and approved of by them.


Arthur Meighen: But has this feature, this amendment, been submitted to the Department of Justice for their opinion?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. My recollection is that Mr. O'Halloran assured me that it had been submitted to the Department of Justice and approved of by them, that it was their interpretation of it.


Robert Forke: It was a very unsatisfactory vote that was taken on the second reading of this bill. I think scarcely anyone in the House understood it, I know I did not; and listening very carefully to the explanation which has been so very well given by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) to-night I cannot say that I am very clear on the subject yet I have been interviewed by the printers and by the authors and still I do not understand the question. If an understanding was arrived at between the different parties as to the purpose of the bill, and that it was all right it would not take long to pass. However I think it would be better to let the motion for the third reading stand until the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), who has some knowledge of the subject, is here. Then he and the hon. member for St. James can talk the matter over and if they assure the House that it is all right, and I suppose we can take their word for it, the bill can be passed without any further waste of time. I do not feel like letting it go through now, because I do not understand it.
Motion stands.

Disallowance



GRAND TRUNK GRATUITIES

William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend asked me for a copy of the order in council appointing Mr. Congdon a commissioner to inquire into the Grand Trunk gratuities. I now lay a copy of the order in council on the Table.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
Tuesday, May 1, 1923
The Housjp met at three o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 145 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mabel Gertrude Johnston.-Mr. Mewburn.
Bill No. 146, (from the Senate), for the relief of Wilfrid Charles Brown.-Mr. Chew.
Bill No. 147 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gertrude Andrews.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 148 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Henry Davidson.-Mr. McKay.
Bill No. 149 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Robert Webb.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 150 (from the Senate), for the relief of Katharine Bryans.-Mr. Church.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henry Lumley Drayton: May I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance if he has fixed the date for the delivery of the budget?


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend will permit me, I hope during the week to fix a definite date. I would rather not do it to-day.


Arthur Meighen: It will not be this week?


William Stevens Fielding: It will not be this week.



U.S. LABOUR DELEGATES DETAINED

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: Has the Acting Minister of Immigration any further information to give the House with respect to the Howat case?


Charles A. Stewart: I am awaiting further information. I expect that my decision will be given this afternoon.



FRENCH TREATY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 23, respecting a certain Convention of Commerce between His Majesty and the French Republic.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

['The Minister\nof Justice.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.\nWednesday, May 2, 1923']
William Stevens Fielding: Intimation was given that, following the third reading of the French treaty we would proceed to consider the Italian treaty to-day. That, however, has been laid aside. I move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee of Supply.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I desire to avail myself of the opportunity afforded by this motion to move the following amendment:
That all the worcls after the word "that" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
"In the opinion of this House the disallowance of the statute enacted by the legislature of the province of Nova Scotia, being chapter 177 of the statutes enacted in the year 1921, was an abuse of the Dominion's powers of disallowance, such statutes being entirely intra vires of the province and not interfering with any matter the subject of Dominion policy or administration."
The consideration of this motion involves going, at some little length, into the question of the veto power and where we stand in connection with it. The veto power, as all members. I think, are very well aware, came into our constitutional system as part of the gradual process of granting by the sovereign of the right of government of constitutional assemblies. There has been a reservation here, there, and everywhere almost, in connection with this matter of veto and disallowance. In Canada we start the right of veto at the bottom and go on up to the top. We have the right of veto in the Dominion in so far as the provinces are concerned; the right of veto in the British authorities in so far as the Dominion is concerned; and the right of veto in the sovereign in so far as the Imperial parliament is concerned. The history of vetoing is an interesting one. It is very interesting, because, for example, the first two counts in the American Declaration of Independence against his Britannic Majesty were founded upon the use of this power of disallowance or veto. We have had the same thing in Canada ourselves-protests

Disallowance
against the exercise of the veto power in regard to matters entirely within the provincial jurisdiction. To this I shall refer later. I might also tell the House that, as a matter of law, the veto still rests in the Crown, as a matter of fact the last exercise of the power of veto by the.Crown in England was in the year 1708. Nominally the power still exists, but constitutionally it is absolutely dead. So far as the Dominion is concerned, while there is that right of veto in the home government, in so far as we are concerned, it being recognized that we have sovereign powers in our own parliament, again constitutionally that legal right is also dead as Julius Caesar. The exact provisions as to veto in Canada are to be found in the British North America Act. Section 56 of that act deals with the vetoing of the legislation of this parliament by the Imperial parliament. By section 90 of the same act the provisions of section 56, mutatis mutandis, are made to apply, with changes of course as to the terms and the words, to the provinces. So that the jurisdiction under which the government here acts was as follows :
Where the Governor General assents to a bill in the Queen's name, he shall by the first convenient opportunity send an authentic copy of the act to one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of State, and if the Queen in council within two years after receipt thereof by the secretary of state thinks fit to disallow the act, such disallowance with a certificate of the secretary of state of the day on which the act was received by him being signified by the Governor General by speech or message to each of the Houses of parliament or by proclamation, shall annul the act from and after the day of such signification.
We have had a good deal of trouble in working out in Canada our jurisprudence, if we can term it, under this question of the veto. We have had two schools of thought. I am free to admit that at one time the school of thought, which was more advanced and democratic was that advanced by my hon. friend's party sitting opposite to us. I suppose the late Sir Oliver Mowat did more than any other man to advance and make clear provincial rights in Canada, and we found him taking a very firm and insistent stand in connection with this question of veto. You had two schools of thought. You had on the one hand the Dominion administrator, whose idea was that he was a sort of wet nurse or judge extraordinary of the morals of the province, and you had on the other hand those who thought the province within the exercise of their own absolute jurisdiction was supreme-just as supreme as the Dominion was in the exercise of its jurisdiction- and that by no stretch of imagination could
TSir Plenry Drayton.]
the Dominion cabinet be erected into a censor of morals of provincial legislation. We have had some disallowances which have gone a long way-much further than they should have. We have had disallowances that have been frankly termed ridiculous-held and shown to be ridiculous, as the result of subsequent litigation. On the other hand, we have had disallowances which were necessary and proper in connection with the functioning of the country as a whole. I think I am fair to my hon. friend when I say that in this case, he makes for us a new precedent. I think I am fair when I say that this is the first case where the immorality * and the injustice of the legislation is made the sole and only ground for disallowance. We have different cases which dealt with vested rights. I am going to refer to a few of them later on. We have had legislation which has stepped in between litigants and the courts. But to-day we have to consider a case where the injustice of the legislation- I think I am putting it fairly-as passed upon by my hon. friend, is such- in his opinion that, irrespective of the constitutional right of the province, he may disallow it. Therefore, I think I am fair in saying that we to-day have a new idea, the idea that, untrammelled by any consideration-by considerations of Dominion policy, considerations of overlapping of different governmental activities, questions of Dominion legislation on the one hand and provincial administration on the other-on the mere question as to the good faith of the legislature, an act may be disallowed. As I say the United States, in their Declaration of Independence, made this the first and second counts in their indictment.
There was a great conference held in Quebec-my hon. friend will remember the year; I think it was in 1889-for the purpose of upholding provincial rights and of preventing encroachments by Dominion authority. At the time that conference was called in the city of Quebec by the then provincial premier, the Hon. Honore Mercier, the first resolution passed and unanimously passed, was that the right to disallow provincial acts should be transferred from the Dominion to the Imperial government as was the case before confederation. The provinces at that time were impatient at Dominion action. Of course, the particular thing about which they were troubled at that time was the Streams Act, which had been disallowed once and then again. The disallowance was admittedly improper and the act was finally allowed to take its course. But the resentment against this encroachment upon provincial rights was so

Disallowance
great that the Quebec conference unanimously passed the resolution to which I have referred. In other words, the provincial idea was and is, as regards legislation which is entirely within the right of the province, that the right of a province to legislate is just as absolute as is the right of the Imperial parliament itself or the Dominion or any other sovereign body. I am free to admit that that right, of recent years, has been absolutely recognized by the Dominion, and I think I am [DOT] correct in stating that this is the first illustration we have had for many years of any attempt being made to interefere with provincial authority and jurisdiction.
I now turn to the act which is- the subject of discussion, and which is an act of the province of Nova Scotia, chapter 177 of the statutes of the year 1921. In the first instance, I want to make this point absolutely clear, I do not conceive myself charged with the duty of here discussing the question whether that act was properly passed or not, or whether it was a proper act or not. It is sufficient to show that it was an act which the local legislature, seized of local conditions, with knowledge of their properties, lands and citizens, thought they ought to pass. It would be just as presumptuous for me on the one hand to say that it was right, as it would be on the other to say that it was wrong. It was their business; it was their act. It is however, necessary to show just why that legislation came about.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Do I understand the hon. member to propose to lay before this House the idea that no matter how repugnant to sentiments of justice an act passed by a local legislature might be, that question should not be considered by us in a matter of this sort.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would ask my hon. friend-what constituted this House as keeper of the morals of another? What made this House the judge of the representatives chosen by the people of any province? Where is any proper appeal from the acts of any representative except to the sovereign people of the province that elected him? On the one hand you have the democratic idea of government by, for and of the people with responsibility to the people. On the other you have the idea of responsibility not to the people but to the Dominion cabinet. My view is that responsibility is to the people.
An action was brought in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia for the purpose of setting aside a transaction which arose apparently under the following circumstances. There was a
firm or partnership in which a Mr. MacNeil was a partner; he bought a property which he described to be a farm, and as was said, he thought he was buying a farm. He entered into an agreement in November, 1910, for the acquisition of the property. The MacNeils assert that by a family arrangement of many years standing, that property was to go to Miss MacNeil for her care of her brothers, in looking after them when they were young, keeping the house and the like. The purchase price was $2,000. The deed was taken in April, 1911, and was taken as I say, in the name of Miss MacNeil. During the period of time which elapsed between the agreement and the deed, it is said that gypsum was discovered on the property in March, 1911, and that an option to sell this property had been given by the MacNeils for $35,000. The firm goes into liquidation and an action is brought against Miss MacNeil by the assignee of the firm, to have that transferred to her declared to be null and void as against the creditors. The case goes to trial and Miss MacNeil is successful at the trial. The case then goes to the court en banc of Nova Scotia and is heard by three judges. Two of them decide against Miss MacNeil, and one decides in her favour. The case then comes down to Ottawa and is heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, three out of five judges of the Supreme Court finding against her. Therefore, as regards judicial opinion on the subject, we have four judges saying one thing is right and five judges saying that thing is wrong. As I look at the record, one matter which was greatly stressed was the fact that MacNeil had secured, not a farm, but a very valuable property which he intended to exploit. A great deal was said, in the evidence at the trial, as to the value of the property. The point, of course, is made as to the ridiculousness of the consideration, and so on and so forth. It is rather interesting to see what is done by these people for whom my hon. friend takes this extraordinary action, as I conceive it to be. The assignee, upon getting hold of the property, turns around and sells it, for the sum of, not $35,000 or anything like that, but $2,500, to one of the chief witnesses against Miss MacNeil. And then after that the Plaster Quarries is incorporated with $300,000 worth of stock, a bond issue of $150,000, and a prospectus showing a value of property of $2,750,000. Well, matters stand in this shape when Mr. MacNeil, a brother, comes back from overseas, and the question is then taken up by the Great War Veterans Association who hold three separate examinations. Allegations are made that this
Disallowance

judgment was got at the expense of truth and justice, that it was got by evidence which did not disclose the fact that numerous witnesses who were called were never subjected to cross-examination, and that an absolute wrong had been done to the MacNeil family. And it is to the question of that alleged wrong that the legislature addressed itself. Now, if this act be so awful, if its immorality be so transparent, one would naturally suppose that a terrible lot of people must have had to do with its passage, which, of course, would be a dreadful thing. Before leading up to the act, however, I will go down the steps with a view to seeing just who had to do with this matter, what is their status, and whether they are gentlemen who have such a standing in that community that one would at least suppose that they would not try to do something which was immoral, wrong and against all public interest. The file shows one thing, first of all. It shows that Mr. Stewart, of the firm of Henry, Rogers, Harrison and Stewart, took this question up in the first instance. I think my hon. friends from Nova Scotia at any rate will agree with me that there is no more reputable practitioner in that province than Mr. Stewart, or a firm of better standing than that to which he belongs. He writes this letter of date May 9, 1921;
Mr. D. S. MacNeil is promoting a bill in the legislature which comes up before the Committee on Private and Local Bills at 10.30 to-morrow. Mr. MacNeil's family were badly done in an action concerning the title to lands at that time believed to be farm lands, but subsequently found to contain large deposits of gypsum. In the main, the circumstances are as follows: Mr. MacNeil's brother had agreed with his sister that if she would devote her time to supporting the younger members of the family he would purchase a farm for her which was ultimately to become the property of Mr. MacNeil, who is promoting the bill.
This is another MacNeil, the returned soldier.
This was done, but subsequently on the firm in which Mr. MacNeil was partner becoming insolvent through what appears to be the collusive action between the assignees in insolvency and MacNeil's partner, a case was made for declaring the property as having been purchased with partnership moneys. The case was very badly conducted. I think. In any event, although winning at the trial, the case was lost on appeal to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia and in the Supreme Court of Canada by a vote of three to one.
I think that is a mistake; in the report I saw it was three to two.
Since the action was determined sufficient facts have come to light to warrant the conclusion that the decision was a miscarriage of justice. I have gone through the facts very carefully and have satisfied myself that there has been a miscarriage of justice although I was not interested in the case before the courts. Mr. MacNeil asked me in February to look into the matter and to prepare a bill for him to submit to the legislature.

What gentleman is that letter written to? What is his standing in the community? That letter is written to the gallant son of my hon. friend the Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) who to-day wears his Majesty's decorations for distinguished conduct overseas. Now, Sir, that is the class of gentlemen who had to do with the matter before the legislature. There was another firm that was interested, a firm with which some others of my friends are fairly conversant and for which I make every claim to . responsibility and respectability.


Mr. JACOBS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I refer to the
firm of Maclean, Burchell and Ralston. Mr. Ralston is the gentleman whom this government chose to act as chairman of its Commission on Pensions, a man whose probity, as it should be, is beyond question. He was acting in this case.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I know something of the matter, and I might observe that Colonel Ralston never appeared before any committee of the legislature of Nova Scotia in support of the bill. He was written to. Mr. Burchell did appear before one of the committees of which I was secretary, but Colonel Ralston never appeared before the legislature in behalf of the bill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I had not finished my story; I was going to come to that in time. Colonel Ralston acted as counsel, not before the legislature, because so far as the committee work was concerned the matter was looked after by Mr. Burchell, the senior member of the firm. Is he not the senior member of that firm?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Now, Mr. Speaker, the manner in which this business was conducted, if this case is as it is represented to be, would suggest one of two things' either, on the one hand, it reflects tremendous credit on these gentlemen in their ability to pull the wool over the eyes of a very ignorant body of legislators; or, on the other hand, it shows great merit in the MacNeil case; because this file shows that there was only one person opposing this legislation of ail those who were concerned in it.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Where did the hon. member get that information?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not the information my hon. friend has; the information I have I gather from the file. There is an extraordinary letter on file in this case.

Disallowance


Lewis Herbert Martell: If my hon. friend will look up the proceedings in the Legislative Council he will find that three or four members voted against the bill, amongst them Mr. Chisholm, the chairman of the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my hon. friend was there and he may have taken part in the matter; I do not know anything about that. I am simply going by the file, and as I say, there is an extraordinary letter to be found there.


Mr. SHAW:: What file is the hon. member referring ,to?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am referring to the file brought down by the government in its return, and I am looking at the moment at a letter written by Mr. N. H. Meagher, who was a judge, and who has been very active in the work that is being carried on for the purpose of getting this bill disallowed. Whether the judge was right or wrong I do not know'. Of course, the MacNeils' case al-w'ays says he is wrong, but this is what he says:
Te the credit of the Hon. C. P. Chisholm, be it said, he did his best alone and unaided to (prevent the passage of this unexampled legislation.
Ex-Judge Meagher may have been wrong; 1 do not know; but there is the letter. Well, the act then is passed, and what it does is to vest these lands in Mr. MacNeil. But the act does not stop with that vesting order. It does not say, as is said on the floor of this House, that the legislature has the right to take one man's property from him and give it to some other man without compensation [DOT]or without this House having the slightest right to say a word in the matter, and without recourse to law, as has been said repeatedly and with great emphasis by a former Minister of Justice, Sir Allen Aylesworth. Oh no, not at all. They say here: "Apparently there has been a miscarriage of justice. Evidence that ought to have been given has not been given	Wrong conclusions appear to
have been come to. Let the parties get at this all over again. Put Miss MacNeil back where she was and at the same time revive all the equities which anybody had against her." So that, in effect,. the extent of the hardship which was placed upon these gentlemen v'ho floated the company was that, they had to. submit their rights, again, to the Supreme Court of Nova , Scotia. Here is the
4Clm^p: . c	-r
The claims, rights and interests of all persons and
bodies corporate in respect to the trusts and equities, if any, mentioned in section 1 of this act, shall be forever' barred, unless an* action, suit of other pro

ceeding is brought in the Supreme Court of Nova
Scotia for the purpose of declaring, enforcing or establishing of such claim, right or interest within one year after the date of the coming, into force of this act.
And the first: section declared that Miss MacNeil held subject to those rights and equities.
The next thing done after that is the application to disallow. That application in tlie first instance is met,by .a,request from the department here to the local legislature that the act should be repealed. The local government or somebody caused to be introduced a bill for the purpose of repealing the act, The Nova Scotia legislature apparently was still unrepentant and still thought it had done the right thing-the bill did not pass.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Was it discussed in the House? ' srnniM 9i
3flri/l07 .iioiifllsigovl ImDmvo'iH mo'it gnijoup


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will read to my hon. friend everything the file says. My personal information is confined to the file.
A bill was introduced on the 28th ultimo, and a copy of it is enclosed hcro-.vitb. The bill passed first and second readings and got before the committee on law amendments, but I regret to say the legislature closed before the bill was reported to the House.
This is what is then said about it:
I quite appreciate that in an ordinarv case disallowance of a provincial act upon the ground of its conflict with the principles of justice would introduce a principle of action with respect to provincial legislation which it might afterwards be found difficult to restrict within due limits, and which no doubt would be resented by the provinces; but in the present case I am directed to state that the government in Nova Scotia will not oppose the disallowance of the act if the case is regarded as an exceptional one and not as a precedent.
What an extraordinary suggestion that is, Mr. Speaker-worse even than my hon. friend's so far as the Nova Scotia authorities are concerned. They say: "As a matter of right there is no Dominion jurisdiction. Once you step into this field who is there to say where you shall stop ? Don't do it." On the other hand, the suggestion is: "Well, just do it this once. We don't mind. It is all wrong, but so long as you don't hold it against us, and .promise never to do it again, why, do it this once."	#


Mr. HUGHES:: Has Nova Scotia still the right to repeal?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Everything is gone now so far as that act is concerned it has been killed by the Dominion authorities. Now, on the question of right it is Significant to notice the following:
I may add that if the bill had been reported by the committee it is, to say the least, very doubtful that a majority of the House of Assembly or of the Legisla-

Disallowance

tive Council would have supported it, as many of the members were imbued with the feeling that a grave injustice had been done to J. E. MacNeil because they thought her case had not been properly presented to the court.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I propose to refer to some authorities to show just what the course of action has been in connection with this right which has been so much disputed and which we thought had been settled in the interests of local autonomy and public rights. I am not going to cite many of these authorities because we have some cases which deal so fully with the matter that I do not think it is necessary to burden the House with very many references. First of all I am going to refer to the report of the Hon. Sir Allen Ayles-worth, when Minister of Justice, in the Cobalt Lake and Kerr Lake Mining Case Act. I am quoting from Provincial Legislation, volume 2, at page 81, where the issue is shortly stated as follows:
The case upon which the petitioning company relies is therefore briefly that the company having under the provisions of the general mining law of Ontario acquired the right to this jnining property through discovery by Green and the assignment of Green's interest, the Ontario government proceeded to sell the property to the Cobalt Lake Mining Company, disregarding the rights of the petitioning company, and that upon these being asserted in the courts the statute in question was passed, the effect of which really is to transfer the petitioning company's title to the Cobalt Lake Mining Company and to preclude the petitioners from any redress notwithstanding their claim to be the true owners of the property.
There we have a case where the courts are absolutely shut out, where the title is taken away from one and given to the other. That is the issue as stated by Sir Allen Aylesworth in reporting it to this House, that is the issue which he conceives he is considering, and that is the important point to remember in going through his report. The date of his report is April 21, 1908. A little history is given by the writer at page 82, where he states:
The Honourable David Mills, when Minister of Justice, had occasion to report upon an Ontario statute, 1 Edward VII, chapter 21, as to which a petition had been submitted seeking disallowance for the reason, among others, that the act impaired or interfered with an existing contract. The minister stated: "The undersigned conceives that Your Excellency's government is not concerned with the policy of this measure."
Hon. gentlemen will see that that stand was taken as far back as 1897 if my memory is correct.
"It is no doubt intra vires of the legislature, and if it be unfair or unjust or contrary to the principles which ought to govern in dealing with private rights the constitutional recourse is to the legislature, and the acts of the legislature may be ultimately judged by the people."
The undersigned does not consider, therefore, that Your Excellency ought to exercise the power of disallowance in such cases.

The hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) will note that Hon. Mr. David Mills, in precise language, answers the very question he put to me at the opening of this debate. Then again, the same Minister of Justice, in his report of 1901, says:
The undersigned bases his refusal to recommend disallowance upon the fact that the application proceeds upon grounds affecting the substance of the act in regard to matters undoubtedly within the legislative authority of the province and not affecting any matter of dominion policy.
Certainly every word of that applies to this case.
It is alleged that the statute affects pending litigation, and rights existing under previous legislation and grants from the province.
It will be seen that the case here is on all fours with the one mentioned in this report, where the act affected rights existing under previous legislation and grants from the province.
The undersigned considers that such legislation is objectionable in principle, and not justified, unless in very exceptionable circumstances, but Your Excellency's government is not in anywise responsible for the principle of the legislation, and, as has been already stated in this report, with regard to an Ontario statute, the proper remedy in such cases lies with the legislature or its constitutional judges.
Then the next Minister of Justice, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, entirely approves of that course of action. He says:
It appears that litigation was pending between the government and the petitioners at the time of the passing of the act with regard to the petitioners' liability to pay these royalties, and no doubt a very strong case is made out by the petitioners in support of the view that the legislature should have allowed the existing law to operate, and should not have undertaken to legislate so as to diminish or affect existing rights. The undersigned cannot help expressing his disapprobation of measures of this character, but there is a difficulty about Your Excellency in Council giving relief in such cases without affirming a policy which requires Your Excellency's government to put itself to a large extent in the place of the legislature and judge of the propriety of its acts relating to matters committed by the constitution to the exclusive legislative authority of the province.
And the report goes on just in the same way. It shows clearly that no matter how vicious the legislation may be, no matter how wrong it is, the jurisdiction of the province is absolute in connection with the matter which has been placed so entirely in their hands.
There is another case I am going to trouble the House with, and that is the report of Sir Allen Aylesworth in connection with the hydro-electric legislation. In that report, which is dated March 29, 1910, he takes the same stand; in fact, he goes further than he did before; he felt the case was, perhaps, a [DOT] more extreme one. He refers to two deci-

Disallowance
sions of the Privy Council dealing with the question of the British North America Act, and I just want to read one or two references in that connection. Lord Watson, in the case of the Maritime Bank vs. the Receiver General of New Brunswick, says:
The object of the act was neither to weld the provinces into one nor to subordinate provincial governments to a central authority-
That is what my hon. friend's action here has done.
-but to create a federal government in which they should all be represented, entrusted with the exclusive administration of affairs in which they had a common interest, each province retaining its independence and autonomy. That object was accomplished by distributing between the Dominion and the provinces all powers, executive and legislative, and- all public property and revenues which had previously belonged to the provinces, so that the Dominion government should be vested with such of these powers, property and revenues as were necessary for the due performance of its constitutional functions.
And so on. Then he continues:
But, in so far as regards those matters which, by section 92, are specially reserved for provincial legislation-
It is not necessary for me to point out that property and civil rights are by that section specially reserved to the provinces, and that is the only matter that is touched upon at all by this act that has been disallowed.
-the legislation of each province continues to be free from the control of the Dominion and as supreme as it was before the passing of the act.
That is what the House of Lords thinks. Then again, Sir Barnes Peacock, in the case of Hodge vs. The Queen, says:
When the British North America Act enacted that there should be a legislature for Ontario, and that its legislative assembly should have exclusive authority to make laws for the province and for provincial purposes in relation to the matters enumerated in section 92, it conferred powers not in any sense to be exercised by delegation from or as agents of the Imperial parliament, but authority as plenary and as ample within the limits prescribed by Section 92 as the Imperial parliament in the plenitude of its powers possessed and could bestow. Within these limits of subject and area, the local legislature is supreme, and has the same authority as the Imperial parliament or the parliament of the Dominion.
My hon. friend says it is not supreme; that he can at any time interfere and say, "This bill which you have passed dealing with property and civil rights is in my opinion immoral; it is not a far bill and because I do not think it is a fair bill I disallow it." Again, Lord Herschell, in the case of Brophy vs. the Attorney General of Manitoba, says:
In relation to the subjects specified in section 92 of the British North America Act and not falling within those set forth in section 91, the exclusive powers of the provincial legislatures may be said to be absolute.
150i
My hon. friend takes issue with that statement. In the Fisheries case the same learned lord said:
The suggestion that the power might be abused so as to amount to a practical confiscation of property, does not warrant the imposition by the courts of any limit upon the absolute power of legislation conferred. The supreme legislative power in relation to any subject matter is always capable of abuse, but it is not to be assumed that it will be improperly used; if it is, the only remedy is an appeal to those by whom the legislature is elected.
That is a very cogent paragraph, and it shows how dangerous this sort of thing is. Why, Mr. Speaker, if it be right for the Dominion to say to this province or that province, "Your legislation is immoral, therefore we will disallow it," under the same statute and the very same terms you are in effect saying that the British parliament has exactly the same right to oversee, catechise or disallow every thing we do, if they want to. The cases are exactly the same; there is no difference. The terms of the bond are the same;
every word and every comma is the
4 p.m. same; the only change is in the name. My hon. friend says to Nova Scotia: "It is quite true, you have full and ample jurisdiction to deal with these matters, and you are supposed to do the right thing, but I do not think you are doing the right thing so I am going to disallow this legislation." Well, in doing that my hon. friend is inviting for the government exactly the same oversight on the part of the Imperial authorities.
There ought to be some finality and the finality ought to be such as to assure the right of the people concerned. Sir Allen points out: -that it is impossible to suppose that previously to the union of the provinces Her Majesty's government would under the corresponding powers of section 38 of the act on the union of the two provinces of Canada, have disallowed a provincial act for reasons such as those now urged for disallowance of the Ontario Power Commission Amendment Act 1909, and the undersigned is not aware of any reason why the power of disallowance should, in present circumstances be exercised more liberally or upon grounds which would not have previously availed.
This view is not confined to the more recent cases. In the case of Severn vs. the Queen, heard in the Supreme Court in 1878 and reported in volume 2 of the Supreme Court reports, page 96, the judgment of the Chief Justice reads:
Under our system of government the disallowing of statutes passed by a local legislature after due deliberation, asserting a right to exercise powers which they claim to possess under the British North America Act, will always be considered a harsh exercise of power unless in case of a great and manifest necessity and where the act is so clearly beyond the powers of the local legislature that the propriety of interfering would at once be recognized.
Disalloimnce

In another judgment in the same court, to be found at page 131 of the reports, Mr. Justice Fournier declares with reference to the power of veto:
No doubt this extraordinary prerogative exists and could even be applied to a law over which the provincial legislature had complete jurisdiction. But it is precisely on account of its extraordinary and exceptional character that the exercise of this prerogative will always be a delicate matter. It will always be very difficult for the federal government to substitute its opinion instead of that of the legislative assemblies, in regard to matters within their province, without exposing themeselves to be reproached with threatening the independence of the province.
Now, Mr. Speaker, of course the Minister of Justice can point to the, fact that, the right of disallowance has been exercised in other cases, but I do not think that he can do that with respect to one case that is identical in character with the present during the last twenty-five years. We have been growing, we have been ehangiiijt, the public rights are daily becoming more confirmed, the right of the provincial legislature to enact laws within its own sphere has become more and more recognized; my hon. friend cannot find within the last twenty-five years any disallowance which at all resembles the disallowance in this case; indeed, I do not think he can find any such instance since Confederation. Previous to that there had been disallowances such as brought about the indignant protests which Were voiced at the Quebec conference and resulted in the passing of resolutions on the subject. The minister can, however, point to acts which were disallowed because there was a conflict between Dominion policy and provincial policies, between a Dominion administration and a provincial administration; to cases where there was a conflict of Dominion interest as against provincial interest. He can refer to the railroad cases in Manitoba and a good many like cases. Hon. Mr. Doherty, Minister of Justice in the former administration, looked with a little more favouring eye on disallowance and doubtless the present Minister of Justice will refer to some reports on disallowance drawn up by him. He may, perhaps, in the case of the late minister cite dicta suggesting something of the nature of the grounds which are relied upon to justify action in the present case. But he' will find only one case at all resembling the present one where an act was disallowed. That was an act of the province of British Columbia, enacted, I think, in 1917, and disallowed in 1918 by the federal authority simply because there was a conflict between a Dominion contract and a provincial statute. It was the case of the Railway belt. Where , the rates arising under a Dominion contract, were in dispute and

therefore the right of disallowance was ex-.aridsediiiamA drioH daiihfl eril lo noifaeup There is one peculiar thing which goes to show how hard it really is to keep these matters just where they ought to be unless they are left within their proper channels and proper jurisdiction. Why, before the present Minister of Justice was here, and when Mr. Doherty was minister, MacNeil came down to see the minister. And when the Great War Veterans found out how badly this case had gone and how badly MacNeil had been treated they came down and interviewed Mr. Doherty and he told them he could not do anything for theta. He . refused to interfere; he said it was impossible. He told them to go down to Nova Scotia, that it "was a matter in which the local people should act.. Well, after all, it does not, matter very much what is said by this or that minister; we are dealing with a matter of very much greater importance than anything which can be established by the statement of any hon. gentleman. We are dealing with a question to-day which, if this course of action be proceeded with, can be the most formidable challenge to the proper continuance of our Dominion Confederation. If this practice be followed out we are dealing with a question which would enable the central authority to interfere with the deliberations of provincial legislatures, with a question which if it proceeds along these lines, invades the rights of justice possessed by a province and interferes with its legislation. We are dealing with a question to-day which, as I said in opening, was made the subject of the first two counts by the thirteen American colonies when they rose in rebellion; a question which led to the passage of resolutions at the Quebec conference when the provinces were endeavouring to get away from what they felt were improper attempts at interference, those attempts being far less serious than the attempt we have here. The provinces desired to have this power taken away from the Dominion mmister

who might well be interested in politics-if it was to be so used as to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the province, and placed in the hands of the Imperial authorities. I hope my hon. friend on consideration will see that this is a very grave question, and that everyone in the House may take the attitude that the Nova Sbotia legislature is a supreme and sovereign body within its own powers, just the same as any other legislature in this country, and has the right to pass its own laws, under the sections of the act .establishing the legislative rights of the provinces.

Disallowance


Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice):: My hon. friend has asked that the House should declare that the government has been guilty of abuse of the Dominion powers by disallowing chapter 177 of the legislature of the province of Nova Scotia of the year 1921, because such statute is entirely intra vires of the province and does not interfere with the Dominion policy of administration. He declares that this statute, referring to civil rights, was strictly within the jurisdiction of the province, and that there is no power of disallowance in this country which could interfere with such legislation. He has given us the history of the case and has put before the House the facts which gave rise to this statute. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will give my version of the facts, and there may be some little difference between my hon. friend's version and mine.
In 1911 F. W. Sparrow and Francis Mac-Neil were doing business in Montreal as general contractors. They had been in business for some years. MacNeil was a native of Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia. For some time he had been speaking to his partner, trying to induce him to purchase a certain gypsum property situated in the province of Nova Scotia,, for which he had an option. He was urging the purchase of that property for $2,000, stating that they could sell it at a very much increased price and be in a position to meet their liabilities. Sparrow finally accepted the proposition of his partner. They had no money. They went to the Molsons Hank in Montreal and asked for an advance of $2,000. The manager of the Molsons Bank, on their representation, consented to give them $2,000, with the understanding that the money would be used for the purchase of that property.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
Lomer Gouin: I will give the
judgment of the trial judge, who decided in favour of the MacNeil family. I refer to the 47th volume of the Nova Scotia law report, page 408, where I find the judge said:
I fiurl on the Evidence that the gypsum property was bought with the money of Sparrow & MacNeil and not with the individual money of the defendant, Francis J. MacNeil. On this point I discredit the evidence of the defendant, Francis J. MacNeil, and I may add that his manner and demeanour on the witness stand were unsatisfactory and very far from convincing. The $2,000
cheque with the proceeds of which the gypsum property was purchased was a cheque of the firm signed by Sparrow and counter-signed by MacNeil in accordance with their practice in regard to firm cheques. Speaking of this cheque Mr. Johnson, the Manager of the Molsons Bank at Montreal, says: "That cheque was got to buy a gypsum property on Little Bras d'Or Lake, N.S. MacNeil did not see me on the occasion of this cheque, it was asked for by Sparrow and MacNeil; then the firm asked for an advance of $2,000, to complete the payment on this property on which Mr. MacNeil had an option. I gave the firm that advance understanding that it was to be for the benefit of the firm, and that the property when bought would be the property of Sparrow & MacNeil. MacNeil & Sparrow both asked for the advance for the purpose of buying the gypsum property.' I understood from them that this gypsum property was to be the property of the firm; otherwise would not have made the advance." Sparrow's evidence is to the same effect.
This is to show, Mr. Speaker, that the money was advanced to the firm. At that time in April it was perfectly well known that there was some gypsum on that property, and the firm was trying to buy the property because there was gypsum on it. After MacNeil got the $2,000 he went down to Nova Scotia, met the proprietor of that gypsum property, a man named MacLeod. He purchased the property from him, had it conveyed to his sister, Jane MacNeil, and he paid the price agreed upon, $2,000, being the same amount that he had received from the firm of Sparrow and MacNeil. This was on the 18th April 1911. On the 10th May MacNeil gave an option to a man named Fletcher for the sum of S25.000 or $30,000, the option being signed by his partner Sparrow as a witness. This was one month after the conveyance of the same lot to Jane MacNeil. They received on account $1,000, which was forfeited, because Fletcher did not complete his agreement. On the 27th June, a month later, Francis MacNeil deeded to the defendant, Jane MacNeil, certain lands which he had at North Sydney. On the 12th July the firm went into liquidation. On April 12th, at the request of the creditors, the curator Sharpe took action against Francis MacNeil and his sister Jane MacNeil to set aside the two conveyances that I have mentioned. The defendant Jane MacNeil pleaded a general denial. She pretended that she had purchased the property herself, paid for it out of her own money, and that she had acted in good faith. She did not prove any of these lines of defence. At the trial she first tried to establish that she had paid out her own money, but on cross-examination she had to admit that the price was paid by the cheque of Sparrow and MacNeil.
As to the Sydney property, the trial judge declared that that property had been deeded to Jane MacNeil without any consideration;
Disallowance

that the transaction was carried out fraudulently by Francis MacNeil; that Jane MacNeil had no title to such property, and the action was maintained as to that property. As to the gypsum lot, the trial judge accepted another plea of Jane MacNeil to the eifect that some years before, her brother Francis MacNeil had promised her that, on account of the fact that she had taken care of the younger brothers and sisters of the family, he would give [DOT] her a farm. In giving her evidence, she contended that she had spent in that connection some $1,500, .and the judge declared that, while Francis MacNeil had acted fraudulently towards his partner Sparrow, while he had paid the price of that purchase with the money of the firm, Jane MacNeil was in good faith; she was not a party to the fraudulent dealing of her brother; she did not know anything of his fraudulent conduct, and consequently the judge accepted her contention that she was entitled to the property. Jane MacNeil, who was by that judgment losing the North Sydney land, about which the judge declared that there was fraud, accepted that judgment. As to the gypsum property, the curator brought the case to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, and the majority of the judges reversed the first judgment. I will cite to hon. members an appreciation by Mr. Justice Meagher of the evidence given by Francis MacNeil. Mr. Justice Meagher, in the name of the Nova Scotia full bentch, said:
I shall for brevity refer to MacNeil as the defendant who in breach of that understanding with him and his co-partner and in fraud of the latter, and of their creditors, misapplied such money paid for the property with it and caused it to be conveyed to his sister Jennie the other defendant.
He further said:
The appropriation of the money in question to pay an individual debt of the defendant (assuming there was a debt) was at best a gift from the firm to him, and it did not reach so high, because Sparrow was no party to it in any sense. It was an act of the defendant alone, and therefore as to him it was perilously near a theft. He came to Nova Scotia with the money practically in his hands to buy the property for his fiim and then misappropriated it.
As to Jane MacNeil, this is what the judge says:
It cannot be said, having regard to her, (Jane Mac-Neil's) story, take whatever side or version of it you please, that she was a purchaser for value in good faith. It was not her money that paid for it, neither was it money to which she was entitled in any sense, nor has she any claim aginst her brother which she could enforce by legal proceedings. It is a fact pregnant with suggestions that she has not said one word in support of the good faith. I mean in regard to the source whence the money was derived, and the solvency in her belief of the firm out of whose pockets it came. She remained discreetly silent. The defendant knew the firm was utterly insolvent, so much so that its sus-

pension could be, in his belief, a matter of a very few weeks at the most. He knew before he came down with this money he would have to turn to something else, and with the formation of plans for the future in his mind, it would be strange indeed if he would not discuss them with his sister and other members of the family and thus disclose the reason for such change. A word of inquiry on her part would have disclosed the situation. She knew the defendant did not owe her any such sum and therefore an inquiry would have been quite natural. She knew her brother's liability with respect to the Mackenzie debt, so called. She knew it was not paid and had been outstanding for years, and therefore she could not have felt assured that the $2,000 came from him or that he was solvent.
Later in the judgement it is said:
The pleaded defence consists of a general denial and averment that she bought this property and paid for it with her own money and in good faith. She did not prove either at the trial, and did not even attempt it. The farm theory and the support theory are kept out of sight in the pleaded defence and m the answers to the interrogatories as well. A false story is set up in the latter.
Appeal was taken by Miss MacNeil to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in 1915 maintained the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. Mr. Justice Idington, in rendering the judgment of the majority, declared that the transaction in question was either a gift or simulated to cover fraud. This judgment was duly registered in the registry office of the county of Victoria in August, 1915. The curator in July, 1915, sold that property to Gordon Fletcher for the sum of 12,500. Fletcher in turn sold it to the Plaster Quarries Company, and in June, 1916, that company went to the Eastern Trust Company and secured a bond issue of some $150,000, of which $27,500 worth was sold at par and is still in public hands.


Mr MEIGHEN:: Who is Fletcher?


Lomer Gouin: I do not know who he is


Henry Lumley Drayton: He was one of the witnesses.


Lomer Gouin: It is no crime to be a witness. The younger brother Stanley MacNeil, had been absent from the country during the war, serving as a soldier at the front. On his return to Canada he pretended that he had discovered that a miscarriage of justice had taken place in the case of Sharp and his sister Jane. He started a campaign and induced a member of the Nova Scotia legislature to introduce in that legislature a bill to vest that gypsum property in his sister. This was done at the end of the session of 1921, without any notice to any of the interested parties.

Disallowance


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought two members of the government were directors of the Eastern Trust Company


Lomer Gouin: That I did not know. It makes no difference. No notice was given to the Plaster Company as I am informed. No notice was given to Fletcher, or to Curator Sharp, or to the creditors of Sparrow and MacNeil in Quebec and Ontario.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was there not the usual statutory notice given under the rules of the legislature of Nova Scotia?


Lomer Gouin: I am informed that there was no such rule.


Mr. KYTE:: The rules of the legislatue of Nova Scotia do not call for notice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They should.


Lomer Gouin: On that occasion all sorts of representations were made in order to establish that as a matter of fact there was a miscarriage of justice. Some of the interested parties, some of the petitioners, or some of their friends, went to the extent of declaring that the judges who had decided against them in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia regretted their action and that if they had to adjudge again the same case they would render a judgment in favour of the MacNeil family. It was on that occasion that one of the judges, Mr. Justice Meagher, wrote an open letter in which he says among other things:
If the legislature commits itself to the policy it adopted in this instance of reversing decisions reached after hearing both parties to the litigation fully, upon ex parte statements of the defeated party and without notice or inquiry, there is not much use in parties invoking the aid of the courts and incurring heavy expenses to redress a wrong or determine a right, if, after it has been decided by the highest courts of the land the legislature annuls the decisions and destroys all rights acquired by them.
Further on he states what my hon. friend has quoted:
To the credit of the Hon. C. P. Chisholm be it said he did his best alone and unaided to prevent the passage of this unexampled legislation. I am persuaded it is impossible to produce another instance like it in any British country.
Mr. ME1GHEN: Did Mr. Justice Meagher write that public letter to the press while still occupying a seat on the bench?


Lomer Gouin: No.


Arthur Meighen: He was retired.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: The legislature passed the act six years after the judgment had been rendered, and in the meantime Judge Meagher had retired.


Lomer Gouin: Chief Justice Town-shend is represented as favouring that legislation. Here is what he wrote on the 17th of June, 1922:
I never dreamed that any legislature of a civilised country could be guilty of such an outrage as to pass an act setting aside the solemn judgment of a court, as I learn has been done in this case, and I do sincerely trust that you will succeed in having such a gross violation of constitutional right disallowed by the Dominion government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: That is right.


Lomer Gouin: The statute declares that the land in question is vested in Miss MacNeil in fee simple nowithstanding any proceedings or judgment, legal or otherwise, in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, or on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. In other words, the statute is intended to operate directly and entirely against any judgments rendered by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia or the Supreme Court of Canada. This statute, at the request of the petitioners, was carefully considered. We heard Stanley MacNeil, the young brother, who now claims that he has a title to the property. We heard the petitioners, I say; and after a full consideration of the whole case we came to the conclusion that it constituted such an extraordinary piece of legislative injustice that it could be regarded as amongst those conceivable cases which, according to all ministers of justice who have occupied the position I now hold in the government, would justify the exercise of the power of disallowance. My hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) has based the whole of his argument on the contention that since the report made by Sir Allen Aylesworth in the Cobalt case, no power of disallowance has existed, or that the power of disallowance was denied by most of the ministers of justice and should not be exercised. He quoted in the last part of his remarks two judgments of the Supreme Court, and in reply to an hon. member who asked whether he did not think that such legislation was so repugnant as to justify the federal government in exercising the power of disallowance, he suggested that there was no such power. Well, in these very same judgments which were read by my hon. friend we find that the judges say that there are such circumstances as to render that power applicable, and all the ministers who have had to consider this legislation have held the same view. The hon. member quoted the report of Sir Allen Aylesworth and also the report of the Hon. Mr. Mills and tried to convince the House that the latter gentleman was of the opinion he had expressed. If we refer to what
Disallowance

the Hon. Mr. Mills said in relation to the British Columbia statute, Edward VII, page 45, we shall find the following:
It is alleged that the statute affects pending litigation and lights existing under previous legislation, and grants from the province. The undersigned considers that such legislation is objectionable in principle and not justified unless in very exceptional circumstances.
In other words, the Hon. Mr. Mills admitted that there were cases in which the exercise of the power of disallowance was justifiable.


Arthur Meighen: Does not the hon. gentleman see, if he will read the sentence through, that the exceptional circumstances are not because of grossness of injustice but because of the infringing of other lines of policy?


Lomer Gouin: It is alleged that the statute affects pending litigation and rights existing under previous legislation and grants from the province. The undersigned considers that such legislation is objectionable in principle and not justified unless in very exceptional circumstances.
This was because the legislation was not of such an extraordinary character as to justify disallowance. Even Sir Oliver Mowat, who worked so heartily in this country as a political man to have the rights of the provinces recognised and respected, declared, as Minister of Justice in this House, that the power of disallowance might under special circumstances be exercised. I would refer the House to the very .volume quoted by my hon. friend at page 402. Here is what Sir Oliver Mowat said at page 402:
There can be no doubt that the legislation complained of is exclusively within provincial authority either as matter of property and civil rights or private and local matters within the province, and although the provision is somewhat of an unusual one by which the city is compelled to submit to arbitration a claim of upwards of thirty years' standing upon conditions upqn which the arbitrators are to decide apparently not upon Jegal grounds, but upon grounds of order and conscience, yet the undersigned does not consider the injustice complained of is such or so apparent as would justify Your Excellency in interfering to exercise the pqvver of disallowance, with a matter which is otherwise entirely under provincial authority.
JiHlil .' lOK ;>]).'	-0 V;!;',.	.	1;
We had the same view given by our courts, and I find that Chief Justice Draper in a case of Goodhue decided in Ontario, a decision which will be found in Grant's Chancery 19, page 384, where Judge Draper ruled:
Buch bills are still subject to the consideration of the Governor General, who as the representative of the sovereign is entrusted with authority, to which a ri6trespondmg dutj'- attaches, to disallow any law contrary to reason or to natural justice and equity.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would not my hon. friend think that was entirely overruled by the later decisions of the House of Lords and also of our own Supreme Court? That would be much nearer' in point.
fSir Lomer Gouin.l


Lomer Gouin: There is no decision I know of which ever reversed that doctrine. Even my immediate predecessor in office, the Hon. Mr. Doherty, clearly said that the power of disallowance was still in existence. Here are his words:
The undersigned entertains no doubt, however, that the power is constitutionally capable of exercise and may on occasions be properly invoked for the purpose of preventing, not inconsistently with the public interest, irreparable injustice or undue interference with private rights or property through the operation of local statutes intra vires of the legislatures.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What case was that?


Lomer Gouin: The Alberta case, January, 1912.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was any action taken on it?


Lomer Gouin: No special action was ever taken, but we have his views on that very important question.
. Sir HENRY DRAYTON: Quite right, you have his obiter to the extent it goes.


Lomer Gouin: I should like to give to the House, Mr. Speaker, the opinion of Lord Hobhouse, expressed in- the ease of the Bank of Toronto vs. Lambe, which we find in Volume 12, Appeal Cases, at page 587. His Lordship said:
An act of parliament which makes an elaborate distribution of the whole field of legislative authority (i3 to be found in the British North America Act. It gives the authority) between the two legislative bodies, and at the same time provides for the federated provinces a carefully balanced constitution, under which * no one of the parts can pass laws for itself except under the control of the whole acting through the Governor General.
Now, my hon. friend was telling us a few moments ago that since confederation we could not cite a case where the power of disallowance had been exercised in matters where the legislation dealt with civil rights exclusively. Well, on referring to the Mac-Laren ease, dealing with rivers and streams, we find that under Sir John A. Macdonald's government, when Mr. James Macdonald- afterwards Chief Justice of Nova Scotia- was acting as Minister of Justice, a statute was disallowed, for the reasons which I find in the report, namely:
I think the power of the local legislature to take away the rights of one man and invest them in another, as is done in this act, is exceedingly doubtful, but assuming that such right does in strictness exist,
I think it devolves upon this government to see that such power is not exercised if flagrant violation of private rights and natural justice, especially as in this case, interfere with private rights overrides a decision of

Disallowance
a court of competent jurisdiction by declaring retrospectively that the law always was and is different from that laid down by the court.
In that case the judgment was dependent, we might say, on a question of law. In the present case it was the finding of facts which were declared to be fraudulent, and it is because of such fraud that the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia and the Supreme Court of Canada gave their judgments.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is not that citation the case whieh in the first instance gave rise to the Quebec conference? And is it not also true that while that position was at first taken by the Dominion, the precise bill was again passed and was allowed to become law?


Lomer Gouin: This was one of the reasons why the conference was called at Quebec. There were many other questions considered at that very important conference.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly, but it was a reason.


Lomer Gouin: I admit that the very same statute Was passed three times by the Ontario legislature. Twice it was disallowed, but when the Privy Council reversed that judgment of the Chancery Court of Ontario the government said: "There is no longer any legislative injustice because the Privy Council has decided that the judgment should be reversed." In this case the position is the contrary. We had parties fighting before the courts in Nova Scotia and before the Supreme Court of Canada. Judgment was rendered and five years after, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, without any notice to the interested party, one of the parties goes to the legislature of Nova Scotia and secures the passing of such legislation. My hon. friend was speaking of finality in litigation and legislation. Will there ever be any such finality in this country if we are to say that such a statute as the one now under consideration is to be assented to by this parliament?
There is something else which the hon. member did mention but which he did not insist upon. This legislation is extraordinary in its character; it is extreme to the limit in its injustice. It was so found by the judges who tried the case and by the public generally. When we had to consider the merits of that statute we wrote to the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and the reply was to the effect that the government of that province was satisfied that the statute should be disallowed. My hon. friend has been referring to the dicta of certain ministers of
justice, which are not binding on himself, on his party, or on this parliament. But I would like to point out that before the present government was charged with the administration of the affairs of this country the minister of justice of that day had already notified the government of Nova Scotia that that legislation would have to be repealed or that it would be disallowed. My hon. friend will find in the records which he has had in his hands for a long time a letter from Mr. Newcombe, Deputy Minister of Justice, written to the Attorney General of Nova Scotia in November 8, 1921, as follows:
The minister desires that I should draw your attention to a recent act of the legislature of Nova Scotia, chapter 177, of 1921, an act to vest certain lands in Victoria county in Jane E. MacNeil. It is represented to the department that this statute in effect reverses the judgments of the courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, in which it was ultimately decided that the defendant, Jane E. MacNeil, had acquired the title fraudulently, held the lands in trust and should convey them to the curator for the benefit of creditors. It would be the duty of the Minister of Justice, as you will perceive, to consider the propriety of recommending disallowance of this statute, and he would be glad, in considering the matter, to have before him any explanation or representation which your government would desire to submit.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister say that committed the previous Minister of Justice to recommending disallowance?


Lomer Gouin: That is what I infer from that letter. I believe that if the minister of Justice of that day had been in charge of affairs in the month of August, when we did disallow that statute, he would have recommended that disallowance and my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition would have voted for it.


Joseph Archambault: Who was the Minister of Finance at the time?


Lomer Gouin: Mr. Speaker, we
found in this statute such gross injustice that we thought it our duty to give to the parties hurt by the legislation a remedy which they could not get in any other way. We disallowed it because, having asked the advice of the government of Nova Scotia, we were told by the attorney general, speaking for the whole executive, that they had no objection to such disallowance. But there is more than that. Reference has been made by my hon. friend to the report of Sir Allen Aylesworth in the Cobalt case, and he pretends that that expression of opinion with regard to the right of disallowance should be accepted by this government for ever, and that in no case should disallowance be exercised when the legislation in question relates strictly to matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the province. But Sir
Disallowance

Allen Aylesworth qualified his expression of opinion in that respect; he declared that his observations did not apply to cases where the act was of a merely domestic or local character or did not affect any matter of Dominion interest. Another of the ministers of Justice, the predecessor of Sir Allen Aylesworth, Mr. Mills, has already expressed his views on the very same point in a Prince Edward Island case. He declared:
The power of disallowance has, however, been vested in Your Excellency, not only for maintaining the constitutional lines of legislative authority, but also for preventing the provincial legislatures from interfering with Dominion policy in matters in which it is competent under the constitution to the Dominion government to have a policy. There may be provincial legislation which can have effect until superseded by parliament and as to such the undersigned may be properly exercised if the legislation be, in the opinion of Your Excellency's government, prejudicial to Dominion interests.
What made this legislation most unacceptable to the people of this country was the fact that it was passed five years after a judgment in the matter had been rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada, and that it deprived a subject of his property for the benefit of another subject without compensation of any kind, declaring that the only title which could be claimed by Miss Jane MacNeil was a title which had been declared fraudulent by the highest court of the land.
I have given the main grounds upon which the disallowance of this statute was based. I wish to add this-and I speak, perhaps, more personally than as minister-that if a province can by legislation nullify a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on the ground that it deals with civil rights which are under the control of the province; if that principle is accepted in one case, why should it not be accepted in respect to all the judgments rendered in the past by the Supreme Court of Canada? Why should it not be. accepted for all the cases now pending before the Supreme Court, and why should all the provinces not be permitted to legislate to the effect that in the future no judgment of the Supreme Court affecting civil rights would be accepted in those provinces? Mr. Speaker, when I read that comment of my predecessor, Mr. Mills, that the Governor General in Council may intervene and exercise the right of disallowance when there is matter in the provincial legislation affecting Dominion policy, and when I look at this Supreme Court of ours which was created under the provisions of clause 101 of the British North America Act; when I recall that parliament provided for such a court and, by implied interpretation, provided at the same time that its judgments

should not be affected by provincial legislation; when I recall that we have before us a statute, the declared purpose of which is not only to stay the judgment of the supreme court but to say that the law is the contrary of that which was adjudicated by the supreme court of Canada; when I recall these facts I ask-Is the parliament of Canada disposed to declare that in such extraordinary cases as the one we have been discussing this afternoon we should never exercise the power of disallowance. I may have been in error but I did recommend such disallowance because I thought it was as much in the interest of the provinces to do so as it was in the interest of the Dominion.
I have listened with great interest to the remarks made by my hon. friend He has spoken with eloquence of provincial rights. Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this House more decided partisan than myself as to the rights of the pi'ovinces. By reason of lifelong political affiliations, by tradition and by instinct

I may add, and as a result of having occupied the position of premier of one of the large provinces of Canada for over fifteen years-I have become and I remain a provincial autonomist. But having the experience that I have acquired while administering the affairs of that province, I do realize and understand the importance-in the interest of the provinces and of the country as a whole-of our aiding the provincial governments in certain cases to curb and redress abuses of legislative powers. When we had before us what we considered a request from the government of Nova Scotia, a letter in which it was said that they had tried, that they had introduced a bill for the purpose, to repeal that legislation of 1921 and that the only reason why the bill did not pass, or at any rate one of the reasons, was that the session was closed too soon; and when we had the clear declaration from the Attorney General of the province to the effect that the provincial government offered no opposition, no objection of any kind, to our disallowing such legislation, we understood that this was practically a request to disallow and it was for that reason we did so. Mr. Speaker, we hope that the House will ratify our decision which has been rendered, as I repeat, for the good of the provinces and for the good of the country as a whole.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, one cannot withhold congratulations to both the mover of the amendment and to the preceding speaker for the very able and very clear way in which not only the facts

Disallowance
but also the law governing the matter have been placed before the House. It is an important matter. In my humble judgment it is an essential and vital matter, if the fabric of this Dominion is to be preserved, that we should have a clear definition and a clear understanding of provincial rights and that the Dominion authority should never invade the provincial sphere except for the very gravest and soundest reasons. I suggest, that when one clears away much of the underbrush which surrounds this matter it largely resolves itself into a question of provincial rights. The simple facts in connection with this matter have been amply narrated but let me summarize them in a moment. The Supreme Court of Canada, the highest forum in this land, held that Miss MacNeil held certain lands as a trustee for the curator of an insolvent partnership in which her brother was interested. As a result of that judgment the property, the so-called gypsum property, became vested in the name of this curator. He subsequently sold and disposed of the property. The Nova Scotia legislature, for reasons which we must presume were adequate, passed an act the effect of which was to vest the property once more in the name of Miss MacNeil, passing it, however, subject to the right of any complainants to bring action to establish their rights within a limited time.
The question which appeals to me is this: Can there be any question whatsoever that this legislation of the province of Nova Scotia was intra vires of that legislature? I do not believe it for a single moment. The Minister of Justice would not deny that. The legislature of Nova Scotia can legislate within its own special fields if it does not encroach upon the powers of the Dominion under the British North America Act. That, I think, is clear. Then next we have letters written by the Deputy Minister of Justice-who I am informed was himself professionally interested in the litigation-to the Deputy Attorney General of Nova Scotia suggesting that this was very bad legislation and urging-as he had a perfect right to do and I think he adopted a proper course in so doing-urging the Nova Scotia legislature to repeal the act which it had formerly placed on its statute book. The Nova Scotia legislature, for reasons which to it also must have been sufficient, decided that it would not repeal the legislation in question. The bill introduced for that purpose failed of passage and subsequently the act was disallowed by the Minister of Justice.
Now, the Minister of Justice has stated that he received representations from the government of Nova Scotia urging him to disallow this statute. I have had an opportunity of seeing some of the papers and apparently what the provincial government said was in effect, "We have no objection to your disallowing this act but please remember that it is without prejudice to our rights: also understand that it is not to be taken as a precedent under any circumstance." Nova Scotia closed the door, so far as the action of the Minister of Justice is concerned to ever having that case used against it as a precedent. But I ask the Minister of Justice "What about the position of the province from which I come?" Their rights have not been preserved. The government of Nova Scotia has no right and did not presume to exercise any right to ask the Minister of Justice to consider this case as without precedent so far as Alberta or any other province in the Dominion was concerned. So that as the situation stands to-day, the action of the Minister of Justice constitutes, if I am correct, a precedent which can be invoked at any time against legislation passed by any province in the Dominion of Canada with the exception of the . province of Nova Scotia. That seems to be the situation.
Now if we are going to maintain our federation we must see to it that there is no infringement, so far as this government is concerned, of the proper rights of any provincial government, and even if that provincial government abuses its powers. Of jjourse we have the right of disallowance if 'the provincial government acts in excess of that power. There can be no question about that. If it infringes the field of Dominion legislation, then quite properly the Minister of Justice should intervene, but if it is only an abuse of the powers of that government, then I suggest that the Minister of Justice should never intervene, but he should leave that legislature to the determination by the highest judgment which they have, the judgment of the electors of the province to whom they are responsible. An amusing incident in connection with this debate to my mind is the fact that the hon. mover of the amendment places his case and relies upon the judgment of a former Liberal Minister of Justice, Sir Allen Aylesworth, while the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) on the other hand quotes with approval the view of the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald. It is an indication that, as parties are invested with responsibilities, perhaps their views change on particular matters. Now I have had an

Disallowance
opportunity of perusing many of these decisions, and I want to say frankly at the outset that it seems to me that the view entertained by Sir Allen Aylesworth is the only solid foundation on which the security of provincial rights can be maintained. I want to read, in connection with the case already mentioned, the Florence mining case, somewhat more in detail the views which he expressed- In discussing the matter he wrote as follows.:
It is not intended by the British North America Act that the power of disallowance shall be exercised for the purpose of annulling provincial legislation even though your Excellency's ministers consider the legislation unjust or oppressive or in conflict with recognized legal principles, so long as such legislation is within the power of the provincial legislature to enact it.
Subsequently, on March 1, 1909, Sir Allen amplified his views before this parliament, and I commend the attention of the House to the views which he then expressed. He said:
And in what I have to say upon the subject to-day I want, as far as possible, to discover the point of view which should be taken, I think, by anyone occupying the position I have the honour to hold. The large question of principle which was presented for consideration was simply whether or not the provincial legislature has the power, without control, to take one man's property and give it to another and to take away from the person injured any right or redress in the courts. I entertain in all honesty and sincerity the view that it is of vital consequence to the well-being of this Dominion that the rights of the provinces to legislate within the scope of their authority should not be in-terefered with, and that every provincial legislature, within the limits prescribed for it by the terms of the British North America Act, is and ought to be supreme. I believe that this is a principle of greater importance to the welfare of this Dominion as a whole than even the sacredness of private rights or of public ownership. I am willing to go thus far in the enunciation of the views I am stating to this House, that a provincial legislature, having, as is given to it by the terms of the British North America Act, full and absolute control over property and civil rights within the province, might, if it saw fit to do so, repeal Magna Charts itself. I know no difference between that most sacred bulwark of liberty and of property to every British subject and any piece of legislation. I take it that no one would dispute the power of a provincial legislature to repeal the Habeas Corpus Act, or any other charter of liberty which Englishmen possess and in precisely the same view I take the ground that rights of property are subject only to the control of provincial legislatures within Canada. Having that view, it seemed to me, in considering this legislation that I was not, as advising His Excellency in Council, called upon to think at all of the injustice, of the outrageous character it might be, of the legislation, but that my one inquiry ought to be whether or not there was anything in the legislation itself which went beyond the power of the provincial legislature to pass a law referring alone to property and civil rights within the province. In that view I had the help of opinions which had been expressed by my immediate predecessors in office, the Hon. David Mills, and Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick.
And after quoting these references, already referred to, he said:
I share these views. I believed* as I still believe, that this is the true spirit of our constitution. These are

considerations entirely for the provincial legislature. It represents the people of the province; its p^ejnbers are elected by the same electors who send us to this House, and I certainly seek to put every provincial legislature, within the scope of its jurisdiction, as laid down in the British North America Act, upon an absolutely level footing with the parliament of Canada itself so far as its legislation is concerned. I know no difference and can sese no distinction to be drawn from the true reading of the language used in the British North America Act."
I think Sir Allen Aylesworth in that statement has indicated the true principles, and if perchance the legislation by the legislature of Nova Scotia is an abuse of its rights-and I am not going to argue that question-then the Nova Scotia legislature should be left to the consideration of the electors of that province. May I conclude by just referring to a state-, ment in one of the letters written, by the Deputy Minister of Justice,Which I think puts the situation very shortly? He says:
Disallowance of this sort of statute, which is I suppose intra vires upon the ground of its Conflict with the principle of justice, would introduce a principle of action here with respect to provincial legislation which it might afterwards be found difficult to restrict within due limits.
Who will plade a restriction upon the Minister of Justice? Who may appeal from the action of the Minister of Justice? Is there any appeal available which one may take, if parliament is to approve of interference in this particular ease? I suggest that there is none. I suggest that in a case such as this where there is no appeal against disallowance, that the provinces only, if acting in excess of their powers, should feel the full measure of the disallowing power in the hands of the Minister of Justice, but if only abusing that power, should be left to the proper forum the electors of their own province.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: There seems to be quite a difference of opinion between the views' expressed by the Minister of Justice and those expressed by my hon friend who has just spoken. If we accept the view of the Minister of Justice, I think we must say goodbye to the provincial authority. If we accept the view of the member for Calgary (Mr. Shaw) as he quotes Sir Allen Aylesworth, I think no opportunity whatever would be left for federal interference. The line lies somewhere between the two views which have been expressed to us, and I am still willing to accept Sir Allen Aylesworth as the authority , because I think when fully quoted lie has .provided a solution. In the first place, it seems futile to say that the introduction of . the power, of disallowance into the Brifisji liforth America Act meant that tile federal government was only to disallow

Dimllo wan&e
23G3
legislation that was beyond the power of the provinces to enact. There would be no need of reserving the power of disallowance when the disallowance itself would be absolutely futile because the legislation would be set aside by the courts.
On the other hand, while we recognize that we are governed by a written constitution, we must bear in mind that this written constitution is, at least, supplemented by the preservation of those constitutional principles which we inherit from Great Britain, and that we are developing an unwritten constitution side by side with the written letter. It is that development that we trace in the series of opinions given by ministers of justice which have moved all the way from absolute, arbitrary interference down to the latest standpoint that has been taken, in which Sir Allen Aylesworth declared that we ought not to interfere with the legislative action of any province, provided it was within the ambit of its powers, unless-and here is what I think the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Shaw) omitted-the result of the action of the province is such as practically to imperil the external relations of Canada. It is possible by provincial legislation to hold Canada out as a country repudiating her obligations. For instance, if we had such an extraordinary occurrence as a solemn repudiation by a province of its provincial debt, that would so affect the credit of Canada as a whole that interference would be absolutely necessary. But aside from and clear of all that extraordinary line of cases, which we think can never occur, it must be patent that if we are to preserve provincial autonomy, we must have the right of seeing things differently from the people outside of our own province, of acting differently from the way in Which they would act under those circumstances. Unless we preserve that right, the whole scheme of the Canadian constitution falls to the ground; we shall have erected a superior legislature called the federal, and we shall have put the provincial legislature into the position of an inferior, bound to obey the dictates of the superior. That is not the scheme of confederation. nor the interpretation of confederation by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. p vaHOIlM HUHTJIA
In a case some years ago of the liquidator of the Maritime Bank against the Receiver General, a case that came from my province and that a gentleman . who occupied a yery. distinguished position in this House at one time *-I refer to the late Doctor Stookton-carried to the Privy Council and finally won, a most important constitutional principle was laid
down. It is this, that there is neither inferiority nor superiority, but simply a division. The whole executive and legislative field might properly be described by a circle. You do not cut through the circle at a diameter and say half lies on one side and half on the *>ther. But you cut a segment out of that circle, and you say that, within that segment, within that ambit of power, the province is just as sovereign as the Dominion. The Dominion cannot infringe upon the powers of the little sovereignty; the little sovereignty must not cross over the line and interfere with the larger one. But the two are sitting on the parhe/'plane, and the lieutenant governor Of a, province represents his Majesty just as fully, directly and completely within the ambit of provincial power as the Governor General represents the sovereign within the ambit, of federal power.
The Minister of Justice says that this was such a. case as to call for interference. I should like to examine, that, for a moment. I sympathize with him in being met as he was by the absolutely pusillanimous attitude of the government of Nova Scotia. I do not think the government of Nova Scotia is entitled to .take any credit for standing up for constitutional rights. I do not think the other provinces need thank Nova Scotia, and I do not think Nova Scotia need look upon her letter in this respect with anything but shame. It was a cowardly act. It threw the responsibility upon the Minister of Justice. It meant simply one of two things: Either "we believed that this legislation was right and we abandoned it as a Bet of cowards;'' or "we sat by in the legislature as a government and supinely allowed something to be enacted into law that we knew and believed was wrong and that to-day we abandon." The government of Nova Scotia must take one side or the other, and there is no credit and no pride to them in any possible position they have taken in that letter. Bilt when the Minister of Justice receives it, it is a way out for him. It is the only excuse he has. He has neither tradition nor authority back of him in the action he has taken, and his sounder ground is to rely upon the cowards of the government of Nova Scotia.
My hon. friend has spoken with great respect, as we all do, of the decisions of the Supreme Court of panada, Rut .it, is possible, without fault in the. Supreme Court of Canada, without fault in the Privy Council of the Empire, that error may creep into judgment. You cannot stop witnesses from lying; you cannot stop counsel from overlooking points of
Disallowance

importance; you cannot prevent evidence failing to be discovered that may be very vital for a decision, according to justice, on any matter. Supposing something of the kind happens. I cannot and I will not discuss the details of this particular matter-other members of the House are more familiar with them than I am -but let me suppose an instance that the legislature of Nova Scotia was convinced that, by a horrible error, injustice had been done, even if that injustice had been perpetrated through the action of the highest court within the realm, the Privy Council itself. Will hon. members tell me that a legislature, that a parliament in any part of the British Empire, has yet ceased to be a court, the high court of the realm, to which any subject may bring his plaint and get the justice given to him by the common sense of his fellow men.
There are in the Empire higher courts than any courts of law. I agree that we should never, except upon the most extraordinary of cases, substitute our will as legislators for the decision of a court; but a case can arise, great enough, important enough, to demand that interference, and the legislature would be cowardly which did not interfere when the proper case arose. That, in regard to property and civil rights in any province, is a matter for the legislature of that province, and it is not a matter for the decision of the Minister of Justice or his colleagues in the cabinet. If you say it is, then I ask you-where are you going to draw the line? What particular bit of legislation will be sacred from federal attack? ,1 cannot imagine any. You can say that any particular bit of legislation does injustice to someone. Take the particular case that we are considering. To rvhom was real injustice done? As I understand this legislation, while the title was vested in a certain person by the legislation, yet litigation could be recommended. This was simply an opportunity to reopen the case, so that with all the facts that had come to light, with all the additional skill that could be brought to bear, there was reasonable hope that justice would, at least, be effected through the agency of a legal tribunal. Is that wrong? The Minister of Justice has to resort to that himself in the supreme question of life and death, because by an amendment to our Criminal Code it has been provided-and I have seen this done-that after the highest court in Canada has decided that a man shall be hanged, the Minister of Justice may step in and say that the case must be tried over again.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is a matter of clemency.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: No, that is not clemency;
that is justice. That is what this parliament has said that the Minister of Justice can do. It is not reprieving the man; it is not pardoning the man. Pardoning is clemency; reprieving may be clemency; but this is neither the one nor the other. This is simply saying, we have a doubt as to the way in which your courts have functioned and we will give that man a new trial. This high court of parliament changed the law so that it would be possible to do justice in that particular way, and the Minister of Jusice of the present day overrules the legislature of Nova Scotia which has done with regard to civil rights, within the ambit of its jurisdiction, precisely what this high court of parliament did with regard to the criminal law of the realm. I shall not continue the discussion except to refer to what Sir Allen Aylesworth said in one case:
In the opinion of the undersigned, a suggestion of the abuse of power, even so as to amount to practical confiscation of the property, or that the exercise of power has been unwise or indiscreet, should appeal to Your Excellency's government with no more effect than it does to the ordinary tribunals, and remedy in such case is, in the words of Lord Herschel, an appead to those by whom the legislature is elected.
I might continue the subject at considerable length, but there is, I think no need to do so. Sir Allen Aylesworth has pointed out a fair, a reasonable and a just limitation upon the text he lays down and that is that when the proper exercise of provincial legislation may, if the legislation seems to be unwise, impinge upon the credit of Canada or the functioning of Canadian legislation, even though there is no direct interference, there we may have a case for interference by way of disallowance.
I would invite the Minister of Justice to base himself solidly upon that doctrine, which alone will preserve for us the autonomy of the provinces, an autonomy which is every day in greater danger of being lost in proportion as the federal government of Canada becomes more powerful and enters into fresh fields of jurisdiction. I do not know that the minister wants any advice from this side of the House, but I would advise him to base his action at best solely on the most conspicuous pusillanimity of the Nova Scotia legislature, and let it go at that.


Arthur Meighen: Though the government seems helplessly at bay, it does appear to me worth while to drive home the lesson of this debate a little further. I am sorry that the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) has fallen into the error which in my humble judgment he has committed; I am also surprised that he has made this error. I do not think he has made

Disallowance
a case for his government; and of course the whole government shares responsibility with him. The minister has made the best case he could, but it falls to pieces on anything approaching a close examination. As I commence my remarks I want to dwell for a moment upon the one phase of the subject which, I think, has not yet received justice- at the hands of the House. Inasmuch as we argue that the colour of the legislation, the goodness or the badness of it, the righteousness or the wickedness of it, is not a matter for us to decide and never was a matter for this government to pass upon, we are only too likely to assume that the subject matter that came before the government was something violently and undoubtedly wrong, something which there could be no discussion upon; that the merits were all on one side and the demerits on the other. My investigation of the case leads me to no such conclusion. While I fully agree with what my hon. friend to my right who has just sat down (Mr. Baxter) says about the pusillanimity of the government of Nova Scotia, I would apply no such language to the conduct of the legislature in passing the law in question. It may have been right or it may have been wrong; there is great room for argument either way. I know it was the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice, it may have been the opinion of the Minister of Justice in November, 1921, that it was not right, that it was wrong. I know it was the opinion of the deputy minister that it was very wrong. I did not know so at the time; in fact, I did not hear of the case until some time in the fall of 1922. The matter never came before the late government as a government at all. But what are the merits or the demerits of the legislation? It is quite true that three to two of the Supreme Court of Canada found that Jane MacNeil held certain land in trust and that she had obtained the trusteeship by fraud. I am not quite sure that even those words are not an extreme statement of the case. It is equally true that the other two judges held otherwise. It is true, as well, that two out of three of the judges of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia previously held the opinion subsequently expressed by the three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada; and it is equally true that another judge held otherwise. It is true also that the judge who tried the case, who within very narrow limits of appeal was the final arbiter of the facts, who was the arbiter of the law subject to full appeal, who saw the witnesses, and who got the facts at first hand, held that Jane
MacNeil was entitled of her own right, and that her conduct throughout was innocent in every way. Such is the judicial history of the matter. But there is more. The records show as well that the property subsequently was sold by the curator, for whom Jane MacNeil was finally held to be trustee, to one of the witnesses for what was in effect a nominal sum, a witness who was one of the chief of those who secured the verdict, and upon whom the courts relied in reversing the finding of the trial judge. That is not the only fact that subsequently was disclosed; there were many others. But I do not dwell upon them here
When I read a letter the original of which I feel certain I saw and a copy of which I have before me which was brought down in the return, I am sure that the House will agree that there was subsequent evidence placed before the legislature of Nova Scotia upon the faith of which the legislature in its wisdom felt that greater justice would be done by throwing open again the doors of the courts rather than by holding them fast and closed. The letter I am about to read is signed by Sir Charles Townshemd, one of the judges of appeal in Nova Scotia, who reversed the finding of the trial judge favourable to Jane MacNeil, the same judge who subsequently wrote a letter in 1922, quoted by the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), in which he reprimanded the legislature of Nova Scotia for passing the legislation which it did pass. Now, I may parenthetically remark here that I question very much the wisdom of judges of the bench, whether in the actual exercise of their function as judges, or after retirement, writing letters to the press or to public men commenting upon legislation affecting judgments of their own. It seems to me it is a practice that needs no encouragement at our hands but rather reprobation. One letter has however been read by the Minister of Justice; I will now read another which is infinitely more to the point, as to the merits of the case as between Jane MacNeil and her assailants in title. I refer to a letter written by Sir Charles Townshend to Stanley MacNeil, the returned soldier claimant of the property, dated April 11, 1921.
Dear Sir,-I received to-day your letter, and as I informed you when you called upon me some time ago when the new evidence was presented, it would be highly improper for a judge to infer or comment on a decision of the court after it had passed from his consideration or the bench, and especially by a retired judge. I fully sympathize with you if you have been wronged in the matter, and if it will be of any service to you, I can say without impropriety that if the mass of evidence you showed me had been before the court, and had been received, the result of the case might have been different,-
Disallowance

This is the Judge of Appeal writing.
-but you must understand that courts of justice can only act and decide on the evidence adduced by counsel.
and that, in this case, as presented to, the court, it could not have decided' differently from what it did,.
A clear intimation from Sir Charles Townshend that if the subsequent evidence had been developed even in appeal he might well have reversed his finding. It is admitted on all hands that these matters were laid before the legislature-allegations supported by such evidence as was at hand, to which undoubtedly weight was given; allegations that there had not. been a fair trial of Mac-Noil's case; allegations of failure of crossexamination; allegations indeed, to put it very frankly, of collusion in connection with the trial of the action.
Now, the legislature of Nova Scotia with all those facts before it, with the very evidence referred to by Sir Charles Townshend in the letter I have read before it too, had to decide between leaving the case just as it was; with Jane MaeNeil deprived of her rights, with no possible court of appeal to which to go again-because the time had all gone by within which the production of new evidence could have any effect in securing a new trial-the legislature, I say, had to decide between that course and throwing the doors open once more to determination of the rights of either litigant. The legislature decided ,to take the latter course. It said: ''While we declare Jane MaeNeil the owner, we declare her the owner subject to any claims which would have been valid against her when she was the owner before, and if this curator, if the assignees, if this company, if any of those interested have any rights, and can establish them, the courts are there and the previous trial has prejudiced their interest not at all; they can go to those courts and all the evidence, the subsequent as well as the original, will be adduced, and justice may be done." Such is the action of the legislature of Nova Scotia-the action that the Minister of Justice describes in the astonishing language he uses this afternoon.
I am informed-I only give it as information; if I am wrong I will be corrected- that the Private Bills, cqipmittee of the legislature of Nova Scotia before which this legislation went, and by which it would be reviewed in detail, was presided over by one who is now an hon. member of this House (Mr. Finn) sitting at this moment to the left of the Minister of Justice. Surely he was not a party, actively or passively, to the , putting through of legislation of the vicious spurious character described by the Minister of Justice this afternoon. But this legisla-

tion so passed upon unanimously-r-1 understand there was-no vote at all-by the peipulai assembly, objected to it is true by at least one, possibly two or three in the Upper Chamber, passed upon by an hon. member of this House as Chairman of the Private Bills committee, legislation , that went through all the processes of that parliament-tiffs is the legislation that the Minister of Justice describes as gq. hideous, so iniquitous that his virtuous eyes cannot behold it and he must sweep it by disallowance from his sight.
I have made this review only to show that the case against the legislation is not so onesided as the Minister of Justice would make out. It must be remembered-and I say it not in the least to his discredit, because he had a perfect right at the time to do so- it must be remembered that the Deputy Minister of .Justice conducted the case of the respondent before the.Supreme Court of Canada. Had I done the same, or had any one else, it is very likely that our feelings would be somewhat prejudiced and our opinion would scarcely be an opinion arrived at in the clear and open light of unshadowed intelligence in connection with the matter of disallowance.
I come now to the question whether or not on the precedents, whether or not as a matter of constitutional right and practice, whether or not as well whatever be, the constitutional right and practice, it was wisdom, that the government of Canada should override and annul that legislation. I do not argue for a moment that there has been absolute consistency as between the opinions expressed by various ministers of justice and by the courts all through the history of our country. If one is to take what we describe in law as obiter dicta, that is to say, expressions of view given in a judgment that are not necessary to the judgment at ail but are merely asides by the judge-if we include those, then it seems to me there can be some conflict shown. But I venture to say there has never been a judgment given in the history of confederation that is on all fours with this judgment or goes to anything like the same extent. The history of all the cases shows that the power of disallowance is being more and more curtailed by practice from the early days of confederation until now. There were in earlier years opinins expressed by Sir John Macdonald and others to the effect that, the mere ultra vires character of the legislation is not alone the ground upon which, disallowance maybe based. The- judgments read by- the hon. Minister of-Justice go to establish such con-jiehleidndJ blsri ,bn&A Jain in afosl mil 103

Disallowance
Dealing for the moment with ultra vires legislation, I would not even say that in every case of such legislation, disallowance should necessarily follow. There might be many cases of this kind which safely could be left to the determination of our courts. It would be assumed that if the cases were beyond the jurisdiction of the legislatures, and they were certain to come early before the courts, the courts would themselves disallow the legislation, and consequently it would not be good practice in such cases for the government to anticipate the action of the courts. But there might be cases where although the legislation was ultra vires there would not be the probability of an early appeal to the courts at all where individual rights of any important character were not infringed. In such cases the legislation might never come before the courts, but if it was of that character and infringed as well Dominion policy, then it would be the duty of the federal government to disallow. No one in this House would dispute the jurisdiction of the federal government to the extent that I have up to this point defined.
Dealing, however, with intra vires legislation, there are opinions to the effect that occasions occur when the annulment of even intra vires legislation is justified. I am not sure that these opinions can be found in our history between 1896 and 1911; it may be that they can, but I have not been able to find them. Up to 1893, these opinions can be found, but there can be found no decision following such opinions to the effect that merely because the legislation, though intra vires, is against natural justice, that for this reason, and this alone, it should be disallowed.
Now, I repeat what I have said: I do not think a decision can be found-where merely because in the judgment of the minister the principles of natural justice were affronted by intra vires legislation, the legislation was annulled. The opinion of Sir John Macdonald can be given, and the opinion of Mr. Ouimet can be given, but I venture to say in so far as those opinions have ever been followed by action it will be found that they come within this class of cases: that the legislation, though intra vires, has conflicted with Dominion legislation where the Dominion had concurrent power with the province, or conflicted seriously with federal policy or administration. I do not require to amplify that at all. Perhaps I should repeat it. I venture to say the minister will not be able to produce a case where there has been annulment based merely on the fact that intra vires legislation was an affront to natural
justice. I can only find annulment of intra vires legislation where it has been claimed by the minister of justice and the government that the legislation conflicted with competent federal legislation where the federal government had concurrent power, or conflicted with federal policy or administration. It might easily conflict with either one.


Lomer Gouin: If the right hon. gentleman will allow me, I would cite the case of the Hon. Mr. Ouimet, when he was acting minister, in his report of the 19th of May, 1893.


Arthur Meighen: I will take up the Ouimet case.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, in the previous part of my remarks I sought first to impress that the merits of the legislation out of which this governmental action arose were at least debatable, if, indeed, the weight of the argument did not rather favour the justice of the legislation itself. I then proceeded to review the history of the operation of disallowance, and I asked to be accepted in this conclusion: That although there had been conflict not of final decision but of obiter dicta-that is expressions not lying in the pathway of the argument by which the minister arrived at his conclusion in the individual case, but lying aside from that pathway, although there might be a conflict there, there had not been conflict in the decisions actually given with certain definite principles, from confederation until the passing of this act. And I ventured to affirm, that there had not been disallowance in any single case merely because of the supposed turpitude, injustice, or unfairness of, the legislation, but rather that disallowance had been justified and had actually been practised on the grounds 'I named a couple of hours ago, and on those only: In the case of ultra vires legislation, that is legislation beyond the powers of the legislating province, where disallowance more met the public convenience i.e. because the legislation interfering with the federal policy, could not fairly* be left to the courts because it might never reach the courts. With regard to such cases, of course, I will meet with no dispute at all. As regards ultra vires legislation I do not apprehend there is any difference of opinion.
In the case of intra vires legislation the grounds for disallowance had been these and

Disallowance

these only: That the legislation, through intra vires of the province, had conflicted with Dominion statute or Dominion policy in cases, say, where the Dominion had concurrent jurisdiction-such, for example, as in the ease of agriculture, or in the case of railways. In these spheres, the Dominion's jurisdiction is concurrent with that of the provinces; each can legislate in agriculture; each has the same powers. A provincial act might interfere with Dominion policy on a subject of concurrent jurisdiction, or the act might be such as to, of its very nature, interfere with established federal policy. An example of the latter might be given: Where the act of the legislature would be in violence of federal policy as established, say, by treaty with another country. A case at least, if not more than one, of that character has arisen.
I stated that we had not had a case of a decision where there had actually been disallowance based only upon the government's opinion that the legislation was unjust and unfair as between the rights of individuals. Now the minister rose to contradict me, or at least to refer me to what he described as the Ouimet case, a case decided by the Acting Minister of Justice, in 1893, the acting minister being the Hon. J. Alderic Ouimet. I stated that I would refer to this case after recess. I venture to say the minister has looked into it since, and if he had looked into it before he spoke, he would not have ventured the contradiction. In the Ouimet case there was no disallowance at all.


Lomer Gouin: I did not say there was.


Arthur Meighen: Then it was not a contradiction of my assertion. I had stated there had never been actual disallowance on that ground and there has not been.


Lomer Gouin: Referring to that case, the Acting Minister of Justice, in his report of the 19th May, 1893, reported to his colleagues as follows:
Assuming the statute to have the effect which the railway company attributes to it the case would appear to be that of a statute which interferes with vested rights of property and the obligation of contract without providing for compensation, and would, therefore, in the opinion of the undersigned furnish sufficient reason for the exercise of the power of disallowance.
And the report concluded as follows: '
In the view of the undersigned all these provisions are infringements upon the exclusive power of the fedei^l parliament to legislate on the subject of sea coast and inland fisheries. An arrangement has, however, been reached between the undersigned and the attorney general of the province of Ontario by which the constitutionality of these provisions, as well as all other contentions respecting the fishery laws 
generally, are to be referred to the courts for adjudication, and as it does not appear that any public inconvenience will otherwise accrue, he respectfully recommends that the act in question be left to its operation.
But the minister was very clear in the expression of his opinion that there were vested rights, and that the power of disallowance should be exercised. On that there was an arrangement between the two governments.


Arthur Meighen: I had the very quotation the then minister read before me. It is true the minister expressed that opinion in the early part of the recommendation, but the minister went on to state that though such was the case, inasmuch as the public inconvenience was not in any way affected, he would leave the statutes to their own operation. He refused to interfere. I had not denied at all that prior to 1893 anyway there had been statements of opinion, obiter dicta, that woidd conflict with the principles which I have laid down. I did state that responsibility of disallowance had never been taken by any government based merely upon the fact alone that there had been in the judgment of the government disallowing, a miscarriage of justice.


Samuel William Jacobs: Was there ever a similar case?


Arthur Meighen: There have been cases, I almost said unnumbered, a great many cases. There was the Florence Mining case. The nearest case was the MacLaren case, and in that case, which is known as the Streams case, disallowance did follow. In that case though there is also an assertion of Dominion jurisdiction, of Dominion right in the streams, and this consideration undoubtedly affected the decision to disallow. But in the MacLaren case, although it was affected by this consideration, the legislation was reenacted. It was re-enacted again and although disallowed, re-enacted again, and allowed to stay, and no case comes so close to this case. If the hon.. member will review the cases as found in Keith he will find the nearest approach to the present is that very case, and by the action of the legislature and the justification of time in each case the disallowance was reversed.
But all this is pretty old.. When we get down to 1893, from that date onward the practice seems a great deal more settled. Hon. members have read opinions expressed, yes, and more, the decisions on those opinions given by Ministers of Justice from 1893 to 1908. No amount of argument in the world will ever square the decision in this case with the judgment of Sir Allen Aylesworth in the cases

Disallowance
that came before him. Sir Allen Aylesworth in 1909 laid down the doctrine quoted, and very aptly quoted by my hon. friend for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) and he did it in terms so definite, in terms, I almost said, so sweeping, that it would be utterly beyond the pale of reason to suggest that this action could be suffered within the ambit of the reasoning of Sir Allen Aylesworth. Not at all. Indeed, Sir Allen Aylesworth said that even though the legislature, without any warrant whatever, as indeed he described it in the Ontario case, changed the property in that province from one man to another, or from one company to another, did so without any reason, without providing any consideration or any means of compensation, and in doing so shut, barred and bolted the door against access to the courts in every way-even though the legislature went so far as that, the federal government would not be justified in interfering. In his review of the constitutional practice-Sir Allen Aylesworth on the 1st of March 1909 in this House said that a federal government would not be justifiable to interfere with intra vires legislation on any ground at all. Sir Allen Aylesworth went further than has ever been gone from confederation until the present time, and there has never during that time been a case of disallowance based only on the judgment of the government that there had been an assault on the principles of primary justice in the provincial legislation.
Very well; in the cases that came before Sir Allen Aylesworth and which he decided there were none, so far as I have been able to find, in which, although the legislation was intra vires, it interfered with the Dominion policy. Consequently, I believe that the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) is correct, that if the legislation, though intra vires, had interfered with the federal policy where the Dominion had a right to have a policy, Sir Allen might have been free to disallow. There is a case I am told just now where he did. But the dicta he lays down- and mind you his dicta are followed by action consistent with them-he bases the responsibility of his decision upon the doctrine which he expounds-go to show that if it is merely a case of what we may consider not right on the part of the legislature, we have no justification whatever in giving any weight to such consideration. To do so is interference with provincial rights.
Now I come to argue, how far do these doctrines, accepted, so far as decisions go, never interfered with, in fact I think I may say never questioned since 1893, justify interference in this case. Well, the matter scarcely 15U
admits of contention. This case differs wholly from that under review by Sir Allen Aylesworth on the 1st March, 1909. In the case that was before Sir Allen Aylesworth where he declined to interfere, the Minister of Justice at that time held that there had not only been diversion of the title of property from one to another, but there had been a denial of access to the courts to determine ultimate rights, or to decide the equities or trusteeships that might be in question. He knew that when he refused disallowance there was no possibility of any parties affected having their rights established in the courts of the land. The case before us to-day is wholly different. In the case before us to-day the action of the legislature, instead of closing the doors of the courts to the interested parties had really the	effect of	re-opening- the
doors of the court to the interested parties. It was really, in effect, no more and no less than to grant a new trial and upon grounds upon which courts very often grant new trials when they have power to do so. They had no power to do so in this case, because the time had gone by when one could apply. But courts grant new trials when new evidence is found, evidence that it was not reasonable to expect would be under the hands of the litigants at the initial trial. Upon such grounds as that and upon evidence of collusion, to which apparently they gave some weight, some members giving weight to one ground and some no doubt to another, the legislature decided that a new trial should be given to the parties; they placed them back in their initial position, Jane MacNeil being owner of the land, and they said to all who assailed her title: "There are the courts of our country; go to those courts and establish your claim." That is the kind of legislation against which the minister hurls his thunderbolt in this case; legislation very different in its finality, veiy different in anything that one could criticise as a usurpation of provincial power, from the legislation which was reviewed by Sir Allen Aylesworth.
This is somewhat aside. The minister seems to emphasize the consideration that a good deal of time had intervened between the litigation, indeed between the final decision of the Supreme Court and the act of the provincial legislature. I cannot see that the point is material; but the minister should remember that the actual owner, the man most interested, the heir in title to Jane MacNeil was, between 1914, when the decision was given, and a date shortly prior to the action of the Nova Scotia legislature, absent at the front. Upon his return, he who was interested, set
Disallowance

to work to try to restore what he believed Were his rights. This explains the intervention of those years.
Is it of any importance that this House endeavour to reassert the correct principle in matters of this kind? I think it is of vast importance. What position are we in if the judgment of the minister and of the government in this case is to be permanent? I know there is a measure of permanency to their decision, no matter what we do. I am not sure whether the government has any power to reverse the decision which it has given; but at all events we have power to say what we believe to be right, and it seems to me that it is proper for this House, at least for those members who believe that in the interest of our Dominion, another course should have been chosen to make the record speak our views. It is in our power and it is our duty to exercise that right.
Where are we-let me repeat the question- if the minister's opinion is to be followed in the future? Other governments, other legislatures of this country may exercise their functions, and when they do, they will never know whether they are to be left in possession of the fruits and answerable for the consequences or not. They may be quite within their powers and rights; they may be legislating for their own citizens and no others; they may be legislating about matters that affect exclusively their own people and property; but they cannot for a minute feel secure. The sword of the minister hangs above them, and it may fall the moment the legislation passes. It is important surely that the responsibility of governments in provinces to the legislatures and the responsibility of legislatures to their people should remain intact. If the minister's advice to his colleagues and the decision of his colleagues- are in the MacNeil case to be followed in the future, that responsibility is gone.
A great deal of what the minister has said, if it is based on fact, is very sound argument; but it is argument that should be addressed to the legislature of Nova Scotia, not argument that should be addressed to this House, nor that he should have addressed to his colleagues when he advised them to take this course. It is for the legislature of Nova Scotia to decide whether or not they should repeal legislation which they have passed, whether, when they came to pass it in the first place, it was doing justice between the parties or whether it was not. They must decide whether by any cajolery, by any imposition, for it may be alleged that there was imposition upon the members, they were misled and took the

wrong course. If they decide such to be established then it is for the legislature of Nova Scotia to reverse itself. It has power to repeal its own acts and it has often done so. We have repealed our acts, and the argument of the minister, if it were based on facts, would have been very powerful before that legislature, to persuade it to take that course. But they were not arguments which he was justified in addressing to his colleagues in advising them to annul this legislation.
In this connection, let me have a word to say of the minister's last contention that disallowance was made with the privity, or, as he put it, with the consent or even upon the request of the government of Nova Scotia. When did the power of annulment, the power of disallowance, rest before on the desire of the government responsible to the legislature which enacted the legislation? Who ever heard of the government of Canada being the agent, the instrument, of a provincial government to defeat the ends of a provincial legislature? Is that not exactly what the minister's contention means? Is the government of Nova Scotia, which takes the responsibility of permitting to pass, while it remains in power, legislation that it afterwards thinks it should not have allowed to pass, to get out of its responsibility and to defeat the ends of its own legislature, merely by coming to the government of Canada and saying: "Annul this legislation; disallow it, and there is an end of our responsibility and yours."
This is not the first case, indeed, where disallowance has been a matter, I will not say of collusion, but let me say of agreement, between the government of a province and the government of the Dominion. From what I have learned, the disallowance of legislation changing the rule of the road was also a matter of agreement between the government of Nova Scotia and the government of Canada. In that case the action of this government may have saved the government of Nova Scotia from very serious difficulty, and it may have saved the people of Nova Scotia from very serious inconvenience into which the precipitancy of their legislature and the negligence of their government had driven them. But surely such a service is no function of His Majesty in Council of the Dominion. The Governor General in Council does not exist to rescue legislatures or provinces from the inevitable, legitimate consequences of their own recklessness, or even of their own wrong doing.
Let me emphasize in this connection one more feature. In no respect whatever does the legislation in the MacNeil case affect any

Disallowance
other province in Canada. The land is in Nova Scotia; all parties to the dispute are, I understand, in Nova Scotia; anyway every material thing connected with the case is Nova Scotian. It does not in the remotest way affect Dominion policy. It does not even in the most attenuated way affect Dominion rights. It is a local matter only, a matter not only of civil rights, but so distinctly local that above all other matters it should have been left to the final determination of the legislature of that province.
Let us remember as well that the government, after the character of the legislation-in the mind of the Deputy Minister of Justice- had been drawn to its atention, had ample oportunity to repeal it. The minister says it did not repeal the legislation although a bill was brought before it for the purpose. He says the bill got its first reading, if it did not go further; but the minister says it was not actually repealed because the legislature closed before the House adopted the bill. Well, that is usually the reason why most legislation is not passed-the House closes before its adoption. But who closed the legislature? Did the legislature close without the will of the government? Did someone go and lock the door behind the government's back? The government closed the legislature of the province of Nova Scotia, the government that was in power when this legislation was passed, the government that had a large majority, and which if it had the will to do so, could have repealed this legislation. No, Mr. Speaker, the minister has acted not only against the first judgment of the legislature of Nova Scotia but against the re-considered judgment of that body. After the legislature had had ample opportunity to redress its action if it had felt that its action was wrong, it declined to do so; and then the government, without the consent of the legislature, comes to the minister who yields to its importunity and annuls the legislation.
The hon. minister, in order if he can to make it appear that the hands of the opposition in this matter are tied, irrespective of what the merits of the case may be, reads a letter from the Deputy Minister of Justice, or rather a part of it, addressed to the Deputy Attorney General of the province of Nova Scotia, in which the Deputy Minister of Justice expresses, as no doubt was his honest belief, his opinion of the legislation. Having done so the Deputy Minister of Justice in this letter says this to the Deputy Attorney General of Nova Scotia:
Therefore I think you must agree that it is impossible to justify, or even to describe in terms of toleration ,-
I am reading what the minister read, am I not? I am not sure it is the same letter but it is signed by the deputy minister.
-the conduct which is sanctioned by the act in question, revesting the title in Miss MacNeil by legislative act. I can only imagine that it must have been through some oversight on the part of the government that the act was allowed to pass. In these circumstances it would seem that the wrong done by this legislation should be rectified by the legislature. It seems to be a case in which, if I may venture to say so, for the good name of the province as well as in simple justice to the petitioners, the act should not be allowed to remain, and the more proper remedy is by way of repeal. I observe that your legislature is now in session. I have discussed this matter with the Minister of Justice and he desires me to suggest that your government should give earnest considerat.on to the propriety of putting through a repealing act at the present session.
That was the suggestion of the then Minister of Justice, the Hon. Mr. R. B. Bennett. That matter, I may say, never came before the late government at all; the time never arrived -when it should. According to this letter, the Minister of Justice suggested that the government of Nova Scotia should give earnest consideration to putting through a repealing act "at the present session". He goes on:
Otherwise it will be difficult to resist the application to disallow. The disallowance of this sort of statute-
I think the minister failed to read this part of the letter; if he did, I did not hear it.


Lomer Gouin: The hon. gentleman is not quoting the letter I read; I read a letter dated November 21.


Arthur Meighen: This is dated April 7, 1922. Evidently this states the opinion of the present Minister of Justice.


Samuel William Jacobs: You are reading Mr. Bennett's letter.


Arthur Meighen: No, I am reading a letter written by the Deputy Minister of Justice.


Samuel William Jacobs: Advised by Mr. Bennett.


Arthur Meighen: No, Mr. Bennett was not in office then.


Samuel William Jacobs: I heard his name mentioned by the hon. gentleman.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I thought this was the letter of November 21 which the minister referred to. I had not looked at the date. This letter was actually written, it appears, since my hon. friend (Sir Lomer Gouin) assumed office.
The disallowance of this sort of statute which is, I suppose, intra vires upon the ground of its conflict with the principles of justice, would introduce a principle of action here with respect to provincial legislation which it might afterwards be found difficult to restrict within due limits and, therefore upon constitutional grounds, and from motives of expediency,
Disallowance

it is suggested that the necessity of further consideration by this government should be avoided by local action.
That was the view of the Deputy Minister of Justice, and apparently the view of the minister at that time; and in the previous letter which the minister read the opinion was expressed that the matter of disallowance would have to be "considered" if it should be that the legislature would decline to repeal the act. That is very different from taking the responsibility of actual disallowance. Language of that kind has been used very often through the years, but the federal government has not until now actually gone the length of disallowance upon that ground and that ground alone. Review by the entire government in this as in every case was necessary before a decision could be reached and I can assure the minister there would have been no disallowance by the late government.
All through this time the jurisdiction of the federal government as a matter of constitutional practice has been becoming narrower and ever narrower, and the autonomy of local legislatures has been growing stronger and ever stronger; and right it is that it should be so. Why should it be that a government -not parliament, let hon. gentlemen remember, for parliament has really no say in the matter at all save to express its opinion it has no authority whatever-why should it be that a government not responsible initially to the electors of the particular province, because a federal government is just as responsible to the electors of a province three thousand miles away, why is it I say that a government sitting here, can act as a sort of moral censor of the conduct of legislatures in this country, legislatures which are themselves responsible to the people who elect them and to whom they must answer for their acts? If the federal government, merely by virtue of its own opinion as to the moral quality of legislation passed by a province, has the right to reverse that legislation and wipe it out, does not the government by that course assume the functions of the people of the province? Does not the government in that way relieve the provincial administration of the logical consequences of its own conduct and thereby defeat the ends of responsible government? Thus it is that all through these years the right of annulment has been restricted rather than amplified, and in no case has it been exercised save in so far as intra vires legislation is concerned when it interposed upon territory rightly occupied by the federal authority, or upon federal policy, where the

federal government had a right to have a policy. No one would contend for a moment that this case comes within either category. Therefore I ask the House to declare that the minister was not right, and that the government was not justified in following his advice and in disallowing the legislation of a province, passed admittedly wholly within its power, and admittedly affecting only the interests of the province, affecting no property right and no individual right of any kind beyond the confines of the province, and interfering in no way in the least degree with federal policy of any kind, nor invading in ihe slightest measure any sphere in which the Dominion has concurrent jurisdiction. I ask the House to declare that the government in arrogating to itself an authority to reverse and defeat such legislation acted contrary to sound constitutional standards and practice.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, a very peculiar situation presents itself for the consideration of the House to-night. My right hon. friend who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Meighen) was the leader of the government down to the 1st January, 1922. On November S, 1921, his Minister of Justice, the Hon. R. B. Bennett, instructed his deputy minister to write the Attorney General of Nova Scotia in the following terms:-
Sir,-The minister desires that I should draw your attention to a recent act of the legislature of Nova Scotia, chapter 177, of 1921, "An Act to Vest Certain Lands in Victoria County in Jane E. MacNeil". It is represented to the department that this statute in effect reverses the judgments of the courts including the Supreme Court of Canada in which it was ultimately decided that the defendant Jane E. MacNeil had acquired the title fraudulently, held the lands in trust and should convey them to the curator for the benefit of creditors.
It would be the duty of the Minister of Justice, as you will perceive, to consider the propriety of recommending disallowance of this statute, and he would be glad, in considering the matter, to have before him any explanation or representation which your government would desire to submit.
My right hon. friend's government therefore raised the issue as to whether or not this statute should be disallowed; they were the first people to raise any question about it.


Arthur Meighen: The hon gentleman knows better than that. There is correspondence on the file before that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am speaking of those constitutionally and politically responsible to this House. My right hon. friend had the temerity this afternoon to move a vote of want of confidence in this government because we did the very thing which his Minister of Justice said should be done in
MAY i, 1923
Disallowance
1921. The motion before the House for consideration to-night is not purely a question as to whether or not certain action taken by the Governor in Council in 1922 was right within the constitution, my right hon. friend is asking the House to turn this government out because of that action-an action which he and his government were responsible for initiating. That is the situation.
Now, do not let us have any misgivings as to where we stand in this matter. Argument as to the relative constitutional powers of the provinces and the Dominion may be made at great length and with great elaboration, but after all when we come to consider what is the issue before the House the primary points for us to consider are: First-Has the government the right of disallowance? Secondly-[DOT] Was the right properly exercised in this particular matter? What is the situation as to whether the right of disallowance exists? In the British North America Act will be found an. express provision that there rests in the federal Governor in Council the right to disallow the legislation of a province. There are no limits defined within which this right may be exercised there are no judicial decisions which in any way define how it should be exercised. From time to time since 1867 successive ministers of Justice have reviewed the legislation [DOT]of the provinces, some holding one view at one time and others holding one view at another time. In order therefore to ascertain just where we stand in regard to this question perhaps it will be well to look at some authorities. Take, for instance, Todd on Parliamentary Government in the Colonies- a standard authority about which there can be no question. Speaking of this power of dissolution he says:
Two possible grounds of objection to provincial enactments are noticed in the preceding report, namely: (1) Where exception might be urged to "the law" itself, as being in excess of the constitutional powers of the local legislature, or at variance with dominion legislation; (2) Where it might appear that protposed enactments were contrary to the policy which, in the opinion of the Governor General in Council, ought to prevail throughout the dominion, in view of the general interests thereof.
There we have recognition of the principle involved in the very inception of confederation-not merely that legislation which was ultra vires of the provincial government might be dealt with by the federal authority under this veto power, but also that an inherent right existed in the federal executive to deal with matters which might be within the jurisdiction of the legislatures. So we have that to start with. Has there been any change of opinion on the principle there laid down other than the varying opinions
of the successive Ministers of Justice from time to time? Let us see what the practice has been.
At first legislation which was clearly ultra vires was disallowed; then as time went on different courses were adopted. The policy adopted was first, to ask the legislature to repeal or amend the objectionable legislation; secondly, to leave the question to be decided by the courts; or, thirdly, to absolutely disallow the legislation. The reason why disallowance was resorted to was because grave difficulties might arise and awkward problems be involved if legislation of doubtful validity was allowed to be operative.
Now, my right hon. friend has alleged that we can find no cases in which the power of veto was exercised in regard to matters which might be intra vires of the legislature.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, no.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that at all. The hon. member surely never thought I said so?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then does my hon. friend concede it?


Arthur Meighen: I know there are cases of intra vires legislation where the power of disallowance has been exercised, and justly so; but I said there has been no case of disallowance merely on the ground of the injustice of the legislation itself.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I shall be glad to show my hon. friend that his Minister of Justice, the Hon. Mr. Doherty, laid down authority directly to the contrary.


Arthur Meighen: I am speaking of cases and decisions.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will come to those later on. I understand my hon. friend now to agree with my proposition that the right of the federal authority to interfere with legislation which is ultra vires of the province might be exercised in certain cases. The former great leader of the Conservative party laid that down very explicitly. It was also laid down by the late Mr. Ouimet when Acting Minister of Justice. Then we come to 1909 on the occasion of the refusal to disallow the legislation of the Ontario government in regard to the Florence mining case, when Sir Allen Aylesworth gave an opinion which has been frequently quoted. I was in the House on that occasion and remember the discussion very well. For the information of the House I want to cite the opinion of a gentleman who took part in the debate, in fact at whose instance it arose. I refer to Mr. Justice
Disallowance

Clarke of the Court of Appeals of Alberta, who was then a member of this House. He said:
Certainly we have the power to interfere. Certainly I think His Excellency has the prerogative right to disallow, whether it is because an act is beyond the jurisdiction of the province or whether, in the interest of the whole country and as a matter of political expediency, it ought to be disallowed.
There is another recognition that the right exists. Now let me cite my right hon. friend's Minister of Justice, Hon. Mr. Doherty. Speaking in 1912 he laid down in the Alberta case:
Tile undersigned entertains no doubt, however, that the power is constitutionally capable of exercise and may on occasions be properly invoked for the purpose of preventing, not inconsistently with the public interest, irreparable injustice or undue interference with private rights or property through the operation of local statutes intra vires of the legislature.


Arthur Meighen: What was the decision in the case?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not know whether my right hon. friend sat in council, but his former colleague did, when Right Hon. Mr. Doherty, dealing with the legislation passed by the province of Alberta in connection with the Alberta waterways case, declined, though he 'indicated that he thought it was ultra vires, to disallow it.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear,


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, but the courts disallowed it. The minister of that day laid down the unquestionable doctrine that I have just cited, a doctrine that my right hon. friend disputes to-night, that in cases of irreparable injustice or undue interference with private rights or property through the operation of local statutes intra vires of the legislature, disallowance might be had.


Arthur Meighen: There was no disallowance, though.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right hon. friend is quibbling, and he knows he is.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all; I admitted when I spoke that there were conflicts of obiter dicta. That is an obiter dictum, and the hon. member knows it. What is more, the minister there referred to irreparable cases; none would suggest that cases are irreparable where the courts are opened to both parties. I admit.I do not agree with the obiter dicta, but there was no dicision based on the one the hon. gentlemen cites.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Minister of Justice under the administration of my right hon friend was referring to irreparable
TMr. Macdonald. 1
injustice or undue interference with private rights.


Arthur Meighen: "And." .


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, not
"and"-* "or." That was the doctrine of the government with which my hon. friend was connected. In regard to his assertion that there had been no interference since confederation with regard to these matters, I may say that he will find in Lefroy on page 46 a statement made by that distinguished lawyer, Mr. Lafleur, of Montreal, whose ability is recognized everywhere throughout Canada Speaking of Mr. Lafleur's argument, this authority says:
Summing up, Mr. Lafleur informed the Privy Council of Canada that the number of acts actually disallowed on grounds of injustice under what he calls the old regime, from confederation to 1898, were five in number.
Five; my hon. friend said, none.


Arthur Meighen: Injustice was not the only ground.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Excuse me, now, I quote further.
But that in numbers of other cases the recommendations made by the Ministers of Justice led to a change in the law either by repeal or by amendment, and consequently the necessity for disallowance was obviated.
So that Mr. Lafleur distinctly says that my hon. friend was wrong; that not only was the attention of the legislature called to the necessity for disallowance or amendment, but that in five specific cases the power was exercised.


Arthur Meighen: Can the hon. gentleman find the cases?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have not the law library right at hand, hue
9 p.m. 1 would find them if my right hon. friend desires it. But surely he will not question Mr. Lafleur's statement in that respect.


Arthur Meighen: I know that Keith reviews all the cases, and there is not one that rests on that ground and that alone.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: All I can say is that I am quoting from a reputable authority, Lefroy, and I am giving the statement of Mr. Eugene Lafleur. I venture to say that my hon. friend will not question what Mr. Lafleur says in that regard. Let me quote again from Todd. At page 521 speaking of the power of disallowance, he says:
It lias been* sometimes invoked in respect to acts or bills which contained provisions that were deemed to

Disallowance
be contrary to sound principles of legislation, and therefore likely to prove injurious to the interests or welfare of the Dominion.
Then he says that in extreme cases the Governor General in Council has assumed the responsibility of disallowing provincial enactments upon the ground that they included unsound or objectionable principles of legislation. I hope that I have made it clear that unquestionably the power exists with reference to leg:slation which is ultra vires, and that also, in the matter of legislation which is intra vires, under certain conditions within the lines laid down by Mr. Doherty, that power has been exercised repeatedly by Governors General since confederation in the cases mentioned by Mr. Lafleur.
Let me refer the House to some statements that have been made in this connection and that ought not, in my opinion, to be disregarded. Lord Herschell, speaking in the Attorney General for Canada and the Provinces .in 1898, and referring to the powers of the legislatures and their right to exercise them, said:
If however, the legislature purports to confer upon others proprietary rights where it possesses none itself, that in their lordships' opinion is not an exercise of the legislative jurisdiction conferred by section 91.
The Alberta Waterways case had to do with the investment by the Alberta government of a large amount of money in the construction of a railway. The money was being diverted by the company, and the province proceeded to urge for the impounding of the money in the bank. There the government were directly interested in the project. Take the Florence gold mining case in Ontario: there the government were the owners of the mine for which the lease had been granted, and it was a dispute between the lessees. Take the case in which application for disallowance was made with reference to the Ontario Power Commission. The Ontario government created the commission and undertook to protect it. In the Florence mining case, in which Sir Allen Aylesworth gave the dictum, it was held by the courts of Ontario that notwithstanding alleged objectionable clauses in the act, the legislation of itself was absolutely constitutional. But in this case the province of Nova Scotia had years ago divested itself of any possible interest in that farm in Cape Breton, and it came down from the clear skies, as it were, with this legislation and undertook to interfere with the rights and privileges of the owners.
Now, what is the situation here? Within the last two years the hon. gentleman who was Minister of Justice of this Dominion was twice
called upon to deal with bills of the legislature of the province of Nova Scotia on the question of disallowance. In the one case it was suggested by the government directly that they desired the bill to be disallowed; it related to a matter that was purely intra vires of the province, a matter that was absolutely within their rights. No other authority could have interfered with it in any way; yet they asked the Minister of Justice to disallow it. If there was no power to interfere with legislation that might be intra vires of the province, upon what ground, upon what right, could the Premier of Nova Scotia ask the Minister of Justice to disallow it? Then, here is the case of men who had vested interests; who had gone on on the faith of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and invested their money, sold their bonds, and so on. They go to the Minister of Justice and point out that this case, as had been laid down by the previous Minister of Justice, Mr. Doherty, should be dealt with by the federal authority. My right hon. friend's Minister of Justice initiates the matter; the present minister was only its inheritor-the proceedings were started by Hon. R. B. Bennett. When the question is put up to the government of Nova Scotia, they say, "We have no objections to the act being disallowed."
Now, who is complaining here? Why is my hon. friend moving a vote of want of confidence? In view of these facts why is he attempting to indicate that provincial rights throughout this country are imperilled? My hon. friend is playing politics; he is more interested in the raising of an issue of this kind, with some ulterior object in view, than he is in settling any constitutional question, because on that point there is not very much doubt.
Well, what are the facts? The Minister of Justice this afternoon related some of them. The House is familiar with the first part of the proceedings. The allegation was that a man by the name of Francis MacNeil, who had received $2,000 from his partner through Molson's Bank, Montreal, to go down and buy a piece of property for the partnership, proceeded when he got in Cape Breton to take the deed for the property in his sister's name. Then the curator or assignee of the firm when it went into insolvency-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the witnesses on behalf of the curator were never examined.at the trial, that the trial took place at an adjourned hearing and finally went by default?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: All I have to say is this: I understand some imputation
Disallowance

has been made against the gentleman who was identified with this ease first. That was Mr. Gunn. He is a reputable man, his standing at the bar of Nova Scotia is very high. Why did not some one interested in this matter, if it was considered there was ground for complaint, make representations to the Barristers Society of Nova Scotia in regard to Mr. Gunn? But no one did that, the case went right on, and finally was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. After it had been dealt with there the parties who had lost turned around and made complaints. Mr. Gunn acted in the first instance, as I find from the record and when the case went to appeal he was assisted by Mr. Ralston. It is not until ten years afterwards that these imputations are made. Is it likely that Mr. Ralston whom we all know on account of his position and standing at the bar would have been associated with Mr. Gunn in arguing a case in Nova Scotia if the circumstances were such as have been suggested? Mr. Ralston argued this case in the. Supreme Court of Nova Scotia and he also argued it before the Supreme Court in Ottawa, and I will make the statement, without having communicated with that gentleman in any way-that he would not come here and ask this House to condemn the government because it disallowed this legislation. My hon. friend is a lawyer. He knows that, time and time again in the history of our profession, after a suit is over you will find some interested party going around and making complaints, we will say, either that my hon. friend (Mr. Hanson) was no good or that I was no good, as the case may be.


George Perry Graham: They might both be right.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes that may be true. To-day we are told the trouble was that the lawyers went back on them. I do not take much stock in the allegations that have been made. The case was tried in Nova Scotia by Mr. Justice Ritchie, whom I know very well. It then went to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia and Mr. Justice Ritchie expressed a very strong opinion of Mr. Francis MacNeil who took the $2,000 from Montreal. Mr. Justice Ritchie not only said what was attributed to him by the Minister of Justice, but at a later date expressed himself as follows:
At the trial, the defendant Francis J. MacNeil said that, with the exception of $100, the proceeds of the $2,000 note went to pay for the gypsum property as no doubt it did. In his answer to one of the interrogatories he said it did not. I regard him as a man whose evidence is not entitled to credit.
That is what a learned judge of the province of Nova Scotia said in regard to the 
gentleman who took this money from Montreal. The case was decided in Nova Scotia and an appeal taken to the Supreme Court of Canada. Now let us see what Mr. Justice Idington said about it. It would seem from what we have been told that everybody is prejudiced in this case. The lawyers were prejudiced and now, I suppose, we will be told that the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada were prejudiced. What does Mr. Justice Idington say with regard to Francis MacNeil:
When we find that her brother, who was one of the said firm of Sparrow and MacNeil in question, managed personally and through his solicitor, and agent, the whole transaction relative to getting the deed executed and paid the money got as above mentioned, I submit that these statements under oath can hardly be properly described as counsel suggested as being merely "uncandid".
It rather shocks one to be asked in face of such a perversion under oath, of the truth by the appellant, to treat her as a credible witness when testifying relatively to the same transaction.
Now, I want to say-and I leave it to any gentleman in this House who is connected with the bar-that rarely you find judges in an appellant tribunal undertaking to condemn a witness in such clear and explicit terms; rarely do they express themselves in such unqualified terms with respect to witnesses; it is only in extreme cases that they do it. Well, that was away back in 1912 and 1913. The decision was accepted. There were lots of MacNeils in Nova Scotia who were friendly to Fletcher but nothing was said about the matter. They accepted the decision. The Supreme Court of Canada had decided that this property did not belong to Francis MacNeil and for six years that situation was accepted.
All of a sudden an energetic young fellow who had done good service overseas goes and visits former Chief Justice Townshend. This gentleman had retired from the bench for quite a number of years; he had become very aged and was living in Wolfville: he is one of the most highly regarded gentlemen in our province. The young man who started this went to former Chief Justice Townshend and got some kind of a letter from him which was read by my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) this afternoon. Then he goes to some of his friends in the legislature and prevails upon them to start the passing of legislation through the provincial legislature. The Premier of the province was away. No notice of this contemplated legislation was given to the people in Montreal who were the owners of the property and, as sometimes occurs in this parliament, the legislation slipped through without very much attention being paid to it. My hon. friend read a letter from former Chief Justice Townshend

Disallowance
on this matter. The Minister of . Justice read a portion of another letter. Now let me read a letter which indicates what Sir Charles Townshend's view of the situation was when he found what use the young man in question had been making of the first letter referred to.
Wolfville, N.S., June 30, 1922.
R. B. Blauveldt, Esq.,
Barrister,
Wolfville, N.S.
Dear Sir,-In reply to your letter of June 29 inst. containing an extract of an alleged letter from a Mr. Francis MacNeil as to what I said to him respecting a case from Cape Breton in which he was interested, J beg to state that the alleged statements made by MacNeil are a tissue of deliberate falsehoods in which there is not a word of truth.
I said nothing more to him or rather different from that contained in the letter I gave him. You, as a barrister, can readily understand that it would be inconceivable that I should make any such statements concerning a judgment to which I was a party. I tried to impress upon him that there was no possible way in which the final judgment of the court could be disturbed.
I never dreamt that any legislature could be guilty of such an outrageous act as to pass a law reversing the decision of the final court of appeal. I do not know why I should have given him the letter I did except that I felt at the time some sympathy for a returned soldier who alleged his loss was a consequence of his being absent from the country and that perhaps some of his friends or comrades if they believed his story might give him some assistance.
I should not have given him the letter at all, but certainly would never have done so for the use that has been made of it.-Yours truly,
(Signed) Charles Townshend.
Now let me quote from another letter written in June, 1917 after this legislation had been passed.
Wolfville, June 17, 1922.
Dear Sir,-I feel much shocked as well as indignant to learn from you that a most unjustifiable use has been or is intended to be made of a short letter of mine in a Cape Breton case-Plaster Quarries vs MacNeil. It is some years since I as one of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court heard this case on appeal, and I never had nor have I now the slightest doubt as to the correctness of the decision the court rendered afterwards confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. A year or more afterwards, a young man named MacNeil called at my residence asking me to make some order to have the case reheard, and produced a solemn written statement to convince me that the court had erred and that gross injustice had been done to him. I told him very emphatically that I as Chief Justice and other members of the court could do nothing for him, that the matter was now out of our hand, and finally settled for all time.
He pressed me to send the statement which to gratify him I did. and at his urgent request wrote a note to say that if all the statements had been proved satisfactory' to the court, there might have been a different result, but I either asked or told him that as matters stood, the judgment was right and nothing could disturb it.
I felt some sympathy for the man if his statements were true, especially as he stated that he was absent in France as a soldier when the case was tried.
I never dreamed that any legislation of a civilized country could be guilty of such an outrage as to pass an act setting aside the solemn judgment of the
court as I learn has been done in this case, and I do sincerely trust you will succeed in having such a gross violation of constitutional right disallowed by the Dominion government if for no other reason a notice to the local legislature that they will not be permitted to interfere with the courts of justice.-Yours sincerely, (Signed) Charles Townshend.
H. S. Ross, Esq.,
Montreal.
Now so much for the opinion of Sir Charles Townshend and so much for the letter which was read this afternoon. Under the circumstances, the position of Sir Charles Townshend was somewhat difficult in this matter. Here was a kindly old gentleman who had been pressed by a young man who had been overseas, and in order to get rid of the young man he wrote this letter. It was an unwise proceeding, but immediately he had done so, he realized the enormity of the manner in which his letter had been used and he. took steps to put himself right. Let us look at the act. I submit to the judgment of the House that if it was intended by the legislature to deal with this case upon any reasonable ground, they would never have placed such an act as we find upon the statute book. If ever there was an occasion on which a bill was being presented to parliament, or an act passed, where there should be embodied in the preamble of the bill the reasons why the decisions of the highest federal court in the country, delivered six years previously, should be interfered with, it was this bill. I leave it to the judgment and fairness of hon. members. If such a proposition came to us for consideration-and I question whether it ever could come here- there is not an hon. member in this House who would not ask the promoters at once, "Where in the preamble of the bill have you set out the reasons or justification? Why this haste? Why are we asked to over-ride a decision of the court which has been in effect for six years?" But they adopted the other course, without rhyme or reason, and without a suggestion of the why or wherefore. Here is an act which undertakes to say that a certain lot of land known as the gypsum property in Nova Scotia, describing it by metes and bounds,-
Is hereby vested in Jane E. MacNeil, in fee simple subject to the same trusts and equities in favour of any other person, persons or body corporate, if any, under which she held the said lot of land on the tenth day of July, 1911, or any prior time, notwithstanding any proceedings or judgment, legal or otherwise, in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, or an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada therefrom, had or taken, and notwithstanding the operation of any statute of limitation in force in this or any other province of the Dominion of Canada,
This act undertakes to nullify the operation of any statutes of any province of the Domin-
Disallowance

ion of Canada which undertakes to stand in the way of this act. The act further statesand notwithstanding laches, if any, on the part of any person, persons or body corporate, if any, claiming a beneficial interest in the said land.
Then it goes on to state:
The claims, rights and interests of all persons and bodies corporate in respect to the trusts and equities, if any, mentioned in section 1 of this act, shall be forever barred, unless an action, suit or other proceeding is brought in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia for the purpose of declaring, enforcing or establishing of such claim, right or interest within one year after the date of the coming into force of this act.
The plea is made that that is a very wonderful section. It is said this is only putting things back to where they were in 1911. Is it? Let us see what the situation was. What did the Supreme Court of Canada decide in this matter? Did they decide anything about the trustees? Here is the decision of the court in a head note:
Held, affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, that the curator was entitled to have the transaction set aside and the lands purchased treated as part of the insolvent's estate.
Let us see what would happen supposing the assignee or the curators started an action in Nova Scotia under that act. Suppose they got through the courts of Nova Scotia, and declared MacNeil to be holding the property as trustee. Before the Supreme Court, what do we find? Six or seven years ago that court held, not that Miss MacNeil could or could not be a trustee, but that the land was actually the property of a curator. What a farce in judicial procedure to ask the Supreme Court to turn around, and, basing the decision upon the fact that the legislature had enacted that this property was vested in Miss MacNeil as trustee for somebody, hold that she was a trustee, and that some imaginary cestui qui trust had a right under it. That is the situation. I venture to say there is not a lawyer in this House who will risk his reputation on the proposition that such a thing would be possible in a civilized country. The act is a farce, as far as the second clause goes. It is adroitly drawn to mislead the public. It was said by the legislature of Nova Scotia "We do not want to reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, but just to fix it up so that the case can be tried all over again," and when they come to do it they put it in such a way that it is absolutely impossible for the case to be treated on the basis on which they want the Supreme Court to treat it.
Is it any wonder that when the application is made to my hon. friend the Minister of

Justice he at once instructed his deputy to take steps to have this act disallowed. In the first place, he saw that the act itself was a ridiculous absurdity, intended to mislead the public into the belief that they were providing for a new trial, in which the thing was dead open and shut before they ever started. There was confiscation without compensation in the act, and it was intrusion by the legislature into a matter of absolute private right in which the province as a whole had no right to interfere, and in which the whole matter had long been settled. Suppose, for instance, one of our friends opposite from the West had the misfortune to have his title to his section of land or to two or three sections of land questioned by some person, who alleged that he was entitled to the property, and the Supreme Court of Canada, or the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan, as the case might be, decided this year that there was not anything in the claim, that the property belonged to the hon. member opposite, and, that-which I hope would never occur-seven or eight years after this, when he had gone to his fathers, and his wife and family were left alone, all of a sudden the gentleman who litigated this year might have become powerful or become interested in a wealthy corporation, might influence the legislature in the province in which he lived to pass an act to declare that, notwithstanding what had been decided by the court of Manitoba or Saskatchewan in the year of grace 1923, it was of no value whatever, that the property was to be vested in this man who had been the former litigant, and that he would have the property for evermore. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what was done in Nova Scotia. That is what is to be done by this legislation.


William Thomas Lucas: I understood the hon. member to say that that act possibly might have been passed in Nova Scotia without mature consideration. In case that was a fact, would it not have been possible for the legislature of Nova Scotia after mature consideration, to repeal that at a later session?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is a fair question. All I can say in regard to that is that I see in the record the statement of the Attorney General of Nova Scotia that a bill was introduced and that it passed its second reading. If the hon. member had lived in Nova Scotia as long as I have and seen how fast the legislature closes up in the spring when the members want to go home, he would understand that a great deal of legislation goes by the board, just as is the case in this


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a few observations in connection with this amendment. We have just listened to a very interesting address by the new fo'castl member of the government. It reminds me of some eight, ten or twelve years ago when the hon. gentleman was the leader of that celebrated coterie in this House known as the "Dark Lantern Brigade"-much sound and fury, signifying nothing. I must congratulate the hon. member on having lived up to his reputation. I hardly think, however, that his colleague the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) will take a great deal of comfort from the remarks that have been made by his colleague the fo'castl minister, because I believe he has added nothing to the arguments adduced in opposition to this amendment.
Some hon. members have endeavoured tonight to make some point by reason of a letter which was written by the Deputy Minister of Justice on the 8th day of November, 1921, to the Attorney General of Nova Scotia. I venture to suggest that my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) has misconstrued the effect of that letter. First of all, if I understood him correctly, he stated that the Minister of Justice of the day himself brought forward the matter of disallowance of the act in question. I rather challenge that point of view. I am of opinion, reading between the lines of this letter, that the question of the propriety of the legislation in this case was brought forward by the Deputy Minister of Justice of
the day in view of his personal connection with the subject matter of this legislation and of the suit in question.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He says that the minister instructed him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know he says that the minister instructed him to draw his attention to the matter. He says also that:
It would be the duty of the Minister of Justice, as you will perceive, to consider the propriety of recommending disallowance of this statute.
That is as far as he goes. In the light of authorities and especially in the light of the authority of Sir Allen Aylesworth in the Florence mining case, I venture to say that any Minister of Justice at that time would have paused and considered very fully before he would have recommended disallowance in connection with this particular measure. I pause here for a moment to say this, that we all recognize that Mr. Newcombe, the deputy minister, is a leading counsel in this country, and that he is an outstanding counsel before the Supreme Court of Canada. But I question very seriously the propriety of the Deputy Minister of Justice of this country acting as counsel in private litigation in cases and questions which may ultimately come in some other form before him in his official capacity. I doubt very much, if Mr. Newcombe had known or realized for a moment that the subject matter of the case of Sparrow and MacNeil would have come before him in its constitutional aspect, as it did five years later, if he would ever have accepted any retainer to argue the case before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Let me pass from that for a moment. A good deal of doubt has been thrown upon the bona fides of Stanley MacNeil in his effort to rectify what to him at all events has seemed a glaring miscarriage of justice. I desire to put upon the record and to read to the members of this House a letter in which he details the situation as it presents itself to him. Hon. members will recall that in the letter of the 8th November, the Deputy Minister of Justice called upon the Attorney General of Nova Scotia to justify the passing of the legislation in question. What happened was this, that the Deputy Attorney General of Nova Scotia passed the inquiry along to the gentleman who had introduced the bill in the Nova Scotia legislature, and he in turn passed it along to Stanley MacNeil. On the 1st December, 1921, Stanley MacNeil replied to that letter by writing to the Deputy Attorney General of Nova Scotia this letter, which I shall read:
>380
Disallowance

Dear Sir,-I am in receipt of your communication of the 14th ultimo addressed to Mr. A. C. Buchanan, M.P.P., re a bill entitled an act to vest certain lands in Victoria county in J. E. MacNeil. This bill was passed at the last session of the Nova Scotia government. Your communication stated that the Department of Justice desired an explanation of this act, as it sets aside decisions given by the courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada.
I will endeavour to give sufficient reasons at this writing to satisfy the Department of Justice, that said act should not be disallowed. If, however, the Department of Justice should deem the facts set forth in this letter insufficient to justify the act referred to, I trust they will do me the honour of permitting me to present my case before them, together with the evidence I have to support various statements in connection with same.
I might say that the court decisions referred to, were gained through fraud and as a result of a conspiracy engineered by various parties in Montreal, including Mr. W. F. Sparrow, a business partner of my brother.
That is a pretty strong statement.
But notwithstanding this fact, nor the fact that I can produce absolute evidence to show that the evidence of each of the six witnesses-on whose evidence the courts had to decide-can be placed in various categories ranging from perjury to concealment of facts-
Then in parenthesis he says:
The witnesses were not cross-examined, nor was evidence filed in rebuttal-their evidence was given at a defaulted hearing, and the true facts were never presented before the courts. Yet, notwithstanding this, nor a volume of like facts, which I can produce in connection with the decisions obtained against my interests, I have no intention of defending the legislation passed (Bill No. 124) on these grounds.
The main facts to be considered in connection with the legislation passed which I will refer to as Bill No. 124, are: That if this bill is disallowed, the courts of our country cannot deal with my claim for justice.
I never owned nor had interest in the firm of Sparrow and MacNeil of Montreal, yet through the supposed insolvency of this firm myself and family have been deprived of a property, in which the firm of Sparrow and MacNeil had absolutely no interest, although the false evidence before referred to led the courts to believe differently.
After four years and nine months' enlistment, I returned to Canada to learn that through misrepresentation practised upon them, the courts had awarded thie property referred to in Bill 124, to F. W. Sharp, as curator of the firm of Sparrow and MacNeil. Mr. Sharp, with the approval of two inspectors of the supposed defunct firm of Sparrow and MacNeil, under circumstances-too lengthy to deal with at this writing-disposed of same to Mr. G. C. Fletcher for the sum of $2,500 (Mr. Fletcher was a witness at the defaulted hearing, and filed before the court a document in which he is supposed to have undertaken to pay $35,000 plus $9,000 royalty for the same property he now obtains for $2,500). Mr. Sharp, Mr. Fletcher, .and the two inspectors referred to, are four of the six witnesses who gave evidence at the defaulted hearing. All our efforts to have them cross-examined failed.
Mr. Fletcher in turn disposed of the property- the fifth witness represents the supposed owners of the property at the time Bill 124 was passed-the sixth witness was W. F. Sparrow, whose fraudulent conduct made possible the whole conspiracy. Since Bill 124 has been passed, I have declined a suggestion that I compromise with the parties who claim title.
It was only after efforts were made unsuccessfully with the Department of Justice, the Supreme Court' 
of Canada, etc., to have my claim considered, that Bill 124 was introduced and favourably acted upon by the government of Nova Scotia, as the only means by which the courts could function in their duty of administering justice in the case referred to.
The disallowing of this act, Bill 124, would infer that the Department of Justice condoned the practice of parties courageous enough to resort to misrepresentation on our courts, as a means of obtaining their unholy ends.
Bill 124 provides ample opportunity to anyone having a just claim to enforce same. If the parties who through misrepresentation obtained the court's decision, decline to avail themselves of the opportunity afforded them in Bill 124 to show whether their claim was a true one or not, and the Department of Justice has any desire to investigate the matter, I will be pleased to place at their disposal all evidence in my possession.
That the evidence I have may be deemed concrete and conclusive can be judged from the fact that it has been under the inspection of some thirteen law firms, officials of the G. W. V. A., the government of Nova Scotia, and an ex-Chief Justice (who had decided against my interests, owing to the fraudulent evidence on which he had to give his decis'on) and has not been found wanting.
Trusting this will sufficiently explain the matter, I am, very respectfully yours,
(Signed) D. Stanley MacNeil.
I have read that somewhat lengthy letter in order to show that this young man was smarting under a sense of injustice, because he believed that there had been an absolute miscarriage of justice in the courts of Nova Scotia. Naturally enough the Appellate Court went only upon the material placed before them; but the man having discovered the manner in which the trial had been carried on and the verdict based upon it, having discovered what he alleges to be new and sufficient evidence, I do submit that there was no other way in which he could again bring the matter before the courts of the country save by such legislation as was passed by the legislature of Nova Scotia.
Let us consider that legislation for a moment. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Macdonald) has attempted to throw ridicule upon the provisions of section 2 of that act. I submit that the sole purpose of the act was to put the parties in the position which they occupied previously to the beginning of the first litigation, and that it was open to Plaster Quarries, Limited, or any other persons having an equity, or claiming to have an equity in the property, to begin that litigation, de novo and have the case tried and concluded on the strength of the evidence that might then be presented. By reason of the action of the Minister of Justice that privilege has been denied and the miscarriage of justice, if it may so be termed, has been made complete. That legislation was drawn up by one of the best lawyers in Nova Scotia, Mr. Stewart, who

Disallowance
23S1
wrote the letter to my hon. friend's son, who was instrumental in having the bill passed. He appeared before the committee, as I understand, and other counsel were present-I refer to the private bills committee in the legislature of Nova Scotia in the year 1921, presided over then by the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) who, in addition to being chairman of the committee was a member of the government of Nova Scotia, and who, no doubt, was chairman of the committee because he was a member of that government. I wonder what that hon. gentleman's feelings were this afternon and evening when he heard the language with which his legislation was characterized. I can imagine some of his feelings; perhaps he will be able to give vocal utterance to them after I have taken my seat. I do not think that the legislature of Nova Scotia is so bad, bad as I believe it to be, as to have railroaded legislation of this character without having given it some consideration. Let me say this further. This is not the first time that legislation of this character has been put through the legislature of Nova Scotia, and I venture the assertion that it will not be the last. This is not the first time that such legislation affecting the title to real property in the province of Nova Scotia has been put through that legislature. I recall to mind an act passed in 1915 by the legislature of Nova Scotia validating and placing at rest title to a tract of timber land that sold afterwards for nearly one million dollars, and the transfer of which took place on the strength of the act in question. The legislature of Nova Scotia has adopted a policy of validating titles by legislation. It is the only legislature in the Dominion that I am aware of which has adopted that policy; but it has adopted it in numerous cases and I have no doubt it will do so again. So that this was no new piece of legislation in that province. You may not be able to justify the policy, but it exists nevertheless; and I suppose the whole question might have been under review years ago if any vested interests had. been interfered with or had taken the trouble to bring the matter before the Justice department. Certainly the Justice department never undertook to disallow the act of 1915 validating the title of the Halifax Lumber Company, or title-of the Davidson Lumber Company or the numerous other lumber companies in the province, whose titles have been made good in the way I have indicated. I submit therefore that the legislature of Nova Scotia acted in perfect
good faith. The members of the private bills committee of that legislature who heard the evidence on both sides as well as the arguments acted in perfect good faith. If not, with what term shall we characterize that legislature and the members thereof? I prefer to leave that to the hon. member for Pictou who himself has described what kind of legislation we are considering in this particular case.
Mr. PUTNAM; Does the hon. member wish to imply that the legislature of Nova Scotia ever validated a title which was doubtful and which was worth anything in the vicinity of a million and a half dollars?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. gentleman's question is really double-barrelled. I would answer the first part by saying that the legislature of Nova Scotia has validated titles which were really doubtful, and no one knows it better than my hon. friend for Colchester (Mr. Putnam), because he must remember the experience he and I had over that very act this year when he tried to get another private bill put through the legislature of Nova Scotia in the interests of one of his own clients exempting a certain lot which was affected by the earlier legislation.
Now, to resume. I have stated that this class of legislation is nothing new in Nova Scotia.


Mr. PUTNAM:: Will the hon. gentleman answer the other part of my question?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have really forgotten
what it was.


Harold Putnam: Is the hon. gentleman seriously claiming that the validation affected property to anything like a value of $1,000,000?


Richard Burpee Hanson: In this case or the ease I cited?


Harold Putnam: The Fraser Lumber Company.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do say that on the strength of the validating act passed by the legislature of Nova Scotia in 1915 my clients invested in the neighbourhood of 31,000,000, and that that act validated titles many of which were objectionable-just what proportion I am not prepared to state.


Harold Putnam: Would you allow me to give my opinion on that?


Richard Burpee Hanson: You can speak when I am through; there will be lots of room and lots of time.
Disallowance


Harold Putnam: Thank you.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. gentleman but I do not think he ought to make a speech in the middle of the few remarks I am addressing to the House. In respect to the act in question, the hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Macdonald) made some very scathing references to segtion 2. With all due deference to himself and other legal lights in this House and to the opinion of those who may differ from me, I submit that this section did adequately preserve the equities of the present owners. Unquestionably that was the intent and meaning of the statute, and if the legislature of Nova Scotia-I have confidence enough in them to say this-had understood and believed, or if the law officers of the Crown in that province under whose scrutiny this act must have passed had believed for one moment that the interest of the Plaster Quarries, Limited and the bondholders, would have been prejudicially affected in promoting new litigation, they would never have passed the bill in question. Therefore I say that the legislation was undoubtedly well considered in the local legislature, and I do submit that it gave nothing more and nothing less than the right of a new trial, which could not have been obtained in any other way.
Reference has been made to the extraordinary powers given to the Minister of Justice under the Criminal Code in capital cases to order a new trial without the interposition of judicial proceedings. But that power is exercised very sparingly. However, there have been cases, and I had intimate experience with one such case where the ex^ ercise of the power was absolutely justified. Of course, in civil matters there is no such power given to anyone, except the sovereign power in the legislature of Nova Scotia, and I submit that that sovereign power was not abused in this case.
A great deal of time has been taken in arguing the constitutional aspect of this matter. I do not propose to follow along the paths that have already been well trodden in that connection, except to say that I venture the assertion that the opinion expressed by Sir Allen Aylesworth in the Florence mining case correctly sets forth what is the constitutional practice in the cases and decisions.


Harold Putnam: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) dropped a remark by which, whether intentionally on his part or inadvertently, the opinion would naturally be formed by this House that it was not unusual

for the legislature of Nova Scotia to settle titles by legislation. Having watched legislation there for a long term of years, and being a native and a lawyer of that province, I say the practice is utterly unusual and that the valuation placed by the hon. member upon the land which happened to come Under a validating bill would lead to a wholly wrong inference. It is true that in a validating bill property was included which according to my hon. friend-and I do not doubt his word- may have sold for something like a million and a half. But as to 99 per cent of that property there was no possible question about the validity of the title. There was some doubt as to about $800 or $900 worth of property included in the tract, and it was for the purpose of settling title to that small portion that the blanket bill was put through covering all the lands that the Fraser Pulp and Paper Company required. And even in respect of the title which was doubtful, my hon. friend and I had a friendly contest this winter and the Lower House of Nova Scotia put through a bill undoing the injustice which they did to the man in regard to the $800 or $900 worth of property which was taken from him, and before it reached our House of Lords -our Legislative Council-the parties arrived at a settlement. But it is absolutely erroneous to suppose that the government of the province of Nova Scotia have any policy of validating titles of substantial value. There is, . however, in some counties an optional Lands Title Act in effect where after an extensive system of newspaper and poster advertising a person may by motion have a title declared, but the most ample notice must be given to every abutter and to every person who can possibly be considered as having any interest or claim in or to the land in question. Exceedingly infrequent are the occasions when the legislature of Nova Scotia purports to settle a title which is in any degree doubtful.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that owing to absence from the chamber I did not hear the earlier portion of this debate, nor am I able to say that I am in any way familiar with the merits of the controversy which has taken place in the courts and in the legislature of Nova Scotia. My knowledge in regard to the matter has been gathered solely from what I have heard of the debate this evening, and I think I may safely say that anyone who has listened carefully to the proceedings this evening must be forced to the conclusion that the question now before the House does touch one of the most important

Disallowance
and one of the most vital interests which the provincial governments and the Dominion government have, under our great constitutional charter known as the British North America Act. The subject now under discussion involves in a most pointed way the respective jurisdictions of our provincial legislatures on the one hand and of the Dominion executive on the other.
For the purpose of the brief remarks which I propose to make to the House the merits of the controversy really need not be considered. The address delivered to-night by my hon. friend the Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) was largely a discussion of the rights and claims and counter-claims of the individuals in Nova Scotia who sought either to enforce or to repel some alleged claim. In the view I take of the matter we need not concern ourselves with the claims of the various interested parties in the province of Nova Scotia. In coming to a determination upon this matter, it is of no moment whether the claims of the MacNeils are well founded or ill founded. The point and the single point which we are called upon to decide is the constitutional question, should this parliament or should the government of the Dominion exercise jurisdiction to annul or to disallow an act of the [DOT] legislature of the province of Nova Scotia, passed by that legislature while acting strictly within its legislative rights as laid down by the British North America Act? That is the simple question we have to. decide, and I doubt if any more important question or any more far reaching question can be raised in this parliament than this: Should this parliament, should the government of this country in any case, undertake to disallow or to annul an act of a provincial legislature when that act has been passed within the legislative jurisdiction of that province.
I assume we are all agreed upon certain points in regard to this case. All the parties interested are residents of Nova Scotia. The property over which the conflict has taken Diace is situated within the province of Nova Scotia. The transaction itself does not af-, feet the rights of any other province or the rights of the Dominion. The whole matter lies within the province itself. The property is there; the parties are there, and the legislature is there, and the question concerns-


Lomer Gouin: If my hon. friend will permit me, I think he is in error. All the parties are not in the province of Nova Scotia. Sparrow and MacNeil were doing business in Montreal. They went into liquidation in Montreal and the curator was appointed in Montreal. They had creditors in Montreal, who are still creditors, unpaid. The Plaster Quarries Company is not, that I know of, a company having interests only in the province of Nova Scotia. The bonds were sold and distributed all over Canada.


Hugh Guthrie: I am glad my hon. friend has put me right on that point. But after all, it is the property itself, and where that property is located with which we are more particularly concerned. Where is the corpus? Where are the assets? It is in regard to the assets that this particular legislation imposes rights or obligations or seeks to change title of ownership. I do not think that anyone would controvert the statement that the whole question under discussion is within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Nova Scotia. If we can come to that conclusion, as I think we must, then I think the next step is a very simple one. The constitutional practice which has grown up in the course of over fifty years in this country is simply this, that in regard to questions over which provincial legislatures have within themselves legislative jurisdiction, this House, this government, shall not interfere. I agree that the constitutional development in the Dominion of Canada has not been a matter of a few months or even a matter of a few years. Our constitutional rights were settled, it is true, in a written constitution in the year 1867. But there has been a slow but steady development of constitutional practice; and views which were entertained in the seventies and the eighties and the nineties do not prevail to-day and are not considered good parliamentary usage or good constitutional practice. One has only to glance over the works of the various constitutional authors who have written upon the subject . to follow step by step the constitutional development which has taken place in Canada since 1867. The case cited this evening by my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Defence (Mr. Macdonald), including the argument of Mr. Lafleur, K.C., of Montreal, puts the matter more conclusively than any argument of mine could do. The citation made by the hon. gentleman was from Lefroy's work on Canada's Federal System, page 46, and I am going to repeat the quotation, because it is very appropriate to the discussion which is now proceeding:
Mr. Lafleur informed the Privy Council of Canada that the number of acts actually disallowed on grounds of injustice under what he calls the old regime, i.e , from confederation to 1898, were five in number; but that in numbers of other cases the recommendations made by the ministers of justice led to a change in the law either by repeal or by amendment, and consequently the necessity for disallowance wa?

Disallowance

obviated. As to the five cases thus referred to by Mr. Lafleur where disallowance actually followed, Mr. Masten, arguing on the other side, remarks as to them: " I find that in two of these cases, one principal ground of objection was that the rights of Dominion companies were prejudicially affected, which always is a recognized ground for disallowance, and therefore, it takes away from the strength of the remarks which are obiter on the other question."
Mr. Lafleur makes it clear in the first place that under "the old regime" five cases have arisen in Canada where the Dominion government saw fit to interfere and
10 p.m. disallow provincial acts. "Under the old regime," mark you, but the development from 1896 down to the present time has been entirely the other way. I appeal to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), and I refer him to the language of the late Edward Blake, who was probably the most outstanding legal mind that ever adorned this House. The late Hon. Edward Blake, speaking in this House, declared that a provincial legislature might do wrong if it liked so long as it acted within its strict constitutional rights under the British North America Act; it could do wrong if it liked in regard to property and civil rights and there was no right in this government or this parliament to correct it. Let me mention another authority. Another minister of justice, who was in that office when I first entered parliament, the late Hon. David Mills, held the same view. He stated on more than one occasion in this House that there should be no interference by federal authority in cases very similar to the present one. Following him, Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick, when Minister of Justice, afterwards Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, took identically the same view. Following him again, Sir Allen Aylesworth, now a member of the Upper House, when minister of justice, stated his view of the question in a speech which actually became famous in Canada. In fact, that speech, which was connected with the Florence mining case, was reported in full in Great Britain, and Sir Allen Aylesworth himself told me that Right Hon Mr. Asquith, at that time Prime Minister of Great Britain, had spoken to him in regard to it, had expressed his approval of the constitutional practice which Sir Allen Aylesworth had so forcibly expressed in this House.
In the face of such outstanding authority can anyone for a moment argue that the actual constitutional practice in Canada to-day is otherwise than Sir Allen Aylesworth stated it to be? I grant we have the right to disallow provincial legislation-that is one thing. It is declared in the British North America Act that we have such a right; but is it good con-

stitutional practice to exercise that right? To have a strict legal right to do an act is one thing and to have a constitutional right to do it is another thing. After having had experience of over fifty years in this country, in constitutional government under the operation of the British North America Act, I submit that we are turning back precedent after precedent and page after page of constitutional development if in a case of this kind we attempt to interfere with the legislative jurisdiction of the province of Nova Scotia.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my hon.
friend aware whether any objection has been raised by either the government or the legislature of Nova Scotia to this act .of disallowance, and if not, wherein has there been any invasion of provincial rights?


Hugh Guthrie: I speak purely from the standpoint of the province of Ontario. I do not know that any objection has been taken by anybody in Nova Scotia; but if it is going to be recognized in this country that the government of Canada can disallow provincial acts passed by the legislatures of the various provinces when acting strictly within their provincial rights and jurisdictions I think every province of Canada is vitally interested in the question; and it is only from that point of view' that I thought proper to interject a few remarks upon this question to-night. I am satisfied that as I make the statement which I have made to-night that the Minister of Justice and the Acting Minister of National Defence-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What does
my hon. friend say to the opinion of Hon. Mr. Doherty?	.


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot say that I am wholly in accord with the opinion given in this House by Mr. Doherty as read by the Minister of Justice and the Acting Minister of National Defence to-night; I would like to consider more carefully that opinion and inquire into the special facts of that particular case. But I do know this in respect to it, that no action was taken towards disallowance of that particular act.
I have this remark to make in regard to the letter sent by the Deputy Minister of Justice to the Attorney General of Nova Scotia on 8th November, 1921, which has been quoted in this debate. I think it was the duty of the law officers of the Dominion government to call directly to the attention of the law officers of the province of Nova Scotia wrhat, in the opinion of the law officers here, was an apparent wrong or injustice. That is the reason, I fancy, why the letter of 8th

Disallowance
November, 1921, was sent by the Deputy Minister of Justice to the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, and the intimation in that letter is very plain that in the opinion of the law officers in Ottawa injustice is likely to be done by this particular act of Nova Scotia. The attention of the authorities in Nova Scotia was called to the fact that the legislature of that province should remedy the difficulty itself and a hint was certainly thrown out-probably we should call it a threat-that if no action were taken in the matter by the government of Nova Scotia the federal government might see fit to act in the matter. Let me quote the concluding statement made by the deputy minister in this letter,
It would be the duty of the Minister of Justice, as . you will perceive, to consider the propriety of recommending disallowance of this statute, and he would be glad, in considering the matter, to have before him any explanation or representation which your government would desire to submit.
Then followed the notification of the 22nd March, 1922, when my hon. friend, the present Minister (Sir Lomer Gouin) was the incumbent of the office of Minister of Justice. Note particularly the language of the letter of the 22nd March, 1922, which also is from the Deputy Minister of Justice:
I observe that your legislature is now in session, I have discussed this matter with the Minister of Justice-
That is the present incumbent-
-and he desires me to suggest that your government should give earnest consideration to the propriety of putting through a repealing act at the present session-
Here is the same threat, here is the same hint.
-otherwise it will be difficult to resist the application to disallow, but disallowance of this sort of statute, which is I suppose intra vires, upon the ground of its conflict with the principles of justice, would introduce a principle of action here with respect to provincial legislation which it might afterwards be found difficult to restrict within due limits, and therefore, upon constitutional grounds and for motives of expediency it is suggested that the necessity of further consideration by this government should be avoided by local action.
That is precisely the point which I desire to make. If we disallow this act where is the practice to stop? To-morrow it may be the case of Alberta; the next day it may be the case of Saskatchewan; the next day it may be the province of Ontario. The right to disallow provincial legislation is expressly conferred by the British North America Act upon the federal government. Our constitutional practice established for many years says no, we should not act. What are we going to do? Will the minister, because of this present act
152J
of disallowance not be tempted to act in a similar manner on subsequent occasions, or may another Minister of Justice, at some time in the future history of the country, not justify some further act of disallowance by citing what the present government did with respect to the present statute of Nova Scotia? What are we really doing in regard to that statute? The government is assuming here that it is the legislature of the province of Nova Scotia. It is doing what the legislature of Nova Scotia has not seen fit to do. That is the point so forcibly argued by Sir Allen Ayles-worth in the debate on the Florence mining case: The government will have to put itself into the position of the legislators of Nova Scotia in order to repeal an act which the legislature of that province has not seen fit to repeal. Is this House going to approve such a course? Do we know sufficient about the matter? Even if we do should we take such action? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we should not.
The Acting Minister of National Defence rallies his supporters to the support of himself and the government by stating that this amendment will mean a vote of want of confidence. Well, it is about the only way we can bring this matter directly to the attention of the government. I have not the permission of my colleagues on this side of the House to make any statement upon the subject but if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice will assure the House that this particular act of disallowance was an extraordinary proceeding on their part, and that the government will not under any circumstances repeat the operation in the future, I am quite satisfied that no one on this side of the chamber would desire to press this motion. But when the government take the other ground, when they say we did what we did because it was right constitutionally, then people in other parts of Canada have to be aroused to the situation because we believe that where a province legislates strictly within its own jurisdiction this government has no right to disallow such legislation under the constitutional practice and usage of this country. That is the broad ground we take, and upon this ground I have not yet heard any serious defence urged on the part of the government. There is a tendency to argue the merits of the case and to argue very ably-as did my hon. friend the Acting Minister of National Defence-the rights of the various parties affected by the legislation and he may be absolutely right in his facts and in his argument of the merits of the case. Even if he is right in all that he contends the only tribunal to right the wrong, if
Disallowance

there be a wrong, is the legislature of the province of Nova Scotia. If the government overlooks that fact and assumes to itself the functions of the legislature of Nova Scotia, while it may say that the strict language of a section of the British North America Act permits it to do so, the correct constitutional practice in this country recognized from 1896 down to the present time practically by every government and every Minister of Justice distinctly affirms that a government should not do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would ask my hon. friend one other question before he concludes his remarks. Do not all the opinions that have been cited to-day have reference to cases where the provinces have protested against the act of disallowance?


Hugh Guthrie: I really cannot answer that question. I do not know, I was not here when the discussion took place this afternoon but I would doubt it. I cannot see what difference it makes whether the provincial government protests against or agrees to disallowance. I have heard it said that the government of Nova Scotia actually requested that this act be disallowed by the federal government. I think the provincial government assumed a great responsibility in so doing and is guilty of a great impropriety. The government of Nova Scotia is not the legislature of Nova Scotia, and	when the	legislature	of	NovaScotia passes an act, I think it is highly improper that the government of Nova Scotia, without consulting the legislature, should ask that an act of the	Legislative	Assemblybe annulled by any outside authority. If the act is	wrong in	any particular	whatmore simple than to have it repealed by the legislature, of Nova Scotia. The government	of Nova	Scotia is	in	power
in the province by a large majority. Were the legislature to repeal the act it would obviate all this difficulty, clear up this constitutional tangle, and relieve the federal government from doing an act which in my humble opinion is a grave constitutional ip-justice. I am satisfied that from year to year, hereafter, as parliament and the government continue in this country the disallowance in the present case of this legislation of Nova Scotia will be cited and referred to as a precedent for disallowance in the western provinces, the eastern provinces or in the central provinces of the Dominion, and I, for one, protest with all my might against such a practice.


Robert Forke: I propose to say a few words on the subject at
[Mr. Guthrie.!
the present time. I notice that most of the members who have taken part in this debate to-night have been of the legal fraternity. The debate has taken on largely the aspect of the legal right of the Dominion and provincial parliaments. Dealing with the case in its primary aspect-that is in relation to Mac-Neil-I am inclined to think, from all the information I have been able to gather, that there was nothing very reputable about the whole transaction from beginning to end. However, I do not suppose that really affects the question at issue at "the present time. Dealing with the action of the legislature of Nova Sjcotia, it does seem a little dangerous that the legislature should interfere with any decision that has been reached by the courts of the province or by the Supreme Court of Canada. It might have a tendency to lessen the dignity and the standing of those courts. On the other hand, I am struck with the supreme importance of coming to a correct decision in a matter of this kind. I hope that it has not been made a political football at any time and that the question is being discussed entirely upon its merits, because I believe it is one of very great importance. I have come reluctantly to the decision I have reached, simply because the question is involved, and it has many aspects, and many different angles from which it can be viewed. Nevertheless, I cannot but think it would be a dangerous precedent for the Minister of Justice to have the power, or to make a practice, of disallowing acts of the provincial legislature when it is acknowledged that they are intra vires of the province. That is the situation as I see it. I have come to that decision reluctantly because perhaps with the knowledge and experience I have, I may not be competent to form a correct judgment, but I have come *to a conclusion, it is my honest opinion, and I will have to stand by it.
Mr. 0. R. GOULD (Assiniboia): The debate which has been carried on this afternoon has been very interesting and we have listened with great attention from this corner to the deliberations of the various legal lights in the chamber. I am forced to the conclusion that, as is generally the case, when lawyers debate a case, no conclusion is arrived at in their own minds; that is, neither the one nor the other proves his case. But to the lay mind it seems that we who have followed the arguments must come to the conclusion that there is some individual in the fore part of the story who has not been dealt with adequately. I am minded to say that the governing body of

Disallowance
Nova Scotia comprises two bodies; that is a legislative council and a governing council, and it seems to me that with the evidence submitted to them, the evidence upon which they passed the statute under debate, and which has been disallowed, those two legislative bodies of Nova Scotia were in a better position to judge the merits of the case than those who followed can possibly be. I do not claim to interpret this question from a legal point of view, but if I have had any concern in life, it has been to try to find out what is the status of the other fellow, the under dog, and if I can say a word I would like to speak to-night on behalf of the other fellow. I refer to the primary individual who is very much interested in the case. I understood the Minister of Justice to state that he took the position that MacNeil, the individual in question, had perpetrated a fraud. According to the evidence which I read-and I may say that I looked into the evidence for a considerable length of time-it seems to me that is not the first premise we have'. If it be substantiated that MacNeil perpetrated a fraud, the fact seems to be that others prior to that time had perpetrated a fraud. I refer to statements that have been made that notes had been given by MacNeil's partner to the partner's parent, and no value received, that a bogus contract, I think, alleged to have been made in Calgary, was the cause of sending MacNeil out to Calgary. As I stated, that was a bogus contract. All these things were submitted, and submitted, I believe, to the Nova Scotia legislature and after a full discussion by the two legislative bodies, they came to the conclusion that an injustice had been done MacNeil, and the consequence was that the statute was passed.
Then we come to the appeal of the legislative bodies in Nova Scotia, The two legislative bodies had the opportunity again of reviewing the newer evidence that had been brought out. The appeal being brought before the Nova Scotia legislature, and not being allowed, seems to me to support the statement or attitude they had taken in their first case. It is also said that, on the first hearing that was given before the Minister of Justice, it must have been only the evidence of Quarries Limited, that could be taken into consideration, because I understand that the defendant in the case had not submitted evidence at that time. Again I find the order for disallowance was dated October 17th, while it is a fact that the Great War Veterans' Association asked for a second hearing on October 18th. Now if that is the case there
seems to be something wrong here. There is a conflict of dates. In that case, it does go to prove-and I believe we are right in assuming -that evidence that might have been submitted the second time could not have had the reasonable consideration of the Department of Justice here.
Whether that be right or wrong, the fact remains that such things as those have been published throughout the length and breadth of the country. Listening to the speeches this afternoon, one must come to the conclusion that there has been discussed upon, the floor of this House, evidence pertaining to the case, evidence that was submitted to the Nova Scotia legislature, before the courts, and so forth. As I have endeavoured to explain, I have taken it upon myself to present the case of MacNeil on its merits, and I have in my hand a statement which, although it is quite lengthy, I should like to place upon Hansard, because it presents the other side of the case, and, perhaps, the ultimate decision in this case will rest upon the judgment put upon this statement. I do this, not because I wish to take responsibility; I am not taking responsibility at all for the statement. But this has been handed to me, and looking upon it as a disinterested spectator, I feel that there has been an omission of evidence in rebuttal of that which has been given to-day. I think I am justified in stating that the individual from whom I have received this statement says that he is prepared to prove all this evidence in any place in the Dominion of Canada. If that be the case, there are some very strong statements in this. The statement reads:
That I am prepared to prove that certain parties in Montreal in 1911 did conspire to obtain possession of the personal assets of F. J. MacNeil.
That is F. J. MacNeil, a partner of the firm of Sparrow and MacNeil. That is the allusion I made to the fact that there was a primary premise to the statement made that' the MacNeils themselves had not acted on purely legal grounds.	_
That there were grounds for warranting a belief amongst those parties that the gypsum property would be one of F. J. MacNeil's assets.
That the value of the property was surmised by these parties in 1911 as much as it is surmised to-day.
That F. J. McNeil and W. F. Sparrow were equal parties in an unlimited contracting firm in Montreal, known as Sparrow and MacNeil, and that W. F. Sparrow used this business connection to further the conspiracy against F. J. MacNeil. The steps taken by Sparrow to further this end were as follows
F. J. MacNeil was lured to Calgary-
I made reference to that statement before.
-in the latter part of June, 1911, in connection with a contract from which tremendous profits were expected. Later, he was advised that the firm was in difficulties,
23S8
Disallowance

and that failure to act on a certain suggestion would result in the loss of this large contract to the firm. On July 6, 1911, F. W. Sharp notified the creditors of Sparrow and MacNeil that the liabilities of this firm were in the vicinty of $50,000, and assets about $20,000; that firm had a large contract in the West, and that if partner MacNeil would make over his assets to him (Sharp) as trustee for ^-editors, the firm would be allowed to continue business; that on partner MacNeil refusing to do this, an assignment would be made.
For various reasons MacNeil refused to do as desired. On July 12, 1911, Mr. Sparrow made a judicial abandonment of the firm's affairs, listing both movable and immovable property belonging to the firm. He swore the firm owned no immovable property. Creditors were informed by Mr. Sharp that Mr. Sparrow (a supposed millionaire's son) did not have a cent for them. Mr. MacNeil was considered wealthy and Mr. Sharp, who fallowing the abandonment was appointed curator, informed creditors that he was taking steps to secure MacNeil's assets.
MacNeil's assets were levied upon, presumably for the benefit of creditors. (Registrar's records in New Jersey in 1921 show MacNeil's land in that state held as a personal asset of F. W. Sharp.) But the creditors of the firm have not been paid. The firm's notes for thousands of dollars were given to parties by Mr. Sparrow without MacNeil's knowledge. Private debts were charged to the firm's accounts by Sparrow.
MacNeil learned that the Calgary contract was with a company that did not even exist. The supposed president of this company had been given the firm's notes by Sparrow unknown to MacNeil, to the amount of $15,000.
It was learned that the gypsum property was not a personal asset of F. J. MacNeil's that he never held title, same being in the name of Jane E. MacNeil.
That the subsequent action taken by F. W. Sharp to deprive Miss MacNeil of her property was founded on fraud which it served as a cloak to cover.
That the expense entailed in prosecuting this action against Miss MacNeil's title was borne by innocent parties whose interests the courts were falsely led to believe would be benefited by Mr. Sharp receiving a favourable decision, while an adverse decision would deprive them of their just claims against an insolvent firm.
That a statement which led to action being taken against Miss MacNeil's title is not entitled to credit inasmuch as it appears in the firm's books, the care of which Mr. Sparrow would be responsible for, and was alleged as follows "Investment account, gypsum property-Island point, Cape Breton. $2,000." [DOT]
That the evidence given in Mr. Sharp's behalf and on which the courts of Canada gave decision was not subjected to cross-examination, was given at a hearing granted under writ of commission at Montreal, which hearing took place without knowledge of the Mac-Neils. They learned of it after it was over.
That the witnesses who gave evidence in Mr. Sharp's behalf were parties who played a part more or less in the affairs of Sparrow and MacNeil and subsequent insolvency, or previously been interested in the gypsum property.
That when the case came to trial in Sydney, evidence in rebuttal to plaintiff's evidence was entrusted to Miss MacNeil's lawyer, but was not filed.
It seems to me that some very important points are being brought out here.
That according to records, nine judges in Canada gave decision on the case, five against and four in favour of Miss MacNeil.
That evidence has been brought out before, and I do not need to repeat it. The statement continues:
That a document representing F. J. MacNeil as owner of the gypsum property was filed by G. C. Fletcher, witness for plaintiff Sharp, for the purpose of misleading the courts. That said document also led courts to believe that G. C. Fletcher had paid F. J. MacNeil $1,000 to bind a certain agreement re gypsum property. This agreement required that G. C. Fletcher pay $35,000 plus $9,000 a year royalty for the right to mine and ship gypsum from the said property.
That when courts awarded property to Mr. Sharp for benefit of firm's creditors, Mr. Sharp disposed of it through G. C. Fletcher for the sum of $2,500.
That two of Mr. Sharp's witnesses were also inspectors with duties to assist Mr. Sharp in disposing of firm's assets to the best interest of firm's creditors.
That without any new discoveries being made, the property was subsequently represented in a statement issued through Bradstreet's as being worth more than $2,750,000.
That aside from local branches, two provincial commands and the Dominion command of the Great War Veterans' Association of Canada who investigated Miss MacNeil's claims, following return of J. Stanley MacNeil from overseas active service, came to the conclusion that the courts had not been given an opportunity of fully weighing the respective claims. They joined him in appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Department of Justice, and finally the government of Nova Scotia to have the case reopened, in order that all the evidence could be fully considered and an equitable decision reached.
After hearing the full statement of Miss MacNeil's claims the Nova Scotia legislature at its 1921 session passed an act vesting the property in her right. That legislature took this step with the object of placing the case in the position where the courts could deal with it, and set a period of one year in which action could be taken to test Miss MacNeil's title. The title was subsequently transferred by Miss MacNeil to her brother, D. Stanley MacNeil, in return for consideration and in fulfilment of an arrangement made at the time the property was originally purchased as a family home, at which time Stanley MacNeil was a minor. On September 5th, 1922, Stanley MacNeil received in Ottawa the information that notice of writ obtained on May 20, 1922, had been served on his sister on August 31, that action against the property was pending and that if appearance was not filed in Nova Scotia he would lose by default. He then proceeded to Halifax, had appearance entered and was awaiting action. On the evening of October 4, he received a telegram from Mr. E. L. Newcombe, Deputy Minister of Justice, which informed him that the parties who were bringing action against his right to the gypsum property had also petitioned the federal authorities for disallowance of the statute on which his title rested, and that the minister would hold a hearing at Montreal on Monday morning, October 9.
The point is brought out that Stanley MacNeil had only five days, one of them Sunday, in which to consult legal counsel, to prepare his case and to travel from Nova Scotia to Montreal, and he maintains that this was absolutely inadequate time for him to take the necessary steps.
Mr. MacNeil claims that he had no opportunity to have counsel prepare argument for him and at the hearing at Montreal he refused to file evidence or present an unprepared case and requested that hearing be postponed. To meet the convenience of counsel for petitioning parties the minister proceeded with the

Disallowance
hearing, inferring that there would be a further hearing later. Counsel for petitioning parties made no statement that they could support which would be of sufficient importance as an argument in support of their petition, to be worthy of consideration or criticism.
On October 13 it was thought advisable by the Great War Veterans Association of Canada to present argument in defence of Mr. MacNeiSl's interestsf and the minister was requested to grant a further hearing for this purpose. The minister complied and named October 18 for the purpose. Mr. MacNeil further contends that it would require weeks for counsel to get acquainted thoroughly with the case and the moves made by the parties connected with it to regain possession of the property without appearing in court. He placed a written presentation of the facts, covering fifteen pages, before the minister and filed some fifty extracts of evidence to support them. No witnesses were called, nor were any records kept of the hearing, but a few days later he was informed that the statute was disallowed on recommendation of the Minister of Justice to the Governor in Council.	'
I have already called the attention of the House to the fact that the disallowance was made on October 18 and the letter he received bore date October 17. Another statement is to the effect that upon the request of Stanley MacNeil a hearing of the parties was had "before the undersigned", but no hearing was held at his request previous to October 18th. The statement continues:
The undersigned is not aware of any circumstance whatever, moral, equitable or legal, which can be pointed to in justification of the legislation under review. Tn addition to the Great War Veterans of Canada, and the legislature of Nova Scotia, eminent legal authority throughout Canada and the ex-Chief Justice of Nova Scotia, who gave an adverse decision in ^he case of Sharp versus MacNeil, rendered assistance in having the statute passed. The record of Sharp versus MacNeil is founded on the im-cross examined evidence of witnesses, including W F. Sparrow and the gentleman who acted as counsel for disallowance of statute on October 18. It would be impossible for the minister to give careful consideration on October 17 to material filed and representations made to Stanley MacNeil on October 18. It would be impossible to give full and complete consideration to the statement and evidence submitted by Mr. MacNeil to the Minister of Justice in the short period of time from the actual date of submission to the actual date upon which the statute was disallowed. No reference was made in the recommendation to the fact that a court action was pending, and no reference was made to D. Stanley MacNeil as owner of the property; nor was any reference made to the fact that Plaster Quarries, Limited, who brought the petition was formed for the purpose of acquiring the property. Witness in the case of Sharp versus MacNeil held fifty per cent of the stock of the company.
There are other points, Mr. Speaker, but I think the salient features of the matter have been outlined in the memorandum I have read to the House. I desire to make it clear again that I am not acting from any prejudiced point of view at all; but as a layman listening to the discussion that has taken place this afternoon and evening, and reading much of the evidence that has been submitted in various quarters, in the press, in the House and throughout the country, I have come to the conclusion
that the under dog should have his case presented in some way in this House. I cannot present it from the legal point of view. This memorandum was supplied me and I consider I am only doing my duty in bringing it to the attention of the House. There is one thing I wish to comment slightly upon and that is the peculiar circumstances which surround this property the initial payment of $2,000 and the statement made that there was a knowledge that gypsum was on the property, and yet immediately after the statute was disallowed, or when the litigation was taking place, Brad-streets estimated the value of the property at no less than $2,750,000. There are many thoughts that occur to the mind of an ordinary man when he considers these figures, many thoughts that perhaps are not justified; and I only stand here and say a few words in the hope that justice will be done; for justice is due each and every one of us.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It has been suggested to-night that this is simply a matter of politics, but I want to say that for some of us at least politics do not enter into the matter at all. There obviously is room for a very careful investigation into the merits of a difficult case. Apparently, as has been brought out, there has been an injustice; at least there are some very suspicious circumstances attendant upon this transaction. I do not believe that we have the machinery here to deal with this case, but I take it that the matter must have been reviewed very carefully in the provincial legislature. If I understand rightly, the argument was advanced in defence of the government that the decision of the courts ought to be regarded as final, and that the action of the government at this time was a vindication of the courts. It seems to me that that is not solid ground to take. Rather I think the courts ought to be subservient to the legislative act, and if for any reason whatever it is felt that the judgment is not in harmony with justice, it seems to me it should be reviewed as apparently it was by the provincial legislature.
Then we have the other matter coming up as to the action of this government. As I listened to the arguments which have been advanced it struck me that we have no other course to take than to stand out decidedly for provincial rights. Some weeks earlier in the session my colleague (Mr. Irvine) introduced a motion proposing that an adverse vote should not be taken as indicative of a want of confidence in the government. We still believe that if there were a change of procedure in this House some of us would
Disallowance

not be driven to the awkward position in which, by voting on the principle involved, we have to vote want of confidence in the government. But since the government rejected the motion I have referred to, and since there has been no revision of the procedure, and since it is increasingly difficult for a private member to bring a motion or a bill before the House with any hope of its acceptance, there is no alternative left us than to simply vote on the principle involved, even though our action may not indicate our attitude towards the government. I think it is only fair to make this explanation because it is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of principle, and possibly by voting often enough along these lines we may ultimately bring about a change of procedure.
Mr. WALTER G. MITCHELL (St. Antoine) :	Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the
debate, and although I am not very familiar with the facts of the case, yet one feature has struck me most forcibly. The question of the right of MacNeil or the corporation that now owns the property in dispute is not one that I intend to deal with at any length, because to my mind what we have to decide is not whether the courts of Nova Scotia decided rightly or wrongly upon this issue, but whether, when the Supreme Court of Canada has rendered judgment on a question of this magnitude, the local legislature can ten years later interfere and say that, notwithstanding any rights created between the time the judgment was rendered and the act of the legislature was passed, the Governor in Council has no right to interfere.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the hon.
gentleman think the statute of limitations or any other statute which we might consider for the purpose of this question ought to run against the soldier while he was fighting for his country overseas?


Mr. MITCHELL:: I said a few minutes ago that I was not familiar with the facts of the case, but that one feature of it struck me, namely, whether the rights of third parties created between the time that the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its judgment and the local legislature passed its enactment should be interfered with by such legislation
Let me make myself clear. Some ten years ago this judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was rendered. In virtue of it title was given to a company, and that company issued bonds which were sold not only in Nova Scotia but in Quebec and Ontario, and I do not know but what they may also have been sold in some of the western provinces. If

I am not misinformed, under the terms of the trust deed the bonds so issued were made payable in the city of Montreal. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that ten million dollars' worth of bonds had been issued upon the property in question and were in the hands of third parties all over the Dominion as well as in Great Britain and the United States, would it be right that ten years afterwards the legislature of Nova Scotia should be allowed to say:	"We do not care
what the rights of third parties may be, we do not care for the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, we do not care for the trust deed under which the bonds of this company were, issued. We decide that because this property is situated in Nova Scotia we will wipe out all other rights and treat these bonds as nothing but scraps of paper, that the act which gave title to the company is no good, and we are going to hand the property back to someone who says that he has been prejudiced by an act of fraud, notwithstanding that three courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have held that the title of the company is valid."


Arthur Meighen: If all this is so, was it not something for the consideration of the legislature of Nova Scotia?


Walter George Mitchell: I admit that the legislature of Nova Scotia should have intervened. I may say that I think it should not have passed the act when it did pass. But the fact remains that the legislature took this course ten years subsequent to the title which was created in virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Oh no.


Walter George Mitchell: Certainly, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the title belonged to the company eight years ago.


Arthur Meighen: In 1915.


Walter George Mitchell: In 1915 the Supreme
Court of Canada decided that the title was vested in the company in question. Are we to say that ten years after the legislature of Nova Scotia can declare this title to be no good and pass legislation nullifying the act by which the company obtained title to the property?
We have heard a lot this afternoon about civil rights. There is no man in this House who believes more in provincial autonomy than I do, but we have got to remember that when confederation was brought about a right of appeal was given to the Supreme Court in such cases. Therefore in my judgment it is a grave question whether we should allow the

Disallowance
provincial legislature to interfere in this case because by passing such legislation they are going beyond the confines of their own province and affecting rights created in virtue of a judgment of our highest federal court.
In order to explain my point a little further, let us assume that the title of the British Empire Steel Corporation is questioned by someone who happened to be overseas at the time that the title was given. Since the incorporation of the company millions of dollars worth of bonds have been sold in Canada, the United States and Great Britain. Let us assume that the legislature of the province of Nova Scotia is asked to set aside the company's title. While it might be within the jurisdiction of the legislature to pass such an act, surely no hon. member would contend, in view of the obligations created since the incorporation and in view of the rights of third parties all over the country, that the government or the parliament of Canada should not disallow any act of that nature.
I	do not intend to argue the question further, but it does seem to me that it is not
only a question of the rights of
II	p.m. individuals, created at the time
this act was passed; we must consider seriously all that has happened between 1914 and 1923. We must consider the rights of all parties who have bought the bonds or debentures of this company, in other words, the rights of third parties-rights which were bought and paid for in cash and have perhaps since been transferred time and again. Are we going to say here to-night that the government was wrong when they disallowed an act of a provincial legislature which declared that a title granted in virtue of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was nothing more than a scrap of paper?


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German). Had I voted I should have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DUNCAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted I should have voted for the amendment.


Mr. STANSELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Clifford). Had I voted I should have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SPENCER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Laflamme). Had I voted I should have voted for the amendment.


Mr. POWER:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewbum). Had I voted I should have voted against the amendment.


Murray MacLaren: I was paired with the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Chew). Had I voted I should have voted for the amendment.
.	SUPPLY



[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Civil government, Secretary of State-salaries, $127,837; contingencies, $29,620.
Arthur Meighen: I find no fault with the government getting into supply and taking up an item so that it will be possible to take supply in the case of the estimates of the Secretary of State on Thursday and Friday, but it is hardly fair to ask the committee to start passing any estimates now.


Mr. DUFF:: Go ahead and get the work done. You have talked all day.


Arthur Meighen: You did, we did not.


William Duff: You are the worst offenders.


Robert Forke: You will not get any items through if you sit all night.


Mr. COPP:: I should like to pass a few items that are uncontested. If my hon. friend objects to that we will not insist.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know of anything that is non-contested or anything special that is contested; there will be a general discussion.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would like to pass the salaries of the- deputy heads and a few items of that kind.


Arthur Meighen: They are all in the one vote. We cannot pass the deputies' salaries and not pass the whole vote.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Very well. If my hon. friend insists I will move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.


PRIVATE BILLS SECOND READINGS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 140 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mahlon Beach.-Mr. Ross (Kingston) .
Bill No. 141 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alfred William Kelly.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 142 (from the Senate), for the relief of Wilmot Austin Picked.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 143 (from the Senate), for the relief of Annie May Vogelman. Mr. Duff.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the House.
Arthur Meighen: Who is in charge of the government's temperance programme, since the retirement of the Solicitor General?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister
of Justice.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
Wednesday, May 2, 1923