1925-02-12

NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Grote Stirling, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Yale, introduced by Right Hon. Arthur Meighen and C. H. Dickie, Esquire.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Criminal Code.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. NEILL:: I introduced this bill last
year but it did not go beyond the second reading. Its purpose is. that all documents or circulars printed for public circulation shall contain the name and address of the publisher. It follows the English act, which has been in force for something like one hundred years, and also various Dominion statutes, notably the Dominion Elections Act. On the second reading I will explain more fully the intention of the measure.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



OCEAN SHIPPING RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the special order
for the resumption of the debate on the Address-


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, when six o'clock was called yesterday-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The right hon. leader of the opposition has the floor.


Arthur Meighen: I am just interposing, if I may be allowed on the orders of the day, to ask if the government purposes having printed the W. T. R. Preston report. I am told there are no copies printed as yet.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: By a coincidence I was
just making inquiry at the moment for the draft of the motion to authorize the printing of the report. I will make the motion tonight.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, February 11, consideration of the motion of Sir Eugene Fiset for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session.
John Evans: Mr. Speaker, when six o'clock was called yesterday I had dwelt somewhat on the concentration of wealth and industry and the control of the different policies of this Dominion in certain areas. Still, in that connection I want to say a word on the question of Senate reform. The Speech from the Throne would indicate that very little can be done regarding that matter at this session of parliament. This may come as a disappointment to some of us who heard the speeches of the Prime Minister in western Canada. Of course it could hardly be expected that this House could, or would, pass a bill limiting the power of the Senate and expect the upper chamber to accept the same in toto. Furthermore, there are so many in public life to-day that look upon the Senate as a haven of rest from the uncertainties of party warfare as to make it possible that even here a measure to reform the Senate might have to follow a very tortuous course indeed. After all, an appeal to the provinces is the most constitutional way to proceed about the reforming of the Senate, and, perhaps, it also relieves the government from responsibility in the matter to some extent. Then the odium of changing the British North America Act would rest upon the provincial governments. But since the matter of Senate reform has not been discussed before the provincial electorate I cannot yet see how the existing provincial legislatures can, without at least a mandate from the people, deal competently with this question. The only benefit, therefore, that I can see to be derived from such a pronouncement is that the government will deal with Senate reform at some indefinite time in the future after there has been opportunity of asking the electorate to give them a mandate for carrying out the policy. As far as I am able to gather from a reading of a history of this country prior to confederation the one idea of the purpose of the Senate in the minds of the statesmen of the Maritimes, previous to those provinces entering confederation, was that a second chamber would prevent the exercise of any undue domination by the old provinces of Ontario and Quebec over the smaller provinces. I stated yesterday that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have

The Address-Mr. Evans
dominated the rest of the Dominion ever since confederation. They have concentrated the wealth and the industry of the whole country within their own boundaries, and this domination they have so far maintained. Now looking over some of the speeches on Senate reform in years gone by, as reported in Hansard, I came across some utterances of that great Canadian statesman Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and the following is taken from a speech which he made in the House in 1906:
For my part I believe this abolition of the Senate-
Which was then under discussion.
-would be a mistake, and I could not be induced to reconcile myself to such an idea. A second chamber seems to me absolutely necessary for two reasons. It is supposed to be a check on hasty legislation. But one consideration, which to my mind, is absolutely conclusive and paramount is that, under our present system of government, composed of federal parts, a second chamber is an absolutely necessary safeguard against a possible invasion of their-
The smaller provinces.
-rights by the larger provinces. But if we are to have reform I would not be averse to adopting the system of our neighbours and having each province represented by an equal number of members whether that province be large or small.
Another reference was made in a speech made in the session of 1907-8. From that speech, as reported at page 1569 of Hansard, I take the following:
In the United States Senate, the state of New York has two members and the state of Rhode-Island has also two members, so that while in the House of Representatives each state speaks according to the numerical strength of its population, 36 against 2; in the Senate each state has an equal voice.
The only reform of the Senate that can ever prove acceptable to the provinces which go to make up the Dominion is to reconstruct that body, so that all the provinces shall be represented on the floor of the Senate by an equal number of representatives. There are nine provinces in this Dominion, and if each province was represented let us say, by five senators, that would give us a senate of 45 members. I think, Sir, that would be sufficiently large, without being too cumbersome. To curtail the power of the Senate, as at present constituted, by an alteration in the act stipulating that in the event of a bill passing this House twice it should become law even against the will of that body, would in my opinion be of very little benefit to this country, except in very isolated cases. Let me give an example. The fight is on in this country at present between public ownership and private ownership of public utilities. The Senate has twice during the life of this parliament thrown out bills for the construction of very much needed branch lines in
western Canada. This has been done in the interests of private ownership. Simply curtailing the power of the Senate as afore-mentioned would still give the privately owned concern an advantage of at least one year to choose their territory and to construct their lines practically on- the grade of the publicly owned company's survey. Two notable cases of this kind are seen in Saskatchewan to-day in the construction of the Lanigan and the Tuffnell branches.
Let me ask, is equality of representation in the Senate desirable? Domination of one province by another inevitably leads to sectionalism, and after fifty-seven years of a union which this country has experienced, a union that has not developed unity, confederation is heard cracking in different parts at the present time. There are ominous sounds even of separation to be heard. Ontario and Quebec, the old federation, have assumed an ownership of this Dominion that has at last become unbearable to the smaller provinces. For instance, to build a transcontinental railway they gave away to the first one of these railway companies 25,000,000 acres of land, belonging to Saskatchewan and Alberta, that never belonged to this Dominion. Every province was to come into confederation on an equal basis. The new Dominion of 1867 held in trust the Northwest Territories until such time as * the population there would warrant the forming of provinces. The older provinces assumed ownership, which they still hold so far as the natural resources are concerned. They even created hardship on the settlers in that part of the country by tax exemption of these lands, and the settlers themselves have had to meet this burden and pay the taxes themselves on that land to establish schools, construct roads and build bridges. Some 40,000,000 acres altogether of our lands have been alienated from their rightful owner to construct transcontinental railways in this Dominion. Now, placing the value of that land at $25 an acre, it would amount to the huge sum of $1,000,000,000 which will have to be taken into account when the question of natural resources comes up for settlement. Possession of power to dominate has made it difficult for these two provinces, Ontario and Quebec, to take an ocean-to-ocean view of Canada. They have habituated themselves into thinking of Canada in terms of two provinces only. Sectionalism can only be met and combated by sectionalism, which accounts for the feeling of disunity prevailing throughout the Dominion to-day.
The government can make a record for itself now by championing Senate reform on a constitutional basis so that real union will be established. In the absence of any con-
The Address-Mr. Evans

stitutional machinery to compel compromise, the inevitable result is the domination of the smaller by the larger provinces. A Senate of the type which Sir Wilfrid Laurier would have offered would be able to compel compromise and prevent domination. Can anyone conceive of what use excessive Senate representation is to Ontario and Quebec if not for the purpose of controlling, or having control of both the House of Commons and the Senate and the domination of other provinces? I say that no one need strain his imagination envisioning a truculent Prince Edward Island dominating Ontario and Quebec by means of its equal representation in the Senate; Rhode Island does not dominate New York, and New York cannot dominate Rhode Island.
I would also advocate that the new Senate be an elected body. Then the smaller provinces will be represented in that chamber, not by men chosen by Ontario and Quebec as at present, but by men of their own choice. The constitution of the country is the expression of the will of its own people. Elected representatives of the people have an inherent right and authority to speak for themselves; appointed members of legislative bodies have not. Even that historic body the House of Lords, whose forbears, the barons in arms, forced their king to sign the great charter, has been on occasions forced to bow to the will of the people. It is high time in this Dominion, in this democratic age, that we take steps to ensure a return of this power to the people of Canada and so amend the constitution that it will not be alienated.
TJntil such a reform is brought about, sectionalism will become more and more acute. While the domination of Ontario and Quebec in the past has been made perfectly secure by party domination in the provinces, this question bids fair now to cut even across party lines, and I dhall not be at all surprised to see solid provincial blocs occupying seats in this House until such a reform is brought about. I believe the reasonable thing to do is to call a conference at which each province will be represented by an equal number. Let us hope that such a conference will evolve an agreement that our constitution may be amended in such a way, and to the end, tlhat the people of Canada may be united for all time in a real federal union.


Mr. HERBERT MARLER (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, like other members who have preceded me, I offer my very sincere congratulations to the mover and the seconder of this Address. The hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Hanna), fresh from his laurels in a hard-won battle, has added

further to his laurels by reason of his speech in this House. To the hon. member for Rim-ouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) perhaps I may be permitted to address a more personal note. He comes from that province Which has been my home and the home of my family for many generations, a province to which I and my family are attached root and branch in the same way as the French Canadians are there to this day, a province in which we Englishspeaking Canadians have learned to respect and to admire our French Canadian brothers. More than that, we have come to realize that this country is all the richer and greater by reason of having that great nation as one of our parts.
It may be properly said of talmost any country, and particularly of a new country like Canada, that a country's wealth and progress are measured by the extent of and increase in its population. As a matter of fact, that saying is not very difficult to analyze, when one realizes that production can take place only by means of population, and it follows from that, that the greater the population, the greater will be the production and, consequently, the greater the production, the greater the wealth of the country.


Mr. IRVINE:: Does that apply to China?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes, that applies to Chinamen too, if my hon. friend wants an answer immediately. Production, however, to take place at all, certainly to be continuous, must be profitable. It must be profitable, at least to the extent that the producer is able to gain a livelihood by means of his production. From that it follows that if production is profitable, more will seek an occupation in which such profit exists. On the other hand, where that profit is not apparent or where that profit does not exist, there will be a diminution and finally an entire cessation in production and population as a consequence will decline. It may be very properly assumed from that that profitable production will increase population, and increased population will increase production, and increased production will produce greater wealth. But we must bear in mind that profitable production is very distinctly limited by certain factors, one of them being the effect of taxation. If taxation, no matter how applied, is taken off the profit on an article, then the profit is less. If it is added to the cost of an article, that cost may amount to so much as to make the article itself unprofitable. Another factor which limits production is the possibility of marketing the thing produced, that is to say,


The Address-Mr. Marler
turning it into money or exchanging it for another suitable article which the producer might require. I freely admit that these principles are extremely elementary, in fact so elementary that I hesitate to assert them in this House; but notwithstanding that, I think hon. members will agree with me that on the successful and proper application of these principles really depends the success of any nation.
You have only to apply these principles, for example, to our natural resources, which are the real basic wealth of this country. Without those natural resources neither this nor any other country can prosper. But of what use are our natural resources unless they are developed, unless they are applied to useful purposes? While they remain in the ground they are of no value whatever. Even when those natural resources are made into products, those products still cannot be established as regards their value unless there is the ability to market them to people who desire to acquire them. The same thing applies to any industry, no matter whether that industry be foodstuffs, labour, manufactured goods, or anything else.
As I started out to say a moment ago production is limited by certain factors, one of them being taxation. We have heard it stated throughout the country that our taxation has been limiting production; that it has been driving capital from the country; more than that, that it has been preventing people from coming here, and that it has had various other results too numerous to mention. As a matter of fact, some of those results deserve a great deal of consideration; but while to reduce taxation is an extremely easy thing to say, it is a very difficult thing to accomplish. Those who say that and who say reduce taxation at all costs, cannot be as well acquainted with the finances of this country, the needs of its finances and the needs of the distribution of its revenue as they should be. It is not to be wondered at that the people of this country do not know more about the necessity of our taxes and of the distribution of the revenues. When we realize that before the war we had only two sources of taxation, namely, customs and excise, we can come to the conclusion that the ordinary man in the street knew little or nothing about taxes. He had, perhaps, a hazy idea that certain taxes were imposed and that some taxes were necessary to run the country, but where they came from he had no idea. As we proceeded and even as we went on with the war the general public did not realize that new taxes were being imposed. They were at that time interested in many other affairs- great expenditures of money were going abroad, and even at that time they did not realize that taxation existed in the form in which it does to-day. But after the war, when we had arrived at more normal times, the public realized to the full and in the most potent way imaginable that there were taxes and heavy taxes at that.
They realized that nothing could be done and that no business could be prosecuted without first of all solving the problem of taxation. And at last it came to be borne in upon the public, a thing which should have been realized and appreciated long before by poor and rich alike, that a tax, no matter how imposed or how collected, is finally borne by the consumer in some form or another. In other words, the man buying from the corner grocery store or from the nearby butcher pays the tax directly or indirectly on what he purchases in exactly the same way as he pays it who buys from the rich city merchant or from the high class jeweller: everyone bears the tax or taxes in proportion to the amount consumed by him in his supplies for his daily needs. There is no getting away from this; in the last analysis, that is where the tax must be borne, no matter-how it may be imposed. That being the case, the public became vitally interested in our questions of taxation as well as in our problems of revenue, and they became interested also in the question as to how our expenditures were made. Concerning these matters of interest the public were in a state of confusion. Indeed, the public at the present moment do not sufficiently realize and certainly do not sufficiently appreciate our necessity for revenue nor the need of our expenditures, and I do not think that this confusion and this lack of knowledge can be particularly wondered at; because, after all, although our public accounts are published in a perfectly fair and intelligible manner, easily accessible to members of parliament, and quite open and correct to the expert accountant who cares to look into them, and although they are kept most carefully and faithfully by efficient officials of the department, they are nevertheless published nowadays in such a way that the ordinary man in the street is unable at a glance to understand them. The average taxpayer has neither the time nor the ability, nor has he the opportunity to delve into these accounts as fully as he should in order to get some grasp of public affairs and to realize what revenue is necessary and what expenditure indispensable. It seems to me that we should publish at the end of every fiscal year a simple statement of our accounts so that
The Address-Mr. Marler

the public may obtain the facts and fully realize and appreciate exactly what our taxes are needed for, and how our revenue has been spent. This is done in connection with the British exchequer, which publishes a small leaflet explaining the various revenues from taxes, excise, sendees, and so forth, showing, not in too great detail but sufficiently to enable the average taxpayer to understand a month or so after the end of the fiscal year, precisely how the taxes are paid and exactly how the expenditures have been made. Unless we take the public into our confidence to that extent and advise them fully as regards our receipts and disbursements, I fail to understand how we can expect them to have an intelligent grasp of the affaire of the country.
I want to pass now to the Speech from the Throne, and before I do so I shall introduce a personal note into the remarks I am about to make. I do not think that any hon. member on the other side of the House can charge me with any lack of candour, nor do I think that any hon. gentleman on this side can accuse me of speaking at any time except in tones of sincerity, although, perhaps in tones of too great independence. But if that independence has been invoked, let me say that it has been asserted simply because of my belief in Liberalism. Liberals all the world over have been free; they have not been bound by any hard and fast or immutable rules, but rather have always been allowed to exercise their judgment as their consciences might dictate. And I can say that I speak with such candour when I declare that having examined the Speech from the Throne I am able to express the opinion that it shows very great vision, far greater vision indeed than has characterized many speeches which I have seen published in many a long day.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend opposite
laughs. Well, I will examine the Speech in detail and discuss it with him as I proceed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The door is open.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I repeat, the Speech from
the Throne shows great vision; it shows a great advancement over many that have been read in this House before. However, let us examine the document.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend will be
saying, "hear, hear" many times before I get through. This is the paragraph to which I have reference at the moment:
It is to be borne continually in mind that the existing burden of taxation is due mainly to uncontrollable

expenditure in the nature of payments and obligations arising out of the war, and to the encumbered position of the National Railways.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Great vision.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Let me assure the hon.
gentleman that what is there said is absolutely true to the last word, and I will prove it figure by figure and dollar for dollar to the satisfaction of the House before I am through.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Whoever challenged it?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I will take up with the exMinister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) various figures with a view to finding out what is controllable and what is uncontrollable, and also what this government is liable for as against what can be charged to the responsibility of the hon. gentleman's government. I should like, if I may have the permission of the House, to place on Hansard in full a statement, which I shall read briefly, so that hon. gentlemen may have the facts before them. This is a very simple statement, but I have prepared it with the object in view of taking it up item by item and discussing exactly what our expenses have been, so that we may decide for ourselves the accuracy or otherwise of what is therein set forth. Receipts for the fiscal year ending 31 March, 1924, were as follows:
Receipts for the fiscal year ending 31 March, 1924:
A.	From ordinary sources not
war-consisting entirely of customs and excise-and a comparatively small sum from interest on investments-and excluding revenue from services in departments..	.. 165,3-15,546
B.	From war taxes-such as income, business, profits, sales, cheques, receipts, transportation, trust and loan companies, banks and interest on advances to Imperial and
foreign governments	 204,862,739



The Address-Mr. Marler
are taken from the public accounts. The controllable expenditure of 1914 amounted to $78,397,000, and in 1924 it was $103,000,000; an increase of $25,000,000.
Now, Sir, I do not say that our expenditure in 1924 was as low as it should have been.
I believe at that time that we had got into very extravagant ways. But that is not the point at all. The point is that the public became used to certain services in 1914, the war intervened, the value of the d'ollar depreciated very much indeed, and the real comparison of the public wants to-day is between the cost of the services they had before the war and the cost of the same services to-day. The figure which I have given of $25,000,000 is the increased cost of those services.
But I want to go a step further, with all due regard to my friends opposite. In that controllable expenditure are certain items for which this government was in no way responsible, and I am treating the fact with the utmost candour and the utmost sincerity, because I believe t)he public should foe put in possession of the facts irrespective of everything else. In that $25,000,000 there were items such as expenditure on our merchant marine, the Canada Highways Act and the Victoria shipowners, amounting to over $6,000,000, which leaves the difference between the controllable expenditure in 1914 and in 1924, for which this government is responsible, at the sum of $19,000,000. Now, if you realize the reduced value of the dollar, if you compute quickly in your mind the fact that the controllable expenditure for the selfsame service was $78,000,000 in 1914, you cannot say that an increase of $19,000,000 is out of all proportion for the year 1924.
Much has been said and much has been written on the question of departmental expenditure, the cost of the departments has been criticized to a very great extent in the public press and elsewhere, and it has been said that we have retained in the departments many officials whose services might well be dispensed with, that the cost has been built up to an extraordinary extent, and as a consequence the country was being deprived of revenue and paying taxation which should not have been imposed upon it. Well, the net cost of the departments-because it is only right to take off revenue derived from the services of some of them-in 1914 was $65,000,000, While in 1924 it was $86,000,000, or an increase of approximately $20,000,000, which does not seem to be excessive. I do not say that an attempt should not be made to bring the cost down, but owing to the vast increase in what has to be collected, when we 
realize that the revenue from taxes in 1914 amounted to $128,000,000, as against $370,000,000 in 1924, when we realize that the disbursements in 1914 were $185,000,000, and in 1924 $334,000,000, we cannot say that the cost of government to-day is a great deal more than it should be or that the cost can be severely cut down.
There is another question that I desire to take up before leaving these figures, a question that I have looked into with some care, and one in which I think not only hon. members but the public generally have some concern. Indeed, my right hon. friend who leads the opposition (Mr. Meighen) brought this matter up in his address a few days ago. He was quoting, as he will remember, Speeches from the Throne of other years. He quoted from the Speech of 1923, and he used these terms:
Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, why none of these are mentioned this year ?
He was speaking about revenue and expenditure.
For the simple reason that the condition in every instance is distinctly the opposite: instead of a decline in the public expenditure and an increase in the public revenue there has been to date a decline of $50,000,000 odd in the public revenue and an increase of $2,300,000 in public expenditure.
Surely my right hon. friend is not going to take the figures with respect to the middle of the year and come to the conclusion that they are a criterion of what the expenditure will be for the whole year. Moreover, why should he glory in the suggestion that there has been a reduction in revenue? The only reason there has been a reduction in revenue, is simply because this government- has made an attempt, and an honest attempt, to reduce taxes. But further than that, if he will examine the figures with respect to the last year that his government was in power he will find that there was a reduction of $54000,000 in the revenue in that year. So I do not think his criticism in that regard is well founded. In order to make a fair comparison I submit that it would be proper to take two years of the administration of this government and two year3 of the administration. of the previous government, that is to say, the fiscal years ending March 31, 1921 and March 31, 1922, which were under the control of the previous government, and the fiscal years ending March 31, 1923 and March 31, 1924, which were under the control of this government. A comparison of those figures, would, it seems to me, be eminently fair in every way. I have made that comparison, and I would like also to have this table put upon Hansard:

The Address-Mr. Marler
	1921-1922	1923-1924
Not controllable expenditure War services partly con-	306,036,227	385,443,814trollable	
Services in departments in	66,228,857	31,261,033part controllable	182,008.085	168,792,462Merchant marine	24,273,856	7,479,856Canada highways	
Capital, canals, buildings,	3,934,009	9,920,606harbours, docks	23,650,266	IS,958,515Miscellaneous capital charges	408,709	2,297,655Total all heads, except rail-	ways	696,539,999	624,153,941Total expenditure not controllable	
Total expenditure in part con-	396,036,227	385,443,814trollable	300,503,772	238,710,127Total expenditure as detailed	above	696,539,999	624,153,941
For the years 1921 and 1922, therefore, the total expenditure, in part controllable, was $300,503,000, and in 1923 and 1924, under the same heads, it was $238,000,000, or a decrease in the two years of $62,000,000. In addition to that, if certain items such as those I have spoken of are taken off-the merchant marine and other expenditures of that description-the decrease, instead of being $62,000,000, will amount to about
$so,ooo,ooo.
Now, I want to return to the question that I started out first of all to speak about, and to which the Speech from the Throne also makes reference in very clear and distinct language. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that these figures are so terribly unpalatable, but they have to be given in order to make this point quite clear. The Speech from the Throne says:
It is apparent that even the most rigid economy in public expenditures will not suffice to solve this pressing problem and the problem of taxation incidental thereto.
_ That is another general statement, and it is correct. An examination of the public accounts for the year, item by item, will show that it is practically impossible to cut off expenditure under any of those items. Take our war taxes, which in 1924 amounted to $370,000,000: these taxes were in payment of our war debt and in payment also of our pensions and of administration as regards war services. It is true we had a surplus in that respect of $50,000,000. While on the question of war taxes may I suggest to the government that if at all possible these taxes in respect to war services be segregated from all others. The people have borne these taxes, have endured their stagnating influence for many years without a murmur, and they 4 p.m. have done that because they have felt that these were war taxes and 8i
for war purposes. I do not say it is possible to do it, but if it could be done it would be highly desirable to segregate them for that particular purpose. The war debt could then be gradually eliminated1 and the taxes correspondingly reduced.
Taking our ordinary taxes, of which I have spoken previously, these represented expenditures connected with the cost of the departments, the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, highways, and other items-for the present I leave out railway expenditure. The large increase in that class of taxation is without a doubt represented by the interest on the non-war debt. In 1914 the interest on the non-war debt amounted in round figures to $13,000,000; in 1924 it amounted to $29,000,000, an increase of $16,000,000.
I do not want to go back particularly to the past for the purpose of dealing with our past expenditures, but we are all well aware of what happened at the beginning of this century. We were all imbued with the idea that the twentieth century was to be "Canada's century." You heard that from the Atlantic to the Pacific; everybody had it, rich and poor, young and old. As a consequence we involved ourselves in vast expenditures. We increased our manufacturing plants. We trebled our railways. We urged our farmers in the west to hurry up, to take up more land, to extend their activities, and this of course, involved the requirement of greater credits. But the public have been inclined to say: "Oh, it is the politicians who have done all this. It is the politicians who have been responsible for all this expenditure, the politicians who have asked us to enter upon this extravagance." Well, Sir, all I can say in that regard is this:	Remember what happened in connection with the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the National Transcontinental. Examine, ' if you will, the resolutions of boards of trade in all parts of this country, which begged and prayed the government of that day to proceed with the construction of the National Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific. Examine what railway men like Wainwright and Hays said. Examine the petition to the government signed by Wainwright, Hays and the late Senator Cox, who said that with all possible speed the new railway should be built from the Atlantic to the Pacific. More than that, you can examine the various proceedings of the Grand Trunk shareholders in England who, without a dissenting voice and with prolonged cheers, declared that the Grand Trunk Pacific project was not only necessary for Canada but necessary for the saving of the Grand Trunk itself. These were their words at the shareholders'
The Address-Mr. Marler

meetings. That being the ease, it seems foolish for the public not to realize that they have been just as much responsible as the government of that day and the governments that followed for the expenditures which did take place in this connection.
In discussing this particular paragraph in the Speech from the Throne, and the truth in substance of that statement, we must remember that this vast expenditure in the days gone by has had a very pronounced effect upon the taxation of the present. Our expenditure in those days was out of all reason; it was a mad, drunken orgy of expenditure, and we are paying for it now in taxation which we cannot escape. We entered upon all these enterprises with our eyes wide open and there is no reason why we should now go into mourning and say we did not realize what was going on.
Take, for example, the figures as regards capital expenditure, and I may say the comparisons I am about to give are of very considerable interest. In the five yearn from 1896 to 1900 we expended in railway subsidies and in building canals, harbours and docks some $34,000,000. In the period from 1901 to 1905 we increased that capital expenditure to $54,000,000. In the five years from 1906 to 1910 that expenditure increased from $54,000,000 to $134,000,000. From 1911 to 1915, entirely exclusive of war outlays, our capital expenditure increased to $197,000,000; and from 1916 to 1920 it rose to $251,000,000.
As I say we cannot get away from paying the interest on these various obligations which we have incurred. I do not think we can very seriously cut down departmental expenditure, as one can see from a careful analysis of that expenditure. There have been increases in the expenditure of the great departments, for example, of Customs and Excise, Post Office and Finance. There have been great increases in the revenue collected, and great increases in the services. In other departments, such as Agriculture, Interior, and Health, again there have been increases, but those increases, Mr. Speaker, are due, in so far as anyone can see to the demands from the public for the rendering of certain services, and expenditure cannot be cut down in these departments unless the public itself is willing to do without the services which it had before the year 1914. We can make up our minds to that situation very clearly and very distinctly. If we want those services we have to pay for them. That expenditure must be met by taxation, and that taxation must come out of the pockets of the people. tMr. Marler.]
There is one item which I hesitate I admit to speak about in this House but which it seems to me should be spoken about no matter how unpopular it may be. A very good plan, very earnest gesture on our part would be to cut down our own indemnities.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not hear any great
applause to that suggestion.


Mr. CALDWELL:: We will help you.


Mr. PRITCHARD:: May I put a question
to the hon. gentleman whose speech I am enjoying very much?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Certainly.


John Pritchard: He mentions this plan of retrenchment. I would ask is not the increase in uncontrollable expenditure largely due to the increase of salaries?


Herbert Meredith Marler: It has been increased to
some extent by salaries, to the cost of living bonus and the betterment of salaries, but the public services have grown to a very large extent. These services were asked for by the public and the public is now paying for them. However, I am quite serious in this respect: A very effective measure would be to cut down our own indemnities. If we want to cut down taxes why should we not give that gesture to the public and say we are willing to cut down our indemnity. Why should we go to our constituencies and say "You cannot have this and cannot have that," and yet keep for ourselves the increase that was made in our indemnities. There is no reason why we should not do as I suggest, no reason why we should not give an example to the rest of the country by doing it.


Miss MACPHAIL:: By what amount would you suggest the indemnity should be reduced?


Mr. GERVAIS:: According to the number
of children.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Hear, hear.


Herbert Meredith Marler: In answer to my hon.
friend from Southeast Grey I would reduce the indemnity to the amount it was before the war.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in brief let me repeat what I said a few moments ago as to reducing taxation by cutting down expenditure: While we may be able to cut down that expenditure in part, while we may be able to cut down capital expenditure in part, while we may be able to do without some of these services

The Address-Mr. Marler
which I think we should do without, while we may be able to cut down our own indemnities-all that is a drop in the bucket as regards the reduction in taxation. And again the Speech from the Throne is correct when it says:
It is apparent that even the most rigid economy in public expenditures will not suffice to solve this pressing problem and the problem of taxation incidental thereto.
So we come down to the point, also stated in t)he Speech from the Throne that this expenditure and this taxation the country is undergoing to-day is due to one main cause and that cause is the encumbered position of our National Railways. Had we not our railway expenditure, had we not to put forward every year large sums of money on our railways, had we not to build those railways up as they have had to be built up under both governments-I am not complaining about what the other government did-and had we not to put aside 'this huge sum of money every year-I want to make this point clear and distinct to every member of the House-we would have a surplus that we could apply as regards reduction in taxation. We could see our way clear to a reduction of taxation and in time a very considerable reduction in taxation if the railway problem was not on our hands.
That being the case let us discuss for a moment the Canadian National Railways, and then I will pass on to another subject. The Canadian National Railways, as every member knows, is an amalgamation of four separate groups-the old Canadian Government railways, the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk. These railways during their separate existence incurred very many obligations. These obligations were incurred by the railways, they were not directly assumed by us, but other obligations were directly guaranteed. Other obligations were contracted from time to time in the names of the railways guaranteed by the Dominion, or contracted by the Dominion itself for railway purposes. The point I want to make is this: It does not seem to make any difference whether we actually assumed these particular debts which the railways had at the time, whether these particular debts were incurred by the Canadian National Railway in its present corporate capacity or indirectly by the government. All these debts of the railways have, as a matter of fact, become the obligation of this country. I am not discussing the question of accounts at all, I am simply discussing a practical business matter. Here we have these railways. We own them. When we took them over, as I
have said, they had a considerable funded debt secured on the lines and ranking prior to many of the obligations which we ourselves had guaranteed. Those securities, issued against the various parts of the line-and I will again ask permission to put the schedule explaining them into Hansard-amount to $328,000,000. After that there were securities guaranteed by ourselves to the extent of $470,000,000. That is to say the total securities which we would have .to pay before we could recoup ourselves for any cash we put into these lines amount to $798,000,000. In addition to that we advanced to these Various bodies, either separately or to the system as a whole, another $773,000,000 and we expended on the Canadian government group $494,000,000. To strike a balance, although I do not think it is correctly insertable, Canadian Northern 5 per cent income stock, which only bears interest in the event of its earning, to the amount of $24,000,000 appears in the schedule referred to. But leaving that amount in there is involved in these railways the huge sum of $2,000,000,000.
This is our liability and expenditure on-capital account as of 31 December, 1923: Securities issued against various parts of the roads which would require to be paid in order to preserve the system intact-of which $93,574,377 are guaranteed by certain of the Provinces	 328,588.298
Securities guaranteed by the Dominion.. ..	470,372,100
Total securities which would require to be paid before the Dominion would be able to save the cash it has advanced with respect to Canadian Northern, Grand Trunk Pacific and Grand Trunk
groups	 798,960,393
Cash has been advanced to the roads comprised in these three groups including $16,601,064 to the whole system.. ..	773,422,946
Expenditure on the Canadian Government group	 494,888,351
Total cash advances	 1.268,311,297
To balance cost include Canadian Northern 5 per cent income stock which is subject to interest when earned..	24,137 846
The addition of these figures represents the cost of the system and the money involved which is	2,091,409,541
Now these amounts were advanced in various proportions. The Canadian Government Railways, as I have just said, consumed $494,000,000, the Canadian Northern-over $800,000,000 and the Grand Trunk Pacific $284,000,000, and so on. This is the'
exact expenditure.
Canadian Government	Railways	 $494,888,351
Canadian Northern	 807,238 232
Grand Trunk Pacific	 284,202,876
Grand Trunk	 465.979W
Canadian National (whole	system)	 39,101.06#
Total.

The Address-Mr. Marler

I want to impress upon hon. members of this House just exactly what that railway situation is, and also that in order to work out a reduction an taxation, the railway situation must be solved at all hazards. That is the crux of the whole situation. I do not think the railways are making the progress they should make under present conditions, and that progress is not being made, not because the management is not doing its utmost, not because the government is not doing its utmost to help that management, but simply because it is impossible for the railways under present conditions to increase their traffic earnings. It is quite true that an improvement has been made. In 1920 there was a deficit of fixed charges of $26,000,000 and at the end of 1923 that had been turned into a surplus of $13,000,000. That would look in the first instance as though there had been an improvement of $39,000,000; but that was the operating improvement, and a very acceptable operating improvement it was, but you have to take off that operating improvement the fixed charges, to say nothing of the money which is owed to us. Take the fixed charges off and also take into consideration that during those four or .five years which I have had under review we expended, in order to make that increase, something like $314,000,000, losing the interest on that amount. There is $100,000,000 in interest still unpaid, and the net gain in the years in question, you will find after working it out in the most careful way, has not been greater than $16,-
500,000.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Does the hon.
gentleman not think that a rearrangement of the service between the two great systems might not materially cut down the cost of operation?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes, without a doubt. I will come to that in a moment. I daresay that this large expenditure which is being incurred by the railways every year may not have to go on. Perhaps we have got to a point when the trains will stay on the tracks now; but in any event that expenditure may have to be continued. But let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this country have got to the limit of their endurance with regard to taxation, and they wiil not, I can assure you, Sir, stand for very much more expenditure for spectacular locomotives, or spectacular advertising or radios or matters of that description. All these pleasing little things will have to be cut out, because the people of this country have reached the limit of their endurance.

I will now take up the question asked me by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth)-railway competition. I had made a note in regard to that question. As we all know in this country we have the two great railway systems, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National. Now we want healthy and fair competition between these two railways, and it is in our interest to have such a healthy and fair competition but it is not in our interest to have stupid competition, it is not in our interest to have duplication, nor is it in our interest to have a spectacular movement on the part of any of these great railway companies. It is not in our interest to have so many trains run on one line and an equal number of trains run on the other line in the same territory. There is no sense in it and no object to be gained in so far as the Canadian National Railway is to be concerned. Nor is there any object to be gained so far as the Canadian Pacific is concerned. Unless these two railways come to some agreement themselves, it seems to me it is high time that parliament should step in and make them come to some sensible agreement, in order that the foolish duplication should not be continued.
Now let us ask ourselves how this railway problem can be solved. I again turn to the Speech from the Throne which says:
Their ultimate solution lies largely in increased production and the development of new and wider markets.
There is no question about that at all. It is the only way we can solve our railway problem. We can do what we will, we can spend as much money as we will, and we can avoid as much duplication as we will, but we will never solve the railway problem until we build up the country by more production and more profitable production. That is the only way we can solve our railway problem. Then we come back, Mr. Speaker, to the same old question and we face the vicious circle-exactly the same question. It is a question of more people, more hard work, more wise economy and less expenditure, which does not mean no expenditure at all. That is the position in which we find ourselves. That is the position in which we are after we analyze the situation in every possible way. After we go through every channel possible in regard to our expenditure in taxation, we come down again as I say to the question of more people, more profitable production and more hard work. I say that the people of this country are to-day looking to us to find out in what way we can relieve them of their problem. We stand challenged to-day by the people of this country to find in what

The Address-Mr. Marler
manner we can relieve them of the many pressing burdens, which burdens are not overwhelming, although they are serious and have to be taken into consideration. But the problem of procuring more people, the problem of keeping our young manhood in Canada and the problem of more profitable production, all of which are associated, and all of which are inter-dependent, might perhaps seem to some to be almost impossible to overcome. Those who hold that view, who say that these matters are overwhelming, and that they are insuperable, simply lack courage in their country; they do not realize that we have a sound, and a safe foundation on which to build. They do not realize that we have our natural resources and our other industries which by perseverance we have built up. They do not realize that we in this country are in a position to give diversified employment to everybody who may come here. The solution is to apply to those natural resources and to those industries policies which will conserve one and develop the other, and increase thereby profitable production, thereby attracting more people.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not in
the Speech from the Throne.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The Speech from the
Throne makes precisely that statement in words which I will give the House.


Mr. VIEN:: The hon. gentleman did not
read that paragraph.


Herbert Meredith Marler: After the witticisms of
my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) I will continue. These questions of profitable production and of securing more people for this country I admit are not without their difficulties, but the only way in which we can overcome them is by realizing those difficulties and doing our best to overcome them. We will never overcome them so long as we think in terms of Ontario and Quebec, or in terms of the east and the west. We have to think of them in terms of Canada and Canada only. That is the only way by which we will be able to overcome our difficulties in this country. These difficulties are known to you; perhaps they need not be repeated, but in order to continue the trend of my argument I am going to take the liberty of repeating some of them to the House, because they follow out very largely what I have been saying.
The first of these difficulties is our geographical situation. Canada is not a compact country. It is not a country with a moderately dense population; it is a country stretching across the continent with an extremely
scattered population, settled, perhaps, in a way in which it should never have been settled, but nevertheless, settled as it has been. In the United States, settlement was made gradually towards the west. In this country our settlement was far flung to all comers. This country, instead of being a compact country, one which could be easily governed, is, as a matter of fact, divided into four distinct parts, each of which is separated from the other by natural obstacles more or less difficult. We have the Maritimes separated from the industrial central provinces of Ontario and Quebec by a long stretch of sparsely settled country; we have the central provinces of Quebec and Ontario separated from the prairie section by a long stretch of wilderness, and we have the Pacific province of British Columbia, separated from the prairie section by the Rocky mountains. The division of this country in that particular way is not the only difficulty. In each of those particular divisions there has grown up different viewpoints, different industries, very often different from those in other parts of the country, and different economic views of life. Another difficulty is that we have along our *whole southern border the richest, one of the most populous nations of the world, constantly influencing us in many ways we do not perceive and do not understand, constantly acting as a magnet for our population, rendering our position in this country perhaps the most difficult of any country in the world.
All those influences give rise to various factors. Our widely scattered population and great distances give rise to questions of transportation; our different industries in the different parts of Canada give rise to questions of tariffs and our proximity to the United States gives rise to questions of labour, taxation and competition. With those various differences in the geographical situation and in the industrial life of this country, I cannot see how anybody can say that a fixed and decided policy can be formulated which will apply to the whole of Canada. A policy for example fashioned in the terms of the Maritimes might not suit the provinces of Ontario and Quebec; a policy fashioned in the terms of Ontario and Quebec might not suit the prairie section, and it is conceivable that a policy fashioned in the terms of the prairie sections might not suit other parts of Canada. What, therefore, should we attempt to do? We should fashion policies which would encourage as much as possible the basic industries in every part of the Dominion. But in doing that, someone will say to us: Yes, you encourage an industry there and you
The Address-Mr. Marler

discourage an industry elsewhere. In other words there is a conflict of interest, a conflict of economic forces. That may happen, it cannot be denied, with our far-flung population in the various parts of this country. But where a certain policy framed to encourage an industry in one particular section of the country prejudicially affects an industry in another section, the industry unfavourably affected should* be given some compensating factor in order that it may get on in the best way possible without feeling the burden unduly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the speaker encourage some sort of zoning policy by which each section would be allowed to choose its own particular policy, protection or free trade?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Throne may perhaps be correctly used; but I do not think it is a term that can be properly applied as regards freight rates, because if equalization means a certain rate per mile, that cannot work out inasmuch as the topography of the country, the density of population and a hundred other questions must be considered. What we should bear in mind in the matter of freight rates is, as I say, not the question whether those rates compare with the rates in the United States or in any other country: we need rates that will enable the people to build up the basic industries and promote profitable production so that more people will be induced to enter the country without the necessity for an immigration policy at all.
Incidentally, while we are discussing this question of freight rates, two other questions will occur to us in that regard. The first question is, who is to make these rates; the second it, who is to bear the cost. Opinions may differ on the first question. Some will say that parliament should make the rates. If so, I find it extremely difficult to agree with that opinion. I venture to say that with the sole exception of my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) none of us in this House has a general understanding of the complicated structure of freight rates. My hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke) may know all about freight rates on farm products, my hon. friend from North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) may know all about freight rates on furniture, some other of my hon. friends may know all about freight rates on other commodities, but who in this House is capable of taking into consideration comparisons between a ton mile, a freight mile and a passenger mile, what any particular traffic will bear, and half a hundred other questions that arise in this complex matter. We are incapable in this House or in a committee of making up a general structure of freight rates. But there is a body competent to make such a structure-the Board of Railway Commissioners. That body has made a study of freight rates and is competent to deal with the question. Let my point not be misunderstood in that regard, Mr. Speaker. I say the railway commission is the proper body to formulate the general basis of a rate structure; but no one will assert that we in this House should not say, for the purpose of assisting any basic industry in any part of the country, that a specific rate is not advisable in order to bring the product of that particular industry to market.
As to the second question, who is to bear the cost of lower freight rates that we might

decide on, this is an important factor also, and hon. gentlemen would be very well advised to take it into their most earnest consideration. Let them bear in mind that we have two great railway systems, the National and the Canadian Pacific, each attempting to the fullest extent of its ability to give good' service, but each struggling to live on account of insufficient traffic. To say to the National, reduce freight rates below the cost of living rates fixed by the railway commission, will simply mean that the deficits on that line will be greater, and its officers and employees will be faced with still greater discouragement. If a similar reduction is made in respect of freight rates of the Canadian Pacific, that line also will probably have a deficit, which will affect not only our national financial standing, but our financial standing internationally.
Anyone studying the subject will admit that on account of our geographic situation we must have such transportation rates as will enable the products of the various sections of this country to compete in the markets of the world. It is that geographical situation which we have to overcome, and I believe that any reduction below the general structure of freight rates as made by the railway commission should be borne by the country as a whole, for this reason. It is in the interests of the country generally to promote profitable production in the west and in the Maritimes, because the rest of the Dominion will benefit at the same time.
Now, I have spoken of compensating factors which may require to be given to various sections of the country. I have also spoken of the utter impossibility of formulating a blanket policy which will suit the whole Dominion. I admit freely that there are conflicting interests, and that these will continue until they are wiped out by more population. I do not intend to avoid discussing what perhaps is an unpleasant topic to some, therefore I do not intend to conceal my ideas on certain subjects. I have spoken to some extent and made an attempt to outline a policy as regards the prairie provinces and the Maritimes, but I have made no observations with respect to the central provinces of Quebec and Ontario. I am not anxious to refer to these sections, but I am confident that if I do not deal with them I shall be told I should have given my views with regard to them.


Mr. EULER:: Before my hon. friend leaves the question of freight rates, I understood him to say that perhaps the chief factor in our heavy taxation is the deficits of the

The Address-Mr. Marler
National railway. Reduced freight rates east and west, as suggested by him, would necessarily increase those deficits, and I should like to ask him whether this would not aggravate the situation which he has already described as almost unbearable.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The point is well taken.
I attempted in the earlier part of my remarks to emphasize that we had locked up in the Canadian National lines a vast sum of money, that the system was not making the progress that it should make by the means at our command, and that the only way in which progress could be made was by having more production and therefore greater freight traffic. I also attempted to make the point that to have greater production we had to have more profitable production in order to attract people to settle in various parts of the Dominion. My claim is that it does not matter how much money we spend in immigration, it does not matter how much advertising we do to attract immigrants, unless people in every section of the country are prosperous it is not a bit of good to bi'ing more people into those sections. I admit that reduced freight rates will cost the country money, I admit that deficits in the meantime will likely increase, but I claim that when we have an increased population making profitable production those deficits will gradually' decrease until they are ultimately wiped out entirely.


William Daum Euler: Taxation in the meantime
may increase?


Herbert Meredith Marler: It may increase.


Mr. LEWIS:: You are not looping the
loop?


Herbert Meredith Marler: If we do not loop the
loop some way we will loop ourselves another way pretty quickly.


Arthur John Lewis: I have followed the hon.
gentleman's remarks fairly well, but if freight rates to and from the Maritime provinces and the prairie provinces are lowered, it simply means that our taxation is going to be increased. The hon. gentleman stated that the consumer ultimately pays taxation. If this increased burden is cast upon the people of the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec, it means increased protection, and higher prices, and you are simply in a vicious circle; you cannot get out of it.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Of course it will cost more to lower railway rates. I said quite distinctly that the cost would be borne by the country as a whole, not necessarily-


Arthur John Lewis: By the consumer.


Herbert Meredith Marler: By the consumer, yesby the country as a whole not by one particular section or another particular section. Let my hon. friend not misunderstand me:
I do not claim for a moment that this is an economic principle that can be defended; I do not think it can be defended in any way. But let me be quite frank in that respect: what is the alternative? What is to be done? How are we in this country to make production profitable? How are we to increase our population, first of all, so that these deficits may decrease? I do not claim that a suggestion of this description is a proper economic suggestion that one would make under any other circumstances.
We are well aware that a great part of the industry of the central provinces of Quebec and Ontario is bound up in manufacturing. All the urban population and many of those who comprise the rural population have interests which are bound up with the manufacturing industries. I want to put the claims of the people of these provinces, as I hear them and as I understand them, frankly and freely before hon. members of this House. I am not going to discuss the merits or demerits of fiscal systems; I am only going to put forward what may be regarded as a reasonable claim. These people say that in order to enable them to develop their various industries, a certain tariff should be maintained so that goods manufactured under more favourable climatic and other conditions than those applicable to goods manufactured in Canada shall not be dumped in here to undersell our Canadian made products. Now, I do not intend to debate the merits or demerits of the tariff systems which have been in vogue in this country. I know that those in certain sections of the country claim that the tariff system is no good, while on the other hand those in other sections say that its maintenance is imperative. But it seems to me that those living in the different parts of the country should know what is best for them; they are the best judges. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) distinctly says, "No, this system will not do; we will have none of it." He went on to say, "When the population goes out into the west, see what is ahead of you." Now, I do not take these remarks of the hon. member for Brandon seriously. I think he is 5. p.m. too good a Scotchman and has too much sense not to view these matters in a fair light.


Mr. FORKE:: Let me correct my hon.
friend's statement. I said that when the
The Address-Mr. Marler

population was in the majority in the west they would probably treat the people in the east as the east now treat the people in the west.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Let us be frank about this thing. We want to try to get at some reasonable and common policy. What is the use of our bandying words across the floor of this House? What is the use of talking about this eastern and this western idea? Let us try to arrive at some common basis on which we can proceed. That is why I am talking here to-day and for no other reason. I would not be bothered talking on this subject at all if I were not desirous of making a reasonable attempt to offer you from the city of Montreal a fair, honest and decent gesture.


Robert Forke: Does the hon. member ever find me talking in any other strain?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I was going on to say
that I did not for a moment take seriously what my hon. friend said in that respect. I do not for a moment take seriously what the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) is reported to have said. I do not think that hon. gentlemen in that quarter of the House have any less sense or any less intelligence than we have in the east; perhaps in some cases they have more. I believe they are just as good Canadians as we are in the east and that they have just as good ideas. I want to see the whole country go ahead. I believe our present differences are due to lack of understanding, to lack of clarity; to the fact that the conditions have not been put before the people of the west as clearly and as fairly as they should have been. That is why I am speaking this afternoon, as representing a part of the city of Montreal, directly to hon. members from the west.
We may as well recognize that there is that conflict of interests. But if it can be plainly shown that a reasonable d'evelopment tariff is necessary in the country, would it not be fair, if a transportation structure is borne by the remainder of the country, for certain parts to have in the meantime, until our population is built up, until our markets are increased, a reasonable tariff to develop these particular industries?


Mr. GOOD:: Would my hon. friend explain to the House how the manufacturers of Quebec and Ontario can get any benefit out of the tariff if they are going to compensate the west for the burden which that tarjff imposes on the west?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am not going to discuss theories with my hon. friend at all. I am
CMr. Forke.]
sick of theories on this thing I want to get down to plain business facts.


William Charles Good: I think the question is a fair one.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Well, I d!o not understand it.


William Charles Good: May I repeat my question?


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend may repeat it as much as he likes.


William Charles Good: Would my hon. friend from Montreal explain how Ontario and Quebec, if they are advantaged at the present time through the tariff, are going to derive any permanent benefit from the tariff if they must pay compensation to the west?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes, I will explain that, certainly. Ontario and Quebec want to see the west populated and prosperous; that is why.


Mr. SPENCER:: Wipe out the tariff, then.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Wipe out the tariff? My hon. friend is again getting into theories. We have had enough theories from my hon. friend during the last three years in this House; we do not know where we are as regards his theories.


William Irvine: I notice that.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Let us get down to facts.


An hon. MEMBER:: Build the Hudson Bay railway.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes, if the Hudson Bay railway is shown to be a good thing I shall be the first to favour it. Certainly I will, but I want to be shown by proper proof that the Hudson Bay railway would be all that it should be. I will support the Hudson Bay railway or anything else for the good of the west if it is shown to be right, but I am not going to support the theories which some of my hon. friends opposite advance.


Mr. BIRD:: May I ask a question? Is the hon. member not aware that he is preaching a very advanced doctrine of state socialism?


Herbert Meredith Marler: No, I Ao not und-rstand anything about state socialism; I understand ordinary business common sense, that is all.
I have been a business man for many years and I want to see business go ahead in this country, and go ahead just as much in the prairie section as in the other parts of this Dominion. That is all I am trying to get at, and if I am wrong I will acknowledge it quite freely before this House.

The Address*-Mr. Marler
I was going on to say when these theories came up for discussion that we might well consider what the objections are in connection with this much debated subject of tariffs. To those who are opposed to a reasonable tariff for this country I will say that if any of the objections they urge are well founded I shall be the first to favour the wiping out of the objectionable features. What are these objections? The commonest one is that the tariff promotes inefficiency. I do not know whether it does or does not. The second objection is that the manufacturer is taking improper advantage of the tariff. I say again that I do not know whether he is or is not. Another objection is that insufficient revenue is procured from the country on account of the tariff framed as it is and on account of the manner in which it is collected. That may be the case. Another objection, and the last, is that it fosters industries in Canada w'hich enjoy no reasonable measure of success. Now all these objections are objections which, to my way of thinking, and I say it quite frankly, should be investigated. I say further: If any of these objections are well founded I will be the first to stand up in this House and say, "Wipe that objection away."


An hon. MEMBER:: Wipe the objection
away?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Nothing could be fairer
than that. I do not think I could be conscientiously asked to support a tariff that has these objectionable features in it; I do not intend to support a tariff that has any such features in it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should have
thought you would allow the objections.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Did my friend say "Wipe
them out?"


Henry Lumley Drayton: Allow the objections.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I cannot hear my hon.
friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend said that if the abjection was good he would wipe it out. I do not think he meant to say that.


Mr MARLER:: I am afraid my hon. friend from West York is becoming a theorist also. Sooner or later he will have to seat himself beside my hon. friend the member from Brant (Mr. Good). When that takes place we shall be most delighted to have the joint theories of these two gentlemen. No, I am getting away from theories and trying to get down to
facts. In discussing this subject what I want lo know, and what hon. gentlemen want to know, is this: Does our present tariff prevent what it should prevent, and does it effect what it should effect? No one can say that it does, and no one can say that it does not. It was in 1907 and since then there have been hundreds and hundreds of changes in the tariff. Now I claim, and I think I correctly claim, that there should be a complete revision of that tariff based on present day conditions and in keeping with what the conditions may be. I go further and say this: That the only way by which that can be brought about is to (have a properly constituted tariff board to investigate every item and to find out whether any item is right or wrong. I say that to make our tariff on a hit or miss principle will get us nowhere. We may be imposing burdens we Should not impose; there may be disqualifications in the tariff which should not be there and which certainly should be wiped out. But how are we going to find out unless the matter is submitted to a proper tariff board? I do not mean a tariff board that shall make the tariff. That is nonsense; the government will have to take the responsibility itself of making the tariff. I do not intend this to be a board such as functions in the United States, with public hearings or anything of that kind; but we want a board of experts in this country to look into tariff matters continually, to say what is right and what is wrong, and to keep the government fully advised. The Prime Minister mentioned this very fully in his speech on May 15 last, and I am using very largely the very words of the leader of the government.
I have nearly finished every hon. member will be glad to hear, unless there are some more theories to be answered. During the past year, and notably during the past few weeks, we have heard all kinds of reports as regards Canada. We have beard reports as to our expenditures, reports as regards the exodus of our population, and many other reports of the worst kind. I think there is a great deal in certain of these reports and that they will bear careful investigation. My hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth) in his very able speech brought up some the other day. All these cases deserve consideration. There is no good burying our heads in the sand and saying everything is beautiful in this country. We have to investigate facts as we find them, and unless we do investigate we will never go ahead. We have heard from within that "Confederation is at stake," and from without that "Our
The Address-Mr. Marler

path is laid to the cave of a dragon with stars on its forehead and stripes on its side, only waiting a favourable opportunity to consume us." All these things we have heard about our country but t'he peculiar fact is that notwithstanding all these criticisms which have taken place, all these matters which have happened, very few remedies have been brought forward in order to effect a solution. The criticisms have been ample, but the solutions few and far between. I do not wonder at that particular situation. The people of this country are generally working at fever heat. They have no time to particularly investigate national affairs. They know these affairs in a general sort of way. Still, I doubt very much if they know that our national railways have cost $2,000,000,000; I doubt very much if they know that our canals 'have cost $130,000,000; I doubt very much if they know that we have invested in manufacturing industries in this country over $3,000,000,000. What they do ask is that this vast structure erected, and perhaps unwisely erected, should be made to pay and that taxation should be reduced. They ask us in the meantime to forget our party differences, to some extent at least, and to get down to a reasonable and proper basis and go ahead. After we go ahead and after taxation is reduced we may come down to our party tactics again. But in the meantime-


Henry Elvins Spencer: Why go back to party?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Again I am not a hazy
theorist. I think these things are practical, but I say that in the meantime we should sink any differences we have and try and evolve some policy which will be good and beneficial to the whole of Canada. I say quite frankly, as I said earlier in these observations, that to make a blanket policy for this country is impossible. I say again, as I have said before that comoensating factors will have to be given in various sections of the country and the objection taken by my hon. friend the member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) was .perfectly correct in every way. These compensating factors- the helping of the Maritimes, the helping of the central provinces in a certain way, the helping of the prairie sections in a certain way-will, I know, cost money. I ask: What are we to do, where are we to land, where are we to get off, unless we promote profitable production, unless we get more people into the country. We spend money in immigration every year-the Minister of Immigration and 'Colonization carries out as good a policy as anyone can carry out-but no policy of immigration, no amount of

money spent in immigration, no advertising or propaganda of any kind, will have any lasting or enduring effect unless the people of this country at the present rime are prosperous and are engaged in profitable production, and this is the first thing that must be brought about.
Now, what are the alternatives? The alternatives are these:	For the people of
Canada to make a bold and courageous stand, cost monetarily what it will, for the purpose of building up our population and establishing profitable production. When the population arrives, when that production and further production takes place, any necessity of compensating factors will then cease, and the cost will seem trifling. But if we do not do that, if we do not take our courage in our hands and say that we will help here and we will help there and go ahead in the meantime, what will be the result? We will lose population. More than that we will not be able to keep this great structure we have erected with less people, and then we may find ourselves unknowingly but certainly treading the path towards that cave and that dragon which I spoke of a few moments ago. Why Sir, it is impossible for me to think that we Canadians lack courage in this country. It is impossible for me to think that we have forgotten what our forefathers have done in Canada. It is impossible for me, coming as I do from the province of Quebec, to forget what our French Canadians have done in old Quebec, how they built up that province out of the wilderness, and how the Anglo-Saxon race built up the province of Ontario, the prairie provinces and the province of British Columbia over the Rocky mountains. It is impossible for me to forget these things. It is impossible for me, even in the shortest space of time the human imagination is able to conceive, to believe that we have not in Canada the courage to take this situation in hand; and to bring forward, as I say cost what it will, reasonable and proper policies to encourage profitable production throughout this land, using that policy to provide production and more people. The only way we can get more people, I repeat, is by that production. Give us more people and we will hear nothing about Canada's troubles, we will hear nothing about freight rates or any of these other matters, and the country will blossom like the rose.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: What about a tax
on bachelors?

The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)


Herbert Meredith Marler: I could not catch my hon. of his other statements later on. But when friend's question. Why does he not stand he brought up the railway question and spoke up and ask a question like any ordinary	of the rumours and cries of despair which
member of this House would do, instead of we have heard in this country, I thought he
growling out something from his seat?


Donald Sutherland: I should like to
know whether the hon. member, in order to overcome the difficulty he has referred to fifteen or twenty times, would suggest a tax on bachelors.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Is my hon. friend a
bachelor? If he is I would put a large tax on them. I would put such a high tax on bachelors that he would be completely wiped out in a few minutes' time.
As I was saying when my hon. friend for Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) interrupted me at a most inopportune moment, as he usually does-he always interrupts at the most inopportune moments-it is impossible for me to believe that we have not the courage in this country to bring the country forward as we should. It is impossible for me to believe that we cannot, by means of fair and equitable policies, bring this country forward. There is an old saying which I remember reading in some memoirs a few years ago. Hon. gentlemen will remeipber what Cromwell did. He brought together a body of troops that were never beaten in the field, and his words were:
The secret of success is attack, pursue and rally.
And what we require to do in this country is to attack the problems now before us. What we require to do is to pursue the problems until we overcome them. Let all who are Canadians stand together. Let those who are in favour of fair and decent policies, Mr. Speaker, unsheathe the sword against those who are sectional and unfair. If we do that then I feel confident that this country will pull through and be a united and prosperous people.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: I
desire to compliment the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) upon his courage in coming forward in this House this afternoon and making the professions and suggestions he has made, and intimating his readiness to co-operate with others in this House to solve the great problems before the country to-day. I agree with many of the statements he has made, that we are overtaxed, that we have great burdens, and that we have got to try and settle them. We are here to settle these questions and this is the time to do it. For a short time I will refer to some of the things the hon. member has brought up; I may have to deal with some
was about to state the case of his fellow citizens of Montreal who have no confidence in the country because of certain things in connection with transportation. I thought that the special thing that he had in mind was the national railway which is owned by the people of Canada. I am ready to deal with that question as between the national railway owned in this country by the people, and the other road which holds the good esteem

and is entitled to the good esteem- of the people of Montreal, the Canadian Pacific railway. To introduce what I have to say, I intend to tell the House of a little conference I attended four or five weeks ago when I happened to be in Ottawa. A conference had been called by the Minister of Railways to discuss the proposal in connection with the Peace River railway. I attended that conferepce, as I had a right to do as a member of this House, and I had' letters from some of my friends in the west who asked me to look into the matter. The conference lasted for about two hours, and a great many statements were made. The Canadian Pacific Railway was represented by Mr. Beatty, the Canadian National by Sir Henry Thornton, and the best men of the respective executives of these railways were present. Also the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), 'the Premier of British Columbia, the Premier of Alberta, and others attended the conference, and they all asked questions; but the most significant statement at that conference was made by the Premier of British Columbia, Hon. Mr. Oliver. He said it would be a crime for this country, in its present state to allow two systems of railway to be built into the Peace river country when one would be sufficient. Other gentlemen followed him more or less on the same line, but they did not come quite to the point. Nor did Mr. Beatty, nor Sir Henry Thornton, deal with the crucial point. Many of the representatives spoke, ana' the Minister of Railways turned to me and said, "We would like to hear from you, Mr. Maclean." I said that I agreed with the statement of the Premier of British Columbia that it would be a crime to build two competing lines into one district of the country, and I thought there should be cooperation or joint action between the two. I had' no sooner said that then every man got up and restated his case, and they all said they were absolutely in favour of co-opera-

The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
tion in regard to the project. That was the significant thing in that meeting.
Taking the speech of the hon. gentleman this afternoon dealing with the railway question, I think he has that point in view, but he does not quite care to express it. Let me tell him that we have a Canadian National railway in this country, and it has cost us a great deal of money. It is the greatest publicly owned railway in the world to-day, and' the people of Canada absolutely own it. It may have cost two billion dollars, or whatever the hon. gentleman says, but the people of Canada own the Canadian National Railway system. We have another great road, the Canadian Pacific railway. That road is owned by the investing public; and the control of it is not in the city of Montreal, but in the stock market of New York, the stock market of Lona'on. That being the case, if the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marier) believes in co-operation and consolidation, inasmuch as the Canadian National is the greater system and has seventy per cent of the strategy of the railway situation in Canada, the co-operation must start by the Canadian Pacific being prepared' to co-operate with the Can-dian National-the smaller with the greater. In that act of co-operation it must be prepared also, not to sell its lines to the Canadian National-for we could not afford to purchase the Canadian Pacific-but to lease its system to the Canadian National Railways, probably with joint operation under a board taken from the two roads. My hon. friend is in favour of co-operation and of reducing the cost of railways in this country. The cost is too high, it must bp reduced. We are trying to do too much; we cannot afford to run half a dozen competing services across the continent. There is no need for two competing lines every day in the year between Toronto and Montreal, or between Toronto and Ottawa, or in other sections. Enormous economies can be effected in connection with the railways and railway transportation in this Dominion. I am simply throwing out the suggestion and saying that I agree largely with what my hon. friend says that he is prepared to accept, but it must be with the Canadian Pacific accepting some kind of arrangement with the National system. The people of Canada will never consent to turning over the Canadian National railway system to the Canadian Pacific which is not controlled by Canadians. If that is the view of my hon. friend, I should like to talk it over with him and I should like to hear whether he is prepared to recommend that the Canadian Paci-

fic come in with the Canadian National and try to solve the problem.
In speaking of what the hon. gentleman said, I give him credit for his fairness. He said a great deal; but many things he did not say. I accept his appearance here to-day not so much as that of one who is prepared to make every sacrifice, but one who comes here to say that the greatest mistake in the economic condition of Canada is that we have public ownership of the National railway system. That is what Montreal is saying to-day. The Montreal press is saying that the shadow of death is over the country; that there is a "whisper of death" in Canada. Let them say that; but the National Railways are an established fact, the people of Canada own them and the National Railways are here to stay. The Canadian Pacific is in existence and it may continue to make a great success. But the Canadian Pacific has no right to attack the National Railways, it was never chartered for that purpose. I want to tell Mr. Beatty and those men who are talking about "whispers of death," that the Canadian Pacific was built for a specific purpose as set out in the charter of that road. It is very simple; it is almost suggestive of the Shorter Catechism with which the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) is probably familiar, and Which says:	"What is the chief object of man?";
and the answer is: "To glorify God and enjoy him forever." What is the chief object of the Canadian Pacific railway? It is set out in the act, and it is simply to connect the province of British Columbia with the railway system of Canada in the east. In other words, the chief duty of the Canadian Pacific railway is to build a road from British Columbia to connect with the Canadian railway systems to the east, and in the act there is nothing that says that the chief duty of the Canadian Pacific is to conspire against the National railway system which is owned by the people of Canada. The Canadian Pacific would like to put the Canadian National out of business or to take it over. Montreal, where the "whisper of death" comes from, would like to take it over; but the Canadian people are not going to give up the National system of railways; they never will hear of such a thing. If the Canadian Pacific is willing to co-operate in some way and will come in with some joint arrangement, recognizing the right of the people to own and manage their own railway-and there is nothing more before us now than to do that-they may come in and they will receive a fair hearing. But when the people and press of Montreal say that the shadow of death is over our

The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
country because we have National Railways, that at least recognizes the fact that we have them. How we came to get them, I am not going to detail. I know all about the blunders of the past and about the individuals and firms who wished to get railways and to make money out of them; I know of the visions of various statesmen in connection with railways. That is all past; we must deal now with the fact, and the fact is that the people of Canada own a national system of railways and telegraphs which they intend to hold and develop, and they are prepared to take the Canadian Pacific into some joint arrangement if it will come into it.
Anybody who hears and reads about what is going on must realize that there is this objection to public ownership of railways, as if public ownership were a crime. The fact that we have these roads is thrown at us as a reason why we shall never succeed in this country. The truth of the matter is that the hope of the country lies in the fact that we have the National Railways and that they are dealing with our transportation problems in a great and broad way. If Montreal changes its attitude and says that its main business is to deal with the rest of the country in regard to solving the question of transportation, all well and good.
But an attack is being made now on public ownership in another comer of this country. The people of Ontario have seen fit to spend a good deal of money in creating a provincial system of hydro-electric development and they have made a great success of it. Because Ontario has done this thing, all the enemies of public ownership, not only in Montreal and other parts of Canada, but even in the United States, and especially in Washington where the Smithsonian Institute has made an investigation into our adventure in hydro-electric in Ontario, say that we have failed. The greatest success in public ownership in the world today is the hydro-electric system of Ontario. Electric energy is distributed in ail parts of the province; it is in every town, every village and it is going into every farmer's house in Ontario. It is the cheapest supply of electrical energy in the world to-day, and it is owned by the people of Ontario. But these people in Montreal are constantly harping about this and they say that Ontario has made a great mistake; that Adam Beck has in some way humbugged the people. >1 happen to know many of the public men of this country. I knew Sir John A. Macdonald, I knew Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I have sat in this House for a long time; and of all the public men that I have met in the affairs of this country, 9
two outstanding -men in connection with Ontario's affairs are Sir William Meredith and Sir James Whitney. These two men, early in their career, saw this question coming up, and Sir James Whitney, who -happened to be Premier of Ontario, had the courage to meet Adam Beck and to say to him: "Adam Beck, all right, I will give you a chance. You must be square with me and carry out -this undertaking." The authority was given him, as well as the money, and he made a great success of the enterprise. And to-day the glory of Ontario and the source of its development is this great supply of hydro-electrical energy for power, for light, and for the domestic convenience of every citizen of the province. It has proved a marvellous success despite the fact that it is cursed and damned -in all parts of Canada, and especially in the United States, and for the same reason that the National Railways have been anathematised. In an English story I was reading the other day, I came across a character who was designated the Beaver because of the fact that, -like that animal, he was always "damning." Now, there are a lot of "beavers" in this country; they are all the time damning, and they are damning particularly public ownership, morning, noon and night. But in spite of all that they may say against it public ownership will vindicate itself.
I want to direct the attention of hon. gentlemen to another great instance of the success of public ownership which is the surprise of the world to-day. It is not quite in Canada in connection with the National Railways nor is it to be found in Ontario in connection with the hydro-electric development that has taken place in that province. No; the greatest example of public ownership in the world to-day is the national reserve bank system of the United States which is absolutely under public control. Congress has forced all national banks in that country into membership in the national reserve system, and they are all successful in that co-operation-. They are all glad to he in it although they were all "beavers" at the time of its origination. They are glad, I say, to be in it and they are proud of its success. And What is behind that system that makes it the hope of the world to-day and a possible solution for the difficulties of the nations? It is the interest which the government of the United States has taken in it; that government has backed it up with immense accumulation of capital and its supply of gold. The national currency which it issues is given to the banks throughout the United States for the purpose of developing -their commerce and industry

130	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
and enterprises of various kind3. And they have not lost a dollar thereby. This, I say, is the greatest example of public ownership the world has known; and moreover, it is entirely successful. We may have to have the same thing in this country, and Montreal is getting alarmed. Indeed, warning has already gone out to beware of this menace of national banking. I should think that Winston Churchill, now Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain, if he were desirous of getting out of his troubles, might very well avail himself of the present opportunity to create a great national reserve bank system with headquarters in Canada. It would be a great source of assistance to him, it would involve no danger to Canada, and it would help us in a large measure to solve the problem of reparations.
I was surprised that my hon. friend (Mr. Marler) did not say that his great grievance was public ownership of national railways. But it seems to me a waste of time for anybody to condemn public ownership. All highways in the country are under the control of the public; the public controls education and the administration- of justice, in that it -has to maintain these services; and it has many other public services and utilities under its ownership. Yet, if one were to heed the statements of gentlemen in Montreal, it is a great mistake that -all these tilings should be under public control. For my own part, I regard it as a matter for congratulation that the principle of public ownership is spreading, and in view of that fact it seems to me that Montreal must be prepared to change its attitude.
My hon. friend dealt with the tariff and things of that kind. There is a good deal to be said for some kind of co-operation, and as there is a diversity of interests throughout the country we must consider these things. And we shall, in time. But I think that first of all Montreal must change its attitude in regard to public ownership. The people there do not believe in the development of the St. Lawrence waterway either; they think that the seaport of Canada must, remain at the -mouth of the St. Lawrence. But some of us in the west think that the St. Lawrence development will go on, and that even Toronto and BuSalo, Detroit and Cleveland and Duluth, will be seaports. Montreal, however, will not listen to that; it has already denounced the proposition in regard to the development of the waterways, apparently because it is afraid of national ownership or international development in that respect. In regard to some of the things which the hon. member said about the tariff and all that, I agree that there should be

some consideration of the questions he has brought up, and undoubtedly the five sections into which he divides the country must meet and talk these things over and make concessions one to another. Probably something will be accomplished that way, but it will take some time. What the remedy is I will not suggest to-night; I cannot do that. We have industries which we must protect; and in that connection one is reminded that an free trade England the pronounced tendency to-day is the anxiety to safeguard home industries. That is the very question which is before us in Canada at the present time. They are talking that way in England and the idea may grow with them. Under these conditions we cannot afford to destroy our industries; we must retain them, and I believe that the people of the west will yet be reasonable in that matter.
This is all I have to say to-night on this point. We are going to have a debate on the fiscal .policy of the country a little later and I intend on that occasion to state my views. But my main object to-night is to direct the attention of hon. gentlemen to a certain incident that has happened within the last few days and touching which I am preparing myself for a discussion in which I must take a part, probably on Monday:	I
refer to the question of the constitution of Canada. The greatest attack that has been *made on Canada has been made within the last few days in the judgment which has been delivered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in connection with the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act passed in this House seventeen years ago. The constitution of Canada is being shot to pieces by the decisions of the Judicial Committee in *Great Britain. Now as a Canadian I am here to protest against that decision and against the fact that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England can shoot holes in our constitution. They have a right to interpret the British North America Act, and probably they are fair in their interpretation, but I would direct the attention of the House to their decision. I am not going to read the whole of it, but I want to have it placed on Hansard so that it will form a basis for the discussion that will take place on Monday next, when I am told my motion to give Canada the right to make and amend her constitution will be reached. The judgment is reported as delivered by Viscount Haldane, with whom were associated Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, Lord Wrenbury, and Lord Salvesen. It begins in this way:

The Address-Mr. Maclean (.York)
It is always with reluctance that their Lordships come to a conclusion adverse to the constitutional validity of any Canadian statute that has been before the public for years as having been validly enacted, but the duty incumbent on the judicial committee, now as always, is simply to interpret the British North America Act and decide whether the statute in question has been within the competence of the Dominion parliament under the terms of section 91 of that act.
The judgment continues:
The particular exercise of legislative power with which their Lordships are concerned is contained in a well-known act, passed by the Dominion parliament in 1907, and known as the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
This is the concluding paragraph.
As the result of consideration, their Lordships have come to the conclusion that they ought humbly to advise the sovereign that the appeal should be allowed, and that judgment should be entered for the appellants for the declaration and injunction claimed.
That is, seventeen years after this act was passed the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council declares it ultra vires. Well, if the people of Canada after seventeen years' experience are to have a law set aside like that

and for fifty-seven years somebody has been shooting holes in the British Nor'- America Act-they do not know where they are _. and it is time to bring this sort of thing to an end. My object to-night in putting this judgment on Hansard is to let the people know that the Dominion has no more to do with its constitution than the man in the street that this parliament can be told any day of the week that it has acted ultra vires. We cannot get along under a constitution of that kind. I am a 100-per cent Canadian when that issue comes up. My position is that we are no longer in tutelage, we are the equal of the Mother Country, and being her equal we have the right to make our own constitution; and with that right we have also the absolute right to set up our own supreme court for the interpretation of that constitution. And we are going to have our own constitution. England is ready to give us the privilege. I am not blaming England; I am blaming Canada, I am blaming this parliament that for fifty-seven years has allowed this state of affairs to continue. I am going to appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe)-they may not answer me to-night, but they will have to answer me when the question comes up on Monday-to state that Canada should have the absolute right to make her own constitution and to have it interpreted in her own courts. As I have said, England is prepared to give us that right. More recently created dominions have been given the right to amend their constitutions and to do certain things in 9i
connection therewith, under restrictions. South Africa in a measure has that power, but most of all Australia has it. I have a book on the subject-I will probably use it on Monday- from which it appears that Australia can make her own constitution and change it whenever she likes. South Africa is moving in the same direction. We shall be granted the same power if we have courage to ask for it.
We are a confederation. The greatest confederation known to the world to-day is the United States, and the outstanding feature in their constitution is the right of the people, under due restrictions to prevent precipitate action, to amend it. Congress can amend the constitution, and any state can initiate a movement for the same purpose, and in that way they have built up the greatest supreme court in the world. I say that with all respect to the courts of England. They have made wonderful progress in constitutional law. We have got to do the same thing. We are not going to have to submit our constitution to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for interpretation. They know very little about us, they do not care very much for us, hey are concerned chiefly with England; and while I have great respect for the judges who gave the judgment which I have quoted from, I think they are probably obscured by the -mists of Glasgow and the coy trivialities of Edinburgh. We can deal with these questions much better in our own country; in fact, the only place to deal with them is in Canada. Do you know that the people of England have a remarkable constitution? Wait until I tell you what the powers of the British parliament are. I quote a few lines from Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice;
The legislative authority of parliament extends over the United Kingdom, and all its colonies and foreign possessions: and there are no other limits to its power of making laws for the whole empire than those which are incident to all sovereign authority-the willingness of the people to obey, or their power to resist.
The British constitution is the greatest in the world to-day. The British parliament can repeal the Magna Oharta, can alter the succession to the crown, can disestablish the Church of England, can do anything it likes, and that by a single act of parliament. We cannot do anything like that, but we ought to have the freedom here in Canada to make our own constitution or to change it as we like. England is prepared to give us that power, but so far our parliament has not had the courage to ask for it. We have let the Judicial Committee of -the Privy Council make our constitution.
132	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
Now, I want this judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council put on the record for to-day so that the people of Canada may see it. One of the ministers told me it was the intention to have it published, but that does not quite give the public access to it. I want the newspapers to publish it; I want the people to be able to get their copies of Hansard to-morrow and see this judgment therein. So far as the judgment itself goes, I cannot say it is wrong, and I concede the uprightness and the ability of the judges of the judicial committee. But I want the people of Canada to settle these things, not the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The great value of being .able to interpret our constitution right here at home is this: If there is anything wrong [DOT]or anything unfair it can be corrected here-it eannot be corrected in an English court.
tFor judgment referred to by Mr. Maclean, see p. 133.]
Somebody may say, "But what about the appeal to the foot of the Throne? Well, whom does this appeal to the foot of the Throne chiefly concern? It concerns minors and natives. It is the Indian of Canada who takes credit out of the fact that he has the right to appeal to the foot of the Throne. Do you think the people of Canada have got to appeal to the foot of the Throne to have the rights that they ought to have constitutionally? Why, we are treated as colonials-that is what we are called, and we deal with the Colonial Office. How much longer shall we have to do that? True, they have gone so far in England as to say that hereafter they will deal with us through the Foreign Office. Perhaps that is a step up, but I do not even agree with that. The constitution of Canada should be made in this country and should be interpreted by the courts of this country. Moreover, it must be enforced in Canada, and if it is wrong it must be corrected by the Parliament of Canada.
Having said that and having got it on the record, I shall be prepared on Monday next, when my proposal in this connection comes up in the House, to discuss it at greater length and to give my reasons why I think this anomaly must cease. I hope there will never be another decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concerning the interpretation of the constitution of Canada. I believe the interpretation will be here and the correction of it will be here. I believe that when the question is fully discussed a cure will come. In fact, I am confident that an announcement will come from England any

day that Canada has only to ask the right to make and to mend her own constitution and it will be readily granted to her.
Motion (Sir Eugene Fiset) agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, seconded by Mr. Macdonald (Pictou), it was ordered that the Address be engrossed and transmitted' to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this House as are of the honourable the Privy Council.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(for the Minister of Finance) moved:
That this House will on Friday next resolve itself into a committee to consider the supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['That 425 copies in the English language and 75 copies in the French language of the report of the Royal\n\nThe Address-Mr. Maclean (York)\nGrain Inquiry Commission, laid on the table of the House on Monday, the ninth of February, 1925, be printed forthwith for distribution to senators and members ; and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That this House will on Friday next resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That 800 copies in English and 200 copies in French, of the report of W. T. R. Preston in respect to the North Atlantic steamship combine, laid on the table of the House on the ninth instant, be printed forthwith for distribution to senators and members; and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to ask if at the same time the government would table the contract with the firm that has been referred to in the press?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a bill to be brought down, and when the bill is brought down I assume the request of my hon. friend will be met. I would' like first to have an opportunity of conferring with the minister in regard to the matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The only reason I point that out is that we will understand the report very much better when we see how effect is given to it.


GRAIN INQUIRY COMMISSION
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That 425 copies in the English language and 75 copies in the French language of the report of the Royal

The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
Grain Inquiry Commission, laid on the table of the House on Monday, the ninth of February, 1925, be printed forthwith for distribution to senators and members ; and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: In view of the conclusion of the debate on the Address, I move that the House do now adjourn.


William Findlay Maclean: What will be the business to-morrow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will follow the order paper. Possibly my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) would be prepared to go on with his resolution.


William Findlay Maclean: I have already made an arrangement with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to go ahead on Monday. I am certainly ready to go on tomorrow, but I do not think the notice of motion is on the order paper for to-morrow. I would like to 'ask Mr. Speaker about that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We may reach it by that time.


William Findlay Maclean: I am ready to go on.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Before we get away from that question, has my hon. friend' tabled the estimates?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The estimates will be tabled to-morrow.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 6.07 p.m.
[The fallowing is the judgment referred to by Mr. Maclean, (York) at p. 132.]
Privy Council Appeal No. 99 of 1924 The Toronto Electric Commissioners, Appellants

Colin G. Snider and others, Respondents and
The Attorney-General of Canada and The Attorney-General of Ontario, Interveners from
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario.
Judgment of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, delivered the 20th January, 1925.
Present at the Hearing:
Viscount Haldane, Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, Lord Wrenbury, Lord Salvesen.
[Delivered by Viscount Haldane.]
It is always with reluctance that their lordships come to a conclusion adverse to the constitutional validity of any Canadian statute that has been before the public for years as having been validly enacted,
but the duty incumbent on the Judicial Committee, now as always, is simply to interpret the British North America Act and to decide whether the statute in question has been within the competence of the Dominion parliament under the terms of section 91 of that act. In this case the Judicial Committee have come to the conclusion that it was not. To that conclusion they find themselves compelled, alike by the structure of section 91 and by the interpretation of its terms that has now been established by a series of authorities. They have had the advantage not only of hearing full arguments on the question, but of having before them judgments in the courts of Ontario, from which this appeal to the Sovereign in Council came directly. Some of these judgments are against the view which they themselves take, others are in favour of it, but all of them arc of a high degree of thoroughness and ability.
The particular exercise of legislative power with which their lordships are concerned is contained in a well-known act, passed by the Dominion parliament in 1907, and known as The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. As it now stands it has been amended by subsequent acts,	but	nothing	turns,	forthe purposes of the question	now	raised,	on	any	of
the amendments that have been introduced.
The primary object of the act was to enable industrial disputes between any employer in Canada and any one or more of	his	employees,	as	to" matters or things affecting or relating to work done or to be done by him or them, or as to the privileges, rights and duties of employers or employees (not involving any such violation	thereof	as	constitutes an indictable offence)," relating to wages or remuneration, or hours of employment: sex, age or qualifications of employees, and the mode, terms and conditions of employment; the employment of children or any person, or classes of persons; claims as to whether preference of employment should be given to members of labour or other organizations; materials supplied or damage done to work; customs or usages, either general or in particular districts; and the interpretation of agreements. Either of the parties to any such dispute was empowered by the act to apply to the Minister of Labour for the Dominion for the appointment of a board of conciliation and investigation, to which board the dispute might be referred. The act enabled the Governor in Council to appoint a registrar of such boards, with the duty of dealing with all applications for reference, bringing them to the notice of the minister, and conducting the correspondence necessary for the constitution of the boards. The minister was empowered to establish a board when he though fit, and no question was to be raised in any court interfering with his decision. Each board was to consist of three members, to be appointed by the minister, one on the recommendation of the employer, one on that of the employees, and the third, who was to be chairman, on the recommendation of the members so chosen. If any of them failed in this duty the minister was to make the appointment. The department of the Minister of Labour was to provide the staffs required. The application for a board was to be accompanied by a statutory declaration showing that, failing adjustment, a lockout or strike would probably occur.
The board so constituted was to make inquiry and to endeavour to effect a settlement. If the parties came to a settlement the board was to embody it in a memorandum of recommendation which, if the parties had agreed to it in writing, was to have the effect of an award on a reference to arbitration or one made under the order of a court of record. In such a case the recommendation could be constituted a rule of court and enforced accordingly. If no such settlement was arrived at, then the board was to make a full report and a recommendation for settlement to the minister, who was to make it public.
134	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
The boards set up were given powers to summon and to enforce the attendance of witnesses, to administer oaths and to call for business books and other documents, and also to order into custody or subject to fine, in case of disobedience or contempt. The board was also empowered to enter any premises where anything was taking place which was the subject of the reference and to inspect. This power was also enforceable by penalty. The parties were to be represented before the board, but no counsel or solicitors were to appear excepting by consent and subject to the sanction of the board itself. The proceedings were normally to take place in public.
By section 56 of the act, in the event of a reference to a board, it was made unlawful for the employer to lockout or for the employees to strike on account of any dispute prior to or pending the reference, and any breach of this provision was made punishable by fine. By section 57, employers and employed were both bound to give at least thirty days' notice of an intended change affecting conditions of employment with respect to wages or hours. In the event of a dispute arising over the intended change, until the dispute had been finally dealt with by a board and a report had been made, neither employers nor employed were to alter the conditions, or lockout or strike, or suspend employment or work, and the relationship of employer and employee was to continue uninterrupted. If, in the opinion of the board, either party were to use this or any other provision of the act for the purpose of unjustly maintaining a given condition of affairs through delay, and the board were so to report to the minister, such party was to be guilty of an offence and liable to penalties.
By section 63 (a), where a strike or lockout had occurred or was threatened, the minister was empowered, although neither of the parties to the dispute had applied for one, to set up a board. He might also, under the next section, without any application, institute an inquiry.
Whatever else may be the effect of this enactment, it is clear that it is one which could have been passed, so far as any province was concerned, by the provincial legislature under the powers conferred by section 92 of the British North America Act. For its provisions were concerned directly with the civil rights of both employers and employed in the province. It	set up	a Board	of	Inquiry	which couldsummon them before it, administer to them oaths, call for their papers and enter their premises. It did no more than what a provincial legislature could have done under head 15 of section 92, when it imposed punishment	by way	of	penalty	in order to
enforce the new restrictions on civil rights. It interfered further with civil rights when, by section 56, it suspended liberty to lockout or strike during a reference to a board. It does not appear that there is anything in .the Dominion act which could not have been enacted by the legislature of Ontario, excepting one provision. The field for the operation of the act was made the whole of Canada.
In 1914	the legislature of	the	province of Ontariopassed a	Trade	Disputes	Act	which	substantially
covered the whole of these matters, so far as Ontario was concerned, excepting in certain minor particulars. One of these was the interference in the Dominion act with the right to lockout or strike during an inquiry. This was not reproduced in the Ontario act. Another difference was the necessary one that the operation of the Ontario act was confined to that province, instead of extending to other parts of Canada. It was, of course, open to .the legislatures of the other provinces to enact similar provisions, and some of them appear to have done so.
Subject to variations such as these there is, in the Ontario act, little alteration in substance of the provisions of the Dominion statute. The Lieutenant-

Governor of the Provincial Council, instead of the Minister of Labour, appoints the registrar. There are to be set up two different kinds of statutory council, one of conciliation, the four members of which are to be nominated by the parties, the other a council of arbitration, consisting of three members, two of whom are to be appointed by the lieutenant-governor of the province on the recommendation of the parties, and the third, the chairman, to be nominated by the lieutenant-governor on failure of the parties to agree and name. The mayor of any city or town in the province, on being notified that a strike or lockout is impending, may inform the registrar of the fact, and a council of arbitration may then be empowered to inquire and to mediate. Unless there is an agreement by one or both of the parties, in which case the award of the council may be enforced as on an arbitration, there is no power given to suspend the righ.^ to strike or lockout.
It is clear that this enactment was one which was competent to the legislature of a province under section 92. In the present case the substance of it was possibly competent, not merely under the head of property and civil rights in the province, but also under that of municipal institutions in the province. For the appellants are incorporated, by the province, a public utility commission within the definition in chapter 204 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1914, relating to the constitution and operation of works for supplying public utilities by municipal corporations and companies, and are employers within the meaning of the Ontario Trade Disputes Act already referred to. Their function is to manage the municipal electric light, heat, and power works ol the city of Toronto.
The primary respondents in this appeal are the members of a board of conciliation appointed by the Dominion Minister of Labour under the act first referred to. There was a dispute in 1923 between the appellants and a number of the men whom they employed, which dispute was referred to the first respondents, who proceeded to exercise the powers given by the Dominion act.	The appellants then
commenced an action in the Supreme Court of Ontario for an injunction to restrain these proceedings, on the allegation that the Dominion act was ultra vires. The Attorneys-General of Canada and of Ontario were notified and made parties as intervenants.
There was a motion for an interim injunction, which was heard by Orde J., who, after argument, granted an injunction till the trial. The action was tried by Mowat J., who intimated his dissent from the view of the British North America Act, taken by Orde J., who was co-ordinate in authority with him, according to which view the Dominion act was ultra vires. He, therefore, as he had power by the Provincial Judicature Act to do, directed the action to be heard by a divisional court, and it was ultimately heard by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario (Mulock C. J., Magee, Hodgins, Ferguson and Smith J. J. A.). The result was that by the majority (Hodgins J. A. dissenting) the action of the appellants was dismissed.
The broad grounds of the judgment of the majority, which will be referred .to later on, was that the Dominion act was not a law relating to matters as to which section 92 conferred exclusive jurisdiction, but was a law within the competence of the Dominion parliament, inasmuch as it was directed to the regulation of trade and commerce, throughout Canada, and to the protection of the national peace, order and good government, by reason of (a) confining, within limits, a dispute which might spread over all the provinces;	(b) informing the general public in
Canada of the nature of the dispute; and (c) bringing public opinion to bear on it. The power of the Dominion parliament to legislate in relation to criminal

The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
law, under head 27 of section 91, was also considered to apply.
Before referring to these grounds of judgment their lordships, without repeating at length what has been laid down by them in earlier cases, desire to refer briefly to the construction which, in their opinion, has been authoritatively put on sections 91 and 92 by the more recent decisions of the Judicial Committee. The Dominion parliament has, under the initial words of section 91, a general power to make laws for Canada. But these laws are not to relate to the classes of subjects assigned to the provinces by section 92, unless their enactment falls under heads specifically assigned to the Dominion parliament by the enumeration in section 91. When there is a question as to which legislative authority has the power to pass an act, the first question must therefore be whether the subject falls within section 92. Even if it does, the further question must be answered, whether it falls also under an enumerated head in section 91. If so, the Dominion has the paramount power of legislating in relation to it. If the subject falls within neither of the sets of enumerated heads, then the Dominion may have power to legislate under the general words at the beginning of section 91.
Applying this principle, does the subject of the legislation in controversy fall fully within section 92? For the reasons already given their lordships think that it clearly does. If so, is the exclusive power prima facie conferred on the province trenched on by any of the over-riding powers set out specifically in section 91? It was, among other things, contended in the argument that the Dominion act now challenged was authorized under head 27, " the criminal law, except the constitution of courts of criminal jurisdiction, but including the procedure in criminal matters." It was further suggested in the argument that the power so conferred is aided by the power conferred on the Parliament of Canada to establish additional courts for the better administration of the laws of Canada.
But their lordships are unable to accede to these contentions. They think that they cannot now be maintained successfully, in view of a series of decisions in which this board has laid down the interpretation of section 91 (27) in the British North America Act on the point. In the most recent of these cases, that of the Reciprocal Insurers ([19241 A.C. 328, at p. 342), Mr. Justice Duff stated definitely the true interpretation, in delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee. Summing up the effect of the series of previous decisions relating tc the point, he said :
" In accordance with the principle inherent in these decisions their lordships think it is no longer open to dispute that the Parliament of Canada cannot, by purporting to create penal sanctions under section 91, head 27, appropriate to itself exclusively a field of jurisdiction in which, apart from such a procedure, it could exert no legal authority, and that if, when examined as a whole, legislation in form criminal is found, in aspects and for purposes exclusively within the provincial sphere, to deal with matters committed to the provinces, it cannot be upheld as valid."
In the earlier Board of Commerce case ([1922] A.C. 191) the principle to be applied was laid down in the same way. It was pointed out that the Dominion had exclusive legislative power to create new crimes "where the subject matter is one which, by its very nature, belongs to the domain of criminal jurisprudence." But " it is quite another thing, first to attempt to interfere with a class of subject committed exclusively to the provincial legislature, and then to justify this by enacting ancillary provisions, designated as new phases of Dominion criminal law, which require a title to so interfere as the basis of their application."
Their lordships are of opinion that, on authority as well as on principle, they are to-day precluded from accepting the arguments that the Dominion act
in controversy can be justified as being an exercise of the Dominion power under section 91 in relation to criminal law. What the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, which the Dominion parliament passed in 1907, aimed at accomplishing was to enable the Dominion government to appoint anywhere in Canada a board of conciliation and investigation to which the dispute between an employer and his employees might be referred. The board was to have power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel the production of documents. It could under the act enter premises, interrogate the persons there, and inspect the work. It rendered it unlawful for an employer to lockout or for a workman to strike, on account of the dispute, prior to or during the reference, and imposed an obligation on employees and employers to give thirty days' notice of any intended change affecting wages or hours. Until the reference was concluded neither were to alter the conditions with respect to these. It is obvious that these provisions dealt with civil rights, and it was not within the power of the Dominion parliament to make this otherwise by imposing merely ancillary penalties. The penalties for breach of the restrictions did not render the statute the less an interference with civil rights in its pith and substance. The act is not one which aims at making striking generally a new crime. Moreover, the employer retains under the general common law a right to lockout, only slightly interfered with by the penalty. In this connection their lordships are therefore of opinion that the validity of the act cannot be sustained.
The point was also put in a somewhat different form. It was said that the criminal law of Canada was in its foundation the criminal law of England as at 17th September, 1792; that, according to the criminal law of England as at that date, a strike was indictable as a conspiracy; that, consequently strikes were within the ambit of the criminal law; and that, as a law either declaring strikes illegal as at common law, or making them illegal would be a proper enactment of the criminal law, so, though this is rather a non sequiter, it was only a branch of that law to enact provisions which should have the effect of preventing strikes coming into existence.
It is not necessary to investigate or determine whether a strike is per se a crime according to the law of England in 1792. A great deal has been said on the subject and contrary opinions expressed. Let it be assumed that it was. It certainly was so only on the ground of conspiracy. But there is no conspiracy involved in a lockout; and the statute under discussion deals with	lockouts	pari	ratione as	with strikes.It would be impossible,	even	if it were	desirable, to
separate the provisions as to strikes from those as to lockouts so as to make the one fall under the criminal law while the other remained outside it; and, therefore, in their lordships' opinion this argument also fails.
Nor does the invocation of the specific power in section 91 to regulate trade and commerce assist the Dominion contention. In Citizens Insurance Company v Parsons (7 A.C., at p. 112) it was laid down that the collocation of this head (No. 2. of section 91), with classes of	subjects	enumerated of	national andgeneral concern,	indicates	that	what was	in the mind
of the Imperial legislature when this power was conferred in 1867 was regulation relating to general trade and commerce. Any other construction would, it wras pointed out, have rendered unnecessary the specific mention of certain other heads dealing with banking, bills of exchange and promissory notes, as to which it had been significantly deemed necessary to insert a specific mention. The contracts of a particular trade or business could not, therefore, be dealt with by Dominion legislation so as to conflict with the powers assigned to the provinces over property and civil rights relating to the regulation of trade and commerce. The Dominion power has a really definite effect when
136	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Maclean (.York)
applied in aid of what the Dominion government are specifically enabled to do independently of the general regulation of trade and commerce, for instance, in the creation of Dominion companies with power to trade throughout the whole of Canada. This was shown in the decision in John Deere Plow Company v Wharton ([1915] A.C., at p. 340). The same thing is true of the exercise of an emergency power required as on the occasion of war, in the interest of Canada as a whole, a power which may operate outside the specific enumerations in both sections 91 and 92. And it was observed in the Alberta case, in reference to attempted Dominion legislation about insurance, that it must now be taken that the authority to legislate for the regulation of trade and commerce does not extend to the regulation, for instance, by a licensing system, of a particular trade in which Canadians would otherwise be free to engage in the provinces (see [1916] 1 A.C., at p. 596). It is, in their lordships' opinion, now clear that, excepting so far as the power can be invoked in aid of capacity conferred independently under other words in section 91, the power to regulate trade and commerce cannot be relied on as enabling the Dominion parliament to regulate civil rights in the provinces.
A more difficult question arises with reference to the initial words of section 91, which enable the parliament of Canada to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada in matters falling outside the provincial powers specifically conferred by section 92. For Russell v The Queen (7 A.C., 829) was a decision in which the Judicial Committee 6aid that it was within the competency of the Dominion parliament to establish a uniform system for prohibiting the liquor traffic throughout Canada excepting under restrictive conditions. It has been observed subsequently by this committee that it is now clear that it was on the ground that the subject matter lay outside provincial powers, and not on the ground that it was authorized as legislation for the regulation of trade and commerce, that the Canada Temperance Act was sustained (see the Alberta case [1916] 1 A.C., at p. 595). But even on this footing it is not easy to reconcile the decision in Russell v The Queen with the subsequent decision in Hodge v The Queen (9 A.C.. 117) that the Ontario Liquor License Act, with the powers of regulation which it entrusted to local authorities in the province, was intra vires of the Ontario legislature. Still more difficult is it to reconcile Russell v The Queen with the decision given later by the Judicial Committe that the Dominion licensing statute, known as the McCarthy Act, which sought to establish a local licensing system for the liquor traffic throughout the Dominion, was ultra vires of the Dominion parliament. As to this last decision it is not without significance that the strong board which delivered it abstained from giving any reasons for their conclusion. They did not in terms dissent from the reasons given in Russell v The Queen. They may have thought that the case was binding on them as deciding that the particular Canada Temperance Act of 1886 had been conclusively held valid, on the ground of fact that at the period of the passing of the act the circumstances of the time required it in an emergency affecting Canada as a whole. The McCarthy Act, already referred to, which was decided to have been ultra vires of the Dominion parliament, was dealt with in the end of 1885. Ten years subsequently another powerful board decided the case of Attorney-General for Ontario v Attorney-General for the Dominion and the Distillers' and Brewers' Association ([1896] A.C., 348). Lord Herschel! and Lord Davey, who had been the leading counsel in the McCarthy case, sat on that board, along with Lord Halsbury, who had presided at it. In delivering the judgment, Lord Watson used in the latter case significant language:-
" The judgment of this board in Russell v Regina has relieved their lordships from the difficult duty of

considering whether the Canada Temperance Act of 1886 relates to the peace, order and good government of Canada in such a sense as to bring its provisions within the competency of the Canadian parliament."
That decision, he said, must be accepted as an authority to the extent to which it goes, namely, that
"The restrictive provisions of the Act of 1886, when they have been duly brought into operation in any provincial area within the Dominion, must receive effect as valid enactments relating to the peace, order and good government of Canada."
The board held that, on that occasion, they could, not inconsistently with Russell v The Queen, declare a statute of the Ontario legislature establishing provincial liquor prohibitions, to be within the competence of a provincial legislature, provided that the locality had not already adopted the provisions of the Dominion act of 1886.
It appears to their lordships that it is not now open to them to treat Russell v The Queen as having established the general principle that the mere fact that Dominion legislation is for the general advantage of Canada or is such .that it will meet a mere want which is felt throughout the Dominion, renders >t competent if it cannot be brought within the heads enumerated specifically in section 91. Unless this is so, if the subject matter falls within any of the enumerated heads in section 92, such legislation belongs exclusively to provincial competency. No doubt there may be cases arising out of some extraordinary peril to the national life of Canada, as a whole, such as the cases arising out of a war, where legislation is required of an order that passes beyond the heads of exclusive provincial competency. Such cases may be dealt with under the words at the commencement of section 91, conferring general powers in relation to peace, order and good government, simply because such cases are not otherwise provided for. But instances of this, as was pointed out in the judgment in the Fort Frances Pulp case ([1923] A.C., 695). are highly exceptional. Their lordships think that the decision in Russell v The Queen can only be supported to-day, not on the footing of having laid down an interpretation, such as has sometimes been invoked of the general words at the beginning of section 91, but on the assumption of the board, apparently made at the time of deciding the case of Russell v The Queen, that the evil of intemperance at that time amounted in Canada to one so great and so general that at least for the period it was a menace to the national life of Canada so serious and pressing that the national parliament, was called on to intervene to protect the nation from disaster. An epidemic of pestilence might conceivably have been regarded as analogous. It is plain from the decision in the Board of Commerce case that the evil of profiteering could not have been so invoked, for provincial powers, if exercised, were adequate to it. Their lordships find it difficult to explain the decision in Russell v The Queen as more than a decision of this order upon facts, considered to have been established at its date rather than upon general law.
The judgments in the courts below express differing views. Orde J. granted an interim injunction, restraining the first respondents from interfering with the business of the appellants and from entering on their premises, or examining their works or employees, and from exercising their compulsory powers as a board of conciliation and investigation under the Dominion Act, and from interfering with the property and civil or municipal rights of the appellants. He held that the Dominion legislation interfered with provincial rights under section 92 in a fashion which could not be supported under any of the enumerated heads in section 91, and therefore could not be sustained by invoking the general words with which that section commence?. The decision in the Fort Frances Pulp

The Address-Mr. Maclean (York)
case (ubi supra) afforded no analogy on which such a contention as this la6t could be based.
Mowat J.f dissenting from this reasoning, referred the trial of the action to a divisional court. He thought that the legislation in question was a matter of national importance, dealing with a subject which affected the body	politic of	the	Dominion, as	in
Russell v The Queen (ubi supra).
In the Appellate Division, Mulock, C. J., Smith,
J. A., and Magee, J. A., concurred in the judgment delivered by Ferguson, J. A. That learned judge held that the act in question was not, " in its pith and substance," an act relating to merely provincial matters falling within section 92, but related to industrial disputes which might develop into disputes affecting, not only	the immediate	parties, but	thenational welfare, peace, order	and	safety. He citedthe analogy of the Australian Constitution Act, which, by section 51, placed such disputes within the competence of the Australian parliament when they extended beyond the	limits of	any	single state.	He
was of opinion that, even if the Dominion legislation actually interfered with provincial powers, it might be supported if necessary as dealing with the interests of the peace, order and good government of Canada, but he thought that it was not necessary to go further in point of principle than to treat Russell v The Queen (ubi supra) as showing that, where an abnormal condition in a great emergency demanded it, the parliament of Canada might legislate for such a case without even trenching on the powers allocated to the provinces under section 92. He also thought that the act was not one to control or regulate contractual or civil rights, but that its object was to authorize inquiry into conditions or disputes, and that the prevention of crimes, the protection of public safety, peace and order, and the protection of trade and commerce, were of its pith and substance and paramount purpose. The act could also be supported as Dominion legislation under the over-riding enumerated heads of section 91, as being legislation m relation to the regulation of trade and commerce, and also to the criminal law.
Hodgins, J. A. dissented. In his view, industrial strife was nothing more than the result of an undesirable use of the civil right to cease work in the operation of various businesses. The argument in support of the act was practically an endeavour to invent a new field, which was only a department or development of one of those exclusively possessed by provincial legislatures. Nor was the matter made better by the contention that the act, when examined >n the light of the evidence adduced, dealt with a subject which transcended provincial limits and was of Dominion importance. It was, no doubt, true that owing to the highly organized methods of modern labour, strikes might spread and extend to other businesses. This might happen, and the state of things might conceivably reach a height in which it became comparable to war, famine or rebellion, and justify Dominion action. But on the only facts proved, in the learned judge's view, this act could not be supported as dealing with a case of (1) emergency, or (2) general Canadian interest and importance, or (3) with a power conferred under any of the enumerated heads in section 91. No great national emergency was shown to have existed when the statute was enacted in 1907, or to have occurred since, and the statute was not framed so as to come into operation only when such emergency arose. The statute was further not framed so as to confer the drastic powers that would be necessary in such a case, but was based on the normal working of industrial relations which often required time and patience and some restraint, if dislocation was to be avoided. It was essentially a relative measure. The special and exceptional conditions of emergency required by the judgments in the Board of Commerce and Fort Frances Pulp cases (ubi supra) did not appear to him to have existed
in point of fact. So far as anticipations of changes in the future were concerned, Hodgins, J. A. thought that the question was whether regulation of civil rights or invasion of property rights in the fashion provided by the act, in order to bring about a uniform and desirable method of dealing with industrial disputes, admirable as its purpose might be, could be valid in view of the exercise of the powers given to the provinces. That the provinces had such powers, as complete as those in this act given to the Dominion, he entertained no doubt. Several provinces had on their statute books legislation of much the same kind. Even granting the national importance of the question, the whole success of this method of dealing with it depended on the capacity to seize on local disputes and their conditions, and to manage the exercise of civil rights in relation to them. The circumstance that the dispute might spread to other provinces was not enough in itself to justify Dominion interference, if such interference affected property and civil rights. The province in the present case was simply the scene of municipal action. As the result of his consideration of the principles laid down for the interpretation of the British North America Act, the learned judge was of opinion that the act could not stand.
Their lordships have examined the evidence produced at the trial. They concur in the view taken of it by Hodgins, J. A. They are of opinion that it does not prove any emergency putting the national life of Canada in unanticipated peril such as the board which decided Russell v The Queen may be considered to have had before their minds.
As the result of consideration, their lordships have come to the conclusion that they ought humbly to advise the sovereign that the appeal should be allowed, and that judgment should be entered for the appellants for the declaration and injunction claimed. There should be no costs, either of this appeal or in the courts below and any costs paid under the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court ought to be repaid.
Friday, February 13, 1925