1927-03-31

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, March 30, 1927.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. F. A. Anglin, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General will

Questiond
proceed to the Senate chamber to-morrow, (Thursday, 31st March) at 5.30 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
F. L. C. Pereira,
Deputy Assistant Secretary
to the Governor General.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 255, respecting The Great Lakes and Atlantic Canal and Power Company, Limited.-Mr. Odette.

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Parent.
Seventh report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. -Mr. Young (Saskatoon).
Third report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hay.

Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West) moved:: That in accordance with the recommendations contained in the seventh report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills the fees and charges paid on bill No. 153. respecting the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, be refunded, less the costs of printing and translation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. F. W. HAY (North Perth) moved:: That the special committee on the petition of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia have leave to sit while the House is sitting.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the Auditor General's report for the year ending March 31, 1926 and the Public Accounts for the year ending March 31, 1926, be referred to the select standing committee on public acounts.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Leader of the Opposition):: The only remark I have to
offer in regard to this motion is that it is rather late in the session to bring down the reports of the Auditor General and refer them to the select standing committee on public accounts. l'here will be no opportunity to do anything this year, and I think the government should have referred these accounts to this committee a month or two months ago.


James Alexander Robb: I quite agree with the observations of the leader of the opposition, and until to-day I thought these accounts had been referred to that committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiskam-ing) moved the first reading of Bill No. 254 (from the Senate) respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
Some bon. MEMBERS:	Explain.
Mr. BRADETTE:: The purpose of this bill is to provide for the extension of the charter of this company in order to permit construction from its present terminal, the town of Hearst, to the Hudson bay basin.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and
second time and referred to the select' standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

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

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Have charges of political partisanship been made against any government employees in the county of Leeds. Ontario?
2.	What is the name or names of the party or parties making such charges?
3.	Have such charges been made in writing?
4.	Has one Arthur G. Parish been appointed or authorized to investigate such charges?
5.	Will the parties charged be allowed to have counsel on such investigation?
6.	Will the commissioner take a shorthand record of the evidence and proceedings?
7.	Is it the intention of the government to dismiss any employees who may be found by said commissioner to have been guilty of political partisanship?


Hon. Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. No information.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6 and 7. No information.


OVERSEA SETTLEMENT-BRITISH COLUMBIA
Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	During the summer of 1926, did the Department of Immigration and Colonization conduct the Earl of Clarendon, chairman of the oversea settlement committee, and Mr. T. C. Macnaughten, vice-chairman, on a trip inspecting British family settlement and future settlement opportunities in Canada?
Question3

2.	Was the province of British Columbia
visited?
3.	If so, what districts were covered?
4.	What opinions, if any, were expressed by the British visitors as to the settlement opportunities in British Columbia?
5.	Have any agreements been negotiated providing for cooperation in settlement between the Dominion and provincial goverments in Canada, and the oversea settlement committee jointly?
6.	Are any such agreements in process of negotiation?
7.	In any such agreements either negotiated or under consideration, has the government of the province of British Columbia participated in any way?
8.	Has the government of the province of British Columbia submitted to the Dominion government any definite proposals as a basis for such settlement agreements?
9.	Certain large tracts of lands in British Columbia are owned as the Fielding family's holding at Salmon River, near Prince George, Lord Exeter's holding near Exeter on the P.G. & E. railway. Has the British Columbia government, or the Dominion government, made any proposals for the settlement of these lands?
IQ. Was the Dominion government instrumental in bringing a number of Esthonian families under Sir John Pitka to Canada in 1924? If so, were these people settled in the Stewart lake district, British Columbia? Were they settled under provincial or dominion auspices? Has the settlement been successful?
11. Has a property known as the Amiens farm in the Fraser valley, near Matsqui, British Columbia, been sub-divided for the settlement of British families? If so, how many families have been settled? What type of family was selected for this settlement? Has this settlement been successful to date?


Hon. Mr. FORKE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The oversea settlement committee party was taken by motor car from Sicamous south through Okanagan district, touching Enderby, Armstrong, Vernon, Kelowna, Summerland and Penticton. The party then went by rail to Vancouver. Two days were spent in motor trips to farms and settlers in the Fraser valley, after which the Courtenay and Victoria districts on Vancouver island were covered by motor car. The party then travelled over the P. and G. E. railway from Squamish to Exeter and from thence by motor car along the Cariboo trail to Quesnel and Prince George with a further day's motoring in the Buckley valley near Smithers and Telkwa. Altogether the party were motored over 1,200 miles in British Columbia, and they visited nearly 50 British families on the land.
4.	The British visitors were of the opinion that the province of British Columbia offered excellent opportunities for the assisted settlement of British people. They were particularly impressed with the settlement oppor-
[Mr Tomlie.]
tunities along the Canadian National Prince Rupert line.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes.
7.	Yes, correspondence is now in progress.
8.	Answered by No. 7.
9.	No.
10.	Sir John Pitka, as a result of a trip made to Canada in the summer of 1923, brought a party of Esthonians to Canada in 1924 and secured a location near Stewart Lake. The party was met at Halifax by land settlement officers and conducted through to Vanderhoof where they were turned over to the provincial government. The department has but meagre information as to the success of the colony but understands that progress is slow owing to the lack of capital. A number of new settlers have arrived since the first party of 1924.
11.	The Amiens farm has been sub-divided and eleven families have been settled. Scotch dairy farmers were selected. The settlement thus far has given outstanding evidences of success.


EXPORT OF HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Is there now current a license to the Maine and New Brunswick Power Company to export hydro-electric power to the United States?
2.	If so, when was such license first issued?
3.	Is it the intention of the department concerned to continue the yearly export license to this company?
4.	Is the government aware that the company in question, or interests closely allied to this company are at present promoting opposition to a measure in the Maine legislature looking to the creation of storage facilities for hydroelectric development in the province of New Brunswick, and in the light of such information is the department willing to renew the export license of this company?


Hon. Mr. MALCOLM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The current license was issued on April 14, 1926. The first license was issued on November 9, 1907.
3.	The company's application is now under consideration by the government.
4.	Representations have been received from the Prime Minister of New Brunswick, relative to the renewal of this export license. He requested that his representations be treated confidentially at present.


HOG GRADING SYSTEM
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River!:	I
wish to call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to an article which appeared in

Chicago Drainage Canal
the Toronto Mail and Empire of March 17, 1927. I shall read about ten lines from this article and then base a question upon it. The article is headed, " Hog grading system likely to be changed," and it goes on to say:
An important change in the hog grading system which has prevailed in Canada for the past five years may be made, as result of altered conditions. The Dominion government has been asked to call a conference of the men who went into the matter in 1921, to discuss the whole problem and work out a solution once more. This fact was made known by S. E. Todd, secretary treasurer of the Council of Canadian Meat Packers, who yesterday addressed the legislature's standing committee on agriculture.
My question is, has Mr. Todd, secretary of the Packers council been given authority to announce the federal policy in this matter before agricultural committees in other provinces?
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lincoln was so busy asking a question of my colleague beside me that I am not sure whether I caught the hon. member's question or not, but I happen to have had placed before me since coming into the House the paragraph that he has read from the Toronto Mail and Empire. With respeit to the announcement or statement alleged to have been made by Mr. Todd before the agricultural committee of the Ontario House, my hon. friend will notice that the word " may " is used there:
An important change in the hog grading system which has prevailed in Canada for the past five years may be made, as result of altered conditions.
The article also states that the Dominion government was asked to call a conference. That is not correct. When it was learned by the department that certain changes were contemplated by the packers, a departure we thought from the arrangement made in 1921, I at once took the responsibility of calling a conference of those who participated in the original conference in November, 1921, together with representatives of some additional organizations that have come into existence since then. Consequently a conference has been called, not to declare any new policy but rather to permit these various representatives to confer with each other and find out what changes, if any, were necessary due to the altered conditions in the world markets with respect to the grading of bacon.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Would the minister lay on the table a copy of the record of the conference of packers, government officials, and others, held in 1921
to discuss hog grading, the 10 per cent premium, and bacon grading, and also copies of the resolutions which came before that conference?


William Richard Motherwell: An order was passed only the other day asking that that be done, but we have not yet got around to it. There are a good many questions of a similar nature; they all seem to have accumulated at once. My staff are very busy, but the information asked for will be brought down, and it will answer more thoroughly than I have done to-day the question put by the hon. member for Peace River.	.


CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:	[DOT]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: May I ask the Minister of the Interior if he has any information to give the House at this late stage of the session as to the progress of the case dealing with the diversion of water through the Chicago drainage canal?
Hon. CHARLES A. STEWART (Minister of the Interior):	I have nothing new to
communicate, but I will be very glad to discuss the matter in committee of supply. We have not secured from the United States government permission to release the notes recently exchanged and which were spoken of earlier this session.


Robert James Manion: Has the minister any information as to when the case is likely to be concluded, and will he also tell the House whether Canada is represented by counsel?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: You mean
before the United States courts?


Robert James Manion: I mean, has the government entrusted anyone with a watching brief?


Charles A. Stewart: We have not given a watching brief but we have a representative there.


Robert James Manion: Who is he?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Cory.


Hugh Guthrie: Did I gather from the
Minister of the Interior that Canada was represented at Washington by separate counsel on the proceedings in reference to the Chicago drainage canal? I understood him to say that somebody had a watching brief for the Dominion. I have heard that Mr. Cory, son of the Deputy Minister of the Interior was attending the conference in some capacity. Is he the gentleman who holds the watching brief for Canada in this important investigation?


Charles A. Stewart: "Watching
brief" is hardlv the nmner term to use. We
1724	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan
had Mr. Cory attend all the sittings and listen to the representations that have been made in connection with this matter before Mr. Justice Hughes.


Hugh Guthrie: Does my hon. friend not think the matter is of sufficient importance to employ on behalf of Canada some eminent counsel in the United States to watch these proceedings?


Charles A. Stewart: Well, I
hardly think that course would be warranted. We have a full report of all the proceedings, and if necessary can later on employ eminent counsel to advise in the matter.


UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON MILK AND CREAM
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr.  J. E. LETELLIER@Compton: May I draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the fact that I have received a letter from Mr. H. J. Carlos, of Paquette-ville, expressing the great discouragement of the farmers in his district on account of the embargo on the exportation, of milk and cream to the United States. I should like to know whether any progress has been made looking to the raising of this embargo?


William Richard Motherwell: As I announced yesterday,
officials of the Department of Agriculture were in correspondence with the Quebec Department of Health and the Ontario Department of Health asking them to give us a complete record of all or any outbreaks of rural typhoid in any part of the embargoed area. We have reports from both Departments of Public Health and the report for Ontario is very satisfactory. During the last two months there has been only one outbreak in any part of the embargoed area in that province and the particular district concerned does not in any event ship milk to Montreal. Consequently, with regard to Ontario, we have a very good foundation upon which to lay a request that the embargo be circumscribed. I wish I could make the same report with regard to the dairy districts in Quebec; but until our special representative who went to Montreal yesterday returns and submits his report, I would rather defer making any comment regarding that part of the embargoed area.


IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, March 30, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) for

committee of supply, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, lin reviewing the
report of the Imperial conference committee and the special report on inter-imperial relations, I felt that the committee itself in the first section of that report rather deprecated the idea that at was then and there laying down a new constitution for the British commonwealth or empire. Their statement in section 2 of the report 'that the dominions-
-are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs-
-they themselves describe as a "formula" or a mere political "theory" of which they restrict the application by declaring:
But the principles of equality and similarity, appropriate to status, do not universally extend to function. Here we require something more than immutable dogmas.
I could well fancy that Lord Balfour drew up that part of the report. Similar language may be found on many pages of his works on philosophy. Having described their "formula" and propounded what they call their "dogma" and again as their political "theory," they declared:
We have endeavoured not only to state political theory, but to apply it to our common needs.
And they add:
Existing administrative, legislative and judicial forms are admittedly not wholly in accord with the position as described in section II of this report.
Which deals with equality of status of Great Britain and the dominions. That means, as I understand it, that the existing forms are not in accord with this formula, or dogma, or political theory of equality of status which they have laid down. Then they proceed to examine existing forms, as they say:
-with special reference to any cases where the want of adaptation of practice to principle caused, or might be thought to cause, inconvenience in the conduct of inter-imperial relations.
That is, they declare, in effect, from their point of view, that in the matter of such adaptions, as are proposed, of practice to principle, convenience is to be made the paramount issue. Therefore they deem that a slight change should be made in the title of the king and they proceed to declare:
That the Governor General of a dominion is the representative of the crown, holding in all essential respects the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the dominion-

Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan
I call particular attention to that.
-as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain, and that he is not the representative or agent of His Majesty's government in Great Britain or of any department of that government.
The Prime Minister, in referring to some statement that - I have made in times past, suggested that I contended that the status of the Governor General had not changed, and that prior to the time of the preparation of this report, the status of the Governor General in the Dominion of Canada was that of a representative of the sovereign. Section 9 of the British North America Act of 1867 has already declared:
The executive government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the queen.
At this point the Prime Minister, for the purpose, I think, of vindicating his ipast record, introduced into the discussion certain matters relating to the episode of June and the first days of July last which led to his resignation and to the formation for the time being of another government. In dealing with that I wish to point out that section 50 of the British North America Act provides:
Every House of Commons shall continue for five years from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer.
The act itself further provides that the Governor General in Council shall exercise his powers-
With the advice or with the advice and consent of or in conjunction with the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
He must act on the advice of the government of Canada; but section 50, dealing with dissolution, says that the Governor General and not the governor in council shall have the right of dissolution. That brings us back to the episode to which the Prime Minister referred and in connection with which he attempted a vindication of his advice to His Excellency the former Governor General of Canada. That episode extends back to September 6, 1925, when, speaking at Richmond Hill in Ontario, the Prime Minister of that day, who is the Prime Minister of this day, declared:
Immediately upon the return of the Governor ' General to the capital yesterday I waited upon His Excellency at Government House and presented to him the many considerations for an appeal to the electorate before another session of parliament, which I have presented to you this afternoon.
I do not intend to enter into the details, of those considerations. They were set forth
in a very lengthy speech last session, and in another discussion in the previous session I placed the most important paragraphs upon the records of Hansard. But the chief reason, as he then stated was-and this was a representation which he had then made to His Excellency:
Is it sufficient that as a government we should continue in office, drawing our indemnities and salaries as members and ministers, and enjoying the other fruits of office, when great national questions press for solution, with which for want of an adequate majority in parliament we are unable satisfactorily to cope?
As the result of those representations made by the Prime Minister to His Excellency, the late Governor-General of Canada, Lord Byng, undoubtedly an understanding was reached between the Prime Minister and the Governor General, limited in effect, it is true, limited in effect no doubt, but an understanding that under the conditions which then existed he should be granted a dissolution of parliament and an appeal to the people. The election wa3 held on the 29th October, 1925, and a few days after, on the 4th November, the Prime Minister of that day, who is the Prime Minister of this day, gave to the press a lengthy communication which he himself has placed upon the records of Hansard during the last few days. Thait statement shows that again the Prime Minister approached the Governor General to endeavour to induce him to permit of the calling of parliament under the circumstances which then existed, which were that the Prime Minister had not returned from the electorate with a majority of the House to support him, and that in fact he was not then the leader of the largest political body in this House. Again there was an understanding reached between the Prime Minister and His Excellency to the effect that parliament would be called, and if we are to read between the lines, subsequently there were consultations between the Prime Minister and His Excellency, which resulted in His Excellency agreeing that his address should be brought down to parliament, that new issues should therein 'be introduced to parliament, and that the Prime Minister should have another opportunity of securing in this House a majority which he had failed to secure on his appeal to the people.
The Governor General of Canada of that day was conversant, I have no doubt, with the instructions which he had received by the letters patent and instructions issued to him by the king. Those letters patent aTe the same word for word as they have been for over twenty years at least, and in the letters patent which the Prime Minister laid before
1726	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan
the House the other day these and these only are the instructions from His Majesty to the Governor General with regard to dissolution:
And we do further authorize and empower our said Governor General, to exercise all powers lawfully belonging to 11s in respect of the summoning, proroguing or dissolving the parliament of our said Dominion.
So that His Excellency, Lord Byng, from the express instructions which he had received, knew that in respect to the dissolution of parliament he represented the king in the exercise of the king's prerogative, and that he represented no other person or official in the British government. The position of the present Prime Minister with regard to that dissolution has changed on several occasions. In the revised Hansard of last session, at page 5222, he says:
In being declined the right of dissolution I believe I was declined that right because His Excellency had the honest belief that some other member of this House could be found who as prime minister could carry on the business of government in this country in the way it should be carried on, befitting the dignity and honour of parliament, and which would therefore avoid the necessity of a general election.
And again on June 30. in the evening, I think it was, after the Bight Hon. Arthur Meighen had accepted office, the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, said:
I for one do not intend to offer any criticism whatever of the constitutionality of the course taken up to the present time.
So that at that time the Prime Minister admitted that in respect of the refusal to take his advice for the dissolution of the House, and in respect of the acceptance of his resignation, Lord Byng had acted in an entirely constitutional manner. I do not know whom Lord Byng consulted, but if he had looked at Keith, the edition of April, 1924, to which the Prime Minister has given his approval, he would have found the following:
It is, for instance, obvious that the* crown cannot constitutionally grant a prime minister who has obtained one dissolution and had been defeated, a second dissolution of parliament, if any other means of carrying on the government could be found.
I infer that, as the Prime Minister himself, in the words I have just quoted, used almost exactly the same terms, he was fully aware of the view of Keith with regard to that matter.
I come now to another matter. Day before yesterday in the course of the debate the Prime Minister eulogized his own conduct by saying that he had acted towards His

Excellency in a most chivalrous manner. I wish to call his attention to the debate in those hectic days and nights of the latter part of June, and particularly to a debate which occurred on the night of the 30th June, and certain altercations between the right hon. member and myself. In discussing the question that night I referred to the present Prime Minister, then leading the opposition, as resigning without considering the interests of the country, which demanded that he should have offered to see that the departments of government should be temporarily administered pending the selection of his successor.
I refer to revised edition of Hansard at page 5217. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if ever there was a time in the political history of the Prime Minister, if ever there was a time in the political history of this parliament, when the leader of the opposition, having then resigned the high office of prime minister of this country, should have been perfectly frank and clear in his statements to the House, should have given to the House, if he gave anything at all, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in respect of his recent communication with His Excellency, that time was the night of 30th June last, when the House was deciding that important question then before it. Let me quote from Hansard, and I will leave out the echoes that came from various parts of the House, because there was a great deal of confusion:
Mr. Mackenzie King: I did not refuse to carry on. May I say further that after tendering my resignation I distinctly stated to His Excellency, and stated it in writing, that I was prepared, if His Excellency so desired and should ask me, to keep my resignation in abeyance until he had had the opportunity to take such further steps as he might wish to take.
That was clearly understood by this House, whatever may have been the intention of the leader of the opposition of the day, as meaning that in the ordinary course and following the usual precedents, precedents which are without exception I think in the political history of Canada, the Prime Minister had offered to continue in the administration until a new prime minister might be selected and would have had the opportunity to select his associates so as to form an administration for the government of Canada. When that statement was made, I replied as _ follows:
Mr. Cahan: I do not wish to raise the question, but unfortunately His Excellency cannot be present to give his testimony as to what took place.
Then there was a storm, and the Chairman of the committee compelled me to withdraw

Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan
that statement as being a reflection upon the veracity of the leader of the opposition of the day. Hansard goes on:
Mr. Mackenzie King: Fortunately I have a copy of the letter in which I tendered my resignation. May I say to my hon. friend that when I spoke first to His Excellency on the matter of resignation, it was on Saturday. I had several interviews with him before the final resignation was accepted.
Bearing that statement in mind, I felt it my duty on the opening of parliament to place upon the order paper a motion asking for the production of the correspondence between the present Prime Minister, who was also then Prime Minister, and His Excellency Lord Byng. That correspondence has been produced, rather reluctantly, by the Prime Minister; in fact, if I understood his suggestion to the House it was that whoever moved for the production of that correspondence would have to assume a very great and a very grave responsibility. Nevertheless, we persisted in the motion, with the result that there has been produced certain correspondence and certain letters, which have been placed upon the record of Hansard. One of them, however, has not yet been read to this House, although it has been referred to, and I am going to read it and put it upon Hansard, and make certain comments upon it:
Ottawa, June 28, 1926.
His Excellecy
The Right Honourable the
Baron Byng of Vimy, G.C.B., K.C.M.G., Governor General of the
Dominion of Canada, Ottawa.
My dear Governor General,
Your Excellency having declined to accept my advice to place your signature to the order in council with reference to a dissolution of parliament, which I have placed before you today, I hereby tender to Your Excellency my resignation as Prime Minister of Canada.
Your Excellency will recall that in our recent conversations relative to dissolution I have on each occasion suggested to Your Excellency, as I have again urged this morning, that having regard to the possible very serious consequences of a refusal of the advice of your first minister to dissolve parliament, you should, before definitely deciding on this step, cable the Secretary of State for the Dominions asking the British government, from whom you have come to Canada under instructions, what, in the [DOT]opinion of the Secretary of State for the Dominions. your course should be in the event of the Prime Minister presenting you with an order in council having reference to a dissolution.
Note that. Note that the Prime Minister of that day, in an official statement, expressed in writing to the Governor General of the day, insists that he came to Canada under instructions from the Secretary of State for the
Dominions. I would like to know where in the record are those instructions. The only instructions that can be found in the official documents are instructions from His Majesty himself, and there is not a suggestion either in the appointment of Lord Byng as Governor General, or in the letters patent and instructions issued to him, that he was to act otherwise than as a Governor General or Viceroy exercising the prerogatives of the king. The letter proceeds:
As a refusal by the Governor General to accept the advice of a prime minister is a serious step at any time, and most serious under existing conditions in all parts of the British Empire to-day, there will be raised, I fear, by the refusal on Your Excellency's part to accept the advice tendered a grave constitutional question without precedent in the history of Great Britain for a century and in the history of Canada since confederation.
If there is anything which, having regard to my responsibilities as Prime Minister, I can even yet do to avert such a deplorable and, possibly, far-reaching crisis, I shall be glad so to do, and shall be pleased to have my resignation withheld at Your Excellency's request pending the time it may be necessary for Your Excellency to communicate with the Secretary of State for the Dominions.
I am, Your Excellency,
Yours very sincerely,	.
(Sgd) W. L. Mackenzie King.
Therefore the Prime Minister of that day, in tendering his resignation, sought to lead- shall I say mislead?-the Governor General of Canada into believing that he was a mere agent for the Secretary of State for the Dominions, and that it was his duty, in relation to a crisis which had occurred in the domestic affairs of Canada, to seek the advice of the Secretary of State for the Dominions as to his conduct on that occasion. Further, in the debate yesterday, the Prime Minister said that lie had also urged upon the Governor General to take the advice of Sir Robert Borden. AVell, if it had become known to this country that His Excellency had taken the advice of a retired prime minister, who had owed his support to the Conservative majority in this House, what an uproar would have been created throughout the length and breadth of this country? I admit that in times of grave crisis there are precedents for His Excellency convening his Privy Councillors, but always men of both or of all political affiliations, in order that they, as the experienced and wise statesmen of the country, may give him advice, but never yet have we heard of a prime minister when seeking a dissolution of the House urging the Governor General or a viceroy or even the king himself to take the advice of a retired politician of the opposing political school as
1728	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan
to what His Excellency should do in the premises. Now, what was the effect upon the country? The Prime Minister said that the result of the general election was a vindication of the course that he had pursued in establishing a new and important political principle. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if there was any such decision by the electorate- which I do not admit-it was obtained entirely on misrepresentation as to the actual issue before the country. Not only did the Prime Minister convince me personally that night, but he convinced the members of this House and the people generally that, following the usual precedent, he had, in tendering his resignation, oifered to carry on the administration until his successor would have ample opportunity to select his cabinet and to present to the country an administration duly formed and sworn into office. That was the impression given throughout the entire Dominion. In fact, in the province of Quebec I remember well-and I have taken just a few quotations-the Governor General was criticized repeatedly in view of the attitude which he had taken-it was assumed that he had consulted the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs-and his conduct was characterized as that of a "subaltern" of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. Let me refer to a speech made by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa)-made in the utmost good faith, I believe, because he was thoroughly persuaded that the Prime Minister had fulfilled his whole duty to the House in making a statement that was full and frank and true in every particular. Misled by that statement, the hon. member for Labelle, speaking at Papineauville about July 15, 1926, or a few days later, said:
But not only the Governor General let Mr. King go without taking that preliminary precaution-
That is, the precaution to secure from the Prime Minister his assent to carry on the administration until his successor could be appointed.
-which no king of England since George III and no government head in Canada before has ever failed to take (namely, to retain Mr. King in the premiership until his successor might be selected), but Mr. King having offered in writing to retain power until another government could be formed, he refused to take notice of that offer.
That is, that the Governor General had refused to take notice of the offer of the then prime minister to carry on, when now we know the whole truth that His Excellency as the representative exercising the prerogative of the king in this country, had refused at the behest of a discredited prime minister

to seek his instructions from the Colonial Office. The hon. member for Labelle then proceeded:
But our Governor General is not only the representative of the king. He is appointed by the British government. The question which would be of interest to have answered is: Did he act as king or as an employee of the British government?
Then in view of the statements which had been made by the Prime Minister upon his retirement and of the subsequent statements which had been given by him to the press, the hon. member for Labelle continued:
No one will make me believe that he-
The Governor General.
-did not wire to London. It is true that Mr. Amery, the minister of the colonies, said he had nothing to do with it, but I know Mr. Amery, and when these ministers of the crown find it necessary to prevaricate a little they do not stick at telling a big one.
And on that issue the Prime Minister went to the country! That is the grave constitutional issue which he, by failing to present the full facts to parliament and the people, led the electorate to believe that they were required to give a decision upon. Therefore I say that when he now flatters himself that he secured the approbation of the people of Canada for what he himself calls his " chivalrous conduct " towards the late Govemoi General, he is resting under an entire misapprehension. Now, I do not intend to go further into that question. I am not here to enter into any discussion with the Prime Minister as to the attitude of the right hon. the late leader of the opposition, Arthui Meighen. It is not my office to do so. Whenever the Prime Minister wishes to provoke a discussion of that kind he will find that the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen is fully equipped, intellectually and otherwise, to give him the answer which his conduct deserves But in the debate yesterday the Prime Minister referred to a certain article in the Dal-housie Review.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. He refers to the Minister of Justice; I made no reference to the Dalhousie Review.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I accept the correction. It was the Minister of Justice. I was referring to yesterday afternoon's debate, and the Prime Minister spoke on Tuesday. Yesterday afternoon the Minister of Justice in referring to this point quoted from an article in the IMhousie Review, which he attributed to the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), who happens, by virtue of 'his high position as

Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan
a Doctor of Laws of that university and his munificent' bequests to it as one of its friends and advisers, to be also one of the directors of the Review published by -the university. But that article was not written by the hon. member for West Calgary. It was contributed by Professor R. McG. Dawson, a professor in one of the universities o-f the United States, who undertook to advise the people of Canada as to their rights and privileges in the premises.
I am not any more concerned with this issue than to say that it is absolutely necessary from time to time to vindicate the rights and privileges of the parliament of Canada in which we sit as members. Legally the ministry, or the government, is unknown. Constitutionally it must derive whatever powers it has from parliament, and not always necessarily under the statute. Parliament is the real custodian of the prerogatives of the crown which ministers are accustomed to exercise. Therefore the rights of a ministry may be taken to be such, and only such, as presumptively have been given by parliament, whose executive committee the ministry is, including the right to exercise the prerogatives of the crown as such in a constitutional sense. The Prime Minister referred to an episode at Westminster, and I will state my best information in that regard. In 1910, His Majesty refused dissolution to Premier Asquith, the present Lord Oxford, but granted it later in the same year when, according to the sovereign, different considerations and circumstances demanded a different conclusion. Again I am informed that in 1923-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon.
friend give the source of his information so that we may know what importance to attach to it?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I obtained my information
from the documents of the time, which I can look up again if necessary. Lord Oxford referred to it not long ago in a public statement, and I understood that it was referred to in a debate of last session on this very issue. I have a further statement, the source of which I cannot give but which I have no doubt I have seen, and my memory is usually fairly accurate. In 1924 His Majesty the King refused to grant dissolution to Premier MacDonald. Dissolution was subsequently granted but before that was done the sovereign consulted his privy councillors representing both political parties, some political opponents of Premier MacDonald and some political friends, and after that consultation the king did grant dissolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it very important that we should have the source of this last statement, because it goes very far in disclosing what took place between the king and his advisers.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I saw it in the public press, and 1 took the opportunity of consulting one who should know, an authority on such matters, but whether or not I am at liberty to give his name I do not know. If there is any doubt about it I will withdraw the statement; I thought it was well understood that such was the case, but if the Prime Minister thinks there is any doubt as to the accuracy of that statement I will withdraw it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think there is great doubt.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will leave it at that for
the moment, but my information was that dissolution was refused at one time and granted at another. One statement I do wish to make is that an examination of all the precedents, British, Dominion and colonial, arising during the last century, will disclose that no dissolution has ever been advised and granted while a motion of censure against the ministry has been pending in parliament. Dissolutions have been granted after motions of censure have been passed, but there is a great difference between the two cases. The one case involves interference with parliament in the midst of a conflict with its own ministry, and while that ministry is on trial; the other case involves merely a reference-and usually a necessary reference-to the electorate of the country for decision of an issue which stands concluded as between parliament and the ministry. The electorate is the final court of appeal, but without fear of contradiction from any precedent which has been established I say that the parliament of Canada in all cases, having tried the ministry, is entitled to pass its judgment, and that no ministry has the right to attempt to dissolve the court before which it is being tried until a verdict has been rendered upon the issue in question. No cases can be found in which the sovereign or any viceroy representing the sovereign has attempted at the request of a prime minister to destroy the very court before which he and his colleagues were compelled to appear. If we are now to have the new rule that at all times and under all circumstances the prime minister of this country is to have a dissolution upon request, we may have a dissolution to-morrow; then returning beaten the prime minister, being the sole adviser, may request another dissolution and so we may
1730	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan
have the most tyrannical, despotic and autocratic efforts made to destroy civil liberty in Canada. Therefore before the Prime Minister flatters himself that he has established a precedent, we must have further enlightenment upon what actually took place between him and Lord Byng last summer.
To proceed further, it is recommended in this report that very grave changes be made in a series of imperial acts which have applied to the Dominion of Canada ever since this Dominion was established. These imperial acts apply to almost every ramification of our civil and commercial life. In the report of this committee as embodied in the Imperial conference report, it is recommended that every imperial act, which is not in accordance with the new constitutional status alleged to have been established at the London conference, is to be modified and amended; and, if I understood him correctly, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) yesterday stated that when this is all accomplished the sole bond between this country and Great Britain and between this country and the other dominions will be our common sovereign. Is that really what it will mean when this political program is carried into full effect? There is a difference of opinion with regard to that, and I notice that Mr. Ewart raised the issue in the Ottawa Citizen of March 1, 1927. I do not cite what he said for the purpose of approving of it, but in referring to Right Hon. George P. Graham, a former colleague of the Prime Minister, Mr. Ewart said.
I wonder whether Mr. Graham, or any of his applauders, could tell what he meant. Did he mean that Canada's part should be equal to that of the United Kingdom? Or did he mean that Canada's part should be subordinate to that of the United Kingdom? If he meant that Canada's status was to be equal to that of the Lhiited Kingdom, he meant that Canada would be a sovereign, independent (same thing) state, for that, undoubtedly, is what the United Kingdom is. He meant that the only political association between the two countries would be their allegiance to the same sovereign.
I may be mistaken, and if so Hansard will not bear me out, but I understood the Minister of Justice to state that when these reforms now recommended were carried out, these dominions would simply be associated by reason of the fact that they had a common sovereign. Therefore, with respect to Mr. Graham's statement, Mr. Ewart says:
He meant, therefore, that Canada would cease to be a part of the British Empire. If then, Canada's status is to be equal to that of the United Kingdom, she will not be working out her destiny "by remaining a part of the British Empire."

Now there is a clear-cut policy. It has a considerable support in this country no doubt. There has been a propaganda carried on-cleverly and ably carried on by Mr. Ewart himself-in favour of the establishment of that status. Is that the status the Prime Minister wishes to achieve? If so, it is impossible, I think, Mr. Speaker, for him to continue long to make such speeches as he recently made at Toronto. They are irreconcilable with this theory which was announced, I think, by the Minister of Justice yesterday; or at least, I have not sufficient intelligence to discover the point of concurrence. That means that the Prime Minister of this country by giving assent on behalf of Canada at the Imperial conference to the carrying out of all these reforms, by a special committee to be appointed for that purpose, has given, or assumed to give, the support of Canada to a policy of destroying the whole fabric of the present -constitution in so far as it covers our political relations with Great Britain and our political relations with the sister dominions. And if he is permitted to assume that he has now the tacit support and approval of this parliament merely because he has laid that report upon the table of the House, then he will assume that, being the leader of the House and the Prime Minister of the country, he has right and authority to go on and carry out all these alleged reforms.
Now, how are these reforms to be carried out? There is not one of them which depends, necessarily depends, upon any resolution or any statute of the Canadian parliament; they may one and all be carried out by an imperial enactment, or by amendments to existing imperial statutes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I want to interrupt my hon. friend in order, if possible, to avoid further interruptions. I hope he will not infer that because I am not raising any questions with respect to interpretations he is putting on the remarks of the Minister of Justice, or the linking up of remarks made by others with the names of the Minister of Justice and myself, I think he is justified in so doing. I do not wish it to be understood that because I do not interrupt him when he is doing this I agree with any of his remarks.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I accept the statement at once, and I hope the right hon. gentleman does not assume that when he makes an elaborate statement to the House hon. gentlemen on this side approve exactly of what he does say, even though they may not express dissent.

Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have often heard my hon. friends make remarks to the effect that I was present and heard certain statements and did not take exception to them. That is what I want to make clear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know that I ever made a statement of that kind, but the hon. gentleman is already assuming, in reference to the most important declaration ever placed before the parliament of this country, that parliament acquiesces in it because it has not yet expressed dissent.
Now with regard to the question of the reservation and the veto of Canadian acts-* the hon. gentleman says that is obsolete as a constitutional practice. It is obsolete with respect to Dominion affairs. It is obsolete with respect to every matter concerning peace, order and good government in Canada. Edward Blake achieved that away back in the seventies, and the statement of his argument will be found, I think, in sessional paper No. 13 of 1877. Since that time there has been no effort to reserve, to disallow or to veto an act passed by the Canadian parliament. Edward Blake placed it on the strong, substantial basis that with respect to matters appertaining to the domestic affairs of Canada the crown, as represented by the Secretary of State for the, Colonies, should not intervene and should not veto, and that with respect to imperial or inter-imperial affairs, while the law wrould still remain on the statute book, it was best obviated by restraint on the part of the government of the parliament of Canada. Therefore, in the letters patent which are issued to His Excellency the Governor General, there is no direct reference, I think, to sections 54, 55 and 56, of the British North America Act, which are still in existence, at least as laws; but his instructions provide that His Excellency shall respect such laws as are or shall hereafter be in force in our said "Dominion." The instructions are that the Governor General is to carry out the laws "as are or shall hereafter be in force in our Dominion."
With reference to the disallowance or reservation of Dominion legislation, the Imperial conference report says:
On this point we propose that it should be placed on record that, apart from provisions embodied in constitutions or in specific statutes expressly providing for reservation, it is recognized that it is the right of the government of each dominion to advise the crown in all matters relating to its own affairs.
Now that specific statement is there. Sections 55, 56 and 57-if those are the particular sections-of the British North America Act still remain in force and with full legal effect,
and the conference decides that "apart from provisions embodied in constitutions or in specific statutes expressly providing for reservation," the right of the government of each dominion to advise the crown is in full force and effect. The report continues:
We are of opinion that there are points arising out of these considerations, and in the application of these general principles, which will require detailed examination, and we accordingly recommend that steps should be taken by Great Britain and the dominions to set up a committee with terms of reference on the following lines:-
To inquire into, report upon, and make recommendations concerning

(11 Existing statutory provisions requiring reservation of Dominion legislation for the assent of His Majesty or authorizing the disallowance of such legislation.
Now to show you how open this report is to diverse opinions let me call the attention of the House to the fact that in the House of Commons of Great Britain this matter of reservation and disallowance of dominion acts was referred to on November 25th, 1926, The official report is as follows:
Sir Clement Kinloch-Cook asked the Prime Minister, in view of the conclusions reached by the committee on inter-imperial relations, whether any change is contemplated in respect of the right of a governor to refuse assent to any measure passed by a dominion parliament, or to reserve any measure for the consideration of the crown.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin):	This
aspect of the position of the Governor General was not dealt with in the report of the committee on inter-imperial relations and I am not aware that any change is contemplated.
Sir C. Kinloch-Cook: Is there any change in the right of veto?
The Prime Minister:	No change that I am
aware of.
That clearly indicates to my mind that the Prime Minister of England regards this report as dealing only with reservation and veto in connection with acts of those dominions whose statutory constitution do not contain express provisions for such reservation and veto. But that does not concern me so much as the fact that with regard to all these proposed amendments to imperial statutes, it is proposed that a committee shall be set up by Great Britain, and the dominions "to inquire into, report upon, and make recommendations" regarding the abolition, modification or amendment of those imperial statutes which affect almost every department of life in this country.
The policy which the right hon. gentleman is urging, the policy which has been adopted by the Imperial conference in view of the strong representations made chiefly, I assume, by South Africa, is that the inter-imperial
1732	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan
constitution! as expressed !in imperial acts under which we live and have our being today, is to be wiped out, and what is to take its place? What provision is being made for a new arrangement or understanding or agreement between Great Britain and those dominions or between the dominions themselves with respect to the preservation and maintenance of that vast body of rights, privileges, and interests which they mutually enjoy and which we have hitherto enjoyed in Canada? That is the essential issue, and that is why I hesitate, by any tacit assent, to give to the Prime Minister and his colleague the right to proceed to secure from the Imperial parliament the abrogation of those imperial statutes which are so intimately connected with our political life to-day.
For instance, there is not only the question of reservation but the matter of providing for Dominion legislation having extra-territorial effect. I agree there are some vestiges which ought to be removed. I have not looked into the law recently, but I remember in my practice a few years ago a case in which a man residing with his wife and family in Montreal went to secure work in the United States. Having prospered, he committed the bigamous offense of attempting to marry another woman there. Then prospering still further, he brought back to Canada this second alleged wife or mistress, established her in a house on the adjoining street, and to the great disgust of the entire social community was rearing another family of children. When the lawyers were discusing the question of how he could be brought before the courts and punished for the crime of bigamy, it was ascertained that, while under the criminal law in this country we could punish a Canadian citizen for going beyond the territorial limit with the intention of committing a crime, yet if he did not proceed beyond the territorial limit with the intention of committing a crime, though he actually committed a crime abroad, our courts and our laws had no jurisdiction over him.
I remember again when it was proposed that we should have a Canadian navy, it was assumed that we could have ships of war for the protection of our commerce on the high seas. I remember pointing out to Sir Wilfrid Laurier that under existing legislative powers Canada could not enact any law governing the conduct of the officers and men of those ships when once they had proceeded beyond the three mile limit; that as regards Canadian laws the sailors might mutiny or commit other crimes beyond that limit but there was no Canadian law under which they could

be punished, and the Canadian parliament had no jurisdiction to enact such a law. The result was that an amendment was made to the imperial statute dealing with that particular matter.
I agree entirely that with regard to such ' matters as these the time has come when, for the peace, order and good government of Canada and Canadian citizens, there should be conceded to this parliament power to enact laws ancillary to the administration of public order in Canada, under which we will be enabled to punish Canadian citizens who have committed crimes abroad and subsequently returned to Canada. Those certainly are matters which should be dealt with, but how far will the Prime Minister go with his committee? Who are going to compose it? Will the opposition members of this House be represented on it when the inquiry is to be made? Is the inquiry to be a partisan study and the whole matter brought before the House, after being considered by only one section of the House? Is it to be a study made by a commission before which those interested will have an opportunity to appear and present their views? How will the commission be made up?
I have every respect for the Prime Minister as chief of the government of Canada, and I never will be found wanting in that respect when he goes abroad either to the Imperial conference in Great Britain or to any other country to represent Canada. I am prepared to stand by the Prime Minister of this country in the administration of all important interimperial and external affairs; but as the consideration for that I demand that in ail those matters he will deal frankly with parliament; that he will recognize that parliament is the constituted authority in this country; that the authority of his office is derived only from parliament, and that it is due to parliament that he should report to and secure the approval of parliament for every step which he takes in those grave matters.
The Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865 is important in this respect that, as stated by the Minister of Justice yesterday, it prevents the parliament of Canada from passing an act abolishing appeals to the Privy Council, and therefore when we sought to abolish appeals in regard to criminal cases, we found that the legislation which we passed, I think, section 1025 of the Criminal Code, was void ab initio.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is a court of appeal for the colonies only. It is true that it continues the prerogative right of British citizens of any part of the

Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan
world to appeal to the foot of the throne. It derives its original jurisdiction from the fact that British citizens going out from England to all parts of the world and establishing settlements in America, say, or in Asia, were deemed to have the right of appeal to the king in council from the arbitrary laws that might be passed by the constituted assemblies in those colonial territories. But no citizen of Great Britain has the right of appeal to the Privy Council except in certain classes of cases relating to the administration of the Church of England. Personally, and in this I am speaking for myself, and for myself alone, I regard an appeal to every one of the king's courts as an appeal to the king. I regard an appeal to any one of the king'3 courts of final resort as the equivalent of an appeal to the sovereign judicial authority in this country which was previously represented in the sovereign alone, and therefore, in regard to criminal matters, I can see no reason why appeals to the Privy Council in criminal cases should be longer admitted; but as I interpret the law, no act passed by the parliament of Canada can abrogate that right. As I said the other day, and one can simply judge from his own experience, there are certain classes of commercial cases in which the right of appeal to the Privy Council might be limited or restricted, but there are other cases in which I do not think, under the conditions which at present prevail in this country, the right of appeal should be entirely taken away.
Now what does the Prime Minister propose? He is to appoint Canadian members to a committee which is to take steps to carry out this modification of the Judicial Committee Acts, under which appeals are now made. Is that committee to report back to this parliament and secure the approval of this parliament? Not necessarily, because the Prime Minister can secure an abrogation of the Judicial Committee Acts or of any part of them by the parliament of Great Britain, in which this country has no representation whatever, and in view of the position which the Prime Minister has assumed at the Imperial conference, his ipse dixit there is supposed to represent, and is accepted by the government of Great Britain as representing, the prevalent opinion of the majority of the Canadian people and the approval of the Canadian parliament as a whole.
If we are proceeding to break down, piece by piece, the constitution which prevails with respect to inter-imperial affairs without substituting any new agreement or convention in its place, we now have a right to ascertain and to know how far the Prime Minister
intends to proceed. The better way, it seems to me, would have been for him to have bravely carried out the promise which he made to the House on December 13, and to have submitted this report to parliament and asked for its approval. That would have placed us in a position where, without any vote of want of confidence necessarily, we could have expressed our views as to the conditions under which these proposed modifications should be obtained, as to the extent to which they were advisable in the interests of Canada, and as to the reservations which we might desire to make to the carrying out completely of the recommendations contained in that report. But the right hon. gentleman has not kept his promise. He has repudiated it for certain reasons known only to himself. He had the opportunity to present those reasons to the House in his address of two hours in length; he can again speak upon the amendment which has been moved, and I think that this House ought to have placed before it, on his responsibility as Prime Minister, the procedure he intends to adopt and the extent to which he intends to go, in carrying out these recommendations contained in the Imperial conference report.
There are other matters that affect us very materially indeed. Take the matter of shipping. Every one of us knows that there is really no such thing as a Canadian ship except it be some ship that does not come under the registration for marine purposes. The ships which are built in Canada and which are owned in Canada are registered in Canada, it is true, but they are registered in a registry provided by imperial legislation, and when these Canadian ships soncalled, which are really British ships under British registry, sail from Canadian ports to the utmost parts of the world they are from the time they pass beyond our three-mile limit under the jurisdiction of the imperial act known as the Merchant Shipping Act. The Imperial conference points out that this Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, more particularly clauses 735 and 736, are not consistent with the constitutional status of the dominions and Great Britain, that is the equality of status now assumed, and they advise that a sub-committee be appointed:
To consider and report on the principles which should govern, in the general interest, the practice and legislation relating to merchant shipping in the various parts of the empire, having regard to the change in constitutional status and general relations which has occurred since existing laws were enacted.
As I said before such an inquiry will have multifarious ramifications with regard to



Imperial *Conference-Mr. Cahan
Canadian shipping and even to the coasting trade of Canada. Shipping legislation of the Canadian parliament at present may not come into operation unless and until it receives the approval of His Majesty the King of Great Britain; and moreover, any treaty rights or privileges enjoyed by the shipping of a foreign government in respect to the coasting trade of Canada, or any other dominion, is not now liable to be abrogated or restricted by any act of the Canadian parliament. This country has a very large shipping interest, and if we are to become so separated from the empire that the sole political connection shall be found in the one symbol of the same king for all the different parts of the empire, if we are to become separate and independent sovereign states, as many contend, we must proceed at once and secure the assistance and advice of the very best minds that this country can produce in a sort of constitutional convention to ascertain what shall be the basis of our maritime rights in the future, and what shall be our future relations in this respect with Great Britain and the other British dominions.
Take our admiralty courts. Our admiralty courts in Canada exercise a jurisdiction conferred by the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, and our Canadian laws establishing such courts and their procedure and practice, are still subject to the approval and confirmation of the government of Great Britain. We by our statutes provide the procedure only, and the procedure in those courts must be recognized and approved by a department of state in London before coming into effect. Now what does the right hon. gentleman propose? Does he propose to abrogate all these admiralty courts in Canada as they at present exist? Does he propose to pass new acts which shall give them their jurisdiction? Does he propose that hereafter there shall be such an extension of our extra territorial rights that we by act of the Canadian parliament, will have supervision and control of Canadian ships in whatever part of the world they may be? What will he substitute for admiralty courts in this country? What is his prevision in regard to this question? He is entering upon a tremendous task, and what is he proposing to do? Is he to do it as his own mind suggests, or is he to seek the cooperation and approval of parliament, step by step, as he proceeds? The very fact that he has refused to submit this report - to parliament, although he has promised to do so, leaves in our minds grave doubts, and leaves in the minds of a great body of intelligent people in the country grave doubts as to whither
[Mr. Cahan.J
we are proceeding. Many men are asking, "Watchman, what of the night"? and the watchman, in the person of the Prime Minister, refuses to make any response or to give any clear definition as to what he intends to do.
Take the question of equality of judicial status. We have had that question before us, and it has been discussed under the provision dealing with the abolition of rights of appeal to the Privy Council. Now judicial equality or equal status in judicial affairs can be achieved, it seems to me, only in one of two ways. If appeals are to continue to the judicial committee of the Privy Council, then we must have the right vested in parliament and government of Canada, to appoint a number of representative Canadian judges to that court, who will not be under the influence of British opinion, but where they will sit as Canadian appointees having their stipends or salaries provided by the Canadian parliament, and so represent Canada on that court. If, on the other hand, we are not to have permanent Canadian representation on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, then the question arises as to the amendment by the Imperial parliament of the statutes providing an appeal at the present time, so as to restrict those appeals to such matters as meet with the approval of the Canadian parliament. Therefore the Judicial Committee Acts should be considered also, and we should have a clear statement from the government as to what we are about to do in these matters. Take our relations with foreign countries; are we to have inequality in respect to foreign affairs? We cannot have it unless this country is prepared to take its part in the matter of imperial defence. Following the conference which the Prime Minister attended where all are alleged by him to have been in agreement, I find that Mr. Fitzgerald, Minister of External Affairs, on 15th December, in the assembly, of the Irish Free State made this report of the conclusions reached:
The conclusions of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee were intended to make clear the implications of co-equality, and to prepare the way for the gradual elimination of legal machinery and administrative practices not in conformity with that principle.
With that interpretation I presume we all agree. Then in replying to inquiries as to the position of the Irish Free State in the event of a declaration of war, Mr. Fitzgerald said:
So far as I can interpret it, it would mean on strictly theoretical constitutional lines that the king could only declare war when he had

Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan
simultaneous unanimous advice to that effect from all the governments. That would be the constitutional position.
Is that the position taken by the Prime Minister in this country, or does he accept the theory that Great Britain may declare war and that Canada may maintain peace? Does he accept the theory there propounded that in all respects the declaration of war must receive the practically unanimous approval of the governments of the various dominions? Does he assume that Great Britain no longer can declare a war which might affect the interests of Canada without the full sanction and approval of the government of Canada? What is his theory on which he intends to build up a new constitution of inter-imperial relationship as between Great Britain and the dominions? That we have a right to know, and particularly because at the Imperial conference, when all were agreed, Mr. Bruce said:
I suggest that though we have an equality of status it carries with it some responsibility to share the common burden of defence as a set-off against the great advantages we have received in recent years from our connection with the empire.
Mr. Coates said:
Could not the burden of construction of the necessary ships be borne in greater proportion by those dominions who do not consider themselves so vitally concerned in Singapore? As I understand it, the policy of developing it as a naval base is approved, and the work is to be continued at considerable cost. That being so, and on the principle that he who gives at once gives twice, it seems important that offers of assistance from the dominions and India should soon be made.
And I notice that a publicist so well known as Edward Salmon, in reviewing the work of the conference, says:
Equality of status within the empire implies equality of responsibilities also.
Mr. Balfour on December 8, 1926, referring to the matter of imperial defence as dealt with by the report of the Imperial conference, said:
I should say that so far as this country is concerned, we are bound to go to war to defend any part of this empire which is in danger. Personally, I think the duties of all other members of the empire to us are not less than our duties to them; but, as to the particular conditions under which that great duty is to be exercised, I do not believe anything is gained by inventing hard cases beforehand.
That is his statement in the House of Lords which the right hon. gentleman opposite did not quote when reading part of thait statement. This Imperial conf erence report also ratifies the resolutions passed in 1923 dealing with imperial defence. It seems to suggest that in regard to imperial defence there is to be complete 32649-1101
cooperation between Great Britain and the several self-governing dominions. What attitude does the right hon. gentleman and his government take in regard to that? Do they admit the principle? He and his colleagues sat in the Imperial conference when these discussions were being carried on. They heard the declarations of Mr. Coates and Mr. Bruce there. The Prime Minister declared at the House of Lords dinner that their opinion was unanimous with respect to all that had been done. Yet when Mr. Bruce and Mr. Coates, in passing through this country, had the courage to say here exactly what they had said at the conference and exactly what they had said in public discussions in London, I find the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) at the Toronto meeting suggesting in very emphatic terms that these gentlemen had better keep their opinions to themselves while in this country, and I remember seeing in the press another statement made by the Prime Minister somewhat to the same effect.
What does all this mean? If we are to have an Imperial conference report submitted to us, let us have the whole of it submitted, and let us understand once and for all what is the constitutional theory which will hereafter govern the relation of Great Britain and the dominions in the matter of imperial defence. Let us have some clear idea and pronouncement in regard to it. I have a strong suspicion * that whatever excuses the Prime Minister may give for not having produced the report to this House for its approval, it will be found that one of the chief reasons, although not announced, is that he and the members of his government, and the members supporting him on the government side, are not in complete accord, and that he with the skill of the equestrian, which he has often displayed, is attempting to ride two horns of a dilemma and has not the courage to come before the House with any clear enunciation of policy in regard to it.
Also, we have had the suggestion that hereafter the Governor General is not to be the medium of correspondence between this government and the British government. The Governor General represents His Majesty the King now. I do not know who takes responsibility for the Governor General. Does my right hon. friend the Prime Minister sug-geA that in all that the Governor General does at the present time, his speeches and public pronouncements, he, the Prime Minister, assumes responsibility on his behalf to the House and the country? I do not know just exactly what his relationship is to the Governor General. But one thing is clear, that when

Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan
it was found necessary to appoint an envoy extraordinary to Washington, the Governor General was the means of communication between this government and the British government and the king. And to whom did the Governor General report in the correspondence brought down by the Prime Minister yesterday? The Governor General, acting for this country, made his communications through the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and the replies which are presumed to come from the king to this government are sent by the same British minister. Has that practice ceased, or is it to continue? By what means does the Prime Minister have access to His Excellency? He stated yesterday-and I assume it was in a jocular mood to divert my attention for a moment-that in the appointment of the Hon. Mr. Massey as envoy plenipotentiary to the United States he had seen the king. Hereafter whenever a representative of Canada is to be appointed to any foreign state, or a commissioner is to be appointed by the king at the request of the Dominion government to take part in any foreign negotiations, will the Prime Minister leave the Dominion and visit the king personally, take him apart in secret and advise him, without allowing His Majesty to consult with his British ministers in regard to the appointment? I ask the Prime Minister, despite all this talk that we have in the public press, to which his own speeches have given encouragement, is it not the fact that for the present and in the future he assumes that in all these matters the communications expressing the will and advice of the Canadian government will not pass to the king directly, "will not be given to him orally by the right hon. gentleman on his visits to England, but will pass through the British Foreign Office, where they will be under the supervision and,
. to a certain and large extent, under the control and direction of the British Foreign Office as before? Or is the contrary the case, that hereafter the British Foreign Office is to have no direction and no control over the Canadian government in these affairs, and that the High Commissioner in London-who was selected to make the Prime Minister's post mortem political statement to Mr. Baldwin as Prime Minister of Great Britain,-will first receive the advice of the Canadian government and will then seek access to the sovereign in order to transmit that advice to him?
We have, Mr. Speaker, a preposterous condition before us. We have the right hon. gentleman proceeding to London without having given one moment's consideration to

these great problems. He announced to the House that he had given no consideration to them. Even if he had, he is not in a position to give any final opinion in regard to them because he has not consulted with this House, to which he is responsible, with regard to these great constitutional changes which are now proposed. He now seeks by the tacit approval of this House, not having the courage to present a report of his own work for its approval and confirmation, to proceed to disrupt every one of these constitutional ties which bind and connect us with Great Britain and Ireland and with the dominions beyond the seas. And while he has endorsed and proposes to carry out a policy of disruption and destruction, he has not one single positive idea to present to this House as to the formation of any new convention or as to the new alignments and pdlitical connections which are absolutely necessary if the position of Canada is to be maintained in this world.
I ask then the government to accept this amendment to his motion in its entirety and thereafter to deal with us frankly. Let the Prime Minister accept the amendment; let him admit to this House that he has not now the necessary parliamentary authority; let him admit that he does not desire by any tacit consent to secure the approval, or the apparent approval, of the parliament and the people of this country to these great changes.
* In the making of these changes, whether by the Canadian parliament or by the Imperial parliament-because the Imperial parliament may carry them all out-let him now give us a solemn promise that before they or any of them are made he will come to this House and secure its necessary authority and consent. Why, when he has failed to bring down the Imperial conference's report, why when we are prepared to present our views in this short amendment, does he not accept those views with manly courage and wait until he can later present the Imperial conference report as a whole and obtain its ratification and sanction by this House with or without amendment.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to attempt to follow the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Cahan) through the ramifications of his speech. There is much in what he said, without agreeing -with it at the moment, that I submit might well be responded to by the Prime Minister. I think a very serious indictment has been levelled against the right hon. gentleman. I for one have hesitated to condemn him unheard, and so until this moment I have refrained from expressing publicly or privately the opinion which I hold following

Imp. Conference-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
the publication of certain correspondence until I heard the right hon. gentleman's position thereon. I think it is only fair that the House should hear both sides of this question, and I trust that before the debate is closed the Prime Minister will give to the House an explanation of his position in respect to it. I wish to say, however, in fairness to everybody, that I cannot follow the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George in the position he assumes of wanting to know everything categorically, specifically, dogmatically, immediately. As a matter of fact, I doubt very much whether, even if everything were specifically produced before him and every declaration dogmatically determined, the hon. gentleman would not still find himself disposed to discredit most of it.
On the question of casuistry, I do not think I am going beyond the limits of parliamentary debate when I submit to the House words that the hon. gentleman himself used some years ago, I do not intend to flatter him when I say that the speeches which he has made on Canada's political relations with the empire have always been of intense interest to me, but in none of them have I come across a passage with which I am in such complete agreement as the following. This is taken from a speech made by the hon. gentleman before the Canadian Club of Boston on the evening of Tuesday, January 30, 1912.
An. hon. MEMBER:	What hon. gentleman?


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
member who has just taken his seat. He said then:
-in a measure, the natural result of the development in the minds of the Canadian people of the national idea, of the consciousness that they have become a Canadian nation, endowed with a distinctive national character, permeated with a vigorous national life, vested with national responsibilities, and withal, masters of their own national destiny.
The statement is so complete that it requires no further elaboration; I would simply submit to the House that it was made in 1912, whilst the hon. gentleman was in possession of the full faculties of a mature mind- and somebody interjects that he was not in politics, but I do not wish to use such an unfair reference. I will say that those words "withal, masters of their own national destiny" would place the hon. gentleman entirely outside of his argument of to-day.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not a bit; I quite agree
with them.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
gentleman would now tie us up irrevocably
in the empire and make us obligated to the Imperial government in ways which are entirely repugnant to us. That may be casuistry; it may be a change of heart or it may be anything. The hon. gentleman has something to explain in that regard, as the Prime Minister has something to explain in connection with the matters which have been placed before him.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I accept entirely what I
said in Boston, if I remember it correctly. I do not think I have changed at all.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then is it by a process of casuistry that the hon. gentleman makes consistent his remarks of this afternoon with this splendid quotation? Let me again emphasize those words:
-a Canadian nation endowed with a distinctive national character, permeated with a vigorous national life, vested with national responsibilities and, withal, masters of their own national destiny.
How under heaven can we be masters of our own national destiny if we are subject and subordinate to some imperial authority? If I have misunderstood the hon. gentleman I apologize; if I have been misunderstood I will ask the hon. gentleman to apologize.
I was delighted with the speech made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) yesterday. I think he laid down his case in as clear a manner and interpreted it in as broad a form as even I could have anticipated from a member of the government in dealing with the work of the Imperial conference. Let me remind the House of one or two sentences which he used, which I took down as he said them. He said that this constituted the final acceptance of the unity of the so-called dominions and the British throne, and liberty in all external and domestic affairs. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has endeavoured to demonstrate that this is not true. To a degree he is right, and if I were willing to follow him into the legal facts in regard to his criticism I might be compelled to agree with him entirely. But I want to say frankly, Mr. Speaker, that I am in a very pleasant frame of mind this afternoon, and do not intend to be carried away into an unnecessarily cavilling or critical attitude. I am prepared to accept in faith the utterances of both our delegates to that conference. I do not think they have done any harm; I have not seen any great evidence of it, and while they may not have done any great good let us be grateful that at least no harm has been done, and in that spirit approach this report. The Minister of Justice declared that equality of status was not a new principle,
1738	COMMONS
Imp. Conference-My. Garland (Bow River)
and gave us illustrations of that fact. I agree entirely with him as several other hon. gentlemen have agreed. Equality of status is a principle very deeply rooted in the hearts of our people, and goes back far beyond even the quotations which have been referred to in the course of this discussion. I have in my hand a book called The Union of the British Provinces, by Mr. Whelan, one of the gentlemen who was very active in the days preceding confederation. It is a strange thing and perhaps an unhappy circumstance that we have not on record a verbatim report of the speeches then made, but in two very rare documents, so rare that it is almost under bond that one secures a loan of them from the library, one may find reports of the speeches of the various delegates to the different conferences which took place before confederation. In one of them Sir John A. Macdonald, speaking at a banquet in Charlottetown, on September 1, 1864, is reported by Mr. Whelan as follows:
He had, however, every reason to believe that the result of the convention which held its sittings in Charlottetown for the past week would lead to the formation and establishment of such a federation of all the British North American provinces as would tend very materially to enhance their individual and collective prosperity, politically, commercially and socially; and also give them in their united manhood that national prowess and strength which would make them at least the fourth nation on the face of the globe.
Again at Charlottetown in September of the same year Hon. George Etienne Cartier is reported as having used these words:
They (the delegates) met to inquire whether it were possible for the provinces, from their present fragmentary and isolated materials, to form a nation or kingdom. Canada of herself-
That is Upper Canada at that time.
-could not make a nation; neither could the maritime provinces of themselves become a kingdom. It was, therefore, essentially necessary that those national fragments and resources of all the provinces should be concentrated and combined in order that they, in their trade, intelligence, and national power and prosperity, might be rated as at least the fourth nation of the worl d.
That is, not only in size and resources, but in status and as to rank and title. I am offering these references to the House because of the statement made by the Minister of Justice yesterday when he said that the work of building the nation has been achieved. Has it? I simply wish to submit these references and ask the House if that work has been completed; frankly, I do not think so. I think we have gone a long way in that direction, but before we start, blowing the trumpets or waving the flags it would be as well to see
fMr. E. J. Garland.]
what was in the minds of the fathers of confederation and what was their vision of the destiny of this country, and perhaps we will then arrive at a clearer idea as to how far or how little we have progressed since that time. In my opinion we have progressed very far, but not so far as we should have progressed under more favourable conditions.
At page 16 of the same work, in the course of another speech made by Hon. T. H. Havi-land, one of the delegates, he said that from all he could learn the provinces would ere long be one great country from the Pacific to the Atlantic. There was another conference held at Halifax, and by the way, they went in very strongly for conferences in those days, and every conference was either preceded or followed, or both, by immense banquets. Those banquets should be to us a mark upon which we should centre our appreciation, because I rather think that if it had not been for the banquets, many of the things we now know to have been said prior to confederation would not be known to us, and possibly many of the things which were said would not have been spoken were it not for these banquets. We have learned that under wine men open their hearts and tell the truth. If that be the case it makes the quotations I have been using all the stronger. We find at pages 24 and 25, reporting the banquet at Halifax the following utterance by the Hon:	George
Etienne Cartier, a man of considerable renown, a man whose record is certainly that of one of the great leaders of confederation:
When we come to the territory occupied by these provinces, we see again another great element requisite for the foundation of a great state.
It was not a colony, it was not a great dominion, it was "a great state," a sovereign state these gentlemen had in view. Again at page 25 he said:
Knowing as we do in Canada, that we possess so large a personal element-that we have cleared so much of our territory as would secure to us as respectable a position as many of the European powers, rve want to be something greater yet; but that cannot be unless you unite with us.
Another authority corroborates many of these statements-Mr. J. H. Gray, who has written the Confederation of Canada. He has repeated word for word the very statements reported to have been uttered by Sir John Macdonald, then John Macdonald, George Etienne Cartier, and many of the others who took up and discussed this matter at that time. At page 44 we find Sir John Macdonald speaking at Halifax. He says:
If we can only obtain that object-

Imp. Conference-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
What object?
-a vigorous general government-we shall not be New Brunswickers, nor Nova Scotians, nor Canadians, but British Americans, under the sway of the British sovereign.
Again he says:
In discussing the question of a colonial union, we must consider what is desirable and practicable; we must consult local prejudices and aspirations. It is our desire to do so.
In the conference we have had we have been united as one man-there was no difference of feeling-no sectional prejudices or selfishness exhibited by anyone; we all approached the subject feeling its importance; feeling that in our hands were the destinies of a nation; and great would be our sin and shame if any different motives had intervened to prevent us carrying out the noble object of founding a great British monarchy, in connection with the British Empire, and under the British queen. (Cheers.)
I do not think a more emphatic pronouncement was ever made by anyone in this country in favour of an independent sovereign state under the sovereignty of the British crown. It is not necessary for me to go further. If hon. gentlemen will simply consult the speeches made before confederation, the debates that took place in the House at that time, the debates that took place at the conference in London, it becomes readily clear that the objective of John Macdonald and George Etienne Cartier-if not of others certainly of those two; they were the guiding figures; they were the men who made the submissions to the conference, and their guiding thought was the creation of a nation on this side of the Atlantic-not a subordinate nation, not a colony, not a dominion, but a sovereign nation in connection with the British Empire, united with the rest of the selfgoverning dominions under the sovereign. But beyond that they did not go. Just how far have we come? At the conference that took place in London, and indeed prior to the London conference, the objective is made very clear. At page 20 and 21 of Pope's Confederation Documents we find Mr. Macdonald moving on Thursday, 20th October, 1864:
That the executive authority -
This was just prior to going over to London.
That the executive authority or government shall be vested in the sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and be administered according to the "well understood principles of the British constitution by the sovereign personally or by representative duly authorized.
At page 39 of the same work we find a report on the resolutions adopted at the conference of delegates from the provinces of
Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and the colonies of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, held in the city of Quebec. Amongst the resolutions then adopted was the following:
The executive authority or government shall be vested in the sovereign of the -United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and be administered according to the well understood principles of the British constitution by the sovereign personally-
By the sovereign personally!
-or by the representative of the sovereign duly authorized.
It is as clear as possible that without precipitating a debate of an objectionable nature, the intention was to establish a sovereign state under the sovereign personally or a representative of the sovereign duly authorized.
We now can pass to London. In London on the 4th day of December, 1866, a conference of delegates from Canada was again held. It was held at the Westminster Palace hotel. Had I known that at the time I was in London I would have gone to see if the old place was still there. If it is still there I am sorry I missed seeing it. But at that hotel the following resolution was passed by the conference:
The executive authority or government shall be vested in the sovereign of the United Kingdom and Ireland, and be administered according to the well understood principles of the British constitution by the sovereign personally or by the representative of the sovereign duly authorized.
There was never any idea in the minds of the great guiding figures of confederation that we should be subject to the Colonial Office or any representative of the Colonial Office. If there was to be any link, any visible link, between us and the mother country it was to be the king in person, or his representative, and no one else. Now one of the resolutions consists of just one sentence but it is worth quoting as we pass on:
That Her Majesty the Queen he solicited to determine the rank and name of the federated provinces.
Sir John Macdonald knew very well what his ideas were as to the rank and also the name. He made it very clear in his speeches, but at all these conferences he refrained from disclosing them for fear of arousing the abuse and vituperation of the little Canadians who saw only subordination of our state in future. And so Sir John Macdonald most astutely refrained from inciting in any way a discussion which might precipitate violent debate. Some indication of the cleverness of that gentleman may be found in a letter which he wrote just
Imp. Conference-My. Garland

(Bow River)
prior to going to London in which he indicated that it was important that no reverberations of the attitude to be taken at the conference should be spread throughout the dominion prior to the enactment of legislation. Once the act became law then everyone would agree to it and it would be all right.
It struck me at the time I read this that it was rather typically Tory. I do not think there is any doubt about the attitude; it certainly was not democratic. There was no indication that he wanted to submit the matter for consideration to the people who might not have agreed with him. He took that attitude for the purpose of preventing reverberations that would have destroyed his objective.
_ Now in the same volume, Pope, Confederation Documents, on page 115 there is given part of the debate which took place on Thursday, 13th December, 1866, on the resolutions of the Quebec conference. I quote the following :
. Mr. MeDougall: Why assert that the sovereign is commander in chief when it is part of the constitution of England?
Mr. Macdonald: I am not prepared to admit that. The sovereign is not absolutely the commander in chief of the militia of England except by proclamation.
Mr. MeDougall: I am prepared to go to the same lengths as is constitutional in England.
Mr. Macdonald: Read it in connection with the third resolution.
Mr. Tupper: Then constitutional advice will be necessary.
Mr. Macdonald: Any powers given by statute to the sovereign must be exercised constitutionally.
Shortly after their arrival the first draft of the proposed pact was drawn up, and I would ask the House to note that Macdonald left blanks for the title of the new state. The first draft reads:
After the passing of this act-
These colonies which he had mentioned-
-shall for the purposes hereof, form and be one province or confederation, under the name of.
bene fits to the colonies and be conducive to the interests of the United Kingdom:
*n	therefore enacted by the Queen's most
Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows.
And then follows the word "preliminary". Clause 2 states:
It shall be lawful for Her Majesty, at any time not later than	, },y letters
patent under the great seal of the United Kingdom, to declare the union of the colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick into one colony, with such name as Her Majesty thinks fit.
It was to be a grouping of colonies, and for what object? In reading over the documents of that period it is quite clear that the only objective in the minds of those short-sighted British statesmen or the Colonial Office employees was to concentrate the colonies into one government and so more easily to control and manage the then scattered governments of the colonies in North America. Clause 3 states:
The Governor General of British North America shall, within	after
receipt by him of the letters patent declaring the union, proclaim the same by publication thereof in the Government Gazette of Canada, and thereupon the union shall have full effect, and the said three colonies shall thenceforth form and be one colony.
We find that repeated in clauses 4, 5 and 7. The reference is entirely to the formation of one colony and not of a nation free and equal or anything else. We find the third draft of the third conference reported on page 159. Will hon. gentlemen please note that in the previous delegates draft, blanks had been left in the space where the title was to be, and it is fair to assume that in the interim Her Majesty was consulted. If she was consulted, then certainly she must have agreed to a title now used for the first time in the draft of the conference. Note this:
And then there is a blank. But in the second clause of the draft he repeats again the source of authority: the queen personally or her representatives. One gets some conception of the Obstacles in Macdonald's way when one reads the report of the next draft, this time the draft of the Colonial Office of the 23rd January, 1867. This is reported at page 141 of Pope's volume. Note what the Colonial Office wanted; note what was in their mind as opposed to that which was in the mind of Macdonald and the delegation:
Whereas the union of the British North American colonies for purposes of government and legislation would be attended with great 
.f' Within	calendar months next
after the passing of this act-
These various provinces of Canada-
-shall form and be one united dominion, under the came of the Kingdom of Canada, and thenceforth the said provinces shall constitute and be one kingdom under the name aforesaid, upon, from, and after the day so appointed as aforesaid.
Clause 7 adopted completely from Macdonald's Quebec resolution reads: .
The executive government and authority is and shall be vested in the queen.
I therefore submit that in all probability and indeed one is justified in assuming that

Imp. Conference-My. Garland (Bow River)
in all certainty Her Majesty had been consulted in the interim and had given her consent. Otherwise, after Macdonald's public statements' and after the resolutions that were carried, they would not have dared to include in this draft a title which he had already declared to be a matter for Her Majesty to decide. However, the obstacles raised in the Colonial Office were too great, and we find reported at page 212 the final bill in which Macdonald had had to admit that he had lost his great objective and had compromised. We will find out in a moment the reason why. Section 3 of the final draft reads:
It shall be lawful for the queen,	 to
declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed-
And so on.
-the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall form and be one dominion under the name of Canada; and on and after that day those three provinces shall form and be one dominion under that name accordingly.
The compromise had been reached. It was not to be a colony but it was not to be a sovereign state. It was not to be a kingdom. Macdonald had sought the one; the Colonial Office had sought the other. A compromise had been reached and a dominion, a subordinate, inferior title and rank had been secured. If one seeks the reason why Macdonald capitulated, one can find it in Pope's volume at page 312 on which appears a letter written by Macdonald to Lord Knutsford repeating many years afterward his chagrin, his bitter disappointment at the weakness, lack of vision on the part of the Colonial Office people. He said:
A great opportunity was lost in 1867 when the dominion was formed out of the several provinces. This remarkable event in the history of the British Empire, passed almost without notice. The new confederation had at the time of the union about the same population as the thirteen colonies when they rebelled and formed a nation imbued with the bitterest feelings of hostility towards England-feelings which by the way exist

As he said at that time:
-in as offensive a form now as they did on the day of the declaration of independence.
The declaration of all the British North American provinces that they desired as one dominion to remain a portion of the empire, showed what wide government and generous treatment would do, and should have marked an epoch in the history of England. This would probably have been the case had Lord Carnarvon, who, as colonial minister, had sat at the cradle of the new dominion, remained in office. His ill omened resignation was followed by the appointment of the late Duke of Buckingham, who had as his adviser the then Governor
General Lord Monck-both good men certainly, but quite unable, from the constitution of their minds, to rise to the occasion. The union was treated by them-
And this was simply the reflection of the general attitude of the Colonial Office.
-ns if the British North America Act were a private bill uniting two or three English parishes. Had a different course been pursued, for instance had united Canada been declared to be an auxiliary kingdom as it was in the Canadian draft of the bill, I feel sure almost that the Australian colonies would, ere this, have been applying to be placed in the same rank as the Kingdom of Canada.
Pray pardon this long discursive letter, which I have been tempted to bore you with, by the pleasant and cool breezes of the lower St. Lawrence-
And so on.
Yours faithfully,
John A. Macdonald.
But Macdonald wrote to that letter a postcript part of which was suppressed for some time by his biographer. I will read the part that was published in the first editions of his biography:
PS. On reading the above over I see that it will convey the impression that the change of title from kingdom to dominion was caused by the Duke of Buckingham. This is not so. It was made at the instance of Lord Derby, then foreign minister, who feared the first name would wound the sensibilities of the Yankees.
So we failed to become a kingdom because Lord Derby feared to hurt the sensibilities of the Yankees. It may not be too late to adjust that position. I do not think there is any danger of hurting the sensibilities of our friends to the south. After living on their border a nation, in effect, if not in fact, for sixty years, surely we have shown them that we have much in common with them not only in tongue, but in aspirations, in many of our ideals, in our religious and social customs, and so forth. Surely the time has come when we must admit to ourselves that the power on the part of the American people to understand and sympathize with our aspirations is sufficiently equal to our power to understand and sympathize with theirs, and is there any one in this House who will condemn or attempt to condemn the aspirations of the republic to the south? I for one will not, nor do I think anyone here will. Therefore, why take it upon ourselves to asume, as Lord Derby unfortunately did, that we might be hurting their sensibilities if we assumed the position to which we are entitled by the findings of this conference which are now before us?
But that quotation is not complete. In Popes volume I, 1894, the whole of it was not
1742	COMMONS
Imp. Conference-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
given, but subsequently in a letter published in the Ottawa Citizen in July, 1917, Sir Joseph Pope wrote as follows:
Origin of Name
I agree with you in characterizing as erroneous the statement publicly made to the effect that at the Quebec conference in 1864 the name "Dominion" was selected for the new confederation. The only allusion at that conference to the subject of name that I am aware of, is the 71st resolution, which says: "That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the federated provinces."
Nor is this surprising, for in 1864 the fathers were engaged in laying the foundations, not crowning the edifice.
"United provinces" was employed in 1866 merely as a temporary convenience while drafting the bill. In the margin of one of Sir John Macdonald's memoranda of the London conference there appears, written in his own hand, one under the other, probably in inverse order of his preference, the words: Province . Dependency Colony Dominion Vice Royalty Kingdom.
Apropos of the rejection of the title of "Kingdom", I may say that when I published my Memoirs of Sir John Macdonald, out of consideration for the then Governor General, who was the son of the Lord Derby criticized, I omitted a portion of Sir John's remarks. I now quote the whole sentence which he wrote as a postscript to his letter to Lord Knutsford of 18th July, 1889:
"P.S.-On reading the above over, I see that it will convey the impression that the change *of title from "Kingdom" to "Dominion" was caused by the Duke of Buckingham. This is not so. It was made at the instance of Lord Derby, then foreign minister, who feared the first name would wound the sensibilities of the Yankees. I mentioned this to Lord Beaeons-field at Hughenden in 1879, who replied: 'I was not aware of the circumstance, but it is so like Derby, a very good fellow, but one who lives in a region of perpetual funk'."
In none of the papers on this subject of confederation is there anything to indicate that it ever occurred to Sir John Macdonald that his desire to have the new confederation styled "The Kingdom of Canada" might one day be interpreted to mean a looking forward on his part to Canadian independence. He evidently considered that the term "Kingdom" does not necessarily connote independent sovereignty. The kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland might have occurred to his mind, just as, at a later period, one would naturally think of the kingdoms of Saxony, Wurtemburg. Bavaria, or, for that matter, the Empire of India.
There is another quotation, by the way, that may throw a little light on Lord Derby's capacity. It is taken from Lord Newton's book on Lord Lyon's, volume II, page 105:
There can be no possible doubt as to Lord Derby's sincerity; indeed, he was so constitutionally averse from, an adventurous foreign 
policy that a year or two later, Lord Salisbury said of his colleague that he never could have brought himself to annex the Isle of Man.
That brings us down through the various stages to the final draft of the bill. May I recall to the House the fact that on the day this debate opened, on Tuesday last, we celebrated, or should have celebrated if we wanted to celebrate-I wonder if there was any reason to do so-the passing of that bill through the British House. I do not think any hon. gentleman referred to it. It is simply a matter of interest to be noted in passing, but it is nevertheless true that this bill to which I have just referred passed the British House of Commons on that day, and so we see why to-day it has been found necessary to go back to England to struggle again and again, as we have been struggling, to achieve that state which Sir John A. Macdonald himself and those associated with him in those days sought to establish at that time.
Some of the speakers who have taken part in this debate have explained the attitude of the Colonial Office at that time, and their attitude since, as well as the attitude of the officials of departments over there at the present time, sometimes in criticism, sometimes not. Of them I do not wish at the present moment to make any criticism. I wish simply to submit in passing that if there is anything I do regret about this report it is that it has not been made as clear as I would wish just exactly what status we have achieved by adding not only to the qualification of our status as given in the report, but as well the definition as to our title. Why worry? Some poor old ladies, you know, Mr. Speaker, are fearfully worried about the possible loss of the word "dominion". I can sympathize with their point of view, but I do not think they quite understand. Use makes us love many things. Why should we use the word "dominion"? Let us study the dictionaries in regard to this word. The Oxford dictionary defines "dominion" as:
1. The power or right of governing or controlling.
And it gives as an example of the use of the word this sentence from Sir T. Herbert's Travels, year 1634, page 29:
Those Moguls got the dominion of those countries.
And another example from Freeman, 1867, page 215:
Foreign dominion in any shape would soon become hateful.
Yes. The Oxford dictionary gives a second definition:

Royal Assent
2 (b). The territory owned by or subject to a king or ruler or under a particular government or control.
Example: Dominion of Canada (colloquially, the Dominion) the title under which the former colonial provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, etc., in British North America were united into one government in 1867.
That is the example given in the Oxford dictionary. Webster defines dominion as:
That which is subject to sovereignty or control.
Specific examples:
(a)	the estate or domain of a feudal lord.
(b)	territory governed; the tract or country considered as subject; as the dominion of a king.
Then follows this statement:
Dominion has no technical meaning as used in the names Dominion of Canada, Dominion of New Zealand, etc., but the namg is popularly taken as implying a higher political status than the term "colony".
That is all. So it is quite clear that the term "dominion" indicates or implies inferiority to sovereignty or nationhood.


Mr. JACOBS:: In his readings did not the
lion, gentleman come across a statement to the effect that the man who first suggested the name "dominion" for Canada was Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley? I think it was he who was responsible for it; I did not know that Lord Derby was. Sir Leonard Tilley came across a passage one day in the Psalms *-my hon. friend will remember that he was a biblical scholar-reading "And He shall have dominion from sea to sea." He thought that that was a very appropriate name for this country', seeing that it was bordered by the two oceans, the Atlantic and the Pacific.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes. I
hope the hon. gentleman did not get the impression that I attributed the title "dominion1, to Lord Derby, not by any means, nor can my remarks be taken as having done so. What I did suggest was that the attitude of Lord Derby and those associated with him at that time, their lack of vision, their incapacity to realize the possibilities of the new situation, were the factors that prevented the formation of a sovereign nation on this side -of the Atlantic.


Samuel William Jacobs: But accepting the interpretation of Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley, does not my hon. friend think that it was a dignified title to give to this country?


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
member is welcome to his opinion thereon. I would welcome, without any particular criticism of the immediate title, the title to which we are entitled, and that is all.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Hewitt Bostock: His Honour, the Deputy
of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the House went up to the Senate.
And having returned
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act for the relief of Alice Victoria Mc-Gibbon.
An Act for the relief of John Jones.
An Act for the relief of Samuel Paveling.
An Act for the relief of Benjamin Rapp.
An Act for the relief of Bernard Thomas Graham.
An Act for the relief of Robert Edward Greig.
An Act for the relief of Daise Hawkey.
An Act for the relief of Olive Mary Mead.
An Act for the relief of Alice Elizabeth Blakely.
An Act for the relief of Ethel Maud Har-graft.
An Act for the relief of Frederic Yinet.
An Act for the relief of Gwendolen Mc-Lachlin.
An Act for the relief of Jessie Evis.
An Act for the relief of Max Gertler.
An Act for the relief of Florence May Hicks.
An Act for the relief of Ruth May Harrington.
An Act for the relief of Edith Maude Bull.
An Act for the relief of Joseph Bernard Hoodless.
An Act	for	the	relief	of	Edward Barker.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Joan Henderson.
An Act for the relief of Vina Kennedy (otherwise known as Vina Dorothy Kennedy).
An Act for the relief of Aimfe Glenholme Young.
An Act for the relief of Alberta Lutz.
An Act for the relief of George Frederick Adams.
An Act	for	the	relief	of	Edward Saville.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Robert Fisher.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy Terry.
An Act for the relief of Lillie May Brown Nichols.
An Act for the relief of Hazel Pearle Clarke Pearey.
An Act for the relief of Edith Swartz.
An Act for the relief of James Gibb Erskine.
An Act for the relief of Ernest Johnson.
An Act for the relief of Maxime Demers.
An Act for the relief of Ethel Clementina Craig-Williams.
An Act for the relief of Ida Lula Dupuis
Murchison.
Royal Assent

An Act for the relief of Gladys Andrea Boyle.
An Act for the relief of Leslie Ellis Noble.
An Act to provide for special control by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs of certain islands in the St. La^vrenee river being part of the St. Regis Indian reservation.
An Act to incorporate The Detroit and Windsor Subway Company.
An Act to incorporate Columbia Life Assurance Company.
An Act respecting The Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company.
An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada.
An Act respecting The Department of National Revenue.
An Act respecting the Canadian National Railways, and to provide for the refunding of certain maturing financial obligations.
An Act to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915.
An Act to amend The Income War Tax Act, 1917.
An Act respecting the Ottawa Electric Company.
An Act respecting the Ottawa Gas Company.
An Act respecting La Compagnie du chemin de fer de Colonisation du Nord.
An Act respecting The Essex Terminal Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Canadian Transit Company.
An Act respecting Old Age Pensions.
An Act to repeal The War Charities Act, 1917.
An Act to amend the Indian Act.
An Act to amend The Canada Evidence Act as respects Bank Books and Records.
An Act for the relief of Amy Humphrey Lowe.
An Act for the relief of Erik Herman Delling.
An Act for the relief of Samuel Stanley McNeely.
An Act for the relief of Edna May Stevens.
An Act for the relief of Beatrice Maude Cammell.
An Act for the relief of Stanley Moorhouse.
An Act for the relief of Blanche Evelyn Parkinson.
An Act for the relief of Lillian Franklin Boddy.
An Act for the relief of Ninna Louise Bryant.
An Act for the relief of John Thomas Fray.
An Act for the relief of Cornelia Mosca Cristoforetti.
An Act for the relief of Florence Emaline Hind.
An Act for the relief of Dorothy Helen Elliott.
An Act for the relief of Myrtle Blanche Weeks.
An Act for the relief of Dorothy Olinda Tew Phillips Lawson.
An Act for the relief of Nelson Douglas Langfield.
An Act for the relief of Susanah Ivy Y. Cave.

An Act for the relief of James Arthur McNish.
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Maud Maitland.
An Act for the relief of Agnes Seeds.
An Act for the relief of James Sharkey.
An Act for the relief of Lawrence Raymond Sinclair, otherwise known as Lawrence Reginald Sinclair.
An Act for the relief of Ruby Pearl Northam.
An Act for the relief of Leila Beecher Smith Kerman.
An Act respecting the Construction of Can-andian National Railway Lines between St. Felicien and Mistassini River and between Ilebertville and Savanne Falls, both in the Province of Quebec.
An	Act	respecting	the	Construction	of	a
Canadian National Railway Line between Pilkington and Niagara Junction in the Province of Ontario.
An	Act	respecting	the	Construction	of	a
Canadian National Railway Line between Grand Mere and East Burrills, in the Province of. Quebec.
An	Act	respecting	the	Construction	of	aCanadian	National	Railway	Line	between
Weyburn and Radville, in the Province of Saskatchewan.
An	Act	respecting	the	Construction	of	a
Canadian National Railway Line from Willow-brook North-Westerly, in the Province of Saskatchewan.
An	Act	respecting	the	Construction	of	aCanadian	National	Railway	Line	between
Sturgis and Peesane, in the Province of Saskatchewan.
An	Act	respecting	the	Construction	of	a
Canadian National Railway Line from Peesane Northerly, in the Province of Saskatchewan.
An	Act	respecting	the	Construction	of	a
Canadian National Railway Line from near Shellbrook Westerly, in the Province of Saskatchewan.
An	Act	respecting	the	Construction	of	aCanadian National Railway Line being an extension	of the Turtleford	South-Easterly
Branch to a point between Hafford and Richard, in the Province of Saskatchewan.
An	Act	respecting	the	Construction	of	aCanadian	National	Railway	Line	between
Kindersley and Glidden, in the Province of Saskatchewan.
An	Act	respecting	the	Construction	of	a
Canadian National Railway Line from near Spruce Lake Westerly, in the Province of Saskatchewan.
An	Act	respecting	the	Construction	of	a
Canadian National Railway Line from Hudson Bay Junction Southerly, in the Province of Saskatchewan.
An	Act	respecting	the	Construction	of	aCanadian National Railway Line from Elk Point	Easterly, in the	Province of Alberta.An	Act	respecting	the	Construction	of	a
Canadian National Railway Line between Ashmont and Bonnyville, in the Province of Alberta.
An	Act	respecting	the	Construction	of	a
Canadian National Railway Line between Bretona and Clover Bar, in the Province of Alberta.
An Act to amend the Canadian National Railways Act, 1919.
An Act to amend the Judges Act.
An Act to amend the Exchequer Court Act.

Imp. Conference-Mr. Edwards (Fronlermc)
An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act.
An Act respecting Dominion Electric Protection Company.	_
An Act respecting the Canadian National Steamships and to provide for the establishment of West Indies Service.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington) :: Mr. Speaker, in the summary of
proceedings of the Imperial conference held last year I find two or three sentences in Tegard to the British Empire which attract my attention. At page 12 of the report I find the following:
The British Empire is not founded upon negations. It depends essentially, if not formally, on positive ideals. Free institutions are its life blood. Free cooperation is its instrument. Peace, security and progress are among its objects.
A little above that on the same page I find the following:
"Its widely scattered parts have very different characteristics, very different histories, and are at very different stages of evolution; while considered as a whole, it defies classification and bears no real resemblance to any other political organization which now exists or has ever yet been tried."
I subscribe to those statements and I think we would do well to appreciate the fact that we cannot compare the British Empire to any other empire which has ever existed; it has been established on an entirely different basis from anything else in the history of the world.
Whatever was the thought back of the holding of the first conference I think every person will agree that these talks, which started in a very small way, grew in proportion as the years went on and that the last few of those conferences held in more recent years were of very great importance. I believe the thought back of these conferences was that it would be advisable for the various parts of our widely scattered empire to send representatives to confer and talk over matters of general interest to all, and out of those conferences has grown, I believe, because of the increased knowledge of each part thereby obtained by all the parts, a stronger bond of sympathy and a more definite and better understanding.
Sir Robert Borden, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and other statesmen of this country who have at times attended imperial conferences came back very modestly, and very modestly reported to the people of Canada what had taken place. Last year the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) crossed the ocean to attend the conference. They came back from the conference telling the people of Canada that they had obtained from those tyrants overseas,-they did not use those words but they have been used by one hon. member in speaking in this House-that they had wrung from those tyrants in the mother country a new charter of liberty, and that a new Magna Charta had been obtained through their wonderful efforts. In the speech from the throne this year a reference was made to the report which would be placed before this House, and in the debate on the address a very definite statement was made by the Prime Minister that the report would be placed before parliament and that parliament would be asked to give its sanction and approval to the report. For some reason or other that promise has not been carried out. It seems to me it is becoming a habit with this government to make promises in the speech from the throne which are later disregarded. Last year in the speech from the throne definite promises were made which were not carried out and no attempt was made to carry them out. This year we have had the same thing with respect to this very important matter of the Imperial conference. I do not know who is the dictator in regard to this matter, but we do know that the government have been dictated to in regard to other matters; for instance, they were dictated to by Sir Clifford Sifton in regard to the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal. Sifton was the dictator, and Premier King was the dictatee. They were dictated to last year by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr Bourassa) in regard to a return to Alberta of its natural resources. In that case the member for Labelle was the dictator, and the Prime Minister was the dictatee. And now, notwithstanding the definite assurance of the Prime Minister that the House will be asked by resolution to approve of what had taken place at the conference, some person has dictated again, and the definite promise made is not to be carried out. In connection with this matter I would call your attention to the fact that on the 13th of December a question was put by the leader of the opposition to the Minister of Justice in regard to this report. Mr. Guthrie inquired:
Is he-
That is the Minister of Justice.

willing to take the risk of the enactment into law of the proposal in the report?
To which the Minister of Justice replied:
Surely.	.
1/4t>
COMMONS
Imp. Conference-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
Then the leader of the opposition said:
Perhaps in a few clays the minister may hear from Quebec, and the report may yet have to be amended.
Well, apparently the minister did hear from Quebec, or from some place else, because the promise that the matter would be dealt with in a definite manner by this House has been abandoned by the government.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) this afternoon talked learnedly about preconfederation days and as to certain matters that- took place at that time. His references were very interesting, although I may say, without being discourteous, that I fail to see just what bearing they have upon the matter before us. What was, after all, the basis of union in 1867? Subject to the special provisions affecting Ontario and Quebec, and to which they had voluntarily agreed, the provinces were to have equality of status and rights, possession of their natural resources, and complete control of their educational and other local affairs. I think I have stated the situation correctly. Having in view the very specific clauses of the British North America Act in regard to each province having control of its natural resources, I think I have stated the matter correctly in saying that they were to have autonomy or equality of status. They should have received those resources long ago.
In that connection I want to refer you to remarks made by the Prime Minister, (Mr. Mackenzie King) and also by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) at a large meeting held in Toronto in the month of February last. Referring to what he calls "the first fruits of a declaration of equality of status" the Prime Minister is reported in the press as saying:
Who is there in the British Empire to-day who is prepared openly to advocate a doctrine of inferiority or subordination?
Well, I would answer that question, in view of what has transpired, by saying that he and his government are the ones who have done that very thing in the matter of the transfer to the western provinces of their natural resources. Referring to Great Britain and the dominions, the Prime Minister used these words:
It was laid down that each was an autonomous community within the British Empire; that m any aspect of their domestic or external affairs they were in no way subordinate one to another, that all were united by a common allegiance to the crown, and that all were freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations. In these particulars, all of which relate themselves to status, there is not only similarity but equality. In other words the position and mutual relation of 
Great Britain and the dominions was defined as one of equality of status.
Having regard to the action of the government in reference to the transfer to the western provinces of their natural resources may I ask your attention while I paraphrase that statement of the Prime Minister? I paraphrase it in this way:	"It is laid down that
each province is an autonomous community within the Dominion; that in any aspect of their domestic affairs they are in no way subordinate one to another; that all are united by a common allegiance to our common country and all are freely associated as units of confederation. In these particulars all of which relate themselves to status there is similarity and there should be, although there is not, equality."
On the same occasion the Minister of Justice described the main achievement of the conference as being "a definite, dear and official adherence to the doctrine of equality of status," declaring that the men of his race were in the forefront of the battle for responsible government. He added:
They believe in self-government, freedom and national status within the British Empire and under the Brtish throne, and that they do not believe a condition of subordination and colonial inferiority essential to the preservation of their sacred rights.
He also said:
Autonomy means self-government in all matters. I even suggest that distinguished visitors would perhaps be better advised if they refrained from offering so much advice to the people of Canada, as to how they should deal with matters which are exclusively their own business.
May I also paraphrase that statement in reference to the attitude and action of the government regarding the transfer to the west of their natural resources? I paraphrase it in this way:	"The western provinces believe
in self-government, freedom and provincial status within confederation and under the constitution, and they do not believe a condition of subordination and provincial inferiority essential to the preservation of their sacred provincial rights."
What does autonomy mean? Will any person, giving a definition of the word "autonomy", which means self-government, say that these western provinces have selfgovernment? Have we nine provinces in Canada to-day within the meaning of the word "province", as defined by the British North America Act? We have six provinces in Canada to-day, and three legislative units, -Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, which are not provinces to-day within the meaning,

Imp. Conference-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
within the specific words of the British North America Act, and in their definition of what a province is. Talk about imperialism in this country as has been talked by some members in this House 1 We have had exercised on the floor of this House, and very recently at that, an imperialism in so far as the provinces are concerned, in depriving those provinces of their legitimate rights. The Dominion as a trustee for the property of those provinces has played the part of a political bandit, and has stolen or taken to itself what belongs rightfully to those provinces. So, when some hon. members speak about imperialism, I would ask them to estimate whether or not we have not a form of imperialism exercised by the federal parlament in its attitude to the undoubted rights of the provinces.
Some excellent speeches have been made during the course of this debate. One of the most attractive speakers in this House i3 unquestionably the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). When he speaks in parliament he always attracts attention. So does the man who is haranguing a crowd outside of a circus tent attract attention, not so much because of what he says as because of the spectacular manner in which he says it. The hon. member for Labelle made in this House one of his characteristic speeches in his characteristic manner, in his characteristically offensive manner. He sang his hymn of hate, and in doing so he ran the whole length of the scale from pianissimo to fortissimo. He reminds me of a car on a scenic railway which rushes down the incline with a roar as if to gather strength for the climb ahead, pauses at the summit, as it were for breath, and then repeats the performance. So the hon. member for Labelle, carried along on the flood tide of his own verbosity, punctuated his utterances with blasts of rodomontade and thrasonical bombast and bedecked those utterances with facial contortions and acrobatic gesticulations.


Mr. FAFARD:: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, to compare an hon. member with a scenic railway?


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Well I will apologize to the railway. I am sure that the hon. member for Labelle will take note of the interruption of my hon. friend. I know that he and many more of the members who sit around him recognize the power that the hon. member for Labelle is on the platform, the influence that he can exert there either for their election or against it, and very often, because they are afraid of him, they pay to him obeisance which down in their hearts they do not feel.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is failing.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Yes, he is
failing. The ravages of age are coming on . him as on others. Even the smile which for years he has cultivated so assiduously as a political asset is now only a grisly skeleton of what it was in former days. That smile has reached a point where it can no longer perform its use to him. His affected urbanity cannot conceal the bitterness which is seething within.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: What has that to do with
the Imperial conference?


Alexander McKay Edwards: Probably
if my hon. friend waits a while he may find out. I am giving him at the start something that will not strain his gray matter too much.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: It is a scenic railway
speech.


Alexander McKay Edwards: I told my
hon. friend I am very sure that he has already qualified himself entirely in the eyes of the hon. member for Labelle. I am sure the hon. member for Labelle will not put up any candidate against him. What I or anyone else may think of the speech of the hon. member for Labelle, one thing at least is certain. The hon. member for Labelle will always have one devout worshipper at his shrine and that is the hon. member for Labelle. It is certain that he is thoroughly dissatisfied with everything and every other person on earth. It is just as certain that he is completely satisfied with himself.
The hon. member has made spectacular pilgrimages from one end of this country to the other advertising himself as an apostle of peace, a peace founded on discord which he himself assiduously creates. He has advertised himself as an apostle of Canadian unity, a Canadian unity whose foundations rest, through the efforts of the hon. member for Labelle, on separatism. What was the object of the hon. member for Labelle in his venomous statement-because it was venomous-some time ago when he insinuated that Canadian nickel had been given to Germany for armament purposes, with the knowledge of the imminence of war?
Occasionally the hon. member for Labelle pays a tribute to British institutions, but he invariably digs into the dust heaps of antiquity for something to discredit any word of praise which might fall from his lips in regard to British institutions. He has persistently misrepresented everything British with the view of lessening respect in Canada for everything British. In regard to British institutions, in favour of which, as I say, he
1/48	COMMONS
Imp. Conference-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
occasionally has a word to say, what was his attitude when they were in danger of extinction during the time of the war? On what did he feed those who read his articles in the press or who listened to his utterances? Did he seek to inspire patriotism to meet the crisis that we faced at that time? Am I not absolutely correct in saying that on every occasion when the empire has been menaced, the bon. member for Labelle has been found with voice and pen on the side of the enemies of the empire? When was he ever loyal to any party or any leader? His speeches and writings contain the bitterest references to Laurier that were ever uttered or written by any man in this country. When has he ever done anything to promote peace, harmony and unity in this country? Has he ever been satisfied with any party, with any leader?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Has he ever been satisfied with anything or anybody except himself?


Mr. BOURASSA:: And the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards): I am quite satisfied with him.


Alexander McKay Edwards: As I said a while ago, and the hon. gentleman is giving a demonstration of it now, his affected urbanity, that skeleton of a smile, that grisly grin cannot hide the seething tempest within. But I did not expect the hon. gentleman would come in and demonstrate my words as he is doing.
What was back of his insinuation-this gentleman who talks of Canadian national unity-that Great Britain was responsible for the war? What was back of his statement that not an English soldier would have crossed the channel on behalf of either Belgium or France except for the basest of motives? What was back of his statement that Great Britain was a stranger to international loyalty? What was back of his statement that Canadian leaders had grotesquely misrepresented the real causes of the war and the real situation as between France and England? Why did he deprecate Canada's gifts of flour and cheese and other foodstuffs during the war? Why did he refer to Canada as giving those things to very rich England, while the Belgians were starving and Canadians were going hungry? What was back of all that? What was his purpose? I repeat that the hon. gentleman on every occasion when our empire has been threatened, on every occasion when British institutions have been menaced, [DOT] has

been found giving by voice and pen such aid and comfort and encouragement as he could to the enemies of our empire.
Where was the hon. member for Labelle at the time of the war? I would like to quote to the House here tonight in his presence, a statement from a compatriot of his, in a newspaper published in the province of Quebec, a paper that he does not agree with, of course; that goes without saying, because he does not agree with anything unless he writes it himself. But listen to what La Patrie says in its issue of October 10, 1918:
It will be remembered that on the 2nd of August, 1914, during the very first days of the war, Mr. Henri Bourassa, director of Le Devoir was in Cologne. What could he be doing in Germany at that particular moment-


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: On what date?


Alexander McKay Edwards: The 2nd of
August.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I was in Paris that day.


Alexander McKay Edwards: I guess you did not get to Paris till a little later.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I was in Paris on the 31st of July.


Mr. EDW  ARDS@Frontenac: At all events I am giving my authority for this statement, and I think I am right in saying that this statement was not contradicted in the columns of the hon. gentleman's paper.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I never care to contradict things. I do not contradict the hon. gentleman. Let him go. I am simply saying it is a falsehood; that is all.


Alexander McKay Edwards: May I remark that the mere fact of the hon. member for Labelle calling a thing a falsehood does not make it a falsehood.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: But the fact that the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington says something does not make it a verity.


Alexander McKay Edwards: I am going to say some more things, and may I say with all due respect to this Napoleon of journalism and of everything else connected with public affairs, the hon. member for Labelle,
I will accept, and I believe most of the people of this country will accept the statement of La Patrie before they will that of the hon. member for Labelle. The statement continues:
What could he be doing in Germany at that particular moment when the central powers were busy launching throughout the world a host of secret agents thoroughly equipped with instructions for propaganda and a most efficient spying service? We do not know. Mr. Bourassa, in any event, displayed remarkable agita-

Imp. Conference-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
tion at that time, when he hastily traversed France and the Atlantic to re-enter Canada- glad indeed to avail himself of the protection of the British flag, against which he has been raging since then. He arrived in Montreal August 21st.
I do not suppose that even the hon. member for Labelle will have the hardihood to say that he has not raged both before and ever since against the British flag and everything British.
Now we will take another date, October 12th, where in the same paper I find this:
On July 30, 1914, when hostilities had already been declared between Austria and Serbia, the general conflagration appeared inevitable to all; Russia and France were rapidly mobilizing their armies and Germany's forces were already in line. Mr. Henri Bourassa was at Colmar in Alsace, therefore on German territory. Colmar is twenty-five or thirty miles from the French frontier, where Mr. Bourassa, of French origin and a British subject, as he so loudly proclaimed a few days later, could have passed without any trouble had he so desired. But Mr. Bourassa did not turn his steps towards the French frontier. He left for Strasbourg, where he was July 31st. Strasbourg, one of Germany's strongest bases along the western frontier, a stronghold maintained to defend, when occasion arose, the provinces taken from France in 1871, was evidently on that date under military authority. Is it not strange that Mr. Bourassa should head straight for the enemy's citadel-as declaration of war against England was imminent at the time-instead of for France? Mr. Bourassa, however, elected to go to Strasbourg, and to our knowledge, he was not molested by the Prussian soldiery, although to the latter every traveler had to show a clean slate, and women were undressed under the pretence that this was necessary as a protection against spies.
I read also this:
If the Bodies let Mr. Bourassa through so easily, why did they detain Doctor Belaud so long-a Frenchman and a British subject, just like the Nationalist boss?
That is, in that respect, but not in any other. Why did they keep Doctor Beland? They kept Doctor Beland because they believed he was a real British subject, and they thought it would be better for Germany to keep him in prison than to let him go back to Canada to use his influence, as he would have done had he been here, in helping Canada to do her part in the war. You may infer, then, why they let Mr. Bourassa go. Whether or not the Germans knew what the hon. member for Labelle would do when he got back to Canada, I do not know, of course; but the fact is there, that while all that western frontier was bristling with German bayonets and all the preparations for war, the one Canadian, Doctor Beland, was shut up in a prison, and the other one was allowed to go freely wherever he liked,


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
travelling up and down, wending his way amongst his friends the Huns, going where he chose without let or hindrance, and then he comes back to Canada, and as soon as he gets back here, and all the time during the war that he was in Canada-he will not deny this; he cannot deny it-he used his voice and pen from the time he arrived in Canada until the war was over, and since, in doing all he could to give encouragement to our enemies, the Germans, during the great crisis of the war, doing all he could to break down respect for Britain and British institutions, discouraging as far as he could the Canadian boys from doing their duty in that war.
The hon. member for Labelle does not care very much for what I say, I know. In that respect may I tell him that I care just as little what he says. The hon. member for Labelle enjoyed himself the other night in making his speech. He enjoyed himself, as he always does, in attacking everything British and throwing his slurs and sneers at everything British. But he did not stop at that. He made some reference to a divorce or marriage case in the province of Quebec. I might ask the hon. gentleman opposite what that has to do with the Imperial conference? He was perfectly willing to listen #to talk about the Tremblay and Depatie marriage case. He was not concerned about the Imperial conference then. Not at all. But since the hon. member referred to that case- and of course he misrepresented the facts in referring to it-may I be permitted to say a word in that regard? He found fault with the Orange order because he said the lodges of that order collected money to carry this case to the Privy Council. Yes, we did. It cost us thousands of dollars. May I tell some hon. members opposite

it would be no use foi me to tell it to the hon. member for Labelle- but I still think there is an element of fail play in most of the hon. members opposite- that members of the Orange order are obligated just as much to defend a Roman Catholic in his or her constitutional rights as they are to defend a Protestant. Well, that is amusing, of course. I am not surprised at the hon. member for Labelle treating that as something amusing. He said the fight that this woman was putting up to defend her rights and her honour was a funny thing. Those are the words he used-a very funny thing. He also made the woman a party to the appeal to the canonical tribunal, which was not true. She was not a party to it. The poor woman had not the money to fight for her rights and honour. This may be very amusing to my hon. friend from Labelle, but.

[Stage Direction]
1750	COMMONS
Imp Conference-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
it was not amusing to the order of which I have the honour to be the head. We did not see anything funny in a woman fighting for rights, fighting for her honour, and fighting to prevent people branding her as an adultress and her children as bastards. It was amusing to the hon. member for Labelle, but not to us. We did raise money and sent it over, in order to assist in obtaining justice for that woman who had not the means herself to put up for the defence of her honour. Yes, we have used our money for other purposes too. May I tell some hon. members on the other side of the chamber that our Orange lodges were not only recruiting centres for enlisting men to go to the war, but hundreds of them were collecting agencies and collected money and material which were sent overseas for the relief of the Roman Catholic refugees who were driven out of Belgium by the friends of the hon. member for Labelle. They had no claim upon us from the standpoint of creed, but they had a claim upon us and the order to which I belong responded nobly. I should like to tell my hon. friends further in regard to that order to which he has referred that we are to-day maintaining orphanages in nearly all of the provinces, taking care of, clothing and bringing up as good citizens children who have been deprived of the care and protection of their natural protectors. I desire to say also-and I say it with pride- that the order which only elicits a sneer from the hon. member for Labelle, enlisted some forty or fifty thousand soldiers and sent' them overseas. Thousands of them are sleeping in soldiers' graves in Flanders to-day. While my hon. friend during his lifetime, or the greater part of it, has devoted his talents and his energies in trying to lessen respect for British institutions and for everything British, I want to tell him and hon. members of this House that the Orange order in the hundred years of its existence in Canada has, in every crisis of our country's history, proved itself to be a hundred per cent dependably British. An institution which has done that, which has played the game as this order has done, is a real asset to this or any other country, and I do not propose to sit here and allow the hon. member for Labelle or any other member to cast any slurs or sneers at that institution.
The hon. member brought my name into his speech and asked, "does the leader of the opposition, or any other defender of minority rights, beginning with the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington, claim that the King of England can send a regiment from England to force Catholic schools upon the province

of Manitoba?" It was a very silly question to ask of any member of the House. Why, certainly not, but allow me to state in that connection that the hon. member for Fron-tenac-Addington does stand for and is willing and ready at all times to defend, minority rights and majority rights as well. There is such a thing as the rights of majorities in this country, and there is such a thing as responsibilities of minorities as well as the responsibility of majorities, and so far as his reference to Catholic schools is concerned, I will say-and again my attitude is in strong contrast with his-that so far as the schools are concerned-and I speak not merely for myself but for the order of which I am the head -let any province of the west establish as many kinds of schools as they want. That is their business. It is not my business, neither is it the business of the hon. member for Labelle. If the province of Alberta or the province of Saskatchewan see fit to establish separate schools, I repeat that is their business and any attempt on the part of this parliament to prevent Saskatchewan or Alberta or any other province from establishing separate schools will be resented, and I will be among the first on my feet to put up a fight against that attempt. That is the position I take in regard to these schools. I say the provinces are entitled to handle those matters themselves. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec have that right. How long would we in the province of Ontario submit to this parliament attempting to pass legislation telling us what schools we should have? How long would the province of Quebec submit to this parliament undertaking to dictate to them the kind of educational system they should have? The first to protest against such interference would be the hon. member for Labelle. Yet that is what he wants to have imposed on the provinces of the west. He talks about imperialism! When he gets on that subject he fairly froths at the mouth because of his hatred of anything imperialistic, of anything British. He cannot talk on that subject for five minutes without having a brainstorm-at least I have never heard him without noticing that peculiar result. Imperialism! Always respresenting that we are being throttled and shackled by some power in England. That is what he has tried to make the people of Canada believe. And yet this gentleman who is so deadly opposed to anything along imperialistic lines, to any interference from the outside, does not scruple to adopt the imperialistic principle of putting shackles on the free citizens of the provinces of the west.

Imp. Conference-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
I am not very greatly concerned about changes in the constitution. It does not seem to me to be reasonable to suppose that a constitution laid down sixty years ago, with the very best intention in the light that they had a*t that time, with such vision of the future as they possessed at that time, and which was no doubt the right thing at that time,-I say it does not appear to me to be logical that that constitution should be continued without changing it one jot or tittle in any respect in order that it may apply to the changed conditions of this day or some future time. I believe that some changes should be made. But I want to say this, Mr. Speaker. If I understand correctly this report and some of the speeches that have been made in this House, and if the intention is to sever our connection with the mother country and allow the Dominion to change its constitution at will, I warn hon. members that when all restraints are taken off there will be an agitation throughout this country that will stir it as it has never been stirred since confederation. And that agitation will not be confined to any one province; it will be just as marked in the west as in some parts of the east.
As to minorities, I have less reason to be concerned than have hon. gentlemen sitting opposite. Why? I would ask them to take the official figures of the census of 1911 and of 1921, when they will find that the percentage of the total population of French origin in 1911 was 28.52, and in 1921 27.91. I would remind them that in the province of Ontario in those ten years the population of British origin increased by 1.4 per cent, those of French origin by .4 per cent; in the province of Quebec the population of British origin decreased by .6 per cent, those of French origin by 1.2 per cent; in New Brunswick the population of British origin decreased by .1 per cent, while those of French origin increased by C.2 per cent; in Nova Scotia the population of British origin increased by .9 per cent, those of French origin by .3 per cent; in Prince Edward Island the population of British origin increased by 1.1 per cent while those of French origin decreased by .5 per cent; in Manitoba the population of British origin decreased by .9 per cent, those of French origin by .1 per cent; in Saskatchewan the population of British origin increased by 1.9 per cent, those of French origin by .8 per cent; in Alberta the population of British origin increased by 8.3 per cent, while those of French origin neither increased nor decreased in percentage; in British Columbia
32649-mi
the population of British origin increased 9.5 per cent, while those of French origin decreased .1 per cent. In other words, in four provinces there has been a decrease in the population of French origin, in four provinces an increase, and in one province neither an increase nor a decrease; whereas in regard to the population of British origin, in six provinces there has been an increase in percentage and in three a decrease. So having regard to the fact that in the Dominion as a whole in 1901 the population of French origin represented 30.7 per cent, in 1911 28.52 per cent and in 1921 27.91 per cent-a steady decrease-my hon. friends opposite if they have any concern for minorities, should be more concerned than I. I believe that with a proper system of immigration the percentage of our population of British origin will be very greatly increased as compared with those of French origin in the next ten or twenty years.
I repeat, Sir, the protection of minorities should not wholly engage our attention; we should also concern ourselves with the protection of majorities in this country. In other words, while we have the privilege of sitting in this House we should do our part to safeguard the future of the Dominion in every respect so far as the rights of all classes of the people are concerned, and we are doing less than our duty if we do not do All in our power to safeguard those rights.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I could give to this House many more arresting facts regarding the career of the hon. member for Labelle, but he is a never-failing source of interest himself. I think it would be a very sad thing indeed for this country if we hastily decided to do away with the right of appeal to the Privy Council. Just so long as we have men in this country like the hon. member for Labelle, who shows a disposition to ride roughshod over the rights of the people as he did with the people of the west; so long as we have men of that kind exercising their influence along that line, I say we should stick to our safeguard and retain the right of appeal to an independent tribunal, the Privy Council.
Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take as much of the time of the House on this debate as previous speakers have taken. The essence of the report made by the committee on inter-imperial relations to the Imperial conference, which was unanimously adopted by the conference, is found on page 12 of the
1752	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Thorson
report. I refer to the definition of the relationship which exists or is alleged to exist between Great Britain and the dominions:
They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.
I propose to confine mysellf to a discussion of this definition in so far as it deals with the autonomy of Canada in her domestic affairs. Within that sphere I feel that a great forward step has been taken, that this declaration of equality is perhaps the most important constitutional pronouncement made since confederation, and that it is pregnant with great possibilities for Canadian national development.
There has been much criticism of this definition, much debate as to its meaning and much misunderstanding of its implications. There are those who say on the one hand that it marks the end of the British Empire as we have known it, or at any rate the commencement of a new British Empire essentially and fundamentally different from the old. On the other hand there are those who say that no change whatever has resulted, that the definition is merely a statement of the constitutional status which has already been acquired in practice although not hitherto universally recognized. Possibly there is a great deal of truth in both these statements, yet in my opinion neither is strictly accurate. With all due respect to those who have expressed these various views as to the work of the Imperial conference and the results achieved, I prefer to regard this definition not so much a statement of existing fact as a declaration of what ought to be; not so much a declaration of equality as a promise of equality. Everyone must remember that until legal effect is given to that declaration we do not legally possess 'that equality.
In order that we may arrive at an appreciation of this definition I think it essential that we attempt to analyse the actual status of Canada both from the strictly legal point of view and from the point of view of constitutional development and practice. By so doing we may perhaps be able to view the definition in the light of existing facts and so better understand its implications and the consequences resulting therefrom. I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible. If I should present for the consideration of this House a point of view which is to a large extent that of a lawyer, I crave the indulgence

of the House. I shall attempt to put the legal position as baldly and as briefly as possible.
The Dominion of Canada owes its existence as a legal entity to the British North America Act, a statute passed by the parliament of Great Britain. That statute is the charter of Canada, beyond which Canadian legislatures, whether they be federal or provincial, cannot validly go. In law the parliament of Canada is subordinate and inferior to the parliament of Great Britain; as a legal proposition that is not open to dispute and we must remember that in law that inferiority exists. This legislative inferiority of the parliament of Canada is of two kinds; first, that which results naturally from the fact that the parliament of Canada was created by the parliament of Great Britain, is bound by the terms of the charter which created it and is therefore inherently dependent. In the second place there is that inferiority which results from the fact that the parliament of Canada is still in law subject to the paramount legislative authority of the parliament of Great Britain which alone has power to change the terms of the British North America Act and, either by an amendment to that act or by the enactment of some other act, to enlarge or abridge the measure of self-government which we now enjoy.
As to the first heading of inferiority, that which is inherent in the parliament of Canada and in the Dominion of Canada as a dependency of the parliament of Great Britain which created it, it has been held, for example, by the Privy Council that it does not lie within the legislative competence of a self-governing dominion such as Canada to pass legislation affixing penal consequences in Canada to acts committed outside of Canada. In that view of the law it would not be possible for Canada to punish persons for offences such as murder, arson, theft or bigamy committed outside of Canada. It has been argued that the powers of self-government possessed by Canada must be confined to matters or things within the territorial limits of Canada; in other words, that Canada has no power to pass legislation having an extra-territorial operation or effect. No such limitation exists on the powers of the parliament of Great Britain, because the British parliament is sovereign, and the Canadian parliament is not. On two occasions the parliament of Canada has passed resolutions on this subject for an address to the British parliament asking for an amendment to the British North America Act to remove this anomaly, once in 1920 and again in 1924,

Imperial Conference-Mr. Thorson
but although both houses of parliament passed these resolutions unanimously on both occasions, no action has yet been taken by the British parliament.
The second aspect of subordination lies in the fact that Canada is still subject, notwithstanding the terms of the British North America Act, to the legislative authority of the parliament of Great Britain, the only sovereign legislature in the British Empire. It is quite true that a very large measure of autonomy and self-government was conferred upon Canada by the British North America Act, but that self-government is subject to limitation and supervision by the British North America Act itself, and by other acts of the parliament of Great Britain extending to Canada.
The British North America Act set up an elaborate system of checks and balances. Certain spheres of jurisdiction were assigned to the provinces, and in order that there should be a check upon the powers of the provinces the Dominion government was given the right to disallow provincial legislation if it thought it necessary to do so in the interests of Canada. The remainder of the legislative field was assigned to the Dominion parliament, and similar checks on Dominion legislation were provided by sections 55, 56 and 57 of the British North America Act. These sections have already been discussed, and I shall therefore deal with them very briefly.
Section 56 deals with the right of the government of Great Britain,-not the parliament of Great Britain,-to disallow legislation even although it has passed both houses of parliament, has received the royal assent and has actually gone into operation. Every act passed by this parliament must be sent to one of the secretaries of state in Great Britain, and remain subject to disallowance for a period of two years from the time the act was received by the Secretary of State. If this right of disallowance had been regularly or frequently exercised it would no doubt have given rise to great irritation and great annoyance, but the right has not been exercised. As far as I am aware the right of disallowance given by the British North America Act to the British government has been exercised only once, namely, in 1873, some fifty-four years ago. Section 56 still remains intact in the British North America Act, and the present practice in regard to that section is that all acts passed by this parliament are sent every year to London, and it is intimated through the Secretary for Dominion Affairs that "His Majesty will not be advised to exercise his powers of disallowance" in regard thereto.
Sections 55 and 57 deal with another right of supervision, niamely, the right of the Governor General to withhold the royal assent from a bill even although it has passed both houses of parliament, or to reserve the bill for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure. I am not greatly concerned with the exercise of the veto power which is conferred upon the Governor General by section 55, for I am convinced that constitutional practice will provide for its proper use. I do not believe it is any more likely that the Canadian Governor General would exercise his right of veto in Canada in respect of Canadian legislation, than that His Majesty the King would exercise that right in Great Britain in respect of British legislation. I think that that is particularly true since the recent declaration, which merely crystallizes the idea already developed with regard to the position of the Governor General in Canada. I believe that this definition of the Governor General's position in Canada as the representative of the crown marks a great step in the direction of equality of status, and I would suggest that steps be taken to change the title of His Majesty's representative in Canada from that of "Governor General" to that of "Viceroy", in order to indicate more truly the actual position which His Majesty's representative now occupies.
With regard to the right of reservation of bills for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure, I wish to point out that this right was fairly frequently exercised at the time of confederation and for some time subsequent thereto. The royal instructions to the Canadian Governor General at that time expressly required the Governor General to reserve in all cases for Her Majesty's pleasure, certain well defined classes of bills. This right of reservation was exercised prior to 1890 on some fifteen occasions, although as a matter of fact the royal assent was refused only in one case. In 1876 Mr. Edward Blake, then Minister of Justice, protested against the regular exercise of this right of reservation. He contended that the proper practice to follow should be to allow the bills to become acts of parliament, and go effectively into operation, and rely solely upon the right of disallowance if it were the opinion of the British government that such legislation was objectionable. He realized of course that the British government would hesitate very much more to exercise its right of disallowance in respect of an act that had already gone into operation, than to exercise its right of reservation. As a result of Mr. Edward Blake's protest the royal instructions were changed
1754	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Thorson
in order to omit any mention of special classes of bills. It was intimated, however, very clearly at that time that the right of reservation was not given tip, but that its exercise as a regular practice was abandoned, and the maintenance of the right is expressly referred to in the report of the Imperial conference. I agree with most of the hon. members who have spoken on this subject that these statutory rights of supervision and disallowance, in view of the constitutional practice that is followed, do not constitute any serious limitation of Canadian autonomy. It has been said that these rights are, in practice, constitutionally dead. Since these rights are constitutionally obsolete no useful purpose is served by the retention of sections 55, 56 and 57 in the British North America Act, and in my opinion they should be repealed. It is inconsistent with the declaration of equality of status which we are discussing that they should be retained. If our legislation is ultra vires, the courts which are constituted for that purpose will so find. If our legislation is within the legislative competence of our parliament then we are the best judges of the wisdom and the expediency of such legislation, and it should not be subject even to nominal review.
The Dominion power of self-government is further restricted by virtue of the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865, and that is a very serious limitation. Section 2 of that important act provides as follows:
Any colonial law which is or shall be in any respect repugnant to the provisions of any act of parliament extending to the colony to which such law may relate, or repugnant to any order or regulation made under authority of such act of parliament, or having in the colony the force and effect of such act, shall be read subject to such act, order or regulation, and shall, to the extent of such repugnancy but not otherwise, be and remain absolutely void and inoperative.
This statute affirms the right of the parliament of Great Britain to legislate for the colonies, and in law Canada comes within that category for the purposes of this act. Just as the parliament of Great Britain by the British North America Act conferred powers upon the Dominion of Canada, so it can increase or diminish those powers as it sees fit, and it has done so. In law two propositions are perfectly clear. First, the Dominion parliament has no power to pass legislation which runs counter to any act of the parliament of Great Britain extending to Canada, and with all due deference to the hon. leader of the opposition, I say that it cannot even now amend the British North America Act or pass legislation that is repugnant to it. Second, the parliament of Great Britain is under no legal
IMr. Thorson.]
restriction whatever. It may pass any legislation it sees fit and no court will declare that legislation ultra vires. It may make such legislation applicable to the Dominion of Canada if it chooses to do so, and so legislate for the people of Canada without obtaining their approval. In practice the British parliament does not generally do so, but since confederation it has done so in several cases, for example; the Extradition Act, 1870; the Foreign Enlistment Act. 1870; the Fugitive Offenders' Act, 1881; and the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, regarding which we heard this afternoon. This power of the British parliament is not constitutionally dead, and as long as this distinction exists, it is absurd to speak of absolute equality of status.
I have endeavoured to set out the inequalities of legislative power between the parliament of Canada on the one hand and that of Great Britain on the other. It is obvious and undisputed in spite of constitutional development and practice. The Imperial conference itself recognized the existence of the inequalities to which I have referred and thereby admitted that the definition of equality which they arrive at must not be taken literally. The conference recommended that steps should be taken by Great Britain and the dominions to set up a committee :
To inquire into, report upon, and make recommendations concerning-
(i)	Existing statutory provisions requiring reservation of Dominion legislation for the assent of His Majesty or authorizing the disallowance of such legislation.
(ii)	(a) The present position as to the competence of dominion parliaments to give their legislation extra-territorial operation.
(b) The practicability and most convenient method of giving effect to the principle that each dominion parliament should have power to give extra-territorial operation to its legislation in all cases where such operation is ancillary to provision for the peace, order, and good government of the Dominion.
(iii)	The principles embodied in or underlying the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, and the extent to which any provisions of that act ought to be repealed, amended, or modified in the light of the existing relations between the various members of the British commonwealth of nations as described in this report.
With that recommendation of the conference I heartily concur.
There is one other aspect in which inferiority exists, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) referred to it in the brilliant and masterly address which he delivered yesterday in this House. While it is within the power of Great Britain to decide for herself how her laws shall be administered, no similar right is given to Canada. Even if Canada should

Imperial Conference-Mr. Thorson
desire to prohibit appeals to the Privy Council, she has no power to do so. Her lack of rights in that respect has been settled on two occasions. In 1875 when a bill was introduced in this parliament to create a supreme court for the Dominion, it was the expressed intention of the ministers to prohibit appeals to Her Majesty's Privy Council. They were however notified by the government of Great Britain that the bill could not be sanctioned unless the royal prerogative to hear appeals was preserved. Accordingly a saving clause was inserted in the bill and the bill received the royal assent. In 1888, some thirteen years afterwards, an attempt was again made, this time in criminal 'cases, to prohibit appeals to the Privy Council. Section 1025 of the Canadian Criminal Code seeks to accomplish that purpose. Since 1888 many applications for leave to appeal in criminal cases have been made to the Privy Council; but in every case the application for leave to appeal has been refused, thus showing that the Privy Council believes that we administer our criminal laws in a just manner. Year after year the Privy Council has refrained from discussing the validity of the section which I have mentioned, but in 1926 it settled the question in- the famous case of Rex versus Nadan, a liquor conviction case from Alberta. There was no greater reason inherent in the case itself for deciding the constitutional question in that case than in the other cases which had come before that body, and in fact there was less. It was widely suggested at the time in London that there were special reasons why the point should now be settled, namely that it was desirable to have a precedent established in case the Irish Free State should desire to prohibit appeals to the Privy Council. The constitution of the Irish Free State is declared to be similar to that of Canada. If Canada cannot prohibit appeals to the Privy Council, then neither can the Irish Free State. The leader of the opposition in the course of his address on Tuesday last stated that we now have the right to abolish appeals to the Privy Council. The Privy Council disagrees with him. In the Nadan case it held that section 1025 of the Canadian Criminal Code was ultra vires and that Canada could not effectively prohibit the appeals to the Privy Council, because of the British statutes of 1833 and 1844 relating to appeals and because of section 2 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. I am not concerned with the reason for the decision, but I am concerned with the decision itself that Canada has no right to decide for herself whether her judicial system shall be self-contained or not.
This then is the legal and constitutional relation of Canada and Great Britain in regard to legislative power-Great Britain free and unrestricted in all her legislative functions- Canada limited in power and subject to supervision and control in such power as she possesses. How can there literally be equality of status under such circumstances? In my opinion Canada does not possess -complete autonomy; she is not equal in status, to Great Britain and this parliament is still, as it always has -been, subordinate to that of Great Britain. I am not complaining of that inequality, for whether Canada is equal to Great Britain or not, I would rather live in Canada than in any other land under the sun. I am not contending that Canada is suffering any great hardship from that inequality, and I am not desirous of stirring up any agitation whatsoever, but I see no useful purpose in attempting to conceal from ourselves the true, actual state of affairs. The Imperial [DOT] conference attempted to reconcile in one definition equality of status and the maintenance of the empire. The phrase, "equality of status, within the empire", is, in my opinion, in law a contradiction of terms.
What then does this declaration of equality mean, since it does not accurately set out the true state of affairs and is manifestly contradictory in its terms? Why should we be so pleased with it in Canada? It has been hailed as a great charter of liberty, and, in my opinion, rightly so. Notwithstanding its inaccuracies, notwithstanding its contradictions, it marks a new era in empire development and promises new life to the Canadian nation. What is the effect of such a declaration of equality made between Great Britain on the one hand, and Canada on the other, between a superior and an inferior? The declaration does not imply independence. It is not tantamount to a declaration of independence, for the very terms of the definition hold the various constituent parts of the empire within the empire and presuppose the continued existence of the empire. The declaration in my opinion, if any meaning can be given to it, involves and implies two things: first, an implied agreement by Great Britain that she will not exercise the sovereign powers which she legally possesses except at the request and with the concurrence of the dominions; it is simply a -crystallization of the constitutional practice that has gradually developed; and secondly, and this is very important, there is an implied -promise by Great Britain that she will place the dominions in a position as near to equality as is consistent with the maintenance of the
1756	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Thorson
empire. In this view the declaration, involves, on the one hand, a renunciation of powers by Great Britain, the superior, and on the other hand, a granting of powers to the dominions, the inferiors, in order that their status may approximate to equality as closely as possible. May I interpret the declaration also, not as a statement of existing facts, but rather as an ideal to be aimed at, and may I repeat the statement which I made at the outset, that the declaration is a promise of equality? In my opinion the declaration is tantamount to a statement by Great Britain, which was a party to it, that Canada and the other self-governing dominions are now entitled to the maximum amount of autonomy and the maximum amount of self-government that is consistent with the maintenance of the empire.


Mr. COOTE:: I wonder if the hon. member would be good enough at this point to elaborate just what he means by the maximum amount of autonomy which we might have consistent with the maintenance of the empire?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am coming to that. I have already indicated in the course of my remarks the various respects in which Canada falls short of that maximum amount of autonomy and that maximum amount of selfgovernment but let me enumerate them again:
1.	Complete freedom from the supervision and control of our legislation by the government of Great Britain, even although that control and supervision be nominal.
2.	The right to pass legislation having an extra-territorial effect if we deem it desirable in the interests of Canada to do so.
3.	The right to decide for ourselves how we shall administer our laws, and to prohibit appeals to the Privy Council if we so desire.
4.	The right to amend our constitution as we may deem it necessary without the intervention of the parliament of Great Britain.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the new charter which Great Britain is prepared to grant to Canada when Canada is prepared to receive it.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: If Great Britain goes
to war without our consent, are we not involved in the war whether we will or no?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I made the statement at the outset that I proposed to confine my discussion solely to autonomy in so far as the domestic affairs of Canada are concerned.
This, Mr. Speaker, I repeat, is the new charter which Great Britain is prepared to give to Canada as soon as Canada is ready 
to accept it. Even if no legislative action is taken by the parliament of Great Britain then, although no great change of status will have taken place by virtue of the declaration of the Imperial conference, nevertheless a portion of that charter has been conferred upon us because the constitutional practice of Great Britain not to interfere in Canadian affairs has been crystallized. But in order that the promise of increased autonomy and increased rights of self-government should be fully implemented, more is required than the mere declaration of an imperial conference, for we must never'lose sight of the fact that the imperial conference is a conference solely, and that it has no legislative authority whatsoever. If we are to get that increase of autonomy and that increase in our right of self-government, then it will be necessary to pass appropriate legislation, and that legislation must come from the parliament of Great Britain. No court of law in this country or elsewhere would pay the slightest attention to the declarations of such a body as the Imperial conference in so far as its legislative authority is concerned. We must remember this, Mr. Speaker, and I give this as a reason for laying such stress upon the legal aspects of the question. After all, our autonomy is measured by our power and by our right to translate our wishes into binding law. I do not imagine for a moment that this grant of further autonomy will be conferred upon us immediately, or will be conferred upon us against our will. There is a peculiar elasticity about the British constitution, for legal sanction very rarely precedes constitutional development. Great Britain will not make the grant until Canada is ready to receive it. Perhaps Canada is not yet ready to receive that grant, but that day, in my opinion, is not far distant.
What are the implications involved in the acceptance of this grant by the Dominion of Canada? If the grant is made, and it will not be made unless we are prepared to accept it, then we shall have the right to control entirely our judicial system, and to abolish appeals to the Privy Council if we so desire. We shall have the right to control entirely our constitution in so far as our internal affairs are concerned and we shall have power to amend the British North America Act as we deem necessary. We shall be complete masters in all those matters which concern ourselves alone. Why should we not have that right? Are we who are British subjects in Canada less entitled to complete autonomy and less entitled to the fullest right of selfgovernment, than those British subjects who

Imperial Conference-Mr. Woodsworth
reside in Great Britain? Are we less competent to manage and control our own affairs? Are we less worthy of trust? It has been suggested repeatedly iby many speakers-and the hon. leader of the opposition has not been without guilt in that respect-that the guarantee of Great Britain to protect minorities by the exercise of her right of disallowance and her paramount legislative authority has been withdrawn by virtue of this declaration of equality of the Imperial conference, that a great blow has been struck at the rights of minorities and that these rights are in great danger. This suggestion-and in my opinion it is not a worthy one-has been made soldly for the purpose of alarming our fellow citizens whose language is French and whose religion is Roman Catholic. In answer to that suggestion I say that even if the declaration of the Imperial conference does involve, by implication, a renunciation on the part of Great Britain of her powers of control and supervision over Canada, there is no danger whatsoever to the rights of minorities. If the guarantee of Great Britain has by implication been withdrawn then the guarantee of Canada still remains intact. Is our bond worth less than that of Great Britain in a matter that is so vital to national unity and so essential to the continued existence of Canada? If any power of amending our constitution is to be conferred upon us-and in my opinion it ought to be conferred-then that power of amending our constitution must be subject to two things and two important principles must be kept in mind. Firstly, the power of amending our constitution mugt be elastic enough to-provide for sound national development, so that we may be permitted to dream of a day when we shall cease to be a group of warring provinces, jealous of one another's rights, and become in very truth a united nation. Secondly, the power of amending our constitution must be subject to the rights which our fellow-Canadians enjoy, both in respect of language and religion. We must be willing, if it is necessary, to renew oursdlves in the name of the people of Canada the guarantees in that respect given at confederation. They were our guarantees then. They have been our guarantees in reality ever since, and they must remain our guarantees in the future. I have no doubt that the genius of Canadian statesmanship will make it possible to devise some machinery for amending our constitution that will preserve those two great principles that I have enunciated, provided the task of budding that machinery is approached in the proper spirit of mutual trust and confidence, and unless we develop that spirit of mutual
trust and confidence in our national affairs there is really no purpose in attempting to build a nation in this land of ours, for a nation that is not based upon these fundamental principles cannot endure.
The Imperial conference regarded the report which it submitted as the foundation for the work of subsequent conferences. So, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to accept, and I do so gladly, the declaration of the Imperial conference, in so far as it relates to autonomy in our domestic affairs, as a foundation upon which to build this land of ours, as a starting point from which we shall march along the pathway that destiny has marked out for us, content with the present and absolutely fearless of the future, confident in the realization that a great heritage has 'been bestowed upon us, conscious of our growing national strength and power and hopeful that we shall become in time a united nation, imbued with the great principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. Upon the bedrock of these great principles we shall continue to build the nation which is in the process of construction, liberty of self-development-, equality of language and religion, united in the fraternity of a common love of Canada; for that common love of Canada, that common devotion to the country which gave us birth and will receive our ashes, is after all the real test of a true Canadian.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: A good deal has been said in this debate, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the -legal points at issue. Perhaps I may be permitted to emphasize the more practical aspects of the question before us. The most-important question, it seems to me, with regard to the Imperial conference is this: Is Canada bound by the decisions and recommendations of the conference? The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) says " not unless these are ratified by parliament ". Yet curiously enough the government has made no effort whatever to have these decisions and recommendations ratified. The question comes before us, as we know, in a way that-makes it extremely difficult for us to give expression by vote to our approval or disapproval of the various measures proposed. I take it then that unless there -is ratification by this House, for which no provision is being made, Canada is not bound by the recommendations or suggestions of this report. It is commonly said by the press gallery, after a debate on a private member's motion, that the discussion " was academic ". I fancy that the best that can be said with regard to our discussion in this House during the
1758	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Woodsworth
last two or three days is that it is largely academic in character. Perhaps after all, at least from the standpoint of those of us who cannot endorse all the recommendations, it is just as well that we should not pass resolutions with regard to this report. It at least leaves Canada free from some of the obligations which might otherwise be entailed.
Was anything, then, really accomplished by the conference? Immediately after the conference we were inclined to think that it marked a new era, that all the high tributes paid by the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) were true, and that we were being given a charter of new and enlarged liberty. In the course of this debate it would seem that really this so-called new and enlarged liberty does not amount to anything. Perhaps the truth will be found somewhere in between. Personally I think the conference meant a good deal. Probably the greatest accomplishment is that we can now claim autonomy without being charged with disloyalty.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That is something.


James Shaver Woodsworth: 
Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: I have
listened, Mr. Speaker, with some interest to the speeches which have already been made, and I would like to refer to one in particular, namely, that of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I must say that that hon. member never speaks in this chamber without engendering some heat, not only on his own part but on the part of some of the others who listen to him. The hon. member asked some very pertinent questions regarding our connection with the rest of the empire. Why, he asked, should we partake in Britain's wars brought on by a policy in the making of which we had no share? On the face of it, answering that question, I would say we should not be held responsible and should not be obliged to furnish men and money to fight any other nation's enemy which is not an enemy of ours. But somehow in the past we have been a part of this empire, whatever we shall be in the future, and I have never been able yet to separate myself as a Canadian from responsibility for empire matters, seeing that we ourselves are a world-trading nation. Our greatest customer in the past has been Great Britain, and no doubt she will be for some time to come. But our commerce has gone throughout the whole world, over the seven seas, in safety, as free as Britain's own commerce, practically without 32649-112
any effort on our part or any expense to this Dominion. I am sure, Sir, that had we not a friendly country to the south of us in the United States we would have appreciated the connection with Great Britain in the past far more than we have done.
The hon. member for Labelle denounces imperialism. He is scandalized that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should quote even Lord Balfour, and he uses the word "colonials" in a derisive sense to show the attitude of British statesmen 'towards the representatives of the Dominion. In reply to this, I should like to say that Britain has sought for many years to get the Dominion to take a greater share and assume more responsibility in the forming of her foreign policy. For many years it has been shown that the difficulty in this connection arises from the world-wide extent of the British Empire, making almost impossible an adequate means of conference on all international matters requiring prompt decision. Canada no doubt has felt this to some extent, but she has felt it a thousand times less than Great Britain. It was that feeling which in the end led us to appoint a representative- a minister or plenipotentiary-to Washington. If it can be said that Britain has not appreciated our problems on this hemisphere, much more might the same be said of the Dominion regarding international affairs. Whatever may be our status henceforth, I hope we shall still cooperate and share each other's burdens as a commonwealth so far as such cooperation may be found practicable.
As for myself, Mr. Speaker, I am British born, and I am proud so to declare to-night. Indeed, Sir, if there was any inclination on my part or on the part of many of my friends in this corner of the House to forget it, we are promptly reminded that we are simply "imported" Canadians. I question if in any country in the world to-day there can be found more men imbued with tihe spirit of rabid imperialism than in Canada, and I include in this category my hon. friend1 from Labelle and many who sit on the same side of the House with him. The principle of cooperation of the overseas dominions with the motherland has been due to that equality of freedom and status enjoyed by each part, and our Canadian imperialists to-day-I say this in all seriousness-might well take a lesson to heart from this fact. It is because of the very freedom that has been allowed each part that the different races that compose the population of Great Britain are loyal to a central authority to which they each in turn contribute.

1766	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. .Evans
It will be remembered1 that at the last session of parliament an agreement was entered into by the government with Alberta to give that province control of its natural resources. The agreement was laid on the table of this House. The bill in its original form was unobjectionable, but when the hon. member for Labelle examined it 'his imperialistic spirit burst forth in all its fury, and he threatened a revolt unless the bill was amended so as to bind the province to maintain separate schools for all lime to come. Imperialism! We need to examine ourselves even to be honest in argument. The very spirit that prompted the speech of my hon. friend is exactly the same spirit that sent the French army into the .Ruhr. The spirit that demanded a contract of Alberta in those terms is exactly the same spirit that dominated France when she repudiated her obligations to her chief ally and saviour in the Great war, and instead of reimbursing Britain as she should have done, she kept her factories going night and day to furnish twenty million rifles and other munitions of war to Poland-all actuated by that spirit of domination. The same arrogant spirit of domination of one part of this Dominion is dictating to some of the other provinces how they shall administer their internal aflairs, particularly education. That to me would indicate a desire to teach our children loyalty and subserviency to ideas contrary to the considered welfare of the people themselves.
The Dominion government has assumed to itself the imperialistic power of dictating to the provinces, and I say frankly that I am still looking to the Privy Council as a possible means of securing the rights to which we are entitled in the western provinces. Because of . this I am in accord with the spirit of the amendment ; and so far as I can learn from the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) the government itself is going to accept the amendment, for he has already said that no changes can be made in the constitution-he goes even further than the amendment-without the consent of the provinces. I am glad he has laid down that principle as a guide for the future.


Mr. HEAPS:: Does the hon. member agree with that policy?


John Evans: Why shouldn't I?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am just asking the question.


John Evans: It is all right. I say, Mr. Speaker, that any representative from the prairie provinces who at the promised conference this summer between the Dominion

and the provinces will agree to anything that is likely to endanger the right of reference to the Privy Council will not be expressing the wishes of his people. I aim expressing to-night the feeling of the majority of the people of Saskatchewan when I say that as far as that province is concerned we shall be just as willing to be governed from Downing street as from St. James street, Montreal, or King street, Toronto.
No decision would ever have emanated from the Imperial conference unless it was reached unanimously, and if the conference has done anything to clarify our status it has done so only because of the freedom and equality of every unit of the great British commonwealth of nations. Canada is a replica almost of the British Empire, and this confederation cannot be held together unless by the equality of status and freedom of every unit. I believe the spirit that underlay the idea of confederation was that the Dominion parliament should be what the provinces choose to make it. But it has become an imperialistic dictator in its attitude to the provinces, which are, or should be, autonomous parts within the confederation. I repeat, Sir, I am glad the Minister of Justice has laid it down as a ruling principle that the constitution cannot be amended but by the consent of the provinces.
When the hon. member for Labelle so fervently denounced British imperialism I recalled the speech he made at the beginning of last session. It is well to consider this question in the light of practical politics and history. On page 1686 of Hansard the hon. member accuses Britain of being the cause of the Great war. I do not know why he should have gone out of his way to so accuse Britain, but he did. Now, I think he is not only unfair, but it seems to me that he purposely overlooks several factors which resulted in that world catastrophe. The chief reason no doubt was trade and that ambition to dominate with imperialistic control which was held by some of the nations; and for either of those Germany was not wholly to blame. In my opinion Canada did her share to bring about that great world catastrophe, in fact I do not know that Canada is not as directly responsible for the great world war as any nation on earth. I believe to-day that the British preference which we inserted in our tariff was the cause of a great deal of enmity , and had much to do with the Great war. Of course, outside of that cause there was the overpowering ambition of France to regain her lost provinces. But let us recall an historical fact within the memory of most

Civil Service-Salaries
members of this House. France and Russia formed an alliance for offensive and defensive purposes; France even boasted that she would make Germany pay for her three-year military service, and Russia on the one side and France on the other kept raising a tariff wall against Germany. When we inaugurated the British preference Germany begged to be included in that scheme in some way, finding that Britain was her best customer, but it was two-facedly said in this House at the time that Germany was seeking to bring about a cleavage between Britain and her colonies. I say to-night, Mr. Speaker, that had we been agreeable to that proposal there would have been formed in the world at that time a real free trade union, and the faces of the nations would have been turned toward peace instead of toward war. It was not the fault of Britain, but it must be admitted that a fair share of that fault lies at the door of this Dominion, because by the greed and avarice of our Canadian imperialists, who sought to obtain for themselves not only the direction of the forces of wealth and industry in this Dominion, but the direction of the terms of living of the rest of the nation. This they did without regard to the rights of those parts of our country with fewer representatives in this House.
In conclusion I want to say that freedom is the very essence of loyalty, and that this Dominion can be a confederation in the real sense of the term only as every part of it is as free as is set forth in the declaration of the Imperial conference, under which we are declared a free nation within the British Empire. Our confederation must be built upon that freedom.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the debate was adj ourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.08 p.m.
Friday, April 1, 1927