1927-03-09

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario the following communication:
Toronto, March Sth, 1927. The Honourable Speaker,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
At the session of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario held yesterday afternoon, the 7th
instant, a resolution was adopted by the House dealing with the request contained in Bill No. 78 of your House asking for an extension of the charter of the Georgian Bay Ship Canal Company.
A properly certified copy of the resolution in question is being forwarded to you through the medium of the Lieutenant-Governor, as is proper in such cases, but as the bill is now before your House for consideration I am taking the iiberty of enclosing herein a copy of the resolution duly certified by me in order that you may be advised of the action of the Ontario assembly.
Yours respectfully,
(Signed) Alex. C. Lewis,
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.
On motion of Mr. Ferguson, seconded by Mr. Raney,
Resolved, that this House respectfully urges the parliament of Canada not to enact Bill (No. 78) of the House of Commons respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Company for the reasons hereinafter set forth:
That the bill proposes to renew a charter to authorize the construction of a canal and the development of water-powers on the Ottawa and the French rivers which said charter has already been in existence for thirty-three years without any evidence of progress toward the accomplishment of the projected canal;
That the application to parliament is an effort on the part of private promoters to secure through the federal parliament the control and ownership of a great and valuable public utility;
That the water-powers in the Ottawa river in inter-provincial waters are the joint property of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and that the powers in the French river are wholly situate within Ontario and are the property of the province of Ontario and cannot be rightfully legislated upon by the Dominion parliament;
That the development of these powers is essential to the industry and the prosperity of the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and the only effect of federal legislation purporting to vest these powers in a private company will be to retard development, create litigation and impair the public interest;
That the water-powers of the Ottaw'a river, so far as they belong to this province, are an essential part of the public development and distribution of power in Ontario in which the people of this province have already invested upwards of $276,000,000;
That this legislative assembly desires to record its most earnest and emphatic protest against the attempt being made, by means of a private bill in the Dominion parliament, to alienate valuable water-powers from the control and ownership of this province, and thereby deprive the people of Ontario of the advantage of one of our greatest natural resources for the benefit and advantage of private promoters;
That the province of Ontario respectfully urges that the rights guaranteed to the provinces under the federal constitution should be at all times respected by the parliament of Canada;
Questions

That this House believes that the occasion calls for a strong and conclusive pronouncement against the proposed legislation as being contrary to the spirit and the terms of confederation and prejudicial to the public interest.
For these and other reasons this House directs that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Prime Minister of Canada and to the Speakers of the two Houses of Parliament of Canada.	_______
The above is a true copy of a resolution
a don ted without a dissenting voice, by the
.Legislative Assembly of Ontario on Monday, March 7, 1927.
(Signed) Alex. C. Lewis,
Clerk-of the Legislative Assembly.
Toronto, March 8th, 1927.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. GOTT:: 
Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Lewis Wilkinson.
2.	$100 per month plus $25 board allowance while station is in operation and $75 per year extra for his services as caretaker during winter.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	9-Coxswain, cook and 7 boatmen.
7.	$725. (Wages $500, board $225). (Repairs, supplies, etc., vary).
8.	A cook is provided and each member of the crew is allowed $25 per month for his board.
9.	The cheque for board allowance for the full crew is sent the coxswain.
10 and 11. No complaints have reached the department.
12.	$7,378.76. (Up to date for fiscal year 1926-27) (covers: wages, board, repairs and labour supplies, clothing, etc.)
13.	The station was first established in 1900 with a volunteer crew? Since 1910 the station has been manned by a permanent crew, that is, during the season of navigation.
14.	(a) $112,244.43; (b) 1900, $224.29; 1901, $2.SO; 1902; 1903, $730.44; 1904, $411; 1905, $439; 1906, $327; 1907, $427.10; 1908, $294; 1909, $361.50; 1910, $363.56; 1911, $1,838.25; 1912, $4,125.97; 1913, $4,449.42; 1914, $4,859.93; 1915, $4,878.51; 1916, $10,626.26 ($5,500 erection of boathouse); 1917, $4,948.69; 1918, $5,252.54; 1919, $4,052.88; 1920, $4,701.51; 1921, $9,322.71; 1922, $8,504.84; 1923, $7,126.80; 1924, $7,670.55; 1925, $7,513.25; 1926, $11,412.87; present fiscal year, $7,378.76.

Questions
15.	Drills performed twice a week (include managing the life boat and other duties connected with the station and an exercise of four or five miles in the boat.
16.	Household supplies (living room, dining room, bedroom and kitchen furnishings) uniforms, oilskins and rubber boots, and boathouse supplies. Only essentials supplied and articles replaced when deemed unfit for further use.
17.	The coxswain will be requested to submit a report of the operations of the station covering the fiscal year ending March 31st.
18.	No. (Extract from a letter received from clerk of the peace, Windsor, Ont.) "Although this took place within 3 miles of the life saving station no one there knew of it, although the boat could be seen floating bottom up quite clearly from the shore and the whistle was blown hard before the boat turned turtle."
19.	The coxswain in his report of the accident states:	"When the man on the beach
reported ship aground made ready to go out. Saw fishing vessel " Flossie G." which had been lifting nets close by proceeding to assistance so waited their report. Survivors landed by fishing boat and taken care of at station. Survivors stated no danger whistle blown- engine room whistle blown by captain-two short blasts."
Captain Demers in summing up his evidence of investigation states:	" Even if the lifeboat had been manned it could not have rendered any help as the turning over of the vessel was so sudden that the crew was trapped and perished within a few minutes. The distance from the station to the place of casualty is estimated to be 3 miles and when the crew searched the place on the following morning Sunday May 3rd, when the weather and wind had subsided, this distance was covered in one hour and ten minutes. In view of this I am of the opinion that the life saving crew would not have rendered help and saved other lives."
20.	The department has no record of the coxswain's resignation having been received.
21.	William A. Grubb, Jr., recommended by Eccles J. Gott, M.P., and others.
22.	Yes.
23.	The department did receive the resolution dated 28th June, 1926.
24 and 25. The department contemplates the complete reorganization of this station.


* NATURAL RESOURCES-ALBERTA
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the government lay on the table of the House the text of the reference to the
Supreme Court of Canada of the Alberta resources question?	_
2.	Will the case be argued before a special sitting or at the next regular sitting of the court, and if so, when?
3.	What counsel will appear for the government or province?	,
4.	Has the Alberta government agreed to this reference, and will Alberta be represented at the hearing, or it?
5.	Will the y . rernment lay on the table any correspondence on the subject of this reference with Alberta't, government?
6.	Who were the persons who expressed "implied doubts" as to the validity of the Alberta Act, 1905, referred to in statement of the Minister of Justice in the House on reference to Supreme Court (1926) ?
7.	Will the government lay on the table of the House the opinions it secured or has received as to the validity of the Alberta Act, 1905, from the Alberta government?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: Mr. Speaker, in
answer to the hon. gentleman, the government has already laid on the table of the House all documents and given all the information concerning this matter. Argument was concluded last Monday on the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Attorney General of Canada was represented by the Solicitor General (Mir. Cannon) and Mr. Eugene Lafleur, K.C. of Montreal; the case against the validity of the Alberta Act was presented by Mr. F. H. Chrysler, K.C. of Ottawa, who was appointed by the Supreme Court for that purpose; the province of Alberta was represented Iby Mr. George F. Henderson, K.C. of Ottawa, and the province of Saskatchewan by Mr. Harold Fisher, K.C., of Ottawa.


PENSION TO SOLDIERS
Mr. PECK:: 1.	Has the government received any requests to amend the Pension Act so as to enable the granting of pensions to soldiers who, when on active service, contracted venereal disease and as a result, partly or wholly, are under disability?
2.	Will the government take steps to amend the act so as to permit issue of pensions in such cases?


Hon. Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	A resolution submitted by the Canadian Legion proposes that the Pension Act be amended to provide for recognition of disabilities from venereal disease contracted during service.
2.	The recommendation is being considered together with some one hundred others recently submitted by the legion.


BELL TELEPHONE CO.-GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. GEARY:: 1.	Has the government a contract or contracts with the Bell Telephone Company of Canada for telephone service?
Questions

2.	Have the Canadian National [DOT] Railways a contract or contracts with the Bell Telephone Company of Canada for telephone service?
3.	If so, may all such contracts be tabled?


Hon. Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes; covered by agreement between the Bell Telephone Company of Canada and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, dated May 1, 1913.
3.	Copy will be tabled.



LENHOOT TABER MILK. BILL

Mr. BOIVIN:: -
1.	Is the Department of Agriculture aware that United States government has adopted what is known as the Lenroot Taber Milk Bill, controlling and regulating the acceptance of milk and cream in the United States?
2.	If so, when will this Lenroot Taber Milk Bill, as far as it affects Canada, come in force?
3.	Will it prohibit Canadians shipping milk and cream to United States, and if not, on what regulation will Canadian products be controlled?
4.	Has the Department of Agriculture taken steps so that Canadian producers of milk and cream will put in equipment to meet these regulations?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Act itself comes into effect within ninety days after the date of enactment, that is ninety days after February 15th, 1927.
3.	It is not anticipated that the new Act will prohibit Canadians shipping milk and cream to the United States, as provision is made in the Act for all applicants to receive a temporary permit at the outset, until the machinery incidental to the Act is put in motion. The conditions under which shipments will be permitted will not be known until the regulations are drafted and approved, and the Canadian Department of Agriculture is to have an opportunity of being represented at the public hearing to be held at Washington when these regulations are being drafted, probably late March or early April.
4.	No, inasmuch as the conditions under which Canadian milk and cream will be permitted entry into the United States are not yet fully known, no steps have been taken, but the Department is keeping in close touch with day-to-day developments in Washington with respect to the subject in question.



WAR CLAIMS COMMISSION-REPORT

Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Has the royal commission for the investigation of illegal warfare claims and for the return of sequestrated property in necessitous cases made its final report to the government?
2.	If so, when will the contents of same be laid on the table?


Hon. Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	No. An interim report covering 1,497 claims totalling $41,505,787.80 has been submitted by the commissioner. There still remains thirteen claims for assessment, and the commissioner reports that "there are in these cases such masses of documents, evidence, briefs, calculations by experts, accountants, etc., that it will take further time to deliver intelligent decisions."
2.	Answered by No. 1.



TELEPHONE TAXES

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What federal taxes does the Bell Telephone Company pay per annum?
2.	What federal taxes does the provincial government owned telephone systems pay per annum, (2) in Manitoba; (b) in Saskatchewan; (c) in Alberta?


Hon. Mr. EULER:: 1 and 2. It is contrary to the practice of the department to give information which would disclose the business of an individual concern, except by resolution of parliament.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-APPOINTMENTS

Mr. MILLAR:: 1.	How many appointments have been made by the Civil Service Commission during each of the years 1924, 1925 and 1926, to positions for which one or more returned soldiers were applicants?
2.	Hoiv many returned soldiers were appointed to above vacant positions in each of the years 1924, 1925, 1926?


Hon. Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Number of persons examined by the Civil Service Commission for entrance to the civil service:
Year	O.A.S.	Non-O.A.S.	Total1924 ....	.. 4,875	5,269	10,1441925 ....	.. 4,962	7,931	12.8931926 ....	.. 3,942	7,997	11,939Total ..	.. 13,779	21,197	34,876

2.



APPOINTMENTS MADE BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Year	Permanent (Including Postmasters)	Seasonal	Temporary	Total	OAS	MC	Wo.	Total	OAS	MC	Wo.	Total	OAS	MC	Wo.	Total	OAS	MC	Wo.	Total1924	952	510	360	1,822	114	54	6	174	1,020	936	468	2,424	2,086	1,500	834	4,4201925	1,085	761	323	2,169	100	59	15	174	877	1,437	614	2,928	2,062	2,257	952	5,2711926	635	575	305	1,515	97	41	16	154	934	1,222	791	2,947	1,666	1,838	1,112	4,6162,672	1,846	988	5,506	311	154	37	502	2,831	3,595	1,873	8,299	5,814	5,595	2,898	14,307
OAS-Overseas Active Service. MC-Male Civilian.
Wo.-Women.

[Stage Direction]
Year	Permanent	Seasonal	Post- masters	Total Permanent	Temporary	Grand Total866	114	86	1,066	1,020	2,086986	100	99	1,185	877	2,062554	97	81	732	934	1,6662,406	311	266	2,983	2,831	5,814
Questions
Questions

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HO'CKEN:
1.	How many employees are there in the post office in Ottawa?
2.	How many are males?
3.	How many are females?
4.	How many of the females are French?
5.	How many of the males are French?
Hon. Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	357.
2.	348.
3.	9.
4.	4.
5.	115.



INVERNESS PREVENTIVE OFFICERS

Mr. MACDOUGALL:: 1.	How many special preventive officers are there in the county of Inverness?
2.	Who are they and what salary does each receive ?
3.	How much time are these officials supposed to devote to their duties?



COMMANDING OFFICERS-INFANTRY BATTALIONS

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	How many commanding officers of infantry battalions in Canada have resigned in last three years?
2.	How many have been appointed to replace them in command?
3.	How many officers of other ranks than command have resigned?
4.	How many appointments have been made to replace the vacancies caused by (3) ?


Hon. Mr. RALSTON:: 1924	1925	1926	Total1	nil.	nil.	nil.2	nil.	nil.	nil.3	45	52	1454.	Officers of the various ranks provided for in the establishments laid down for infantry battalions are replaced by the promotion of juniors if qualified as soon as vacancies are created, and the same numbers given in answer to No. 3 may be held applicable to No. 4.


William Daum Euler: 1 and 2. J. C. Bourinot, salary SI ,920 per annum; A. J. Campbell, salary $1,200 per annum.
3.	Full time.
This does not include four officers without salary, whose headquarters are outside Inverness county but who have Dominion-wide authority.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. EVANS:: . . 

Yvcic received Dv the Dominion government from the Yukon, by years Slrlce formation as an administrative unit' fW,What 'Tere expenditures in Yukon during these years by the Dominion government?


HOME BANK RELIEF ACT-FURTHER GRANT
Mr. ADSHEAD:: 1.	Has the government received from the commissioner appointed under the Home Bank Relief Act, a recommendation for a further grant of five hundred thousand ($500,000) dollars, in order that creditors who have filed their claims may be dealt with?
2.	If so, what action is being contemplated?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


GOVERNMENT TELEGRAPH EMPLOYEES
Mr. BRADY:: 1.	Has the government taken any steps to include under the revised civil service pension scheme, those government telegraph employees who have not given twenty years' service or more?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the government to place such government telegraph employees under the revised civil service pension scheme ?


Hon. Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	The telegraph employees are paid at prevailing rates, and as such do not come within the Civil Service Superannuation Act of 1924.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


OFFICIAL MOTOR CARS
Hon. Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: 
PRIVATE CARS USED OFFICIALLY
Hon. Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: 1.	How- many private cars are owned or leased by the government and what are they named or numbered ?
2.	What was the total cost of said cars and the amount expended during the last five years in making repairs or changes to such cars?

Unopposed Motions for Papers
3.	What was the cost of operating same during the calendar years 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1926?	.	.
4.	Was anything paid for hauling or shunting of said cars during each of the said years? If so, how much?
5.	Where are the said cars located, how many at Montreal, how many at Ottawa and how many elsewhere?
6.	Have any of the departments of the government or ministers of the same, cars for their particular use and what are the names and numbers of such cars and the departments and ministers making use of the same?
7	Have any of the cars referred to been
placed at the disposal of other ministers or other persons during the last five years. If so, when and by whom?	.	.
8	Ho any of the railways m Canada or m the" United States make any charge for transportation or handling of said cars? If so, what is the rate or do the companies in Canada by courtesy dead head such cars?


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-STAFF AND SALARIES
Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	How many persons are employed by the Civil Service Commission, and what are their respective functions?
2.	What salary is paid to each person employed by said commission?
3.	What salaries do the commissioners receive?
4.	What were the total expenses incurred tor the administration of said commission including salaries and all other expenditures, for the years 1921 to 1927, respectively?


DISMISSAL OF POSTMASTERS
Hon. Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: 1.	What are the names of the postmasters dismissed from office since the last federal election for political partisanship, and in what counties are the offices situated?
2.	What are the names of the postmasters removed from office at the request of,- (a) Liberal members of parliament; (b) Liberal candidates defeated at last election; (c) Conservative members or defeated Conservative candidates; (d) Progressive members or defeated Progressive candidates; (e) Liberal-Progressive members or defeated Liberal-Progressive candidates; (f) members of other parties or defeated candidates of other parties?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
John Evans: For a copy of proposed agreement regarding resources of Alberta, with amendments; also a copy of all correspondence between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Alberta, dealing with same, from December, 1921, to date.
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-PURCHASE OF THOMPSON AND AKERBURg's MACHINE SHOP


Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: For a copy af all letters, telegrams, proposed agreements and agreements affecting the purchase by the national railways or by any department of the government of the machine work shop of Thompson and Akerburg, Prince Rupert, British Columbia, together with the report of the officer or officers who made the appraisal of the said plant and assets so purchased.


E. W. BACKUS-MANITOBA PULPWOOD
Mr. BISSETT:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams or other correspondence between E. W. Backus, or any other individual, company or companies, and the Department of the Interior, relative to the purchase of pulpwood in the province of Manitoba.


MONTREAL-EXTERMINATION OF RABIES
Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: For a copy of the official regulations at present in force to exterminate rabies in the city and district of Montreal.	.


CIVIL SERVANTS EARNING S3,000 AND UPWARDS
Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: For a list of all the civil servants in Canada earning a salary at the rate of $3,000 a year or over, on the date of January 1, 1927, indicating in each case, the full name of the person, the grade or nature of the work done, the salary so earned and the department in which that person is working, all names for each separate department being grouped together.


MESSRS. REID AND COLLEY
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports and other correspondence or communications between the government of Canada, or any member thereof, or deputy minister, or official of the government, or the Civil Service Commission, or any official thereof, or the Gold Commissioner of Yukon, or any official of Yukon, and any person or persons, relating to the proposed appointment, the appointment and the cancellation of appointment of George Reid of Yukon to be acting mining recorder or to perform the duties of mining recorder at Mayo, Yukon territory, in the absence of the mining recorder from Mayo during the winter or part of the winter of 1926-27, and the same relating to the appointment of one Colley to fill said position of acting mining recorder.


LIMERICK, SASKATCHEWAN, POST OFFICE
Mr. DONNELLY:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents from July 1, 1926, to March 1, 1927, with regard to the moving of the post office from one building to another in the village of Limerick, Saskatchewan.


LIVE STOCK EXCHANGES
Mr. KENNEDY:: For a return showing the names and locations of all live stock exchanges in Canada, the owners of each exchange, the names of members of each exchange, the firms represented by such members and the cost of each, membership.
B.N.A. Act-Amendment



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, in view of: (a) the constitutional developments of the last sixty years:	(b) the dissatisfaction of
certain provinces; (c) the changed conditions in industry, commerce and finance not contemplated at the time of confederation; and, (dl the action of the Senate in preventing the enactment of popular legislation, there should be appointed a special select committee to consider what amendments might be made in the British North America Act which, while conserving the principles of confederation, would enable us more adequately to cope with the complicated problems which now confront Canada.
He said: As will be observed, my argument is outlined in the terms of the resolution itself. I have called attention to the changes and developments in the constitutional relations of this country during the past sixty years. It is not my purpose to go into the rather complicated question of the Imperial conference and the changed status which has come, or is alleged to have come, through that conference. I presume that that matter will receive very full discussion at a later date when the report of the conference is under review. I would, 'however, venture to call attention to the fact that the conference itself recognized some of the changes which are becoming necessary because of the altered conditions in Canada and in the other dominions. From the report of the Imperial conference I quote the following:
The rapid evolution of the oversea dominions during the last fifty years has involved many complicated adjustments of old political machinery to changing conditions. The tendency towards equality of status was both right and inevitable. Geographical and other conditions made this impossible of attainment by the way of confederation. The only alternative was by the way of autonomy; and along this road it has been steadily sought. Every self-governing member of the empire is i jw the master of its destiny. In fact, if not always in form, it is subject to no compulsion whatever.
There is here very clearly recognized the evolution that has been taking place in the relations of the various overseas dominions, and now it is declared that Great Britain and the dominions are equal in status and in no way subordinate one to another, in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs. It seems to me, then, that the time has come when we must implement this statement by amending our constitution and our constitutional procedure in order that these may conform to our present status-whether 
that status was acquired at the Imperial conference or at that conference it was merely formally declared.
I do not think that for my purpose it make3 very much difference whether we acquired a new status at the Imperial conference or whether, at that conference, declaration was made of a condition of things which was already in existence. The fact is that we are recognized as having a certain status to-day, and it is also clearly recognized that there are many legislative and constitutional anomalies in existence which ought to be removed in order that we may fully implement the declaration made at the Imperial conference. Among these anomalies, and in my opinion, of very great importance to us, is the fact that at the present time there is no way in which we ourselves can amend our constitution. I presume that we could pass an address in this House and ask that a similar address be passed in the Senate, praying the parliament of Great Britain to change our constitution. That may be the manner in which the change will have to be brought about. The fact is, however, that we ourselves have no means by which we can amend our own constitution; and in this respect we are inferior to Australia and South Africa. We talk about equality of status, but in this direction alone we are inferior not only to the motherland, but to others of the dominions. Decidedly we should bring our status up to that of South Africa or of Australia, whose constitutions happen to be more modern and therefore include the right of amendment. We 'have been rather accustomed to think of ourselves as the premier dominion, but it cannot be said that we have very much to boast of when these much less important and more recent confederations enjoy greater autonomy than we do. I quite admit that they may be right who say that this power of amending our constitution is already within our possession, and that in reality we have those powers; I fancy if we made a request to Great Britain, that request would be complied with. In that case, let us proceed to find out as a first step what modifications we really want to see brought about. The exact method by which that may be done may be a matter for subsequent discussion.
I would draw attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that there is dissatisfaction in certain provinces of Canada. I think I need not go into the question of the rights of the Maritime provinces, since that matter was before us last session, and will shortly be brought up again in connection with the report of the Duncan commission, but in certain quarters

B.N.A. Act-Amendment
of the maritime provinces there has been distinct talk of secession. I am not in a position to say how widespread that sentiment may be, but I do know that it has been overtly expressed and, I am inclined to think, with considerable earnestness. It is stated that unless conditions are radically changed it may be necessary to advocate secession. Undoubtedly that feeling points very distinctly to the need for modification of our present relations.
Further I would say that our western provinces are far from satisfied with the conditions which have prevailed for a good many years in the public policies of Canada, and which we have found it very difficult to remedy. The other day, in the discussion of this resolution by a western gentleman of considerable political experience and, I think, of good judgment, he said, "What is the use of tinkering with the British North America Act? The west must brealk away, and then possibly we can cooperate on another basis." That is, he felt the case at present to be so hopeless that it was a mere waste of time to suggest that we should modify the British North America Act, and that the only possible thing for us to do was to let things go from bad to worse until the crash came, when the west might unite with the other provinces under some entirely new arrangement. That is not an extravagant statement by any means, but represents a feeling which is very widespread throughout the western country. It would seem to me a great deal wiser to recognize the economic developments which have taken place and which call for the adaptation of our political machinery. I know it is very easy for certain members of this House to jump up and say that those who talk secession or express dissatisfaction are traitors; that is especially easy for those who live in the central provinces, which are so very largely the beneficiaries of the present arrangements. But I would say rather that they are traitors- if that harsh term must be used-at least, that they are not working in the best interests of Canada, who deliberately refuse to recognize the actual conditions, and who refuse to allow these modifications which will do away with that dissatisfaction.
Of the many great changes which have come about in the last sixty years I would mention only two or three, and first I would take the opening up of the Canadian west. Sixty years ago the Canadian west was inhabited only by Indians. Now all that vast territory has been developed; great cities have been established and that part of Canada has become the source of a great deal of the production of
this country. We have now nearly 2,000,000 people living in the three prairie provinces. I would submit that that in itself represents an entire change in the life of Canada, a change which has not been fully appreciated by those living in the older sections. I know from the casual contacts which one has with the people of the east that a great many of them think we westerners are very extravagant and have all sorts of queer notions. I would remind the House that a great many of us came originally from the east, and have had to face new conditions. So it would seem to me that when we present these conditions to the east our eastern friends might surely realize, that if we have reacted in a particular way because of our contact with conditions in the west, very prolbably they would react in a similar way if they were to face similar experiences.


Mr. COOTE:: They would be a lot worse.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) suggests that they would be worse, and that is possibly so.
In the next place I would refer to the great changes only beginning to be felt because of the opening of the Panama canal. I know that many of my fellow citizens of Winnipeg are only beginning to realize what that will mean, and some of them resent very strongly the diversion of traffic which has already taken place. All I desire to point out in that connection is that tlhis means that our trade relationships must be placed on an altogether different basis, and that we may require modified policies. Again there is the development of trade with the orient, and I think hon. members from British Columbia would try to impress upon the House what that is going to mean in the days to come. Already that trade has a large volume, and here again thi3 will mean a complete shifting of the trade routes in future, together with the'modification of our trade policies. A further extension of that same line of thought is the wider world relationships in which we find ourselves, and which I think have become apparent to all especially since the war.
The mere mention of these concrete facts, should be sufficient to convince any member of this House that we have gone through very distinct changes, and that because of these changes we have experienced very considerable dissatisfaction with the old and inadequate political forms and policies. It would appear to be the part of wisdom to try to get at the real causes of this trouble, because there are real causes behind it which should be remedied.
B.N.A. Act-Amendment

Almost every day in this House we are confronted with difficulties arising from the conflict of jurisdiction as between the Dominion and provincial governments; only this morning in the banking and commerce committee we had another illustration of this difficulty. I suppose troubles of this kind may give our constitutional lawyers a great deal of work, but it would seem to an ordinary layman that instead of wrangling eternally about these matters and instead of having to refer one thing after another to our law officers, to the Supreme Court of Canada and1 to the Privy Council, it would be wise to clarify our constitution so that we would know just what, is under federal jurisdiction and what is under the control of the provinces.
I have called attention to the changed conditions in industry, commerce and finance not contemplated at the time of confederation. At the time of confederation, as a matter of fact, Canada consisted of very little more than a series of pioneer settlements. The life of Canada was very largely agricultural. On the whole the communities were more or less self contained. Nearly all of us in going back to our childhood days can remember the little villages scattered throughout the country where there would be found at the comers a blacksmith shop, a carpenter shop, possibly a weaving establishment, a few simple industries that provided for the needs of the immediately surrounding country. We had those small country stores, while in the cities there were general stores that supplied the needs of the comparatively small populations of those centres. I can remember living in the city of Toronto when there were fewer than 100,000 inhabitants. Some of the Toronto people can hardly realize that Toronto was ever so small, but large as the city is to-day we must remember that its growth is of very recent years. These are some of the changes that have come about. Sixty years ago we had no highly concentrated system of capitalism such as we have to-day. There were a great many small industries, there were a great many small banks. To-day everything is changed. We have our huge factories, we have our developing trusts, we have our two great railway systems, and we have our banking systems representing a very highly concentrated system of finance. All is changed.
I note this particularly in connection with questions of legislation affecting labour. I come now to some very practical questions. Take the Industrial Disputes Investigations Act. We all know how difficult it has been to get anything of that kind established in

Canada, and even to-day we hardly know whether the present legislation is intra vires of the Dominion or not. Take such questions as the eight-hour day, the minimum wage, old age pensions, unemployment insurance, the education of immigrants- especially the foreign immigrants who are coming to us-questions with regard to bonuses and subsidies and how far any particular undertaking ought to be declared for the general welfare of Canada. These are very important questions, and I find that with regard to such practical considerations we can hardly touch one of them without being held up over this question of jurisdiction. As far back as 1889 the Royal Commission on the Relations of Capital and Labour reporting said:
Your commissioners cannot venture to determine where, in legislation affecting labour and capita], the authority of the Dominion parliament ends and that of the provincial legislatures begins.
That is the commissioners found themselves absolutely nonplussed when they came to run a dividing line between the jurisdiction of the Dominion and the provincial assemblies. Or again only last year in the report of our own select standing committee on industrial and international relations we find the same difficulty revealed. I read from the report:
It was stated by the Deputy Minister of Justice that according to the British North America Act legislative jurisdiction in regard to minimum wages is vested primarily in the provincial legislatures. He also quoted section 132 as follows: "The parliament of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or any provinces thereof as part of the British Empire, towards foreign countries, arising out of any treaty between the empire and such foreign countries." Commenting on this he said: "There can be no doubt that where Canada has entered into an obligation by treaty-and in that connection I mean an association with the empire of course-within the meaning of section 132, which I have just read-I do not think there is any doubt but that parliament has power to legislate for the purpose of carrying into effect the provision of the treaty." This opinion goes to show that the British North America Act by no means contemplated industrial problems of the kind and scope to which Canadians to-day must adjust themselves.
It is that kind of thing that has led me to introduce a resolution of this character. In one sentence we are told by the Deputy Minister of Justice that this matter is primarily the affair of the provinces; in the next, he quotes another clause of the act, and says there is no doubt but that the federal authorities have jurisdiction. It depends upon the clause of the British North America Act

B.N.A. Act-Amendment
which you quote, and lawyers can argue themselves black in the face over the matter. It all depends on the emphasis that is given to one or the other of these clauses. I have no doubt that this confusion may be a very good thing for some of our legal friends who may be retained on one side or the other, but I would suggest that when the matter is viewed from the standpoint of the country as a whole it is better that we should know clearly just where we stand on these matters.
I have said that these 1 changes were not contemplated at the time of confederation. I do not suppose it is necessary to say that in making such a statement I am not casting any reflection on the fathers of confederation. They did the best they could to meet the needs of their day, but I would say that we are truest to their spirit if we attempt in our day to meet the needs that concern us. The fathers of confederation could not have had any idea sixty years ago of the vast changes that were coming; they could not possibly have the prescience which would enable them to visualize them. Hence there were no suitable provisions in the British North America Act for these new needs. This summer we shall celebrate the diamond jubilee of confederation. I think it could not be done better than by showing that we at least are sufficiently the children of our fathers to insist that we will do in our day what they did in theirs-try to meet the real needs of the country.
Now I pass on to the next point I have mentioned in the resolution, and that is the action of the Senate in preventing the enactment of popular legislation. It is not my purpose, Mr. Speaker, to enter into any very lengthy discussion of the need for reform of the Senate. But I should like to point out that we have had in the last few years a splendid exhibition of the power the Senate possesses in nullifying the expressed will of the people. I have here a list of the measures rejected by the Senate since confederation, which was placed on Hansard in 1925 by Mr. Lewis, the then member for Swift Current. It will be found in volume 1, page 935 and consists of some one hundred and fifty measures. Whilst there may be some whose rejection a later and more mature judgment might justify, I think it will be recognized that on the whole the action of the Senate ha3 been reactionary in character. We remember the measures that last year were rejected by the Senate. The amendments to the criminal code, the amendments to the
Immigration Act, which had passed this House several times in succession in various forms were again rejected by the Senate. But above all I think of the old age pension bill. I am not going to characterize the action of the Senate in rejecting this bill. I think I could not do better than to refer hon. members to the speech of my friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), on his motion to ascertain the action taken by the Senate. You will find that in Hansard, page 4420. I do not know that that motion was ever put, I do not know that we ever had any report as to why the Senate threw out that legislation, I content myself with saying that it is intolerable that an irresponsible body should be able to nullify the action of the elected representatives of the people. Right across this country from coast to coast there has been felt and expressed a decided resentment on account of the action of the Senate in regard to that bill. We have been accustomed possibly to speak a little bit slightingly of that body, as if it were composed of elderly men, themselves in receipt of a pension. On the other hand there have been those who saw in the Senate the champion and the safeguard of provincial rights. I think there is another aspect from which we ought to view this matter, and that is that to no small extent the Senate is the champion and safeguard of what are commonly called the big interests.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: As soon as the Liberal party gets through reforming the Senate it will be all right.


Miss MACPHAIL:: For the Liberal party.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A few weeks ago,
in a little labour paper published in Toronto, Canada Forward, I find this statement:
In the Senate fifty members of that body control and direct the economic life of Canada. That is to say that fifty senators are directors of 334 commercial and financial institutions.
I wrote to the editor of that paper asking him on what data he based his statement, and he was good enough to send me a list of the companies ,in which some of the senators were interested. The editor is Mr. James McA. Conner, of Toronto. It is possible that there may be some inaccuracies in this list. It is quite true that it is not complete, as one can readily recognize that there are other companies in which these senators are interested that are not listed here, but I would like to run over a few of
B.N.A. Act-Amendment

these companies briefly, in order that the class nature of the Senate may be clearly seen. I take them almost at random. I find the name of Senator C. B. Beaubien.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Not I.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


George Gibson Coote: Not yet, but soon.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I notice that he
is interested in the following companies:
The Atlantic Sugar Refineries Limited.
The Frontenac Breweries.
The Mount Royal Hotel Company.
The North Railway Company.
Beaubien Limited.
The Ames Holden Limited.
The British Empire Steel Corporation.
The Dominion Steel Corporation, Limited. Dominion Iron and Steel Company Limited. Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Co. Limited. Eastern Car Company Limited.
Acadia Company Limited.
Dominion Coal Company.
Nova Scotia Land Company.
Sydney Lumber Company Limited.
James Pender and Company Limited.
Halifax Shipyards Limited.
Cumberland Railway and Coal Company. Sydney and Louisburg Railway.
Canadian Car and Foundries Limited. Canadian Steel Foundries Limited.
Montreal Steel Works Limited.
Pratt and Letehworth Company Limited.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does he
happen to be a farmer as well as director of these companies?


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that all one man?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, it is all one man.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: What about the
Levis Laundry?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Levis Laundry has been suggested. I am not sure of that. I said the list was quite incomplete.
I pass on now to Senator Casgrain, and I find he is a director of the following companies:
Canada Steamship Lines Ltd.
Northern Navigation Co. Ltd.
Tidewater Shipbuilders Ltd.
Davie Shipbuilding and Repairing Co. Ltd. Great Lakes Transportation Co.
Midland Shipbuilding Co.
George Hall Coal Co.
Richelieu Ontario Navigation Co.
Inland Lines Ltd.
Niagara Navigation Co.
St. Lawrence River Steamboat Co. Ltd. Thousand Island Steamboat Co. Ltd. Merchants Montreal Lines Ltd.
Canada Cement Co. Ltd.
Montreal Cottons.
Montreal Life Insurance Co.

Reliance Life Assurance Co.
British Empire Steel Corporation Ltd.
Dominion Steel Co. Ltd.
Dominion Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
Dominion Coal Co. Ltd.
Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Co. Ltd.
Eastern Car Co. Ltd.
Dominion Shipping Co. Ltd.
Acadia Coal Co. Ltd.
Cumberland Railway and Coal Co.
Halifax Shipyards Co.
Nova Scotia Land Co.
Sydney Lumber Co. Ltd.
Sydney and Louisburg Railway Co.
James Pender and Co. Ltd.
Montreal Tramways Co.
United Securities Ltd.
Montreal Life Insurance Co.
Montreal Herald.
Le Canada.
It is perhaps rather wearisome to hon. members to listen to my reading of all these names.


Edward Joseph Garland: Read some more. They are fine.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall be glad to read a few more. I think that perhaps only in this way can we form any idea as to the interlocking directorates which we have in this country, and as to how far even one individual can control a vast range of industrial, commercial and financial enterprise. I come now to Senator N. Curry, and I find he is a director of the following companies:
Cuban Canadian Sugar Company.
Montreal Life Insurance Company.
Hattie Gold Mines Limited.
Rhodes Curry Company Limited.
Canadian Car and Foundries Company Limited.
Canadian Steel Foundries Company Limited.
Montreal Steel Works Limited.
Pratt and Letehworth Company.
Canada Land Company.
Bank of Nova Scotia.
Canada Light and Power Company.
Beatty Gold Mines Limited.
And to use the words of the official description, if I may call it such, that is given us in the Canadian Parliamentary Guide of 1926, he "is president of twelve companies and
director of thirty." Let me complete the Guide's account of the well-rounded life of a Senator. At page 78, I find the following.
Altogether is president of twelve companies and director of thirty. A large contributor to educational, religious and charitable institutions, including $100,000 to Acadia University; $25,000 to McGill University; $5,000 to Dal-housie University; and so forth. Recreations: yachting, motoring, shooting, fishing, curling. A Baptist. A Conservative. Summoned to the Senate November 20, 1912. Clubs: Marshlands, Amherst, N.S., Rideau and Country Clubs, Ottawa; Mount Royal, St. James', Forest and

B.N.A. Act-Amendment
Stream, Montreal. Business address, Transportation Building, Montreal; city residence, 581 Sherbrooke street west, Montreal, country residence, Tidnish, N.S. Winter house, Paget, Bermuda.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Is my hon. friend suggesting that a captain of industry such as this man whom he has last quoted effected educational policies by giving large contributions to universities?


James Shaver Woodsworth: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read them all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Here is Senator L. C. Webster. He is interested, a director, and no doubt working hard in all these various lines of industry;
Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada.
Dominion Manufacturers' Ltd.
Travelers' Life Assurance Co.
St. Lawrence Sugar Refineries.
Hudson Bay Knitting Co.
Goodwins Ltd.
Montreal Tramway Co.
Webster Steamship Co.
Canadian Import Co.
Quebec Power Co.
Quebec Railway Light Heat & Power Co. Dorchester Electric Co.
Quebec, Montmorency & Charlevoix Railway. Imperial Trust Co.
St. Lawrence Stevedoring Co. Ltd.
Holt Renfrew Co. Ltd.
Canadian Salvage Association.
Canadian Fur Auction Sales Co. Ltd.
Quebec Apartment House Co.
Montreal Cottons.	|
Canadian Car & Foundry Co. Ltd.
Montreal Steel Works Ltd.
Canadian Steel Foundries Ltd.
Pratt & Letchworth Co. Ltd.
Dryden Paper Co. Ltd.
United Securities Ltd.
British Empire Steel Corporation.
Dominion Steel Co.
Dominion Iron & Steel Co.
Dominion Coal Co.
Nova Scotia Steel & Coal Co.
Eastern Car Co. Ltd.
Dominion Shipping Co.
Acadia Coal Co. Ltd.
Cumberland Railway & Coal Co. Ltd.
Halifax Shipyards Co.
Sydney & Louisburg Railway Co.
Nova Scotia Land Co.	[DOT]
Wassis Steamboat Co.
Sydney Lumber Co.
James Pender & Co. Ltd.
I will give one other. Here is Senator R. S. White. He is a director in the following companies:
Gazette Printing Co.
United Financial Corporation.
Montreal Trust Co.
The Steel Co. of Canada.
The Hamilton Steel & Iron Co.
The Montreal Rolling Mills Ltd.
Canadian Screw Co. Ltd.
Dominion Wire Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Canadian Bolt & Nut Co. Ltd.
Western Wire & Nail Co. Ltd.
Guarantee Co. of North America.
Canada Steamship Lines Ltd.
Northern Navigation Co. Ltd.
Tidewater Shipbuilders Ltd.
Davie Shipbuilding & Repairing Co Ltd.
Great Lakes Transportation Co.
Midland Shipbuilding Co.
George Hall Coal Co.
Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Co.
Inland Lines Ltd.
Niagara Navigation Co.
Mount Royal Hotel Co.

B.N.A. Act-Amendment

My correspondent makes the following comments and summarizes this information as follows:
There are 27 lawyers in the Senate, of whom 12 are Conservatives and 15 Liberal. Some 6 Conservative lawyer senators^ are directors in 52 financial and commercial institutions, while ij Liberal lawyer senators are directors on 36 commercial and financial institutions, making a total of 12 lawyers in the Senate who are directors in 88 different concerns. There are 11 journalists, editors and publishers, 6 of whom are directors in 34 commercial and financial institutions. There are 11 manufacturers and capitalists who are directors in 131 commercial and financial institutions. There are 8 doctors who are directors in 22 commercial and financial institutions.
The House rather encouraged me to go on, Mr. Speaker, and read these long lists, and I did so even though it might somewhat interfere with the argument I was trying to present in as concise a form as possible. But in view of the character of the interests of the members of the Senate I think I am quite warranted in the statement which I made a few minutes ago, that it is intolerable that an irresponsible body such as this, so largely representing big interests, should be able to nullify the actions of the elected representatives of the people.
Now my resolution is as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, in view of: (a) the constitutional developments of the last sixty years

I think I have shown some of these main lines of development, how extensive they have been, and how much they demand some corresponding changes in our constitutional procedure, and generally in our legislation:
-	(b) the dissatisfaction of certain provinces

Here again I think it will be manifest to all that it is the wiser course to recognize the underlying difficulties that may prevent confederation from attaining all that it ought to attain, rather than simply and blindly to worship what was done sixty years ago, and refuse to be guided by the spirit of those who made confederation possible. And in view of:
-	(c) the changed conditions in industry, commerce and finance not contemplated at the time of confederation, and (d) the action of the Senate in preventing the enactment of popular legislation-
I ask that there shall be appointed a special committee to consider what amendments might be made in the British North America Act which, while conserving the principles of confederation, would enable us more adequately to cope with the complicated problems which now confront Canada.

I think that request is a very moderate one indeed. All I am asking for is a parliamentary committee to consider this question. There will be, I understand, this summer, a conference of the Dominion and provincial representatives. This conference has a number of things to discuss, among which is this very question of a minimum wage with regard to which I was reading a report to-day. This conference has been definitely promised, and I would suggest that the time is opportune for this whole question to go before such a conference. But before this conference meets, it would seem to be a reasonable thing that we should have some indication as to what changes this House thought might be advisable. What do we want anyway? It would be very easy for me personally to make suggestions as to certain changes that I think ought to be made. I think some of these changes might be inferred from my treatment of the subject, but I would much prefer to leave these definte changes to be considered in a committee, where a great many other members would be able to contribute other suggestions of possibly even greater value.
I would call the attention of the House to the fact that in this resolution I have provided an ample safeguarding clause; that is, "while conserving the principles of confederation," I recognize very clearly that there are certain minority rights which much be maintained. There is no desire on my part to take away any of those rights. In any modification of the British North America Act I think there would need to be incorporated a series of clauses equivelant to a sort of bill of rights safeguarding the rights of minorities, whether of language, religion, or civil status. The proposed resolution does not seek to trench on those rights at all. But on the other hand, I urge that we ought to have such modifications in the British North America Act as will enable us to meet the pressing and complicated problems which now confront us.
I am not here to make any impassioned appeal to hon. members from the various sections of Canada. I know that in the past some of the French Canadian members have been rather apprehensive of any change in the British North America Act. I know that certain sections of the French Canadian press take the ground that any alteration in the British North America Act, however slight, might imperil French Canadian rights, and that it is much safer to trust to the sense of justice of Englishmen in Great Britain than to the sense of justice of English-speaking

B.A A. Act-Amendment
Canadians. I think that sentiment is unworthy of any true Canadian. We cannot have it both going and coming. All of us are coming to recognize more and more the need of a greater flexibility in our constitution, and the opportunity to control our own destinies. If we wish to attain that we must be willing to take certain risks in carrying out the details of any modifications we may make in our constitution. But I think the risks will not be very grave. We would incorporate into the very document by which the modifications were made-modifications, for example, allowing either for the abolition or the reform or, if you like, the drawing of the teeth of the Senate-I do not say of the senators-


An hon. MEMBER:: There are none to
draw.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know
about that. I say that in any modifications along that line the very document by which the modifications were made would contain these clauses which would adequately guarantee the rights of all minorities and in other ways conserve the fundamental principles of confederation.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that to-day, the government accede to my request. I am glad the Prime Minister is in his place. I do not think it is asking too much that in a preliminary way we discuss these things in the free and easy atmosphere of a committee. No harm could be done by doing so. Certain suggestions could be made and plans evolved, and when the conference of provincial premiers meets in the near future there would be something to discuss in the way of a definite recommendation.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the subject of this resolution is indeed very important, and my ion. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) has dealt with it in his usual able and clear way. I am pleased indeed that he took the tiouble to say that in any changes which he would like to see made in the British North America Act certain rights should be safeguarded, and I know that he is perfectly sincere in this.
The resolution is to the effect that a special select committee of this House should be appointed for the purpose of considering amendments which ought to be made to the British Lorth America Act. This conclusion is based on certain premises, namely, the developments of the last sixty years, the dissatisfaction of certain provinces, the changed conditions in industry, commerce and finance not contemplated at the time of confederation, and the action of the Senate in preventing
32649-66}
the enactment of certain popular legislation. For the purpose of my argument I do not think it is necessary for me to dwell upon those premises. But as far as the question of dissatisfaction is concerned, I think that after sixty years as a Dominion we may safely say that the ivork which the fathers of confederation accomplished, while it may not have been perfect, was certainly a great work, that the constitution then framed lias worked successfully, and that Canada has been developing along lines for which we ought to be profoundly grateful.
I do not say that some changes might not be desirable, that some improvements might not be made, but I must confess I do not agree with my hon. friend that the way to reach the desirable end he has in view would be for this House, or a committee of this House, to deal with the matter in the absence of those who were parties to the pact of confederation. It is true, Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has said, that we have not the right to amend our own constitution as has South Africa and Australia-subject in the latter case to certain restrictions; that is, any amendment must be approved by the states or by popular referendum-and some of the other dominions, and he asked, " Why should we not have the same powers?" But the condition existing in Canada is our own making, and this we must always remember in dealing with the question. It is not at all something that places Canada in a position of inferiority, because after all it was the will of the people of Canada that it'should have been so in the past, and it will continue thus so long as the Canadian people will it. When the people desire a change the change will come about.


Mr. IRVINE:: How?


Ernest Lapointe: It will come about by agreement on the part of those who agreed to confederation under certain conditions in i_	words that great statesman,
who had more to do with the achievement of confederation than anybody else, Sir John Macdonald, Canadian confederation bears on its face the marks of a compromise. The country at that time was almost on the verge of civil strife, and during the two years that preceded confederation four different governments succeeded one another
av thu head of Canada's affairs. It was thought by men of the various provinces and by members of different political parties that the only way to secure peace in North America among the British possessions was through the means which wtas ultimately adopted, of a confederation of the prov-
B.N.A. Act-Amendment

inces. This confederation was achieved by the colonies, as they were in fact at the time, getting together and reaching an agreement. The colonies, which were self-governing, had each powers of its own, and they agreed to relinquish some of those powers to a central authority. They kept under their own control those matters which were rather of a domestic nature, while others, more general in their scope, they relegated to a central government. Some of these matters they relinquished subject to specific conditions, and without this understanding it would have been impossible to reach the argreement which made for confederation. The Imperial government simply gave effect to the will of the provinces of Canada in enacting the British North America Act, and confederation has always been considered an agreement. Some call it a pact, others, a treaty; (and if it is-nobody can dispute that it is-then I submit, what has been the contention of every writer and public man in Canada in the past, that this agreement or pact or treaty, whatever you care to call it, cannot be changed or modified without the consent of the parties to the agreement, or of those who come after them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do I understand
the Minister of Justice to suggest that we can make no suggested changes?


Ernest Lapointe: No, I do not suggest
that. It is because we can that a body such as the one referred to by my hon. friend, an interprovincial conference, is going to be held for the purpose of getting together all those who to-day represent the original parties to the pact of confederation. It is for such a body to consider changes or amendments to be made, but I do not think that a committee of this House, any more than a committee of the legislature of Quebec or Ontario, should solemnly declare that the British North America Act ought to be amended in one particular or another. I do not think that would conduce to unity in the matter.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I
observe that the very thing suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth) preceded confederation itself. The legislative assembly of Nova Scotia passed a resolution, just as this body could pass a resolution, recommending certain things. This House could pass a resolution submitting to the conference of provinces to be held such alterations as it might deem1 desirable. I see absolutely nothing against a committee of this House considering a resolution and making recom-

mendations. I agree with the minister that the House has no power in the matter, but I would ask him whether, in his opinion, it is not possible to act in the way suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think it is
desirable. It is always possible for a committee of the House to consider questions which are beyond its province, but I say it would not lead to any desirable end to do so.


Edward Joseph Garland: It did before.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think so.


Edward Joseph Garland: In the case of confederation.


Ernest Lapointe: Contrary proposals were brought forward at that time. I think my hon. friend made a mistake when he said, in reference to certain changes which he had in mind, that he would not like to mention them in this House but would rather wait until the committee was formed for the purpose. Why should not my hon. friend inform the House of the changes he desires to have made? Concrete changes might, in my opinion, be suggested, but they must be considered and studied by a body representing all the parties to confederation.


Edward Joseph Garland: Changes
might be suggested.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a question of procedure, but I do not believe that the procedure suggested by my hon. friend is the one to be followed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Suppose I had suggested that we should pass a resolution declaring our right to change the written constitution: would the Minister of Justice say that we should be competent to do so?


Ernest Lapointe: I should certainly say
that the proposal would1 have to be submitted to an interprovincial conference, as I said two years ago.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But would not the
minister say that we had a right to discuss such a proposal in this House before it was submitted to the conference?


Ernest Lapointe: So far as that goes, we discussed it two years ago and neither my hon. friend nor anybody else was committed for trial for having done so. I really believe, however, that it is not for a committee of this House to discuss the matter.

B.N.A. Act-Amendment
The suggestion now before us is not new. Two years ago I read an article iby Sir Clifford Sifton, and I even had a conversation with him on the question. He suggested that we should have the right to amend our own constitution, but he agreed that the provinces had rights in the matter. His suggestion was that there should be a national convention comprising members of parliament, members of the legislatures of the various provinces, and important citizens elected by various classes of the community. Other suggestions were made, one to the effect that another form of committee or convention representative of various parts of Canada should be called together for the purpose. In my opinion, however, these suggestions failed in the fact that they did not take into consideration the parties to the pact as such: the provinces must be represented as provinces to the pact of confederation. As I said in this House in another debate, the provinces after all are not the children of the Dominion parliament; rather, parliament is the creation of the provinces. They existed before this parliament existed, and the British North America Act is just as much the constitution and charter of the provinces as it is the charter of this Dominion government and this Dominion parliament.


Mr. HEAPS:: The statement of the Minister of Justice leaves just a doubt in my mind. Supposing the conference of the provinces is held during the coming summer, will all the nine provinces now in confederation take part on an equal basis?


Ernest Lapointe: Most assuredly. Let me repeat that tihe British North America Act is just as much the charter of the provinces as it is our charter; in all matters which are assigned to the provinces as being under their control and jurisdiction they are just as supreme as the parliament of Canada is supreme with regard to matters declared to be within the jurisdiction of the Dominion government. The provinces are self-governing within their sphere; they are free and independent legislatures just as much as this parliament is independent with its own limits, and you cannot change a charter which is common to them as well as to us by consideration in a committee of this House. The only way it can be done is by agreement between the various parties to that charter.


Edward Joseph Garland: In regard
to the final act.


Ernest Lapointe: And even in the deliberations.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, no.


Ernest Lapointe: My friend does not agree with me. Two years ago we declined to sign a treaty because we had not been a party to the deliberations which preceded it. I say that those who are interested in this matter have the right to be there when it is discussed by those who desire to alter it.


Mr. KAISER:: Have we not already made amendments to the British North America Act?


Ernest Lapointe: In small matters. There was the question of a change in the subsidies granted to the provinces, for instance.


William Irvine: Is it the intention of the
government to call such a conference in the near future?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. An amount has
been placed in the estimates for that purpose. That conference will take place; it is the intention of the government to call the conference during the present year, at which conference will be discussed not only subjects such as are mentioned in the resolution now before us, but various other matters as well. These will be taken up by the provinces and by the federal government.


Mr. LADNER:: I would like to ask a
question with respect to the minister's statement regarding the binding effect of the British North America Act as between the provinces and the federal government. How would he relate sudh a policy to the carrying out of the provisions of the Imperial conference which, if made effective, must substantially affect the British North America Act?


Ernest Lapointe: Not at all; that is where my hon. friend is making a mistake. The British North America Act is not at all changed, modified or altered as a result of the report of the Imperial conference.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But if we make the report of the Imperial conference effective as a constitutional factor, how can that be done without affecting the British North America Act?


Ernest Lapointe: My friend must remember that Canada is a confederation. When the report of the Imperial conference says that Canada is an autonomous country and Australia is an autonomous country, it means Australia with the various states which compose that country, and it means Canada with the various provinces which compose Canada. As I said some time ago in the course of this debate, the provinces are just as free and autonomous in their own sphere as iis this parliament in ils sphere. This has not been
B.N.A. Act-Amendment

altered; it can be altered only when the people of Canada desire that that be done, and this desire will have to be expressed not only by this parliament but by the provinces as well, who are interested in the matter.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: I presume that at this
conference the Dominion government will be represented?


Ernest Lapointe: Assuredly.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How will you be able to express the views of this parliament unless the matter is considered here?


Ernest Lapointe: Any Change which may be agreed upon at such a conference must be accepted by the parliament of Canada, of course.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Leader of the Opposition):: I would like to offer a few
remarks, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). He has not introduced a subject which is by any means a new question in this House; periodically during the last twenty-five years at least this question has been before parliament, but I can commend my hon. friend for his diligence and for his researches in regard to the matter. I do not think, however, that he has offered any very satisfactory solution of any difficulties which exist-if difficulties do exist, which I do not admit-in regard to what we look upon as the constitutional charter of the Dominion of Canada. I am inclined to think that taking it all in all, during the last sixty years we have gone on very satisfactorily, and I do not know that any considerable body of public opinion in this country is much concerned at present with any difficulties in regard to the constitution of our country. It may be that here and there throughout the length and breadth of Canada an individual or a few individuals may be found who are not satisfied with every word and every letter of the British North America Act, but in such a matter it is a hard thing to please everybody. I do state, however, that there is no considerable body of public opinion in Canada to-day which is dissatisfied with the terms of the constitutional charter of this country; I hear of no public demand for such changes and I see no articles in our newspapers or in our magazines demanding them. I must confess, however, that almost year after year in this chamber some one offers the suggestion that in some way or other we in this country are suffering from what I might describe as constitutional outrages, that we are carrying some unnecessary burden or
__[Air. Lapointe.]
that we have some pressing grievances which should be remedied. For my part I am unable to discover any of these grievances or any of these difficulties which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seems to assume in the motion now before us. So in the first place I cannot see that there is any demand for serious constitutional changes in Canada to-day, and in the second place if there were such a demand I submit to the House that the only procedure to be taken is that outlined by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), through the instrumentality of a provincial conference.
One need not argue the question of our right to change our constitution; we know we have no such right. We have been permitted to change the constitution from time to time, but only in regard to matters of procedure and not matters of principle. As the Minister of Justice stated a moment ago, we have been allowed to amend our act in regard to the increase of subsidies, but only because that was viewed merely as a matter of procedure or detail. We have also been allowed to appoint a Deputy Speaker in this House, although by the terms of the British North America Act we are only entitled to appoint a Speaker. That likewise was considered purely a matter of procedure. Should we in this parliament desire at any time to change important parts of the constitution or any of the specific conditions contained therein, I submit that we are absolutely powerless to do so. We can pass an address of the House of Commons and Senate of Canada, present that memorial in Great Britain and ask for amendments. In certain instances amendments have been made in response to our address, but they have not in themselves been constitutional changes. On one or two occasions we prolonged the life of a parliament in that way without consulting the various provinces of Canada; but the moment we seek to go beyond the plain meaning of the constitution in important matters or in specific conditions the answer will come back from Great Britain, in the future just as it has in the past: No; the provinces who originally agreed upon this constitution must likewise agree upon any changes.


William Irvine: I understood the Minister
of Justice to argue that it was the people of Canada who made their own constitution and the natural inference therefrom was that we could make a change. Does the hon. gentleman agree with that?


Hugh Guthrie: I agree that the people
of Canada did make their own constitution originally. It was made simply by means

B.N.A. Act-Amendment
of certain resolutions to which the representatives of all the then provinces agreed. Those resolutions were placed in definite form; they were made into a form of agreement. It is not correct to say that the British North America Act is the agreement. It is not the agreement, it is the act of the Imperial parliament which gave force to the agreement. The parties who made the agreement are the only parties to change the agreement; and if changes are desirable-and at the present moment I do not think there is any strong demand for changes-the opportunity wlil be offered in the near future when the meeting of the representatives of all the provinces of this Dominion takes place. Now how can the matter be advanced by appointing a committee of this House to consider questions of constitutional change? We have no power to act, and it would be purely an academic discussion on our part. We might spend a lot of time 'in idle consideration of a question as to which we have no power to do more than merely to discuss it. Why not leave the matter as it is now until the representatives of the provinces meet?
I am not one of those who consider that any very grave constitutional changes will be attempted in this country in the near future. Nor can I say that I wholly agree with the opinion expressed by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice in regard to the effect of the report of the recent Imperial conference upon the constitution of this country. It is true he became very emphatic in regard to his position but his position is merely-the ipse dixit of a minister of justice in thi3 House. I can tell him there are other opinions besides his in regard to this matter, and very substantial legal opinions, that there has been a serious modification of our constitutional situation if the report of the Imperial conference means anything. If it is a nullity then I grant there has been no change. But if the statements and declarations in that report are intended to be operative there certainly has been a change: the power of disallowance has gone. If it is an inoperative statement of course there has been no change; but it is either an operative declaration or an inoperative one. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice can take it which ever way he likes.


Ernest Lapointe: I should be like my
hon. friend if I were to do that.


Hugh Guthrie: If the declaration was
merely inoperative and not to be acted upon, then I agree there is no constitutional change. We have the declaration on the part of high authority that henceforth there shall be no power of disallowance, and if so then there
is a constitutional change in the British North America Act in that that section has been repealed. I do not propose at this point to discuss that question further. There will be another opportunity during the session, I apprehend, to discuss fully the whole question. But at this moment, and in regard to the suggestion of my hon. friend, (Mr. Woods-worth) I am quite in accord with the Minister of Justice; I do not think he is going to advance his cause one iota by the appointment of a committee of this House who can only spend their time in academic discussion. A conference is to be held in the near future of all the provinces of this Dominion who see fit to attend-we cannot compel their attendance-and if any one desires constitutional changes, let their request be made known at that conference and let the discussion take place there; and if the duly accredited representatives of the various provinces will agree upon such changes, and their agreement is ratified by this parliament, I have not a moment's hesitation in saying that the home government will see to it that their agreement, whatever it may be, is carried out.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the hon. gentleman not agree that it is quite competent for us at least to discuss what we want, what changes we think are desirable?


Hugh Guthrie: Oh, I think we have
powder to discuss the matter, but that discussion would be largely a waste of time. As I said before it would be purely academic. There are dozens of questions which we discuss in this House which do not get us any further. Much time is taken up-perhaps I should say in regard to former sessions that much time has been actually wasted-in discussions which cannot advance the matters in question one bit. We cannot reach any conclusion, we cannot take any action. But the conference which is to sit in the near future can do that; then why not allow the question to go to ithat conference? If my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre has anything to urge, the time and the occasion will be when that tribunal convenes-the only tribunal which can take action in the matter. Why we should take up the time of the House in such a discussion as this I cannot see; and I for one, as I said before, do not think that in any part of Canada there is any very serious or general demand for a revision of the constitution of this country.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: I
find myself somewhat in the position, of agreeing partly with the Minister of Justice, partly with the leader of the opposition, and
B.N.A. Act-Amendment

partly with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), so that I am ahle to act, so to speak, as a go-between in this case.


Hugh Guthrie: A mediator.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: First of all it seems
to me that we should distinguish clearly between the right and the power to amend our constitution. The leader of the opposition is quite right when he says that if we take the constitution as it was framed in 1867, enacted by the British parliament, and interpreted ever since, we have not the legal power; but while he was making his able and interesting argument I was thinking of an opinion expressed by an authority surely as high as that of any member of this House on these matters-I was thinking of Lord Haldane's opinion, as expressed some thirty years ago. Speaking of the development of constitutional power and usages in the self-governing dominions he stated-I think I remember his words almost verbatim; they were published in some English legal review-that the time was soon coming if it had not come-and I add this much, that I think it has come-when the British parliament could act only as an interpreter of the will of tire various selfgoverning dominions-


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The time has come when it is acknowledged that these various selfgoverning dominions are just as completely masters in their houses as the people of Great Britain are in theirs; and although they may have chosen-they had to choose then-the medium of the British parliament to put into legal form the enactment of their constitution as framed by their own people, the time has come when no government in England would hesitate a moment in giving entire effect to the will of these various dominions. If this is true-and I think it is true, and I think we must make it more true from day to day if we want to show ourselves worthy scions, worthy descendants of the British nation-and if we take such pride in the principles of the government that they have in England, surely we must think of the day when we will outgrow the period of infancy and will consider that we are just as capable of dealing with all our questions, national or international, as the people of the United Kingdom are. Therefore in that respect we must look forward to the day when, I will not say in this parliament, but when in Canada our constitution will be dealt with by power arising from the will of the people of 
Canada, without the interference of the British pai'liament. It must come to that. The Minister of Justice has pointed out the outgrowth of the spirit and practice of selfgovernment. The British parliament has followed that progressive course in acknowledging that the people of Australia should develop that principle, and that the people of South Africa should follow that example, and also that the Free State of Ireland should do likewise. Are we going to confess that, we, the pioneers in that march towards the goal of national liberty and equality, consider ourselves as being handicapped because our constitution was the first one enacted by the British parliament? Are we to remain in the shackles of that constitution, and not enter into the broad spirit of advancement in this regard, as it has developed in the other self-governing parts of the empire? Far from being time wasted, on the contrary, I think it is a move in the right direction, to assert on every possible occasion that we in Canada should advance in the direction of dealing with our own affairs.
The point on which I agree with the leader of the opposition and the Minister of Justice is that this parliament 'by itself has neither the right nor the power-and neither should it have it-to amend the constitution of Canada without the consent of the provinces. We stand in exactly the same position as the congress of the United States or the federal council of Switzerland, as the governing body of every federation; because the very fact that a confederacy exists, as differing from one united nation, means that it is a composite body in which various parts have more or less autonomous power, and in their sphere, as properly stated by the Minister of Justice, are just as sovereign to act as the federal body. For example, the Swiss cantons have more powers than our provinces in some respects and less in others. The states of the American union have more power than the provinces of Canada. For one thing, they have control of their criminal legislation, whereas in Canada the provinces have not. Does it mean that because there are limitations to the powers of parliament, this is not a body where we should discuss any amendment that ought or might 'be made to our constitution for the general benefit of Canada? During the argument of the leader of the opposition I was thinking of another opinion expressed by Lord Haldane, when acting as * Lord High Chancellor. In delivering a judgment of the Privy Council in some case arising in connection with Australia, he made a comparison of the constitutions of South Africa, of Australia and of Canada, and dealt precisely

B.N.A. Act-Amendment
with the point as to whether or not the constitution of Canada was a contract, whether it stood' as a contract, and whether it should be amended without the consent, of all the parties to the contract. If I remember right his opinion was this, that as between the constitution of South Africa, which is much more centralized than ours, and the constitution of Australia, which resembles more that of the United States than ours, the constitution of Canada stood about halfway, which can be easily explained by the circumstances under which it was framed. As everyone knows, it was in the last years of the great struggle between the southern states and the federal government. Sir John A. Macdonald was very much impressed with the circumstance; and I think in a speech made by him in the House in 1865, when explaining the resolutions passed in Quebec, he showed the importance of strengthening the central power, in order to prevent in the future any such tendency arising and developing as that which had brought the American union nearly to the point of ruin and secession. But nevertheless the union remained, and whether the constitution stands as a contract or not I will not pretend to express an opinion, when there are so many enlightened legal gentlemen in this House. But morally speaking there is no doubt confederation is the result of a contract. Therefore if we want to preserve the principle of confederation, as the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has said-and I know he is sincere in his statement-we must take means to ascertain the will of every one of the provinces which are the inheritors or the contractors of confederation. In that respect I agree entirely with the Minister of Justice, and also with the leader of the opposition. It would not be proper to attempt to amend our constitution upon each or any one of these points which affect directly or indirectly the rights of the provinces. On the other hand, in the sphere which is within the purview of this parliament, it must be remembered that it has been created for the general advantage of Canada. In many cases, when there were diverse' views as between the jurisdiction of this parliament and the provinces, where there was a real conflict between the federal and the provincial legislatures, I think it has been held generally that anything done by the parliament of Canada for the general advantage of the country should prevail over provincial matters, matters dealt with by provincial legislatures for their own provinces.


Mr. GEARY:: Not quite so far as that.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Perhaps, but I think the hon. gentleman will excuse me if I do not express myself in legal language. What I mean is that in all those powers which are undoubtedly of federal jurisdiction, we should surely have the right and the power to suggest such amendments to the constitution of Canada as we think for the general advantage of Canada without being obliged to resort to interprovincial conferences. But a3 regards the Senate, this is a question which might be viewed from both angles. If you consider that body merely as one of the two chambers governing the people of Canada, then it is purely a federal matter; but if you concede that the Senate, as in the United States, was established primarily for the protection of the provinces and for the safeguarding of those minority rights which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wants to preserve, then the moment you speak of a change in the composition of the Senate you raise the question of provincial rights, you raise a question upon which the provinces have the right to express their views.
I shall not dwell at length upon that question of the Senate. I rather differ from my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. WToodsworth) when he says that he wants to pull some of the teeth of the Senate, though not of the senators. Judging by the long list he has given of the private interests with which many of the senators are concerned, I would rather say it is the teeth of the senators that ought to be pulled. In fact, many of the complaints that have been laid at the door of the Senate by the tw(c>
parties alternately have not resulted from the constitutional composition of the Senate, but rather from the fact, which we have to admit, that all governments since confederation have made of the Senate a house of refuge for political friends or a sort of stock exchange for business men who pay large subscriptions to parties. At confederation, and it is indicated in the constitution itself, Sir John Macdonald, foreseeing the day when after a long period of enjoyment of power by one party it would be necessary for a new party coming in to command a majority of the Senate, provided for the addition of six senators to be appointed over and above the number fixed by the constitution, two from the maritimes, two from Quebec and two from Ontario. This was considered sufficient at the time, because it could not be conceived that any government would be so derelict in its duty as to fill up the Senate with its creatures and make it simply a party body. But unfortunately that has been the
B.N.A. Act-Amendment

case, and the reform of the Senate is to be looked for in a practical way rather than in amendments to our constitution. This government and all future governments to come, for it would be difficult to ask this government to have all the virtues all at once after so many vices have prevailed for so many years, should think a little more of the functioning of the Senate and of the respect it ought to command before the whole public of Canada, instead of using it simply to serve party interests or to reward men who subscribe money for election purposes.
Another aspect, it seems to me, has been overlooked this afternoon. In Canada we have a state of things which does not exist in Australia, in the Free State, or in thd Union of South Africa. The parties to the contract of 1867, what were they? Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. That was the confederation of those days; and the first thing they did-and to my mind it w'as a great mistake on the part of the fathers of confederation-was immediately to purchase the Northwest Territories, open them to colonization, and receive at the hands of the British parliament the power to govern those territories, and later on to grant them provincial charters. The result has been that we have created within the confederation of Canada a- Canada different from the rest. I have been endeavouring for many years past to convince my friends in Quebec, and generally in eastern Canada, that confederation will never be a settled thing until we understand the. people of the west, with all their defects, but also with their qualities. We must realize that the people of the west look upon us in the east as we in Canada looked for so many years upon the British parliament; I will not say as a foreign parliament, but as a political body escaping the influences of the people for whom it was legislating, passing laws and making a constitution, and imposing upon the people their policies in tariff, railway and all other matters. The result is, and it is useless to conceal it, that the people in the west do not feel at home in the confederation in the same degree that we do. Even we French-Canadians in the province of Quebec, in spite of all obstacles raised in our way since 1867, feel more at home in the confederation than a vast majority of the people inhabiting the prairie provinces.


George Gibson Coote: After the sentiments which the hon. gentleman has expressed, would he
[Mr. Bourassa.l
be willing that these new provinces which were formed by the old confederation should be given the same rights under the constitution as the older provinces have?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of course, in principle
I am in favour of that, and always have been, provided that they respect the same engagements that have been taken by the other provinces. That has always been my view. I held it in this House when the charters of Alberta and Saskatchewan were granted twenty-two years ago. I held it in my own province, in writing and speaking upon many occasions, and I expressed the same view again in the last two elections, that the western provinces should be .put on exactly the same footing in every matter as the eastern provinces, providing the western provinces will enter into the spirit of confederation and understand us as some of us are trying to understand them.


Mr. CAHAN:: In what respect are they
in a different position now?
Mr. BOURAiSSA:	With respect, first, to
their lands and natural resources; and that is a great thing. My hon. friend knows what the administration, of the public domain means to the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario and the province of New Brunswick. All these things that have to do with the daily life of the people are in the hands of the government of these provinces, and as far as we are concerned we would never consent to see our colonization policy -badly managed as it is by our Tory government in Quebec-placed in the hands of this parliament.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The western provinces of
their own option prefer to receive a cash subsidy.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is another point,
and I thank my hon. friend for having suggested it, though it may lengthen my remarks for about five minutes. First of all, they we're not consulted when the territories were organized, because there were no people there then. [DOT] We passed the Northwest Territories Act when there was no population there. The federal parliament had to pass it and take its responsibility. The federal parliament laid down certain principles which it was bound to preserve; and later on, when population came in and tlhe country grew, the time came to grant them provincial charters, and the federal parliament was placed in this position : It had to stand within the scope of the constitution and grant to these territories

B.N.A. Act-Amendment
provincial rights and provincial privileges equivalent to those exercised in the east. At the same time they were handicapped by engagements, moral or material, taken by this parliament in the exercise of its responsibility so long as those provinces had existed only as territories. So we have not the same state of things, and I think we have to acknowledge it 'in this parliament. We have to make of this confederacy, not a uniform body, but we have to harmonize the conditions as between eastern Canada and western Canada, as far as they are dependent upon this parliament, before we can expect any agreement to be arrived at by the representatives of these provinces and of the federal government in any such conference as is suggested. At the present time it is impossible for the representatives of the various provinces of Canada to discuss any matter affecting our constitution or 'the administration of our country because there is no unity, because the situation is not the same.
With regard to the means of consultation, I do not quite agree with the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Laipointe) that an interprovincial conference is the only means by which we can have an agreement on these matters. I would not commit the constitution of this country to the care of twenty or twenty-five gentlemen, delegates of the various provincial governments. I would no more trust the establishment of an inter-provincial fascism than I would the setting up of any other autocratic power. Besides, they could only suggest, they could only do exactly what the mover of the resolution wants us to do- they could only agree upon certain -modifications to be made in our constitution, and then report Ito this parliament and to the various provincial legislatures.
If this is the case, and I think the Minister of Justice agrees with me on that, why should parliament be deprived of making suggestions in the general interest of the country regarding certain parts of the constitution which concern only the Dominion as a whole? I think it would advance the work of the interprovincial conference if a committee such as that suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre were formed, not to take too large a scope, perhaps, but to suggest a few changes, and then have those suggestions submitted to the conference. Thus we would have at once an expression of opinion on the part of this parliament, upon the findings of a committee composed of representatives from various parts of Canada interpreting the views of their respective provinces, and also-because whether we resist it or not, sitting together in this parliament we are bound to correct our provincial and local views-also evincing a certain spirit of Canadian unity, which you cannot expect from provincial legislators. The Premier of Quebec will stand for the point of view of Quebec, the Premier of Ontario for the point of view of Ontario, and so on with the other premiers, while two or three federal representatives will have to deal with all those provincial representatives. It seems to me that the parliament of Canada being the supreme body-not supreme over the provinces, 'but supreme over the general interests of the Dominion-ought to take the lead in a move of this nature, first, to assert the right of the people of Canada to do with their constitution what the people of Great Britain do with theirs. That would be the main point, and it would be a further assertion of the principle laid down in London last summer. Secondly, we should make it possible for the various representatives of the provinces to discuss those views that had been expressed by such a committee, and pass upon them their own judgment, so that at a future session of this parliament we would be in a position to compare notes and find out the views of the federal parliament and of the various provinces upon such changes as might be suggested.


Ernest Lapointe: Am I right in understanding my friend to suggest that the committee should be restricted to matters which come exclusively under the federal parliament and over which the provinces have no jurisdiction?
Mr. BOURA'SSA:	I think a clear distinction should be made in the committee. It seems to me that the duty of the representative of the government in that committee would be, the moment a question cropped tip affecting provincial rights or jurisdiction, to point cut to the committee the uselessness of wasting time on its discussion. For example, if the question of the Senate were raised, I think it would be the duty of that representative and of every member of this parliament possessed of the spirit of confederation to remind the committee that the Senate is not to 'be judged only according to the good or bad votes it gives on this or that measure, but according to the spirit of the institution, according to those principles of confederation which my friend wants to preserve. But c-f course, once a clear definition were made, the whole matter should be submitted to the inter-provincial conference. I think it would clarify the situation and enable both the representatives of the federal par-
B.N.A. Act-Amendment

liament and the representatives of the provincial legislatures to accomplish some work.
As to the argument made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) that there is no need for any change in our constitution, I cannot agree. There may not be a crying need for radical changes; but let us remember that having to live under a written constitution is in itself a great inconvenience. We have not the advantage that the people of Great Britain have of being able to reshape their constitution from time to time according to their needs. The constitution of Great. Britain is in a constant process of evolution and reshaping, and therefore grows with the people; while we have outgrown many parts of our constitution. As regards our relations with the British government, it may be that we still have in this House and in the country men with the colonial spirit of a hundred years ago who consider that we should make no change in those relations. For example, with respect to the power of disallowance. Well, I would respectfully give those men the same advice that I have given to certain Catholic friends of mine-not to be more Catholic than the Pope; I would advise those men not to take a narrower and more English view of these things than that held by all the leading men of Great Britain. When public men in England hear colonials saying that we do not want to grow nationally, they look upon us as inferior beings and conclude that we have not the strength of will and the power of mind to live out our own national life as they have taught us to do on the other side of the ocean.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Does not the
hon. gentleman think that in view of the fact of our two jurisdictions, provincial and federal, we will always require a written constitution to define their respective limits?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of course. Even if we were completely independent-as I think we will be, one of these days-we will have a written constitution, just as the Americans have. But the Americans have made their constitution grow with their national growth. Take the role of the Supreme Court of the United States with regard to the constitution and compare some of its decisions in Washington sixty years ago with those rendered to-day, for example, that famous decision which held that under the constitution a slave-owner was just as much master of the body of his slave as he was of his ox or his ass. I do not think the Supreme Court of the United States would render such a judgment to-day. Then take the various decisions handed down by that court after the conquest of Porto Rico and the annexation
(Mr. Bourassa.]
of the Philippines, and you will find how the court enlarged the scope of the American constitution in order to deal with the new problems that had arisen with the growth of the American nation. So long as we do not assert our right to deal with our own affairs in our own way; so long as we do not regard the Supreme Court of Canada as the ultimate tribunal to interpret the constitution of this country; so long as we do not consider this parliament the supreme authority in giving expression to the will of the Canadian people, just so long shall we be handicapped by that narrow colonial spirit which renders us inferior to the people of Great Britain.
With regard to the other point raised by the leader of the opposition concerning minority rights, I entirely agree with the Minister of Justice. Just as, speaking as a Canadian and a British citizen, I cannot stand the idea of colonial inferiority, neither can I, as a French Canadian and a Catholic, tolerate the idea that we need have recourse to a foreign power to protect us. Of course I admit that there might be some risk, but surely we French Canadians have proven in three hundred years that we are manly enough to face risks. I must say, speaking my own mind, that I am unable to agree altogether with my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in the view that English speaking Canadians generally are as broadminded as Englishmen at home. Unfortunately they are not, and we have had many proofs to this effect. But I believe that the more responsibility the people of Canada at large exercise, English or French, Catholic or Protestant, the less they rely upon outside authority to correct their misdemeanours or to prevent them from doing foolish things, the more will their sense of responsibility increase and the more broadminded will they become. We are absolutely the masters of our constitution; there is no doubt of that. But so long as we do not exercise the power that is ours in that respect, it remains dormant and circumscribed. We must exercise it, and no one will be more glad to see us assert ourselves than the powers that be in England, because they have enough to do to look after their own affairs without being obliged to settle our small quarrels in Canada. They do not care to adjust matters between Catholic and Protestant, French or English in this country. It is not their business to do so and they do not want to have the responsibility. The English had to deal with the Irish for seven centuries and they have had enough of that sort of thing. The Irish made it quite evident that it was absurd for Englishmen to want to rule a foreign people from

B.N.A. Act-Amendment
the English point of view. It seems to me that both English speaking and French speaking Canadians, whether Catholic or Protestant, will settle their differences more satisfactorily when they confer solely among themselves, in absolute freedom.
As regards the federal pact, I have expressed the view, time and again in Quebec, and I repeat it on this occasion, that if that pact holds good, it holds good in Ottawa as well as in London. If it is broken in Ottawa, or Toronto, or anywhere else in Canada, the king will not send a regiment to this country to make the pact good in favour of French Canadians or of Catholics. It may be that some of the hon. gentlemen surrounding the leader of the opposition would be prepared to raise the banner of King William to save us Catholics from Protestant domination, but I do not quite expect that.
I rather rely on the common sense of the vast majority of English speaking Protestant Canadians. I do not think it is the proper spirit to foster in this country, to make English speaking Canadians believe that if it were not for the maternal protection of Great Britain we could be wiped out. Do not let anybody remain under that delusion. We cannot be wiped out; and if the English speaking Canadians could wipe us out the vast majority of them would not do so. Of course, at election times, once in a while, a certain number of people are bound to talk that way-one flag, one language, and so forth. But when it comes to a matter of practice, every reasonable man knows that two and a half million French Canadians are not going to be turned into English speaking people. On the contrary, we are freely learning English because we want to communicate with the rest of Canada and we want to prove to them that we do not suffer from that incapacity referred to a short time ago, of not being intelligent enough to acquire a second language. Those English speaking Canadians who suggest that this opinion is held generally throughout Canada simply calumniate their own people.
The more we have to discuss between ourselves matters of the kind that are called burning questions, dangerous questions, the more we consider them together as between man and man, the more will there grow up in Canada a proper spirit of conciliation, and the more courage will evidence itself on both sides, however much prejudice there may be at times. And of course prejudices are bound to exist. The discussion may be heated at times, but finally difficulties will have to be adjusted as they were adjusted in 1867. Conciliation was the spirit of confederation.
Cartier and Macdonald did not go to London to seek advice on how to deal with the school question or with the question of minority rights or anything else. They first secured George Brown and gagged him with a portfolio; they silenced him for a few years. He was the only man who raised any trouble in those days, for the good old Tory party was unanimous at that time for the protection of French Catholics. As I say, they gagged George Brown, and that was Cartier's masterpiece; because, as Macdonald said in some of his letters, "I cannot speak with the man." He therefore used Cartier as an intermediary; diplomatist as he was, he used a French-Canadian for the purpose. Thus it was that, after Brown was brought in, confederation was made possible.
What were the outstanding principles of confederation? In the first place, the whole of Canada in becoming a self-governing country was asserting its right to full fledged autonomy. As everybody knows, Sir John Macdonald wanted the Dominion to be called the Kingdom of Canada. We have evidence, not only in his letters but in his public utterances, that he wanted to entertain with foreign powers such relations as we are beginning to establish to-day. Everyone knows that he was absolutely opposed to any kind or form of contribution by the people of Canada to any war waged by England outside Canada. We have testimony to this effect all through his life, in all his actions. The second principle of confederation was that in every province of Canada, the minority, French or English, Protestant or Catholic, should enjoy exactly the same rights in matters of language and of sohools. We have stood by the agreement on both points, and we are prepared to stand by it in complete amity with the other peoples of the Dominion. As Canadians, we are prepared to discuss the problems that confront us without the interference of a tribunal in London oir of any body responsible to the electors of Yorkshire or of Midlothian. We are ready to settle our own affairs without reference to any suoh outside authority as to whether we should insert or omit a comma here or there in our constitutioh, or eliminate a sentence or half a sentence elsewhere.
It behooves us to assert-what was acknowledged unanimously this summer by representatives of all the self-governing countries of the empire-that Canada has the right and the power to deal with her own constitution just as freely as Great Britain can deal with hers. And inasmuch as oura is a written constitution, the result of a contract between two races, an agreement among
B.N.A. Act-Amendment

several provinces; inasmuch as there are new provinces which did not exist at the time of confederation, and new problems which did not then present themselves: in view of these circumstances it seems to me that the two processes, advocated respectively by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and by the Minister of Justice, instead of conflicting with each other, are rather complementary. I think my friends on the other side should acknowledge that anything done or said in this House cannot close the matter, and that the provinces must pronounce themselves as political bodies and political entities within the confederacy, just as the provinces have no right and no power to prevent this House from doing anything we desire to do in our federal affairs or from making such suggestions as we may think are for the benefit of Canada.
It seems to me that there would jbe no time lost, because our constitution cannot be amended as the'English constitution is amended in fact- from day to day. Once in a while we have to put it on the "metier", as we say in French, to see whether it has been outgrown, whether it should be added to or modified, and this should be done periodically. We should have a committee to look after the revision of the constitution let us say every 'ten years. Instead of waiting until there is discontent and until the various parts of the country begin to bicker, it would be a good thing to look after it from time to time, Therefore in that spirit and with those reservations, while agreeing entirely with the Minister of Justice in the main portion of his argument, it seems to me that the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could be accepted in that broad spirit, with the desire to accomplish something more comprehensive and more practical than a mere inter-provincial conference could bring about by itself, without having received first of all an indication of the opinion of this parliament.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to
enter upon this discussion, but I think it discloses the fact that once you begin to make shreds and patches of the constitution, either of Great Britain in her relations to the dominions or of the dominions themselves in relation to their separate provinces or states, you at once open a large field for discussion in which we may reach no satisfactory conclusion, and are indeed incapable of doing so. The constitution of a country is on an entirely different basis from the ordinary statutes and enactments of parliament; a con-

stitution is made not for the present but for the far-reaching future. It must necessarily change and be subject to modifications, but the matter of modification or change must be approached1 in an entirely different spirit from that in which we would consider the amendment of a mere statute dealing with commercial, corporation or criminal law.
I do not suffer, and I do not think members of this parliament or the people of this country suffer, from any inferiority complex; I believe the electors of this country are as intelligent, if not more intelligent, than are on the whole the electors of Great Britain and Ireland. I know something of Scotland and something of England; and in my opinion the majority of the electors of those countries are not more intelligent than are the average of the electors of our own country. I do not think the lawyers of Canada suffer from any inferiority complex; I meet the best lawyers of London from time to time as well as those of New York and Washington, and I have never felt that I could not safeguard the interests of my clients in dealing with them quite as satisfactorily as I can safeguard the interests of my clients in dealing with the lawyers of Toronto, Edmonton or Vancouver.
I do not think we suffer in Canada from the colonial spirit; if that spirit exists in this country I do not know where it exists. I do not find it in the eastern provinces or in Quebec, and I certainly do not find it in the west; so that any discussion of the colonial spirit seems to me entirely apart from the question. If the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has really made up his mind that the independence of Canada is necessary to the welfare of the country as a whole and that it should be achieved within a short time,
I can understand why he should openly advocate our independence as he has done this afternoon. Unfortunately, he does not conceive that the members of this House or the people of this country may advocate the continuance of their political relations to the British throne and to Great Britain and Ireland and the other great dominions, except that it be advocated by reason of an inferiority complex or through being permeated1 with a colonial spirit. I take an entirely different view. I look to Canada to develop and1 to become one of the great nations of the world. If I or you, Mr. Speaker, could return to this country fifty or sixty or one hundred years hence, we would1 see a progress and development in Canada in every department of national life which would surpass the highest anticipations of the people of to-day. It is bound to come, but I believe it will best be

B.N.A. Act-Amendment
achieved if we make no sudden break and have no sudden cleavage from the traditions under which we were born and bred, and which are an inspiration to the great body of our people both French and English. These traditions were not traditions) of servility. They were never such in the province of Quebec even in the rural districts of that province, and are not such to-day; there is no spirit of servility there. Although the hon. member has had far more experience from his associations with the people of that province than I possess, yet I believe that though they have not a spirit of servility, and while they are not permeated with the colonial spirit, the great body of those people are willing and anxious to maintain those ancient and honourable liens which, bind the people of Canada to the British throne, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the other great dominions beyond the seas. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that they are not ready to disrupt and tear up the ties or liens of the constitutional fabric which binds us to the rest of the British Commonwealth to-day.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the hon. gentleman if there is anything in the resolution which looks to the tearing up or disruption of any such ties?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am discussing the address of the hon. member for Labelle for t'he moment, and if I have an opportunity-


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If my hon. friend will permit me, he knows that I did not suggest disruption, and there has never been any such idea. I simply wish to go back to the principle of confederation that was asserted by Sir John Macdonald: complete equality as between Canada and Great Britain, that is all.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I accept that statement from the hon. member for Labelle, but I thought that some phrases which he used or statements which he made went beyond that. It seems to me that the great object of the people in Canada to-day, both of the east and west and of the centre, should be to develop a unity of national sentiment, to develop, if you will, a common speech in the use of both languages; because I believe that a knowledge of the French language is absolutely necessary to a thorough knowledge and appreciation of the mentality and high character of the great body of people of the province in which I represent a constituency. We must achieve that spirit of national unity before we will be in a position to discuss in the
future any dissolution of those ties which bind us to the other British dominions and to the British throne.
Now, in connection with that problem, any proposal for a revision of the British North America Act, as suggested, will, I think, create a considerable degree of suspicion. It will meet a very considerable degree of suspicion in the eastern provinces of Canada; it will meet possibly, among the thoughtful men of the west, the same degree of suspicion and reluctance to enter upon any new constitutional arrangement of a radical character or quality. We must first apply ourselves to achieving that unity, and even those who look forward to the independence of Canada must for years devote their intellectual energies to preparing Canada for that breach if inevitably it is to come. We must -and I intend to discuss this under another resolution, namely, the matter of appeals to the Privy Council-we must perfect the machinery of our own courts of justice. We must give to our own Supreme court a higher standing, and create greater confidence in its decisions on the part of the people of this country before we can abrogate the right of appeal to the Privy Council. I think I have read most of the discussions as reported in shorthand of the arguments before the Privy Council dealing with our own constitutional affairs; and, as I said the other day in committee, it is only occasionally that we see glimpses of intelligence on the part of members of the Judicial Committee, when dealing with t'he local affairs of the Dominion of Canada, yet I confess that the people have not sufficient confidence in our own Supreme court to-day to abrogate entirely not only appeals in criminal cases, appeals in commercial cases, but appeals in constitutional cases; and, although the province of Quebec has met with many disappointments in respect of appeals to the Privy Council, yet I am persuaded that the great body of intelligent opinion in that province is, for the time being and under present conditions, that the light of appeal in constitutional cases should still be maintained. There is a feeling that, if the right of appeal in constitutional cases is not maintained, our people will not have the same confidence in the decisions of our own Supreme Court of Canada as at present constituted; and until you have, on the part of the people of all the provinces, implicit confidence in the ability, in the intelligence, and in the impartiality of our own Supreme court, you would introduce an element of discord, of suspicion and misapprehension into
B.N.A. Act-Amendment

the minds of the people of this country, if you were to abolish at the present time the right of appeal to the Privy Council in constitutional cases.
And then where is the need to-day of any radical revision of the British North America Act? The moment you begin to revise the British North America Act in its essential particulars you place the whole structure, it seems to me, in the melting pot; and we are not prepared to-day to have it placed in the melting pot and to set about arranging a new contract or agreement between the provinces as a basis for a new constitution for this country. Our constitution is different, as the hon. member for Labelle has said, from the constitutions of South Africa, of New Zealand, or of Australia. We are in this country a people drawn originally from two races. It took from 1791 until 1867 to reach a compact or agreement between those two races as to the terms on which they were prepared to cooperate and live in unity for the future; and if you now wipe out that compact, if you now put it into the melting pot, you introduce into Canada an element of discord, which will prevent this country from giving the time and attention it should give to its material and social development. If there were any grave evils apparent I would say let us adjust those evils. Certainly there is no difference between the status of the three provinces of the middle west and that of the provinces of the east which calls for placing the whole constitution in the melting pot to-day. The sole difference between the constitutions of Saskatchewan and Alberta and the constitution of Ontario, is the one provision with regard to natural resources and subsidies; and there was a body of opinion in the territories in 1905, which was represented by some of the ablest and most thoughtful men that we had produced in Canada at that time. They became parties to an arrangement which was carried into effect by the constitutional acts of Alberta and Saskatchewan of 1905, and they decided then that it was to their advantage that the natural resources of those new provinces should be held by the crown in the right of the Dominion of Canada, and that those provinces should receive in compensation annual subsidies largely increased in amount. To-day, Mr. Speaker, if those provinces wish their natural resources back there is not a voice in this House that will be raised against giving them back, by transferring to the crown in right of the provinces these parts of the natural resources which are not yet appropriated. The sole issue is not with regard to the return of the natural 
resources to Alberta, but as to certain portions of the natural resources-of the lands, mines, and forests,-which have been appropriated by the parliament of Canada for the purposes of carrying out certain educational trusts. To-day not a member of this House, I believe, would stand up and vote against the transfer of the natural resources to Alberta or to Saskatchewan; but we simply ask, some of us, that with respect to those lands already appropriated for educational purposes, the terms and conditions of that trust should be maintained and carried out by the crown in the right of the provinces as it is now being carried out by the crown in the right of the Dominion. Therefore there is no serious consideration presented to us why we should put our constitution in the melting pot because of any grave difference of status between the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan on the one hand, and the provinces of the east on the other.
Is there any subject which for the general advantage of Canada should be dealt with by the parliament of Canada, but which parliament now has not complete jurisdiction to deal with? There may be some, but I do not know of any. There is a question arising in the province of Ontario which we have been discussing in the special committee, as to the powers of the provincial legislature and the powers of our own parliament respectively, in imposing restrictions and conditions upon the operations of loan companies. Why should not the province have the right to deal with and prescribe the conditions under which certain insurance companies or certain loan companies should operate within its borders? That is certainly not a matter which calls for the placing of the constitution of this country into the melting pot again. Those are questions which for sixty years have been successfully dealt with by the courts of this country, and which will be so dealt with again during the next sixty years. Therefore, it seems to me, without taking the time of this House, that the one aim and object of all of us who desire to promote the interests of Canadian nationality, as I do, should be to secure such conciliatory cooperation between the various parts of the Dominion that we, whenever an occasion may arise in future, may so understand the sentiment of each other and be so animated by the same purpose that we will work cordially together to promote and preserve the national interests of Canada in whatever form and from whatever source those interests may be attacked. That is not evidence of a colonial spirit. So far as the legislative control by the British

B N.A. Act-Amendment
parliament is concerned it is merely at present a convenient form through which the parliament and legislatures of Canada may give expression (to their unanimous approval of certain projected changes or modifications in the Confederation act. It is simply a form of procedure, and before we abolish that form it is absolutely necessary that we should enter into a new compact, between the people of Canada on the one hand and ithe legislatures and people of each province on the other, that hereafter the constitution of Canada may be changed but may only be changed with the unanimous approval of the whole of the people, as represented by these legislatures.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That would afford us the opportunity for saying that we control and are masters of our own constitution, and that we may make it or amend it or modify it as we see fit. But the fact remains that by the same approval of all the legislatures, and by the approval of the parliament of Canada, we may to-day amend it as we see fit, and therefore for the purpose of providing a new form of procedure which might be gratifying to our national pride, in the present condition of sentiment in this country, when there is lack of complete unanimity, we should not, I think, place the existing constitution into the melting pot for the purpose of arriving at a new compact which should provide the same necessary conditions, the consent of all the provinces to any proposed amendments or modifications. The time is not ripe for it. The time may come in twenty years, or it may come in thirty years or in a century. The main object of members of this parliament and of our people should be to prepare ourselves so that when that time necessarily comes we shall have such unanimity of political sentiment in this country as will enable us as a united people to go on and fulfil our destiny as a great Canadian nation on the northern 'half of this continent, prepared to stand for political rights, to fight our way, to maintain our liberty in spite of any aggression from any other part of the world. But do not let us be premature about it. Do not let us undertake the consideration of these grave constitutional changes until we are actually forced by circumstances to do so. Any country that has ever developed constitutionally has done so by producing men who are able, qualified and competent to deal with any such crisis as it arises. Then, when a crisis does arise, when you are actually forced into effecting these constitutional amendments, you have the men to 32649-67
solve the problem and to preserve and to maintain the high political destiny of the country of which they are citizens.


George Gibson Coote: The sentiments expressed by the hon. member who spoke lost (Mr. Cahan) seemed to me to be typical of the statesmen that we have had governing this country for many years-they do not want to deal with any problem until it is forced upon them. I think it is time we looked upon our problems in a different way and said, "We see this problem in the distance; we will start now to study it and perhaps we can reach a solution of it sooner and in a more satisfactory manner."
My only reason for taking part in this debate was to remind the House of the circumstances under which confederation was accomplished. There were several provinces in Canada-they were not really provinces, but each one was a colony. The representatives of these colonies came together, sat around a council table and considered the question:	"Is there any agreement which
we could enter into with the object of forming a dominion out of all these colonies?" Four of these colonies voluntarily entered confederation. They were the charter members. Prince Edward Island I think was a colony at that time by itself. It could have come [DOT] into the union, but it said: "The terms offered to us are not satisfactory, and we will remain out." They afterwards came in of their own volition and on an agreement satisfactory to them. Later on British Columbia came in, on certain terms which were granted to her. She was not forced in, but I think Canada agreed to build a railway to British Columbia to induce her to come in. Then these provinces or colonies which were formed into the Dominion of Canada afterwards created other so-called provinces out of the great prairies lying in western Canada. I say "so-called," because if these colonies had been made into real provinces they would have been given the rights that were enjoyed by other provinces that came into the confederation. These western provinces, in my opinion, have been held by the rest of Canada very much in the same manner as Spain, Britain and other nations have held their colonies in the past. If these western provinces had been treated the same as the other provinces of Canada, after they had been formed into provinces, they would have been given the opportunity to say whether or not they wanted to come into confederation. There is no doubt that these provinces would have come in on terms that were satisfactory to them. But at the present time they are in confederation, and



Georgian Bay Canal Company
xhey never were given a chance to say whether or not they wanted to come in, and I think the time will have to come-


Mr. MARCEL:: May I ask whether the hon. gentleman has read the debates in this House of 1905, on the Autonomy Bill, when the feelings of the people of western Canada were expressed (through their representatives on that question?


George Gibson Coote: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not, and it seems to me it would not very greatly alter the facts with which I am dealing. I do not think those representatives were entitled to speak for provinces which were not then formed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They were entitled to speak for the territories out of which the provinces were formed.


George Gibson Coote: My contention is that these provinces should have exactly the same rights as the other provinces which entered confederation, and the other provinces all had the right to sit down at the council table and say on what terms they would come in.
I want to conclude before six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and before sitting down I just wish to say that I am heartily in favour of this resolution. I think, if the committee were formed and discussed this question, the government would know very well what was the attitude of parliament in regard to many of these questions which must be considered largely from a Dominion point of view, and our representatives would then enter the interprovincial conference with that opinion of the House to guide them in their deliberations.
On motion of Mr. Mareil the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, March 10, 1927