1927-03-30

[Stage Direction]
Fifth and sixth reports of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. -Mr. Parent.
Sixth report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. -Mr. Young, (Saskatoon).

Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West) moved:: That the fifth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Georges Parent: That in accordance with the recommendations contained in the fifth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, the fees and charges paid on Bill No. 110 to incorporate the President of the Lethbridge Stake; and on Bill No. 145, to incorporate Thousand Islands International Bridge Corporation, be refunded, less the costs of printing and translation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. M. YOUNG (Saskatoon) moved:: That in accordance with the recommendations contained in their sixth report, the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines be permitted to sit while the House is sitting.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: Is
it the intention of the committee to deal with other subjects than that of the Peace river bill?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Alexander MacGillivray Young: That the recommendations contained in the sixth report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to print, for the use of that committee, an additional 100 copies in English of evidence taken, and of evidence which may yet be taken, by said committee respecting Peace river district proposed railway routes to the Pacific, be concurred in providing the type is standing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with the
consent of the House I beg to move that on Monday the 4th of April, 1927, and subsequent Mondays until the end of the session government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence over all other business excepting questions and notices of motion for the production of papers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Since there is a possibility that the debate on the Imperial conference may not conclude this afternoon, and since Your Honour leaves the chair to-morrow and Friday without the question being put, with the consent of the House I would move that rule 17 (c) be suspended for the sittings of March 31 and April 1, 1927, in order to enable the debate to proceed in the regular way.
Motion agreed to on division.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Was Mr. R. S. Robertson, Iv.C., appointed to act for the government in a certain municipal inquiry into Toronto harbour, and when?
2.	What sum has been paid, and, what is yet owed him?
3.	Who requested his appointment: (a) what persons; and (b) what Liberal association?
4.	What other sums from 1921 to 1927 has Mr. Robertson received from the government, and for what purpose?
5.	Will the government also hold similar inquiries into purely federal harbours: (a) of Montreal; (b) of Vancouver; (c) of Quebec?
6.	Will said inquiries be instituted as in the case of Toronto without any charges?
Questions


Hon. Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Mr. R. S. Robertson, K.C., was retained to act for the government in an inquiry into matters pertaining to the business of the Toronto harbour commissioners under the provisions of the Inquiries Act.
2.	No pajunents have been made to him; his account is for $5,775.81.
3.	Mr. Robertson was retained on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice.
4.	None.
5.	No similar requests for inquiries have been received in the case of (a) Montreal
(b)	Vancouver, (c) Quebec.
6.	Answered by No. 5.


RELIEF FOR WAR VETERANS
Mr. PRICE:: 1.	Will legislation be introduced at this session of parliament providing relief for disabled and partially disabled war veterans at present excluded from pension benefits owing to existing regulations?
2.	When will the bill be introduced for the said purpose?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Present pension legislation provides pensions for all disabilities " attributable to or incurred during military service " and for " disabilities resulting from injury or disease or the aggravation thereof incurred during military service No ex-soldier who is so disabled is denied pension. But responsibility cannot be accepted for those whose disabilities are not related to war service.
2.	The government does not intend to extend the present provisions of the Pensions Act by further amendments this year.


SCHOONER EDDIE JAMES
Mr. LOVIE:: 1.	Was the schooner Eddie James seized by the Department of Customs and Excise at Summerside during the year 1925?
2.	If so, what quantity of liquor was in the cargo?
3.	How was said liquor disposed of, showing quantity, brands of each kind, to whom sold, and at what price?
4.	Was the duty paid on the liquor by the purchaser at the time of purchase or when it was taken out of bond?
5.	If when taken out of bond, what were the dates of release, quantity, duty paid at each time and to whom it was released?


Hon. Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	1,055 cases.
3.	After release by decision sold by owners to Prince Edward Island Commission for Enforcement of Prohibition Act. No information as to sale price.

Kind of Liquor-Brand	Quantity
Cases
Champagne-Old Monopole	 63
Champagne-Pommerry	 17
Champagne-Cordon Rouge (1913).. ..	8
Champagne-Cordon Rouge (1911).. ..	8
Wine-Sherries	 29
Wine-Port	 12
Gin-Burke's Irish	 27
Brandy-Martini	 1
Kummel-(Liqueur)	 9
Vermouth	 21
Whisky-Rob Roy	  133
Whisky-Lawson's	 104
Whisky-Burke's Irish	 20
Whisky-Gold Thimble	 16
Whisky-Old Smuggler	 39
Whisky-Aberlour Glenlivit	 73
Whisky-Golden Eagle	 20
Whisky-Ambassador	 455
1,055
4.	Duty was paid by purchasers on delivery out of bond on order of owners.
Duty and Sales
5.	Cases	Tax PaidMay 25	
33	$ 306 52June 2	245	3,629 39June 28	100	1,837 56Aug. 4	100	1,837 56Sept. 9	
50	918 78Sept. 27	
60	1,012 93Oct. 28	121	2,226 521927 Jan. 12	
50	918 78Mar. 1	105	1,857 60864	$14,545 64
Balance 191 cases still in bond.


IMMIGRATION DURING 1926
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	How many immigrants came into Canada during the year ending December 31, 1926?
2.	Of what nationality were these comprised?
3.	To what occpations did they go?
4.	What religious denominations did they claim ?
5.	Has the government any way of cheeking how many people leave for the United States?
6.	If so, how many left during the above year?
7.	How much was spent by the Immigration department during 1926?


Hon. Mr. FORKE:: 1.	135,984.
2.	Albanian, 11; Arabian, 8; Armenian, 66; Austrian, 223; Belgian, 1,842; Bohemian, 24. British-English, 24,541; Irish, 9,049; Scotch, 13,861; Welsh, 1,368. Bulgarian, 87; Chinese, 2; Croatian, 1,135; Czech, 770; Dutch, 1,643; East Indian, 68; Esthonian, 77; Finnish, 4,721;

Questions
French, 521; German, 10,720; Greek, 274; Herzegovinian, 3; Italian, 2,539; Japanese, 443; Jewish, 4,441; Jugo-Slav, 2,191; Korean, 1; Lettish, 54; Lithuanian, 779; Magyar, 5,182; Maltese, 34; Mexican, 1; Montenegrin, 1; Moravian, 22; Negro, 50; Persian, 4; Polish, 5,359; Portuguese, 15; Roumanian, 317; Russian, 1,074; Ruthenian, 9,468;. Scandinavian- Danish, 1,467; Icelandic, 31; Norwegian, 2,607; Swedish, 2,324; Serbian, 852; Slovak, 4,010; Spanish, 27; Spanish American, 5; Swiss, 503; Syrian, 221; Turkish, 4; From U.S.A. 20,944 (border ports).
3.	Farming class, 76,141; Labouring class, 8,341; Mechanics, 9,481; Trading class, 5,267; Mining class, 1,324; Female domestics, 13,043; Other classes, 22,387.
4.	Statistics as to religious denominations are not compiled. [DOT]
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	$2,541,430.01; these figures include all expenditures by the department for the fiscal year and cover the cost of work on the international boundary and at Canadian ocean ports, in the British Isles, continental service, United States service, publicity and general administration.


SUPERANNUATION ACT-1924
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Has the Superintendent of Insurance completed his report with regard to the Superannuation Act of 1924?
2.	Has this report been received by the Finance department?
3.	How many widows of civil servants are there who do not come under the above Act?
4.	Does the government intend to bring down legislation this session to give relief to the said widows under this act?


Mr. SPENCER:: Dropped.


POST OFFICE AT WELLSDALE, ALBERTA
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	Has the name of the post office at Wells-dale, Alberta, been changed?
2.	If so, what is the new name?
3.	Did the residents petition for the change?
4.	If so, how many petitioned for it, and how many against it?


Hon. Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Clandonald.
3 and 4. No petitions received. The change was recommended by Archbishop O'Leary of Edmonton and by the district superintendent of postal service, Saskatoon, who stated that the new townsite on the C.P.R. where the post office was located had been named Clandonald. Objections were received from Bishop Gray, of Edmonton, and from Geo. J. Stock-well and T. J. Souder of Wellsdale.


TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RETURNING OFFICER. COUNTY OF MONTMAGNY
Mr. CAHAN:: What amount -was paid as travelling expenses (mileage) to the returning officer in the county of Montmagny at the general elections of 1921 and 1925, respectively?


Hon. Mr. RINFRET:: The following amounts were paid as travelling expenses (mileage) to the returning officer in the county of Montmagny:-
Election of 1921-Thos. Tremblay, $67.10.
Election of 1925-Jos. C. Lislois, $231.50.



INVESTIGATION UNDER COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT

Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: 1.	Having reference to the investigation into the wholesale fruit and vegetable business under the Combines Investigation Act in the province of Ontario, what time elapsed between the filing of the original application and the presentation of the report of Major Lewis Duncan?
2.	What was the total cost of the said investigation?
3.	What amount was paid in salary and fees to the said Major Lewis Duncan for this investigation?
4.	What amount was paid as expenses?
5.	What is the total amount paid to date for this and other investigations to the said Major Lewis Duncan, (a) as fees, and (b) as expenses?
6.	Is the said Major Lewis Duncan still retained or employed as a commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act?


Hon. Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Fifteen months.
2.	$14,111.09.
3.	$5,581.
4.	991.85.
5.	(a) $26,855; (b) $5,58384.
6.	No.



EMPIRE SETTLEMENT SCHEME

Mr. BOULANGER:: What amounts have been paid up to date by the Government in pursuance of what is known as the Empire Settlement scheme or other similar schemes, for transportation, assistance, loans, etc., (a) to immigrants themselves; (b) to the Salvation Army; (c) to Canadian or foreign colonization societies and agencies?


Hon. Mr. FORKE:: Including expenses from the inception of the Empire Settlement scheme to January 31, 1927, the following amounts have been paid:-
Passage loans	$ 474,939 09
Passage grants	 667,081 41
Other expenses not recoverable	 4,867 09

1698	COMMONS
Questions as Orders for Returns
(a)	Nothing as far as the Department of Immigration and Colonization is concerned.
(b)	Transportation loans, $18,912.03; transportation grants, $61,489.77.
(c)	Transportation grants, $167,244.79; assistance, $25,481,87.
The figures in (b) and (c) are included in the total of $1,146,887.59.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS EOR RETURNS


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: 1.	What quantity of coal of all grades, including coke and lignite-specifying the grades in quantities and showing the country of origin and the value in grades-was imported into Canada for the year ending January, 1927?
2.	What quantity of coal of all grades, including coke and lignite-specifying the grades in quantities, showing the provinces of origin in Canada, the country of destination, and the value in grades-was exported from Canada for the year ending January, 1927?
3.	What quantity of coal of all grades, including eoke and lignite-specifying the grades in quantities, showing the country of origin and the value in grades-was imported into Canada for the year ending January, 1927, for metallurgical or any other purposes, on which there was a drawback of 99 per cent of the duty, stating places in Canada where said coal was consumed and supplying names of companies or others taking advantage of the drawback?


AREAS OF CANADA
Mr. LADNER:: 1.	What was the approximate area by square miles of each of the four provinces, Ontario Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, when they united in confederation in 1867?
2.	What was the estimated area or public domain of, (a) British North America; (b) the Dominion of Canada (both exclusive of the said four provinces) in 1867 immediately after confederation ?
3.	What portion in square miles of the said area or public domain referred to in question 2. has been placed under the jurisdiction of or granted to, (a) each of the said four provinces: (b) each of the remaining five provinces, all subsequent to their joining confederation?
4.	By what authority or act of parliament?
5.	What is approximately, (1) the gross revenue; (2) the net revenue derived yearly by each province from such area or public domain referred to in question 3, with respect to each of the following: (a) forest products; (b) mineral resources; (c) agricultural lands;
(d)	water-power; (e) fisheries?


REVENUES OP CANADA
Mr. LADNER:: 1. What are the total annual revenue and expenditure respectively (in ten-year periods down to 1907 and yearly thereafter) of the government of Canada since confederation or since each province joined confederation, as the case may be, with respect to: (a) lands,
[Mr. Forked
mineral, forest, water-power and other natural resources in each province over which the government of Canada has jurisdiction; (b) from fisheries in or contiguous to each province ?
2.	What are the total annual revenues and expenditures respectively (in ten-year periods down to 1907 and yearly thereafter) of the government of Canada since confederation or since each province joined confederation, with respect to all sources other than those referred to in question 1 ?
3.	What was the population of each province during said periods and years down to the end of 1926?
4.	What were the total number of employees of the government of Canada in each province during said periods and years down to the end of 1926?


DUTY COLLECTED ON CERTAIN IMPORTS
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: 1.	What are the quantities, values and amounts of duty collected on the imports of each of the following commodities imported into Canada during the calendar year 1926: fresh pork, cured pork, lard, mutton and lamb, butter, eggs, cattle hides, calf skins, sheep skins, raw wool, worsted tops and noils of wool, manufactures of wool, manufactures of leather?
2.	What is the rate of duty on each of the articles mentioned?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, documents and other correspondence between the government of Canada, the Hudson's Bay Company and any other person in relation to the cancellation of the land held by the Hudson's Bay Company within the parks and forest reserves of the province of Alberta and the acquisition by the company of title to some 50.000 acres of land in the Peace River and Grande Prairie districts in lieu of the land cancelled.



GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN NORTH TIMISKAMINO

Mr. BRADETTE:: For a return showing a list of names of the federal government employees and their salaries, who are holding positions in the constituency of North Timiskaming, exclusive of any officials under the post office departments and Royal Canadian Mounted Police.



POSTMASTER AT CAP CHAT

Charles Hazlitt Cahan: For a copy of all correspondence containing or relating to charges made against the postmaster at Cap Chat, county of Gaspe; also a copy of all evidence taken at an enquiry held by Mr. N. Nadeau, advocate, relating to any such charges; and a copy of any report made thereon by said Mr. Nadeau.

Unopposed Motions for Papers



SLAUGHTER OF SWINE

Mr. ROWE:: For copy of all letters, telegrams and other correspondence between the Department of Agriculture, the minister or any other officials thereof, and any person or persons, whether employees of such department or not, relating to the slaughter of swine, the property of Andrew Oberle, Walkerton, Ontario, and the payment of compensation therefor.



SUPERANNUATION OF CUSTOMS EMPTOYEES

Mr. ROBINSON:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, and other documents, exchanged between the Department of Customs or any official thereof, or any other department of the government, or any official thereof, and any person or persons' whomsoever, between March 1st and April 30th, 1922, relative to the superannuation of a number of customs department employees on the border staff at Windsor and Walkerville, Ontario.



TELEGRAPH OPERATOR AT BELLA COOLA

Mr. BRADY:: For a copy of all correspondence between residents of Bella Coola or any government officials in the vicinity, or divisional superintendent of telegraphs, Vancouver, or any or all of these with the Minister of Public Works or any departmental officials, together with a copy of all reports made by officials of the department in relation to removal of telegraph operator at Bella Coola, and consequent closing of the line.



CHILCOTEN ORDNANCE LAND RESERVE

Mr. FRASER:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports, recommendations, or communications of any kind passing between the government of British Columbia, or any member or official thereof, or any other person or persons, and the federal government, or any official or officials thereof, relating to Chilcoten ordnance land reserve in the Chilcoten division of the Cariboo districts of British Columbia.



POST OFFICE AT HAWKESBURY, ONTARIO

Mr. BELL (West Hamilton):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, and other documents, memorandums, protests, recommendations, and reports of officials of the Post Office Department, and of the Civil Service Commission, in the possession of the Civil Commission, relating to:
1.	The appointments, qualifications, rejections, of any person or persons in charge of the post office at Hawkesbury, Ontario, from the year 1922 to date;
2.	The appointment or rejection of one -MacA1 lister as postmaster at Hawkesbury;
3.	The appointment, temporary or otherwise, of a successor to the said MacAllister.



TRANSFER OF CONSTABLE MURDOCK

Mr. BROWN:: For a copy of all correspondence, and other documents, passing between any officials of the
government or other persons with reference to the transfer of one Murdock, a member of the Dominion police force, from Snowflake to his present location.



MARINE AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the act respecting the Department of Marine and Fisheries to provide that the department shall consist of the Marine branch and the Fisheries branch, and that two officers may be appointed by the governor in council as Deputy Minister of Marine and Deputy Minister of Fisheries, respectively.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act and to reduce the postage rate on certain newspapers and periodicals from one and one-half cents to one cent.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved that the House go into com-mitee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Dominion Elections Act and to provide that the Chief Electoral Officer shall be appointed by resolution of the House of Commons, and shall be paid a salary of six thousand dollars per annum.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with
Returned Soldiers Insurance
[Stage Direction]
the subject matteT of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. F. KAY (Brome-Mississquoi):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he has any information to give to the House to-day with respect to the embargo placed by the United States government upon the exportation of milk and cream from any place within a radius of two hundred miles?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: In reply to my hon. friend
I may say that the Department of Agriculture is in communication, both by phone and by correspondence, with the Departments of Health of both Quebec and Ontario with the object of localizing as far as possible any possible source of rural typhoid contagion. An officer of the department has gone down to Montreal to-day with the same object in view. Until the source of contagion is discovered and the causes removed I am afraid we will have to suffer all the inconvenience of the present embargo.



GEORGIAN BAY CANAL


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Edward Joseph Garland: I wish to ask the Minister of Railways whether it is intended, as a matter of policy on the part of the government, to refer the lease granted to the National Hydro Electric Company for the development of power at Carillon, or the subject matter of it, to the committee which will consider the Georgian bay canal bill, and if not what steps will be taken with respect thereto?
Hun. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I expect fully that the whole question regarding the Ottawa river will naturally come before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines in connection with the discussion of the bill which has been referred to it.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: In that connection may I ask if the Minister of Railways, or perhaps the Minister of Justice, would lay on the table an opinion on this subject given by Mr. Newcombe about 1918 when he was Deputy Minister of Justice?

I think the opinion was given in reply to a submission by the Ontario government. It would be convenient if we could have that opinion laid on the table before this matter is considered in committee.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: If any such opinion exists I will be very pleased to lay it on the table.



CUSTOMS INVESTIGATIONS IN QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Air J. F. POULIOT (Temiscouata):: May I ask the hon. Minister of Customs and Excise if it is within his knowledge that Inspectors Duncan and Knox, who are at present holding investigations in the province of Quebec, do not speak a word of French?


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Customs and Excise):: It is within my knowledge that these officers have held or are holding investigations. I have no information, however, as to their knowledge of French.



RETURNED SOLDIERS INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: On two previous occasions, I asked a question in regard to returned soldiers insurance. The Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League, and many other organizations, have recommended an extension of this insurance for a period of at least one year. I think the Minister of Soldiers Civil Reestablishment stated on two occasions early in the session that the matter was under consideration. I wonder if a decision has been reached.
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-esta'blishment)):	In reply to my
hon. friend I would state that the matter of extending the period of insurance for returned soldiers, and suggestions coming to the department from returned soldiers organizations throughout Canada, have been given careful consideration. In view of the extent of the matters already dealt with it has been deemed inadvisable to undertake to bring down further legislation this year with regard to insurance or pensions.



ODESSA AND ENTERPRISE POSTMASTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Ad-dington):: I would ask the Postmaster

Imperial Conference-Mr. Lapointe
General if instructions have yet been given to the Civil Service Commission regarding appointments to fill the vacancies at Odessa and Enterprise, Ontario, and if not what is the reason for the delay?


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: I regret that I cannot give that information from memory, but I will look into the reasons for the delay, and let my hon. friend know to-morrow.



RURAL MAIL BOXES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario):: It is getting near spring, and I
would ask the Postmaster General if he can tell us when he will have boxes for the rural mail delivery?


Peter John Veniot: I cannot tell my hon.
friend on what date I shall be in a position to award tenders. We are examining fifty-two models of boxes, and a process of elimination is now under way in order to determine which would be the best model. I am personally directing that work and I feel that we should, if possible, get the very best model available. Unfortunately, I have been so much taken up with the duties of my department that I have not yet been able to complete the work of elimination.


John Arthur Clark: Leave it to the officers of
your department and then the work will be well done.


Peter John Veniot: I know just as much about mail boxes as they do, and that is the reason I am taking a hand in it myself. I want to make as good a selection as possible because I have to accept the responsibility for what will be done. I may say that I expect in a very few days to deal with the matter.


Peter McGibbon: I would suggest to the minister that he could follow the same course that he has followed in the elimination of postmasters.


Peter John Veniot: In that regard whatever I have done has been in the public interest and I intend to continue to act on that principle.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Is it the
policy of the government to supply these
boxes at actual cost?


Peter John Veniot: We will follow in future the system which has prevailed in the past.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Will they be supplied at cost?


Peter John Veniot: I could not say, because I have not looked into the matter, and as my hon. friend knows I am new in the department yet. However, the same principle will obtain in the future as in the past.



CANADIAN MINISTER AT WASHINGTON

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I promised the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) that I would bring down any correspondence obtainable in the nature of communications between the British government and our own respecting the appointment of the Canadian minister at Washington. I beg to lay copies of those communications on the table. I have already given my hon. friend copies of them.



IMPERIAL CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 29, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) for committee of supply, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, as it is possible that in the course of my remarks I may disagree rather strongly with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) with respect to some points of his address of yesterday and the amendment which followed it, I am pleased to preface my remarks by congratulating him on the tone of his address. Indeed the form deserved commendation more than the substance. I am pleased also to say that I agree ' with him at least on the first statement which he made as to the nature and functions of the Imperial conference, a statement which should dispel much misconception in that regard.
The Imperial conference is not an executive, nor a government, nor a cabinet; it is a consultative body and nothing else. That was the position taken by all prime ministers of Canada in the past and by those of the other dominions of the empire as well. It is a consultative body composed of representatives of the various units of the empire who meet, get each other's opinions, discuss conditions and problems which affect all or some of them, and, in the light of knowledge and impressions received and communicated to them, may afterwards if necessary recommeml to thei*

1702	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Lapointe
respective parliaments any legislation, or executive act which may best suit the need.
To assert that the Imperial conference may change the constitution of Canada or the constitution of any other dominion is an absurdity. The conference has no power to do that and it could not undertake to do it. There was formerly throughout the British Empire a school of opinion favouring a sort of imperial federation or the creation of a central body representing all parts of the empire and having executive duties and powers. This scheme has been rejected by the overwhelming will of the peoples of the empire. We would never accept it in Canada; we would never agree that problems affecting Canada should be decided by a body in which Canada would be submerged and in the minority, and where decisions would be reached by a majority composed of friendly people, if you will, but friendly outsiders.
But if we do not want a central body with executive powers over all the nations of the empire, we also do not want disruption. We want to preserve as much as possible the association of the nations of the commonwealth, and the Imperial conference is one of the means of preserving if possible this association by promoting friendly meetings, friendly discussions of problems, and friendly intercourse. I repeat: The Imperial conference of 1926, no more than Imperial conferences of the past, could not alter or change one iota of the British North America Act or the constitution of any other part of the empire. What the conference could do and did was to affirm, to reaffirm, principles which have gradually come to establish themselves very firmly in place of other principles which governed in the past with regard to the status of the nations of the empire, and to call attention to certain usages, conventions, or practices which may not altogether harmonize with the adopted principle of equality of status of all the nations of the commonwealth.
These premises being laid, I state, whatever may be said to the contrary, that the achievements of the conference of 1926 and the spirit of cooperation which alone could make them possible, make it an historical event in the history of the British commonwealth of nations. The conference has crystallized the principle of equality of status which was already recognized and which was the logical outcome of the development of the various nations. It has published a definite, clear and

official adherence to that principle. It has done so in such a way as to make it the greatest contribution to the permanency of the free association of the nations of the commonwealth. It is the final and unequivocal acceptance of the principle of unity and liberty, unity preserved and enshrined in the British throne, and liberty in all domestic and external activities of the various nations of the commonwealth. It is no longer, as has been said by some writer, the case of "daughter am I in my mother's house, but mistress in my own". The family is a family of sisters equal in their rights and activities.
It is a magnificent tribute to the broadmindedness, wisdom and statesmanship of the public men of Britain that they have unequivocally accepted this great principle that the foundation of the commonwealth rests upon the solid rock of liberty, economy and equality of the various parts thereof. It is stated in the report that such a tendency was both right and inevitable. In this they do not agree with some Canadian newspapermen, but I think their opinion is more free from bias and political partisanship than those of our contradictors on this side of the ocean. May I say that I have been surprised to find that some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House and their supporters in the press have taken exception to the principle of equality of status and equality of nationhood.
Mr. McGIBBON Mr. LAPOINTE Mr. McGIBBON
No.
Who says no? I do.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will
take the Hansard of this session and read the speech of his leader, he will see that although my hon. friend the leader of the opposition yesterday changed to some extent his line of attack and is now hanging his amendment upon a sentence of the Imperial conference report concerning the Privy Council, he did not do so in his speech on the address. Then it was equality of status that was harmful and dangerous for the minority in this country. The press of Canada supporting my hon. friends opposite are not agreed among themselves, because there are two schools of critics, one claiming that no change has been made, and the other claiming that a terrible and a dangerous change has been made. To the first school I say that if the

Imperial Conference-Mr. Lapointe
dominions were satisfied to accept their views in the matter, then, to use the language of a great British writer, they would not be worthy of the stock from which they sprang. But it is not the assertion of a new doctrine, and my friend the leader of the opposition has seen to some extent the error of his ways in that respect, for in his address yesterday he said that he agreed with the principle of equality of status. Still, I want to set the matter right before the Canadian people. I want to show that it was not a new principle which was crystallized, if you will, in the report of the conference, but a principle to which adhesion had been given in the past, and especially during the last ten years, by the public men of Canada both in this House of Commons and elsewhere. I shall not quote the words of my late lamented leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I wish to quote the words of writers or speakers friendly to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. Let me first quote from the memorandum which Sir Robert Borden circulated on behalf of the prime ministers of the dominions in March, 1919, when the present leader of the opposition was a member of his government:
All the treaties and conventions resulting from the Peace conference should be so drafted as to enable the dominions to become parties and signatories thereto. This procedure will give suitable recognition to the part played at the peace table by the British commonwealth as a whole, and will, at the same time, record the status attained there by the dominions. The procedure is in consonance with the principles of constitutional government that obtain throughout the empire. The crown is the supreme executive in the United Kingdom and in all the dominions, but it acts on the advice of different ministries within different constitutional units; and under resolution IX of the Imperial War conference, 1917 the organization of the empire is to be based upon equality of nationhood.
The leader of the opposition, as I said, was a member of the Canadian government at that time. He is responsible for the doctrine asserted in that document, but I do not remember that he submitted it to the House of Commons either before or after that document was circulated. It goes on:
It was the reiteration of the principle laid down by the Imperial War conference of 1917, which stated in their resolution, "that any readjustment should be based upon a full recognition of the dominions as autonomous nations of the imperial commonwealth."
The word "autonomous" did not seem to agree with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition yesterday-


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Oh yes, it did.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend seemed
to be horrified by "autonomous."


Hugh Guthrie: No, no.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad to see my
friend is coming back to the light of yesterday.


Hugh Guthrie: There was nothing in my remarks yesterday that would justify the statement of my hon. friend. However, I do not want to interrupt him.


Ernest Lapointe: Very well. May I also quote from the despatch sent on December 4, 1918, by the government of Canada to the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister, then in London. The government here, of which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was then a member, was afraid that even Sir Robert Borden would not go far enough then, and they sent him a telegram reading as follows:
Council to-day further considered Canadian representation at Peace conference and is even more strongly of opinion than when you left that Canada should be represented. Council is of opinion that in view of war efforts of Dominion other nations entitled to representation at conference should recognize unique character of British commonwealth composed of group of free nations under one sovereign and that provision should be made for special representation of these nations at conference even though it may be necessary that in any final decisions reached they should speak with one voice. That if this is not possible you should form one of whatever delegation represents British commonwealth.
Those of us who had the privilege of being members of the House of Commons in 1919 will remember the pride with which the members of the then administration spoke in the House of Commons of the tremendous step forward they had achieved in acquiring equality of nationhood for Canada in the British commonwealth, and they were rather abusive of the members of this House who did not see exactly eye to eye with them in the matter. The then Minister of Justice asserted, in the name of the government, Canada's absolute right constitutionally to govern herself in accordance with the laws made by the parliament of Canada. Listen to his words:
It has not been claimed on this side of the House that this treaty made Canada a nation; nor has it been claimed that anything that happened at the Peace conference made Canada a nation. Canada has grown to nationhood and Canada is a nation; and she does not go seeking anywhere to any of the allied or associated powers, to any foreign power, to Great Britain herself, to the entire Peace conference, to con-
1704	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Lapointe
fer upon her the gift of nationhood. Peoples, starting under the tutelage of other countries that have sent forth their sons to establish colonies, in the course of time, as they grow, come to acquire qualities that belong to no colony. What is the proper position of a colony as towards its mother country? Why, it is the position of a child in the nursery. It takes the directions of its mother country: it follows the mother country without any question in whatever line of action that mother country chooses to adopt as governing its conduct towards the outside nations of the world. And when that line of conduct leads to conditions that call for the facing of those outside nations in arms, while the relationship is purely that of guiding and governing mother country and dependent colony, then it is the business of the mother country to provide not only for her own defence, but to carry upon her own shoulders the burden that may result from the line of conduct which she and she alone has chosen to adopt; and if her child colony over there, that had nothing to say about how those conditions were brought about, is exposed to danger, it is for the mother country to defend it. Was that the situation in regard to Canada? Nationhood is a matter of fact; it is not a question of what is written in a statute book or what is declared by one nation in relation to another.
Mr. MANION; Whom is the minister quoting?


Ernest Lapointe: The then Minister of
Justice, the Right Hon. C. J. Doherty. But he used even stronger language. At page 196 of Hansard, 1919, he said-and these words have much bearing on the present debate:
As regards the constitutional question the hon. gentleman has told us, and a number of others have also stated, that we have a written constitution and that that is the last word. We have a written constitution enacted for what purpose? It was enacted to distribute throughout this federal country the powers of legislation. The Privy Council is on record as having said that the whole field of legislation had been by that act conferred upon the Dominion of Canada, either upon its central parliament or upon the parliaments of its provinces. When that was done the last work that a written constitution could do was done. But because we had that written constitution we did not cease to live under that British constitution that is not written in books, that rests upon the continued practice of the British people-of the people of the British Empire, which includes us Canadians as well as the people of the United Kingdom. I was surprised the other evening to hear the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) say that the British constitution was limited to the United Kingdom, as though we had not all of us for years boasted-and no man did it more frequently nor more eloquently than the late leader of the Liberal party-of our enjoying all the benefits and advantages of the British constitution-and it is not all written in the British North America Act.
I do not want to read it all, but I will simply quote the last words:

I have referred to the recent discussion with regard to the aviation law. Over in Great Brtiain they recognize our national status and that constitutionally the whole field of government of Canada is ours. It is only in this country that you find the little man who. wants to hang on to the colonial status of his country and to insist that she is subordinate to and to be governed by another portion of the empire. However great that portion may be-and we all respect it, we all recognize what she was the source of for us all, and we shall all be happy to recognize her as the first among these equal nations-we contend that, ps a matter of fact, we stand as an equal nation within the empire.
The then President of the Privy Council, Mr. Rowell, and the Minister of the Interior, who was then Mr. M-eighen spoke along the same lines and defended the same principle. I suppose that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was in accord with them at the time. In 1921 the Prime Minister of Canada, in one of his speeches published in a book entitled Overseas Addresses, at page 15, says:
We legislate each for ourselves unfettered; we advise through separate councils a common sovereign; we confer together in order to better understand the wider over-riding common interest; between a sense of independence and a sense of unity there is no clash but harmony. On these principles our own league of nations has survived, and it has served the world wonderfully well.
Mr. Meighen, during the same debate said -and I find his words in Sir Robert Borden's book Canadian Constitutional Studies, pages 113 and 114In May 1921, the Canadian Prime Minister-
In the Manchester Guardian centenary number, May 5, 1921
-declared that the relations between the constituent parts of the empire must be based upon a conception of complete freedom and equality in national status. Further he observed that the practical need would be met by clearly understood and definitely accepted declarations of principle with improvements in so much of the form and content of the existing mechanism as may be found to be obsolete.
I could quote numerous words of Sir Robert Borden, especially in his book on constitutional studies, but I suppose it is useless for me to do so. The same doctrine was preached and expounded by all the statesmen of the other dominions, and may I especially mention Mr. Hughes of Australia and General Smuts of South Africa, and they were accepted by the Prime Minister and the various public men of Britain. I have quotations here from Lord Milner, Mr. Amery and Mr. Lloyd George but I would not like to trouble the House by reading them. Never did my hon. friends apposite, who were at the head of the

Imperial Conference-Mr. Lapointe
government, express any fear as to the working of the theory of equality with regard to minorities or any other sections of the Canadian people.
May I remark that in all these discussions which took place the statesmen of Great Britain and the empire referred to history and emphasized the fact that the present organization of the empire and the problems of government which it presents cannot be understood unless they are studied in the light of historical development. Not only is it the result of a long historical growth, but it is dependent on unwritten conferences, delicate adjustments and slowly established practice. It follows that it is not only not the law or the written documents which must be consulted, but also history and the understanding and the ideas of the people, and the meaning of the outward forms of our institutions. One of the great features, I believe, of the report is that which affects the king. The king is recognized more than before as the keystone of the structure of the empire. He becomes the head of each state of the commonwealth in a more intimate and national sense. As a result of this his position is probably more secure than ever. Whoever directs the affairs in Great Britain, whatever government is called to power in Great Britain, will see to it that the only bond which keeps the various nations of the empire together is permanently retained. The moment that republicanism has overthrown many of the thrones of Europe the British monarchy has got to increase its prestige. The crown centralizes the common ideas and the common traditions of the commonwealth. In this connection may I quote some words of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, in one of his public utterances:
The king, as the constitutional sovereign of the empire, occupies exactly the same place in Canada and in the whole British Empire as he does in Great Britain, and his house, although originally founded in Great Britain, belongs equally to all the other nations of the commonwealth.
Mr. Speaker, I have dealt perhaps too extensively with this school of critics who claim that a big change was brought about by the conference. I will now deal with the other school which says nothing was done. I will point out some of the things which the conference did, not for the purpose, as I have already said, of creating a new status, but of harmonizing the existing conditions with the
principle universally adopted and recognized. I will deal briefly then with the subject from three standpoints, the political, the legislative and the judicial. In the political field some modifications have been agreed to regarding the form of treaty and the proceedings accompanying such treaty. I had the honour to be appointed chairman of the committee which was charged with the duty of considering all matters relating to treaties. This was a very important committee indeed, and its work was a difficult one, but I am pleased to say that a solution was found which was acceptable to all members of the committee. It is impossible for me to deal at length with this particular subject, but perhaps I may mention what the practice in future will be as a result of the work of the committee. Hereafter treaties will be made and signed, not by and for the British Empire, but by and for Great Britain and such other portions of the empire as may be concerned in those treaties. Heretofore, even though we might be interested in any treaty of any description, if we were not represented during its negotiation and at the signing of it, the treaty was entered into nevertheless in the name of the British Empire as a whole. The change in the wording of the treaty in this regard is of the utmost importance. There will be no longer any need of the provision which has been known as the exclusion clause, such for instance as was incorporated in the Locarno treaty. That clause was to the effect that the treaty in question could be enforced in any of the dominions only after they had agreed to come within its provisions. Such a clause, as I say, will no longer be necessary; it will serve no useful purpose for the reason that we shall be involved in any treaty only if we are a party thereto. Treaties will be made by the king not in the name, not of the British Empire but on behalf of Great Britain and whatever other section of the empire may be a participant in and a signatory to the negotiations.
Another important change concerns the appointment of plenipotentiaries representing the king in connection with negotiations leading up to treaties and the signing of those treaties. When a few years ago I was appointed plenipotentiary to negotiate a treaty with the United States it was stated by constitutional writers that no real change had been made inasmuch as my appointment by His Majesty the king was the outcome of an order in council passed by the Imperial government.
1706	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Lapointe
The same with regard to the issuance of powers and the ratification that must take place after the signing of a treaty. That ratification was also made by His Majesty the king upon an order in council of the Imperial government and not of the Canadian government, even where Canada was concerned. Now treaties signed on behalf of Canada will be signed by a plenipotentiary appointed by His Majesty the king upon a recommendation of the Canadian government, and the issuance of powers will be made also upon the recommendation of the government of Canada. In the same way the ratification of treaties will be carried out upon the recommendation of the government of this Dominion. All the other formalities which, according to constitutional writers, have been adhered to as symbolic of the unity of the empire have been discarded as being no longer in harmony with the conditions now prevailing among the nations of the empire; for, as I have pointed out, the one great symbol of unity now is His Majesty the King. Let me observe that for this as for most of the other matters included in the report there is no need for any legislation; all that is needed is to harmonize the practice and usages with the present constitutional position of the dominions.
I come now to an objection raised yesterday by my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) that possibly we might now be tacitly involved in a treaty in which we had taken no part, by reason of the fact that we had not responded to the call of the government initiating the treaty. In consequence of the change that has been brought about, all the nations of the empire are on the same footing, and no treaty must necessarily be initiated by Great Britain. We in Canada have the right to initiate any treaty which concerns ourselves. If we initiate a treaty relating to matters in which some of the other dominions may have an interest, surely it is our duty to inform those dominions in that respect. Take for instance the case of a treaty which we might enter into with the United States with regard to the fisheries in the Atlantic in which Newfoundland would be concerned. Our duty, in accordance with the procedure that has been accepted, would be, before entering into negotiations, to inform Newfoundland of our intention to make a treaty with the United States in that matter, and if Newfoundland desired to join she would be free to do so. If, on the other hand, she did not answer-and only in that case- then undoubtedly we should be free to carry on our negotiations and Newfoundland could not complain. But there is a reservation: Newfoundland would not be in any way bound
[Mr. Lapointe.l
should the treaty in any way involve her in active obligations. In such a case Newfoundland, or any other dominion for that matter, although she might not have responded, although she might have neglected to declare her position in the matter after being informed of the intention of the Canadian government to enter into negotiations, would not be involved in any active obligation as a consequence of the making of that treaty. Even here the principle of the equality of status is confirmed more markedly than it was before because, as I have stated, we are all on an equal footing. If a treaty concerns us we have the right to initiate it and we inform Great Britain or any other part of the empire of our intentions in the matter if they are interested therein.


Edward Joseph Garland: Just how far does the principle of equality of status extend? Does it extend, for example, to treaties involving assistance in the event of war?


Ernest Lapointe: No, I am sure it does
not, and this by reason of these words:
It must, however, before taking any steps which might involve the other governments in any active obligations, obtain their definite assent.
In any case where any other government may be involved in active obligations-and the hon. member is referring to a case in which there would be such obligations-then the definite assent of the government involved must be given.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is this the implication of the minister's remarks, that Canada in future will hold a neutral position unless she has given her assent to participation in such a treaty?


Ernest Lapointe: The discussion of that
phase of the matter would lead me into a long argument.


Edward Joseph Garland: But it is so
essential.


Ernest Lapointe: I say that Canada will always be free to take whatever steps she thinks fit. She will not be bound to any active obligation.
Now, as to foreign affairs, the outstanding feature of the report is, I believe, the definite recognition that neither Great Britain nor the dominions are committed to any active obligations except with the assent of their own governments or parliaments. It is stated clearly in the report. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) yesterday invited me to speak of the Locarno treaty, owing to the

Imperial Conference-Mr. Lapointe
fact that some one had made reference to it in the British House of Commons. If my hon. friend reads the resolution in the report, as I am sure he has done many times, he will see that it is merely an expression of congratulation to the Foreign Secretary of England for the part he took in trying to bring about peace in Europe. I do not think I am betraying any secret when I say that we have taken the position that we are not bound by the Locarno treaty, which was initiated and entered into by the British government without the cooperation of Canada. I have no criticism to offer in that -respect; it was largely a matter of concern to the government of Great Britain, and was a European matter. As I have seen it expressed in the newspapers of this country, we may be bound to some extent if there is a war between the nations which are signatories to the treaty; we may have some obligation on account of our -membership in the British commonwealth of nations and as members of the -League of Nations, but our obligations as British subjects and as members of the League of Nations are quite different from the obligations which we would assume if we were to guarantee the boundaries between France and Germany, thus assuming obligations with regard to foreign powers at a distance of over 3,000 miles from the limits of Canada. I think we have exactly the same reason for not entering into that treaty as Great Britain had when she refused to give the same guarantee to the eastern boundary of Germany as she gave to the western boundary. The eastern boundaries of Germany touch on Poland, and in that connection the British government refused to sign any guarantee. That guarantee was signed by France, but the British government refused to be involved in the question of -the boundaries on the eastern side of Germany because they were too remote, and the same reason would apply with us so far as the western boundary is concerned. So I may say to the hon. member for Lafoelle that Canada has not ratified the pact of Locarno and is not a party to it.
The change with regard to the Governor General also comes under this heading of political modifications. The Governor General is no longer in any respect an officer of the Imperial government; he has virtually the position of a viceroy, having the same prerogatives and powers as His Majesty the King. He is no longer a channel of communication, as he formerly was, and although in this country I have heard and read that this was not a change, the gentlemen representing Britain who signed the report had a different conception, because they state in the report that it is a change.


Peter McGibbon: May I ask a question?
Was not the same thing agreed to at the conference which Sir Robert Borden attended?


Ernest Lapointe: I answered that question before it was asked. Indeed, it was a change going much deeper than most people realized. Heretofore the Governor General, notwithstanding what was stated to the con-t-arary, was the representative of the British government, as well as the representative of the king. He acted as a channel of communication between the governments of Great Britain and the dominion; he represented to the Dominion government the wishes of the British government, and kept the British government in touch with the views of the Dominion executive. There was certainly something anomalous in the position of a Governor General who was bound to accept the advice of his ministers but who was at the same time informing another government of the policies and the wishes of those same ministers. It may be that it is important, and I think it is, that the British government should be represented in Canada as Canada is represented in the capital of the empire, but the British government must and should be represented by an official who would not be the representative of the king and who would not be the Governor General of Canada.
So far as the legislative sphere is concerned, it is in some respects difficult to harmonize the principle of equality with existing conditions and with special situations which have to be considered. Here is what the report says with regard to the general principle covering the matter:
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. Consequently, it would not be in accordance with constitutional practice for advice to be tendered to His Majesty by His Majesty's government in Great Britain in any matter appertaining to the affairs of a dominion against the views of the government of that dominion.
The appropriate procedure with regard to projected legislation in one of the self-governing parts of the empire -which may affect the interests of other self-governing parts is previous consultation between His Majesty's ministers in the several parts concerned.
The points on which there seems to be a conflict with the doctrine of equality are very few. They are the powers of disallowance and in some cases reservation of dominion legislation, the doubt as to the powers of the dominion legislatures to enact laws having to do with extra-territorial jurisdiction, and
1708	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Lapointe
more particularly the provisions of the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865. Nothing definite has been suggested in the report as to the change which should be made with regard to these subjects, but the conference has recommended that a committee of legal experts should be appointed by Great Britain and the representatives of the dominions to inquire into the whole matter and make recommendations that would safeguard all interests and still agree with the general principle laid down by the conference.
I will deal briefly with each one of these subjects. I am glad everyone who has so far taken part in the debate, even my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, has agreed that the power of dissallowance is obsolete and can be said at present to have no constitutional effect. Indeed, Sir Robert Borden used very strong language in that regard, when he said that this power is constitutionally dead. There are, however, in the constitutions of some dominions, matters which have to be reserved for the assent of the king in order to protect certain particular interests. Foil instance, laws affecting alterations of the powers of the states of the Commopwealth :odj Australia have to be reserved for the assent of the king under the constitution of Australia; laws affecting the constitution or powers of the provincial councils of South Africa and certain acts of the lower house there must also be reserved. All these features would1 have to be considered by the committee of legal experts.
Perhaps at this stage I might say something about the rights of the various dominions to change their own constitutions. I have already had occasion, even during the present session, to refer to the British North America Act, and to give the reasons why in that constitution power was not given to the Dominion of Canada to alter it. Confederation was a compromise. The provinces agreed to give up some of their powers and entrust them to the federal authority, while taking to themselves certain other powers, and within the limits of their jurisdiction they are as supreme and they have just as many rights of selfgovernment as the Dominion of Canada has within its own jurisdiction. The power of altering the constitution was not given in the British North America Act because of the circumstances of this country, to which I need not refer. In Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish Free State they have this power of modifying their own constitution, but not to as large an extent as some people seem to think.


Mr. BENNETT:: Except Australia.


Ernest Lapointe: Australia? Well, some of the states of Australia cannot-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mean the commonwealth.


Ernest Lapointe: The commonwealth itself has wide powers, but they have to be exercised by absolute majorities in both houses of parliament and approved on referendum by the electors; and every time any change with regard to the relations between, the commonwealth and the states of Australia has been sought that change has always been defeated when the referendum went to the people. In New Zealand some important constitutional changes would have to be reserved for the royal assent. In South Africa changes affecting the number and distribution of seats in the lower house, the native franchise in the Cape province, and equality of the Dutch and English languages can be brought about only by two-thirds majority of both houses at a joint sitting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: After ten years.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, after ten years,
and as I said before, changes affecting the provinces of South Africa have to be reserved for the assent of the king. In this country, as I have already stated, the provinces are autonomous in their own sphere. The crown acts with regard to provincial matters upon the advice of the government of the province. As I had occasion to state in other circumstances, when we speak of the autonomy of Canada we speak of Canada as the confederation of nine provinces, each one of those provinces having as supreme powers within its own sphere as the federal authority here has with respect to its sphere. May I quote here the words of Sir Robert Borden in the House of Commons in a speech delivered in 1917 with regard to the crown acting upon the advice of the provinces in those matters:
The crown acts in the United Kingdom and in all the self-governing dominions of the empire, it acts in the United Kingdom upon the advice of the ministers of the United Kingdom, it acts in each of the dominions upon the ad-vice_ of the appropriate ministers-in federal affairs, upon the advice of federal ministers; in provincial and state affairs, upon the advice of provincial and state ministers. It is the same crown throughout, acting upon the advice of different ministers. That tie of allegiance to the crown is the tie which chiefly binds together the empire to-day so far as constitutional considerations are concerned.
The language of the report preserves the right of the provinces which are absolutely self-governing in those matters coming within their jurisdiction. The principle of equality

Imperial Conference-Mr. Lapointe
is not, I submit, affected by such condition, which is merely the expression of the will of the people.
Many people claim that the fact that we cannot in this parliament alter our own constitution is creating a state of subordination.
I claim that so long as this condition exists because of the will of the Canadian people, a condition which will exist as long as the Canadian people wish it to do so, changes that could be made shall have to be made by the parties to the contract. But that condition, which is dependent upon our own wish in the matter, does not, I claim, create a state of subordination. I deny most emphatically that a condition of subordination and colonial inferiority is essential to the preservation of the rights of minorities in Canada. And let me tell the leader of the opposition that those for whom I claim I have some right to speak, have always fought for responsible government and for selfgovernment in this country, for freedom and national status within the British Empire and under the British crown.
As I have already stated, the report of the conference does not and could not in any way modify the pact of confederation. Let me say, without any hesitation, however, that in this matter I entirely agree, without any reservation, with my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), to the effect that our own protection, as far as those rights are concerned, depends upon ourselves, that we must look to ourselves for the safeguard of our rights and our interests. No authority outside of Canada can effectively protect them for us. We must rely upon ourselves for the safeguard and protection of those rights, working in cooperation and understanding with our fellow Canadians in this country. It would not be possible, Sir, to secure the permanent adhesion of any section of the Canadian people to any plan whereby there would be any political force superior to their own government and their own constitution which could, even indirectly, have authority to control their actions. It is not an act of isolation or indifference; it is an act of readiness to serve in the nation's own way. If Canada goes wrong, she will go wrong on her own responsibility and on her own motion, but Canada will never go wrong; I think I may say that.
Now my hon. friend read yesterday what he said were words of the premier of Quebec published in the Round Table. I may say that I have a letter from the premier in which he is far from blaming or criticizing the part
which my right hon. friend and myself have taken in the conference; and he took the trouble to send me-because some newspapers had reported him in that light-a copy of the Chronicle-Telegraph, in which his speech made on the occasion when Lord Willingdon was in Quebec, appeared in its entirety. Here is what he said:
Since these last few days, I am still prouder because Canada and the other dominions, by unanimous consent, have been admitted, on equal terms, to the family table.
The British Empire is to-day a great and powerful society of great and powerful nations. They are not united by chains even of golden links, but by bonds much stronger, which appeal much more to human hearts and human minds, bonds of mutual _ trust, common interests, sincere and everlasting friendship. Such bonds are unbreakable, and I admire the spirit that prevailed at the Imperial conference and which brought out such results. Never could the bonds which unite us be stronger than those by which we are held together.
If I read English well, this is not a criticism. May I now say a few words concerning the rights claimed by Canada and other dominions to have extra-territorial effect attach to their legislation?


Robert James Manion: May I ask a question
for my information and for the information of the House? I am trying to understand the minister as I generally do. Do I understand him to say that his attitude is that he would be perfectly satisfied to see the parliament of Canada absolutely able to change our constitution as regards all matters relating to our internal affairs without submitting the question to the Privy Council in England?


Ernest Lapointe: Why should my hon.
friend say that when, even in a debate which we had during this session, I opposed a motion to that effect coming from an hon. member? I said that no change has been made. I said that no change to the British North America Act can be made without the consent of the parties to the pact and I have said that in this speech. My remarks concerning minorities in Canada are quite independent of that. I said that no change had been made; but as regards the protection of minorities, I have not the fears which the leader of the opposition has.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish in any way to put words into my hon. friend's mouth, but I listened as attentively as I could and I drew that conclusion from his remarks. Some of my hon. friends say that they drew the same conclusion, so that my hon. friend is somewhat to blame.
1710	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Lapointe


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member wants to attach that impression to my remarks.


Robert James Manion: I do not.


Ernest Lapointe: I am well aware of the language I have been using; I have given some attention to the preparation of this speech, and I do not think any hon. member will be able to lend to my remarks a sense which they do not possess. I know what I mean and I think I am saying it pretty clearly.


Robert James Manion: I think the hon. member should thank me for making his remarks clear, because it was not clear to me.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend thinks
he deserves my thanks I will extend them to him with great pleasure, but I think we shall wait until my remarks appear in Hansard.


Robert James Manion: I can get along without the thanks.


Ernest Lapointe: I can get along without the interruption too. There has been doubt as to whether the dominions possess the right to give to their legislation or enactments extra-territorial effect. The courts have decided both ways. At times the Privy Council has decided in favour of granting that right to the dominion, and at other times it has denied that right to the dominion. The courts in the dominions themselves have also not been unanimous in that respect. We in Canada have always claimed that we have that right. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), who seems to be absolutely adverse to changes, I know has not claimed it; but the governments of Canada have claimed it and the matter has more than ever after the war come to a head from a practical standpoint.
In 1920 the president of the Air Board asked this government to take the necessary steps to make it clear that legislation or regulations concerning aviation would follow Canadian subjects even after they had crossed over the boundary line. We have the same complication with regard to customs matters. It seems necessary for Canada that Canadian subjects who, for instance, conspire outside the limits of this country to defraud the public treasury, should be amenable to the laws of the land. In 1920 the then government-and again I must say that the leader of the opposition was a member of it-adopted an order in council asking the Imperial government to amend the British North America Act so as to make it clear that Canada has this right

of extra-territorial jurisdiction. May I be permitted to read a couple of sentences from that order in council, because its language suits me better than the present language of some hon. members opposite? It reads:
Whether the laws of Canada in like cases impose a similar obligation upon the domestic tribunals may be a debatable question, and the purpose of this report is to submit that the existence of any doubt as to the propriety of resolving that question in the affirmative is incompatible with the true purpose and intent of the constitution of the Dominion, and the position which Canada occupies as a constituent state of the empire exercising with respect to all matters appertaining to the self-government of Canada, sovereign legislative authority.
And further there is this fine language in the order in council:
In the growth of the constitution the United Kingdom and the dominions have under His Majesty relations which may be assimilated to those nf independent sovereign states-
If a Liberal had even written or signed such a doctrine it would be termed a rebellion.
each exercising within its own compass exclusive and independent sovereign powers of legislation and government, and which make it constitutionally the duty of the parliament of the United Kingdom on the one hand, to see that its legislation does not invade the appropriate sphere of dominion authority, and for the parliament of the dominion, on the other, to see that its legislation is confined within that sphere. By the observance of these principles perfect harmony is ensured, but the attribute of unlimited sovereignty with its incidents is just as essential for the peace, order and good government of Canada within its constitutional range of authority as it is for the United Kingdom within its own domain, or for _ the empire as a whole in relation to imperial affairs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whose order in council
did the minister say that was?


Ernest Lapointe: It is dated the 5th
February, 1920.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the recommendation
of whom?


Ernest Lapointe: On the recommendation of the Minister of Justice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I thought.


Ernest Lapointe: My	hon. friend says:
"That is what I thought," but the Minister of Justice did not pass the order in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Ernest Lapointe: He	recommended it;
it was passed by the government, and the leader of the opposition was a distinguished member of that government. After this was

Imperial Conference-Mr. Lapointe
adopted by the government of that day, steps were taken for the purpose of giving effect to it. A resolution was first introduced into and adopted by parliament; but its language did not suit the officers of the crown in England, and I myself two or three years ago introduced a new resolution, the language of which had been agreed to in both England and Canada. Unfortunately that resolution was amended by the Senate in a way that made it quite unworkable; but we have the assurance that when an address is sent by the Dominion of Canada to the Imperial parliament, we shall obtain that change. The reason why no step has been taken in that direction this year is because this question of extra-territorial jurisdiction is submitted to a committee and there is no reason why we should precipitate ourselves in the matter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What was the nature of the resolution to which the Minister of Justice
referred?


Ernest Lapointe: This is how it reads:
An enactment of the parliament of Canada if expressed to operate extra-territoriaily shall have and be deemed to have had that operation if and in so far as it is a law for or ancillary to the peace, order and good govern ment of Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Was that an address to secure an amendment at that time to the Brit' ish North America Act?


Ernest Lapointe: That was made by way of an address. I come now to the Colonial Laws Validity Act, which is one of the imperial enactments which is going to be considered by this committee of legal experts. It is indeed a relic of olden days when only a partial measure of self government was enjoyed by the dominions. By the Colonial Laws Validity Act, which is an act of 1865, it is enacted that:
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 - ithority 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.
It is on the provisions of this act that the Privy Council last year declared invalid article 1025 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which prohibited appeals to the Privy Council in criminal matters, and the judgment that was delivered was based on this act because there are in existence, as my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) said the
other day, two old laws, one of 1833, and one of 1844, granting to subjects of His Majesty in the colonies the right to take their case to the Privy Council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Colony or dominion.


Ernest Lapointe: Or dominion, but at that time there were really no dominions in existence. I must say that Sir John Thompson, when he was Minister of Justice for Canada, took a strong attitude to the effect that in matters which were within the jurisdiction ^ of the Dominion of Canada under the British North America Act, the legislation of Canada superseded the legislation of the Imperial parliament passed prior to the enactment of the British North America Act. Though I do not like to place my opinion beside that of such a distinguished Minister of Justice as Sir John Thompson was, I do not agree with him, and as a matter of pure law I think the Privy Council was right in saying that the Colonial Laws Validity Act rendered invalid and unconstitutional article 1025 of the Criminal Code. I do not know whether my hon. friend from West Calgray will agree with me in that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has left out one sentence that he intended to say. The Privy Council decided that with respect to Canada the section is binding. I wholly agree with my hon. friend.


Ernest Lapointe: What I say is that article 1025 of the Criminal Code was on the statute books of Canada from 1888; it had been accepted by the people of Canada, and if any old legislation, legislation almost one hundred years old, obstructs the will of the Canadian people, I am in favour of repealing it. I may say that we were to submit a question in this regard to parliament during this present session, but it has been postponed to the next session owing to the appointment of the committee which is going to deal with this matter.
Now I come to the question of appeals to the Privy Council, which was perhaps the most interesting and the most important part of the remarks of the leader of the opposition yesterday. I call the attention of the House to the language of the report concerning appeals to the Privy Council. It says:
Another matter which we discussed, in which a general constitutional principle was raised, concerned the conditions governing appeals from judgments in the dominions to the judicial committee of the Privy Council. From these discussions it became clear that it was no part of the policy of His Majesty's government in Great Britain that questions affecting judicial appeals should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the wishes of the part of

Lapointe
Imperial Conference-Mr. the empire primarily affected. It was, however, generally recognized that, where changes in the existing system were proposed which, while primarily affecting one part, raised issues in which other parts were also concerned, such changes ought only to be carried out after consultation and discussion.
The leader of the opposition took strong exception to this part of the report of the conference; indeed, it was upon this part that his fears were based with regard to the rights of minorities in Canada. I may say that this part of the report is simply stating what the facts are; it is stating the position as it exists, and I am ready to join issue with my hon. friend in that regard. I took the position at the conference, and I am pleased to reiterate it here, that in so far as appeals to the Privy Council are concerned, there are differences of opinion in Canada as to whether or not they should be retained. I myself would not be in favour at the present time of doing away with appeals to the Privy Council, but the position I took there, and the position I take here, is that it is for the people of this Dominion of Canada to decide whether they want to retain these appeals or not. These questions I think ought to be discussed not in a political sense altogether, and I am afraid that there was some political flavour to the remarks of my hon. friend yesterday and to the amendment with which he concluded his remarks. However, if he wants to place this question in the political arena, I for one am prepared to follow him into that arena, and to plead that it is for us in the Dominion of Canada to decide whether we want to retain those appeals or not. In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I am only following the stand that was taken in 1875, fifty years ago, by Edward Blake when he was Minister of Justice for Canada. Edward Blake claimed that it was for Canada to decide as to that, and I repeat with Edward Blake with regard to this prerogative, which is called an imperial prerogative-that is, the right of any British subject to go to the foot of the throne with his case how is it that this prerogative does mot apply to His Majesty's subjects in Great Britain? How is it that the people of the colonies enjoy the exercise of this prerogative when the people of 'Great Britain can have final judgment passed by the courts of their own land, without appeal to the Privy Council? I am not one of those who believe that we should do away altogether with appeals to the Privy Council. I think that in some matters, for instance matters regarding constitutional issues, the gentlemen of the Privy Council should hear our appeals, although in that loyal state of Australia they have done away with the right of appeal on constitutional matters and for what reason? They 
said it was for those in Australia who knew the conditions in the commonwealth to decide as to Australian matters, and certainly any citizen of this Dominion is free to proclaim whether or not he believes in the retention of appeals to the Privy Council.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
minister give the House one real reason why he still adheres to the idea of that form of subordination?


Ernest Lapointe: I must say that I think that on questions arising for instance between the Dominion and the provinces with regard to matters which the provinces claim are within their jurisdiction, and in respect to which they are in conflict with this Dominion, it may be proper that the appeals should be to the Privy Council, but I am not a fanatic in regard to this matter at all.


Edward Joseph Garland: I had
hoped the hon. minister was not, because recalling a sentence of his speech recently, I took it he did want to be inconsistent. On ourselves we must depend for protection of our rights and toleration as among ourselves. I would like him to apply that principle to this matter.


Ernest Lapointe: That does not mean
that I am opposed to appeals to the Privy Council. But I must say it is not the Privy Council on which I rely for the protection of my rights or the rights of others.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then why
not do away with the appeal to it?


Ernest Lapointe: It is a question for discussion and deliberation, but I would not like to say that I would favour doing away altogether with appeals to the Privy Council.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister is getting very near it.


Ernest Lapointe: I have a strong leaning.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Sliding downhill very
rapidly.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend the
leader of the opposition, who expressed such fears about this matter touching the prerogative of the Privy Council, came into the parliament of Canada, I think, four years before I did. I have been here twenty-three years;
I think he has been in parliament twenty-six or twenty-seven years, and he sat here silent while a section was being enaeted in the statutes of Canada many years ago doing away with appeal to the Privy Council in

Imperial Conjerence-Mr. Lapointe
certain matters. My hon. friend sat absolutely silent. He did not think the privileges of the minority, or his privileges, were interfered with by that amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: I said nothing about
minorities.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, if so I am in the
judgment of the House. I am glad he is now seeing the error of his way.


Hugh Guthrie: I said there was a constitutional safeguard to be found, and in regard to this safeguard I do not apply the same reasoning to criminal appeal.


Ernest Lapointe: It is the same principle.


Hugh Guthrie: No.no.


Ernest Lapointe: If the prerogative does
not exist in regard to criminal appeal, why should it exist in other matters?


Hugh Guthrie: I said it did not matter
much with regard to Australia because the constitution of Australia was not the same as ours.


Ernest Lapointe: It is not a question of right but of opportunity. We cannot do away with these appeals by enactment in this parliament. When the question is discussed of course my hon. friend may oppose the proposition.


Edward Joseph Garland: It was not a question of fear.


Ernest Lapointe: It was a question of fear on the part of my hon. friend, but I am trying to allay his fears in that regard. Really I do not think that we are so linked up with that prerogative for the preservation of the rights of any section of people in Canada as my hon. friend would seem to believe. I cannot agree with my hon. friend, and I would have to go back one hundred years to meet him on any common ground in that respect and adjust my views to what 1 believe his idea to be. As far as the rights of Quebec are concerned, my hon. friend read a few lines from Keith in that regard. He is a great constitutional writer-none better- but when he says that in Quebec the opinion of the people is so-and-so he is talking about something he has read in some of the papers in Canada which do not represent Quebec and the views of Quebec. Let me tell him that, far from being frightened about Quebec, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, and I have received telegrams in the last three weeks from St. Jean Baptiste Society, from L'Action Francais and from influential bodies
representing the French race-and I know the Premier of Quebec has received them also- asking to do away with the appeals to the Privy7 Council. Surely they have not the same fear as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. I may say that perhaps the judgment in the Labrador case has had the effect of turning the minds of some people in that direction, but not with me. I said that I thought perhaps the Nadan judgment was according to law. I think that what must be done is to repeal the Colonial Laws Validity Act on which the judgment was based. In many parts of this country there has been an agitation on account of the judgment in the Nadan case. I do not say anything about the Labrador matter. I do not say that the judgment is perfect. I would have liked a different judgment myself, but after all the Labrador case was not an appeal to the Privy Council. It was not an ordinary case. Both Newfoundland and the Dominion of Canada found a troublesome question in regard to the boundary and agreed to submit it to the Privy Council, a sort of judicial tribunal and selected by both parties, and the losing party must accept the decision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not a court case. It was a submission to arbitration.


Mr LAPOINTE:: So that that is not the feeling that animates me, but to alleviate the fears of my hon. friend with respect to Quebec I will tell him that the men in Quebec who represent really the aspirations of French-Canadians are applying to have the appeal to Privy Council done away with. On all these subjects no motion for ratification surely was necessary. The principle has been recognized as it was before, and if legislation is necessary after the expert committee has done its work, then such legislation would be submitted to this parliament.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This parliament?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Or the British parliament.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, this parliament
also.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I hope that promise will be kept.


Ernest Lapointe: I have heard in this
House, not in the course of this debate, but in the course of the debate on the address, that it was important to keep this parliament, in some state of subordination because of the possibility of a foolish government in Canada enacting crazy legislation which would affect
1714	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Lapointe
certain rights and privileges and then having no safeguard to prevent this legislation going into effect. Those who use this argument should apply the other end of it too: it might well be that the crazy government instead of being on this side of the House might be on the other side. Possibly there are people in Canada, especially among the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite, who would like to be subject to the control of a parliament in Great Britain which might not represent their own views. During the great strike two years ago in England, all the newspapers declared that Britain was on the verge of having a communist government at the head of the country's affairs. I do not think all Canadians, even on the other side of the House, would care to be under the control of or to be in any way subordinate to a communist parliament on the other side of the Atlantic. It is my honest belief as a Canadian that we stand in less danger of having a foolish government in Canada than do the people in any other part of the world.
The work of the Imperial conference of 1926 has been accepted everywhere, not only in Great Britain but -in the dominions, as having been of great value. It is commended in all quarters. I should like to have the time to quote many expressions of opinion in that regard, for even men who went there far from being satisfied left with a sense of satisfaction which means something to those who have at heart the preservation of the empire. Here is what General Hertzog said before leaving London:
I feel that nothing has ever before been accomplished so calculated to lay a deep and enduring foundation for national cooperation between members of the British commonwealth of nations and insure real good feeling between us all.
A very influential American newspaper, the Washington Post, commenting on the conference, wrote:
It may be observed that if the government of George III had possessed the wdsdom of the government of George V, there would have been no declaration of independence, and the United States would now be part of the British commonwealth. The evolution from an empire to a commonwealth is accomplished by mutual consent, and no written constitution will follow7 to bind the bargain.
Mr. Amery, who I need not say is a strong imperialist, has the following to say:
The conference marks the acknowledged coming-of-age of the younger nations of our commonwealth, and that is a great fact in history which it is worth while pausing a moment to recall. I think the time will undoubtedly come when the growth of the younger British

nations in the bosom of the British commonwealth will be recognized to have been at least as great an event in the history of the world as the coming into existence of other nations during the last fifty or sixty years which have attracted much more public attention, because they have come into existence as the result of wars, whether rvars that have led to unity, as in the case of the coming into existence of the united Italy or the united Germany, or wars which have broken up older organizations, as those which have created the new countries of central and north-eastern Europe. . . . What it does mean is that each partner in the empire is equally entitled to exercise every function of national life, and if any such function is carried on for it by some other part of the empire, that is a matter of consent, of convenience, of mutual arrangement, and not evidence of subordination on the part of one partner in the empire to another.
In this country, unfortunately, the situation is not what it is in Great Britain and some of the other dominions of the empire. Before I commit myself may I be allowed to quote certain words from an important periodical in this country, the Dalhousie Review,-all the more important, perhaps, in that the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Ben-nett) is numbered among its directors. At the conclusion of a very clever and significant article on the work of the Imperial conference the writer says:
No one appears to have any serious complaint to make against the decisions of the conference with reference to Canada. Then why a Tweedledum-Tweedledee partisan wrangle over them? Why not accept gratefully what has been accomplised, and devote our united efforts to perfecting the good work in all its details?
This is the first time in Canada, as I believe it is the first time in the history of the British commonwealth of -nations, that an amendment has been moved in the shape of the one submitted in this instance, and speeches have been delivered outside of parliament such as have -been made in this connection, as a result of the work of an Imperial conference. Heretofore when the Prime Minister of Canada and his colleagues were attending an Imperial conference-and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) was at one time a -member of a government that took part in such a conference-did parliament take exception to their work? Did anyone ask that the approval of parliament -be granted? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and those who were members of the House of Commons a.t the time, to bear in mind the words of hon. gentlemen, -that these were sacred issues which ought not to be made the subject of political propaganda and partisan discussion.

Imperial Conference-Mr. Lapointe


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The Prime Minister assured us that these decisions of the Imperial conference were not binding unless ratified by parliament. How else, then, can we obtain sanction for these decisions except as a result of free discussion in this House?


Ernest Lapointe: I have no complaint to make about free discussion, but I think the amendment goes a little further than free discussion; and I say that my hon. friends of the Conservative party, by the voice of their leader and the moving of this amendment, have sounded the first discordant note in the British commonwealth with regard to the Imperial conference. Are they sincere? Is my hon. friend sincere? As I have said, never before was any motion introduced in parliament such as the one now proposed, and my hon. friend never before protested against such a course as we are now following. Do hon. gentlemen think that they help to preserve the empire by adopting such an attitude? Do they think they are adding to the value of the Imperial conference? Last fall after the general elections, which I believe were held on September 14,-the conference was to open in London in October-views were advanced that under the circumstances Canada could abstain from attending the conference: it was an arduous undertaking for men who had been during the course of two years in the thick of a political fight which we all recollect. Conservative newspapers and Conservative public men expressed the view in no uncertain terms that it was the duty of the government returned to power to attend that conference; it was a sacred duty, and we would have been strongly and bitterly criticized if we had not done so. We did go there, with no preparation of any kind; I do not complain of that, but we were there six weeks, during which time we endeavoured to represent Canada as best we could, and I do not think Canada has reason to complain of our work.


Mr. IRVINE:: Might I ask the minister
a question?


Ernest Lapointe: Would my hon. friend
let me finish?


William Irvine: I am very sincere in this.
I want to know if there is any good reason why this report was not brought before parliament at an earlier date?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not see why I
should be asked such a question in the middle of a sentence which concerns an altogether different matter. I say that we were there
trying to do our duty, and I think we did our duty. Is it fair, after coming back to Canada with the sense of having been loyal to our task and of having fulfilled it to the best of our ability that I, for instance, should be confronted with the statement that I have neglected and compromised interests which are dearer to me than they are to th'e leader of the opposition? If he will permit me to say so, I believe in my modest way that I am just as able to protect those interests as he is. I believe it is not fair;
I believe it is not conducive to empire building, and I believe that if Canadian public men must face that kind of warfare perhaps some of them might very well come to the opinion already held by others that they should not attend these conferences but should look for the settlement of Canadian questions on this side of the water, by Canadians and in this country only. That is where my hon. friends are leading with the warfare they are now waging, and I claim it is not fair.
Mr. Speaker, the rights of the minorities in Canada and the rights of the minority in Quebec can, I believe, be safeguarded by myself quite as well as by the leader of the opposition. He is afraid for the future, and for those who will come fifty or one hundred years from now; let him unite with me to correct the present evils instead of looking so far ahead. This is not a fair way to conduct political warfare on a question of this kind. I do not wish to say more in that regard, but I resented very much and still resent the implications contained in the speech of the leader of the opposition and in the amendment which he brought forward. I have done my duty, and I think I can still do my duty.
I know this attempt will be futile, however, and I will forget it altogether in order to bring my remarks to a more pleasant and happy conclusion. There is no such thing as an indefinite status quo in national life; populations grow, conditions of life change, and it is the part of wisdom for governments to legislate for present and future requirements. The British Empire is composed of men of almost every race; it includes nations developing their destinies under various racial, economic and political conditions peculiar to themselves. In our membership we have elements which, outside of the empire, would often lead to war, but the aim is to evolve a system by which various interests, even though at first sight they may seem opposed and antagonistic, may be coordinated in such a manner that individual national sentiments and industrial and economic development may be fully promoted and encouraged by the

Imperial Conference-Mr. Lapointe
various means and policies best suited to the respective peoples, at the same time engendering sympathy and good feeling towards one another. Such was the spirit which animated the men who took part in the conference of 1926. The British Empire has been founded and is maintained on and by compromise. There could not be a more striking illustration of that than to see a Dutchman from South Africa, a Frenchman from Canada and an Irishman from the Free State meeting on an equal footing with the public men of Great Britain, and cooperating with them in an endeavour to find the best mode of preserving the association of our nations.
We are celebrating this year the sixtieth anniversary of confederation; the work of building a nation in Canada has been achieved, and no more evidence of that fact is needed than the debate which is now proceeding. We may say with pride that on the whole the task of the statesmen of 1867 has been successful. Our country', as well as the British commonwealth of nations, is founded on compromise. There may be some who are impatient for changes in the pact which was agreed upon in 1867, and I would be the last to suggest that some modifications might not be made which would improve conditions. I fully agree that the problems of 1927 must be settled in the light of conditions which exist in 1927; that the questions of to-day must not be settled as they would have been settled by the men who lived sixty years ago, but as they would have been settled had those men been living to-day. But certain essen-tional and inherent conditions of our national existence require the greatest care and prudence in their study, and whatever suggestions may be considered the basis of the pact of confederation must be maintained at least in so far as our internal affairs are concerned. Sir, the principles and fundamental ideals which underlie that' pact are the fuel necessary that the torch may burn brighter and illuminate through the darkness of our conflicts and difficulties the road to peace, progress and nationhood in this country.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can cordially congratulate the hon. Minister of Justice upon the strength and vigour of his argument, and in many respects we on this side will, I am sure, quite heartily agree with him. A large part of his address comprised the reading of selections from orders in council passed and statements made by members of Conservative administrations from Dime to time since the day's of Sir John A. Macdonald, down to the present. I yield to no man, Mr. Speaker, in my advocacy of a
[Mr. Lapointe. J
self-reliant, strong and vigorous national life in Canada. I yield to no man in advocacy of the cutting off of every antiquated encumbrance which would prevent, or tend to prevent, the development in Canada of a national life of the highest character and the greatest intellectual vigour. This country comprises half a continent. Our population numbers nine millions of people. We have resources available to us such as no other population of like number in the wide world possess to-day. We have problems of every kind and description-political, social, educational and industrial-to solve for the great advantage of the country to-day, and for its material and moral prosperity and progress in the future. Therefore we on this side are as strong nationalists in all that pertains to the development of Canada and its national life as were our predecessors-Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir John Thompson, or any other of the old leaders of the Conservative party to whom the minister made reference this afternoon. But we on this side, and the party which we represent throughout the country, do conceive that the best aspirations and traditions of the two great races that originally founded the Canadian confederacy-and the men of all other races who have come in and declared themselves brothers of the blood with us in building up and developing Canada will find this to be the case-that we are true to our best traditions, that we will be carrying out our highest and best ideals, that we will best ensure the integrity and stability of this country for all time, by maintaining our political unity, not only with the British crown but with Great Britain and the other dominions beyond the seas; and whatever difficulties and problems we may encounter in working along that line, I say that the end to be attained is far more consistent with our best traditions of the past, is far more honourable to the two great races in Canada, than to form any other conceivable connection with any other political power for the purpose of securing our national defence and the maintenance of the integrity of this country. But those are not the only issues which are presented to us to-day.
We have heard the Prime Minister of this country make the definite statement to the House that this report of the Imperial conference would be submitted to parliament with a recommendation that it be approved by us; but there is the further consideration that the new policy which he introduced last session can only be affirmed and continued by the carrying out of that program to which he pledged himself on December 13 last, in the debate on the address, when he said that
1717 [DOT]

Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan
the report and every portion of it, as' it was written, would be submitted for the formal approval of this House. He speaks about other imperial conferences having been held in times past and no decision having been taken thereon by the House of Commons. But at the very last session of the House he introduced a new resolution, dealing with the report which had been adopted by the Imperial conference of 1923. He then declared that that report had been unanimously approved by the government's representatives at the Imperial conference, but that was not sufficient. He stated that not only did the ministers of the other self-governing dominions take the same position, in giving their assent to these resolutions, that what Canada had done with respect to a certain particular treaty was done in the right and proper way, but that the conference had further stated with respect to certain classes of treaties in the future that the procedure then adopted should hereafter be followed. Therefore he came before the House and declared that he required from the parliament of Canada a resolution which would express the definite approval. of the program enunciated at the Imperial conference of 1923, whereby the action of future governments of Canada wou'd be restricted to the scope of the resolution and the schedule which he then presented to parliament, and he declared that for all time in the future, until parliament had ratified amendments or modifications thereto, these resolutions would be binding upon the successive governments of Canada, in conformity with the principles announced at the Imperial conference, with regard to the negotiation of treaties and the extent to which they would be binding upon this parliament-
Mr. MACKENZIE KIN'G:	May I interrupt my hon. friend just to make the point clear as to the scope of the reference he is making? It was one portion of the report, that which dealt with treaties, that was submitted to the House, not the entire report of the conference. I think he will agree as to that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so, and I remarked at the time that the resolution on Imperial defence, which was ratified by the right hon. gentleman, was in the opinion of many quite as important, that he had hesitated, to use a mild term, to ratify that portion of the report, but that portion which seemed to be consistent with his own policy,-with regard to the negotiation of treaties-he had brought down and had requested the formal approval of parliament to it. That being so we have
now laid on the table of the House another report of the later Imperial conference of 1923. I submit that it is perfectly clear, as stated by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) last evening, that this new report as submitted with regard to the negotiation of treaties, amends and modifies in very essential particulars the resolutions which were adopted by this parliament- last year. Under the resolutions of the Imperial conference of 1926 the parliament of Canada may be bound in respect of a large class of treaties by the mere indifference Or neglect on the part of the Prime Minister or the Minister of External Affairs to enter a protest against the negotiation or confirmation of a treaty affecting this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I am afraid I cannot sit still and say nothing when he makes a statement to which I must take complete exception. I do not in relation to treaties agree with his interpretation of the report or the manner in which he is giving it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: During the debate on the address I called attention to specific clauses of this resolution dealing with the negotiation of treaties, where for the first time it is introduced into an Imperial conference report that the government of any other dominion or the government of the United Kingdom having once notified us with regard to the negotiation of a treaty in which we might be interested, and the government of this country having neglected to register a protest, we could be deemed bound to adhere to the provisions of that treaty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. If that is my hon. friend's interpretation, he is not reading the report correctly. I might state what my interpretation is and then he can say if he disagrees. Each government is bound to notify the other governments so that they will all be aware of the intention. If no exception is taken by a government, then the government which is making the treaty may assume that it is at liberty to go ahead. Before, however, any particular government will be bound in the matter of obligations under a treaty, it must specifically agree to be so bound. That follows in another part of the same document.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I cannot give to it the same interpretation which the right hon. gentleman does. With regard to the negotiation of treaties this is the new provision:
When a government has received information of the intention of any other government to conduct negotiations, it is incumbent upon it to indicate its attitude with reasonable

171S	COMMONS
lyiperial Conjerence-Mr. Cahan
promptitude. So long as the initiating government receives no adverse comments and so long as its policy involves no active obligations on the part of the other governments, it may proceed on the assumption that its policy is generally acceptable.
Mr. .MACKENZIE KING:	So long as its
policy involves no active obligations on the part of the other governments, it may proceed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, and we have the definition of the Minister of Justice that the term "active obligations" refers particularly to such obligations as might result in war. There are treaties negotiated and likely to be negotiated which might affect the most intimate commercial relations of this country, which might affect the status of Canadian citizens in any part of the world, which might be prejudicial in every respect to the interests of Canada, and yet for the first time we have it introduced into a report of an imperial conference, in amendment and modification of the principles laid down in the resolution submitted to us last session, that such treaties may become binding upon us; that we may be morally bound to carry them out, even though they have not received the assent of this parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I just ask my hon. friend to be kind enough to read the last sentence of the paragraph from which he was reading. He has omitted, not intentionally, I am sure, the one significant sentence.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is like other sentences
in the report in that you can take any meaning you wish out of them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The restriction is emphatic and clear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am dealing with this part which reads:
Where by the nature of the treaty it is desirable that it should be ratified on behalf of all the governments of the empire-
Mr. MACKENZIE KING.: Now my hon. friend is skipping the sentence. He is reading the next paragraph. Let him read the sentence between the one which he is now reading and the one which he read before.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The initiating government-
-must, however, before taking any steps which might involve the other governments in any active obligations, obtain their definite assent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Exactly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is restricted solely to
active obligations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
only obligation that means anything.
IMr. Cahan.]


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is restricted solely to
active obligations, whereas I stated that in the opinion of the Minister of Justice today active oibligations imply military7 sanctions and the like. But those other treaties may infringe upon the natural rights or the nationality rights of Canadian citizens throughout the world, and yet by the mere neglect of the department over which the Prime Minister presides, those treaties may :be concluded without having ever been submitted to this parliament.
However we may differ in our views as to the construction of that particular clause, there can be no doubt in the mind of the right hon. gentleman that there are in this Imperial conference report two or three closely printed pages which modify, amend and change in very considerable particulars the resolutions which were submitted to this House at the last session. I ask him now whether he is going to submit this new report-he has stated he is not-for the approval of parliament. If he does not do so, which will be binding upon this parliament-the resolutions of 1923 which were ratified during last session, or the resolutions of 1923 as modified and amended by the resolutions contained in the Imperial conference report of 1926?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend wishes to introduce a resolution advocating that this parliament should endorse these resolutions, I will support him in that regard and I think the government also will.


Hugh Guthrie: Why did the government not do so?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Was there ever such an exhibition by a prime minister in any country? Having taken his position as representative of this country at an Imperial conference dealing with a great charter of liberty which is to stand for all time, he returns to parliament; he pledges his honour that he will produce the report to parliament and ask parliament for its approval; then within a few weeks he renounces that pledge and now he asks a private member of the opposition to stand up and move the adoption of the report. This shows simply the farcical position to which the policy of the Prime Minister reduces national government in this country.


Mr. ERNST:: Quebec's backbone shivers.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not dealing with that phase of the question. The Prime Minister

Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan
at the Imperial conference endorsed every jot and tittle that appears in this report. In making an address at the House of Lords' dinner he stated, dealing with the report:
In all that has been recorded you of the motherland and we of the dominions are in complete accord.
It was not only the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice of this Dominion who were in complete accord. Not only did the Prime Minister propose to speak on behalf of himself or his government, but he spoke or alleged that he spoke on behalf of the parliament and the people of Canada; and yet his courage has so oozed out that he dare not now present the report for the approval of parliament. In the address which he submitted to parliament through His Excellency the Governor General he declared:
Members of my government have just returned to Canada from attending the meetings of the Imperial conference. The report of the proceedings of the conference, together with its recommendations, will be placed before you for consideration.
Has that pledge been carried out?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is before the House now for consideration.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is not before the House for consideration. The right hon. gentleman dare not place it before the Housfe for consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is before the House for consideration now.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman dare not move a resolution for its favourable consideration. He leaves it to private members on this side of the House to propose such resolutions, if need be. What has come over the mind of the hon. gentleman since he prepared this address for His Excellency the Governor General, or what has intervened to prevent him from carrying out his pledge? At Toronto on February 4, 1927, the Prime Minister referred to the Imperial conference as giving wholly new force and meaning to the constitutional position of Great Britain and the dominions-I had the advantage of listening to the right hon. gentleman's statements over the radio, and I was surprised that many of his emphatic statements did not appear so clearly in the public press. On making inquiry of the press as to the reason why, I was informed that the press report had been in the hands of the newspapers for some time before the address was delivered.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon friend cite one emphatic statement to which he attaches significance that was made at that meeting but was not reported?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I could if I were to tax my memory. There was a very different tone with respect to many statements. The words and the expressions used in many, many respects conveyed a different impression to my mind as I listened, from that of the hard cold type which I read the next morning.


Mr. CANNON:: That is quite different.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This is the official report of what the Prime Minister said at that meeting:
That position now carries with it the imprimatur of an Imperial conference voicing in one note of common agreement the opinion of all parts of the British Empire as to the basic principles on which that empire rests.
He proceeds:
To have common agreement on the part of all members of the British commonwealth of nations on so fundamental a root principle governing our inter-imperial relations is no small achievement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does the right hon. gentleman assume, like Pilsudski, the dictator of Poland, or like Mussolini, the Prime Minister of Italy, that he can attend a great conference like that and speak for the whole people of Canada, that he can bind the whole people of Canada to the fundamental principles embodied in that report, and yet be so negligent of his duty and responsibility as to refuse to present the work which he in part created to the House of Commons and to the parliament of Canada for ratification ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my
hon. friend wish to know why I did not bring in the report and submit it for the adoption of the House? I wished to make that statement yesterday when the leader of the opposition brought up the point. I stated that I could clear his mind at once, but he would not give me an opportunity. I shall be very glad to make that statement now if my hon. friend will give me the opportunity.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is it long or short?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will not
be very long.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In view of the pledge
which the right hon. gentleman made in the address, I think it was due to himself that he should have made that statement when introducing this matter on the motion for going into supply.
1720	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will allow me, I thought the reason was so apparent that it did not even enter my mind to make that explanation, but I will give the reason immediately if my hon. friend will allow me.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will it take long?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will take a very few minutes, but I think it will be worth while.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You hardly have time; it
is nearly six o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
second time I have been refused the opportunity by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will give the right hon.
gentleman the opportunity on the opening of the debate to-morrow if he desires it.
According to this report, Canada is admittedly a member of the British commonwealth of nations. But who authorized the Prime Minister of this country to give Canada's assent to this common agreement which is declared to be of such surpassing importance? Were the Prime Minister and his colleague the Minister of Justice authorized by parliament to give such assent? I know of no such authority. And if not from parliament, what was the source of the authority which they did exercise, or purported to exercise, in binding Canada as a whole and the parliament and people of Canada to that new agreement? At Toronto, as well as in this House, the Prime Minister declared that this was one of the great charters in British history. He said:
I have said, and I wish to repeat, that in this particular the conclusion of the conference as embodied in the report of the committee on imperial relations, will, I believe, hold a place in history by the side of the great charters of human freedom which comprise so large a part of what is known as the written portions of the constitution of Great Britain itself.
And yet we of the parliament of Canada, and the people of Canada on whose behalf he purported to act, have never authorized him to give assent for any other than his own government. He has no authority from parliament; he has no authority from the people's representatives in parliament, and yet he dares take the responsibility of refusing to submit the report to parliament where it can be dealt with clause by clause and accepted with reservations, or otherwise, as parliament sees fit.


William Gordon Ernst: Mussolini was a pigmy to
him.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I notice that the Prime
Minister quotes from the Spectator a very emphatic paragraph:
For years to come the report will be regarded as a charter of freedom for the British commonwealth of nations.
And yet having assumed the right to voice the views of the Canadian people at the conference, not only their views as to our constitutional status, but their views with regard to the procedure that must be taken to repeal or modify imperial statutes which have been in force for years, with regard to the procedure which must be taken to make amendments to the merchant shipping acts under which every ship of British registry in Canada sails from Canadian ports to any part of the world, as well as grave amendments and modifications to the Admiralty Courts Act, upon which is based the jurisdiction of every Admiralty court in this country, and as well the abrogation, modification or amendment of the Judicial Committee Acts which ever since 1833 have governed the right of petition by litigants in this country to the Privy Council of Great Britain-the Prime Minister proposes, without the sanction and approval of this parliament, to make such grave amendments, modifications and changes as never before at one time were proposed in the history of this country. He proposes to carry out those changes simply upon the ipse dixit of the new autocrat in Canada who sits in the seat of the Prime Minister of this country, aided by the action of the Imperial parliament, in which we are not represented, and with which we have no means of communication at all except through the Prime Minister of this country.
As it is six o'clock I move the adjournment of the debate. I propose to consider those various modifications and the responsibility which Canada has to take in approving of them.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, March 31, 1927