1925-05-13

[Stage Direction]
Mr. VIEN presented the third reiport of the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce.

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved:: That sessional paper No. 152, supplementary report on agricultural credits by H. M. Tory, and laid on the table on March 31 last, be referred to the select standing committee on Banking and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): I lay on the table a return in reference to the Crowsnest pass agreement rates.

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

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Having reference to the old post office site, corner Pender and Granville streets, Vancouver, British Columbia: (a) has the government advertised this property for sale; (ty) when were bids due; (c) how many offers were received and from whom; (d) what was the highest tender, if any?
2.	Before advertising the said property, did the government secure estimate of value by individual appraisal; if so, by whom was the property valued and what was the amount of the said appraisal?
3.	Has the government secured information of the value of property similarly located which has been sold?
4.	Is the government aware that there has been considerable movement of property in Vancouver in this neighbourhood, with the prospect of steadily increasing values in the near future?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I would ask that this question be allowed to stand for the present. The government have advertised the

property referred to, and tenders have been received which are now under consideration.
Question stands.


ACCUMULATIONS OF WHEAT FROM SAMPLES
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What amount of wheat was accumulated from samples at the grain inspection offices at Vancouver, Calgary, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, and Fort William, in each of the 3'ears 1923, 1923 and 1924?
2.	How was this wheat disposed of?
3.	What was the revenue received for same, at each of the above points during these years.
4.	What disposition was made of the revenue from sale of this wheat in each case?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-EMPLOYEES AND SALARIES
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: ![DOT] What was the total number of employees permanent and temporary of the federal government at Ottawa and elsewhere, connected with the Department of Agriculture, in the month of January, 1925?
2.	What was the total amount of salaries and bonus paid or due to the said employees for the month of January, 1925 ?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1. Total number of employees January 1925, 1,569.

Unopposed, Motions lor Papers
2. Total amount of salary and bonus, January 1925, $228,506.13.
This does not include ordinary day labour, which is constantly changing.


WEMBLEY EXHIBITION-PROFICIENCY IN FRENCH OF CANADIAN OFFICIALS
Mr. DECHENE:: 1.	How many Canadians, able to speak the French language fluently, are in the employ of the government at Wembley exhibition, Engfland?
2.	What are their names, positions and respective salaries ?
1.	Eleven.
2.	Name-Position-Salary.
A. W. Tolmie, Canadian Government Exhibition Commissioner, $4,320; J. O. Tur-cotte, Chief of Decorating Division, Exhibition branch, $3,240; J. Sylvain, Labourer, Exhibition branch, Sixty cents per hour; W. "Bayard, Foreman painter, Exhibition branch, Ninety cents per hour; Wm. Tomney, General utility man, Exhibition branch, Sixty-five cents per hour; E. C. Leveille, Constable, R.C.M.P., $120 per month; J. G. Pelletier, Constable, R.C.M.P., $2 per day; J. P. A. Savoie, Constable, R.C.M.P., $2 per day; Eric Brown, Director, National Art Gallery, $4,500; H. S. Spence, Engineer, Mines branch, grade (4) Department of Mines, $3,720; Yvet Lamon-tagne, Assistant Trade Commissioner, Department Trade and Commerce, $1,920.


IMPORTATION OF POTATOES FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	What was the total importation of potatoes from the United States of America into Canada, during the respective months of January, February, March and April, 1925?
2.	What was the rate of customs tariff applied to such importation ?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.
Month	Pounds	ValueJanuary	.. 2,086,665	$ 25,372February	.. 3,126,789	32.890March	33.496April	.. 2,797.096	35,885
2. 35 cents per 100 pounds.


POSTMASTER, ALDOUANE, N.B.
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Has the Post Office department received correspondence asking for the dismissal of the postmaster, at Aldouane, Kent county, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the complaint?
3.	Who laid the information?
4.	If for political partisanship, will an investigation be held ?
5.	Who is the official investigator named by the government ?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE (for the Postmaster General):: No complaint has been received at the department.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS QUEBEC RIOTS-COLONEL MACHIN'S REPORT
Mr. DOUCET:: For a copy of the report of Colonel Machin to the Governor in Council respecting the Quebec riots of 1917.


DOMINION NOTE ISSUES-REDISCOUNTING
Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant) moved:: For a return showing: 1. The amount of Dominion notes advanced under the War Finance Act of 1914 (with amendments), and outstanding at the end of March, June, September and December of each year from 1914 until the present year.
2.	The amounts of securities accepted as a basis for the foregoing issues of Dominion notes, given for the same periods.
3.	The different classes of securities and the various amounts of each accepted for rediscounting, for the same periods.
4.	The different institutions (banks) which took advantage of the rediscounting privileges, and to what extent, for the above mentioned periods.


James Alexander Robb: On Monday, in the
absence of the mover, I asked that this resolution should stand as I wanted to direct his attention primarily to the expense involved in preparing this return. I am not sure whal good service may be served by compiling the information asked for. My hon. friend, whe is chief whip of the party that stands for economy, will observe that the preparation of this return will not promote that purpose. That is one objection. Another possible objection is that we should be giving out separate information to competing banks. I would ask my hon. friend if he would not like the question to further stand in order that we may talk the matter over together and see if we could not agree as to what might be done to meet his wishes.


William Charles Good: I may say that before placing the request on the order paper I corresponded with the Deputy Minister of Finance, and was assured by him that the information was readily available. Therefore I do not think this motion will involve any expense whatever. He suggested, however, that, there might be a question of propriety involved in question No. 4, as to whether or not it would be wise to publish the extent to which each of the banks use the War Finance Act. In viewr of his intimation that the information was all available, I think there is no ground ivhatever for the objection now raised by the Acting Minister of Finance.
Canada Grain Act


James Alexander Robb: After the explanation my hon. friend has vouchsafed, in view also of his statement that he has already discussed the matter with the Deputy Minister of Finance, and finally having in mind the fact that he is seeking this information for the students of a university outside of Canada, it seems to me the hon. gentleman might very well at least drop question No. 4.


William Charles Good: If the minister will take upon himself to answer all the questions but No. 4, I shall have to be content with that amendment.
Motion as amendted agreed to.


CONSTRUCTION OF CHUTES IN NORTHERN ALBERTA
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton) :: I desire to call the attention of the government to a press despatch which says that an appropriation of $50,000 will be made this spring by the Dominion government for the opening of Vermilion chutes in northern Alberta. Will the Prime Minister tell me if this is correct?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Any appropriations to be
made will appear in the estimates. I did not hear the last words of my hon. friend. Does this refer to the Department of National Defence, or to what department?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I suppose it would be
the Department of Public Works, or it might be the Department of National Defence.


RURAL MAIL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. E. BRETHEN (East Peterborough) :: I notice in the Citizen of this
morning an article headed:
Salary revision in postal service to be discussed.
Is it the intention of the government in the forthcoming revision of salaries to consider the advisability of doing away with the contract system in the rural service, and to place the whole service on a uniform basis?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What does the hon. gentleman mean by contract system?


George Arthur Brethen: The rural mail carrier
system.


John Warwick King: I will have to refer the question to the Postmaster General
fMr. Good.l
(Mr. Murphy). He will give my hon. friend an answer at a later stage of the session.
BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENT . On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Does the government intend to bring down legislation this session with regard to a change in the Bankruptcy Act?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, the
government proposes to bring down legislation in that regard. The measure will be introduced in the Senate, I think to-day or to-morrow, in order to expedite business.


CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 113, respecting Grain.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I do not rise to speak on the motion at the present time, but to suggest to the minister that, outside of the members of the government, there is not one hon. member of this House who can possibly have read the provisions of this bill. It has been printed only this morning and hon. members received copies about noon to-day. The bill is almost half an inch thick. It is really a travesty on the House of Commons to suggest that the important stage of the second reading of this bill be taken this afternoon. What the government should have done was to introduce the bill and have it placed on the order paper before or during the debate on the budget. We would then have known something about it. I know it is similar to the old act. I have hastened through a few pages of it, and I read pretty fast; but to ask anybody to give a vote on the second reading to-day is really monstrous.


Mr. LOW:: Does the hon. gentleman know that it is the intention of the government to refer it to the committee on Agriculture?


Arthur Meighen: I know that.


Thomas Andrew Low: And that an opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the measure when it comes back from that committee?


Arthur Meighen: But surely the second reading is not a mere formality; the second reading is the important stage of the bill and the details come afterwards. Does the minister think it is right to ask members of this House to discuss a measure that not one single member can by any physical possibility have read?

Industrial Disvutes Act


John Warwick King: Last night I announced that the Grain Act would be brought on to-day.


Arthur Meighen: But it was not printed.


John Warwick King: The sole motive of the government is to get the bill before the committee on Agriculture and Colonization at as early a date as possible, but if my right hon. friend or any hon. members feel that they would like a longer time to talk it over, we will not proceed with it to-day.-


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest-and I
am not insisting on this-that the minister might make his statement in explanation of the bill and the various amendments-


Thomas Andrew Low: I made a statement the other
day.


Arthur Meighen: But not a complete
statement. There is the bill and it is voluminous.


Thomas Andrew Low: It boils down to very few
changes. There are not very many.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the minister explained it thoroughly. If he explained the purport of the measure, then it is not much of a measure to emanate from such an expensive commission. I would be prepared to go on with the discussion, but I object to having a decision on the second reading -today, so far as my objection may be of any avail. I have no objection to the discussion, and I will take part in such a discussion myself.


Thomas Andrew Low: We will let it go over if the
hon. member desires.


Arthur Meighen: I have only expressed
my views.
Motion withdrawn.


INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT, 1907, AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 25, to amend the- Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Disputes to which act shall apply.
Mr. MURDOCK:: If hon. gentlemen will
turn to the printed bill which is on their files they will find the explanatory notes opposite the proposed amendments. These
proposed amendments are matters that will of course be considered by the legal gentlemen in the House, the purpose of the measure being to endeavour to continue the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and make that act applicable at least to such industries and conditions of controversy in any industry that the federal government would have authority to deal with. These proposed amendments are the result of the decision of the Privy Council on January 20, last which appeared to make inoperative the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act as it had been heretofore handled. I think the explanatory note will give hon. gentlemen a full outline of the intent and purpose of the proposed amendment.


Arthur Meighen: 
Ernest Lapointe: It means that paragraph (i) of section 2A might have ended after the words "parliament of Canada":
Any dispute in relation to employment upon or in connection with any work, undertaking or business which is within the legislative authority of the -parliament of Canada.
The explanatory note means that the clause might have ended there, but that it has been thought advisable to insert in an enumerative manner the various subject paragraphs in order to make it clearer to those who are interested in the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes.


Mr. BAXTER:: While I do not object to some of the enumerations, I think it would be much better if the paragraph had ended just where the minister indicates. To some of the enumerative paragraphs no possible exception can be taken, because the first four of them, at all events, are simply a repetition of the British North America Act, putting certain operations under the control of the federal parliament. Therefore, when you say that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act shall apply to things that are under federal control, you have already said what is placed in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). But
Industrial Disputes Act

when we go a little further and read some of the other paragraphs, I fear, while I do not intend in any way to oppose this legislation, that	we are simply	opening
up new avenues of possible litigation without obtaining any corresponding beneficial results.	I agree with the remarks
of the draughtsman in editing this bill that it is, perhaps, advisable to put, in a succinct form before the people who will possibly have resort to its provisions, an enumeration of the particular matters to which the bill will relate. But when we find that paragraph (e) includes:
Works, undertakings or business belonging to, carried on or operated by aliens, including foreign corporations immigrating into Canada to carry on business.
I very much doubt whether we can resort to the provisions of the British North America Act which puts "naturalization and aliens" under our jurisdiction, in order to provide that whenever a dispute occurs in an industry carried on by an alien, we shall have legislative power. I doubt if we can confer it upon ourselves. I know the Privy Council has, in many instances, reprobated attempts which have been made to legislate, under the name of the criminal law, with regard to things that are not at all criminal, and in every instance the Privy Council has defeated such attempts. No one knows what the highest court of last resort will ever do, but the Privy Council will show no more favour to am attempt to legislate on a different subject under the title of aliens than it does under the title of the criminal law. While a business is being carried on in any province by aliens, they take their status practically by permission of the federal government. They are accorded by the comity of nations, an opportunity to carry on business within our territory, but it has been held and it has been acted upon in many provinces, in fact, I think, in all provinces, that on the other hand the right to acquire land can be conferred only by the legislature of the particular province in which the land is situated. In other words, it is beyond the power of this parliament to confer upon an alien the right to hold land in any particular province. It can confer upon him the right to be a British subject; it cam make a British subject of him for Canadian purposes, and the moment he has the status of a British subject, his right to hold land is indisputable. But while he remains an alien, he must resort to the particular province to get his rights.
I am not going to pursue the discussion into any other region than that of pure law; but let us take, for instance, the business which 
is carried on in the Nova Scotia coal mines, and I do not intend to refer to the particular dispute that exists there at the present time. Supposing an alien owned a mine. That alien could not get title to the mine unless the law of the particular province permitted him to do so. But when he has that mine, as I understand the judgment of the Privy Council, his relations with his employees must be determined simply by the law of that province.
I think I am correct in that position. At all events, while I am not in a position to say that I am absolutely correct, no hon. gentleman whose mind is inclined to the opposite view is in a position to say that he is indisputably correct. I must grant the same liberty of thought to others that I ask for myself. But the moment you have two divergent views, which probably will be expressed in this House, you throw the whole thing into the melting pot of litigation once more. Instead of, by this enumeration, giving security to the man who reads the act that whatever falls within those phrases is within our legislative power, you only invite him to rely upon those phrases and send him eventually to the Privy Council to find out whether we have power to do what we are proposing to do to-day or not. While I do not oppose the legislation-and this is not in any sense a party matter-I think it is my duty to point out the danger which may result from legislation of this character. If it were within the competence of this parliament to restore what is popularly known as the Lemieux Act in full force, I would be * entirely in accord with the government and the Minister of Labour in trying to do that. But we cannot do it, and the fact that we cannot do it is surely a strong argument against an attempt to lead people to believe that we are doing something well which yet may be quite outside of our competence.
One other paragraph to which I should like to call attention is paragraph (iii);
Any dispute which the Governor in Council may by reason of any real or apprehended national emergency declare to be subject to the provisions of this act.
Now, the war brought about a new interpretation of our constitution and it was held that the war emergency evoked certain powers which were slumbering in the constitution or perhaps almost lay outside of it, and to which we had not given attention before. A great many things were done because of the existence of a state of war which undoubtedly could not have been done by this parliament or by the executive of the nation under peace conditions. But I desire to point out that the same declaration by the government, that

Industrial Disvutes Act
there is an apprehended national emergency, may fall far short of constituting the conditions under which alone this portion of the state can interfere. Once again I say I am not opposing these provisions, but I desire respectfully to point out that there is danger that in trying to remove the cause of uncertainty we are only by this enumeration adding to the possible causes of it with regard to this very difficult question.


Mr. CHURCH:: This bill should be referred to a select committee of the House, who in my opinion could give better consideration than could this House to the important legislation involved. The minister has published in blue book form, extending over some 300 pages, the judicial proceedings affecting the constitutional validity of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of 1907 and amendments of 1910, 1918 and 1920. The subject matter of these proceedings was taken all the way from the courts below to the Privy Council and a very sound decision was rendered by the Privy Council. The minister's department had taken up the case of the employees of the Hydro Electric Commission, who had been given several raises in salary in a few years, and who were getting high rates of pay.
This bill now before the chair in my opinion has not been as carefully drafted as it might have been, and the litigation that has taken place recently has Cleared the air and! disclosed the proper relationship between capital and labour in these matters in Canada; and what this parliament should do is to stay in its own field of activity under section 91 and not go beyond that. Under that section a large number of classes of subjects are assigned by the act to the Parliament of Canada, all of a general, nature. But not satisfied with this ample scope within, the limits of the pond, this parliament through the Labour Department, in the original Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of 1907, undertook to widen the boundaries of its authority and to venture forth upon -the lake and the ocean and to brinlg within its jurisdiction local matters not properly within its competence to decide upon. Parliament has encroached upon the provincial field and interfered in matters defined under section 92 which relate to the provinces and the municipalities, including the control of such local departments, as street, fire and police departments and public utilities. If the employees in any of these local works are not satisfied with the wages paid them the minister can grant them a board; and not 'content with that the government has actually
granted a board in the case of a purely private dispute between the Hydro Electric Commission and their employees notwithstanding the fact that the commission are known to pay good wages.
There is no reason why parliament should not act within, its own sphere as prescribed by the act; it can deal with Dominion employees, and dear knows there is great occasion for proper action in this direction. It seems to me that the aiot might very well apply for example, to the post office and customs house staffs and the whole Civil! Service, and it might1 be invoked1 in connection with the grievances that exist in the Maritime provinces in the coal industry, it should also extend to the Customs department and to the work carried on by the Civil Service Commission. This parliament therefore has enough to do looking after its own end of the act without worrying about the provinces and the municipalities with their public utilities.
Section 2 of the act lays down the jurisdiction within which the Dominion may act under the British North America Act; and this comprises disputes relating to employment on works within the authority of this parliament; works, undertakings or business operated or carried on for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime; railways ferries between provinces or between any province and any British or foreign country and various other undertakings of a similar nature. So far so good. And the explanatory note on the page of the bill opposite to this outline of subjects declares that the purpose of the amendment now proposed is to limit the application of the act to all matters not within the legislative jurisdiction of any province. That is all very well so far as it goes. But on page 2 of the bill all this is nullified by paragraph (f) which declares that certain works, although wholly within the province, may be declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada. I contend that if this provision passes it will enable the Dominion to encroach upon the provincial field and that would be ultra vires of this parliament.
I think there should be a distinct line drawn between one field of activity and another as between the Dominion and the provinces and municipalities. Indeed, confederation would not have been possible had it not been for the fact that home rule was granted the provinces and the municipalities under section 92 of the British North America Act. I do not blame the minister personally for what he has done; at the start he did his best to bring
Industrial Disputes Act

the parties together in the unfortunate dispute we have had. It was not the first time the question had been raised, the minister, I do think, might have refrained from granting the board in connection with this particular utility. It had been the practice for some time in cases of these disputes for a board not to be granted,, unless with the consent of the municipality and the public utility concerned. In this particular dispute the board was granted and the minister declared that it was a matter of policy; the board was allowed against the protest of the public utility commission.
I have already suggested the reference of this bill to a special committee. Last session this very question was taken up by a special committee which considered industrial relations and very good work was done. The committee met only four or five times but the minister was present with officials from his department and the Justice department. And with reference to the act of 1907 the 'hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll), I think, referred to the fact that several opinions had been given by the Department of Justice on the act some one way and others of a different character, with regard to the division of activities between the three legislative bodies in Canada. The committee last year went into this matter thoroughly, exploring not only the Dominion field but as weld the entire scope of the provinces and the municipalities; and the evidence given by some of the Minister of Justice's own officials to that committee went to show that such legislation as is now proposed in paragraph (f) on page 2 of the present bill must create trouble. It was lucky there was a privy council to say just where the line should be drawn. In my opinion, if the Privy Council ever performed a good day's work for the people of any overseas dominion it did so for the people of Canada when it gave its decision with reference to this particular act, because the decision went a great deal further than the act and laid down the scope of legislative usefulness not only of this parliament but of all the legislatures and municipalities of Canada. This decision is a very good one and has carefully mapped out the three spheres of activity. Paragraph (f), as I have said, provides that provincial works wholly within the province may be declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, and this was done recently in the case of the lake of the Woods matter. It cannot be defended and it would be unfortunate for this parliament to go beyond its own proper limits and to interfere with the public utilities of

the provinces and municipalities. Why, if this provision were enacted parliament might, although it seems extravagant, even declare some candy store on Sparks street to be for the general advantage of Canada, or it might do the same in regard to Ford's factory in Windsor, on the ground that it had some connection with the automobile industry of the Dominion and touched the question of transportation. I should like to see this question settled for all time. Agriculture is a matter of concurrent jurisdiction for the Dominion and the provinces, but if this bill becomes law we cannot say how far it may affect that industry and provincial jurisdiction, and even the agricultural industry might be declared to be an undertaking for the general advantage of Canada.
I think the minister would be doing a good day's work for capital and labour if he would consent to the appointment of a small committee to study this bill so that we may have a better understanding of what its enactment will entail. For instance, it contains a definition of what is a national emergency. Well, if there was ever an opportunity for the Labour department to do something under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act it is presented to them now in the labour troubles in the coal district of Nova Scotia; there surely is a national emergency requiring the immediate and direct attention of the minister and his department. But in view of the declaration by Lord Haldane of what constitutes a national emergency, we would be treading on pretty dangerous ground if we passed this sub-clause 3 of subsection 1 of section 2 (a) as it is. A dispute between private individuals or between a public utility corporation and its employees is not a national emergency, and yet by this legislation the Dominion parliament seeks to take control of all the works and on the plea that a labour dispute constitutes a national emergency undertakings of the provinces and municipalities. When the act was passed in 1907 there were no public utilities in the sense that we have them to-day; for instance, the province of Ontario has made a total investment of $241,000,000 in its hydro electric undertaking. Had not the decision of the Privy Council been what it is, the legislatures of the provinces would have been reduced to the status of county councils. I should like to see the bill referred to a committee and so amended that it will be placed beyond doubt that this parliament has no control over any provincial or municipal undertaking.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with what has been said by the

Industrial Disvutes Act
hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Church). I am a one hundred per cent Canadian, I have said so before in this House, and to-day I am surprised at the absence of courage on the part of the government, and especially on the part of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), in not coming to this House and saying: The way to cure all these inconsistencies that have been found in our constitution is to have Canada become what everybody says she is, a sister dominion, the equal of the Mother Country and of the other member parts of the British commonwealth. We have the right, or we ought to have, to make our constitution, and to have it interpreted by our own courts, not by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, no matter how eminent its members may be. To-day by reason of this discussion we are admitting inferiority of position. We are not enjoying complete self-government now, we never have been, but we ought to be. This question will be in the courts again. Only the other day I read a discussion that has been proceeding in England in regard to what is to be the status of the colonies or the dominions. It is evident that Mr. Amery, who is the head of the Colonial Office, has made some progress, but to my mind his progress is retrograde, it is in the direction of bringing this Dominion more under the direction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I am afraid that as a result, instead of widening our powers and securing complete autonomy, they will be narrowed and we will find ourselves continued in our old colonial status. I challenge the Minister of Justice to say what the decision of the government is to-day in regard to this constitutional crisis. It should not be our attitude, as my hon. friend from North Toronto says, to rejoice and thank God that there is an arrangement under which disputes which we as Canadians should settle here shall be settled in the Motherland. I spoke on this question at the opening of the session and a large volume of correspondence afterwards came to me unsolicited, from young Canadians all over this country strongly supporting the view that I took in regard to the matter. They think we ought to have what our neighbors to the south achieved a hundred and fifty years ago. namely, the right to make their own constitution; and when they got that right they made their country a great country. If we have the courage to go ahead we shall be in the eye of the world perhaps as much as the Americans are; and I do not suggest by that that in any way we should break with the Mother Country. What I do say is that we
should rid ourselves of this incubus-because that is what it is-of the settlement of our disputes and the determining of these questions in the Old Land. I know pretty well what the view of this House is; I have talked a good deal to hon. members with regard to it. I have been ridiculed and criticized for the views I hold, but I am willing to stand for that. The Minister of Justice in this measure is merely sidestepping the issue. The real issue to-day is whether we are to make and interpret our own constitution or whether it shall be done for us; whether or not we shall remain in the position of an inferior, a junior-an infant in the eye of the law. And we can get this right if w'e ask for it. Will the Minister of Justice say we would be denied the right of jurisdiction if we applied for it?
Mr. LAPOiNTE: I agree with my hon. friend.


William Findlay Maclean: Then why does he not have the courage to state it as representing the party dominating this House today? That is where I want to see some courage. He says he agrees with me; why does he not live up to the agreement?


Ernest Lapointe: That is another question.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, but it must be answered, and I am asking for an answer to-day. I have the courage to say what my view is and I know there are many in the House who agree with me. There are a great many in the minister's own province-eminent lawyers-who hold the same view. I hope he will not send this bill to a committee; I would like to see the discussion turn upon the broad constitutional issue, especially in view of the fact that the Parliament of Great Britain is ready any day to give us the power to deal with out own constitution and to make our own division of powers as between the federal and provincial authorities. When that is done we will make some headway.


Mr. MARTELL:: If the British parliament did give us that right, could this parliament arrogate to itself certain powers without the consent of the provinces?


William Findlay Maclean: No, quite the
contrary. There will be a constitutional conference to settle the question. There have been a great many struggles for constitutional rights in the past; I am reading about them every day. And there is a deplor-4 p.m. able condition in Europe to-day because of the absence of constitutional government there. Answering the
Industrial Disvutes Act

hon. member (Mr. iMartell), I know we cannot settle the question in this parliament ; 'but the onus is on the government to call a conference of representatives of the Dominion and the provinces for that purpose. The Minister of Justice says he is going to bring the question up in connection with another matter affecting the Senate. Now is the time to settle these questions, and the government must have the courage to take the leadership or give way to others who will take it.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Who in Canada to-day is in favour of this change in our constitution?


William Findlay Maclean: I am, for one.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I am glad to know it.


William Findlay Maclean: I regret that my hon. friend has not that courage, although the people of his own province are waiting on the government to-day, almost in forma pauperis, asking to be helped out of their troubles.


Mr. LOGAN:: Order.


William Findlay Maclean: Well, a freind of my hon. friend's went up to Toronto the other day and told a very doleful story of the condition of affairs in this country. The hon. member for Cumberland has been away to the West Indies to tell the troubles of this country there and how he seeks to get relief from them.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Will my hon. friend-


William Findlay Maclean: Oh, sit down a moment, please.


Lewis Herbert Martell: We want the truth.


William Findlay Maclean: Go where the
truth is. Now, I apologize for taking up so much time-*


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) does not agree with me?


Mr. HOCKEN:: I did not say a word.


William Findlay Maclean: My hon. friend does agree with me very often. I read his paper carefully and I see that he is progressive in his views in the way of constitutional reform. But the responsibility of dealing with this matter is on the government; they cannot sidestep it by a measure like this. Constitutional government must be progressive in its character, its scope widens with the years; and we ought to see to it that we have the right to deal with these matters ourselves in our own way.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend says the people of Nova Scotia came here in forma pauperis. That is a vastly different question from the one he is dealing with now and from the point he is advocating. Nova Scotia never willingly went into the confederation. We were sold into the confederation, as our people commonly say, for the price of a sheepskin. We were a prosperous people up to that time. I am not objecting to the constitution to-day as it affects the various provinces, but if we come here advocating what we believe to be our rights, we are asking only for what is justly ours, because we never had an opportunity at the polls to pronounce whether or not we were in favour of confederation. When confederation was brought about and the first appeal was made to the people of Nova Scotia, only one confederate was returned.


William Findlay Maclean: I sympathize very much with my hon. friend, and if he has any move to make in this particular I will join him.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I am a constitutionalist and believe that our remedy lies in trade treaties and railway considerations.


William Findlay Maclean: Well, I am sorry for that sort of constitutionalist.


Hance James Logan: The hon. member has been talking about half an hour; may I ask if he is for or against this bill?


William Findlay Maclean: I am against the bill unless the government take the leadership in the direction of a real cure for the situation.


Hance James Logan: Even if the government takes such leadership, the change could not be brought about in less than two or three years, and in the meantime what harm will it do to pass this bill? We have to have some machinery for dealing with industrial disputes. I have listened to the utterances of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) for a quarter of a century or more, and I am charmed to find that after all those years he still retains that buoyant expectancy, that everlasting optimism, under the influence of which difficulties, in his mind, seem to fade away. I only wish all of us had that happy disposition; and that we may all be as youthful in spirit as my hon. friend when we reach his age. But my hon. friend, in speaking upon these matters dismisses, with a wave of the hand, some rather serious difficulties. He is even a little inconsistent sometimes. For instance, at one moment he states that the
Industrial Disputes Act
Right Hon. Mr. Amery is trying at the present time to encroach upon the freedom of this country with respect to imperial matters; and the next moment he says that all we have to do is to go to England and the Imperial parliament will give us the power-I suppose immediately, and without any consideration at all-to amend our constitution and do it in accordance with the views entertained in this House, notwithstanding the fact that, after all, the British North America Act is a pact between the federal authorities and the provinces and that we could not amend the constitution of this Dominion along the lines he suggests unless we secured the consent, I will undertake to say, of every province in Canada. I doubt very much if we went to the Imperial parliament and asked for legislation giving Canada the right to amend its constitution the Imperial parliament would consider it for one moment if even the little province of Prince Edward Island raised an objection to the proposal. Because, as I have already said, confederation was the result of a pact between the federal authorities and the local legislatures and that pact could not be disturbed without the consent of all the interested parties. But my hon. friend goes further. With one stroke of the pen, or with a mere wave of the hand, he is going to abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council.


William Findlay Maclean: Oh no.


Hance James Logan: These are matters, I think, that ought to occupy our most serious consideration.


William Findlay Maclean: And now is the
time.


Hance James Logan: I submit it is not the proper time, when we are engaged in the consideration of a bill introduced to meet a difficulty which has been brought upon us by a judicial decision. Now, the facts are these: Under that decision the Industrial Disputes Act, otherwise known as the Lemieux Act has been found to be ultra vires of this parliament. At any moment there is a possibility that labour troubles may arise in this country and we have not the power, we are absolutely impotent, unless we pass this legislation, to deal with them. For instance down in Cape Breton a great labour struggle is taking place, twelve or fourteen thousand men are out of employment, women and children are suffering, and this parliament is impotent to help them or to bring about any meeting between the company and the miners in order to effect a settlement of the trouble.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Will this bill give that
power?


Hance James Logan: Yes, I think tihat power is conferred under paragraph (f) of section 1, although I admit a question, of law might be raised as to whether the intention is correctly expressed.
iMr. BAXTER: If the bill really gave such power I would be enthusiastic in its support, but what I fear is that no such power is conferred; the situation would be local and not national.


Hance James Logan: The paragraph in question
reads:
Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, have been or may be declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada, or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
If we lhad such a. law on the statute books to-day we could put through parliament a short act declaring the *vorks of the British Empire Steel Corporation to be works for the general advantage of Canada. When that act had been passed we would then be able to appoint a conciliation board, for instance, to deal with the unfortunate situation which exists in Cape Breton. I submit to my hon. friend from York (Mr. Maclean)-and we all recognize his enthusiasm in the cause of readjusting our constitutional difficulties, and his Canadianism; he is almost one hundred per cent plus Canadian-that we are confronted now with a condition of impotency.


William Findlay Maclean: Very well, let us remove the impotency.


Hance James Logan: If we can meet the situation by passing the present bill let us do so. Let us endeavour to do something to meet the situation which we find ourselves in at the present time.
Mr. HANSON; Just before the hou. member takes hie seat I should like to ask him this question: Is it not perfectly open to the legislature of the province of Nova Scotia to pass appropriate legislation to meet the conditions such as he has described?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: They have done so have they not? Have they not introduced the principle of compulsory arbitration down there?


Mr. HANSON:: I am not sure; I am asking for information.


Hance James Logan: I fear the province has made a mistake in undertaking to force compulsory arbitration. You cannot in this age force men to do anything; you can conciliate them, you can balk and reason with them. Yes, legisla-

Industrial Disputes Act

tion has been passed in the province of Nova Scotia, but strictly speaking it will not meet a situation such as exists here which has become, in a sense, national in its character. This parliament could deal with such a situation in a broader and bigger way than the legislature of t'he province can in which the disturbance is occurring.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am inclined to agree with the last remark made by the hon. gentleman, but I would like to ask the minister a question with regard to sub-clause 3 of section 2 (a) of this bill. Just what disputes dops the department contemplate should be covered by a power of that character? The language is very wide, and very comprehensive, and it seems to me that the power conferred there might be used in an improper way. I should therefore like to hear the Prime Minister or the minister-and the question is not put from any controversial motive, but with a dtesire to know what the minister or the government has in mind-state a case in which such power might be used with propriety by the government.


James Murdock: 
Arthur Meighen: We have not heard
yet from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and we expected to hear from him.


Ernest Lapointe: I was about to rise three of four times but did not get the opportunity. I received a sort of challenge from my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean). It is hard for me to be attacked by an old friend of mine, especially when he seems to have a doubt in regard to my national sentiments. My hon. friend is absolutely wrong, because this is not a question as between Canada and the Mother Country; in any respect whatever. There is no battle of any kind between ourselves and the Imperial parliament. The question, Mr. Chairman, is: What is the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament and the jurisdiction of the various provinces? And if the decision which has been given in that case of Snider versus the Toronto Electric Commissioners, instead of being delieverd by the Privy Council, had been delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada we would have been placed in exactly the same situation. I do not think it is opportune, advisable or necessary to discuss the question of the propriety of having Canadian legislation submitted to the Privy Council in connection with a matter purely and simply of defining what are the powers of the provincial legislature and the powers of the federal parliament with regard to this legislation. I agree with my hon. friend1-I have said it and I repeat it-that if we were asking the right to amend our constitution it would not be denied, but it is a question for ourselves to decide, not only in this parliament

Industrial Disvutes Act
but in Canada; it is a question of asking for the revision of the pact which has been entered into by the several provinces of the Dominion. If my hon. friend wants to amend the constitution so as to have at all times the power to change or alter our own charter, I repeat what I said some time ago, that that charter is just as much the charter of the province as it is our charter, and before it is altered the provinces have a right to be consulted and to give their own opinions about it.


William Findlay Maclean: Why not consult them?


Ernest Lapointe: We are going to consult them. It has been announced that a conference would be held between the provinces and the Dominion for the purpose of considering the steps which it might be advisable to take to amend the constitution in some matters. My hon. friend agrees with that, but he says, " Wait, do not do anything for the purpose of re-enacting the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act before you hold your conference ". My hon. friend is wrong about that, as my hon friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) told him. Even if there is nothing coming from such a conference; or even if there is an amendment to the constitution of Canada, which might take some time to make, it is necessary-at least it is opportune and it is wise-to have on the statute books of Canada an act for the investigation and possible settlement of industrial disputes. Since that decision of the Privy Council the government has been petitioned from various quarters to do something in regard to this matter, to enact legislation to revive that old act. This request comes not only from the various labour organizations; but also from the employers. This act is recognized to-day as being a fine and fair way of trying to get at the settlement of our labour difficulties. Part of the decision of the Privy Council was to the effect that this parliament had no right to enact legislation for the investigation and settlement of the dispute between an employer carrying on his undertaking under the laws of the province, and within the limits of that province, and the employees. If the Toronto electric commissioners are an association under the laws of Ontario, operating in the province of Ontario under a sort of municipal organization, there is no doubt that they are and were a merely provincial body. The Privy Council has decided that, and we have no power to interfere in the labour difficulties between the employers and the employees under such cir-202i
cumstances. The purpose of this act is to have legislation for the investigation and settlement of disputes which are under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) said that the Privy Council had done a good day's work in giving that judgment. I do not want to give expression to my own views in regard to that, but one thing is certain, that this judgment has at least the advantage of defining to a large extent the respective jurisdictions of the Dominion and the provinces. The bill now before us is based on the decision of the Privy Council, not only on the expression of views of the Privy Council but also on the expression of views of the counsel engaged in that argument, and on previous decisions of that body-on constitutional matters arising between the Dominion and the provinces. As to all the matters that are included or enumerated in section 91 of the British No:*h America Act, there cannot be much difficulty My hon. friend from St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter) said that it would be better io contine ourselves to the first words of paragraph 1 of section 2A, ending with the words " parliament of Canada ", This act is to define the relation between employers and employees and is like the bill of rights of the organization in Canada.
It is in the hands of the labour men throughout the country, and it has been pointed out to us by those who represent labour that in their interest it is necessary that an enumeration of at least the main subjects .to which the act will apply should be given. That is the only reason for the enumeration. The hon. member for St. John and Albert expresses a doubt as to our right to enact paragraph (e) of section 2A. My hon. friend is a leading member of the Canadian bar and his views deserve more than ordinary consideration. But he has expressed a doubt and, as he said himself, he admits that the other side might be debated. This paragraph has been considered to be within our jurisdiction because of those words in section 91 of the British North America Act naturalization and aliens," which are placed under the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament, and those further words: "regulation of trade and commerce." It is contended that the power to make laws for the regulation of trade and commerce and for naturalization and aliens gives the right to regulate the-conditions under which aliens may carry on trade in this country. That is the view of the officers of the Department of Justice.
Industrial Disputes Act

This bill has been more than carefully studied and considered before being drafted and it has been submitted to strong authorities on this matter.


William Findlay Maclean: Outside of Canada?


Ernest Lapointe: No. As regards the other objection, or possible objection, of my hon. friend in reference to paragraph (iii) of section 2A which reads:
Any dispute which the Governor in Council may by reason of any real or apprehended national emergency declare to be subject to the provisions of this act.
This is absolutely in accord with the views as expressed by the Privy Council and especially in the argument by counsel representing the appellants in that case. It is also in conformity with the views of the Privy Council in the Fort Frances pulp case. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) says that this should apply only to war. Of course the emergency must be a very serious one. The subject of famine and pestilence, for instance, has been mentioned-serious emergencies, emergencies in which provincial matters must be dominated by the national interest of the whole country. I might call to the attention of the committee the remarks which were made in that case during the argument, and I am not sure that it is not referred to in the judgment concerning the case of Russell and the Attorney General of Canada, when the Canada Temperance Act was declared valid and intra vires by the Privy Council. According to the Privy Council of that day, the only justification for the Canada Temperance Act being considered intra vires was that there was an emergency at the time; that the use of liquor was so widespread in Canada as to justify the government in considering the matter as an emergency. The other day I saw that one eminent judge in this country, I think it was the Chief Justice, referred to those remarks, saying that they certainly were mistaken in the Old Country when they thought that we ever had such an emergency in Canada in regard to the liquor question. This shows, though, that when an emergency arises, there is no doubt as to the power of this parliament to enact legislation with regard to a matter which might be connected with it. The hon. member for North Toronto objects to paragraph (f):
Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, have been or may be declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada, or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
[Mr. Lapointe.l
This is almost word for word the language of paragraph (c) of subsection 10 of section 92 of the British North America Act which excepts from provincial jurisdiction-
Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
I repeat that this bill has been very carefully considered, and in the opinion of the Department of Justice, we are not encroaching upon the jurisdiction of either the provinces or municipalities in any of the sections proposed. And it is necessary that we should have such legislation on the statute books.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it liable to be declared ultra vires?


Ernest Lapointe: I hope not.


William Findlay Maclean: It is subject to
that.


Ernest Lapointe: Every piece of legislation passed by this House that was afterwards declared ultra vires, was thought at the time it was passed to be valid. No legislation has been more carefully considered and drafted than this one, and when we are challenged, we are prepared to meet the foe.
Mr. MEIGHE'N:	I do not make any
suggestion that the legislation is not wise, that is, that it is not a necessary step to introduce declaratory legislation of this kind in view of the decision. But I am strongly of opinion that the proceedings which resulted in the decision were unnecessary and ill-advised. The Lemieux Act, so-called, passed in 1907, remained in operation through some seventeen years. Throughout the whole period of the life of that act I do not think there was a single month when the validity of its provisions was not at least in doubt on the part of the Justice department, and certainly on the part of eminent lawyers in this country. The question whether it was within the power of parliament to legislate as to the settlement of disputes in all the fields provided for therein, certainly as provided for in section 2 of the original act, was really never seriously supported by the law officers of the crown. I well recall on more than one occasion when we in our time encountered difficulties an'd sought the advice of the Justice department, we were cautioned to let well enough alone, to keep away from the courts, and to take such a course as would enable the law to operate where it was not challenged or where, if challenged, there was no doubt as to jurisdiction, as for example in relation to our rail-

Industrial Disvutes Act
ways. But, we were tol'd, do not get into the courts on any doubtful question under this act; if you do you are very liable to come to disaster. We therefore avoided these questions.
Now the case that came up was this:	the
act was sought to be put into force with respect to a wage dispute in connection with the Toronto Electric Commission. One would have thought that if there was any single case where the application of the act was on a very, very weak legal footing it would be there; and the wise course for the government to have taken, the course which I understand was suggested by the law officers of the crown, was to have said to the Toronto Electric Commission, "Very well, if you don't want us to assist, take care of the matter yourselves; we will step aside. We are here to be of service if possible, but we are not going to fight any protracted lawsuit and chase you to the Privy Council to try to establish a jurisdiction over such a body." This would have been the sensible course; this course the government did not take. The government plunged into litigation with the result that the very foundations of the act have come out shattered and its usefulness for all time is impaired.
The Justice department has undertaken to state as clearly as may be the outside limits where we may exercise jurisdiction in the future. I should have thought that as a mere matter of drafting, having read section 2 of the old statute and 2(a) of this statute, it would be wise to have words in 2(a) making it plain that 2(a) dominated over the old section. The definition of "employer" in the former section is so wide as to be in conflict with the provisions of 2(a). It is very probable that 2(a) is the dominating section anyway, but in my opinion it would have made matters clear to have indicated that fact beyond any question.


Ernest Lapointe: Has the hon. gentleman
read section 2 of the present bill? It refers to that.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I have read section 2 and I shall make a few comments on that. If such words as-
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of the preceding Bection.
-were inserted at the beginning of 2(a) it would establish beyond all question the dominating character of that new section. I am not going to put my opinion against the opinion of the minister's officers, but I am surprised that it should be the opinion of the officers of the department that this country, in view of the decisions that have been rendered, would have jurisdiction in respect of disputes arising where the party to the dispute, as employer, is an individual alien or an alien corporation. The argument of the hon. member (Mr. Baxter) appeals to me very strongly. It is true that under the British North America Act we have jurisdiction in respect of aliens and naturalization. But surely it is plain, or so it seems to me, that that jurisdiction is as respects the person of the alien and not the alien's property. We have jurisdiction as respects the alien in persona, and the very fact that the word "alien" is followed by the word "naturalization" seems to me to make it clear that our jurisdiction as to the alien is of the nature of our jurisdiction as to naturalization; and to assume that we can go in and act with respect to the alien's property and the alien's civil relations with his employer any differently from the way in which we can act towards a citizen of Canada and his employer is very perilous indeed. I feel so confident of this that I will venture to suggest that if a dispute arises where the employer is an alien corporation the government would be well advised to withdraw from .the action early and not come to the calamitous end they have come to in relation to the last litigation. However, if the Department of Justice has given its opinion I cannot criticize the minister for accepting it.
Now I want to say a word as to section 2:
The provisions of this act shall be construed as relating only to the application of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, and not so to extend the meaning of the word "employer" as defined by section 2, paragraph (c), of the said act.
"The provisions of the act," the first five words, very plainly refer to the present act, the amending act; and how they could ever be construed otherwise than as relating only to the application of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act passes my comprehension. I do not know what could have been in the mind of the draftsman in putting in this clause-I am arguing only as to the first sentence of the clause. It could not possibly apply otherwise than is stated. I have tried to stretch my fancy to imagine what the draftsman could have had in mind, but I cannot. The second part also seems unnecessary, though not so plainly unnecessary. How in the world could it extend the meaning of the word employer by subsection (c) of the old statute? On the contrary, the purpose of this act is to limit the application and therefore limit the meaning of the word employer. There may have been a purpose, but I do
Industrial Disputes Act

not see what the draftsman intended. The act seems generally to have been prepared by a draftsman, but I cannot imagine what purpose section 2 has. Therefore, so far as the provisions of the statute are concerned, irrespective of the unfortunate proceedings which led up to its now being introduced, I would say that the government would be well advised to leave out the clause which assumes to give us jurisdiction with respect to aliens, and to consider whether there is any real purpose, and not possibly just a cause of litigation, in section 2.


James Murdock: My right hon. friend
discusses the legal phases of the question and of course I would not assume to deal with those matters. But he commenced his statement by referring to the causes which led up to the situation in which we find ourselves at the present time. Possibly he proved the truth of the old adage that hindsight is a great deal better than foresight; but he did not exactly state the facts in regard to the manner in which this dispute happened to go to the extent that it did. He did not tell the House that on one or two previous occasions there had been a board appointed in a dispute exactly similar to that of the Toronto Electric Commission; and I think the records will show that on one occasion at least such a board was strongly contended for by the distinguished gentleman from North Toronto (Mr. Church), who has taken such exception to the proceedings with regard to this board. It is true that the Labour department could in 1923 have evaded its responsibility and sought, as had been done admittedly in numerous similar cases for jyears, to sidestep, dodge and keep out of trouble. That could have been done; but I am quite sure that my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) and other gentlemen associated with him on that side, would have been the loudest in their clamour to show that the department was shirking its responsibility and not functioning as by law intended.
Having regard to the circumstances that confronted us in the summer of 1923, with a dispute in effect in Nova Scotia, starting in an industry over which the.act had no jurisdiction, and had never so contended, this dispute spreading to the extent that all the permanent troops of Canada were brought into play, and the further fact that another dispute having arisen in Toronto in connection with the operation of the Toronto Electric Commission's works in which dispute there was also some question as to the federal Labour department's authority, the department decided that the

proper course to take was to insist on the formation of a board even although our authority so to do might by some be questioned. But I would correct my right hon. friend by saying that I do not recall that the Justice department told us not to do this, that or the other thing, I do not recall that their opinion was even asked; it was a question of the Department of Labour, under the apparent intention of the act, determining whether, in the face of the refusal of the employer, the Toronto Electric Commission, to appoint a representative on the board, the minister should assume and accept the authority to proceed to make the appointment. That was done. The results since that time speak for themselves. When the board was taken to court by an injunction the department undertook to find out what authority we had, and while I think both sides of the House regret the final outcome, surely it was better for us to ascertain what authority we had, and I do not think it will answer any good purpose now to say that we should not have done this, that or the other thing in 192? in connection with this dispute. I stanc before this House and frankly say that if I had to do it over again I would do exactly the same, as Minister of Labour, to find out just what authority we have, because I believe that employers and employees and the country are entitled to know exactly their legal position under this or any other similar regulation.
As to the legal matters that are before us in this bill, I do not presume to deal with them except from a layman's standpoint, although I am assured by eminent legal gentlemen not only in the Justice department but elsewhere that the federal government has the authority which these amendments propose to give it to carry on under the act in the case of certain disputes that may arise in the future.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has kept within bounds, rather unusual for him so far, and I will endeavour to miake what I said clearer because he misapprehended me. I did not criticize the department for appointing a board. I said1 the department was quite justified in offering its services, but in ground where the title was in doubt the department was not wise to have gone to litigation and imperilled those features of the act which had been ini operation for years, and which probably, but for the precipitate action taken, would have been- in operation for years to come. -When the government's-


James Murdock: Would you- indicate where you think we should) 'have started to back up?

Industrial Disputes Act


Arthur Meighen: I am just doing that.
When the government's title was 'Challenged, surely it was the duty of his department to have taken the advice of the Justice officiate and ascertain whether they would be safe in traversing the ground of litigation and thereby imperilling a very important section of the statute. The minister says it was not a case for the Justice department. If ever there was a icase that wias it. If the Labour department did not take such advice-I can. hardly understand why they did not; I fancy they must have asked it. If they did they would have been advised that the government's position at least was doubtful. The part of wisdom then would have 'been to continue to operate the act within those limits which had not been challenged, and not take a case like that of the Toronto Electric Commission, which was the most dangerous of all, and go right to the Privy Council with it and thereby wreck the statute. That is all the contention which I made, and it seems to ime it is a very moderately stated one. The minister says:
* Well, if we hadi not appointed a board we would have been charged with evasion. I do not complain of the appointment. Perhaps he means he would have been charged with evasion if he failed to proceed in the courts when challenged by the Toronto Electric Commission. Well, I would be very sorry if the attacks, whatever they have been on this side of the House, against the minister's department have been such as to drive him into a blunder in this case. I hope that he will not be guided in the future by any fear of this kind, and I assure him that if the criticism that has come to him in other cases, and to the 'government in general, of evasion, has been the cause of driving him into precipitate error, why, it would be for us to assume' the ways of sunshine and gentleness after this in am effort to try and save the country.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: the provisions of that act. If that is the case, why has the government not now the power to act in the 'Case of Nova Scotia? The minister says that paragraph (f) is almost word for word in the terms of the British North America Act, and I think we all recognize in it the wording of the act. It would seem, therefore, if this act is of any value at all, that the government already has the power to act, and that the only thing necessary to enable federal action in the Nova Scotia situation would be a declaration on the part of this parliament that the mines of Nova Scotia are for the general advantage of Canada. Even that is not necessary: the emergency clause may be invoked. When there is danger of riot; when we are told it is only a matter of time until the militia will have to be called out; when the newspapers say we are only waiting until something breaks, until something serious happens-surely we are faced with what would be an emergency under the terms of this act. Since we are told that this measure goes no further than the British North America Act, it seems to me there is no reason why the government cannot act in the present emergency.


Arthur Meighen: With regard to the construction of the bill, would not subsection 2 of the new section 2A be far better a separate section of the bill?


Hance James Logan: Make it "2B."


Arthur Meighen: Yes, that would be much better drafting.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Marcil, Bona-venture):: Is it the pleasure of the committee that this change be made?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, I think so.


James Murdock: During the last two
sessions of parliament this House passed, with little discussion, an>
amendment to three sections of The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and I- would like to 5 p.m. move an amendlment which will rewrite subparagraph (b) of paragraph 2 of section 15 of the act, except that it is provided that if employees have taken all possible steps to secure a conference but have been unable to enter into negotiations, the conditions necessary to the granting of a board would be considered as complied with. Under the section as it is now there must be a conference between the parties, which it is sometimes impossible to secure. The amendment which I would move is as follows:
That subparagraph (b) of paragraph two of section fifteen of The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, as enacted by section two of chapter twenty-
nine of the statutes of 1910, is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor:-
(b) A statutory declaration setting forth that, failing an adjustment of the dispute or a reference thereof by the minister to a board, to the best of the knowledge and belief of the declarant a lockout or strike will be declared, and (except where the application is made by an employer in consequence of an intended change in wages or hours proposed by the said employer) that the necessary authority to declare such lockout or strike has been obtained; or, where a dispute directly affects employees in more than one province and such employees are members of a trade union having a general committee authorized to cany on negotiations in disputes 'between employers and employees and so recognized by the employer, a statutory declaration by the chairman or president and by the secretary of such committee setting forth that, failing an adjustment of the dispute or a reference thereof by the minister to a board, to the best of the knowledge and belief of the declarants a strike will be declared, that the dispute has been the subject of negotiations between the committet of the employees and the employer, or that it has been impossible to secure conference or to enter intc negotiations, that all efforts to obtain a satisfactory settlement have failed, and that there is no reasonable hope of securing a settlement by further effort or negotiations.


Charles Marcil: Before that amendment is proceeded with, the hon. member for North Toronto presents an amendment to section 1. Mr. Church moves:
That the following words be added to clause (f) on page 2:-
Provided that no provincial or municipal public utility work or undertaking wholly situate within the province may be declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada without the consent and sanction of such provincial or municipal authority.


Thomas Langton Church: I think this amendment
will provide for any emergency that may arise in the future in connection with industrial disputes affecting any of these three fields of activity, Dominion, provincial and municipal. If you read over the book setting forth the proceedings of this case from the courts below to the Privy Council you will see that an amendment like this is necessary to clause (f) of the bill. The provinces and municipalities have millions of dollars invested in various public utilities, and for this parliament arbitrarily to declare them to be works for the general advantage of Canada would be a hardship and also it never was within the intent of the British North America Act or the decisions of the Privy Council based thereon. If the bill is passed as drafted it will lead the government into all kinds of trouble. It will practically reduce the legislatures of the province to county councils and seriously interfere with the sovereign power they enjoy under section 92 of the British North America Act.

Industrial Disvutes Act


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry I cannot
agree with my hon. friend, and my advice to my colleague the Minister of Labour is not to accept the amendment he proposes. I think it is safer, more reasonable and more legal to confine ourselves to the wording of the British North America Act and not to add the reservation which my hon. friend proposes.
Amendment (Mr. Church) negatived.


James Murdock: The amendment I have moved simply contemplates that an application from a committee representing employees can be accepted if the committee say that all possible efforts have been made to enter into negotiation and that it has been impossible to do that or even to secure a conference. The department has found itself at times unable to accept an application because the employees could not declare in their application that they had been in conference, their representations had been ignored. This simply proposes to give reasonable latitude with appropriate powers. It is exactly what was passed as an amendment to this same section last year and the previous year.


Mr. LADNER:: Is there any provision for the submission of evidence to show that negotiations have been attempted? We have not the amendment before us and it is therefore very difficult to ascertain exactly what is contemplated.


James Murdock: The Chairman read the section a moment ago. It requires that there should be a statutory declaration setting forth that, failing an adjustment of the dispute or reference thereof by the minister to a board, to the best of the knowledge and belief of the declarant a lockout or strike will be declared: that the dispute has been the subject of negotiation between a committee of the employees and the employer, or that it has been impossible to secure conference or to enter into negotiation; that all efforts to obtain a satisfactory settlement have failed; and so on.
,Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.


Ernest Lapointe: ' That section 57 of the said act, as amended by section five of chaipter 29 of the statutes of 1910, and as further amended by section 5 of chapter 29 of the statutes of 1920, is repealel, and the following
is substituted therefor:-
57, Employers and employees shall give at least thirty days' notice of an intended or desired change affecting conditions of employment with respect to wages or hours; and in the event of such intended or
desired change resulting in a dispute, it shall be unlawful for the employer to make effective a proposed change in wages or hours or for the employees to go on strike, until the dispute has been finally dealt with by a board, and a copy of its report has been delivered through the registrar to both the parties affected; the application for the appointment of a board shall be made by the employers or employees proposing the change in wages or in hours; neither of those parties shall alter the conditions of employment with respect to wages or hours, or on account of the dispute do or be concerned in doing directly or indirectly, anything in the nature of a lockout or strike, or a suspension or discontinuance of employment or work, but the relationship of employer and employee shall continue uninterrupted by the dispute, or anything arising out of the dispute; but if, in the opinion of the board, either party uses this or any other provision of this act for the purpose of unjustly maintaining a given condition of affairs through delay, and the board so reports to the minister, such party shall be guilty of an offence, and liable to the same penalties as are imposed for a violation of the next preceding section.


Thomas Langton Church: May I ask the minister if
it is fair to submit amendments of this character without having them printed? I am very doubtful, in view of the decision of the judicial committee of the Privy Council as rendered by Lord Haldane, whether the powers conferred by the amendments are within the competence of this parliament. It is hardly fair in the case of such an important statute as the Industrial Disputes Act, which has been so prolific of litigation, that amendments should be handed in without being printed or without any hon. member on this side of the House having a chance to see them. It is proposed to amend section 57 of the act which was amended in 1910, and further amended in 1920. The amendments proposed and also section (f) are of an important character and what will 'be their effect? They will only get you where you were before. The changes contemplated will have the effect of enabling the federal authority to invade the sphere of provincial activities, and will only result in the government getting into trouble again. What reason is there for rushing this legislation through the House? It is proposed, under this legislation, to grant powers as to which even the officers of the Department of Justice themselves are in doubt. It is not fair to put through amendments in such a manner, nor is it fair to do so without consulting the attorneys-general of the respective provinces. Certainly in the case of the province of Ontario there should be such a consultation. The Attorney General of that province was a party to this litigation and no doubt is desirous that the provincial legislature should act in unison with this parliament to define the sphere of activity in which for example, a public utility like the Hydro-Electric or
Industrial Disputes Act

other utility may engage. The Minister of Labour in proposing amendments such as these is entering upon a very large sphere, and, I am afraid, will again be found to be exceeding his powers. Where there is an emergency which is within the four comers of the words used by Lord Haldane in that particular case, such as pestilence, famine or plague, parliament would have power in regard to these works in Canada to afford a remedy. If we adopt this particular amendment and the other amendment which I suggested, which I think is a fair one, I believe it would be a great benefit. But the minister will not accept it. I hope that he will consult the Attorney General of the department of the province which is the authority in the province.
I do not doubt that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour are anxious to keep within their own fields of activity. I think a lot of good will come out of this discussion, both as regard the Dominion field and the municipal field. I do not see the object of rushing this measure through to-day. The amendment might be printed and the matter considered another day.


James Murdock: I do not think my hon. friend realizes that this amendment is exactly similar to the amendment passed last year and the year before, and of course is only intended to apply to public works or undertakings as set out in Bill No. 25, which is before the House now.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: That is all that can apply.


James Murdock: Yes.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It cannot touch the municipalities at all.


James Murdock: No, of course not. I hope my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) will agree with me in this. It seemed inadvisable to propose this amendment, which has been I think generally if not unanimously concurred in by the House of Commons on two previous sessions, until we found out what the House was going to determine in regard to section 2A which we have dealt with. As we have dealt with section 2A, I hope the hon. member for North Toronto will permit us to pass the three additional amendments which were adopted by the House during the last two sessions of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
James Murdock: I move that section 58 of the said act be repealed and the following substituted therefor:

58. Any employer declaring or causing a lockout or making effective a change in iwages or hours contrary to the provisions of this act shall be liable to a fine of not less than one hundred dollars, nor more than one thousand dollars for each day or part of a day that such lockout or change exists.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I should like to ask the
minister how the employer can make effectual the change in the hours if the employees do not accept the change.


James Murdock: It seems to me that is
the trouble. A number of disputes occurred in the past because employers, possibly with notice to the employees, have made effective as of a given date a changed rate of wages and certain changes in the hours of work. The employees have protested and said, "We do not want it, we will not accept it. We do not think you should do that." This amendment contemplates that an arbitrary, hurried change of that kind could not be made, if it resulted in a dispute, until the dispute had been inquired into.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am not quite clear
about it. My right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) handed me a copy of the amendment. The amendment to section 57 provides at the end:
If either .party uses this or any other .provision of this act for the .purpose of unjustly maintaining a given condition of affairs through delay, and the board so reports to the minister, such party shall be guiilty of an offence, and liable to the same penalties as are imposed for a violation of the next preceding section.
That is, if the party uses it for the purpose of delay. There seems to be no penalty for the violation of section 57, except what is contained in sections 58 and 59, one relating to the employer and the other to the employee.


James Murdock: That is correct.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I see the reason for it.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the chair.
Cavil government-Secretary of State; salaries, $121,640; contingencies, $21,500.
Hon. A. B. OOPP (Secretary of State) :: I am glad to be able to report that wie have a reduction both in the salaries and the number of employees in! the department. The number of employees has been reduced

Supply-Secretary of State
from eighty-six to eighty, a reduction of six, and there has been a reduction in the administration cost of over $9,000.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose the six died.
What happened to them?


Arthur Bliss Copp: One, I think, died; two were
superannuated; two resigned and one was transferred to the Post Office Department.


Arthur Meighen: There may be a saving
on the one who died, but that would be the only saving. The two who were superannuated would still be on the paylist, and the two who resigned would, I suppose, continue to receive pay under the Calder Act. The one who has gone to the other department will be paid there. Where is the list showing the additions to those drawing pay under the Calder Act in the Secretary of State's department?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Mr. Pelletier, Assistant Undersecretary of State, has retired on a pension, being paid an allowance of $2,963 per annum.


Arthur Meighen: Is that under the new
act?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: What is his age?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Seventy-six years. Mr. Learoyd, Assistant Deputy Registrar General, retired on the 1st April, 1925, at the age of seventy-one years, after serving for fifty-one years and six months. His retiring allowance is $2,324.


Arthur Meighen: Was he in good health?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No. Mr. P. T. Kirwan, retired on October 1, 1918, being superannuated after thirty-nine years' service on an allowance of $1,470 per annum.


Arthur Meighen: At what age?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Sixty-eight.


Arthur Meighen: Why was he retired?


Arthur Bliss Copp: That was in 1918 before I took office. I understand he was retired at his own request.


Arthur Meighen: I am referring to retirements in the last year.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Mr. A. E. Lewis retired under the Calder Act owing to ill-health on the 22nd September, 1923. He was only twenty-nine years of age. He received a gratuity of $649.98. Mr. A. Drouin, at the age of seventy-two years after thirty-eight years' service, was retired on the 1st October, 1923, with a retiring allowance of $1,596. Mr. H. E. Larkin, after four years in the service, was
retired with a gratuity of $300 on the 1st June, 1924.


Arthur Meighen: Has the position of
Assistant Under Secretary of State been filled?


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is not the intention to fill
it.


Arthur Meighen: Or the position of
Assistant Deputy Registrar General?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No.


Arthur Meighen: As regards the work, or
whatever other sufficiently dignified term might be given to what was lately carried on by the late Hon. William Pugsley, what has become of that enterprise since his death?


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is not in this vote.
Another vote will be provided for that. That is under the war claims.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister prefer not to have more than one discussion on that subject?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have no objection, but it will only take up more time.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Have any changes
been made in regard to the naturalization of ex-Canadian citizens? Supposing a man leaves Canada, goes to the United States, takes out citizenship papers there and then later returns to Canada. What qualifications must he possess after his return before he receives naturalization?


Arthur Bliss Copp: After he returns he must reside for five years in a British Dominion and then make application in the regular way under the Naturalization Act.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is there any reason for that law that he must reside here for a period of five years in the case of a man who has already been a Canadian citizen?


Arthur Bliss Copp: There is an arrangement
entered into with the Imperial government after three different Imperial conferences that all the naturalization acts of the various dominions should 'be in agreement. That has been carried out.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Has the minister any intention of bringing in any amendments to the Naturalization Act? The reason why I ask that question is this. A number of people have been put to a great deal of inconvenience in appearing before a county court judge. I know of certain cases where t)he reports of the mounted police as to character and everything else that go to make a good citizen were very favourable to ,t'he men' who made application, but where the applicants were re-
Supply-Secretary of State

fused by the judge without any just ground. This is a hardship on these people. I a-m inclined to believe that- the act should be amended so as to provide an appeal to either the minister or someone else. I have nothing against a county court judge, but supposing he is partial in some way or feels that he does not want to issue naturalization papers to a man, there is no redress, no other place where the man can go. This entails expense and inconvenience. It would be better if we would accept such men into our citizenship and let them take their part in the affairs of our country. If we did that, they would be better citizens than they are to-day.
Mr. C'OPP: The question of naturalization and the machinery and administration of the act are rather complicated. An applicant has to reside in the Dominion for five years. He has to make application to the clerk of the court. Notice of application has to be posted in his office for three months. Then the judge must hear the man's application. He is entitled to appear ini person and be heard, and he can bring any persons there in regard to his qualifications, reputation and1 character, in order to prove to the judge his worthiness and proper qualifications. I quite understand that the reports that are received from different judges throughout Canada are not all uniform. Some will take exceptions different from those taken by others. That is the law, and unless there is some amendment providing for appeal to some other body or official I do not know that anything cam very well be done. I shall be glad to consider any suggestions that may be made.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I think that there should be some appeal from the decision of the judge. I know that in many cases men are refused naturalization papers on the strength of nothing more than a rumour that they intend to use it as a means of getting to the United States, and in such cases there should be some recourse.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is the judge's decision ifihe last word, or has not the department some power to issue certificates irrespective of what the judge may decide? I know of a great many cases of injustice in my own constituency. I do not suggest that naturalization should be made cheap and open to everyone indiscriminately, but there are cases of hardship where men who have been in the country ten and fifteen years, and even as long as thirty years are refused naturalization without good reason. I know of one case in particular of a man who has been in this country thirty years; he has raised a thoroughly re-

spectable family and in all that time there has been nothing against the character of either himself or his family. Buff, the old man himself is not able to read and write the English language although he speaks English as correctly as may be expected of one who cannot write it. There is absolutely nothing against him. And yet he has been definitely refused a certificate of naturalization. Naturally he feels that he has no share in the institutions of the country and he feels that his children are dubbed foreigners in the district, although they are all able to read and write and are in every way good citizens. I heartily endorse a good deal of what my hon. friend (Mr. Beaubien) has said; I think there should be some provision for an appeal from the judge's decision. At any rate, I think the minister ought to have the right to grant the certificate irrespective of the judge's decision, where he deems it wise to do so.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The act does not say anything about being able to read or write; it provides for an adequate knowledge of either English or French. As to just what "adequate" means, that is left to the judge to decide. It is not right to assume that the Secretary of State has any right to override the judge's decision. When the application comes in the department may make a further investigation if this is considered necessary; and whether or not the judge approves of the application the department can refuse the certificate. This matter was before parliament two years ago, when it was suggested that the application should be made direct to the department or to some official in Ottawa in order to avoid delay, and that if the department were satisfied that the applicant was qualified the certificate couldl be issued forthwith. In the present administration of the act there is of course more or less delay; the applicant has to go to the court, a notice must be posted up, the application must be heard by the judge, and the clerk must send in the report; and if the clerk is not active in forwarding the report then the matter is held up. In some cases we have actually written to the court to find out the cause of the delay. This delay should not be considered1 so serious a matter in view of the importance of the applicant's naturalization, but there is a strong demand, particularly from the west, that something be done to get rid of this delay. Unless the act is amended materially I do not see what can be done.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Has the minister the
power under the act to-day to grant the certificate where the judge has not approved1 of the application?

Supply-Secretary of State


Arthur Bliss Copp: The department has come to the conclusion that if the judge disapproves of the application his decision shou'd not be overridden.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot lose this opportunity of congratulating the minister on having revised his opinion on that question. He was wrong for many years-


Arthur Bliss Copp: Not many.


Arthur Meighen: -and I struggled hard enough to enlighten him, not, I rejoice to find, without ultimate success.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Thanks.


Arthur Edward Ross: As regards the
naturalization of a Canadian citizen who returns to this country after having been naturalized in some other country, I can quite understand the minister's view, that there should be uniformity. But does he not think that five years is too long a period for a Canadian citizen, returning under these circumstances, to remain in this country before securing naturalization here and being restored to Canadian citizenship?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I might personally be of the same view as my hon. friend, but this question was carefully discussed at different imperial conferences and decided upon.


Arthur Edward Ross: How long ago was the decision arrived at?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The matter was under consideration from 1890 to 1914. The United States has the same provision; if one of their citizens becomes naturalized here and returns he must remain in the United States five years before he can regain his American citizenship. The same is true throughout the empire.


Arthur Edward Ross: When will there be another opportunity to discuss this question imperially? The decision, according to the minister, was come to about eleven years ago.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I presume at the next imperial conference, whenever that may be.


Mr. EULER:: Under our present law a British woman marrying a foreigner becomes a foreigner. I understand that some time ago the British government had under consideration a change in that respect to provide that any British woman marrying a foreigner may elect whether she desires to become a citizen of the country of which her husband is a subject or whether she desires to remain a British subject. Is there any intention on the
part of the government to make a change in the law in that regard? To-day, if a Canadian girl, for example, marries an American citizen she loses her Canadian nationality and she does not gain the nationality of her husband; in a word, she is not a citizen of any country. That should not be, and it seems to me it ought to be possible in such a case for the woman to retain her nationality if she so desires.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am informed that a resolution was passed, but no action was taken in regard to it, and we have not been consulted. Unless some further action is taken by the imperial authorities we would not be justified in proceeding with the matter here.


William Daum Euler: I was under the impression
that the British authorities had communicated with the dominions.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Not on that point.


William Daum Euler: I do not like to be positive
about it, but my recollection is very strong that the British government communicated with the governments of the dominions.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Can the minister inform
me if there is any case now of a Canadian who discarded his British nationality, became a United States citizen, and subsequently desired to resume his British status, being held up by the department, or by the county court judge or whoever deals with these matters?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not remember any such
cases.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Are there any in Nova
Scotia? If the minister cannot answer me, I will obtain in the course of a few minutes the name of a man who, I am informed, is in the position I have indicated. There is another matter I want to advert to. A few years ago we had a discussion about delays in connection with naturalization. I do not wonder at the complaints which some hon. members then made. To-day we have been given instances of erroneous rulings made by certain county court judges. But I want to put in a plea that the country should, to some extent, bear with the necessary delays, and even the mistakes-if there are mistakes- of officials who are entrusted with this very important work. I think we ought to proceed on the assumption that the privilege of British nationality is not, per se, the right of any applicant, but is a distinct privilege granted on certain conditions. We ought to be absolutely satisfied as to the fitness of the applicant before we grant him the privilege, and personally I have not much sympathy with the
Supply-Secretary oj State

view which is occasionally put forward that it is a great hardship for a man to have to travel twenty or thirty miles to appear before some naturalization tribunal. For the consideration of members I would' point out that it is far better to have a judicial tribunal passing upon a man's qualifications to become a citizen of this country than to have a political tribunal, even this parliament, passing upon those qualifications. Also, that the man who complains of having to travel a score of miles or to spend a few days to obtain a privilege so important as this, would have to travel just as many miles and spend just as much time to get before the same tribunal if he were involved in litigation with some of his neighbours. Why should we take aw'y from a man all the obstacles which intervene between him and his accomplishment of British nationality, and yet leave him tj travel perhaps a long distance and spend a good deal of his time in order to defend his civil rights? It is suggested that county court judges sometimes make mistakes. I presume they are still human, and will continue to be to the end of the chapter, and therefore they will continue to make mistakes. But those mistakes may just ?s well occur in private litigation, and a mar may be deprived of a great many other things that are valuable to him because of the mistakes of some officials. Therefore I do not see why we should: put what, after all, ought to be the highest thing in the land, a man's participation in British nationality, upon a lower plane than an ordinary lawsuit, and ask to have all formalities disregarded and1 make naturalization a mere perfunctory ceremony. I repeat, it is far better, even with some hindrances, to have the determination of nationality a matter for a judicial tribunal, even though it may err, than to have it in the hands of any political tribunal whatsoever.


Mr. BROWN:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
refer t,o the point raised by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). Perhaps he will recall that on two occasions I put a question to the Prime Minister in regard to this matter and with reference to the discussion that took place in the Imperial house. It appears that the press reports of that discussion were not strictly accurate. The matter was introduced into the Imperial house by Major Harvey, by way of resolution to the effect that British women should retain their nationality on marriage to foreigners unless they definitely requested otherwise. An amendment was introduced to this resolution, that they should lose their nationality unless they made a definite request otherwise. Mr. Locker-

Lampson promised that if the amendment was adopted he would take the matter up with the dominion governments, but when Lady Astor questioned him as to whether he would do so in case the original resolution was carried he did not make any reply. If I remember rightly, the amendment was withdrawn, and the original resolution carried. But evidently Mr. Locker-Lampson did not assume any responsibility for communicating with the dominion governments. I have had the matter urged upon me by some of our women's organizations, and when I stated to them the situation as I find it to be now, they further urged that the Canadian parliament should not wait until the Imperial parliament acted, but that we should give to our Canadian women who might marry foreigners the right to retain their nationality unless they themselves definitely decided otherwise. For my part I should like to support that position.


Mr. POWER:: Mr. Chairman, within the
past few months two or three cases similar to those given have come to my personal knowledge. I may be mistaken in this, but I understand that this is a consequence of the United States quota law, the effect of which is that alien women marrying American citizens do not become citizens of the United States unless they comply with certain requirements in respect to residence. I do not know whether it is three years or five.


William Daum Euler: One year only, I believe.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps so, but there are
certain residential qualifications. The hardship which results is that this class of women lose their nationality. They are no longer Canadian citizens under our law because they become citizens of the country of their husband, and they do not acquire any new nationality. It seems only fair, in view of these facts, that some such legislation as has been proposed in the British House of Commons should be introduced here. I commend to the Secretary of State the remarks made by the member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) and the member for Ldsgar (Mr. Brown) in this regard.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I assure my hon. friends that
if the legislation that is proposed in the Imperial parliament in regard to this question is placed on the statute book, we will do the same thing here. We shall be very glad to communicate with them and see if we cannot impress upon them the necessity of having this uniform legislation passed. Until that is done, under our agreement with the-

Su-p-ply-Secretary of State
Imperial parliament we are not in a position to pass this legislation.


William Daum Euler: Do I understand that the
minister proposes to initiate the action himself?


Mr. OGPP:: We can only do it by communicating with them.


William Daum Euler: And the minister will communicate?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes, we would be glad to
do that.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I wish to draw the attention of * the Secretary of State to two very important points in connection with the Naturalization Act as affecting particularly British Columbia, and I would hope that he will bring down some amendments to the act in that connection. I wrote to the minister on the 24th of June, 1924, regarding this matter, and he has received other communications from people in the west who are highly competent to form opinions on the subject. Under the first section of the present Naturalization Act it will be seen that any person born within His Majesty's dominions and any person born on a British ship, whether in foreign waters or not, is by the accident of birth a natural-bom British subject, regardless of colour, race, assimilibility or otherwise, or whether the citizens of this country like it or not. This is a highly unsatisfactory state of the law, because there may be many reasons why such persons, through conditions of physical health, mental defectiveness or otherwise, might not make desirable citizens of Canada; or they might be persons who could not be accepted in this country. In many cases they be-
6 p.m. come a public charge and remain so all their lives. Another point is the question of dual nationality. A number of nations have provided in their law that when their citizens come to a country such as Canada and acquire naturalization or citizenship they also retain for all the purposes of their country of origin the obligations and rights of citizens of that country. But some nations, Japan and others, have passed a law by which a citizen of dual nationality cannot obtain citizenship in their country, and the matter is becoming one of considerable interest and concern to the people of British Columbia. I think the time has arrived when the minister could properly amend the law so as to make it conform with that of almost all other nations. There are several other matters of lesser importance to which I could draw the attention of the minister, but at this late
hour I will not do so; they have already been placed before his department. They are of considerable importance to the west and they have been the subject of resolutions of public bodies and of discussion in the press, and I am sure that amendments could be introduced dealing with these points with resulting benefit to the country as a whole. I repeat that we should do away with dual nationality and with the possibility of people born on a British boat automatically obtaining citizenship in this country. Is it the intention of the minister at this session to deal with these by amendment to the Naturalization Act?


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend has mentioned only a few of the many difficulties that we encounter in the administration of the naturalization law.


Leon Johnson Ladner: It is not a question of administration; it is the law itself.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Well, the suggested amendments. Amendments have been suggested from different quarters in regard to our naturalization as well as our other laws, and the officials are giving them consideration. As I have already told my hon. friend, we appreciate the difficulties that have arisen; we realize the importance of the suggestions made, but we have an arrangement with the Imperial authorities whereby our naturalization law shall be kept uniform with theirs.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister is not suggesting that these matters would in any way interfere with that?


Arthur Bliss Copp: We are discussing all these matters. It is not the intention of the department to bring down any amendments to the Naturalization Act this year, but we hope as the result of conference to be able to meet the many difficulties that we experience in the administration of tlhe few and to make some changes. In reply to the hon. imembeT for St. John and Albert-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I may say to the minister that I have since obtained some information, and the matter will: be taken up privately with him.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I wanted to ask the minister whether the conference .to which he refers is to be a conference of dominions, or provinces, or nations, or what?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Imperial conference. We hope to discuss the matter with representatives of the Imperial government.
'Mr. LADNER: Is that conference to take place this summer?
Supply-Secretary oj State


Arthur Bliss Copp: We do not know, but we hope we may have one.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Representations have been made to me that lit has been made very difficult in many cases for foreigners to become naturalized. There are a large number of workers in nearly all our northern camps and throughout the prairie provinces who were born outside of Canada; in many industries they form as high as fifty or sixty per cent of the workers.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If imy 'hon. friend will permit me, there is a special vote under which matters affecting naturalization can appropriately be discussed, and perhaps he would be willing to leave this matter over until that item comes up.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: A good deal of the expense in this department has been in connection with the settlement of claims against 'Germany, and the idea was that there would be a considerable contraction in expense as this adjustment proceeded. There is some contraction, but it is not very considerable. I should have thought that the adjustment of these claims would be now pretty well advanced and that considerable retrenchment would be made. Another reason why we had to have a large number of employees was because of the issuing of passports, and I understood that that also was in the way of being cut down.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Passports are not under my
department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How does the
matter of the adjustment of. enemy claims stand at the present?


Arthur Bliss Copp: There is a considerable saving under this head-a reduction from $85,000 to $35,000. There is another vote, however, under which this can be discussed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has 'been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate doth unite with the House of Commons in the approval of the convention and protocol 'between His Majesty, in respect to the Dominion of Canada, and the United States of America, for regulating the level of the Lake of the Woods, and of identical letters of reference submitting to the 
International Joint Commission certain questions as to the regulation of the levels of Rainy lake and other upper waters, laid upon the table of the House on Thursday, the 26th of February, 1925, which were signed at Washington on the 24th day of February, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five, and which were signed on behalf of His Majesty in respect of Canada by the plenipotentiary therein named, by filling in the blank space therein with the words "Senate and".
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, May 14, 1925