1923-03-21

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GAUVREAU moved the adpotion of the first report of the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Printing.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 84 to amend The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Explain.


Mr. MURDOCK:: The amendments relate
to sections 15, 57 and 58 of the present act. No new features are proposed; the purpose is simply to convey more clearly the intent of those sections as they now stand and have been understood for a number of years.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	How many appointments were made by the Civil Service Commission in the postal service, Montreal district, between April 1, 1921, and the day the late government resigned ?
2.	How many of the above appointments were made without the candidates having had to pass examinations?
3.	How many promotions were made by the Civil Service Commission, in the postal service, Montreal district, between April 1, 1921, and the day the late government resigned?
4.	How many of the above promotions were made without the candidates having had to pass examinations ?
5.	What are the exact dates on which the above appointments or promotions were made?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	There were 47 permanent appointments made, including 35 postmasters.
2.	All of the 47 appointees noted in question No. 1 fully met the requirements of the law as regards examinations and qualifications.
Name
Position
Date of Appointment
Percival Newman	
Maurice yezina	
Joseph Gigras	
Gracien DeBlois	
Wm. G. Brooks	
J. D. Verdon	
Miss L. Thibault	
O.	Masse	
Ls. Carriere	
Wm. E. Eaton	
R.	Beauchamp	
Mrs. A. St. Jean	
A. Renaud	
J. D. Poissant	
Mrs. A. G. Lefebvre...
Miss J. L. Trudeau....
S.	Boyd	
A. Alieff	
J. T. Arpin	
J. M. Charbonneau	
Jos. P. D. Dauphinias...
Elzear Larose	
Godefroy Jasmin	
Leopold Boileau	
Rodolphe Cornier	
Olier Reveille	
A. L&vigne	
E. Beaudoin	
L. M. Bohemier	
E.	Sirois	
Hector Guercy	
J. E. Chicoine	
N . Pouliot	
Miss A. deGonzague....
R. Lachaine	
Omer Caja	
Jos. Masse	
Josaphat David	
Mrs. J. A. Lanoie	
P.	Viau	
A. Prefontaine	
R. Lamarche	
N. Laplante	
J. Wm. Hyde	
F.	Lessard	
J. Me Andrews	
Promotion:
J. A. E. Lamontagne...
Railway mail
clerk	
Letter earner...
Letter carrier..
letter carrier..
Railway mail
clerk	
Postmaster	
Postmistress....
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmistress....
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmistress....
Postmistress....
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Letter carrier..
Letter carrier..
Letter carrier..
Letter carrier..
Letter carrier..
Letter carrier..
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmistress....
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmistress....
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
Postmaster	
April 1, April 1, April 1, April 1,
April 1, April 27, April 27, April 21, April 13, May 4, May 19, May 19, May 19, May 23, May 23, May 2, May 2, May 2, May 25, June 24, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 29, July 22, July 12, Aug. 30, Aug. 9, Sept. 1, Sept. 1, Sept. 30, Sept. 21, Sept. 21, Oct. 3, Oct. 3, Oct. 11, Oct. 11, Oct. 21, Nov. 29, Dec. 3, Dec. 19, Dec. 14, Dec. 14,
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
1921
From postal clerk to senior postal clerk	
Date of promotion, Dec. 1, 1921.


TANK CARS
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	What ships were used to transport tank cars to Russia during the war?
2.	Were any vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, chartered to Messrs. Eaton & Nelligan Company, shipping agents, for that purpose?
3.	Was a contract signed between that company and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine? If not, why?
4.	If so, by whom was the contract signed, and on what authority?
5.	What was the total loss suffered by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, through that transaction ?
Questions


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	No information.
2,	3, 4 and o. Answered by No. 1.


JUDGES RETIREMENT FUND
Mr. BENOIT:: Does the government intend to bring down, at this session, legislation creating a retirement fund for judges appointed in the future?


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: No.


MOUNTED POLICE-PENSIONS
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What is the total amount of pensions paid to ex-non-commissioned officers and constables of the Royal Northwest Police annually?
2.	Of this amount how much is paid at the old scale of pensions as obtained prior to the present scale coming into force?
3.	What amount would be required annually to bring the pension of those under the old scale up to the pension rates at present obtaining?
4.	What amount would be required to deal with the pensions of officers or their dependents on the same basis as set forth in question 1, 2 and 3?


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: 1.	836,393.86.
2.	$17,611.52.
3.	827.610.25.
4.	The present amount of pension paid to officers is $45,972.50, and to dependents 88,696.25, making a total of $54,668.75. Of this amount the following is paid at the old scale: To officers, $11,719.80; to dependents, $4,213.25; total, $15,933.05. To bring pensions paid under old scale to the present rate, $3,888.60 would be required, as follows: Officers $2,875,60; dependents, $1,013.00; $3,888.60.


MOUNTED POLICE-SCRIP
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Did officers of the Roy^l Northwest Mounted Police who served in the rebellion of 1885 receive land scrip for 160 acres on the same basis as members of the military forces?
2.	Did non-commissioned officers and men of the regular Royal Northwest Mounted Police force who served in the rebellion of 1885 receive land scrip?
3.	If granted, was such scrip granted to the officers because they had been given the honorary title of an officer in the militia corresponding to the rank held by them in the permanent police force?
4.	If not granted, was such scrip refused the noncommissioned officers and men on the ground that they were members of the regular police force and acting simply in performance of their duty in the rebellion of 1885?
5.	Why was there discrimination between non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police and members of the militia in connection with the granting of land scrip? '


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	If any scrip was granted to the police, it was only to those few who may have served on the militia staff-but this department has no record of such scrip having been issued to the few.
4.	The scrip was refused the police because their ordinary duties of maintaining law and order were within the disturbed districts. It appears they were considered to be regulars, permanently stationed in the disturbed territory.
5.	Order in Council of the 30th of June, 1894, set forth the reasons for discriminating between members of the mounted police and officers and men of the militia, when the question of rewards for service during the rebellion was under consideration, from which the following is an extract:
The president of the Privy Council, to whom the matter was referred, reports that when the subject of rewards for services during the rebellion was under consideration of the government, a distinction was made between the mounted police, whose ordinary duties of maintaining law and order were within the limits of the disturbed districts, and the militia, who were called upon to leave their homes and occupations at great personal inconvenience, resulting in many cases in serious embarrassment to themselves and families.
That this distinction was marked by excluding the police from participation in the issue of scrip and by limiting the issue of the medal to those members of the Northwest Mounted Police Force who were actually under fire.


STEAMSHIP COMBINES
Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	By what minister of the Crown, or public official, or commissioner or other person was the interview given to a representative of the Toronto Globe which was published in the issue of that paper of January 20 last, relative to steamship combines on the Great Lakes ?
2.	Does the purported interview contain lengthy extracts from the report made to the government by Mr. W. T. R. Preston?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	The article referred to does not p^Iport to be an interview, but it is in the nature of a news article containing information gathered, doubtless, from a variety of sources.
2.	Answered by the answer to question No. 1.


DEADMAN'S ISLAND
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has an application been received from the city council of Vancouver for leasing of Deadman's Island?
2.	If so, by whom was the application presented?
3.	Has the title to Deadman's Island reverted to the Crown in the right of the Dominion government?
4.	Has a previous lease granted, expired or been cancelled ?

Questions


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The application was forwarded by the city solicitor under the instructions of the city council.
3 and 4. The matter is now before the courts.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COAL
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	What persons, firms and corporations in the province of Alberta supply coal to the Canadian National Railways?
2.	What price is paid per ton?
3.	Are the contracts for such coal awarded by tender?
4.	For what period have such contracts, if any, been awarded ?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Brazeau Collieries, Big Valley Collieries, Blackstone Coal Company, Blue Diamond Coal Company, Bush Mine Coal Company, Coal Valley Mining Company, Ellis Coal Company, Lakeside Coals, Coal Sellers, Limited, Spicer Coal Company, Tofield Coal Company, Marcus Collieries, Mountain Park Coal Company, Rosedale Coal Company, Cadomin Coal Company, Humberstone Coal Company, Mount Cavell, Superior Collieries, Sterling Collieries.
2.	As tenders are now being asked for supplies for the coal year commencing April 1, next, the management does not consider it in the public interest to bring down this information at the present time.
3.	Yes.
4.	Such contracts run from April 1, to March 31, each year.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-WAGES
Mr. KELLNER:: When the wages of the employees of the Canadian National Railways were reduced, in July of 1922, was a proportionate reduction made in the salaries of all officials?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: The employees' wages were increased from time to time in accordance with the Mc-Adoo and Chicago awards and supplements thereto, but salaries of officers were not increased proportionately nor have they ever been paid at rates comparable with those enjoyed by officers of competing lines or in other branches of industry; therefore, no reductions were made.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ATLANTIC DIVISION TERMINI
Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	Is it true as reported in the press, that Honourable J. A. Sinclair, a member of the Canadian National Railway Board, stated to members of the
delegation of the St. John Board of Trade which attended a conference at Amherst, Nova Scotia, that "it was news to him that Cochrane and Brockville were not to be the western termini of the Atlantic Division as that was the understanding at the last meeting he had attended," or words to that effect?
2.	If Mr. Sinclair has been substantially correctly reported, why was a matter of such importance dealt with in his absence?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The government has no information as to the correctness of the report in question.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CLEMENTSPORT POSTMASTER
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Did the postmaster at Clementsport, Nova Scotia, resign as such, in or about the year 1922?
2.	If so, did the Civil Service Commission nominate Mr. Howard G. Potter as a fit and suitable person to fill the said position?
3.	Was Mr. Potter notified of his appointment by the Commission?
4.	Is the government aware that Mr. Potter is a wounded returned soldier ?
5.	Why has Mr. Potter's nomination not been confirmed and why is he not postmaster of Clementsport, Nova Scotia, to-day?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM (for Postmaster General) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) A temporary appointment was necessary on resignation of former postmaster, and an applicant with previous post office experience was placed in charge, (b) Mr. Potter was not resident in Clementsport at the time the vacancy occurred. (c) Acting District Superintendent, Halifax, reporting on various applicants, did not recommend Mr. Potter, (d) Department's duty is to give public service, and while a difference of opinion exists service is being satisfactorily performed by the present temporary incumbent, (e) When the position is definitely filled it will be filled strictly in accordance with the Civil Service Act.


TRENT CANAL-YOUNG'S POINT
Mr. McMASTER:: 1.	Who received the contract for the work to be done in connection with a dam at Young's Point on the Trent Canal in or about November, 1922?
2.	What was the amount at which the work was let to the successful tenderer?
3.	What were the amounts of other tenders on this work ?
4.	What was the amount submitted by the successful tenderer for the unwatering?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	F. R. Wilford, Lindsay, Ont.
2.	Amount extended on unit price basis, S107.197.50.

Senate Reform

3.	Tenders received conforming with department's specified requirements:	$107,322.85,	$114,978.00,	$118,379.75,	$119,636.80,

4.	$32,000.


GOVERNMENT BOAT EUREKA
Mr. HANSON:: For a copy of all papers, writings, telegrams, affidavits or documents of any kind in the possession of the government relating to appointments of officers and men by the present government on the boat Pitot at Pointe au Pere, or relating to the conduct of the men so placed by the government in charge of such boat.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: As I said the other day there is no boat called the Pitot or Pilot at Pointe au Pere. There is, however, a boat for the pilotage service there; its name is Eureka. I suppose that is the one to which my hon. friend refers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that is the name of the boat-Eureka.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion be amended by substituting the name "Eureka" for "Pitot or "Pilot" in the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that a humble address be presented to His Majesty the King praying that the British North America Act be amended so as to provide that the members of the Senate instead of being summoned by the Governor General should be elected by the people for a term of six years in special senatorial divisions, the election for one-half thereof to take place every third year or should be elected for any other period of time or by any other mode of election as may be determined by parliament.
He said: Mr. Speaker in moving this resolution I am not insensible of the importance of the subject which I have now the honour to place before this House, nor am I unmindful of the difficulties which lie in the way of any such project as this nor of the opposition which will be offered to it. May I also say, at the outset, that the question which I am now bringing to the attention of the House is by no means a personal one; it is constitutional in its character. I wish to assure the House that I have the utmost respect for the hon. members of the upper house, and that I am not bringing this resolution forward because I am in any way

lacking in appreciation of the high status of that honourable body; my reason, purely and simply, is that I wish the popular Chamber to appreciate the constitutional question involved, which, in my judgment, is of the utmost importance.
Anyone who will study this question of the constitution of the Senate will realize not only that it is one of great importance but also that it is very difficult and complex in its nature. In dealing with this matter I propose to do this: In the first instance to examine our own constitution as regards the Senate; secondly to consider the constitution of the self-governing dominions of the British Empire as it relates to their Senate; in the third place to discuss the constitutions of the principal states of Europe in the same relation; fourthly to devote some attention to the states of America in the same connection; and finally to briefly sketch the constitutional nature of our Senate from the time of its creation to the present day, and the functions which the upper house of this country has performed.
In the first place it should be remembered that our Senate is but the continuation of the old Legislative Council. Under the union, and even before that time, there were two chambers in Canada-the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. Under the union-for a certain period at least-the Legislative Council was nominative; and as far back as the early thirties this fact was the cause of much recrimination and many complaints. If we go back to that time we may recall a constitutional document of considerable importance known as The Ninety-two Resolutions. In that famous document the people of Lower Canada complained of several conditions in the administration of the country but laid special emphasis on the nominative character of the Legislative Council. They claimed-even in those early days, nearly one hundred years ago-that it was against the rights of the people and opposed to democracy in its truest sense that a legislative council should be nominated. I need not go into details as to the character of those ninety-two resolutions, or as to the events of those days; they are written in the history of Canada. Although the ninety-two resolutions were not given effect to by the Imperial parliament they undoubtedly had their influence in shaping the constitutional history of Canada because within a few years afterwards we had the Union government in this country, and the resolutions referred to undoubtedly conduced to the granting of responsible government in Canada. The

Senate Rejorm,
ninety-two resolutions were not only submitted to the Governor of Canada at that time but were also forwarded to the Imperial authorities. The popular discontent led to the Rebellion of 1837 and other occurrences of an exciting nature. However, in 1840, the Imperial government decided to grant this country a new constitution, and the Union Act was passed. Under that act the Legislative Council was still nominated; apparently the time was not considered ripe to make it an elective body. If we consider that as far back as 1840 very few countries in the world had democratic governments, no one will be surprised that Great Britain, even with the generosity she has always displayed to her colonies, did not think fit at that time to grant Canada an elective Legislative Council. The Union Act was passed by the Statute 3-4 Victoria, Chapter 35. It provided:
That there shall be one legislative council and one assemby which shall be called the Legislative Council and Assembly of Canada.
It was also provided in the act that Upper and Lower Canada should be represented by an equal number of members in the Legislative Council. The act provides also that the Governor is authorized in her majesty's name by an instrument under the Great Seal of the said province to summon to the said Legislative Council of the said province such persons, being not fewer than 20, as her majesty shall think fit; and that it shall also be lawful for her majesty from time to time to authorize the Governor in like manner to summon to the said Legislative Council such other person or persons as her majesty shall think fit. It is provided that every councillor shall hold his seat for the term of his life. Therefore 20 councillors were nominated for life with the option, on the part of the government, to name other councillors, the number of these councillors not being limited. Under the Union Act all political parties agreed that the Legislative Council which was given them was not what they wanted, and again complaints were heard, and the idea of an elective legislative council made progress until in 1854 the Imperial parliament saw fit to pass an act enabling the government of Canada to change as they might choose the constitution of the Legislative Council. Now, think of it-as far back as 1854 the Imperial government allowing Canada to make the legislative council elective! This was done by the Imperial statutes 17-18 Victoria, Chapter 118, which provides for an act to empower the legislature of Canada to alter the constitution of the Legislative Council for the province
87 J
and for other purposes. Section I of the above-mentioned act provides as follows:
It shall be lawful for the legislature of Canada by any act or acts to be hereafter for that purpose passed to alter the manner of composing the Legislative Council of that province and to make it consist of such a number of members appointed or to be appointed or elected by such persons and in such manner as to the said legislature may seem fit.
After the passing of that act in 1854 the then government of Canada decided to bring in a measure which had the effect of changing the constitution of the Legislative Council by making it elective. In the year 1856 the then government of Canada brought in a bill making the council of the time elective. It is well to remember-and I quote this as a very strong argument in support of my resolution-that as far back as 1856, not only did the government of the time pass an act providing that the Legislative Council should be elective, but they passed that act practically unanimously by a vote of 83 to 6. I want to know if the government of Canada will be less generous now than was the government of Canada over sixty years ago. An act was passed by which 48 legislative councillors were to be elected in Canada, 24 for Upper Canada and 24 for Lower Canada. The same act.provides that 24 electoral divisions shall be created both in Lower and Upper Canada. These councillors were to be elected for the term of 8 years but they were to be elected in rotation, so that there would be elections every two years for one-quarter of the whole number. In that way they had elections in 1856 for 12 members of the Legislative Council; in 1858 they elected 12 other members; in 'I860 they elected 12 members; and in 1862 they elected the last 12 members, making in all 48 elective members, for the Legislative Council.
Now we have reached the year 1862, and we find that the Legislative Council is elective. They had the old council and this is how they proceeded with that council. The old councillors, to the number of about 24 at the time the act of 1856 was passed, were allowed to keep their seats during their lifetime, but at their death they were not to be replaced. Therefore, after a certain period of time, if confederation had not intervened we would,have had in Canada an entirely elective council.
Now, having placed these facts before the House, one will naturally ask: If in 1856 the parliament of United Canada was practically unanimous in declaring the Legislative Council elective, how is it that at confederation the Senate, which is, as I have said, the body which follows the Legislative
Senate Rejorm
[Stage Direction]
Council, was not made elective? Well Mr. Speaker it is very surprising indeed that the Senate was not made elective at the time of confederation, and I crave the indulgence of the House if I take the liberty of quoting a little, bearing to a certain extent on this subject. I think this is one point which needs explanation and which must be settled before this House. To summarize this question, I will say, first, that according to the Fathers of Confederation the scheme of confederation was a necessity; secondly that, starting with the principle that confederation was a necessity, the different colonies which were to unite in confederation had to make compromises, and surely no compromise should be too great in order to achieve the scheme of confederation, provided no principles of vital importance to one of the provinces should be sacrificed. It is on those theories that the Senate of Canada was made nominative at the time of confederation, instead of being made elective. I will try to prove those three points to the House.
First I shall show that confederation in the opinion of the fathers of confederation was a necessity. I will quote from some of the debates on confederation. I find the Prime Minister of the time, Sir Etienne Pascal Tache, said:
On the whole, he thought that the confederation of all the provinces had become an absolute necessity, and that it was for us a question of to be or not to be. If we desired to remain British and monarchical, and if we desired to pass to our children these advantages, this measure, he repeated, was a necessity.
Secondly, confederation had to be taken as a whole-the whole scheme had to be accepted or rejected. The Prime Minister of that time said:
The scheme, it was true, must be taken as a whole, or rejected, since it was not the property of the government of Canada alone, but of all the other provinces as well,
And on that point I might say this further, that it is admitted by all students of constitutional law that confederation is a pact and a treaty. Therefore, when a treaty had been made between the different colonies, it had to be rejected or accepted as a whole. No one colony could alter that treaty, because if Lower Canada, for instance, had altered the treaty in one clause, New Brunswick might alter it in another clause, Nova Scotia might alter it in some other clause, and in that way confederation would have been made impossible. Therefore, the scheme of confederation was presented to the House at that time as a whole, and it had to be accepted or rejected as a whole. No matter whether it pleased or displeased the parlia-

ment of Canada at that time, that the Senate should be nominative instead of elective, they had to take it as a whole or reject it as a whole. In view of the necessity for confederation, in view of the immense advantages which would, in the opinions of the makers of confederation, accrue to the different colonies, they decided to accept the scheme as a whole, notwithstanding the defects which in their judgment, might be contained in the scheme; one of those defects in the opinion of Canada-that is, Upper and Lower Canada .-being, without any doubt, the fact that the Senate was nominative instead of elective because as I have just said, eight years before the government of Canada declared unanimously that the council should be elective
I have just said that confederation was a treaty and the product of a compromise. 1 have before me copious quotations from Hon John A. Macdonald, who was then' Attorney General of Canada West and who was afterwards Prime Minister of Canada. I have at least half a dozen quotations on that point, and while I will not read them all, I will read one. This is what he said, and he had said it several times before:
Let me again, before I sit down, impress upon this House the necessity of meeting this question in a spirit of compromise, with a disposition to judge the matter as a whole, to consider whether really it is for the benefit and advantage of the country to form a confederation of all the provinces; and if hon. gentlemen, whatever may have been their preconceived ideas-
Remember-"Whatever may have been their preconceived ideas," because all those men had the preconceived idea that the Senate should be elective and not nominative *-as to the merits of the details of this measure, whatever may. still be their opinions as to these details, if they really believe that the scheme is one by which the prosperity of the country will be increased and its future progress secured, I ask them to yield their own views, and to deal with the scheme according to its merits as one great whole.
This idea of making the Senate of Canada nominative instead* of elective was, I must say, very strongly attacked by the minority in the House at that time. Although I would carefully avoid judging events which are not written down in history, I think one can be safe in saying that if it had been left open for one moment to Canada, that is the two provinces, the United Canada, to have an elective Senate, undoubtedly they would have voted for an elective Senate, because those very men who propounded the scheme of confederation, who asked parliament to vote a nominative Senate, admitted themselves, that while they did that, they did it as a compromise and because they wanted to make sure that the scheme of confederation should be adopted.

Senate Reform
1 have just said that many hon. gentlemen opposed very strongly a nominative Senate, and I will take the liberty of reading an ex-* tract from the speech of one of them. The Hon. Mr. Olivier, as reported at page 315 of the Debates of Confederation, expressed himself as follows, and one will see in that speech how far-sighted the hon. gentleman was, because in the few lines which I will now read, he depicted the Senate of to-day, he tells us exactly what is going to happen, and what did happen afterwards:
I took notice of an expression made use of by the hon. and gallant knight-
This refers to Sir E. P. Tache, Prime Minister.
-in speaking of the last moments of the Legislative Council appointed by the Crown. He told us that to restore the credit of the Legislative Council it had been found necessary to make it elective.
Think of this. To restore the credit of the Legislative Council in the year 1856 and before that period, it was necessary to make it elective. Now what will you do to-day to restore the credit of the Senate of Canada? I continue quoting Mr. Olivier:
But this was not the sole inducement for the change; there was another motive quite as reasonable for making the council elective, and this motive was that in causing the councillors to be elected, they would be taken from among all parties in the country, and would, therefore, represent the public opinion of the different parties in it. There was a time, under the old order of things, when the opinions of two or three men residing in the cities of Quebec and Montreal formed the public opinion of all Lower Canada. This had a bad effect, for the public opinions of the different parties in the country ought to be represented in this House as well as in the other. It was for the purpose of attaining this end that the country was broken up L-to divisions, that it was required that the councillors elected should be residents in the divisions, or should be the owners of real estate within their limits of the value of £2,000; but under the system of Crown nominations to seats in this House, the choice might fall, as it formerly did, on persons residing in the large cities; it would not be difficult for them to acquire £1,000 worth of real estate in the divisions, and the country would not be equally represented in this House. Another reason why the elective system is preferable to that of nominations by the Crown, is that on every fresh election the newly elected member represents the opinions of the people then prevailing, whereas councillors appointed for life may sometimes represent public opinion as it existed twenty years before. The progress of the country requires that from time to time men should enter this House as representatives of the opinions of the day.
Needless is it for me to say on that point, that the Upper House might represent an opinion different from that of the Lower House. We know that from confederation on-I am quoting from memory, but I think until 1903-the Senate of Canada was Tory, notwithstanding the fact that during that period we had the Mackenzie administration, a Liberal administration, for four years in
power, and in 1903 we had had the Laurier administration in power for seven years.
What about the elective principle that was introduced in 1856? Did that work well or did it not? I have again the opinion of the Prime Minister of that time. Sir Etienne Pascal Tache, at page 240 of the Confederation Debates, said:
The measure was passed by a pretty large majority-
Of course, he did not want to admit all the truth, but he knew better than this. It was not a "pretty large majority;" it was practically unanimous-83 to 6.
The measure was passed by a pretty large majority, and I think that until now the elective principle has worked remarkably well indeed, and that the electors have sent to this House gentlemen who would do honour to any deliberative body in the world,-I care not where, whether in England, or on the continent of Europe, or in America.	.
Remember, Sir, that the gentleman who said that was Prime Minister of the time. And the Prime Minister who propounded the scheme of confederation with a nominative Senate did so of necessity. Why did he adopt a course which he knew was an absolute contradiction to the principle he had espoused? He had declared that the elective principle had been very successful and that under it we had obtained the best representatives that could be found in the country, men who could compare with those of any country in Europe or in America. But in the meantime, he said, there should be a change and a nominative body appointed. Now, why did he take that attitude? Sir Etienne Tache was a statesman, and he did this simply because he was bound to. And he says so elsewhere; he had to do it in order to meet the requirements of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Bruns-wisk. It happened that these two provinces- I am not sure about New Brunswick, but certainly Nova Scotia-wanted a nominative Senate. They called it a council at that time, but the two terras are synonymous: because in the Confederation Act we read that there shall be two houses, one, the upper house, to be styled "The Senate." For the first time in Canadian history the upper house was then [DOT] styled the Senate; until the constitution was drafted it had been called the Legislative Council. Now, Sir Etienne Tache was in favour of an elective Senate; but on the principle of compromise, because confederation was a necessity, he agreed to a scheme which provided that the Senate should be a nominative body. This same Sir Etienne Tache was very much opposed to partisan nomination; and of course he knew that nominations to a nominative council could not
136S
Senate Rejorrn
[Stage Direction]
be anything but partisan. It is quite interesting to quote what he says. At page 238 of the Debates we read:
Now, hon. gentlemen, what was the spirit which actuated the appointments to the council from 1841 to 1848?
It must be remembered that from 1841 to 1848 the council had been nominative and
not elective.
It was a spirit of partisanship, and where there is partisanship there can be no justice. (Hear, hear). Where there is partisanship there can be no stability; -you can depend upon nothing. (Hear, hear). It is only when justice is rendered to all parties that you can reckon upon stable and permanent governmental institutions. (Hear, hear). To show the difference between the spirit which actuated these nominations from 1841 to 1847, and a spirit which exists now, it is only necessary to refer to the resolutions of the conference.
And he quotes them, the purport of his quotation being that in the first Senate the two parties should choose an equal number of members. That is how the first Senate was constituted; thereafter it was left to the government to appoint senators. Again I ask, because I consider this point immensely important, is it not obvious that the Prime Minister of that time, his government and the parliament of Canada were opposed to a nominative council, notwithstanding the fact that they voted for a nominative Senate? They were opposed to the principle, as Sir Etienne Taehe plainly declares. But he had to vote for a nominative Senate in order that confederation might be possible. Now, if hon. gentlemen from other provinces rise in this House and say that to-day they hold the same opinions in regard to this question as their forefathers held in 1867, I am ready to accept their word. Confederation is a pact; it is a treaty; and if hon. gentlemen from other provinces say that they do not want a change there may be some argument in that position. I do not say that such an argument would be decisive,, but it might be a strong argument. But times have changed, Mr. Speaker, and had it not been for the province of Nova Scotia at that period of pur history we should have had from 1856 to confederation an elective Legislative Council and from confederation down to the present time an elective Senate. Now, I have said that the lower provinces were opposed to an elective Senate. This is what Sir Etienne Tache says:	.
Some remedy had to be found, and gentlemen of opposite parties wisely came together with the view of devising a plan which would not only cure our domestic difficulties but give greater power and force to the British North American colonies. To bring this about we determined that we would endeavour to obtain a federal union of all the British American

provinces. Delegates from below, and the gentlemen composing the administration of Canada met together. Some of us might have preferred still to retain the elective principle, but then we had to meet those gentlemen from below and we had to give and take. We could not carry everything our own way. (Hear, hear). The gentlemen from the lower provinces were opposed to the elective principle and went strongly for the system of appointments by the Crown.
I think I can safely say that we have the secret, if ever secret there was in the matter,
why the government of Canada voted for a nominative Senate after it had voted' eight years previously for an elective Senate. The reason was purely and simply because they wanted to meet the wishes of the lower provinces, although they themselves had always been opposed to a nominative Senate. What was the population of these colonies at that time? I have not the exact figures, but Lower Canada was about 1,100,000 and Upper Canada 1,400,000, and the two together surely had a population three or four times greater than the lower provinces. Therefore, it was not the wish of the majority that prevailed, but that of the minority. The lower provinces were the minority, and when they succeeded in carrying the question and making the Senate a nominative instead of an elective body they imposed the views of the minority on the majority.
Mr. CARROLL:: Was it not intended at that time that the Senate should be a protection for the minority?


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: It has been said, and we find it in the debates, that gentlemen from the lower provinces were of the opinion that they would be better protected by a nominative instead of an elective Senate. I must confess, however, that I cannot concede tt>* point, although it has been given as one reason for a nominative Senate.


Mr. WHITE:: What were the other reasons advanced by the Nova Scotian people in favour of a nominative senate?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am glad my hon. friend has asked that question because the point I am about to deal with will enable me to answer him. Prior to the Quebec conference in 1864 representatives of the governments of the lower provinces-Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island-had decided to meet at Charlottetown to discuss a scheme of confederation, and as the governments and the people in the Canadas were favourable to a confederation, they feared that if the provinces by the sea formed a union it would be a good many years before they would be inclined to join a wider confederation. The government

Senate Rejorm
of Canada asked permission to send representatives to the conferences, which permission was generously accorded. The representatives of Upper and Lower Canada met the representatives of the Lower Provinces at Charlottetown on the 1st September and the conference lasted until about the 10th. Then the delegates adjourned to Quebec and continued their deliberations in that city on the 10th October of the same year. Now comes the answer to my hon. friend's question: What was said at that conference when the representatives from Nova Scotia asked that the Senate should be made nominative instead of elective. Unfortunately the report of the Quebec conference-which, after all, was the most important conference that preceded confederation-is very fragmentary, in fact all we can find are the resolutioiis which were discussed. I have carefully perused the report but I cannot find who was responsible for the change making the Senate nominative instead of elective. However, after the Quebec conference, when the question of confederation was threshed out in the parliament of Canada, and when members of parliament who were not present at the Quebec conference asked the government why the change had been made, the answer was: We made that change because the Lower Provinces asked for it. I take it for granted that the government in so answering spoke the truth, although in the proceedings of the Quebec conference the request of the Lower Provinces does not appear.
It was my intention to examine the various motions that have been brought before parliament since confederation asking that the Senate be made elective, but it would be altogether unreasonable for me to take the time of the House by going into these details. Suffice it to say that almost immediately after confederation there were complaints against the Senate being nominative, and similar complaints have been made from time to time since. Of course, constitutional law is not understood to-day in quite the same light as it was fifty years ago, and the reasons advanced soon after confederation against a nominative Senate are very much stronger to-day in view of the development of our constitutional rights than they were when advanced even so recently as fifteen or twenty years ago.
There is one fact, however, which I cannot pass in silence, namely, that the Liberal party at a national convention in 1893 passed a resolution declaring that the Senate should be elective instead of nominative. This is the resolution:
The present constitution of the Senate is inconsistent with the federal principle in our system of government, and is in other respects defective, as it makes the Senate independent of the people and uncontrolled by the public opinion of the country, and should be so amended as to bring it into harmony with the principles of popular government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the hon. member
please explain to the House and to the country why the Liberal party abandoned that plank in their platform?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am sure my hon. friend thinks he is making a very strong point when he asks that question. I may tell him that the Liberal party at that time at least was animated by good intentions, and I believe there are in the Liberal party to-day men of equally good intentions who will be willing to carry out this proposal. But if the Liberal party held the principles of the Tory party to which my hon. friend belongs, the people of Canada would be certain never to see a change in the constitution of the Senate for the next hundred years. While I am on this point I wish to recall what was said a few days ago by the hon. member who in the last preceding government was Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). When this resolution was called the other day he got up and said: Of course, we know how futile these resolutions on the Senate are. I was very much surprised, but after thinking it over my surprise moderated and I said to myself: This is only a Tory opinion; the hon. gentleman is a Tory, and he speaks like a Tory. The Liberal party has always been the champion of the rights of the people, but the Tory party has always attempted to thwart them. I consider that an elective Senate is a right that naturally belongs to the people, and therefore I am not surprised at hon. gentlemen on the Toi-y side being opposed to it. Not only is it to be expected that they would be opposed to it, but their eyes are so obscured by Tory tradition that they cannot see that there may be two sides to this question. They appear to think that a resolution of this kind is simply the sport of some hon. gentleman who wants to make 4 p.m. himself conspicuous before the people and to please someone in the House. Let me assure my hon. friend that I am bringing forward this resolution to please, I hope, a majority of hon. members, although it may not be palatable to my Tory friends.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I am very
much obliged to the hon. member for replying to my question-	*


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.
Senate Reform


Jean-Joseph Denis: My hon. friend is welcome to ask me another question if he chooses to. Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the resolution passed at the Liberal convention of 1893. I do not pretend for a moment that when a Liberal government came into power in 1896 they were bound by an opinion expressed in a convention of the party in 1893, because many of the members of the Liberal cabinet, and many of their supporters in the House perhaps, were not present at the convention, and indeed might hold opinions on the subject different from those who passed the resolution. I am not quoting this resolution adopted by the Liberal convention in 1893 as an authority beyond which the government that came into power afterwards could not go; I presented it simply as the strong opinion of a representative body, the Liberal party. I entertain the hope, and I shall always entertain it until it is realized, that when the Senate of Canada is modified or reformed, that reform will come from the Liberal party.
I stated at the outset that I would pass over our constitutional provisions respecting the Senate. I now come to a subject which is very interesting indeed, that is, a comparison of our Senate with similar bodies in other countries. In matters of constitutional law we invariably find that authorities and others who are studying the question compare the constitutions of different countries for the purpose of demonstrating whether a particular constitution is good or bad, adequate or defective. If there is a sphere of knowledge in which it is necessary to proceed by comparison, it is certainly in connection with constitutional law.
I wish in the first place to compare the Senate of Canada with the senates of other self-governing dominions of the British Empire. There are at present five self-governing dominions, namely, Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Union of South Africa, Ireland, and New Zealand. These self-governing dominions have about the same status as Canada has, so that it is very interesting to compare our constitution with theirs so far as provision for a senate is concerned.
The Commonwealth of Australia consists of six colonies, now denominated the original states of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The constitution was proclaimed at Sydney on the first of January, 1901. The legislative powers were vested in a federal parliament consisting of the King, represented by a Governor General, a senate and a house of representatives. It is provided that there must

be' a session of parliament at least once each year. The Senate is made up of six members for each of the original states voting as one electorate and senators are chosen for six years. In general, the Senate is renewed to the extent of one-half every three years, but in case of prolonged disagreement with the House of Representatives it may be dissolved and an entirely new Senate elected. The House of Representatives, with twice as many members as there are senators, continues for three years from the date of its first meeting unless sooner dissolved. Since the first parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia was instituted, an electoral act has united the franchise for both chambers on the basis of universal adult- male and female-suffrage. The population of the continent of Australia in 1921 was 5,436,794.
Let us take now the Union of South Africa
-and I will give only the facts which refer directly to the Senate. The Senate of the Union of South Africa consists of 40 members. For ten years after the establishment of the Union 8 are nominated by the Governor General in Council and 32 are elected, 8 for each province. Four of those nominated by the Governor General in Council are selected mainly for their acquaintance with the reasonable wants and wishes of the coloured races. The white population of the Union of South Africa is 1,522.924, and the coloured population is 5,399.889; total, 6,922,813. In the statistics given, reference is made to the coloured people in regard to the nomination of senators.
The constitution of Ireland is perhaps the most interesting of the constitutions of the British dominions, in the first place, because it is new and also because of the troubles and difficulties which have arisen in Ireland during many years. Since 1914 three acts have been passed by the Imperial parliament giving a constitution to Ireland. The first act was entitled. "The Government of Ireland Act, 1914." Under that act each province was to have the following number of senators: Ulster, 14, Leinster, 11, Munster, 9, Connaught, 6: total, 40. These senators were to be elected every 9 years. The second constitution of Ireland was passed in 1920 and was entitled, "The Government of Ireland Act, 1920." This act provides for parliament for both Northern and Southern Ireland, and under it Ulster was divided from the rest of Ireland and was given a separate constitution. We find, again, that the provision is for an elective senate, both for Ulster and for the rest of Ireland. Then, the third constitution given to Ireland was adopted last year as "The

Senate Reform
Irish Free State Constitutional Act, 1922," which received Royal Assent on December 5, 1922. This, therefore, is the youngest constitution in the world, at any rate, in the British dominions. The constitution of 1922 provides that there shall be 60 senators elected for 12 years. One-quarter of the members of the senate shall be elected every three years from a panel especially constituted. The senators are therefore elected by an indirect or restricted vote. In many countries the senate is not elected by the popular vote. In France, for instance, the senate is elected by a selective or indirect vote, but it is an elective senate, just the same. The last quotation concerning the British self-governing dominions I wish to make refers to New Zealand.	,
In New Zealand the legislative power is vested in the Governor General and a "General Assembly" consisting of two chambers-a legislative council and a house of representatives. The Legislative Council consisted-as of September, 1921-of 41 members. Those appointed since September 17, 1891, hold their seats for seven years only, unless re-appointed. One life member was appointed before that date. Provision has been made for the legislative council to be made elective at a date to be fixed by proclamation. Twenty-four members are to be elected at the first election and forty at subsequent elections. Three Maori members may be appointed by the Governor General. Present sitting members hold office till the end of the term of their appointment.
Therefore, Sir, to summarize, taking the five great British self-governing dominions, Canada is the only one that has a nominative senate.
I will now proceed to make a comparison with some countries in Europe. I would like very much to place before the House the [DOT] constitutions of the principal states of Europe at least but I now see that were I to do so I should occupy the entire afternoon. I will therefore only deal with some twelve or fifteen of those states, taking them in alphabetical order:
Austria. The new constitution has been in force since October 1, 1920, and her senate is elective.
Belgium. According to the constitution of 1831, the senate of Belgium is elective.
Czecho-Slovakia: The constitution of the Czecho-Slovak republic was passed by' the National Assembly on February 29, 1920. The national parliament, which constitutes the only legislative body for the whole of the republic, is composed of a chamber of deputies elected for a period of six years and containing 300 members, and a senate comprising 150 members to be renewed every eight years. The franchise for the senate is open to all citizens who are over 26; and all citizens over 45 are eligible for election. The electoral system is based on proportional representation.
Denmark: Denmark is a kingdom, Christian X. being the reigning king since 1912. The house of representatives is at present composed of 149 members; 117 members being elected by the method of proportional representation in twenty-three districts. The term of the legislature is four years but the king has the power to dissolve the house of representatives before the end of the four years. The members of the senate are elected indirectly by the voters of the house of representatives of 35 years of age in the following way: In every electoral district electing a member of the house of representatives, electors in number corresponding to the population are elected by the method of proportional representation. The whole country is divided into six senatorial districts. In each of these the electors elect a number of the senate between ten and twelve. In this way 56 members are elected. One is elected for the Faroe Islands. Moreover, there are 19 members elected by the former senate according to the system of proportional representation. The members of the senate sit for a term of eight years. There are elections every fourth year for the half of those elected by the electors, while those elected by the senate go out all at once after an eight-year term.
France. The constitution of France is rather well known. It may be sufficient for me to say that in France the senate is composed of 314 members, elected for nine years from citizens 40 years old, one-third retiring every three years. The election of the senators is indirect, and is made by an electoral body composed (1) of delegates chosen by the municipal council of each commune in proportion to the population; and (2) of the deputies, councillors-general, and district councillors of the department. Besides the 225 departmental senators elected in this way, there were, according to the law of 1875, 75 senators elected for life by the united two chambers; but by the senate bill of 1884 it was enacted that vacancies arising among the life senatorships w'ould be filled by the election of ordinary nine year senators,vthe department which would have the right to the vacant seat to be determined by lot. According to the original constitution there were 314 senators of whom 75 were to be nominated
Senate Reform

and the balance elected. That seems to be generous enough treatment for those who were in favour of a nominative senate-one-fourth nominated, and three-quarters elected. Only a few years after that, in 1884, they changed the constitution of the senate; they found that it was not reasonable, it was not necessary, it was not democratic to nominate even 75 members in the senate, or one-fourth of the whole number. I may say that the opinion of many authorities on constitutional law- English and German authorities as well as French-the French constitution as respects the senate, taking it as a whole, is, perhaps, the best in the world.
The German republic. Immediately after the Kaiser left Germany, Germany was declared a republic, and it is very remarkable indeed how the constitution of that republic was framed without any greater trouble than actually happened. However, my intention is not to speak of the German constitution otherwise than by describing the constitutional system which prevails there. The senate is called the Reichsrat and it consists of 66 members; 26 for Prussia, 10 for Bavaria, 7 for Saxony, 4 for Wurtemburg, 3 for Baden, and 16 for other states. Lest I should forget it, I should at this stage place before the House the fact that in almost every country in the world, consisting of a confederation or a union, the provinces elect their senators either directly or indirectly, either by popular vote or otherwise. I do not recall any country which does not elect its senators in that way. In the United States senators are elected by popular vote. The constitution has been changed but I will come to that in a moment. Two senators are elected for each state, but they are not elected for the whole United States. In Canada we have the anomaly of an appointive senate. For example, the senators from Prince Edward Island are nominated by the Dominion government. Those senators should be elected directly by the people of Prince Edward Island. Or they might be elected in an indirect way by the people. But each province should elect its own senators. In that way We would be doing what practically all other countries are doing, with one exception-no, I do not think there is even one exception. Our system of having senators for one province nominated by the whole government is an absolutely obsolete system. It is a relic of the Middle Ages and should not be longer maintained in a democracy like Canada.
Italy. So far I have not taken one single country where they have a nominative senate. None of these countries is in

favour of a nominative senate, but my hon. friends directly opposite will be delighted to know that the senate of Italy is nominated. It is nominated by the king, and is chosen, I think from as many as 23 classes of citizens. If I mistake not, Italy is the only country or the only democracy in the world, except Canada, which has that system, and I may say that it is only half democratic. Italy is a kingdom, a constitutional monarchy. But it is the only country in the world that I know of besides Canada, which has a nominative senate to-day.
The Netherlands. According to the constitution in the Netherlands, they have a constitutional and hereditary monarchy. The upper or first chamber is. composed of oO members elected by the provincial states-1 repeat, by the provincial states, not by the confederacy, not by the dominion, but by the provincial states. Although the Netherlands is a monarchy the senate is elected and not nominated.
Norway. This country is a constitutional and hereditary monarchy. Properly speaking there is no upper chamber in Norway. 'Every third year the people choose their representatives, the total number being 150. The country is divided into districts, each electing from three to eight representatives. The Storthing, which is the assembly, the Storthing, when assembled, divides itself into two sections, one composed of one-fourth of the members of the Storthing and the other of the remaining three-fourths being the second section.
The first section composed of one-fourth of the members of the Storthing might be compared in some respects to the upper chamber in countries where such a chamber exists. *As I have said, in Norway, properly speaking, there is no uppper house. They elect one single house and divide that house, one-quarter acting as the upper house and three-quarters as the lower house, but the fact remains that both- houses are elective. Therefore, if the first section be considered as a senate their senate is elective.
Portugal. This country is a republic, the republic was proclaimed there on October 5, 1910.	On	August 20,
1911. a new constitution was adopted, which provides that there shall be two chambers. In the first, which is called the national council, the members, 164 in number, shall be elected by direct suffrage every three years; the second or upper chamber, 71 in number, shall be elected by all the municipal councils and shall be renewable half at a time every three years. The president of *be republic is

Senate Reform
elected by both chambers with a mandate for four 3'ears, but he cannot be re-elected.
Spain. Spain has 360 senators, one-half of them, namely 180, are nominated, and the other half are elected. I said a moment ago that Italy was the only country that had a nominative senate, and I maintain it, because although in Spain one-half of the members of the senate are nominated, the other half are elected. Therefore, they are better off in Spain than we are in Canada as far as that is concerned.
Sweden. This country is a kingdom. The first chamber is the senate. It consists of 150 members. Their election takes place by the members of the Landstings, or provincial representation, and electors of six towns,, not represented in the Landstings. The constituencies are 19, arranged in eight groups, in one of which an election takes place in September every year. The manner of the election is proportional and is regulated by a special election law. Members of the first chamber are elected for the term of eight years. To summarize, the senators are elected for eight years, but there are elections for one-eighth of the total number every year.
Switzerland. Switzerland is a confederation with a constitutional government. The supreme legislative and executive authority is vested in a parliament of two chambers, a state council and a national council. The state council corresponding to the senate in other countries is composed of 44 members chosen by the 22 cantons of the confederation, with two for each canton.
In Switzerland, the last country I am quoting in Europe, they have an elective senate, and not only an elective senate, but they have senators elected for each canton, which might correspond to a small province or state. And I bring this forward in support of my contention that, at all events, the senators for each province should be nominated or elected for that province.
I have quoted so far thirteen of the principal countries in Europe, and we find that, with the exception of one country, Italy, and one other country where the senate is half elective and half nominative, in every other country in Europe the senate is elective.
I come now to America. In the United States, according to the original constitution, the senators were elected by the several state legislatures, two senators for each state. The members of the legislature voted openly, viva voce, to elect two senators for each state. That was fairly democratic but it was not found to be democratic enough for the United States. That would appear to be reasonable, but in their opinion it was not
reasonable, and they changed it. There have been, so far, nineteen amendments to the constitution of the United States. They changed the constitution of their Senate by the seventeenth amendment, which was proposed to the legislatures of the several states by the sixty-second Congress on 15th May, 1912. The amending provision was in lieu of the original first paragraph of sections 3 of article 1, and of as much of paragraph 2 of the same section as related to the filling of senate vacancies. This amendment was declared, in a proclamation by the Secretary of State, under date of 31st May, 1913, to have been ratified by the legislatures of thirty-seven states, these states constituting three-fourths of the whole number of states. Therefore, since the 31st May, 1913, in the United States the senators are elected, two for each state, by the people at large.
I will name only the republics of South America to which I would refer. The most important republic in South America is the United States of Brazil. The United States of Brazil form a confederacy comprising some twenty states, if I am not mistaken, and all those states elect their senators by direct popular vote. In the Argentine Republic, the same condition exists, senators are elected by popular vote, either directly or indirectly. The same condition exists in Colombia, Peru, and Chili. Those are five countries in South America. I have not gone any further, but I feel safe in saying that in every republic in South America, the senate is elective.
I am coming to the last part of my remarks, and I hope the House will be lenient enough to bear with me for another five minutes. After making comparisons with other countries, :n Europe, America and elsewhere, and between our constitution as a self-governing dominion and the constitutions of the other self-governing dominions, I think I have proved these points-1st that Canada is the only self-governing dominion in the British Empire that has a nominative and not an elective Senate; 2nd that in Europe with the exception of one country, namely, Italy, not one country has a nominative senate; 3rd that in America, there is not one country in North or South America that has not an elective senate, wherever they have a senate -because in some cases they have no senate, but only one house,-but wherever there is a senate, the senators are elective in every country.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: How many states in Europe have hereditary senates or houses of lords, as compared with those which have elective senates?
Senate Reform


Jean-Joseph Denis: There is only one, Great Britain.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the hon.
gentleman know that in Great Britain they have a way of electing some members of the House of Lords by votes? Although that is by votes of peers, still they have a recognized elective system there.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am very glad
that the hon. member has reminded me of Great Britain, because I was in such a hurry to conclude my remarks that I would have forgotten all about it. I will, however, say a word about Great Britain, and I will show my hon. friend what difference exists between our Senate and the House of Lords of Great Britain. I have no doubt my hon. friend knows well the constitution of the House of Lords of Great Britain; but as it is a little complicated, I will place before the House the constitution of that House as it now exists. The House of Lords consists of peers who hold their seats, first, by hereditary right; second, by creation of the Sovereign; third, by virtue of office,-that is law lords, English archbishops and bishops, the archbishops numbering two and the bishops twenty-four;-fourth, by election for life, Irish peers, twenty-eight in number; fifth, by election for the duration of a parliament, Scottish peers, sixteen. The full House would consist of about 728 members, but the voting strength in January, 1922, was about 708. I think it is sufficient for one to enumerate the composition of the House of Lords in England to prove at once that no comparison can be made between it and our Senate. But I have a better argument than mine on that point. I have the argument and the opinion of a man whom my hon. friend respected very much while he was living. That gentleman is Sir John A. Macdonald. Before Sir John A. Macdonald received the title, when he was simply the Hon. John A. Macdonald, Attorney-General for Canada West, in the debates on confederation he expressed his opinion as to what difference there might be between the Senate and the House of Lords. All those questions were threshed out, and Sir John A. Macdonald said that there was no comparison between the two. This is what he said, at page 37 of the Confederation Debates:
In this country, we must remember, that the gentlemen who will be selected for the Legislative Council stand on a very different footing from the peers of England. They have not like them any ancestral associations or position derived from history. They have not that direct influence on the people themselves, or on the popular branch of the legislature, which the peers of England exercise, from their great wealth, their vast territorial possessions, their numerous

tenantry and that prestige with which the exalted position of their class for centuries has invested them, (hear, hear).
It seems that everyone was of his opinion, and he continues:
The members of our Upper House will be like those of the Lower, men of the people, and from the people.
I agree with that, with the exception of the last four words. "Men of the people," very well; but "from the people," never, until they are elected by the people.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope the hon. gentleman does not infer that I am in favour of the system as in the House of Lords in England. On the contrary, I agree with his view.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Will the hon. member tell us how, in the new Irish States, the second chamber is constituted?


Jean-Joseph Denis: The last one?


James Dew Chaplin: The two of them.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I have quoted three acts. Does the hon. gentleman mean the last one? I do not want to take too much time; I have been through all that already, and I do not want to repeat what I have just said.
When I was interrupted I was just about to observe that there is no other country in the world that stands in the same position that Canada occupies with regard to the Senate, unless we want to make a comparison between our Upper House and the House of Lords in England, which comparison in my opinion is out of the question. But there is no other country in the world that stands in the same position as Canada in this respect.
In the concluding portion of my address I had intended going into the question as to the way in which our Senate has functioned. I shall, however, very largely dispense with what I had to say on this point. Every hon. member knows how the Senate has worked, that is, I mean, constitutionally; for I am not referring by any means to the senators personally. How has the Senate worked constitutionally? This body, the Upper Chamber of the Canadian parliament, should be the most important of our legislative councils; it ought to be the more important of the two Chambers of parliament, the one that should command. But we must admit, without in anyway insulting anyone, that by far it is the less important of the two. Take the constitution of every country in the world and you will find that the Senate is the most important chamber; it is the most important because it has been made so by constitution. But here

Senate Reform
in Canada our Senate has simply drifted, and all the good that I can see in the principle of the nomination of senators is that it might serve some useful purpose perhaps for the government; and undoubtedly, it is a good thing for those who are nominated senators. Apart from that, however, I do not see what good it is. We all know, for it is a secret to no one, that, although in principle senators are nominated by the whole of the cabinet, they are in fact and in practice nominated by the ministers of the respective provinces which they represent. Hence we have had a system by which for eighteen years, under the Macdonald administration, a Tory administration, the government, I would not say usurped, because the word is perhaps too strong, but took to itself the right which was the people's, of nominating gentlemen to the Senate. The same thing happened during the Laurier administration and under the late Tory regime for a period of ten years. And now that this government is in power, who are going to receive senatorships? Those gentlemen who in the opinion of the government deserve the position. Well, as between the opinion of one or two or three members in the cabinet representing the different provinces, and the opinion of the people, I stand for the opinion of the people.
We must recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the democracies of the world have developed tremendously during the last few years, and particularly since the war; and if to-day a constitution were being framed for a new state, no one would think for a moment of imposing upon the people of that state a nominative senate. We are behind the times; we Were behind the times at confederation. Canada was in line with events in 1865 when the legislative council was made elective, but since that time we have not progressed with the rest of the world; and the more democracy advances the further it leaves us in its wake. We find ourselves therefore to-day in a serious and, I would add, a humiliating position, for we have the unique distinction of being the only country among the nations of the world with a Senate such as we have. ,


William Findlay Maclean: My hon. friend referred to the fact that in 1856 the then existing parliament in Canada was given the right to amend its constitution, and he has also mentioned a number of commonwealths in the British Empire that have elective senates. Would he tell us how many of these commonwealths have in their constitution a provision to change that constitution in order to deal with this very question under consideration?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I do not want to be in error, and as I have not studied that particular question very carefully I cannot answer my hon. friend with finality at the moment. But from the knowledge I have of the subject, and from the researches I have made, I think I am safe in saying that every selfgoverning dominion has the right to change its constitution in regard to its senate. That is my opinion. Now, I am drawing to the close of my remarks, and once again I crave the pardon of the House for having detained it so long; but as I said before, the subject is of immense importance, and as we discuss it to-day it is of even greater urgency than it was ten or fifteen or twenty years ago. From the debates that took place at that time we cannot get very much enlightenment, but the subject to-day is of the greatest importance and I think I am justified in devoting to its consideration the time I have given it. In closing I desire to say that I am not the guardian of the Liberal party; much less am I the adviser of the Prime Minister and the cabinet. But if there is one sincere wish I do want to express it is this, that the Liberal party as now constituted in Canada should take the lead and institute this wonderful reform of the Senate, because if the Liberal party does not do it somebody else will, sooner or later. You cannot stem a river, Mr. Speaker; you cannot stem democracy; you cannot keep Canada from forging ahead until she is in the same rank with the other nations of the world in regard to this question. So far as our Senate is concerned, our constitution is certainly obsolete; and surely Can ada cannot remain in that position. She will move forward, and when she does the people of this country will take advantage of that magnificent privilege of electing their own representatives to the Senate. I hope, therefore, that when that privilege is exercised by the people of this country it will be through the instrumentality of the party to which I belong and of a government supported by that party.	.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: I do not know whether my hon. friend from Joliette (Mr. Denis) contemplates asking for a division of the House on this question. I hope he will not do so, because I do not think that the House is in a position, even after listening to his very interesting and instructive address, to come to a conclusion. I will say this, however, that the hon. gentleman has rendered a very valuable service to the country in opening for discussion a question of great importance, one that arises from time to time and one which, if not to-day cer-
Senate Reform

tainly at no distant day, will press for a solution. I am glad therefore that the hon. gentleman has brought forward the matter to-day and has given so much time and study to it in order to place before the House the history of the movement with regard to elective and nominative chambers in Canada. I am not sure, however, that I can congratulate him on the accuracy of his study of the Nova Scotian history in this matter. He has intimated that the evil of a nominative senate-and the expression is his, not mine-has been brought upon this afflicted country chiefly because the Maritime provinces, and particularly Nova Scotia, insisted upon it. I can assure him that he is mistaken. From my reading of history and the little personal knowledge I have, if I may dare make the confession, of the events of that time, I can assure him that so far as the people of Nova Scotia were concerned they were not at all concerned about the question whether the Senate should be elective or nominative. Nova Scotia did not want a nominative Senate; she did not want an elective Senate; she did not want a Senate at all. Nova Scotia did not even want a House of Commons. What Nova Scotia wanted in regard to these things was pretty well illustrated at the first Dominion election that took place after confederation, when the people of Nova Scotia had their first opportunity to declare what they wanted. In the month of September, 1867, they elected nineteen members to this House of Commons, and eighteen of them were against confederation. They elected thirty-eight members to the legislature, and thirty-six of them were against confederation. Now, if we are reviewing history let us at all events not be mistaken as to what Nova Scotia was thinking about at that time. I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Denis) that the people of Nova Scotia were not worrying whether the Senate should be nominative or elective.
Now, I have long entertained some views of my own on this question, and I thought I might have an opportunity of presenting them in concrete form-not necessarily to parliament, but on some occasion when I might invite public attention to them. I am sorry that I have not had that opportunity. Now that my hon. friend from Joliette has given me an opening I am going to use his resolution as a peg upon which to hang my own opinions. I cannot give my scheme to the House in detail, but I can give in outline what I think would be a wise change to make in the constitution of the Senate. Let me hasten to say that I do not undertake to speak for the government; these are entirely my own personal views.

I agree that the constitution of the Senate to-day is not satisfactory. I do not join in any condemnation of the Senate. I think even as organized to-day it is capable of, and does, very good work. But unfortunately the distribution of our legislative work is such that we do not get the best out of the Senate. For about a month after the Senate meets the chief business is to inquire what is on for the next day. There is nothing, and "Satan finds mischief for idle hands to do". Then, towards the end of the session the Senate is rushed and is not able to do properly the work for which it is specially designed; that is to say, the work of a revising body.
I do not agree with those who say that the Senate should be abolished. I know, some of my own friends take that view, and even among the Conservative party there are those who advocate the abolition of the Senate. For a country like Canada, with its wide distribution of almost conflicting interests, I think it is desirable and expedient that we should have a second chamber, a chamber that should act as a brake-not a block-on the House of Commons; a chamber useful in many ways. I think a second chamber is useful and necessary in these days of so-called democracy, to guard against hasty legislation. I think the Senate is necessary as being a second chamber, not necessarily in its present form, but always necessary as a part of our constitution. And I think it is more necessary in these days of democracy when we are most apt to act first and think afterwards. In a word, I believe the Senate is desirable and necessary as a revising body. I need not tell hon. gentlemen that most of our work in the House of Commons is done somewhat hurriedly and under great pressure, and that many measures will be the better for careful review by the Senate whose members have more time to deal with details. That is the purpose of a second chamber, and I should like to see the Senate continue that purpose.
If we admit the necessity of a second chamber, how should it be constituted? I would not disturb the present senators. I think they each have a vested right, and in my reform I would not disturb their tenure. But *when they reach the age of, say, seventy-five, I would give them the right to retire, if they cared to, on a pension of two-thirds of their sessional indemnity. If they wanted to retire, well and good; if they preferred to stay on, all right, no harm would be
5	p.m. done. Then I would give the government at Ottawa one-half of the nominations. My hon. friend from Joliette has playfully alluded to members of the House

Senate Reform
of Commons being appointed to the Senate. Many of those appointed to the Senate are chosen after service in the House of Commons, and some people laugh at this as unfair and undesirable. But I think men who have served on either side in this House have as a rule acquired a knowledge regarding public affairs which is useful to the country, and I would willingly see any government, whether Liberal, Conservative or Progressive-if the latter blessing is to come-appoint one-half of the senators including some who have served in this House, for in this way you are placing men of ripe knowledge and judgment in a position where they can still give good service to the country.	,
Then, as to the other half, I come to the point raised by my hon. friend. Why not recognize the provincial governments? I would not have any senators elected at all. I think we have enough elections in Canada to-day, and if we are going to have elections for the Senate we are going to create a chamber which will rival the House of Commons. My hon. friend thinks that the Senate is the superior chamber. We speak of legislation as being enacted by "His Majesty with the advice of the Senate and the House of Commons." The House of Commons theoretically is the inferior body. But we know that in the vital things of politics, of government and of legislation this House is the real body. I would have it kept so, and I would not put the Senate in a position where it would rival the House of Commons. I think the people of Canada have abundant opportunity of expressing their views when they elect members to the House of Commons, and therefore I do not want to call upon them to elect the Senate. I would give the provinces-not the provincial legislatures but the provincial governments, for executive power carries responsibility-the nomination of what I might call the provincial senators. I would divide the present senators by some method of balloting -that is a matter of detail-into two classes; one-half might be called federal senators and the other half provincial senators. Whenever a vacancy occurred among the federal senators the federal government would fill the vacancy, and similarly, whenever a vacancy occurred among the provincial senators the provincial government would appoint a successor.
One of the evils referred to by my hon. friend for Joliette is that under our present system there is too much centralization of power at Ottawa. He has pointed out that in 1896 when the Liberal party came into power they found the Senate mainly Conservative; in 1911, when the Conservatives came into power they found conditions reversed and the Senate crowded with Liberals; now it is overwhelmingly Conservative again.
I think these conditions are not desirable. I do not think we have a single Conservative provincial government to-day. That condition is not going to last.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friends cheer that remark. Well. I admit a change is possible, but I do not say it is likely to happen. In any of our provinces you may have a Conservative government-not in my own province; that never happens-but to-day we have several provincial governments representing my hon. friends of the Progressive party. If a vacancy occurred in one of these provinces, the provincial government would have the right to nominate a successor. In that way you would have some recognition of provincial rights. And it is better so. The original constitution of the Senate contemplated the recognition of provincial rights. It was taken for granted that it might be a danger to minorities and that the Senate might be needed for the protection of minorities.
I would appoint a senator for ten years. I would make him eligible for a second term, and retire him at, say, eighty.


William Findlay Maclean: Would that limited period apply to both classes, those nominated by the federal government and those nominated by the provincial governments?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. If a man were appointed while still young he might, after ten years, be qualified for another term. If appointed well on in life he would probably not be re-appointed or he might reach the age limit. At any rate, if he at any time reached the advanced age of eighty-taking that for convenience^-he should thereupon retire. Of course, the present senators would hold office to the end.
This is only a rough outline. I have thought sometimes that I could put it into concrete form, but I am not attempting this afternoon to elaborate it, I am not going into it in detail. I am simply offering a few thoughts for the consid-mtion of those who are willing to take up the question. I believe the question is going to be thrust forward for consideration, for I do not think the country is going to be satisfied with the present constitution of the Senate. While I agree with my hon. friends of the Progressive party that Senate reform is desirable, I do not think it would be wise to increase the number of elec-
Senate Reform

tions in the country by making the Senate an elective body. I want to say again, in answer to my hon. friend's comments with regard to an elective Senate, that if the people to-day have abundant opportunity of giving expression to their views through their elected members in this House, let us not have an elective Senate which would be a rival body and would undertake to interfere with some of the things we now regard as our sacred property.


Mr. HALBERT:: Will the minister allow me a question? He points out that the people elect their representatives to the House of Commons. Suppose the majority of the representatives so elected adopt certain legislation; does he think it is fair that men who are not responsible, who are not elected by the people, should veto the wish of the people as expressed in that manner?


William Stevens Fielding: I used a moment ago a phrase which, I think, is an answer to my hon. friend. I said that the second chamber should be as a brake, not a block, to the locomotive. I think it is well to have a second chamber which can ask us to reconsider things. I do not complain in any case when the Senate says: You are in too much of a hurry; we want to wait for another year in respect to this particular legislation. That is a legitimate function of the Senate. If they attempted year after year to veto our legislation, I would agree with my hon. friend that that would be wrong. On the ether hand, if you give the Senate, by electing its members, the same powers that this House has, the elected Senate may say: What right has the House of Commons to say it represents the people?- we claim to represent the people as well as it does. I do not want the Senate to represent the people in that direct way; I want the House of Commons to represent the people. I do not want the second Chamber, as I have already stated, to be more than a guard against hasty legislation. Again let me say I am not expressing any opinion of the government; I am simply giving an outline of what I had hoped some day I could present somewhere in more concrete form. It may not represent even my own finality of judgment. There will be much discussion of the question before the change is made in the constitution, and it is just possible that in the light of that discussion I would like to modify my views. But, for whatever they are worth, I am offering these suggestions, and would ask that they receive the consideration of all who may be interested in the subject.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has made an excellent suggestion here to-day. In passing I wish to congratulate the member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) upon his careful presentation of his case. But what I want to point out to the Minister of Finance is that he ignored the point I raised in the question I put to the member for Joliette, whether Canada ought not now to have the right to make her own constitution. Until we have that right I do not think the minister or anybody else should put forward a proposal setting forth the manner in which the Senate should be constituted.
The defect in the proposal of the hon. member for Joliette is this: He was bound, in taking up this question, to give consideration to the powers vested in British dominions which have been given constitutions since we got our own, namely, the right to make or amend their own constitutions. What we should have had here to-day was a real substantive proposal that Canada should be given what Australia has-the right to amend and improve her own constitution in any way she likes. I agree with the hon. member for Joliette that the Senate as now constituted is the most irresponsible body known to the world. Yet it does a lot of good work; I agree with the Minister of Finance in the tribute he has paid to the Senate and his reference to the careful consideration it gives to many questions. But there is no reason why it could not be improved. One of the best legislative bodies in the world to-day is the Senate of the United States. That body has the power to originate expenditures, and I do not know why that right, perhaps, should be denied to a reconstructed Canadian Senate.
One of the unfair features of the present constitution of the Senate is that it does not recognize the group system. Hon. gentlemen to my left, members of the Progressive party, represent, I think it is, sixty-five votes in the House of Commons, but with the possible exception of one senator who has declared that he supports their views, they have no representation in the Senate. That is not a fair condition and it should be rectified in some way. Any group that goes into politics in this country is entitled to representation in both chambers, and I do not see how under the present system they can be represented unless they obtain control of the government of the country. While England has in many ways the best legislative body in the world to-day, its legislative system suffers under the great impediment of a more or less irresponsible House of Lords. But we know that England is rapidly moving in the direction of a re-

ANaturalization Act
form of the House of Lords. The greatest thing achieved in that line was when the British House of Commons three or four years ago took away from the House of Lords the right to veto legislation originating in the Commons. The change thus brought about is one evidence of the pronounced constitutional agitation now going on in England for the reform, more or less, of their political system. I noticed in the press of yesterday that there had been a discussion in the House of Lords about the reconstitution of the various commonwealths of the Empire with a view to connecting them all up. That may be all right, and these questions are coming up, but before they are decided I want to see Canada have the full right to settle what her future is to be, in her own way, and in a parliament that represents all the people. I say the Senate to-day does not fairly represent the people of Canada. We have not come to a conclusion yet as to how we are to settle the problems that are before us. An irresponsible Senate is an important factor in the settlement of those problems. Certainly we ought to take up this question of having the right to amend our own constitution. Australia has it; South Africa has it; New Zealand has it.


William Stevens Fielding: Our own provinces have it.


William Findlay Maclean: Our own provinces have it; then why should we not have it? A great deal was said by the member for Joliette about democracy. I hope that when the Liberal party recognizes the principle of democracy as applied to the Senate they will recognize also the principle of representation by population in the redistribution measure that is to come before parliament.
While I agree with a great deal of what the member for Joliette says, and while I agree with the Finance Minister that the Senate can be greatly improved, I say that the paramount question before us to-day is that of the right of Canada, through its parliament to amend its own constitution and direct its own destiny.
On motion of Mr. Fortier, the debate was adjourned.



NATURALIZATION ACT


William F. Carroll: That, in the opinion of this House, the Naturalization Act should be immediately amended to the effect that persons of Canadian birth or British by naturalization
under Canadian laws, who became subjects or citizens of foreign countries by naturalization or otherwise, and who returned to Canada during the war for war service or other patriotic motive, may again become British subjects by naturalization in Canada without the necessity of a five-year residence and without the formalities now required by the Naturalization Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up very much of the time of the House in connection with this resolution. I have had communications from some hon. members and from persons outside the House to the effect that the resolution is ill-timed, owing to the fact that the period of five years following the conclusion of the war will expire some time this coming year. I pointed out to them, and I now point out to the House, that very many persons of Canadian birth who had gone to other countries, and in particular to the United States, had when the war broke out returned to Canada, joined the Canadian expeditionary forces, and gone overseas to fight the battles of the Empire. At the close of the war they returned to this country, were discharged here, and then went back to the United States. No inconsiderable number of men of this class were American citizens, Their residence in Canada, during the war, was very brief, but I have had communications from quite a number of such men as to the prospect of their becoming naturalized should they return to Canada again. I pointed out to them, of course, that under our present Naturalization Act a five years' residence in this country was required before they could become naturalized British subjects. Well, I take the ground, Mr. Speaker, that in the case of persons who were bom in this country and who for some reasons,-valid reasons in their own estimation,-went abroad and became citizens of other countries there should not be the same impediment placed in the way of their being repatriated and becoming British subjects once more as might be necessary in the. case of the naturalization of people of foreign extraction. I believe the Secretary of State would do well to investigate the whole question of repatriation and make it easier for persons such as I have described to again become domiciled in Canada as British subjects. The case of the returned soldier, of course, is somewhat different. If an American citizen, who had previously been a British subject, spent four years in the war and on his return remained in Canada for one year that would count as the five year term which is required before being able to become naturalized. However, as I pointed out, very many of those men did not remain in Canada on the termination of the war, but they are now anxious to return

Naturalization Act

and acquire the status of British subjects. It is on their behalf that I am proposing this resolution.
I do not suppose that it is quite the proper thing for the mover of a resolution to move an amendment to that resolution. I entertain the hope, however, that some hon. member will propose an amendment to the effect that the resolution shall also apply to former Canadians who went abroad, especially to the United States, but who came back to Canada and afterwards served overseas, and who now wish to be repatriated-that they should not have to fulfil the five years' residence qualification in order to again become British subjects. Our naturalization laws have been very much changed in recent years, and the question arises here as to whether or not this parliament has any right of its own motion to amend the present statute dealing with naturalization, that is the act chapter 59 of 1920. The old Naturalization Act was chapter 77 of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1906. To this act there were various amendments. One amendment, made in 1907, performed for persons in the service of the government of Canada the very thing which this resolution of mine attempts to do for soldiers, former British subjects, who served overseas in the Canadian expeditionary forces. In that statute, I think the act was chapter 31, the five years' residence qualification in the case of persons resident in Canada and employed in the service of the government, was done away with. That is what I am asking to be done in the case of the men in question. Various amendments have been made to the Naturalization Act, dealing mostly with matters of procedure, until the advent of the year 1914. Then, growing out of negotiations and conferences between Great Britain and the dominions, which began, I think, in 1901, there was an understanding that we should follow along the lines of the Naturalization Act passed in Great Britain in 1914. Previous to that year the position of one who became naturalized in Canada, or any of the other dominions, was somewhat anomalous. For example, a person who came to Canada from some foreign country and spent the five years entitling him to seek naturalization did become naturalized under our law but he was not regarded as a British subject in the true sense of the term; he was not recognized as a British subject either in Great Britain or in any other dominion outside of Canada. However, as a result of the legislation enacted in 1914 by Great Britain and Canada, any person who became naturalized in Canada under the provisions of that statute also became a British subject in all parts of the Empire. That 
act had its advantages and its disadvantages. At any rate, the law of 1914 was, I think, in 1919 displaced by another statute. There were not so many changes made in the latter act; it had principally to do with the citizenship of persons who were enemy aliens, or were friendly to enemy aliens, during the war and therefore were not considered proper persons for citizenship. Coming to 1920 we find this legislation replaced by another statute. Now the question which presents itself to my mind is whether or not this parliament can amend the Naturalization Act without first having a conference with the Mother Country.
In this connection I might refer to a memorandum by the Under Secretary of State in which he says, that while there is nothing in the Imperial legislation of 1914 to that effect, he considers it has been the custom, since the enactment of the legislation referred to, for the Mother Country and the self-governing Dominions to confer with one another whenever a demand was made for an amendment to the Naturalization Act. I was in the House of Commons in 1914 when the act went through, and, of course, that was the first occasion on which this parliament took advantage of the Ontario Act of 1914. What happened in 1918 I do not know. I do not know whether the then government did confer with the Mother Country as to the various amendments which they made, for example the amendment of 1919 and the amendment of 1920. Notwithstanding that difficulty I suggest that it would not be a very difficult matter to confer with the Imperial authorities on the matter of amendment to this act. I do not think, however, that that is necessary. I think that Canada should have the right to say what her nationalization laws should be. The great principle involved in the Imperial act of 1914 was that it enabled the colonies to take advantage of this law to naturalize a person who would be a British subject all over the world, and I do not think it was ever the intention of the Imperial legislation of 1914, or that it was ever the intention of tHe Imperial parliament, or of the various colonies, when conferring regarding the matter, that if we wanted some slight amendment to our nationalization act we must confer with the Imperial parliament. I do not think it was ever intended, and if it was ever intended I think the intention was wrong, because surely we in this country, with our knowledge of our own land, know what our naturalization act should contain, and surely we have good common sense enough not to amend our nationalization act in any way which would be detri-

Nnturnlization Act
mental to the Mother Country, or detrimental to the intention of the Imperial act of 1914. I am not going to make any extended remarks as to the rights of soldiers in this country. I am simply saying that there are in my opinion, as a matter of fact I know there are, a large number of Canadian people who took part in the Canadian expeditionary force, and who returned to the United States, who would be more apt to come to this country to-day if they would not have to spend five years here before having a voice in the government of the country, and it is on their behalf principally that I move this resolution. But I say also that I believe that our naturalization law, as regards persons who want to become repatriated Canadian subjects, is altogether too strict, and I believe that the five years' residence should be eliminated, so far as they are concerned, provided, of course, that they are proper citizens.
To-day we are seeking for immigration. We want to get back all good Canadians who have gone to other countries. We are spending money to bring in the Irish and Scotch people to Canada. I do not know, but I do not believe we give sufficient attention to bringing back into this country persons who, for various reasons, left here and became citizens of other countries, and I believe it would be a step in the right direction if the government undertook to amend this act, so that the five years' residence in this country for such persons who had been Canadian citizens, and who -had become citizens of other countries, would be eliminated, and these citizens could be repatriated. It would be some small inducement to bring some of our one-time good Canadian citizens back to this country. I am in hopes that steps will be taken, not only to fulfil the letter or the spirit of my resolution, but that some steps will be taken to extend the resolution in the direction I have indicated.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not as familiar with the question of naturalization as I would like to be. My colleague has had the matter under consideration, and I would prefer that my hon. friend .should move the adjournment of the debate, so that it may be resumed at a later date, if necessary. I do not wish to shut out any hon. member from speaking, and if any hon. member wishes to move the adjournment of the debate, I presume he can do so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I recognize that, in some particulars, as the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) points
88 i
out, questions may arise which may require grave consideration. It is a subject which I do not know very much about. I just rise to make one suggestion. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) shows that the real object of the motion was that those soldiers who fought in the war, and who are at present out of the country, and who wish to return, ought to be allowed to do so in welcome at the earliest possible moment. The hon. member says that that is the chief object of his resolution. The hon. member makes suggestions in connection with matters of general policy. I would suggest to the hon. member that he confine the motion to just what he wants. I do not believe that any member of the House would or could object to his primary idea, which is the repatriation and re-naturalization of the soldiers. Of course, if the motion is adjourned we will never hear of it again this year. I would suggest an amendment be made in this motion. The latter part of it reads:
-and who returned to Canada during the war for war service or other patriotic motive.
I suggest that he should make it read:
-who returned to Canada during the war and entered into war service.
He would then absolutely cover all the cases he wishes to cover, and I am quite sure no one could object to it.


Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State):: The question my hon. friend has brought before the House is one of very great interest unquestionably, but the House probably very well knows that during the past number of years conferences have been held from time to time between the representatives of the Imperial government and representatives of the colonies on this subject of naturalization. Formerly each colony had its own naturalization act. We passed our own naturalization act relating to Canadian subjects. In 1914 an act was passed, after several conferences with the Imperial authorities, in order to make uniform the naturalization laws of the British Empire and all her colonies. Since that, date from time to time, amendments were made to the Naturalization Act, for the purpose, as my hon. friend has said, of making uniform the naturalization laws, and making us all British subjects in any part of the British Empire. The only difficulty I see in the resolution moved by my hon. friend is that we undoubtedly can pass any naturalization law, in so far as it affects Canada, and make any person we like a Canadian subject. But if we do that this person is only a Canadian subject, and not a British subject, unless

Naturalization Act
we continue along the same lines as we have been acting for a number of years, by conference and agreement with the British government along the same lines, and make the law uniform throughout the British Empire. Last year the British parliament introduced an extensive amendment to their naturalization act, which was passed, I think, in August, 1922. Before passing that act they sent a copy to Canada, and we conferred by correspondence and cables, and agreed to that act.
I want to say to my hon. friend that I will present to this House in the course of a day or two a bill to amend our naturalization act, to conform entirely with the British act passed last year. I do not think the bill I have prepared covers the point which the hon. member makes entirely, but I can assure him, and I can assure this House, that the government will be very glad indeed to make very careful inquiry into the matter the hon. member brought before the House this afternoon, and if it is at all possible, in the interests of returned soldiers, particularly referred to by my hon. friend for South Cape Breton as well as my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), by inquiry and investigation to accomplish the re-naturalization of the soldiers returning to this country, particularly for repatriation purposes, we will be very glad to do so.
As far as the department over which I have the honour to preside is concerned the matter of naturalization has been under consideration for some time and I can assure my hon. friend that I will have my officials make a very careful investigation into the matter, and irrespective of whether this motion passes or not, I assure him that the question will be given every possible attention. If any scheme can be worked out by which this matter can be furthered and it be made more easy for the soldier who has come back to this country after doing service at the front, the department, the government, and, I am sure, parliament will be very glad to co-operate and assist.


Hon. D. D. McKENZIE (Solicitor General):: 
William F. Carroll: I have no objection if the House is agreeable, to withdrawing my resolution with the suggested amendment of the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton).
Motion withdrawn.



OLEOMARGARINE

[Stage Direction]
On the proposed resolution of Mr. Carroll:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Oleomargarine Act, chapter twenty-four of the statutes of 1919 (second session), and the amending acts, by providing that notwithstanding anything contained in The Dairy Industry Act, 1914, or in any other statute or law, the manufacture in, and importation of oleomargarine into Canada, and the offering for sale, the sale and the having in possession for sale, of oleomargarine, shall henceforth be permitted, subject to the provisions of the said Oleomargarine Act and to such regulations as are now or may hereafter be established by the Governor in Council.
William F. Carroll: I am ready to go ahead, but I do not wish to do so at this hour of the afternoon. I am willing to let the motion gtand if I have the assurance that it will be allowed to go ahead on Monday.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not sure that anyone can give any assurance that this resolution will be taken up on Monday. As regards the government, we have no objection; but the matter is one for the House to determine when notices of motions are called.
Motion stands.



INCOME TAX-EXEMPTION FOR

[Stage Direction]
.	CHILDREN
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the expediency of amending the Income Tax law by increasing the amount of the exemption for each child from three hundred dollars to five hundred dollars, and by exempting altogether the father of five children, under eighteen years of age, who has an income less than five thousand dollars.
He said:
Mr. Speaker, I cannot be accused of having taken much of the time of the House this session; following the principle, that nature having given us two mediums for hearing and only one for speaking, I believe it is much wiser to listen than to talk. The

Income Tax
13S3
motion which stands in my name asks for an amendment to the income tax of 1917. I made a similar motion in 1920, which was lost then through the opposition, I believe, of the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). Last year I had the same motion again on the order paper. Unfortunately we did not reach that order; but I was successful in convincing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that he should increase the exemption for each child from $200 to $300. Needless to say, I approve the amendment which was introduced by the Minister of Finance and made law, but it does not go far enough. Everyone who is blessed with children knows that it costs more nowadays than $200 for the upkeep of a child. I have made a careful calculation of the amount necessary, and it is far above $500. The principle at the basis of the section of the income tax law which exempts the married man for $2,000, is that this amount is necessary to provide for the upkeep of his wife and himself. If that principle is good-and nobody will deny that

it follows that the principle should apply also if the man needs more money for the upkeep of his children. The cardinal idea of the income tax is that, 'a man should be taxed only in respect of his net income. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is a bad principle to enact laws that tend to discourage the raising of large families. We have at the present moment tremendous financial difficulties and we can hardly meet the expenses of the administration. Nearly every economic student of the situation believes that the best way of meeting our expense is by increasing the population. The government has brought in a policy of immigration which has been under discussion for some days and which has been criticised by both sides of the House, and I give credit to the Liberal party for the fact that a man can stand up on this side of the House and state his own views without fear of expurgation from the party as was the case under the old regime. I may say that I am in favour of a sane and select immigration with the examination of the immigrant at the port of departure. But after all the most desirable citizen-and I say this with due respect for those who are not such-is the Canadian-born. He is preferable to the European, the American, or even the British, because he has sprung from the soil to which he will be always attached. And there is no hyphen appended to his nationality; his only country is Canada.
This legislation which I submit to the government for consideration has been approved by all countries. I read the other day an article by Dr. Mareli in reference to France in
which he stated that laws had been adopted in that country against depopulation in virtue of an act of 1913. There is a monthly subvention given to families who have more than three children, and there are also subventions to the workingmen for their children, with a reduction of the tax on their revenue. There is also a special tariff for large families. Since 1920 laws have also been passed aiming at the removal of all conditions that might tend toward depopulation. The Montreal Gazette of March 9, 1920, contained the following article :
France's new inheritance tax will be a novelty. It will be based upon the principle that the more children man has the less estate should be taxed, and vice versa, the fewer children he has, the more tax should be levied. If a man dies without children, the state will take fifty per cent of his estate. If there is one child, the state will take 33 per cent. If there are two children to be provided for, the tax will be 25 per cent. Should there be three children the tax will be 18| per cent. In the case of four or more children there will be no inheritance tax. Fiscal experts estimate this new tax will bring in 3,000,000 francs annually.
The French government statistics show that half the French army in the World War came from families having four or more children. The same statistics show that one family in five has as many as four children. Further, more families whose estates are the largest are not those who have four or more children as a rule.
When I brought this motion to the House in 1920 the principal argument advanced against it was that the amount allowed in the Unijted States was not over $200. Since then, however, the law has been changed. The exemption is now $400. I have here a copy of an act to reduce and equalize taxation, to provide revenue, and for other purposes, and section 216 reads:
That for the purpose of the normal tax only there shall be allowed the following credits:
(d) Four hundred dollars for each person other than husband or wife dependent upon and receiving his chief support from the taxpayer, if such dependent person is under eighteen years of age or is incapable of self-support because mentally or physically defective.
In England, it is true, the tax for the first child is $200, but there are other exemptions. There are allowances for life insurance premiums on the life of the taxpayer and his wife. I have in my hand Pratt and Redman's Income Tax Law, 9th edition, and at page 19, I find:
Allowance for life assurance premiums-Subject to the restriction imposed by the Finance Act 1915, the acts allow the general reduction of premiums up to one-sixth of the gains of the person chargeable, paid for life assurance by the person on his own life or that of his wife, or on any deferred annuity in a British company registered under the Joint Stock Companies Act.
And at page 218 of the same work, section 3, the following appears:
As we have seen, a taxpayer who has insured his own or his wife's life, or contracted for any deferred
Income Tax

annuity on his own or his wife's life, or who shall under any act of parliament be liable to the payment of an annual sum or to have an annual sum deducted from his salary in order to secure a deferred annuity to him, or provision for his children after his death, is entitled to the extent of the annual sum so paid by him or deducted from his salary, to deduct the same from the duties to which he is assessed under any of the schedules of the act (16 and 17).
Then there is relief for small incomes. I may also add that England does not seem to care at the present time for an increase in population. On the contrary, there is such unemployment there that means are being taken and money is being expended for emigration to different parts of the Empire particularly.
I should have liked to touch upon another point regarding those who are married under a contract which does not call for the separation of property as we have in our province. This is a very interesting point, but as I have such a short time at my disposal before the House adjourns, I will not take it up now; also because the House will adjourn in three minutes I will not read the numerous resolutions which I have received from important bodies supporting my proposal.
I congratulate the minister on the amendment he made last year, and I hope he will adopt my suggestion this year and still further increase the exemption. Everyone acknowledges that the family is the basic element of a well co-ordinated state. By this legislation we would reap results beneficial to the country both morally and materially, and we would put our official approval on the teaching of nature and God-crescite et multiplicamini.


William Stevens Fielding: As my hon. friend has stated, the representations he made last year were so effective that we did make a change along the lines of his recommendation. All he is asking now is that we consider the question. Well, we are always ready to consider, so we can all vote for this resolution. I am prepared ,o consider it. An alarming situation, how-aver, presents itself to my mind-alarming at all events to the Minister of Finance-and that is the many demands for exemptions, reductions and so forth. My hon. friend wants an exemption from income tax. I have many deputations-some of them have already appeared, others are coming-all wanting different forms of exemption. One wants to be exempt from the sales tax, another from some other tax, and so on. It would be very pleasant if I could say to these deputations, "Oh, surely you are all paying too much tax; you are exempt." But I am afraid I shall have

the disagreeable duty of telling them "We need the money." I have come back always to that old formula. I hope my hon. friend does not expect that I may do more than that. However, I will consider what he has asked for.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, March 22, 1923