1924-03-20

AUDIT BOARD

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) asked me yesterday if I would lay on the Table of the House a copy of the order in council giving some particulars with reference to the Audit Board. I have pleasure now in laying the order in question on the Table.



GRATUITIES TO GRAND TRUNK EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): The other day I laid on the Table a report with the evidence taken by the commissioner appointed to investigate certain payments made to Grand Trunk officials and others. I wish now to lay on the Table copies of the exhibits that were taken with the evidence.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Can the minister suggest when he will be able to lay on the Table the results, and advise the House of what is being returned?


Mr. GRAHAM:: I might say that up to the present time nothing has been done, but I will discuss the matter at greater length at some other time.


Mr. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome):: Not a word, Mr. Speaker, can be heard in this corner of the chamber.


George Perry Graham: That adds to the other regrets that my hon. friend has in finding himself over there. I was saying that no money had been returned by certain persons to whom the Grank Trunk had paid gratuities and other sums, and that at some future date I would discuss the matter further.



PENITENTIARIES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 12, to amend the Penitentiaries Act.
He said: The first section of the bill is for the purpose of removing any doubt as to the powers of the wardens and other officers of the penitentiaries in preventing the escape of convicts or in recapturing them. In the case of prisoners who were convicted of offences which were felonies the officers have more authority than when the offence was a misdemeanor, and this section is to remove all differences in that regard.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
The second section is a consequence of the amendments which were added to the Criminal Code last year by the Senate, and accepted by this House, to give to convicts the right of appeal against their sentence of conviction. It is for the purpose of keeping them in a provincial jail while the appeal is pending, instead of removing them to the penitentiary. The penitentiary, of course, is a place fo" punishment, it is not intended for the imprisonment of men who are still awaiting conviction.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 13, to amend the Fruit Act.
He said:	The purpose of this bill is to
make a slight correction in the French version of the Fruit Act of last session.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. ANDERSON:: What was the revenue received up to the end of February of the fiscal years 1921-22-23, respectively, from the following sources: Sales Tax; Stamp Tax; Income Tax; interest on investments and cash balances; excise on alcoholic beverages and alcohol; from all other sources of revenue of excise taxation; also receipts from the postal sendee of the country, from the Customs tax and receipts from all other sources of revenue ?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: Statement cf Revenue Received by Department of Finance
-	Fiscal Year 1921/22 to Feb. 28, 1922	Fiscal Year 1922/23 to Feb. 28, 1923	Fiscal Year 1923/24 to Feb. 29, 1924$ cts.	S cts.	$ cts.94,056,176 27	107,092,994 36	110,620,052 2433,672,886 17	33,048,915 50	35,216,944 22Excise Taxes-	56.325,299 51	81,428,351 45	94,911,891 752,870,940 09	5,159,939 52	7,998.158 508,214,.544 54	7,319,247 78	10,498,577 2175,887,025 18	58,085,003 13	52,768.987 0820.696,676 18	11,898.978 31	4.460,704 7017,363.500 60	11,572,440 55	8,014,689 5222,168,485 59	25,043,367 12	25.912,158 4912,591,234 56	13,627,327 17	13,562,134 69
343,846,768 69	354,876,569 89	363,964,298 40
'Includes the following amounts of Excise Duties collected on spirits:-
S 5,756,363 22	$ 7,466,296 24	$	8,755,924 73
TRUSTS, MERGERS AND COMBINES Mr. SUTHERLAND:
1.	What prosecutions, if any, have been held under federal legislation against trusts, mergers, and combines in restraint of trade in Canada during each of the years 1922, 1923, and 1924?
2.	What penalties were imposed during those years for the offences committed by any or all of said trusts, mergers and combines in restraint of trade?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1. During the year 1922 and until August 25, 1923, when a registrar was appointed under the Combines Investigation Act, 1923 the only federal legislation in effect under which prosecutions could be held was the Criminal Code (Sections 496, 497, 498). No prosecutions were held under this Statute. Under the Combines Investigation Act, 1923 no prosecutions have taken place, though 32i
complaints informally laid have been investigated, with results which have avoided the necessity of prosecution.
2. Answered by above.


AGRICULTURAL IMPORT DUTIES
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 
Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1. Total value of imports entered for consumption, customs duties collected, and percentage of duty in relation to value, calendar year 1923:
Percentage of Customs Duty-Value Duty Per cent
(a) Agricultural and vegetable products, mainly
foods	$122,620,442 $20,325,438	16.6(b) Agricultural and table products than foods.. ..	vege- other	60.027,606	15.141,270	25.2(c) Animals and products	their	. 46,423.862	4,555,821	9.8
2 and 3. Total imports and imports from United States of respective commodities mentioned in question 1, entered for consumption in Canada during the calendar year 1923:
(a)
Total United State*
Fruits	$27,005,094	$23,924,262Nuts	3.706,084	1,163,933Vegetables	5,267,475	4,262,024Grains and farinaceous prods..	13,679,433	10,860,467Oils, vegetable, food	744,014	283,550Sugar and products	50,239.380	6,391,621Cocoa and chocolate	2,780,240	770,372Coffee and chicory	3,486,989	372,898Spices	1,136,116	389.214Tea	12,460,721	65.223Vinegar	62,870	17,287Yeast	527,340	527,153Others veg. prods, mainly food.	1,524,686	1,343,048Grand total veg. food prods.	$122,620,442	$50,371,052(b)	Beverages, alcoholic	$20,607,338	$ 186.386Gums and resins	2,381,031	2,083,649Oil cake and meal	90,995	79,395Oils, vegetable, not food.. ..	8,074,185	6,516,974Plants, shrubs, trees and vines	1,100,196	406,022Rubber and its products.. ..	13,216,371	9,273,041Seeds	3,962,326	1,997,157Tobacco	7,145.641	4,708,046Other veg. prods, not food..	3,449.523	3,232,045Grand total agricultural and	veg. prods, other than food	$60,027,606	$28,482,715
(c)
Total United States
Animals, living	$ 2,530,539	$ 2,292,754Bone, ivory and shell prods..	356,001	174,018Feathers and quills	282,873	194,939Fishery products, n.o.p	2,303,874	916,079Fur skins	8,639,005	6,497,966Hides and skins	7,617,273	3,227,519Leather	7,021,583	4,958,026Hair and bristles	722,361	587,166Meats	7,941.154	7,441,841Milk and its products	1,792,827	553,664Oils, fats, greases and waxes.	3,049,314	2,867,528Animal prods, miscellaneous..	4,167,058	3,253,537Grand total animals and	prods	$46,423,862	$32,965,037


LUNENBURG MARINE RAILWAY COMPANY
Mr. LADNER:: How much money, if any, has been paid, during the years 1922 and 1923, to the Lunenburg Marine Railway Company, Sydney, Nova Scotia, by the Department of Public Works and by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and for what services?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Department of Public Works-[DOT]
Nothing at Sydney, but at Lunenburg payments aggregating $9,280.94 were made to the Lunenburg Marine Railway Company. Department of Marine and Fisheries-
Engine repairs Patrol Boat "B".$	33.75
Engine repairs C. G. S. Arleux.. 46.90 General repairing and overhauling C. G. S. Arleux	 3,894.00
3 stoves and fittings	 86.36
Use of Marine Railway while C. G. S. Arleux undergoing hull repairs	 545.50


GRAIN INQUIRY COMMISSION
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	What has been the cost of the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission up to the 1st of March, 1924?
2.	What are the names of the officers and employees who have been engaged in the work of the said commission, and what salaries are paid to each?
3.	Were any tenders invited or received in connection with the reporting and stenographic services necessary to the work of the said commission?
4.	If so, from whom were such tenders received, and what was the tender price of each?
I Hon. Mr. LOW:
1.	$105,586.78.
Salary
per diem
2.	W. F. A. Turgeon, Chairman . . . Nil D. A. McGibbon, Commissioner. $25
. W. J. Rutherford, Commissioner, 25 J. G. Scott, Commissioner ... 25 R. J. Deachman, Secretary ....	15
The Chairman receives his actual living and transportation expenses. The other members of the Commission and the Secretary receive a per diem allowance of $15, and their actual transportation expenses.
The employees of the Commission are:
Salary Living per diem Aliw.
D'Arcy Scott, Chief Counsel, to
September 16	$100	$15from September	16 to	October	3	50	15S.	B. Woods, Senior Counsel,
(from October 4) preparation
work	
75	15during sittings of	Committee..	100	15

Questions
Salary Living per diem A'llw.
J. F. Fisher, Junior Counsel,
to September 15	
75	15from September 16	
50	15D. D. Young, Technical	adviser...	25	15R. A. Thompson, Technical adviser, (milling)	
25	15Michael Scott, Secretaiy to Counsel, (to October 3)	
4	6J. Howe, Reporter in chief	....	5	6(and 30c. a folio for ten copies.) L. E. Cross, Stenographer	
5	63.	No.4.	Answered by No. 3.


HALIFAX GRAIN ELEVATOR
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	What was the estimated cost of the grain elevator as it was proposed to be built at the port of Halifax, Nova Scotia, in or previous to December of 1921?
2.	Were tenders ever called for construction of said elevator ?
3.	If so, what are the names and addresses respectively of persons who tendered for the said grain elevator, and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	Why was the work not proceeded with?
5.	Were the tenders called for in November, 1923, based upon the original plans?
6.	Have the plans and specifications, or either, for the said elevator been revised? If so, when was such revision completed?
7.	What is the estimated cost of the elevator under such revised plans and specifications?
8.	Why have tenders not been invited for construction under the revised plans and specifications?
9.	When will such tenders be invited?
10.	What was the cost or value of engineering or other services in the work of revising the plans find specifications for the said elevator?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1.	Answered by No. 3.
2.	Yes.
3.
| Less certain |
| deductions ]
Total j for portion | Net total | of works not |
| required j
Atlas Construction	Co., $	$	$Montreal	. .. 1,176,000	195,784	980,216E. G. M. Cape	Co.,	Montreal	. .. 1,190,000	196,000	994,000MacDonald Engineering Co.	of Canada, Toronto.	. .. 1,238,072	208,200	1,029,872Barnett - McQueen Co.,	Montreal 	. .. 1,248,640	232,500	1,016,140Grenville Crushed Rock Co.	Ltd., Montreal	. .. 1.337,011	181,000	1,156,011Brookfield Contruetion	Co.,	Halifax	. .. 1,340,573	214,337	1,126,236Fegles Construction	Co.	Ltd., Fort William	.. .. 1,355,014	183,143	1,171,8714.	The cost was found to be higher than was at first anticipated.5.	Yes6.	No.7.	Answered by No. 6.8.	Answered by No. 6.9.	As soon as the revision of the plans and specifications has been completed.10.	Answered by No. 6.


POSTAL SALARIES
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to inaugurate an immediate upward, general revision of postal salaries?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the government, in extending the bonus system for another year, to materially increase the allowance to employees receiving the lower scale of salaries?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: This
inquiry is answered by the statement of the Prime	Minister-see pages 480 and 481
Hansard, of 19th March, 1924.
IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES [DOT]


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What were the total imports from the United States for the past twelve years?
2.	What were the total imports of coal from the United States, bituminous and anthracite, for the past three years of record?
3.	What were the total imports of iron from the United States for the past three years?
4.	What were the total imports from the United States of other manufactured products that could be manufactured in Canada ?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1. The total imports into Canada for consumption from the United States for the past
twelve years were:
Years ended March 31:	8
1912		 331,384.657
1913		 436,887.315
1914		 396,302,138
1915		 297,142,059
. 1916	 370,880,549
1917		 665,312,759
1918		 792,894,957
1919		 750,203,024
1920		 801,097,318
1921		 856,176,820
1922		 515,958,196
1923		 540.989,738
2. The imports of anthracite and bituminous coal into Canada for consumption from the United States for the last three years of
record were:
Years ended	Anthracite Bituminous
January 31	Coal	Coal1922	Ton	4,468,379	12,932,1188	39,544,601	43,311,9981923	Ton	2,682,536	10,327,450$	23,434,988	37,578.5811924	Ton	4,840,713	15,072,285S	43.549.649	45,585.631
Questions

3.	Total imports of iron and its products into Canada for consumption from the United States for the past three years were: Years ended Janauary 31:	S
1922		 109,153,604
1923		 116,825,675
1924		 152,355,937
4.	No statistics of imports of manufactured goods, distinct from raw materials, have been compiled for a later 12 months period than the fiscal year ended March 31, 1923. For that fiscal year the total imports of partly manufactured goods from the United States were valued at $35,696,682, and the fully or chiefly manufactured goods at $314,961,036. Of these amounts the iron and steel manufactures accounted for $1,521,237 and $120,789,847, respectively, leaving $34,175,445, of psfrtly manufactured goods and $194,171,189 of fully or chiefly manufactured goods of materials other than iron and steel.


COAL IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many tons of coal were imported from the United States, and from countries other than the States, during the year 1923?
2.	What was the total value of iron and steel imported by Canada from the United States during the year 1923?
3.	What was the total value of farm implements imported by Canada from the United States in the year 1923?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 1. The quantity of coal imported into Canada for consumption from the United States, and from countries other than the States during the year ended December 31, 1923,
was:
Anthra-	Bitu-	Ligcite	minous	nite	TotalTons	Tons	Tons	Tons
From-
United States. .. 4,903 707	15,511.201	2,331	20,417.239United Kingdom..	261,675	310,895	....	572,570Alaska	
4	....	4Philippines	
140	....	140Total	
5,165,382 15,822,240 2,331 20,989.9532.	The total value of iron and its products imported into Canada for consumption from the United States for the year ended December 31, 1923 was $152,854,567.3.	The total value of farm implements and machinery imported into Canada for consumption from the United States for the year ended December 31, 1923 was $11,721,855.


EXCISE COLLECTIONS
Mr. CHAPLIN:: What amount of excise was collected on homemade native wines (a) during each of the months of September, October, November and December, 1922, and January, 1923: and (b) during each of the months of September, October, November and December, 1923, and January, 1924?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: Excise taxes collected on domestic native wines under provisions of Special War Revenue Act, 1915:
1923
September.. .. $12,710 37 October ..	..	24.865	28
November.. .. 15,902 52 December..	.. 16,499 21
January ..	..	27,674	58
September..	.. $ 6,396 82
October ..	..	17,086	52November..	..	18 304 10December.. ..	2,661	32January ..	..	7,981	81



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LADNER:: 1.	W'ho are the members of the Royal Commission on Pulpwood ?
2.	What is the salary of each, the total cost of the commission to date and the cost per day?
3.	What previous experience or training has each of the said members had in forestry or in the pulpwood business ?
4.	What witnesses have been heard, and what are their addresses, names and occupations?
5.	Is the sa d commission authorized to inquire into the question of the export of fir, cedar or other logs to the United States from the province of British Columbia?
6. If so, has the government directed such inquiry or has the government received requests that such an inquiry be carried out in the interests of the manufacture of lumber and shingles in British Columbia?
7.	At whose request or upon what information was the Order in Council of June 10, 1923, passed exempting pulpwood sold or to be sold for a period of ten years from any embargo which might be enacted?
8.	Did the government promise to exempt farmers' pulpwood from a possible embargo?
9.	Has not the Forestry branch of the Department of Interior and the Provincial Government Forests Services full information relative to the subject matter authorized to be inquired into by the said royal commission ?


STEAMSHIPS SUBSIDIES
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	What number of steamship companies are receiving subsidies from the government?
2.	What are the names of these companies?
3.	What amount of subsidy is paid to each?
4.	Under what conditions are these subsidies paid?


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the total cost of administration of the Soldier Settlement Board, in each year since the institution of the board?
2.	What is the estimated total amount of interest which has been rebated or will be rebated to settlers under the Act of 1922?

Questions
3.	What was the total number of employees each year since the formation of the board?
4.	How many loans have been made in each province in each year by the board?
5.	What was the total amount due by settlers in each province in each year?
6.	What is the total amount paid by soldier settlers in each province in each year?
7.	In how many cases did the board purchase lands for the settler?
8.	On what terms were these lands sold to soldier settlers?
9. In how many of these cases has the settler abandoned his farm?
10.	How much land has been purchased by the board in each province, and for how many settlers in each province, and what was the total price paid for same?
11.	What amount was loaned in each province for purchase of stock and equipment, and what was the average loan for each settler for this purpose, in each province ?
12.	What was the total number of salvage cases in each province, and the tot$l amount owing to the board under such cases at the time of salvage or abandonment: (a) for stock and equipment, (b) for lands?
13.	What amount had been previously paid to the board in such cases by soldier settlers?
14.	What amount of salvage lands have been resold, and what is the total sales price of these lands?
15.	What is the value of the land still held by the board at the purchase price?
10.	What amount has been received from the sale of stock and equipment in salvaged cases?
17.	In how many cases have auction sales been held for land or equipment of soldier settlers?
18.	On what terms are salvaged lands being sold to the public?
19.	How many soldier settlers are now in arrears on their payments, and what is the total amount of such arrears?
20.	What is the amount of future payments due to the board: (a) by soldier settlers; (b) by civilians?
21.	What is the total amount now held in the Soldier Land Settlement Assurance Fund?


IMPORTATION OF VELVET
Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	What was the amount of velvets, velveteens, silk velvet and plush not over 24 inches in width and silk fabrics not over 26 inches in width imported into Canada per month during the months of October, November and December, 1923, and January, 1924, (a) from all countries and (b) from France, Italy and each of the other countries receiving " most favoured nation treatment "?
2.	What was the amount of velvets, velveteens, rilk velvets and plush over 24 inches in width and silk fabrics over 26 inches in width imported into Canada per month during the same period, (a) from all countries and (b) from France, Italy and each of the other countries receiving " most favoured nation treatment "?



APPEAL BOARD-WAR RECORD

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: What is the war record in Canada, in England and in France, of each of the members of the Federal Appeal Board appointed by the present government?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 
Arthur Edward Ross: I would just as soon have it pass as an order for return.



OTTAWA WINE VAULTS BUILDING

Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Did the government purchase within the last year a property in Ottawa on York street, known as the Ottawa Wine Vaults building?
2.	If so, at what price?
3.	What was the previous city assessment on the building?
4.	Who were the owners of said building?
5.	With all the unoccupied government property in Ottawa, what was the urgency of purchasing this property ?
6.	What is it used for at present?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS AND CIVIC TAXATION

Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	Does the Canadian National Railways pay to the city of Montreal yearly any sum by way of taxation or otherwise in respect to property * formerly belonging to the Grand Trunk Railway and now occupied and used by the Canadian National Railways? If so, how much and on what basis is such payment made?
2.	What was the assessed value of such property before the same was taken over by the Canadian National Railways, and what was the rate at which the same was taxed? At what sum is such property rated to-day and is any distinction as to assessment made between it and other taxable property in the city?
3.	What representations, if any, were made by any Minister of the Crown as to the future taxation by the city of Montreal of the properties of the Grand Trunk at' or previous to the taking over of the same by the Canadian National Railways or the Crown?
4.	What sums, if any, does the Canadian National Railways pay to the city of Prince Rupert as taxes or otherwise in respect to Railway Terminals or other property formerly belonging to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and now the property of the Canadian National Railways?
5.	At what amount are such properties valued for assessment and at what rate are they taxed and do such valuations and rate differ from those in respect to other taxable properties in the city?
6.	Do"s the Canadian National Railways pay any sums whether as taxes or otherwise to other cities and municipalities in Canada in respect to properties formerly belonging to the Grand Trunk Railway or to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company? If so, what -giving places, and amounts paid in each?
Questions as Returns

7.	Does the Canadian National Railways pay to the city of Portland, Maine, any sums as taxes in respect to the railway terminals and other properties in that city, formerly the property of the Grand Trunk Railway Company? If so, how much? At what value is such property assessed for city taxes and at what rate does it pay, and do such valuation and rate differ from those in respect to other taxable properties in the city?


George Perry Graham: The information
asked for by this question is quite voluminous and will require quite a little research. I ask my hon. friend to let it stand as an order for a return.



QUESTIONS AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS OBJECTION BY MR. MEIGHEN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
['I think this question would properly come when the estimates are before committee of supply. It is not proper, at this stage, according to the rules to ask a question on a subject of that kind.']
Arthur Meighen: Theie are some questions that have been asked t.c stand as to which request no valid objection could be taken, as the questions involve long replies which could not and do not need to go on Hansard. As to others, I protest against the government abusing the rule and requiring them to stand as orders for returns. I instance especially question No. 28 which I understood the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay) asked to stand as an order for return. If there was ever a simple question, seeing that the answer to it could be put on a postage stamp, it is question No. 28. It is first asked:
Did the government purchase within the last year a property in Ottawa on York street, known as the Ottawa Wine Vaults building? If so, at what price7
Perhaps it would take a large postage stamp to contain the answer, but it should not require a long time to give the reply. Then it is sought to learn:
What was the previous city assessment on the building?
Surely it is a gross abuse of the rule to ask that that question stand as an order for return. Finally:
Who were the owners of said building?
WTith all the unoccupied government property in Ottawa what was the urgency of purchasing this property?	v
What is it used for at present?
There is absolutely no excuse for asking that this question stand as an order for return.


James Horace King: I think it is important that 'this
should be a matter of return, in order that the House may be fully advised as to the price paid for this buildmg and the valuation of the property. The question will not bring 
out that information, and I think the House ought to have it.


Arthur Meighen: The minister's explanation is amusing. There is no need of this question standing as an order for a return. If the minister should make his answer a little more full than the question requires we do not object to it. All that is asked for is an answer to the question.



[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
James Horace King: The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) yesterday asked a question in respect to quantities, values and amount of duties collected on the importation of calf and cattle skins, and so forth. In the absence of the Minister of Customs I asked that it be allowed to stand as an order for return. I find the Minister of Customs has prepared an answer for it but it is somewhat lengthy. I should like to have it either placed on Hansard as an answer or let the question pass as an order for return. If my hon. friend would like it to appear on Hansard it might be inserted in the list of questions to-day.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I should like it to appear in' Hansard.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Answered.
[The question and answer referred to are as follows:


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What are the respective quantities, values and amount of duty collected, on the importation of calf and cattle skins, also the quantity and value of calf and cattle skins exported from Canada during the years ending March 31, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923?
2.	What are the respective quantities, values and duty collected on eggs imported, also the quantity and value of eggs exported from Canada, during the years ending March 31, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923.
3.	What are the respective quantities, values and duty collected on butter imported during the years above mentioned, also the quantity and value of butter exported ?
*4. What are the respective quantities, values and duty collected on the imports of pork and pork products such as fresh, salted and cured bacon and hams, lard, etc., also the exports of,same for the years 1920 1921 1922 and 1923?
5.	What are the respective quantities, value and duty collected on imports of oleomargarine for the years 1920 1921, 1922 and 1923?
6.	What are the respective quantities, value and duty collected on imports of material used in the manufacture of oleomargarine for 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923?
7.	What are the quantities and values of the exports of oleomargarine for the years 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
PAINTING OF LATE PRESIDENT HARDING
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government is taking any steps to officially recognize the. presentation by Mr. R. J Cromie, publisher of the Vancouver Sun, to the National Press Gallery in Washington, of a large painting commemorating the historic visit of President Harding to Canada which occurred in Vancouver last summer. This painting commemorates the visit in question, and portrays the late president on the occasion
of his addressing some forty thousand citizens of Canada in Stanley park. I might add, with your permission, Sir, that this very important and historic painting is being exhibited in the leading cities. I should like to ask, therefore, if there is any official recognition being made of this very excellent step taken by Mr. Cromie, and whether or not provision will* be made to exhibit the painting in Ottawa on its way to Washington. It is to be presented some time in April, according to my information.


James Horace King: My hon. friend was kind enough to mention to me before the House assembled that he intended to ask this
Navies oj Dominions

question. I brought with me, therefore, a communication which I sent to Mr. Cromie at the time I learned it was the intention of the Sun to make the presentation to the Press Gallery at Washington of the historic painting referred to. This telegraphic communication is [DOT] as follows:
Ottawa, February 15, 1924.
To Thp Vancouver Sun:
On the occasion of the Sun's presentation to the National Press Gallery at Washington of the picture commemorating President Harding's greeting to the Canadian people at Vancouver, it gives me great pleasure to associate myself in the proceedings by expressing the hope that the feelings of mutual trust and good-will, which this presentation symbolizes, and which it was Mr. Harding's aim to promote, may ever continue to subsist and strengthen as time goes on.
W. L. Mackenzie King,
Prime Minister of Canada.
I sent that communication semi-officially in the hope that it might help to give the presentation something of the national character which I think my hon. friend has in mind. I also intimated to Mr. Cromie that at the time the formal presentation was made I would send a communication from the government of Canada to the authorities at Washington, or whoever might be in charge of the presentation there, extending greetings on behalf of the Dominion in connection with the occasion. As to the exhibition of the painting at Ottawa, I confess that until my hon. friend spoke of the matter I had assumed that the presentation of the painting was a private enterprise on behalf of the Vancouver Sun, and that the matter of the exhibition of the painting rested with the proprietor of that paper, but I can assure my hon. friend, after speaking to the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. King), that the minister will be glad to see that arrangements are made for the painting being brought to Ottawa, if it is the .wish of the Vancouver Sun to have it exhibited here.


WINDSOR PLUMBERS AND STEAM-FITTERS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: I wish to draw the attention of the government to the complaint of the United Association of Journeyman Plumbers and Steam-fitters of Windsor. The complaint which has apparently been made to the government is to the effect that, while the city of Windsor has been obliged to open up a mission to feed and take care of the unemployed this winter, nevertheless, against the regulations of the Department of Immigration and of Labour, American workers have been brought

from Milwaukee to do work in Windsor in connection with the erection of an ice plant which is being put up by a Milwaukee firm. The work is that of steamfitting and pipefitting, and at the present time there are 20 experienced pipefitters out of employment in the city of Windsor.


James Alexander Robb: The Department of Immigration, so far as I know, received no complaint from any person in the city of Windsor. And-may I point out to my hon. friend-it is just possible the work these men are doing will provide work for other men when the staff gets busy.


NAVIES OF OVERSEAS DOMINIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I noticed a despatch in the press the other day, I think it was dated from London, which induces me to ask the government, whether the announcement of the Parliamentary Secretary of the British Admiralty that the Overseas dominions will develop their navies in accordance with a common doctrine is correct.
I do not wish to ask an awkward question, but if there is any information along that line, I would like to know what a ''common doctrine" really means.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The press item has reference, I think, to discussions which took place at the Imperial Conference. As my hon. friend knows, there has been for some little time a controversy as to whether there will be a centralized navy, one navy contributed to by the different dominions, or whether in the matter of naval defence the dominions should have their own naval services under the control of their own governments. At the Imperial Conference it was definitely determined that as repects the self governing dominions the policy of naval services owned and controlled by the government of the dominions was the proper policy to follow in regard to naval defence. In connection therewith it has always been assumed that where the dominions have navies of their own, that as between the dominions, matters of organization and administration would be carried on along lines more or less similar so that, in the event of there being a desire to co-operate or co-ordinate the several naval services, they would as a result of similar methods of training, similar rules airi regu-

Railway Act-Excursions
lations in respect of discipline and the like, be able to co-operate efficiently. That is the extent, I think, to which a common doctrine is presumed to have application in this case.


Arthur Meighen: I might be permitted to call the attention of the hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) also, that in the despatch to which he refers it is distinctly stated that the policy being pursued was inaugurated and adopted three years ago.


SUBSIDIES TO WESTERN PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day. .
Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince, P.E.I.):: I wish to ask the government a question regarding increased subsidies to the three western provinces as shown in the estimates. Is this increase based on the rate per capita as fixed by statute, or is it on some other basis.


Hewitt Bostock: I think this question would properly come when the estimates are before committee of supply. It is not proper, at this stage, according to the rules to ask a question on a subject of that kind.



YUKON QUARTZ MINING BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Second reading of Bill No. 6, respecting Quartz Mining in the Yukon territory.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Right Hon. VT. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):	This bill is not printed
in both languages.
Hewitt Bostock: It is printed only in
one language; therefore it must stand.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: I am
prepared to go on,


Hewitt Bostock: The objection is taken
and I must observe the rule.


Arthur Meighen: It is true -this bill
does not appear on the order paper as printed in English and in French, but if it is passed over, it will be through no fault of the hon. member in charge of it, and it may never be reached again. I would think the , objection might well be waived and the hon. gentleman allowed to go on.


James Horace King: I have no objection if he wishes to go on with it now.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: The objection is that the bill is not printed in both languages. I raised the objection.


Arthur Meighen: The bill can be gone
on with only by unanimous consent. The fault is not that of the hon. member. Bills
put in since his have been printed; I cannot understand why this one has not been printed.


James Horace King: As long as it is understood the bill is going to committee.


Hewitt Bostock: If there were unanimous
consent, the hon. member (Mr. Black, Yukon) could proceed; but the objection has been taken and I must observe the rule.
Order stands.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT-EXCURSIONS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto) moved the second reading of Bill No. 11, to amend the Railway Act, 1919.
George Perry Graham: If the hon. gentleman
is not going to discuss it, I have something to say.


Mr. CHURCH:: I think the Minister
might let this bill go to the Railway Committee. It is not a very large demand to make of the railway companies. It was good legislation before the war and worked out very well. In the United States they have this provision for week-end excursions for different purposes. A large deputation desire to be heard before the committee. It will not take more than half an hour. I hope the Minister will let the bill go to committee, where it will be discussed.


George Perry Graham: That is just what I wanted to do myself, but if it got a second reading without being sent to a committee where all parties could be heard, it might get through the House without members having any information with regard to it. The railways of the world are not having an easy time just now, and I think it would be unfair to amend the act in any way imposing any duties on them, or giving them any new privileges, unless all parties interested had an opportunity of being heard. I have not given the matter much thought, but, without admitting the principle of the bill, if the hon. gentleman will move that it be referred to the Committee on Railways, I have no objection at all to the second reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
CANADIAN NORTHERN BRANCH LINES Mr. CHURCH moved:
For a copy of all papers, letters, contracts, estimates and agreements, telegrams, and all other documents
[Stage Direction]
Canada's Constitutional Powers
(including the cost of construction) and relating to the abandonment of the C.N.R. line between Orono and Cherrywood and the electrification of the line between Bowmanville and Pickering and for the construction of a National Railway between Bowmanville and Oshawa and also between Pickering and Cherrywood joining the C.N.R. at that point, including all reports of the engineers, officials, and other experts of the Canadian National Railway recommending such a duplication of railways and the abandonment of the original C.N.R. line through Durham and Ontario counties, and of all petitions and other correspondence opposing this duplication and paralleling of existing lines.
He said: I ask that the motion stand in view of the objection yesterday of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham).
Motion stands.

Mr. LAPIERRE:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government and Mr. John Sloan, Mattawa, Ontario, or his legal advisers, relating to the indemnity which he received due to the accident that happened to him while engaged on the government works at Timiskaming dam.



CANADA'S CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the governing powers of Canada as constituted by the British North America Act as amended and as altered from time to time hereafter ought to possess under the British Crown the same powers with regard to Canada, its affairs and its people, as the Parliament of Great Britain possesses in regard to Great Britain, its affairs and its people.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable hesitation that I introduce this subject to-day. I am quite well aware that it is a matter that, perhaps, ought to be dealt with by a constitutional lawyer. I make no pretence whatever to understand at all m detail the various questions which may be ' involved; but, during my short experience in this House, on a number of occasions we have been faced with very practical difficulties which, it would seem, make necessary some such resolution as this. Again and again we have been to,Id that we were not capable of passing certain legislation because this came within the jurisdiction of one of the various provinces. It is for these practical reasons that I have been wondering how it would be possible to introduce measures which would enable us to make our administration more efficient. I have been thinking particularly with regard to the group that I have beon trying to represent, the Labour group who, perhaps, because their problems are more recent than some of the

other problems which have, from time to time, been placed before the House, find that it is the more difficult, for them to receive proper treatment.
In this resolution, I might frankly say, I have adopted a formula suggested by Sir Clifford Sifton in an address on constitutional Relations of Canada. Sir Clifford Sifton knows nothing whatever of my use of his suggestion. In all probability, he might be annoyed that I should be the one to put it forward on the floor of this House. On the other hand, while I must openly admit that I am not a very grear admirer of some of Sir Clifford Sifton's policies, I see no reason whatever why I should not make use of a suggestion which appeals to me as accomplishing the ends which I have in view.
There are, perhaps, two questions involved in the resolution which I have suggested. The one is with regard to our relation to the Motherland, and the other is with regard to the relationship that exists between Canada and the various provinces. One of our western papers, in commenting on this resolution which I have placed upon the order paper, suggests that I should make very clear what my position is in this matter. I cannot make it much more clear than it is made in the terms of the resolution itself. It means simply that Canada regards herself as grown up and that, being in that position, she believes that she has the right to full selfdetermination and to the fullest measure of home rule. As you will observe, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion is that, under the Crown, we should have precisely the same rights as are enjoyed by the people who reside in England or in Scotland; that the parliament of this country should have the full right of deciding upon the destinies of the people of Canada just as the British parliament has the full right of deciding the destinies of those who live in the Motherland. There is no suggestion whatever that we should loosen the ties that unite us with the Motherland; none whatever. Our position is clear and straightforward; we believe that the time has come when we should have the undisputed right to decide upon questions that concern us without going abroad in order that we may obtain permission to exercise that right. I cannot see why an Englishman who leaves England and comes to Canada to reside in this country ought thereby to be placed in an inferior position. I cannot see why it is that because, say, my great grandfather left Great-Britain to come to reside in Canada I should not have an equal right with my cousins who happen to be still in Great Britain. It seems

Canada's Constitutional Powers
to me that we are travelling along the very lines that all forward-looking Canadians have advocated for some generations in this country. As I have said, the practical difficulty is that which has forced me to take this position.
I introduced the question of an eight hour day in this House and we were told that nothing could be done in that regard because the matter is one of a provincial nature; I introduced the question of unemployment insurance, and, although Canada is one of the signatories to the Peace treaty, we are told that the Canadian federal government cannot deal with this matter because it is a provincial matter and under the British North America Act it is a matter that must be dealt with entirely by the province. These are very practical difficulties, and the question is, how can they be solved? It might be that a conference could be called by this government at which there could be representatives of the governments of the various provinces, and the whole problem might be gone into with a view to settling the jurisdictional question. That is a possible way of meeting the difficulty. In that case, however, we should still have to go to the Motherland in order to obtain the ratification of our arrangements here.
There is a question that has come before this House frequently in years past, and that is, either the reform or the abolition of the Senate. We find that certain measures which are passed by the elected representatives of the people of this country are thrown out by the upper House, and apparently we have no redress. It is a constitutional question as to just how we could manage to get the Senate itself to consent to its own annihilation or to such modifications as would make the government of this country really democratic. It is these practical problems that make one feel that the time has arrived when we should be able to consider in this House all the matters that concern us and to decide upon our own course of action. I need hardly remind the government of the recent trend, which I think is more or less promoted by the Liberal party in Canada, towards a larger measure of self-determination in foreign affairs. And yet I take it that we are hardly in a position to-day to say, for example, whether or not we should go to war. Possibly, if we claimed now that Canada should be consulted before she went to war, we should still have to confess that Canada might find herself, at least technically, at war whether she liked it or not. There is a most anomalous situation as regards our relation to questions of foreign policies of the Empire. I asked a simple question last year on the floor of the House
as to whether the government of Canada had endorsed the project of the British government of that day for the construction of a naval base at Singapore. Our papers ridiculed the idea that such a question should be put on the floor of this House. I submit, however, Mr. Speaker, that questions of this kind must be asked and answered on the floor of the Canadian parliament; we cannot allow ourselves to be more or less committed to policies in which we have no voice whatever. With regard to this very Singapore question we are told that Canada has not offered any advice. Again we are left completely in the dark as to what responsibilities we have; and I may say that so far as I can see from the report of the Economic Conference I cannot discern that any very great light is thrown on the question by the resolutions which were adopted at that conference. However, I am glad to think that there has been, through the years, a gradual growth of a spirit of independent action. You will remember that in the time of Sir John A. Macdonald, as far back as the year 1885, there arose the question as to the relationship of Canada with regard to foreign wars. Sir John Macdonald, among other things, said: Why should we waste money and men in this wretched business? England is not at war, but merely helping the Khedive to put down an insurrection; and now that Gordon is gone the motive of aiding in the rescue of our countrymen is gone with him. Our men and money would therefore be sacrificed to get Gladstone and Company out of the hole they plunged themselves into by their own imbecility. Again, reciprocal aid to be given by the Colonies and England should be a matter of treaty, deliberately entered into and settled on a permanent basis.
If anyone in this corner of the House should venture to use such strong language as that I fancy that some of those who claim to be the successors of the Conservatives of that time might castigate us very severely indeed for giving utterance to what they might term disloyal sentiments. I think, however, that the time has come when we ought to be able on the floor of this House to give full and free expression to our opinions regarding national and imperial affairs without being called disloyal. Another of the great national leaders, one who had so much to do with the outlining of the fundamental policies of Canada, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking in the House of Commons on the 5th day of February, 1900 in connection with the despatch of troops to South Africa, said:
I claim for Canada this, that in the future Canada shall be at liberty to act or not to act, to interfere . or not to interfere, to do just as she pleases, and that she shall reserve to herself the right to judge whether or not there is cause for her to act.

Canada's Constitutional Powers
We all know the attitude that was taken more recently by the present government with regard to the Near Eastern affair. I do not know that I need detain the House by reading the correspondence in that connection; it is fresh in all our minds. In my opinion, not only the majority in this House but the majority of the people throughout Canada were absolutely behind the government in the action which was taken at that time.
Let me quote another authority with regard to the status of Canada. Sir Robert Borden, in the course of a debate in this House on September 2, 1919, referring to the Peace Conference at Paris, spoke as follows:
It is desirable to note an important development in constitutional practice respecting the signature of the various treaties concluded at the conference. Hitherto it has been the practice to insert an article or reservation providing for the adhesion of the dominions. In view of the new position that had been secured and of the part played by Dominion representatives at the peace table we thought this method inappropriate and undesirable in connection with the Peace Treaty. Accordingly I proposed that the assent of the King as High Contracting Party to the various treaties should in respect of the dominions be signified by the signature of the Dominion plenipotentiaries, and that the preamble and other formal parts of the treaties should be drafted according'y. This proposal was adopted in the form of a memorandum by nil the Dominion Prime Ministers at a meeting which 1 summoned, and was put forward by me on their behalf to the British Empire delegation, by whom it was accepted. The proposal was subsequently adopted by the conference and the various treaties have been drawn up accordingly so that the dominions appear therein as signatories, and their concurrence in the treaties is thus given in the same manner as that of other nations.
Further, in reference to the Versailles treaty of peace we have Sir Robert Borden answering Mr. Fielding in these words:
His Majesty the King and his advisers have recognized the right of this parliament to express its opinion upon this treaty. I made that pledge to parliament, and the British government have been informed of that pledge. They recognize the situation, and they are not disposed to deal with this treaty, so far as Canada is concerned, apart from the approval of the Canadian parliament	
I tell him (Mr. Fielding) that it is recognized by the ministers of the Crown of Great Britain that this treaty must be submitted to the Canadian parliament for its approval, and that we desire, we insist, upon the judgment of the Canad:an parliament in regard to it before we advise the King on behalf of Canada
that the treaty should be ratified	
If my hon. friend means that, notwithstanding the arrangements which have been made, the conventions which have become recognized, the status which has been accorded to the dominions during recent years, we are still subject to have this treaty ratified by His Maiesty on behalf of Canada whether the parliament of Canada is willing to ratify it or not. then I tell him he is dealing in ancient history and that his ideas should advance with the progress of recent years	
His suggestion was that ratification by the parliament of Canada is merely a farce, that the govern-
ment of the United Kingdom possesses such constitutional right in respect of this dominion that they can impose their will upon us without regard to this parliament. I repeat that if such is the opinion of the hon. member he is thinking in terms of a hundred years ago and not of to-day.
We have advanced in this country, if not by purely legal means, at least by actual constitutional practice throughout these years, and we ought to recognize now, in some formal way, the status which we have attained.
I was struck by one little clause in the constitution of the Irish Free State, and I should like to think that this expresses what ought to be the situation in Canada. This is the clause:
All powers of government and all authority, legislative, executive and judicial, are derived from the people, and the same shall be exercised in the Irish Free State through the organizations established by or under and in accordance with this constitution.
Surely we ought to have come to that stage in our national development when we would frankly recognize that all authority is vested in the people-and I would add, in the people whose country is being administered, not in the people of some other country thousands of miles away.
Now, why have not some such independence of action, not merely in our foreign affairs but in our internal affairs as well ? I am not going to discuss the Halibut treaty, which of course is very closely related to this matter and perhaps is intermediary between our foreign, and our purely domestic affairs. But there are a number of matters to which I have made the very briefest reference a few minutes ago in regard to which we have no liberty of action. It appears that we cannot amend our own constitution. Why should we not be able to amend it? The House will recognize that the resolution is put in a form which simply affirms that we believe we ought to be able to do these things. We cannot change the relative jurisdiction of the federal and pro-
4 p.m. vincial governments; we cannot in that way, as I have said, provide for efficient action on some very important questions that confront us under our modern industrial system; we cannot change the executive government of the province in such a way as to affect the office of Lieutenant Governor, which practically makes our authority of very little value indeed; and we have no extra-territorial jurisdiction; all these powers are lacking to us.
I would point out that in the case of the newer dominions provision is made that they may alter their constitutions. South Africa has complete power of amendment in this

Canada's Constitutional Powers
regard respecting internal affairs; its constitution can be amended by a simple act of parliament. Australia has the same power, but the amendment must go before the people as a referendum. In both cases, however, the people have the privilege of amending their own constitution. Why should we in Canada be placed in a less favourable position than South Africa or Australia? We are told that the British North America Act stands in the way. To a certain extent the act may be regarded as more or less our written constitution. Again without going into the constitutional aspects of this matter in any detail-and I quite frankly admit that I am not prepared by any legal training to do so-may I suggest several points which, it seems to me, might appeal to a large number of hon. members who are not looking at the question from the narrowly legal standpoint? Great Britain, to whom we look for guidance in the affairs of government, has no written constitution, and it has always been the boast of her people that their parliament is supreme. If we are really one of the grownups in the family of nations, we ought surely, to have more or less flexibility in our governmental machinery; we ought not to be tied by a hard and fast constitution. It might be in any given case more difficult for us to amend our constitution than it would be for the United States, whose constitution, as everyone knows, is very rigid.
May I point out further, that England herself has advanced a very long way since the British North America Act was put on the statute books? Why should we continually have to go back and take our guidance from the England of a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago, rather than be helped by the England of to-day? Only last night on the floor of this House we had references to the situation that prevailed in England, I think it was in 1790, and we found it very difficult to follow, the action of England in 1921. Why should we be forced to follow the lead of the England of the past instead of the England of to-day?
Further than that, the conditions in Canada existing at the time of the British North America Act were entirely different from those which exist at the present time. Then Canada consisted very largely of a string of pioneer settlements extending only part way across the continent. Now with the revolution in transportation, we have also revolution in our whole industrial, commercial and financial life. If I may adopt the figure which I have heard my colleague use, if we want to fix an automobile why should we be forced to
go back to an ox-cart in order to get our models and our tools? There is the difficulty that we find to-day. We are dealing to-day with an elaborate organization of society, built up on our present industrial system. The British North America Act was formulated at a time when the greater part of the people of this country were living in little quiet agricultural settlements, and were not faced with the complicated problems which face us at the present time. We have our electric light fixtures to-day. Why should we be constantly referred to the period of candles, and be taught that we ought to light our houses in the way .that our grandfathers did, and be limited entirely by the modus oper-andi of those earlier days?
On more than one occasion in this House some of us have been referred to the British North America Act; of some measure designed to meet a pressing modem need, we are told:	You cannot find it in the British
North America Act, or it is against the British North America Act. Well, I submit that half the legislation that takes place on the floor of this House finds no warrant whatever in the British North America Act, none whatever. Some of the principles may be there. My good friend from Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) suggests that they are there. They may be there in germ, but I submit that we cannot find stated specifically the grounds upon which we are acting to-day. The oldtime legislation and the old-time constitutional provisions are quite inadequate to meet the needs of the present situation. Might I give just one illustration of this? Last year we had a bill presented on the floor of this House dealing with the lake of the Woods levels. Some claimed that the federal government should have jurisdiction in a matter of this kind; others claimed that this was a matter which came entirely under the jurisdiction of the provinces concerned. Now in the era before electricity it might have been comparatively easy to decide whether the water-powers of. a river were a matter that concerned the provinces merely, or concerned the whole country; but now that we have the generation of electricity by waterpower, and as the water-power is dependent upon maintaining levels on various rivers, the old ways of dealing with this question, the old points of view become absolutely inadequate. They are too antiquated for practical guidance. Under those circumstances we ought to be able readily, without any roundabout methods, to alter our constitution so that we can more effectively deal with various situations as they arise.

Canada's Constitutional Powers


Charles Marcil: May	I
interrupt? As the hon. gentleman is no doubt aware, the British North America Act was a contract entered into by the various provinces of the Dominion at that time, and that act cannot be amended now any more than any ordinary contract can be amended, and certainly it cannot be amended by this parliament.
Mr. WOODSWORT1I:	I am not quite
sure, looking at the matter from the standpoint of the ordinary citizen of Canada, that I could concede that the British North America Act was simply a contract between the various provinces. It is altogether different in type from an ordinary legal commercial contract. Moreover I would suggest that there is no reason why even legal contracts should not be amended, none whatever; and in the case of many of the long-term contracts I think it is understood that in certain cases modern changing conditions make it necessary for the law to step in and modify even some commercial contracts. The question which has been asked suggests an opinion which was given me the other day by an official of this House who took the ground in discussing this amendment:	If
Canada wishes to amend the British North America Act there are only two possible ways; first, as the American colonies did, and I suppose that means by revolution; or second, by petition to the Imeprial parliament, asking them to amend their act.
I am not going into the exact form or manner in which this resolution, if it is passed by the House, should be acted upon. That is a matter for the government to decide; that is a matter of mere form. But I would suggest that, looking at the question from a very practical standpoint; if the people as represented in this House decide that the time has come when we should have the right to amend cur own constitution, when we should have the right to decide our own affairs without reference to the Motherland, then I would think tha', the authorities of Great Britain would hesitate before refusing us such a right.
In some ways it might be considered well for those of us who represent Labour to leave things as they are, for I fancy that if on any matter we went to the Motherland where a Labour government is ini power we would stand a better chance, than we ever have done before of getting what Labour in this country wants. Notwithstanding that consideration, I feel that this matter should be taken up and decided on the floor of this 
House. Even if we have to wait a little bit longer, I am a sufficient believer in democracy to think that we in Canada must work out our own salvation. I know that there are some people who might perhaps say there is a danger that certain portions of the country would forfeit certain privileges or rights which they now have. I cannot see that such an objection is well founded. Surely the Canadian people can be trusted to be very jealous indeed of the rights which have been recognized in times past. I cannot think that we must go over the seas in order to obtain power that would force us to keep our contracts or carry out our various undertakings in this country.
Perhaps those of us who live in the West, out on the prairies, lohk at this matter from a little different angle from that of those who have lived in the East and perhaps have been accustomed a little bit longer to the traditional point of view. Out there we have a strange mingling of peoples, not only from Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces, but also large numbers directly from England and Scotland, some from the United States to the south of us, and some from the various countries of Europe. We feel very strongly that all that mingling of the people is more or less typical of what is going on throughout the length and breadth of Canada. We feel that we have practically attained our nationhood, and having obtained it if we are to have an united Canadian people it can only be as the people recognize and practise their full responsibilities.
We have heard a great deal in this House in the last week or two about the necessity of binding together the different parts of Canada. I too should like to see the different parts of Canada bound more closely together, but I submit that that cannot be done without it being possible for each section of the country to work out its own destinies in a manner that appeals most strongly to it. I cannot see that there is likely to be any trouble whatever if representatives of all the various provinces of this country can come together and decide upon those policies which are in the bast interests of the country at large; and as far as the Motherland is concerned, we must surely recognize that the ties of sentiment are much stronger than any ancient legal ties. There is no danger whatever at this period in our history that we shall repudiate Great Britain simply because there have been a few lines altered in a certain old act. Surely our loyalty to the Motherland is based on stronger foundations than that. I take it

*	Canada's Constitutional Powers
that we are quite in keeping with the expressions and viewpoint of the present government in Great Britain, when we say that it is not in the interests of the Empire that we should build up one strong centralized organization, but rather a community of nations. Such a commonwealth will prosper in the future to the extent to which each particular part is allowed the fullest freedom of self expression and self determination.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: What has my hon. friend in mind when he speaks of the " governing powers of Canada"?


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the
questioner in return what he has in mind?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Because the French
version of the resolution states:
La Chambre est d'avis que l'Exc'cutif du Canada tel qu'il est constitue par l'Acte de 1'Amerique du Nord. . .
Whereas the governing powers of Canada might be assumed to mean the governments of the legislatures of the different provinces, that they shall be taken as representing the provinces.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is not what I had in mind. I do not think that is what the resolution states.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The powers you ask would be vested in the Governor in Council sitting in Ottawa?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Oh no, not at all.


Mr. McCONICA:: Does my hon. friend's resolution propose the abolition of provincial governments?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, it does not touch that matter at all. Things would remain just exactly as they are, except that we should have the right to amend our own constitution.


Thomas Henry McConica: How do you propose to govern Canada as England is governed? There are provincial governments here, and this parliament could not have the power the English parliament has.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not proposing the abolition of provincial government at all. Let me read the resolution, I d6' not know whether my hon. friend has read it carefully:
That, in the opinion of this House, the governing powers of Canada are constituted by the British North America Act as amended and as altered from time to time hereafter ought to possess under the British Crown the same powers with regard to Canada, its affairs and its people, as the Parliament of Great Britain possesses in regard to Great Britain, its affaire and its people.


Mr. VIEN:: If this power were given to Canada to amend its own constitution would the hon. gentleman give us an idea of the amendments he would suggest?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, I think that is rather a large order.


Thomas Vien: I only wish to get a clearer idea of what my hon. friend would do under the new order of things.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think my proposition is very clear now. It might possibly be that in order to bring about some of the alterations which I have merely mentioned -for example a clearer understanding as to the relative jurisdiction of the provinces of the Dominion, as to any alteration in the Senate, or other such matters-it might be necessary to call a conference of the various provinces of the Dominion, and gradually work out a programme of such changes in the constitution as may be desirable. But I am not venturing at all to deal with these larger questions to-day; my resolution is a formal declaration which if passed will give us power to deal with such questions. That is all I wish to do at present, and in doing this I had in mind merely asking that we should make more explicit the powers which practically have been conceded to us since the war.


Thomas Vien: I should like my hon. friend to allow me to put another question. I should like to know what he had in his mind as regards amending our constitution, with respect to the Senate, does not my hon. friend believe that we could amend the constitution of the Canadian Senate just as well as we stand to-day as we would be able to do with the amendments which he proposes? In respect of the rights of the various provinces I would imagine that before we follow him there, it will be necessary to have a further explanation of what he has in his mind as to changing the various powers that rest either with the federal parliament or the provincial legislatures.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I can only cover the ground that I have already covered. What I have especially in mind is the solution of some of the difficulties we have encountered during the last two or three years. It is quite true that we might possibly pass a resolution with regard to the Senate in this House, but in order to obtain any action we would require the support of the Senate itself, and then we should need to go over to the British parliament, to another and superior power, in order to ask them to consent to the

514	COMMONS.
Canada's Constitutional Powers
change. I say that we ought to have the power of deciding here in this country what form of administration would best meet the needs of Canada. I think that should make clear what I had in mind. As to particular instances of disadvantages under which we labour, there are matters in regard to our internal affairs that have arisen in connection with our industrial life during recent years, and for which there does not seem to be any adequate provision in an act drafted so many years ago when conditions were not as they are to-day.


Mr. MARTELL:: Does the hon. gentleman propose to amend the constitution so that the parliament of Canada may take from the provincial legislatures powers which were given to them at confederation?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is not my
suggestion.


Mr. MILLAR:: Is it my hon. friend's
thought that each province of Canada should have the same powers as the states in the United States have at the present time, that each should have a constitution of its own with power to amend that constitution?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I do not go
that far. I had not the United States in view, nor did I contemplate any particular change in our form of government. Of course at the present time each province has more or less of a constitution of its own under the British North America Act, but if this resolution were carried, and we proceeded to act along these lines, we would have it in our power, in consultation with the different provinces, to alter the constitution in such a way as would meet the immediate heeds with which we find ourselves confronted.


Thomas Vien: Have we not already all that is required to amend our constitution? Can we not suggest this amendment, and is it not a safeguard for all concerned to have an appeal to the Imperial parliament to protect those interested?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I do not think we have any power along that line. We may go to the Imperial parliament with certain requests. We have no powers whatever; and as to the safeguards, as I said in an earlier part of my address I cannot see why we should have such absolutely colonial minds that we believe we must go to some imperial power in order to let them tell us what we may do. That point came to a great many of us very clearly with regard to matters of peace and war. I urge that we have a perfect right in this country-and I say this because I have fMr. Woodsworth.J
a good deal of the old spirit of British independence in my own make-up-to decide whether we want to send our men to the front as have the people who live in England, and I do not say that in any disparagement of the people in England, but because I consider myself British, shall I say, from away back, for generations? It is not that I am at all repudiating British traditions; it is because I am cherishing British' traditions and want to see them carried forward in this country.


Thomas Henry McConica: I think this resolution is rather ill advised. We have not such a form of government as they have in England. Our governmental powers are divided between the provinces and the Dominion. Certain authorities and certain governmental powers are vested in the provinces. Certain others are reserved to the Dominion. Now, that is not so in England. Their whole power is vested in the Imperial parliament, and for us to pass a resolution that this House should possess the same power as the parliament of England means that we abolish provincial governments.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wish the hon.
member who is speaking would read the resolution. It does not suggest at all what he has been trying to make it suggest.


Thomas Henry McConica: You take away the power. If the power is all vested in this parliament, what is the use of provincial governments? "i'ou must divide somewhere. You must say this is vested in one authority and these things are vested in another"; and you would not allow one to trench upon the authority of the other. Therefore, I say the resolution is not well stated at least. You cannot preserve the provincial governments and pass this resolution as it stands. I do not look with much favour upon this idea that the British North America Act is interfering very much with the people of Canada. I think the people of Canada under that act are as free as any people on the face of the globe. In what way is the Mother Country impeding us in any direction? We make our country what we see fit to make it. All powers, so far as our own affuirs are concerned, are vested in us, and there is not a man, woman or child in Canada who has felt the least restraint in the last twenty-five years because of the influence of the Mother Country. The hon. gentleman says we should have the right to determine whether we should go to war. We have that right. That right was recognized when the British North America Act was passed. For ages it has been the boasted right of England to control her warlike representatives by re-

Canada's Constitutional Powers
fusing supplies. She had the strangle-hold on her rulers who saw fit to go to war. She could withhold supplies. When the British North America Act was passed, that power was placed in the hands of the Canadian parliament. We have that right and have always had it, and it is a distinct recognition of our right to determine when we shall send our sons to war, and what more do we want? Why should we reaffirm it? I see nothing in this resolution that should recommend it to any single member of this honourable body. Why, he says, we are told that certain things are provincial. Of course they are. But that is necessary as a result of maintaining the provincial governments. I look upon this resolution as ill-advised, and hope the hon. member will withdraw it.


Thomas Vien: I had expected that the hon. mover of this resolution (Mr. Woodsworth) would present some argument to show us that it was opportune at the present time; and that he would show us how we were prevented in the past from having amendments to our constitution adopted by the Imperial parliament. He has not shown us that such amendments have been refused. The hon. gentleman has failed to answer our questions in detail. He hinted at a debate which took place last year in respect to some labour trouble which occurred in the western provinces, and in regard to which the question of provincial rights was raised. It was a question of contract, of a closed shop-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
know what the hon. gentleman refers to. I referred to no labour trouble whatever.


Thomas Vien: I understood that my hon.
friend raised the question of a closed shop, in a debate late last session.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I raised no such
question.


Thomas Vien: My memory may serve me
badly; but my hon. friend has said that in several instances the question of whether a right was federal or provincial was raised in this House, and that it was often impossible to find out whether it was within the purview of the federal parliament or of the provincial legislature; and that was one of the reasons he put forward to prove that his resolution was opportune, if I understood him rightly. I say, Sir, that this is not a good argument to prove that the resolution is opportune. The constitution of Canada, to be found in the British North America Act, provides certain powers which were given to the federal authorities, and certain powers 33i
which were left to the provincial legislature. My hon. friend would like to bestow on the governing powers of Canada authority to amend our constitution without reference to the British parliament. This needs further explanation. What are the governing powers? The governing powers of Canada under the British North America Act are this parliament and the provincial legislatures. Therefore, if the provincial legislatures and this parliament were united in suggesting an amendment to our constitution, no doubt such an amendment would pass, and no power under the sun would object to such an amendment, and since 1867 several amendments have been brought to the British North America Act and there has been no objection whatever.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Does the hon. member think it consonant with the dignity of a sovereign state to go to the legislature of another state to ask permission to change its constitution?
^Ir. VIEN: There is much in favour of the contention that Canada has now reached an age where it is time to sever all tutelage. There are quite a few who, though recognizing the King of England as the head of this state, would like that all other powers be vested in Canada and Canada alone. In respect of that,
I am in sympathy with much of what was said by my hon. friend; but Canada has a very peculiar complexity. Many students of conditions that prevail in Canada have said that we have not one country, but five, on account of difference of interests, difference of ideals, difference of ambitions and aspirations of the various sections of our country. Some think the Maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the prairie provinces and British Columbia differ materially from one another in respect of, not only tradition, but aspirations and interests.


Mr. IRVINE:: Does the hon. member mean to suggest that a country 3,000 miles away can understand this peculiar complexity of Canada better than we can ourselves?


Thomas Vien: I was coming to that very point, and if my hon. friend will bear with me patiently, I think I can completely satisfy his query. I was saying that the differences of interests, aspirations and character that distinguish these various provinces made it imperative for the British parliament, when they enacted the British North America Act, not to centralise the powers, but to give to the different provinces a certain self-determination and home rule within their own provinces for local affairs. My hon. friend, in explaining the purport of his resolution, led me to
516	COMMONS
Canada's Constitutional Powers
understand that one of his purposes was to change materially the province of the federal and provincial powers; that he had in mind to further the change in the scope of the authority of the federal and provincial powers.


William Irvine: If the peculiar conditions of Canada are such as to require that power shall not be centralized, does my hon. friend suggest that if we had the power to make our own constitution we would be foolish enough to centralize it when it should not be centralized?


Thomas Vien: Before being able to judge fully the object of this resolution, I wanted to determine what my hon. friend had in mind as a motive for the resolution, and the only motive that I could detect from his explanation was the fact that, in a discussion which took place, he was sent to the provincial authority because it was a matter within provincial jurisdiction. That was the main reason which he gave for introducing his amendment. In respect of the Senate, which was the other reason, I think I showed, and he admitted, that the amendment would by no means help him to solve the question. It will not be easier to amend the constitution of the Senate when the remedy that he suggests has been introduced into our constitution. Therefore, if what my hon. friend has in mind in bringing about the proposed amendment, is to restrict the provincial powers and to enlarge the powers of the Dominion as regards the scope of its legislative authority, I think we must object to that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Might I urge that that is not a true statement? There is no thought of restricting the powers of the provinces; there is not a word in the resolution looking to that, nor was there in my speech The governing powers are the federal and the provincial governments. The hon. gentleman seeks a motive. I was very frank in answering his questions and I would ask him: Is any ulterior motive manifest?


Thomas Vien: I asked my hon. friend what were the amendments which he had been unable to promote and which he would suggest in the future; I asked him what was the real motive behind the resolution. And, outside of the amendment to the constitution of the Senate, the only reason that he could give me was that at a time, when raising a question here, he was referred to the provincial authorities. I may say, for ourselves, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) was absolutely right when he said that
(Mr. Vien.l
confederation was a contract. It was a contract entered into by all the colonies that constituted British North America at the time. This contract was entered into in full cognizance of the conditions that it created, and my hon. friend cannot to-day contend that that contract, which is the basis of our confederation, can be amended by any central authority. I understand the hon. member for Charlevoix-Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) put him a question to cause him to define more clearly what he meant by the governing powers of Canada. The governing powers of Canada are the federal parliament; the powers that govern the provinces are quite different.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would like to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that the words in the resolution read:
The governing powers of Canada as constituted by the British North America Act.
And I think they are plainly the federal powers plus the provincial powers.


Thomas Vien: Even at that, I contend that it would not be opportune to introduce a resolution which is supported by the argument offered by my hon. friend. I sympathise very fully with the idea of obtaining for Canada a greater degree of autonomy, and a couple of years ago I suggested that it was hardly in keeping with the dignity of Canada to send the cases in our courts of justice, for instance, to the final appeal of the tribunal sitting in England. Outside of the question of the royal privilege of granting a pardon to criminals, and the question of our constitutional rights, I would simply do away with appeals to the Privy Council. It seems to me that the Supreme Court of Canada can well dispose, in last resort, of all our cases. Then, again, there is the question of our representation abroad. It is humiliating for a Canadian in Paris, in London, or elsewhere-but particularly in Paris and in foreign countries on the continent-not to have the right of acting through a fully accredited representative of this country in touch with the government of the country in which he happens to be at the time. I know of a distinguished Canadian statesman who wanted to have an interview with President Poincare at Paris and he was unable to do so through any representative of Canada in that city; he had to go through the British Embassy to secure, through the diplomatic channel, an interview with the President of the French Republic. Yet a national of Monte Carlo could easily obtain an introduction to the French President through a representative of his own country.

Canada's Constitutional Powers


Mr. JACOBS:: That is probably because
he knows how to play the game.


Thomas Vien: They are independent and
have accredited representatives near the heads of foreign states. I repeat, it is quite humiliating for Canadian citizens to be unable to do the same. I understand that this humiliation is felt to-day by our representative even in London, who. in all public functions, is not on the same footing, has not the same precedence, as the representatives of much smaller countries abroad. Changes in respect of such questions as these are desirable and advisable. But as to the suggestion of my hon. friend, namely, the elimination of certain differences between the provinces and the restriction of provincial rights, or the changing of our fundamental basis of government in relation to the jurisdiction of the provinces and the federal government, I say that he has failed to prove, at least to me, that his resolution is at all timely or desirable; and unless he can implement his explanations I shall be compelled to vote against his motion.


Hon. J. B. M. BAXTER (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert):: One
of the most remarkable things about this resolution is the fact that no one seems to know precisely what it means, and least of all, I think, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Woods-worth) who introduced it. Under these circumstances, is it quite worth while for us to take up any considerable length of time in debating it? We are face to face this year with a programme that apparently makes for economy. This House is asked to pare down the Civil Service considerably and to effect stringent economies in every department. Is it, then, too bold a thing to suggest that we should begin the practice of economy in this House by setting an exemple to the country in confining our discussion to things of real and immediate interest to the people, to things of immediate and vital value, instead of spending our time discussing mere academic questions with reference to which no one in the country is at all excited and no substantial Irody of people want any alteration? That is the position I take; and to economise the time of the House I shall refrain from making any extended remarks on the question under consideration. I will simply crystallize my suggestion in an action which I hope the House will endorse: I move that the resolution be further considered this day six months.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I will not attempt-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The motion is nob debatable.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I will not-


Hewitt Bostock: It has been moved by Mr. Woodsworth, seconded by Mr. Irvine.
That, in the opinion of this House, the governing powers of Canada as constituted by the British North America Act as amended and as altered from tune to time hereafter ought to possess under the British Crown the same powers with regard to Canada, its affairs and its people, as the parliament of Great Britain possesses in regard to Great Britain, its affairs and its people.
To which Mr. Baxter moves in amendment, seconded by Mr. Stevens, that - the motion be further considered this day six months. The question is on the amendment.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment is debatable, and the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) has the floor.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I beg to say a few words, since my name is coupled with the amendment as seconder. I agree with the sentiments expressed by the mover of the amendment, (Mr. Baxter) in this respect, that undoubtedly there is no demand amongst the public of Canada for any change in the constitutional status of this country. While I quite agree that academic questions of this kind are properly brought before the House for discussion, nevertheless I am opposed to the principle set forth in the motion, and I merely rise at this time to place my position clearly before the House. I think the suggestion is a proper one that it might be more profitable to have the question set over for consideration at some future date when there are not so many pressing and more practical problems before the House. In the meantime an}' hon. member of the House who is vitally interested in the question of changing the constitutional status of Canada might very well be given some opportunity for the expression of an opinion on such a highly important matter, without an attempt being made to force the House at this time to come to any conclusion regarding it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is not my desire to discuss the wisdom of the motion, but I presume I shall be in order in taking up very briefly the subject matter of the resolution. I would first draw to the attention of the House the fact that the resolution provides that the governing powers of Canada, as constituted by the British North America Act as amended and

Canada's Constitutional Powers
as altered from time to time hereafter, ought to possess, under the British Crown, the same powers with regard to Canada as the parliament of Great Britain possesses in regard to Great Britain herself. In respect of a great deal of what the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) has said, I am in complete accord. I think, however, there are certain aspects of his speech and of the resolution which are open to misconstruction, and therefore it seems to me it would be wise to make a slight amendment to the resolution as drafted, and this I purpose to do before sitting down.
There are some in this House and in the country who possess the "colonial mind" and who hug to their hearts the idea of subordination. I am inclined to believe, and with joy, that those people are becoming less and less numerous year by year. And I rejoice to think that the development of the spirit of Canadian nationhood has not been carried on under the auspices of any one political party. Sir John A. Macdonald was a strong nationalist, Edward Blake was a strong nationalist, Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a strong nationalist, Sir Robert Borden was a strong nationalist, and therefore I believe that we need not make of this a party question. I think we all desire to see Canada grow to the full stature of nationhood, and that we do not wish to feel as citizens in a free state that our state is subordinate to any other state, or that we possess less rights of nationhood than, let us say, Uruguay or Ecuador. I think I can leave that aspect of the question for the moment.
The member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) was right when he said, we have a peculiar country with certain complexities which perhaps do not exist in other countries. I suggest, however, that the very best welding factor which exists in this country is the spirit of nationhood, and that the more and more we become imbued with a sane national spirit-^not a narrow, not an insular national spirit; I wish to see our national spirit developed side by side with a sane international spirit-the sooner we shall become truly national in our outlook, which will make us put in the forefront the great fact that we are all Canadians, and that our differences are merely secondary in importance. I do recognize, as every student of our constitutional history must recognize, that the British North -America Act was of the nature of a contract ratified and consecrated by legislation, and that we must be very careful to see that any power which would be given to the Canadian people to change their constitution must be exercised fMr. McMaster.]
with the consent of the original four parties to the constitution. Therefore to bring my remarks to an end, because I do not wish to unduly delay the House, I propose, seconded by the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Pritchard):
That the following words be added to the resolution:
"That no amendment of the British North America Act should be effected except with the consent of the majority of the provinces, in which majority the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario should form part."


Arthur Meighen: Oh, oh.


Andrew Ross McMaster: My hon. friends in the
other comer of the chamber are amused by this amendment. The Americans
5 p.m. have the right to amend their constitution after two-thirds of the states have delivered their approval. Is there, then, anything ridiculous in the proposal that we should have the right to amend our constitution?


Arthur Meighen: I was not amused at
that, but at the distinction the hon. gentleman draws between the importance of the various provinces'.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is not the ground
of the difference of importance, it is . because we might propose to change the original contract, and it would only be right to have the people who made the original contract consent to its change, because a contract cannot be changed unless all the parties thereto agree.
I do not see anything ridiculous in the proposal.


Thomas Vien: If my hon. friend agrees that it is a contract, how can he suggest that the majority of the contracting parties can compel one of their number to agree to an amendment?


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is precisely what I have guarded against by providing that an amendment can only be made by a majority of the provinces, in which majority the four original contracting parties must form part.


Thomas Vien: I think my hon. friend has failed to understand my question. Perhaps I did not put it with sufficient clearness. Does not my hon. friend see that if he agrees that the British North America Act is a contract, by his amendment he compels a contracting party to be ruled in respect of any proposed ' amendments by the majority of the contracting parties?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No.


Thomas Vien: To change a contract agreed upon, you must have the consent of the contracting parties.

Canada's Constitutional Powers


Andrew Ross McMaster: I thought I made that perfectly clear. That is just what I wish to avoid.
Mr. V1EN: No.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Let me take a specific case. Suppose we had the right to amend our constitution, and it was decided to make the Senate elective, the amendment would have to be passed by the parliament of Canada, it would then have to be agreed to by a majority of the provinces, and in that majority each one of the following provinces would have to form a part-New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario. We would have to have the four original contracting parties as a unit and agreed before the change could be made.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman consider, for example, British Columbia any less a contracting party than New Brunswick, inasmuch as British Columbia afterwards, seeing the terms of confederation and the provincial rights there accorded, said, ''By way of contract we are ready to come in and agree?"


Andrew Ross McMaster: There might be something in what my learned and right hon. friend suggests, it might be necessary to have British Columbia form one of the majority. It had escaped my notice for the moment that the province of British Columbia was in the same position as the four original contracting parties.


Arthur Meighen: And also Prince Edward Island.


Mr. HUGHES:: Every one came in under those conditions.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I think I have a way to solve the whole question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Pius Michaud: Will the hon. member
withdraw his motion?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: With regard to the motion moved by the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Baxter) seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), "That this resolution be read a second time this day six months"-


Arthur Meighen: I do not like rising to a point of order in respect to a motion moved by so prominent a member as the hon. member [DOT]for St. John City (Mr. Baxter), but really I do not think a motion asking for the deferring of the reading of a resolution such as this is in order. A resolution is not read, it is considered, and passed or rejected. The motion would have to be that the resolution be passed
this day six months, which would certainly be out of order on the very face of it. I do not recall the six months' hoist being moved in regard to a resolution of a private member.


Charles Marcil: The only
resolutions which are read a second time are those which have to be concurred in, usually from Committee of Supply and Ways and Means; but this resolution is not of that kind, and the amendment is out of order.


George Newcombe Gordon: The motion moved by the hon. member for St. John City, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is out of order, the resolution now before the House not being one which requires to be read a second time. For the reasons stated by the right hon. gentleman I quite agree that it is out of order, and must be ruled out of order, and I would cite Beauchesne's Rules, paragraph 512, as indicating that authority clearly. The question is on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) seconded by the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Pritchard):
That the following words be added to the resolution, namely: Provided that no amendment of the British North America Act should be effected except with the consent of the majority of the provinces, in which majority the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario should form part.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I wish to say only a word or two
on the resolution. With many of the arguments set forth by my hon. friend who introduced the resolution (Mr. Woodsworth), I would rather be in agreement. On the other hand, I think he does not consider the powers of Canada as possessed to-day as great as I consider them myself. I think this resolution implies that we are in a state of subordination, which I do not think we are in. My hon. friend seems to believe that we are not in any way in possession of the powers of the people of Great Britain with regard to their own legislation and administration. That is not the feeling, the view, the opinion, of Canadian public men during recent years. We certainly have had evolution in this country, and there are articles which have been added to the British North America Act possibly which are not written in the act. May I quote the words of Sir Robert Borden with regard to the powers of Canada as compared with the powers of Great Britain? I am quoting from the memorandum which he circulated in March, 1919, prior to the signature of the Peace treaty, and here are his words:
The Crown is the supreme executive in the United Kingdom and in all the Dominions, but it acts on the

Canada's Constitutional Powers
advice of different ministries within different constitutional units, and under Resolution 9 of the Imperial Conference, 1917, the organization of the Empire is to be based upon equality of nationhood.
That is the principle now admitted not only by Canadians but by British statesmen, and my hon. friend himself said that he could not conceive that Great Britain would ever refuse to pass any legislation changing our constitution or refuse even to give us the right to change it, Now what does that mean? It means that the position we are in is of our own making, and it is. There is no inferiority or subordination in a state which we want to have ourselves, and which we have made ourselves. The British North America Act and the limitations which are imposed upon our powers, if there are such limitations, are made of our own free will. There is no inferiority in that. It is the result of a treaty as my hon. friend from Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) said. It is a treaty between various colonies which entered into an agreement. They fixed what the powers of the central parliament should be, and they also fixed what the powers of the various provinces which succeeded the colonies of that time would be, and this was ratified and accepted by the Imperial parliament of the time. Everything we have or have not is because we wanted it so. Now this treaty cannot be changed, it has been the contention of many constitutional authorities, and I think it is only fair that no change should be accepted, without the consent of all those who were parties to it. It is a sacred treaty just as is any other treaty; it is no "scrap of paper."
My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMas-ter) suggests that if we have the power to amend our own constitution, because after all I think that is the only power which we do not possess without applying to the Imperial parliament to ratify our will in the matter, that power should not be exercised without the consent of the majority of the provinces, and in that majority he includes Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, which were parties to the original contract. Now I ask, would the other provinces of Canada relish being placed in such a state of inferiority? Would such a suggestion be accepted by the other five Canadian provinces? I think it would be a source of conflict and difficulty. I do not think it could be accepted. The only other way would be to have unanimity on the part of all the provinces agreeing to a change before that 
change should be made. Perhaps this might be discussed, if we ever go to the limit proposed by my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). This is, of course, a very important matter, and it is rather unfortunate that it comes up at this stage of the session when members of the House have not had the time and the opportunity to study and consider it. I think my hon. friend has served his purpose by placing the whole question before the public of Canada, and perhaps he would be \vell advised to withdraw the resolution for the present time and give the people of Canada, as well as the members of the House, the time and opportunity to consider the various phases of this question. There are people who think that the written constitution fixing the powers and the limitations of the authorities of the governing bodies is a better one than a constitution which is not written, and which is modified as 'the British constitution has been modified in the course of centuries to meet practical necessities as they arise. This question is a debatable one. But after all, I do not think we have to suffer very much from the condition as it is to-day. Every time we have claimed a right or a power we have merely exercised it, and nobody has complained about it. I do not think it is absolutely necessary to assert, as in this resolution, the power and the authority which we possess, and the limitations, which are all of our own making and of our own free will.


Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: It does
seem to me that the suggestion just made by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), which would involve the concurrence of all the provinces, is perhaps the only way out if we are to understand that the British North America Act is a definite contract. It seems to me it might be well worth while considering if, with that understanding it is not advisable to proceed to some definite recognition of our right of self-determination. It may be all right, as the minister has just said, that we have these powers, but nominally, we do not have them and we choose to assert our powers in spite of our status, which denies them. It might be worth while at some time in the not distant future to consider the propriety of explicitly defining bur status, and giving to us in a definite and explicit way that power which we are said to possess in connection with amending our own constitution. In regard to the remark of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) as to the British North America Act being a

Canada's Constitutional Powers
contract, and therefore how can it be altered, surely we must admit that contracts must be open for modification.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend will allow me on one point-with the consent of all contracting parties, but no party being committed to the amendment by a majority of the others.


William Charles Good: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has put the point very clearly indeed. However, the point I wish to raise was not that, but this: Evidently the objection that exists in the minds of many as to this proposal is the fear that Canada will not protect provincial rights as well as Great Britain. It was not definitely stated, but I think that fear is latent in the minds of a great many, and they are relying upon the British government to protect them in the maintenance of provincial rights. Well, I just want to suggest that after all, when it comes down to the last analysis, the Canadian parliament is just as capable of protecting the provinces in the enjoyment of their special privileges and rights, and just as willing to do so, as Great Britain. It may be just as well to recognize that frankly.
There is only one other point I wanted to refer to and it deals with a practical problem: What are we going to do about the Senate?
I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I presume that so far as the Senate and the Commons are concerned they have co-ordinate powers, and we have been perpetually and everlastingly blocked from doing anything to reform the Upper Chamber. Is there any way of securing either Senate reform or Senate abolition without the consent of that body? We do not want to be reduced, at this stage in the history of the world, to the methods that were adopted in the time of Cromwell; and yet it is a practical difficulty we are up against. I should like to see some proposal made as to how to go about settling this difficulty; we shall have to tackle it sooner or later. Apparently we are blocked. This matter has been discussed for years and years. It has been generally admitted that our Senate is antiquated, to say the least, and that it does not function properly. Are we going to be for ever reduced to inefficiency because of certain constitutional limitations that have been placed upon us? I should like to see this practical problem dealt with in a practical way. And then, in connection with that practical problem, the general question of having our rights defined in respect to the modification of our own constitution appeals to me. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I think it might be worth while to take this matter up again, possibly not in the immediate future
but when people have had the chance to think over it, and to devise some definite method of asserting those rights which I think it has been admitted we do possess, and I sincerely trust that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and those others,-and there are many of them in this House who are interested in this matter-will bring forward some practical suggestions in that direction.


Robert Forke: I
only wish to say a few words in placing myself on record in this matter.
I think I am very British in sentiment, and yet at the same time I am an absolute believer in Canadian nationality. I think it was Carlyle who said "Do the duty that lies nearest to your hands", and we have a great many duties lying very close to-day that demand our immediate attention and perhaps are going to be very difficult to solve.
I do not think we are suffering any great injustice, or any great grievance, at the present time, so far as the British government is concerned.
I admit the truth of what the last speaker stated, there may be some difficulty in reforming the Senate. But I do not believe it is going to be reformed this session anyway. In any event we are doing very well. There are a good many of these things that we must solve, and solve once and for all, before we start out for absolute nationhood. However, I just wanted to put myself on record. If this comes to a vote I shall vote against the resolution and amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When I read the resolution of my hon. friend I thought it was a mere assertion of the position I had always regarded we had in Canada. I confess that as I listened to his speech I began to see that the interpretation he was putting on the words of the resolution was different not only to what I conceived its purport to be but different also, I believe, to what Sir Clifford Sifton ever intended. My hon. friend says he has taken it from some resolution or some address of Sir Clifford Sifton. I am perfectly sure that Sir Clifford Sifton is too good a constitutional lawyer not to include under the heading "governing powers of Canada" the provinces as well as the Dominion. I am perfectly certain that Sir Clifford Sifton, when he drafted the resolution, or delivered the address referred to, wished to make it clear that so far as the powers-legislative, executive or judicial powers-of this country were concerned in regard to Canadian affairs, divided as such powers are between the prov-

Canada's Constitutional Powers
inces and the Dominion, that taken together they to all intents and purposes should be the same as the powers of the British parliament in relation to the British people and their affairs. Now, the fact that my hon. friend in his own interpretation of his resolution has placed a different interpretation from that which I think most members of this House place upon it-
M:\ WOODSWORTH: I did not ignore the provinces as being part of the governing powers of Canada.


James Horace King: I heard what my hon. friend said and I think he has already been corrected in the particular I have mentioned, not only by myself but by other members who have spoken. I gathered distinctly from his remarks that the " governing powers of Canada" as referred to by this resolution, related to the powers of the federal parliament and ignored the powers of the provincial legislatures.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have already
stated two or three times that that is an entire misunderstanding of my position. By "the governing powers of Canada" I have reference not merely to the federal authorities but to the provincial authorities as well.


James Horace King: I am very glad indeed to hear my hon. friend give that interpretation because I think without it the resolution would not represent the opinions of the gentleman whose words have been quoted with respect to it.
Now as to the governing powers of this parliament and the provinces combined, I contend, Mr. Speaker, that to all intents and purposes this parliament and the legislatures of the several provinces have, with respect to Canadian affairs, as regards everything except the amendment of our constitution, exactly the same powers as the parliament. of Great Britain has in relation to its people and their affairs. If that be tine what is the necessity of creating, not only in this House but throughout the country, an impression that at this stage of our existence as a nation we possess a colonial status which not a single member of the House is prepared to admit we.have. The resolution considered in relation to the speech made by my hon. friend would convey the impression to the people of Canada and to the people of Great Britain, and to people in other countries throughout the world that we in Canada, in some particular, felt our subordination. I do not know any particular in which the people of Canada, speaking broadly and generally,

feel any sense of subordination whatever. Nor do I believe there is in fact any position of subordination. Take the one matter of the right to amend our own constitution; if the representatives of the Dominion government and the representatives of the provinces met together, framed any amendment they wished to the British North America Act and asked the parliament of Great Britain to sanction that amendment, is there a single member of this House who believes that the British parliament would hesitate to carry out the wish of the Dominion and the provinces in that regard? If that be true, are we not merely creating a shadow to obscure the reality and substance which is that, with respect to their own affairs,, the peo'p'e of Canada can do as they like, just as much as the people of Great Britain can do as they like in regard to their own affairs.


William Charles Good: What about the question of appeals to the judicial committee of the Piivy Council? Are we not in a position of inferiority?


James Horace King: I would say that if the people of Canada ever decided it was unwise to have an appeal to the Privy Council, and asked to have an amendment in that particular, it would be made. There is no limitation put on us in virtue of some position which is being taken from across the sea. As the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said, any limitation which exists, exists in virtue of the circumstance that, everything being considered, it has been thought wisest and best by those who have had to do with the maintaining of the constitutional relations of the country to keep it so.


Mr. IRA  INE@: hen the government of
Great Britain recently recognized the union of the Soviet Republic, did that, mean that Canada had also recognized that union? Or has the Canadian government recognized them separately?


James Horace King: The Canadian government will take its own position in regard to the Soviet republics, just as we would take our position in regard to anything else.


James Shaver Woodsworth: On that point, I
should like to ask a question. A year p gentleman applied for a passport to Russia, but the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs advised him that it was impossible to secure passports from Canada to Russia, since Great Britain did not recognize Russia.

Canada's Constitutional Powers


James Horace King: When Great
Britain takes a certain position in an international matter, the Dominion government may, for the same reason, take a similar position; but so far as the question of whether or not Canada in any particular matter affecting its own people and their relations with other countries is concerned, we will exercise in these matters the same rights as the parliament of Great Britain would exercise in relation to their people and their relations to other countries. In order that my hon. friend may not have reason to think that this is a mere theory, let me say that what I am saying at the moment is the position I took at the recent Imperial Conference in England, and it was taken in the very words of the resolution which m.v hon. friend introduced here. Repeatedly, in regard to questions which were presented before the Conference, I stated that, so far as I was concerned, I wTas simply a representative of the government of Canada, I was one among a number of ministers, and that all of my colleagues should have the same right to pass upon a question which affected the people of Canada as I had, just as British ministers had equal rights with the Prime Minister of Great Britain. But I went further than that.
I said that not only would I hesitate to speak in the name of the government of Canada, but that I would assert, with respect to any matters likely to bind the people of Canada in any way, that the parliament of this country should have the final say, and I took the position that our government and our parliament, with respect to Canada and its affairs, was in exactly the same position as the parliament of Great Britain was, with relation to the affairs of the people of Great Britain. That position was never contested or questioned. No one raised objection to it, no member of any dominion government, and no member of the British government. But more than that, the members of the conference were prepared to go the length of stating that position in black and white in the proceedings of the conference itself. My hon. friend spoke a moment ago about defence. He said we ought to have the right to say what we were going to do in the matter of going to war, or what we were going to do in the matter of military expenditures and the like. If my hon. friend will read the report of the Imperial Conference, page 16, which deals with the question of defence, he will find the following:-
(1) The conference affirms that it is necessaity to provide for the adequate defence of the territories and trade of the several countries comprising the British Empire.
(2) In this connection the conference expressly recognizes that it is for the parliaments of the several parts of the empire, upon the recommendations of their respective governments, to decide the nature and extent of any action which should be taken by them.
What could be more definite and clear? There is an emphatic declaration that, in regard to military matters, participation in war, or any question of the kind, it is for this parliament to decide the nature and extent of whatever action, if any, is to be taken by this country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Might I ask if my
right hon. friend's interpretation of that little phrase which he throws in "whatever action, if any" is that Canada is absolutely free from any responsibility should her parliament so decide?


James Horace King: So that there may be no mistake I will read the words again-
In this connection the conference expressly recognizes that it is for the parliaments of the several parts of the empire, upon the recommendations of their respective governments, to decide the nature and extent of any action which should be taken by them.
I take that to mean exactly what it says. If parliament decides that no action is to be taken, no action will be taken. If parliament decides that action to a certain extent shall be taken, it will be taken to that extent and no further. That is what the language means. It is as plain as English can be.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What does the first clause mean?


James Horace King: It means
exactly what it says. It says-
(1) The conference affirms that it is necessary to provide for the adequate defence of the territories and trade of the several countries comprising the British Empire.
Several countries.-Australia, Africa, New Zealand, Newfoundland, Canada, the British Isles-are all countries comprising the British Empire. In the words of the resolution it is necessary that they should provide for the defence of their trade and territory. Does my hon. friend say that Canada should not attempt to provide for the defence of her territory or her trade?


James Shaver Woodsworth: What I would submit, Mr. Speaker, is that the words of the first part of the resolution seem to imply that Canada has certain imperial responsibilities. Does the Prime Minister deny that?
524	COMMONS
Canada's Constitutional Powers


James Horace King: I hope the
day will never come when I will deny that Canada has some responsibility to other parts of the British Empire as well as to herself, and I hope the day will never come when Canada will hesitate to recognize her responsibility, but I say that that responsibility and the extent of it will be determined by this parliament and will be determined, I believe, in a manner which will accord with the hearts and the feelings of the people of this country.


Mr. CAHILL:: Is the resolution adopted at the Imperial Conference recognized in international law as binding other countries as well as the members of this Imperial Conference? Would any country, if it were at war with any portion of the British Empire, recognize our standing as free to determine whether we could go to war or not; or could they attack us?


James Horace King: That is another question, which I think is open to debate; at another time we might debate that particular question.
I think I have made myself perfectly clear as to what the position of this parliament is with respect to matters affecting the Canadian people when a comparison is being drawn between the rights of this parliament and the rights of the British parliament in a similar connection. Let me go a step further. My hon. friend spoke about questions of foreign policy. I took the position at the Imperial Conference that Canada had matters of foreign policy which were pretty largely exclusively of her own concern; that the greater part of our foreign policy was concerned with questions affecting our neighbours immediately to the south, and that it was for us to decide those questions and to act on our own initiative. That point was never disputed, never questioned for one moment. There are other obligations which Canada has, of an international character, which are larger and wider in their bearings and ramifications, and which may affect other parts of the British Empire. In those circumstances, surely we would expect to give the same treatment as we would expect to have meted out to us, namely, to consult with other parts that may be affected before final action is taken. Let me read the statement which the conference made in regard to foreign policy. It will be found at page 13:
This conference is a conference of representatives of the several governments of the Empire.

Stating in so many words the position of equality of status which has been referred to by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe).
Its views and conclusions on foreign policy, as recorded above, are necessarily subject to the action of the governments and parliaments of the various portions of the Empire.
That is as emphatic a declaration as anything can be that with respect to foreign policy, the matters discussed at the Imperial Conference are not binding in any particular on this country and on this parliament, unless our government and parliament so agree. I contend when, with respect to matters of defence, of foreign policy and the like, it has been determined by an imperial conference that our government, our parliament, has the same rights with respect to those questions as the British parliament has in relation to its own people in regard to the same questions, the necessity for a resolution such as my hon. friend has introduced is, to say the least, questionable, as likely to convey an entirely erroneous impression when it is read abroad.
In regard to the one matter in which we are alleged to be in an inferior position, namely, the right to amend our own constitution, as I have already pointed out, if the different provinces that go to make up confederation were to unite with this federal government in any suggested amendment to the British North America Act, I believe the British parliament, regardless altogether of what the terms of that amendment might be, would immediately agree to pass the necessary amendment. If it would not, then would be the time to raise a question such as my hon. friend has raised. There have been four amendments to the British North America Act; one passed in 1871 relating to the establishment of new provinces, one in 1872 regarding the privileges of the Canadian parliament; one in 1896 regarding the representation in the Northwest Territories, and one in 1897 regarding provincial subsidies. So far as I know, these are the only cases in which the parliament of Canada has asked the British government to amend the British North America Act. When in that particular the British parliament has done all that we have requested, when we know that if we made a similar request, a like action would be taken hereafter, even to giving us the power to amend our constitution as we please, is it wise, if it gives a sense of greater security to the different provinces of the Dominion and to the Dominion itself, to have its constitution in the form of the written constitution in which it is at the

Canada's Constitutional Powers
present time, at this particular stage to suggest that this parliament should take a course that is wholly unnecessary and that, if taken, would certainly create an erroneous impression both abroad and at home? Let me say that if I thought for a moment, the parliament of Canada combined with the legislatures of the several provinces had not, as respects the people and the affairs of Canada the same rights as the parliament of Great Britain has in relation to the people and the affairs of Great Britain, I would be the first to advocate a change in existing conditions. But believing that we have all the powers of a free people, all the constitutional rights and privileges which are enjoyed by British subjects in any part of the British Empire, I for one hesitate to disturb that impression in the least.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, we are asked by the hon. member (Mr. Woodsworth) to pass the resolution; by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) to pass the resolution amended; and by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) to carry the discussion over and to review it again another day. I am opposed to all three, and particularly to the suggestion of the hon. member for Brant. The resolution itself, I think, has been divorced from those pertinent facts that have to do with its merits, and a discussion has arisen on the rights of Canada at present, the amplitude of those powers and rights of which we boast so much. As regards the rights of the Dominion now, I am in complete accord with the words of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) ; I am not quite so fully in accord with the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), because I do not think they were carefully enough expressed. That we have all rights as to our domestic affairs, there is no question at all, and we have other rights in respect of external affairs as well save to the extent that as yet we are not empowered to amend our constitution; nor do I think we are empowered as respects certain extra-territorial jurisdiction in regard to which some controversy has arisen.
I want to express my pleasure at not only the-words of the Minister of Justice, but those of the Prime Minister respecting the position and rights of Canada at this time. That we can decide our own course in things domestic and things external, there is no question. I will go further and say that, save in respect of, perhaps, a feeling of obligation to minorities in Canada and a preservation of Great Britain's duty in regard to those minorities,
there is no right the majority of the people of this Dominion want to assert that would be resisted for one moment by the authorities of Great Britain. Nor is it only true that our rights are ample now in respect of everything save what I have suggested, but they have been ample for years and for decades, ample for the last half century. The Prime Minister read from a resolution of the conference of 1923 to prove to hon. members that we have the right to decide ^whether we go to war or do not, just in the same way as Great Britain has the*right to decide, under all the circumstances of the hour. Yes, we have that right. That resolution was passed; but similar resolutions have been passed at conferences for years back, and one almost in the same language was passed at the conference of 1921. There has not been, from any one in authority or recognised in any sense as having a voice, whether in this country or in the Old Land, a word or a breath to dispute that right on the part of Canada for decades, and all talk about this being a recent achievement is simply a dramatic attempt to burst heroically through an open door.
I now come to the portion referring to the so-called attributes of nationhood that we do not possess. The hon. member is quite right. To South Africa, to Australia, the latter being a federacy, the same as Canada, having what we call provincial authorities and governments as well as federal-to those dominions the right to amend the constitution in each case is accorded. And if this Dominion could go to the British parliament and show that majorities and minorities in Canada, such as originally were recognized, now desired the same right, there would not be a moment's reluctance in the matter on the part of the British parliament, judging by its attitude on all corresponding occasions in the past.
Now, could majorities and minorities in Canada go to the British parliament and make that representation? I think we have had evidence in this House this afternoon that they could not. Not only is there a contract between the provinces and the Dominion as a whole, between the minorities as represented by the provinces and the majority as represented by the Dominion, a contract which is sacred and which we must all preserve; but, as well, I think, it can be affirmed that another party to the contract for the protection of minority rights is the British parliament itself. And I believe it is a fact that to a degree minorities in Canada-minorities racial and minorities religious-rely not only upon the merits of the contract as between the various parties in the Dominion, but as well on the
526	COMMONS '
Canada's Constitutional Powers
contract between the Dominion and British parliament. When the parties to the contract in Canada are prepared to give up that extra security, when minorities and majorities are agreed to ask that we here in Canada be permitted, under any conditions which we shall suggest, to amend our constitution, then we shall not have any longer to wait. There lies the reason, which I think was well expressed by the Minister of Justice (tyfr. Lapointe), why in Canada we have deemed it wise to rest in our present position, believing as we do that in reality our powers are for practical purposes as ample as are even those of Australia or New Zealand.
I do not share any of the apprehensions that are suggested by some others, and I am not worried by the ghosts that seem to be always before some people; I do not think, with them, that we have been waging a terrific battle against a reluctant Downing Street in order to gain our rights. I do not share the view that we are in any sense oppressed and subordinated; we are in no sense whatever subordinate to anyone on earth. The moment we are in a position to assert among ourselves the right to do certain things, and believe that it is better that we should do those things, then that right will be ours. But simply>
because there is this additional security for minority rights, the people of Canada, minoritias and majorities alike, desire to rest in the position we are in at the present time.
I stated that there might be some other respects in which we had not exactly the same powers as the British parliament. I do not pretend to be at the moment in a position to discuss them; I refer to one of them, the matter of extra-territorial jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that if this parliament is of the view that, in respect of extra-territorial jurisdiction, we should have added powers, there would I am convinced be no difficulty in procuring them. Be it remembered, that in the present position we occupy, whenever a request is made for added powers, if it concerns only the Dominion as a whole and does not at all affect provinces or minorities, the address of this parliament is quite sufficient. As regards all these matters, if there are any such outstanding, no difficulty lies in the way at all; but mainly because minority rights rest on the sure foundation of the British North America Act, I think it is infinitely better that we should retain our present position.
As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) I fancy he himself scarcely has very much confidence in

its merits now. It could never be said that our constitutional position rests on a basis of contract merely as between the provinces and the whole Dominion or as between the provinces and the whole Dominion and the British parliament; it also rests on the foundation of a contract as between minorities and majorities, even not identical with provinces. So that the argument of the hon. member would not apply at all. Furthermore, it would never do in the world to distinguish between the status of provinces in relation to the power of amendment; there is no difference at all between the right of Quebec or Ontario and that of Manitoba or Alberta. It is true that Alberta did not exist at the time of confederation; but it is true that British Columbia and Prince Edward Island were provinces then. Consequently, as the hon. member admits, their position, so far as contractual right is concerned, is the same as that of Ontario and Quebec. But the people of Alberta existed; the people of the Northwest Territories existed; and these people acquiesced in the Act of Confederation on the basis of the British North America Act, the cornerstone of the compact. Consequently thSy are parties to the contract the same as the others. This only serves to disclose the very weakness of the motion itself. The effort of the hon. member for Brome to find a solution, and the failure of that effort, expose as nothing else could just exactly the difficulty that confronts us, and surely make clear the fact that this difficulty, in the words of the Minister of Justice, has been with us all through these years; and our position now is not a position imposed on us from without but is one decided upon by ourselves.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the discussion upon the resolution of my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) has taken a very wide range, and almost every phase of our relations with the Mother Country has been referred to. At the outset let me say that I think the resolution is hardly cast in such a form that it may be regarded as a very serious attempt to grapple with the problem. Naturally, the discussion of the resolution has been somewhat academic, because if we were proposing to approach the Imperial parliament with a view of having an amendment made, either by a change in the British North America Act or by the

Canada's Constitutional Powers
passage of a supplementary act, for the purpose of giving the country some further powers than she now enjoys, it would have to be provided for in a resolution addressed to His Majesty and the Imperial parliament. I must confess that I feel rather di posed to agree with my hon. friend from Battleford (Mr. . McConica) in his criticism of the wording of the resolution; indeed a great deal of doubt has been expressed from all quarters of the House as to what the mover of the resolution exactly intends. Taking the language itself, and throwing aside for the moment those interjections which are not necessary to enable one to understand precisely what is proposed, we find it to be as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the governing powers of Canada as constituted by the British North America Act ought to possess under the British Crown the same powers with regard to Canada, its affairs and its people, as the Parliament of Great Britain possesses in regard to Great Britain, its affairs and its people.
As I think my right hon. friend and leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) pointed out, this language would only be apt as applied to Canadian conditions if "governing powers" were intended to mean not merely federal powers but provincial as well, because if we are going to have the right to legislate and deal with affairs to the widest extent to cor. re pond with the governing powers of Great Britain, such governing powers must necessarily be vested in both the federal and provincial parliaments, and when my hon. friend reaches that stage in the interpretation of his resolution, he will readily see that he comes to a point where he is certainly not practical in dealing with the question. For instance, unless the combined view is taken of our legislatures and parliament, how could the legislature of Ontario, for example, be endowed with the same right and power to legislate for the province as the Imperial parliament possesses with regard to Great Britain. Therefore it would seem to me that the House ought to hesitate before committing itself seriously to the consideration of a resolution drafted in this form, and that if we really desire to amend our constitution an appropriate resolution should be prepared and presented for the consideration of parliament.
For myself, I am at a loss to understand some of the arguments which have been presented in support of the resolution. As was pointed out by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), the British North America Act of 1867 laid down in very clear and distinct terms the respective powers of the federal parliament and the provincial
legislatures, and it has not been found necessary since 1867 to "amend those powers in any material point. An amendment was passed in 1871 conferring on the Dominion parliament the right to create new provinces, and a further amendment in later years effected a change in the mode of representation in this House. Both- those amendments were granted to the federal parliament without any question.
It must be borne in mind that the Canadian constitution of 1867 was not made by the parliament of Great Britain, but by the representatives of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They solemnly met together in council and after full deliberation determined what the constitution of this country should be. Every line of the British North America Act was written by Canadian hands, every provision that is to be found in the four comers of that act were placed there by the Canadian statesmen who conferred together to bring about confederation And confederation was no easy thing to consummate. It is all very well, after fifty-seven years of national life, to say that, because the world has not got back to normal conditions after the Great War, there are certain things in our constitution which should be amended, but I submit that where you have. a constitution that was designed by the forefathers of confederation in this country, by the men who laid the foundations of Canada, a constitution that has worked well for over half a century of national life, we should hesitate to hysterically demand that some radical change be made in it. It protected the rights of minorities which was a very vexed question. There was given to the provinces the very wide powers which the provincial legislatures now enjoy, powers in regard to which they are just as supreme as we are in matters under our administration, powers with reference to which we cannot interfere so long as they act within their jurisdiction. Then, with reference to the suggestions that have been made for abolishing appeals to the Privy Council, the legislature of each province of the Dominion under the powers conferred upon the provinces under the British North America Act of dealing with the constitution and maintenance of the courts, lays down where appeals can be made to and limits the right of appeal.


Mr. SHAW:: Is it not a fact that in the Criminal Code of Canada we seek to prevent appeals to the Privy Council?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Arthur Meighen: Is it not a fact, anyway, that it is altogether in the hands (f Canada, through either provincial or federal authorities?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Quite so.
Then, over and above any question of power residing elsewhere either in this parliament or in the provincial legislatures, we could determine the question as to whether there shall be appeals to the Privy Council on any subject. That is not a matter to be determined by any Imperial legislation, and the Imperial parliament do not interfere with us or impose their views upon us in that regard. So also in regard to the question of our right to make treaties, which has been discussed time and' time again in this House. There is no manner of doubt now that the right of Canada as a self-governing Dominion to make treaties affecting the interests of the Canadian people is recognized and unquestioned.
In regard to legislation, the provinces have long claimed supreme rights within the limits of Section 92 of the British North America Act. Hon. gentlemen who remember politics in the province of Ontario not so many years ago will remember the stern battles that were fought between the political parties in that province on the question of provincial, rights; and as.the days have gone by and each province, particularly the larger ones, has increased in importance and wealth, the rights which are to be exercised by these provincial legislatures are a very serious and very important matter, touching as they do very intimately the lives of the people in education and other questions closely related to their home life. The powers vested in the legislatures in that regard are very, very wide indeed.
Now, what does my hon. friend wish to propose by his resolution in regard to these

provincial powers? Is he going to interfere with them in any way? Is he going to say that in some great central body there shall be vested the full rights which exist in the parliament of Great Britain? Realizing the problems in this country, where we have nine provinces and local legislation in each province rendered necessary on account of the religion, language and the business interests of each and every province, does my hon. friend propose that there shall be some great central body that is going to interfere with the rights of the provinces to legislate locally, as each provincial legislature now has the right to do?-and is exercising that right today without the slightest interference from Great Britain at all. And so with this parliament. Hon. gentlemen who have had some experience in this parliament will fail to remember any time in Canadian history where there has been any interference on the part of the Imperial parliament with the full right of this parliament to legislate in regard to all the subjects contained in Section 91 of the British North America Act.


William Irvine: Does the minister recall the province of Nova Scotia passing certain legislation which seemingly was within the jurisdiction of the province under the British North America Act, but which was nullified by this parliament not so very nong ago? Was that a violation of the British North America Act?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend, if he wishes to discuss a matter that we discussed last year, can do it at some other time. I am endeavouring now to devote my time to this novel proposition that he and his friend are putting forward, that we require [DOT]some extraordinary powers to be conferred upon the Dominion and the provincial parliaments that we do not exercise to-day, that our freedom in some mysterious way is being interfered with by the Imperial parliament. That is the question we are dealing with, and I say that there has been no such case of interference, and there is no necessity for the legislation that is proposed.
With all deference to my friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) whose suggestion was that you could review this new constitution, when it was formed, by providing for the approval of a majority of the provinces, which majority should include the four old provinces, I feel sure that with his experience as a lawyer he would not, on due deliberation, stand by that proposal as a permanent solution of this question.
Then as to a central authority so that there shall be no over-lapping, if all these bodies

Canada's Constitutional Powers
are going to be endowed with the absolute and unlimited rights that the British parliament has,-for that is what the suggestion of my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg means to those who read the English language, -that would bring about an absolute trespassing upon the rights of our provincial legislatures, and an absolute conflict between the two authorities, with no independent body or central authority to determine where or how that conflict could be avoided. Hence it is that, realizing that our right to make our own treaties is recognized, realizing that we have not been interfered with in the last fifty-seven years of our national life in any way, realizing that the constitution under which we are working to-day was not imposed upon us by the Imperial parliament but was the work of the Fathers of Confederation, I submit to the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg, as did my right hon. leader and the right hon. leader of the opposition, that having had this discussion of the question, and seeing that his resolution is not so framed as to have any practical effect,-seeing, indeed, that it could have no effect whatever if passed,-and having given us no evidence whatever of mature deliberation or suggested any real solution of the difficulty under which he thinks this country is labouring, I submit that his purpose has been served by this discussion and I would suggest that he withdraw his motion.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary):	I
think the discussion of this afternoon and this evening has been eminently worth while, as it has directed our attention and the attention of the people of Canada, to what seems to me must necessarily be in the future a very vexed question indeed. I am not in sympathy with those super-loyalists who, immediately anyone proposes to consider this difficulty, accuse him of disloyalty. I think it is important that the people of Canada should know what their status is. We have been groping in the dark for a great many years, and I think we are still groping in the dark so far as this particular matter is concerned. I find that, on the one hand there are those who tel) us that, in association with the other parts of the Empire we are a partnership, although, as a matter of fact, we have few of the incidents which ordinarily go with a partnership, and on the other hand, there are others wl o tell us we are one of a commonwealth of nations. And there are still other voices that proclaim with no uncertain sound-and distinguished jurists at that-that we are subordinate and! colonial.
Now, whatever our situation may be, I think, as I suggested before, that we should know where we stand if it is possible for us to ascertain that fact. There is no doubt from the discussion to which we have listened this afternoon that we have no power to amend our constitution. We must, if we desire a change, secure practically the unanimous consent of those interested in Canada, and then we must seek relief from the Imperial parliament. In the days of confederation, it may have been desirable to fasten a constitution on us in that particular way; but since that time several self-governing Dominions have been formed, and I find that the same situation does not prevail With regard to Australia, with regard to South Africa and with regard to the Irish Free State Each one of these self-governing dominions have the right themselves to change or amend their own constitution. It has been suggested that, if we gain unanimous agreement m any particular matter and if we go to the Imperial parliament, that parliament will gratify our wish as far as possible. I quite agree with that, but at the same time there are many principles on which, in this country, we can never become unanimous. For instance I need only mention one referred to by the hon. member for Brant 'Mr. Good), and that is the matter of the Senate. I think there i3 not anyone within the confines of this House but would agree that some change is necessary, we must do something, in order to make that body responsible to the people in some way. And not only that. If it is going to be a body that functions, it must be charged with some definite, specific duties perhaps not unlike the United States Senate. What can we do in Canada with regard to the Senate? We may speak, volumes and volumes have been spoken with regard to that ancient chamber, yet nothing has been done, and I presume the Senate never will consent to anything being done. Are we to remain helpless and tied down by this constitution forever just because we cannot get unanimity on that particular matter in this country and must make a unanimous appeal to the Imperial parliament for relief. If I remember correctly, unofficial representations were made to the Imperial parliament some years ago with regard to a possible change in the Senate's constitution, but indications were given very plainly that unless unanimity was secured in this country on that matter no relief could be granted, and none was secured. Not only that, it may interest hon. members to know that even in the Imperial



Canada's Constitutional Powers
parliament they have, m some instances at least, the right to change our constitution without reference to us at all. Of course, they have that right in any event, but they have been specifically granted the right, in an act known as the Irish Free State Consequential Provisions Act passed in 1922. Section 67 reads as follows:
His Majesty by order in council may make such adaptation of any enactment so far as they relate to any of His Majesty's dominions, other than the Free State, as may appear to him necessary or proper as a consequence of the establishment of the Irish Free State.
Sir, the Minister of Justice may find that without him knowing anything about it the Imperial parliament may pass some legislation consequential upon the formation of the Irish Free State. Are we in any particular way handicapped by reason of this constitution which we have and as a result of our inability to change it? I think that is the practical problem which we should consider. Well, I have already pointed out our difficulties in connection with the Senate.
May I mention one or two other matters of some interest. This parliament, from time to time, passes legislation about which constitutional questions are continually raised, and we find that we have to make special arrangements if we want to organize such a board as a board of commerce. If we want to legally organize it, to regulate the prices in this country, then we find that we have in other cases to circumvent the provisions of the British North America Act in a particular way. If we want to get adequate liquor legislation, and if the people want a wheat board, special arrangements must be made to secure not only the concurrence of this parliament but that also of the various provinces interested.


Ernest Lapointe: Does not my hon. friend think that what he is complaining about just now is rather the rights of the provinces than those of the British parliament?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I do not quite understand the Minister of Justice.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is complaining of the rights which the provinces possess, because it is those rights which prevent this parliament from legislating as to the wheat board and the board of commerce, and about the eight hour law mentioned by my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth) this afternoon, not the British parliament.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I quite agree. I am making no complaint, but this constitution has been fastened upon us as the result of our own act

admittedly, but the distribution of powers is so vague and indefinite that it is a continuous source of employment for the constitutional lawyers and jurists of this country.


Lewis Herbert Martell: If you arrogate to the federal authorities all these powers, will it not be stealing from the provinces powers which were granted to them by contract? Then when you add particular powers to the federal authority, will there not always be danger in going to the courts and having it determined what is intra vires or ultra vires of the provinces or of the federal parliament?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The hon. gentleman has apparently suggested that I desire to take away from the provinces certain powers, or that I desire to give the federal parliament certain powers which it does not now possess. I am not proposing anything of the kind, I want to see under any constitution that the safeguards given by the confederation pact to minorities, and to others, should be preserved, and should be safeguarded. I am with him to the fullest extent in that regard. But as far as regards the distribution of powers in Canada it may be they should be redistributed in particular ways, in order that our constitution may function effectively in the interests of the people of Canada.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is not that a matter of agreement between the federal and provincial parliaments? Should we arrogate to ourselves powers without the consent of the provincial legislatures?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am not proposing that the federal parliament should arrogate to itself any powers at all. Whatever distribution of powers is made under our constitution will necessarily be the result of an agreement between the federal government and the various provinces of Canada.
Now, I was referring to some of the matters about which we have had difficulty. I read in a newspaper the other day that a little piece of innocent legislation we passed last year in regard to oleomargarine might be made the subject of an appeal to the Privy Council, to find out whether or not the Dominion parliament had the right to say to the manufacturers of oleo that they could not manufacture the commodity in this country.
Another difficulty in connection with this constitution at least it seems to me a difficulty-is that it is interpreted three thousand miles away. I have great respect for the members composing the judical committee of the Privy Council, but I do say that constitutions particularly must be interpreted in the light of existing condtions and in the light

Canada's Constitutional Powers
of the facts as they exist in the particular country covered by that constitution. There are some who say that the fact that it is interpreted three thousand miles away is not a good thing, and I have some sympathy with that particular view. I think that our constitution should be interpreted in Canada, and I think that our jurists are just as competent to interpret it, and probably would be able, in the light of existing conditions, to interpret it so that it will function much more efficiently than it would if it were interpreted without reference to the conditions. Let me illustrate what I mean-and I trust I may interest the hon. gentleman from Battleford (Mr. Mc-Conica) who seemed so critical of this resolution this afternoon. The United States constitution, for a period of some twenty years, I think, was strictly interpreted. If that variety of interpretation had continued I think there is not the slightest doubt that the people of the United States would shortly have found that the constitution was utterly unfitted for their purposes, and that the time would come when it would be necessary for them to shelve it completely. But fortunately Chief Justice Marshall, the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, in a long series of decisions, gave the most liberal interpretation to that constitution, made it function and made it function well, so that the spirit of his judgments persists even to this day. I simply suggest that constitutions are made for people; not people for constitutions. Constitutions must be just and must be interpreted not to bind and shackle the people, but to meet the changing conditions of the times.
So much for internal affairs in Canada; what is the position with regard to externa! affairs? As the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) stated this afternoon, not being a sovereign nation, we have no jurisidiction over our extra-territorial rights; and so far as our foreign affairs are concerned, I venture to say that we have about as much control in the matter of peace and war as we have over these extra-territorial rights. It is true there is a process of consultation, a long-distance method, by which our authorities here are advised-generally subsequent to the event-of exactly what policy is being undertaken and of exactly what action has been taken. That is of no use to us here. If we are going to be committed to a policy that may involve us in war, it is absolutely essential that we should be fully familiar and have a part in the formulation of that particular policy. It cannot be done by merely attending colonial conferences or imperial conferences every two or three years. It must be done in some different way from that, or we 34 jr
should have no consultation at all. I think 1 pointed out once before in this parliament that a distinguished statesmen refused to have any part in consultations because, he said, consultation means responsibility. Now a valueless consultation that means responsibility should not be undertaken. I will give an instance of what I mean. The British Empire stood on the verge of war in the month of September, 1922. The ex-Prime Minister of this country, in an address which he gave to the Toronto Business Men's Conservative Club, suggested that the policy of Canada in connection with that should be "Ready, aye ready; we stand by you." Then he went on to indicate that it was necessary for Canada to maintain her obligations, so far as particular treaties were concerned, and I take it from that that he intended that we should stand by the Treaty of Sevres. The interesting part of it is that the Treaty of Sevres had been ignored by everybody, even by the nations which signed it. The result would have been that my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition would have plunged this country into war for the sake of a treaty which did not exist.
That is just the situation as I have indicated it. If the leading statesmen of the country are not familiar with the foreign affairs, how can you expect the ordinary common people of Canada to be familiar with these affairs? It seems to me the proper attitude on that occasion should have been "Steady, aye steady," In order to give the people an opportunity to know the facts, so that if we were to be plunged into a war we would at least know that it was in a righteous cause, and one which we were justified in supporting.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My	hon.	friend says
that the right hon. leader of the opposition might have plunged Canada into war without waiting for the "Ready, aye ready." Is it not a fact that if Great Britain declares war to-day, Canada is at war irrespective of whether she wishes to go to war or not? We are a portion of the British Empire and we are bound by what the Imperial parliament does.


Mr SHAW:: I am inclined to agree with
what the hon. gentleman states, and for the purposes of determining whether we are at war or not, I would like to investigate the attitude of the enemy's mind at that time.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The hon. gentleman must be a psychologist.

Canada's Constitutional Powers


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman think it is very fair on his part to introduce this subject at a time when he knows I cannot reply and correct his misrepresentations?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I shall be very glad, so far
as I am concerned, to allow the ex-prime minister the fullest opportunity of replying to me here or elsewhere.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
cannot do it.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Perhaps the House will give unanimous consent for the purpose.


George Perry Graham: A bad precedent.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: May I refer to one or two
remarks made by the Prime Minister (Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King)? He has indicated to us this afternoon the attitude assumed at the Imperial Conference last fall with regard to defence matters. I must confess that in reading the resolutions as passed I felt some apprehension that perhaps the country was committed; because I note that the language used is certainly open to the suggestion that we are committed to a policy of co-operation, and that it only remains with parliament to decide the nature and extent of any action to be taken. I think the wording is perhaps unfortunate and somewhat ambiguous. If it had read, "To decide the nature and extent of any action, if any," then there could be no question about it. But I am prepared to rely upon the interpretation given by the Prime Minister that under no circumstances are we committed to any action, so far as naval defence is concerned, unless the parliament of Canada first approves; that is, that the responsibility rests primarily and always with this parliament, and that no action can be taken committing the people of Canada to any naval defence policy without first securing approval here. I think that is important, because, after all, the question of naval defence is linked up very closely with the question of peace or war. Add war in these later days is not a pleasing thing to contemplate. In its actuality it is a terrible thing. It may involve the loss of thousands of our countrymen; it necessarily involves the loss of millions of our treasure. It is important that no action in a serious matter of that kind, which may involve us in any catastrophe such as war, should be undertaken without securing the full and complete consent of Canada's parliament.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the resolution moved by my hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth) has been badly framed because, while in many

of the things that he is advocating I am in thorough accord, the resolution is so sweeping in its character that to my mind, it means the nullification or abrogation of an agreement that was entered into between the various provinces of this Dominion, what may be termed the provisional trustees for the now federal authority at the time that the confederation pact was entered into. In other words, at the time of confederation, an agreement was entered into by the various provinces, which were then independent entities as regards self-government, and representatives of the now federal authority. The chief things which were allocated to the provinces are to be found in section 92 of the British North America Act with several clauses, sixteen in number. Section 91 of the British North America Act with its twenty-nine clauses gave what are regarded as the powers of the federal authorities. In addition, there is what is known to law'yers as the non obstante clause which, in effect, says: notwithstanding anything that may be found in section 92 of the British North America Act, the powers of the federal authorities are not restricted. That is a contract. Two parties are necessary to a contract and there must be mutuality. The people who consummated confederation entered into this agreement, and it was confirmed by the British parliament. That is the constitution of Canada as we have it at the present time. For this parliament to endeavour to arrogate to itself the right of taking extreme powers, powers which belong to the provincial authority, or which in any wise would affect the provincial authority, would be an abrogation of the agreement or contract entered into in 1867. But let us eliminate that. As I understand the resolution of my hon. friend, his idea is that Canada shall have equal rights with all other nationalities; that is to say, that Canada within the British Empire shall be regarded as a nation, Australia as a nation, New Zealand as a nation, Newfoundland as a nation; that these nations in dealing with other nations shall be regarded as absolutely independent'; that they shall have the right to send ambassadors; that they shall have the precedence that belongs to their several countries as independent entities. In that respect, I am in full accord with my hon. friend.
But for any persons, notwithstanding their pretensions to be constitutional lawyers-and we have many in the House of Commons- to stand up in this chamber and say that we are not compelled to go to war when Great Britain is at war, is an absurd misnomer.

Canada's Constitutional Powers
Supposing Great Britain to-day declared war, then Canada is at war whether Canada wants to be at war or not. The only thing that Canada can do is to call her parliament, and if we want to send troops, Canada's parliament might refuse to vote the supplies necessary to give us sufficient money for the purpose of carrying on that war. But if Great Britain, having declared war, wished to pass a statute of the Imperial parliament applying it to every portion of the Empire, even if she meant that everyone of us could be conscripted, or that every possible piece of land or that all the funds of Canada could be taken for the purpose of carrying on that war, we would be compelled to obey that statute. That as a legal pronouncement cannot be gainsaid.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Lewis Herbert Martell: We are a portion of the British Empire, and notwithstanding everything that some hon. members may say, we have simply colonial status. Great Britain has been generous with us. If you read the constitutional authorities, you will find that Great Britain can pass any act for the Empire and apply it to any portion of the Empire. It is said that as regards the Englishspeaking provinces of the Dominion of Canada, when we came here we brought with us every portion of the British common law save in so far as it is inapplicable to our situation as a colony. We brought none of the English statute law save as it is made applicable to us as a colony. If the English common law has not been altered in this country by statute so as to make it inapplicable to the Dominion of Canada, then the English common law is still in force in this country. We have the Colonial Laws' Validity Act; we have several other acts, and if the British parliament to-day passes an act making it applicable to every portion of the Dominion of Canada, it is applicable irrespective of what this parliament can do. Therefore, it is absolutely absurd for any hon. member from his place in this House to say that we are not bound by laws passed by the British parliament. Personally, I would1 like to see us bound by those laws so long as we are going to remain a portion of the British Empire, and relying upon the fair play of the British paliament and the British people in general, I believe they will not pass any laws which will make things repulsive to the people of the Dominion of Canada. That is my attitude in regard to this matter.
Let us not be carried away with the idea that we are a great independent nation. We are in truth a great nation, but a great nation within the British Empire, and Heaven prevent the day from coming when we shall not be regarded as such. While I am in accord with many of the principles which my hon. friend is trying to get at, though he does not express them properly, if his resolution is so framed as to say that we are going to recognize nothing that is done by the British parliament, that is tantamount to saying that the Dominion of Canada wishes to be independent. That is all the resolution means; but in fairness let us examine the constitutional authorities in the light of our position within the British Empire, and we shall find that all that we may say or do cannot alter our status in the British Empire so long as the British parliament does not consent thereto.
Some of my hon. friends, in the course of their disquisitions, have referred to the Senate. Although I am not a great constitutional lawyer, I may say this without fear of being charged with egotism. Many men in this House occupying high positions either in the opposition or on the government benches regard themselves as eminent lawyers on account of their position, and it might seem, therefore, as if we back-benchers should be seen and not heard.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, no.


Lewis Herbert Martell: But from my reading-and I may say that I try to keep 'in line with my profession-I have come to the conclusion that the House of Commons has no authority -and even the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada in conjunction have no authority-to amend or to cast out the Senate without the consent of the various provinces of the Dominion of Canada. At the time the confederation pact was made, certain powers were given to the provinces and certain matters were set up by agreement with the provinces in order to provide the constitution of a parliament to administer federal affairs. One of the conditions was that the Houses of Parliament of Canada should consist of a House of Commons and a Senate. Therefore, if you want to interfere with the Senate, you must, of necessity, get the consent of the other party to the agreement, namely, the various provinces of the Dominion of Canada. If you examine the British North America Act, you will find that power is not given to this parliament to change the constitution of either of the Houses, but explicit power is given to the various provinces to change their systems of government, provided that they do not interfere with the office of Lieutenant-Governor.
That is the constitution of the Dominion of Canada; and before hon. gentlemen stand
534	COMMONS
Canada's Constitutional Powers
in their places and declaim against it they should first thoroughly familiarize themselves with the provisions of it. Our constitution is known as the British North America Act and, as I have said, it is a contract entered into between the several provinces of the Dominion and what is now the federal authority. It was a condition precedent to the entry into confederation by these various provinces that certain things should be done from the point of view of federal administration, and therefore this parliament to-day has no right to ask for an amendment of the Canadian constitution without first obtaining the consent of the provinces who were the other parties to the confederation pact.
I am sorry that my'hon. friend (Mr. Woods-worth) has badly framed his resolution; but anything that will take from the rights of the provinces, anything that will deprive our people of what was granted them at the time of confederation, will meet with my opposition so long as I am a member of this House. I do not believe that we are going to get anywhere by demanding changes every day. There is an old Latin maxim that says: Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in	illis,-
Times are changed and we are changed in them. And there is another which it behooves us to take to heart-"Festina lente." Sometimes, when radical changes are advocated, changes which are obviously unwise, I almost consider myself a Conservative, though God forbid that the day should ever come when I should want to be one. Resolutions of this kind, purely academic in their nature, are not, I think, properly matters for discussion on the floor of the Canadian House of Commons. They waste time and get us nowhere. The Fathers of Confederation provided a means whereby disputes between the provinces and the Dominion might be settled, and that is by reference to the supreme courts of judicature in the land. If we infringe upon provincial rights we can naturally expect the provinces concerned to take action in the courts to see if the federal act is intra or ultra vires; if the federal authorities claim to be in the right, in the courts of the country they have a means of settling their claim. That is a wise method, and by the decisions of the highest court of judicature for the land we are bound to abide. So that we are fully safeguarded; and in all things I think we should try to leave intact as far as possible the work of the Fathers of Confederation. It has satisfied our requirements for a good many years and should not lightly be tampered with by faddists.


James Joseph Hughes: May I ask the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) for some information regarding his amendment? Does he mean it	to imply a
different or an inferior status to the provinces that entered confederation after 1867 as compared with the original provinces? If the amendment has that object in view, then whatever may be the merits or the demerits of the original motion I think the amendment would render it indefensible, and for that reason at all events the amendment should be withdrawn.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not know whether or not I am in order in replying to the hon. gentleman, but he has directed a question to myself and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer it. I have been impressed by the arguments that have been advanced against my amendment and equally impressed with the expression of opinion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that the useful purpose of discussing this matter has been served by the fact of its discussion. If therefore the mover of the resolution withdraws it my amendment will fall with it. I did not like the apparent inference that the province of Prince Edward Island was placed in a position of seeming inferiority as compared with the other provinces. That would be disgraceful.


James Joseph Hughes: It would be disgraceful, and I was surprised that the hon. member for Brome should have introduced the question in his amendment.


Mr. W. F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South and Richmond):: I think, Mr. Speaker, that some good at least has come of this discussion: excellent arguments have been advanced in support of the resolution while some strong arguments have been offered against it. Personally, I believe that had the hon. member (Mr. Woodsworth) who moved the resolution been somewhat more specific in regard to what he intended to accomplish in having greater powers extended to Canada, perhaps the House would be better- informed concerning his attitude on this question. In my estimation the resolution as framed, if passed, would be tantamount to a declaration that there should be absolute independence on the part of Canada. Now, I do not think that the Canadian people are quite ready for that yet; I do not think they will be ready for it for very many years to come.

Canada's Constitutional Powers


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the
hon. member whether the resolution as it is phrased, that we should have power " under the British Crown " indicates entire separation from Great Britain?


William F. Carroll: The phrase " under the British Crown," in my opinion, destroys the whole force of my hon. friend's motion,, because if we are going to have all the plenary powers of Great Britain then we cannot consistently at the same time be under the British Crown.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would suggest to my hon. friend that there is a distinction between being under the British parliament and being under the British Crown.


William F. Carroll: Probably; but I do not think we have very much to be afraid of in being under either the British Crown or the British parliament. Now, I do not altogether agree with my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Martell) when he says that Great Britain has absolute power to legislate on all matters in this country. For example, Great Britain, by the British North America Act, has given to this parliament plenary powers to legislate on the question of divorce; and she has given, also under the British North America Act, absolute power and authority to the various legislative assemblies to legislate on questions of civil rights. This being so, it seems to me rather inconsistent to say that the parliament of Great Britain could legislate on these specific matters in relation to which the parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the provinces have been empowered to act.


Lewis Herbert Martell: If the parliament of Great Britain gave that power has it not the right to withdraw it?


William F. Carroll: Unquestionably. But my hon. friend said that the British parliament to-day had absolute .power to legislate on these specific matters I have mentioned, and on others in regard to which it has given full powers to the Dominion and to the provinces. Before the British parliament could do such a thing it would have to withdraw the power it has given. No doubt it has the right to do so, but I venture to say that such a thing will never be done. I agree with my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth) that there are some inconsistencies in our constitution, and he mentioned one of them. Had he so worded his resolution as
to provide that steps should be taken, for example, to secure to the federal parliament the power of legislating on the eight-hour day,
I would agree with him to the full.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If the hon. member would offer a resolution along that line at a suitable time, I would be glad to support it.


William F. Carroll: I shall be glad to. I have some very definite, specific and, I think good reasons for agreeing with my hon. friend that the power of legislating on the eight-hour day should be in this parliament. I will tell the House why if it will bear with me for a moment. I believe in the eight-hour day. I think the time is coming when we shall have such a working day for our general industries, and the quicker that time comes the better it will be for all concerned. But supposing the legislature of Nova Scotia were to enact an eight-hour day law, what would happen? In the neighbouring provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island they have a ten-hour day and, in some lines of industry, a twelve-hour day, and the moment the legislature of Nova Scotia put such legislation on the statute books the artisans of the neighbouring provinces would swarm into Nova Scotia to take advantage of the shorter working day. That is the main reason why there should be given to the Dominion parliament power to legislate in this matter. In the absence of such power, I am afraid we are going to have difficulties in getting the various legislatures to initiate the necessary legislation.
I agree with my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) that there are other things in the constitution which should be perfected. He made reference to the Board of Commerce. I believe that if this board had properly functioned it would have done a great deal for the common people. But what did we find? Ultimately it was declared to be ultra vires of this parliament. What would be the good of any province creating a board with powers similar to those conferred on the Board of Commerce? Such a provincial board would not maintain its existence. Therefore I repeat, something should be done to amend our constitution in this respect to empower the Dominion parliament to create a Board of Commerce which would be immune from attack on constitutional grounds.
I have something else in view. Last session the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) put through this House certain amendments, which later were killed by the Senate. While many

Canada's Constitutional Powers
people decry the upper chamber for having murdered that child of the Minister of Labour, I rather think they acted wisely, because in my humble estimation-and, like my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Martell) I am not posing as a great lawyer-those amendments were absolutely ultra vires. I notice the minister proposes to re-introduce those amendments this session. I would give him a kindly word of advice, namely, that before he at-temps to put them through this House again he seek an opinion from the Department of Justice, for I feel quite safe in saying that they will advise him that the amendments are absolutely ultra vires of this parliament. But assuming such amendments become law, what will happen? Their constitutionality will be attacked and ultimately the question will be taken to the Privy Council, with the probable result that the. amendments will not only be declared ultra vires, but the decision will involve the abolition of the Labour Department as well.
I agree then with those who say that our constitution needs amending in some particulars, but I do not agree that we have not already the means at our disposal to accomplish this. There is no reason in the world why our provincial governments should not agree absolutely with the Dominion government on a change in the constitution which will give this parliament sole power to deal with such a question as that of the eight-hour day; there is not much doubt in my mind that the respective governments could get together and reach a unanimous conclusion regarding the creation of a Board of Commerce; and so on. I have no hesitation in prophesying that they would be unanimous in agreeing to such changes in our constitution as would put an end to the doubt which at present exists in our minds as to the jurisdiction of the federal parliament in enacting the concilation law.
Therefore while I agree with my hon. friends as to the desirability of certain changes in the constitution, I do not share their view that we have not at the present time the necessary machinery for bringing those changes about. All we need is to reach an agreement between the provinces and the Dominion, and thereupon we need have no fear, Sir, as to what the British parliament will do in the premises; they will crystallize the agreement into law' and it will become a part of our constitution.
With respect to adequate liquor legislation, concerning which my hon. friend from West Calgary had something to say, it is one of the anomalies of our law that notwithstanding the fact that the provinces are supposed to
"Vlr. Carroll.]
have plenary powers as to certain subjects and the Dominion plenary powers as to other subjects, and while it is a sound proposition of law that neither authority must encroach upon the field of the other, it does seem to me to be rather inconsistent with the view of the constitution which all Canadians hold, that when we read our law books we find that the privy council has declared in more than one decision that the Dominion parliament has absolute right to legislate on liquor laws, and it has also declared that the local legislatures have plenary powers to deal with the same subject, within their orbit of course.
There has been something said to-night about the Privy Council. As a Canadian and as a British subject I have the greatest admiration for the courts of England from the lowest to the highest, and I have a marked admiration for the judges who have filled the high judicial positions in the Privy Council from 1867 down to the present time. But I do say, Sir, as my friend from West Calgary has said, that I believe we in Canada would be as well if not perhaps better off, if appeals might not be carried to the Privy Council, and if our last court of appeal should be the Supreme Court of Canada. There are always local conditions entering into lawsuits, peculiar conditions entering into practically every lawsuit unless it involves some constitutional question, which I think put our Canadian judges in a better position to judge of the whole situation than people who are not familiar with our customs and our habits, and who are not as familiar with our geographical and other local considerations. I believe that the leaders of the various governments in this country would be well advised in making a recommendation to the British parliament that the only cases which could be appealed to the Privy Council of Great Britain should be cases affecting the constitution. There will always be grievances on the part of the provinces respecting the constitution of Canada, and if they were limited to the Supreme Court of Canada in their appeals they might think that they were not getting that measure of justice which they deserve, and therefore I think it is a good thing in such cases to have a more or less independent tribunal such as the Privy Council to decide cases affecting our constitution. But when it comes to appealing cases involving millions of dollars, from the Supreme Court of the provinces or the Supreme Court of Canada to the Privy Council, I say that the Privy Council then becomes the rich man's court. I have known cases, not altogether in my own personal practice, but in the practice of barristers in

the province of Nova Scotia where after the plaintiff had won damages against a big corporation in the Supreme Court of Canada, the case was carried to the Privy Council and the poor plaintiff could not follow it there. There was the trouble, and that is the only trouble that I find with the Privy Council of Great Britain.
Something has been said with regard to the Senate. I consider myself a democrat, Mr. Speaker. I consider that I am one of the ordinary, plain, common people, but I believe that there have been cases in this country in which the Senate has taken a course that has absolutely justified its existence. I think that a body such as the Senate, which is not amenable to public opinion in that it does not have to go to the country to seek the suffrages of the people, has a great restraining influence, and such an independent body very often proves a bulwark against hasty legislation by Commoners. May I give two instances? During the premiership of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, promoters came to the government of the day, and in some way or other that I could never understand they impressed the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier with the desirability of building a railway into the Yukon country. A more impossible proposition, in my humble estimation, was never put before the Canadian parliament, and I say again I could never understand how a government, especially a government led by dear old Sir Wilfrid should attempt to legislate to bring the iron horse into the Yukon. The Senate of that day killed that legislation, notwithstanding the fact that it had passed the Commons, and I say that by that act alone the Senate of Canada has justified its existence. To show my friends across the way that I am not partisan, may I give another illustration which justifies the existence of the Senate? In 1913, under the leadership of our good friend Sir Robert Borden, certain proposals were made in the House of Commons for giving assistance to the British navy. The proposal was that millions and millions of dollars were to be sent out of this country to be paid to the artisans of Great Britain in building battleships, which would, of course, be for the general benefit of the Empire. I am not criticising the government of that day for the attempts that were made to put that legislation through, although I remember spending two sleepless weeks attempting to frustrate that legislation in this chamber, but we were unsuccessful in killing that bill, and I am not going into the reasons why we were unsuccessful. The Senate killed the bill, and I
20, 1924
Canada's Constitutional Powers
say that is another reason which justified the existence of the Senate in this country.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing subordinate about Canadians. There is nothing colonial about Canadians. We are as free as the people of Great Britain; we are as free as the people of Scotland. There is nothing we cannot do that is not against the law. There are no limits to our freedom. No stretch of the imagination can bring to mind any people under the canopy of Heaven with more freedom than Canadians enjoy. It is true that we pass laws from time to time restricting that freedom, but I say that when we keep within the law there is no freer people on the face of the earth than the Canadian people.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Coming down to
realities, are not Australia and South Africa and the Irish Free State freer than Canada with respect to this particular question?


William F. Carroll: Australia, South Africa
and the Irish Free State are not as free as the people of Canada, and if my hon. friend wishes to enter into a discussion of that question and compare the constitutions of these different countries I shall have no hesitation in the world in doing battle with him on that very subject.


Mr. MORIN:: Can Canada amend its own constitution? Australia can.


William F. Carroll: Canada may amend its
own constitution. It may tale a little longer to amend our constitution than it does to amend the constitution of Australia or South Africa, but that does not mean that the people of this country are less free than the peoples of these other countries. What does freedom consist of? Does it consist of the fact that the constitution can be more easily amended in some other country? It does not. Freedom means the enjoyment by the inhabitants of a country of the rights of human beings, provided they do not defy the law of God or the laws of that country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William F. Carroll: My hon. friend laughs, I dare say he has defied both. So have I.


Hewitt Bostock: I must draw the hon.
member's attention to the fact that he has no right to say of another hon. gentleman that he has violated the laws of-


William F. Carroll: I did not say "violated." I used the word "defied."


Hewitt Bostock: Nor is it permissible to
use the expression "defied" in that connection.

Canada's Constitutional Powers


William F. Carroll: In making use of that
remark I had no intention of saying anything ungentlemanly toward another hon. gentleman. You will notice however that having used the word "defied" I made it, applicable to myself also.
I should like to see an amendment to this resolution, or at any rate see another resolution brought in at sorre time to carry out the views which the member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) and myself have in common, and that is in reference to the distribution of powers under the Britisn North America Act. I think there is a strong argument for such a change. I have made the argument and gone a little further perhaps than my hon. friend the member for West Calgary. But I shall be unable to support the resolution as it stands at present When everything is said and done I feel that it goes too far. The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth) doubtless contemnlated nothing further than he proposed in hi' speech, but the resolution to my mind goes so far that I shall be unable to support it. However, if an amendment is brought in expressing the views of the hon. member for West Calgary and myself in this matter, and also proposing to curb the right of appeal to the Privy Council, I will vote as heartily as any member in this chamber to give effect to the recommendation.


William Irvine: This resolution has been so far pretty much of a happy hunting ground for students of constitutional lawr. Not being able to claim for myself much knowledge of that particular subject, I nevertheless venture to suggest an idea or two which, perhaps, might carry to the average man in the street, if he ever troubles to read the splendid debate which has taken place here to-day. As a Canadian bom in the British Isles this discussion has been very gratifying to me, because I cannot imagine any higher tribute to the genius of British statesmanship than to find so much willingness on the part of representatives of the Canadian people to still remain quietly under the hand of the Mother Country. But while that speaks admirably for the genius of British statesmanship, it does not speak so well for the regard of Canadians for that equal freedom which the British enjoys, and which they would not yield wore Canada in a position similar to that which the Old Land occupies at the present time.
Some hon. members have deplored the time taken up by this discussion, and one hon. member thought the subject should not be
TMr. Speaker.]
debated at all because he did not understand it. I am glad, however, that the House did not sustain the hon. member in that 'opinion, because I think some excellent things have been disclosed. For instance, the hon. member (Mr. Carroll) who has just taken his seat has actually discovered one instance where the Canadian Senate is of service. That is something.


An hon. MEMBER:: Two instances.


William Irvine: Well, that is still better.
We have also discovered that we do not know whether we have a status or not. That is something worth while discovering. We have also heard that the proper functioning of the Senate is that it should be sustained as the murderer of the legislative children of the Minister of Labour, and 90 there is a future for that institution which I did not dream of. The hon. member who has just taken his seat also started out by saying that Canada did not want her independence, and he finished by arguing that this country had that independence and had it to an equal extent with any of the other nations within the British Commonwealth of Nations.


William F. Carroll: If my hon. friend is referring to me I did not make any mention of "independence" at all. I did allude to "freedom."


William Irvine: I recall that the hon. member for Cape Breton South did, perhaps, discuss what constituted freedom at the close of his remarks, but I think if he reads Hansard to-morrow he will discover that he also made mention of "independence" in the early part of his speech, suggesting-as I heard him from here, I may not have heard him correctly- that no one would claim that Canada was prepared for independence. And then, as 1 say, he finished by saying that we had that .ndependence to the extent of Ireland, even Australia, or any of the others. But as I was remarking when interrupted, we have at least got this substantial contribution, that if Canada has any status as a nation no one knows what it is. It has been asserted with great oratorical power by the Prime Minister today that Canada is absolutely free. That statement has been repeated by other hon. ' members, but I think the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) and the hon. member for one of the Nova Scotia constituencies -I just forget which-when they declare that Canada has the status of a colony are perhaps nearer the truth. However, here we are falling between the horns of two dilemmas. On the one hand we are told that we are not independent and must not be independ-

Canada's Constitutional Powers
ent. On the other hand we are told that we are absolutely free and ought to be free. Again we are told that we have the status of a colony, and must not think or dream of asking for anything else. Now, will any member tell us what status we do have?
I think the Canadian status, as has been revealed by the discussion to-day is just about as clear as mud to me. If it is clearer to other hon. members, I shall have to conclude that I have been unable to follow the argument properly. It has been said on the one hand that we have absolute indepen-ence. It has been said by the very same speaker that we have some obligations to something called an empire. Now national independence, as I understand it, is absolutely incompatible with any imperial idea so far known to history. It is inconceivable to me how any hon. member of this House in the same breath can boast of our national freedom and at the same time of our imperial relations and obligations. These two things to me together are absolutely incompatible.
I think the discussion has proved also the necessity of some more thought on the part of all of us and on the part of the people of Canada on this subject.
Next, I will assert that we have in Canada no more liberty than we are prepared to claim. The Prime Minister insists that we have full liberties; but he would seem to imply that while we have full liberty we must not say it, or if we do say it, we must say it in some after-dinner speech, we must not say it in a resolution by the parliament of Canada, -that would be saying it too loudly and those who are concerned might hear it. That is the impression which I got from his declaration of liberty. We cannot have that liberty of which he spoke so well, if we have to go cap in hand to pray to any power outside of our own country to give us what we want. You may say "Oh, but Great Britain is so kind, so noble, so considerate, and so understanding that she will always give us what we want." That is a fine tribute to Great Britain I agree, but it is not satisfactory to me as a Britisher, for I want that same liberty, that same power of self-determination for my country which is Canada, as they have in Great Britain, and as I had when I was there, and I hope that no Canadian will be satisfied with anything short of that. Much has been said to-day about the sacredness of the British North America Act in its capacity as a contract. I am not, of course, schooled in law, but I am prepared personally to challenge this idea of contract. I do not think we can speak of a treaty between nations in the same manner that we can speak
of a contract between two individuals. I do not think that the British North America Act can be considered a contract in the truest sense of that term. It can only be a contract during the lifetime of the signatories to that contract, or during the lifetime of those who authorized its being signed.


Thomas Vien: Will the hon. gentleman contend that the legal representatives, even after the death of the contracting parties, are not bound by a contract?


William Irvine: I will answer my hon.
friend's question by giving him an illustration of how ridiculous a thing that appears to be in my view, and then tell him more clearly what I am trying to explain. Supposing the great grandfather of my hon. friend ' had entered into a contract with his n,ext door neighbour, that, three generations later, when my hon. friend was born, my hon. friend should be married on a certain day to the child of a certain individual, would my hon. friend have kept the contract? I question very much whether he would do so. His statement that, because 57 years ago the forefathers of the Canadian people now living were forced by circumstances to enter into certain negotiations with the British Empire and satisfied their wants at that time thoroughly and adequately, that half a century later, finding that we had developed new difficulties and had new problems to face, we should be bound by that same treaty, is equivalent to the illustration which I gave him. If the contract is going to be sacred, that contract must of necessity be ratified by every succeeding generation. That is the only possible intelligent way I can conceive of in which we can attribute sacredness to any kind of contract of this character.
In conclusion, let me say that it is not enough for us to feel glad that Great Britain would accede readily to any demand which we might make. That, as I have already said, is creditable to Great Britain, but is not so creditable to Canada. That is not the spirit of nationhood, that is not the spirit of that freedom which we enjoy from Great Britain. It goes much further than that. Personally, I am for the complete independence of Canada. Why should hon. members be afraid of that? I notice in particular today that some hon. member's who speak the French language took exception to this resolution. Why should they take exception? Why should they feel afraid of coming entirely under the jurisdiction of Canada? Is the spirit of Canadians not as noble, and not as just, as that of Britons? Is Canadian statesmanship not big enough to continue to each

Canada's Constitutional Powers
province that minority right with regard to education and religion, which is in the constitution, the British North America Act, and which have won for it just repute and respect? I believe that Canadian statesmanship would be willing to give that. I believe that the Canadian spirit is just as noble and just as free as the spirit of Great Britain. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that what we need in Canada more than anything else is the development of a virile national consciousness. You speak of putting the East and West together and you speak of unity. There can be no unity without national consciousness, and there can be no national consciousness without national responsibility. So that I hope those who have, voiced their interests in this unifying principle will recognize this, and that before long Canada shall have her independence which we as Canadians would like to see her have, and at the same time have possibly a closer relationship with Great Britain than she has at the present time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is little which I need to add to what my hon. colleague has just said.


Hewitt Bostock: If the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) speaks now, the debate will be closed. If any other hon. gentleman desires to address the House on this resolution he must do so now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I may be permitted to make one or two remarks in closing. It has been suggested that the time is not opportune for a discussion on such a subject as this. I should like to point out that every precedent was once an innovation, and that since our forefathers have been wise enough and able enough to make laws and to build up constitutions which served their day, but which were different from those which had preceded, we ought to have sufficient of the spirit and wisdom of our forefathers to do in our day what they did in theirs. It has been suggested by some of my hon. friends to my extreme right, in a rather superior way, that I ought not to introduce this resolution since there was no body of public opinion behind it.
I do not quite know why they should arrogate to themselves the right to say what resolutions should be introduced on the floor of this House, or to suggest that public opinion is not behind such a resolution. I throw 'out that suggestion, particularly after the vote of two nights ago.
There is a growing body of public opinion across this country that frequently has not had any opportunity for expressing itself,

and if sometimes those of us who represent that group speak, perhaps, in a way that does not convey the idea as fully as it should be conveyed, members of this House must give full indulgence, as we have not the experience in this House that some may have had. We are trying to voice opinions which may not be popular to the majority here; but we were sent here to voice those opinions, and that is our justification for bringing them up.
I was just a little disappointed at the attitude of some of my French friends sitting immediately in front of me. They sometimes claim to be nationalists, and yet they would refuse to support a resolution which looks, not, it is true, in the direction of complete independence, but still which would give the very largest measure possible of home rule. They have a good deal to say with regard to minority rights. Let me suggest to them that, perhaps, it is right and wise that they should remember that other parts of this country also have rights. We had, last night, a debate relative to the question of divorce. Some of us who are residing in the western provinces claimed that those western provinces should be placed in the same position as are the other provinces of Canada. I think it would be only fair that they should rush to our assistance if they themselves would claim certain minority rights. As my colleague has just said, I can hardly understand the fear that some have expressed with regard to their fellow-Cana-dian citizens. I hope that the people of Canada may be trusted to keep the spirit of guarantees that have been given.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) asserted in one breath that we had not a colonial status, and still he had to admit in the next, that we cannot revise our own constitution. That anomaly stands notwithstanding all that has been said by various members of this House, and it was to meet that situation that I introduced this resolution this afternoon. It has been said that the resolution has not been carefully drawn.
I should like to suggest that, perhaps, it is more carefully drawn than some of the members have recognized. At least, it was drawn with sufficient .care to draw a very considerable expression of opinion from all sections of this House. The Prime Minister says that at the Imperial Conference he took the position indicated in this resolution. All I am asking is that this parliament should openly state that self-same position. It may be that we shall not

St. Lawrence Waterway
always have a Prime Minister who takes that position. If it is right that the Prime Minister over at London should personally, on behalf of this country, state his opinions, surely it is quite right that this House should in a very moderate resolution of this kind, re-echo those self-same sentiments.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and one or two other hon. members have suggested that since my purpose in introducing the resolution has been served, I should now withdraw * it. It is not often that members in this corner of the House withdraw their resolutions, because one of the objects for which we introduce these is, very frankly, to have the other members of the House state exactly where they stand. But since they have so done, so very fully to-day,
I must say I cannot see any very great advantage in pressing the motion to a vote. We have had the rather imperialistic admissions of the Prime Minister, and we have had also the-shall I say?-nationalistic aspirations of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) As we have had these frankly placed before us, I beg leave to ask that this motion should now be withdrawn.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion cannot be
withdrawn unless the House disposes of the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). I do not see the hon. member for Brome in his seat; but I understood from him when he spoke a moment ago, that he had no objection to withdrawing his amendment. That he can do only with the consent of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Amendment withdrawn.


Hewitt Bostock: Shall the hon. member who made the motion have leave to withdraw the said motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hewitt Bostock: The rule of the House will be found in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms at page 113:
Where an amendment has been proposed to a question, the original motion cannot be withdrawn until the amendment has been first disposed of by being agreed to, withdrawn or negatived, as the question on the amendment stands before the original motion.
This is taken from May, page 250.
Motion withdrawn.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

John Millar: Whereas the project of deepening the St. Lawrence River is one of first importance and involves enormous expenditure; and
Whereas public meetings, Boards of Trade, etc., in Western Canada and elsewhere are, as a result of active propaganda carried on by American and Eastern Canadian interests, passing resolutions urging the immediate undertaking of this project by this government, and Whereas it would appear that this propaganda is grossly misleading in some respects, and particularly in regard to the saving to be effected on the transporta- j tion of wheat, which is repeatedly said to be eleven ^ cents per bushel.
Therefore, be it resolved that the standing committee on Railways and Canals be requested to inquire fully into, and report on the matter of saving that may be effected on transportation of grain by deepening the St. Lawrence River, and apart entirely from the saving that may be effected through the deepening of the Welland canal.
He said: In dealing with this resolution, Mr. Speaker, I desire to make my position perfectly clear. The object of the resolution is not to place any opposition in the way of the project of deepening the St. Lawrence river. I do not wish at this time to pass upon the merits of that undertaking; but so that I may make plain what I intend by the resolution let me point out what has taken place in connection with the Welland canal. For some years we have been spending a considerable amount of money on the Welland canal and the question has been asked in this House: From whom came the request that the Welland canal should be completed? The Minister of Railways, being asked that question at the last session of parliament, was able to show by his records that resolutions had been passed in western Canada by boards of trade, and that it was partly as a result of these resolutions that the work on the Welland canal was being carried to completion. I felt at that time, as some others in this comer have felt, that we were placed in a false position. Those who are supposed to benefit by the opening of the Welland canal had not really requested that this project should be undertaken. A few had made that request by resolution, and we were very much inclined to think that the request was based on information which was far from complete; and it was through fear that the same thing might take place in connection with the deepening of the St. Lawrence river that I placed the present resolution on the order paper. At the present time a campaign of propaganda is being carried on in western Canada. A gentleman representing a large organization in the United States has been holding meetings in that part of the country, and among his statements there seem to be some that are very much exaggerated. Nevertheless, he is meeting with success in having meetings pass resolutions urging the immediate undertaking of this work by the Canadian government, and I believe that the strongest argument he is putting forward is the one that is likely to
St. Lawrence Waterway

serve as the most attractive bait, namely, the promise that the people will save on the transportation of wheat as much as 11 cents a bushel. Some have put it at a little less, but that is the saving that is suggested. Now, many of us are deeply interested in this question, having studied it carefully, because it is one of vital significance to us; and we are inclined to think that this statement as to the possible saving to be made on the transportation of wheat is grossly exaggerated; as a matter of fact the saving would be very small. We feel that perhaps the same thing that occurred in the case of the Welland canal will take place in this connection. Resolutions will be sent to the minister, and probably the government, finding the pressure become too strong, will be induced to undertake this vast project immediately involving an expenditure of several millions of dollars. I am not going to question the right of those in the United States or in eastern Canada, who are interested in having this work proceeded with, to send men to western Canada for the purpose of carrying on a campaign of propaganda; but I do question their right to make statements that do not seem to be borne out by the facts and which are bound to be misleading. I question their right to make such statements and then, on the strength of action taken in good faith on the basis of these statements, to have this great project undertaken. If it were not for the rules of the House, I could repeat a statement made recently during this session showing that the same arguments that were advanced in favour of the Welland canal are now being used in connection with the St. Lawrence scheme; that is to say, that the matter is about to be undertaken for the benefit of those who are interested in grain growing in western Canada. I do not think that those who are interested in eastern Canada and expect to use the electrical power that will be generated there are particularly concerned about those who are growing grain in the West.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does the hon. member imply that it is the people who are interested in the development of electrical power who are spreading the propaganda he speaks of?


John Millar: They are not the people,
to my knowledge; but they are people living near the St. Lawrence river who, I believe, are deeply interested in the matter because they expect to get cheap power. With that wish I have sympathy, and when it comes to a discussion of the project as a whole I shall have to take the attitude-which I believe my colleagues will also take-that if it can

be shown that it will benefit a large section of the country whose needs are greater than the needs of othei parfs of Canada we ought to give serious consideration to their request. But the point I wish 10 make is that those who wish the undertaking to be carried out are the ones that should get behind it. Let it not be saddled on those who are not asking for it. Do not let fa'se propaganda-and it is my opinion that much of the propaganda in this matter is based on false premises- be the means of getting people who are not so much interested, to pass resolutions urging that the work be done; because, afterwards, when it is found to be too expensive and that it does not pay, these people will be blamed. When the people in some parts of the country, particularly the section in which I live, ask for an expenditure of money or for any' particular undertaking which is very much needed, suon for example as the building of branch lines, they are met with the assertion that a vast amount of money is being already spent in their interests. They are told: "A great deal of money is being spent in the interests of you people who live in the West, for the Welland canal is being opened up for your benefit." Now, it seems to me that the same argument will be used if the St. Lawieoce project is carried through; we shall be told that it is being done for our benefit In order to counteract the influence of this pr paganda I have taken what seems to me th. wisest course, and I would suggest that there be referred to the select standing committee on Railways and Canals this particular phase of the matter as to the amount of saving that will be effected in the transportation of grain; because that is the argument that is catching most of the people m the West who are passing resolutions in favour of the undertaking. If this committee will investigate that question carefully and report as to what they believe will be the actual saving, I am inclined to think it will be found to be very much less than 1' cents, which is now promised by the propagandists. The reference of the matter to the committee would in my opinion serve ns a necessary check to the tendency to pas& these resolutions. If the people in any part of Canada, including the western provinces, having the full facts before them, declare that they desire to have this work undertaken, I have no objections. But I very much object to having these resolutions passed by people who are placing themselves on record in the absence of anything like' complete information.

St. Lawrence Waterway
I am anxious not to say anything to provoke a general discussion on the St. Lawrence route at this time, for the reason that the subject is likely to come up again on the resolution fathered by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church). For that reason I shall avoid entering into the merits or demerits of this great project, unless there is further discussion necessitating my doing so in reply. Being a member of the railway committee, it is possible that if I made the same request to that committee they would at once investigate the subject matter of my resolution. But I wish to make sure that an investigation will be conducted, and that is why I have placed the resolution on the order paper. I hope it will pass with little or no discussion.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Mr. Speaker, the
project to which my hon. friend has referred is of great magnitude, and negotiations have been in progress between the two countries affected. Copies of these negotiations up to date I think have been placed on the Table for the use of members. But my hon. friend has already noticed the announcement by the government that it is in process of appointing what might be called a "national committee" to investigate the very thing that he wants referred to the railway committee. This is not a small matter; it is a matter that requires the closest investigation and the most serious consideration by the best men we can find in the Dominion. The United States have appointed a committee to investigate the project from their standpoint, and the Canadian government is proposing to do the same. Now, it would not be becoming to ask a committee of this House to enter upon the performance of duties which are to be referred to Hi is national committee, and the object my hon. friend has in view will, I trust, be better and more fully attained by that body than could possibly be the case were it referred to the ra'ilway committee.
I do not want to enter into any discussion as to the Welland canal or as to this great project, but I do want to tell my hon. friend that this national committee, as I call it, will have placed in its hands the very thing that he wants the railway committee to investigate, and I submit that the national committee will be the most competent body to ascertain what our government and parliament want to know. The railway committee is composed of 130 members, and if a committee were selected to investigate the question it would not be the railway committee, on account of its size, I think it is too unwieldy to undertake the details of such an investigation.
I sincerely hope that my hon. friend, having stated his case, will withdraw his resolution, under the circumstances when the government is preparing to appoint a committee to carry on this very work, a committee which will have wide powers and be representative of all Canada.


John Millar: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. minister-


Hewitt Bostock: The speech of the hon. member will close the debate.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend does not see fit to withdraw his resolution, several members will want to speak on it. If he does not see his way clear to accept my suggestion, under all the circumstances I think it would be wise to move the adjournment of the debate.


John Millar: Perhaps I might ask the minister a question? How long is it before the committee referred to will be likely to report? I may be permitted to point out that the International Joint Commission did not in any way deal with this specific question on which I want information-the cost of transportation of grain. It is a question of vital importance to western Canada.


George Perry Graham: If I might be allowed, Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult to say when such a national committee could report because, as the hon. member has intimated, the question is a very vital one. But no steps will be taken of a practical nature so far as Canada is concerned until the information required is obtained. One of the very questions to be referred to the national committee will be the economic question and what gain will be ours, economically, by the construction of this great project.


John Millar: Might I ask the hon. minister another question? Is it because of the magnitude of the inquiry, or because of a lack of courtesy to the national committee, that the minister objects?


George Perry Graham: We are all out of order, Mr. Speaker, I admit. This is a question of such magnitude that I submit, with all deference to the railway committee, that the board which the government hopes to appoint will be in a better position to get information thereon and view it from all angles than will the railway committee with
Supply-Public Works

its other work. I think it would be unwise to refer to u committee of this House a question for the settlement of which the appointment of a special body has already been announced, and I hope my hon. friend will on further consideration share my view.


John Millar: In view of the explanation and objection of the hon. minister, I would ask leave to withdraw the resolution.
Motion withdrawn.
PACIFIC HALIBUT FISHERY Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution: That it is expedient to amend section six of the Northern Pacific Hailibut Fishery Protection Act. chapter sixty-one of the statutes of 1923, which relates to Canadian and United States nationals and ships liable to seizure for engaging in fishing for halibut in prohibited waters, by limiting the time for an offence thereunder to the close season as defined in the Act, and by repealing section nine, relating to the seizure of foreign ships.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
STANDARD PLATINUM GOODS Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM: On behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Low) I beg to move that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved that it is expedient to amend the Gold and Silver Marking Act, 1913, to provide a standard quality for platinum goods.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: I recognize that the hour is a little
bit late, and that we cannot go into supply except by unanimous consent, but if the House were willing I should like to move that we go into supply this evening for the purpose of taking up one particular item under Public Works.


Arthur Meighen: The House could not go into committee of supply to-night for the simple reason that it is impossible on Thursday or on Friday to take up anything that has not been taken up on other days.


Ernest Lapointe: Except by
unanimous consent.


Arthur Meighen: What is this item which is in such a rush?


James Alexander Robb: I might explain to the House that the deeds for the Canadian building in London have been completed, and we received a cable this evening that the agents were prefMr. Graham.]
pared to make delivery. An appropriation has been provided in the Estimates, and we are prepared to pay, but, of course, the appropriation has to be voted by the House. If my hon. friend objects we Will not press for it to-night.


Arthur Meighen: I would waive my objection to going into committee on this occasion, but I would give the minister warning that I think it will take some time to get the item passed.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend offers any
objections, we will go into supply tomorrow.


Hewitt Bostock: Of course, the rule is very clear, as stated by the leader of the opposition. Rule 17C provides:
On Thursdays and Fridays when the Order of the Day is called for the House to go into Committee of Supply, or of Ways and Means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, provided that, except by the consent of the House, the Estimates of each department shall be first taken up on a day other than Thursday or Friday.
I left the chair a moment ago governed by that rule and believing that the House had given its consent. Otherwise, of course, I would not have left the chair.


George Perry Graham: If unanimous consent be not given, we will go into supply on Public Works to-morrow; but if it were agreeable, we might go into supply to-night and not attempt to pass the item.


Arthur Meighen: I am prepared to give consent to going into supply on the understanding that the government will not continue indefinitely in the vain hope of passing the item.


George Perry Graham: Oh no.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want to be understood as agreeing to going #into supply to-morrow on the estimates of the Public Works department, because it would mean we could not make any motion at any future time with respect to that department.


James Alexander Robb: With that understanding I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Public Works-Ottawa Parliament Building, $600,000; Ottawa, Addition to Dominion Archives Building, $275000; London,^ England, Canadian office, $1,300,000.
James Horace King: Supply-Public Works


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the minister tell us the ground area of this property?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, 25,000 square feet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the
floor area, not the ground area?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know
that I have the ground area here.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Without it the comparisons you are giving are meaningless.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not believe I have the information in front of me. I will give it to the House tomorrow.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my hon. friend would bring down other information as well tomorrow, in that way we may save time. For example I think the House will want to know at the very inception of this matter what it is going to cost. Perhaps my hon. friend can tell us now what the cost is, and, what the annual cost to the country will be in owning these premises. Then, perhaps he will tell us what will be the cost per annum in interest and taxes of owning this place.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the annual interest?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A saving in rents will be niade in London by consolidating the offices in this building.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if the minister will answer the question, and give us the information as to the annual interest in taxes on top of all this.
[Mr. J. H. King.J


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not figured it up. We will have that figured to-morrow and submit it to the hon. member.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the minister give last year's taxes? Then we will get some intelligent information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am simply giving the House an outline of the proposal now. Later on we will discuss the details. I will have the information available tomorrow as to the annual cost. I think perhaps I have it here, if I could only put my hand upon it. We are paying comparatively large rentals in London which we will save by taking over this building. Then we shall have the Canadian offices there centralized. The government deem it essential that Canada should have a proper building in the English capital, it being the seat of the Empire. The matter has been very carefully canvassed and I am satisfied that the price as suggested is one that is in the interest of Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I ask the minister if there is not some proposition that we purchase the building owned by the British Columbia government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Y es, that was under consideration but the government declined to dispose of the building.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The provincial government declined to dispose of the building?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the minister in the information he is to bring down to-morrow advise us what the total amount is now being paid, for rentals for offices in London which will be accommodated in this building. He might at the same time tell us what our position will be at the end of the 100 years' lease, and what rate he proposes to set up for the yearly amortization of our interest during those 100 years, and what the carrying rate will be. The amortization of course goes to the value of the lease as such, it being a lease for a term stated, apart altogether from the question of the depreciation of the building which he has to consider when he is making his calculation. We would also like to know at what rate of interest the amortization is to be considered, both of the lease as well as the depreciation; and also the rate of interest that the minister thinks should be allowed at arriving at the annual cost to the country of the investment

Prohibition in United States
in the property. Then it is suggested that the taxes change. Of course they do change. The hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) suggested that. Perhaps the best thing we could have on the question of taxes would be the production of the tax bills for the last three years, showing the whole amount of taxes payable. I do not suppose the bills arc here, but the information must be here, because I assume this matter has been carefully considered by the High Commissioner; in fact the minister told us so; and undoubtedly when anybody makes a purchase of this magnitude one of the first things he would consider would be the tax commitments. In addition to that, perhaps we could get some information as to the character of this building by finding out what the insurance rate upon it is, and what the insurance charges will be. Of course, over and above that, I assume the information in regard to taxes will not only include the usual municipal rates but would include all services. I think the minister is well aware that they have special services and special rates that apply in England, and in London particularly. I have no doubt the Minister will have it all. We are proceeding under the assumption that there has been a change in the personnel of agents buying property in our consideration of the matter. I do not suppose Mr. Arono-vici had anything to do with it, but perhaps it would be just as well if the minister would tell the House who the agent handling the matter is, the commission, and the names of the present lessors.
Mr.' KING (Kootenay):	I will be glad
to supply any information I can obtain to the committee to-morrow.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
Friday, March 21, 1924