1930-05-26

QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Has the government received any communication from the city of Vancouver protesting against delay in the construction of the Canadian National hotel at Vancouver?
2.	Why has the work on this hotel been delayed for such a long period?
3.	Who is the contractor in charge of the work, and when is it expected that it will be completed?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	The Department of Railways and Canals has no record of any communication.
2.	Considering the size of the hotel, and the importance of the problems involved, the Canadian National Railway authorities feel that the work has not been delayed to any great extent. Excavation was started in December, 1928,' in order to fufil the promise made by Canadian National Railways to the city of Vancouver that the work would be started before December 31st of that year. At that time, the plans were only in a preliminary stage, but, in the meantime, the Canadian National Railways were able to provide work for a considerable number of men during the winter of 1928-29. In June, 1929, it was realized by the president of the Canadian National Railways that, in view of the probable future progress of the city of Vancouver, it would be advisable to increase the size of the hotel, at the same time designing it so that additional accommodation could be provided at a later date. This necessitated a restudy of the plans, and this scheme is now being carried out. The hotel is at present designed to provide six hundred rooms, with the possibility of adding a further four hundred rooms in the future. The foundation work has been completed, and over two thousand tons of steel has already been erected.
3.	The E. J. Ryan Contracting Company, Limited, of Vancouver, is in charge of the work. It is the intention to open the hotel during the month of May, 1932.


INMATES OF PENITENTIARIES
Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: 1.	How many persons were incarcerated in Canadian penitentiaries during the year 1929?
2.	What is the racial origin of the various prisoners?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The answers to the above questions may be found on page seven of the annual report of the superintendent of penitentiaries, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1929, and are as follows:-
1.	2.769.
2.	White	2,589
Coloured	 60
Indian	 42
Indian halfbreed	 7
Mongolian	 71
2,769


SUBSIDIES TO PROVINCES
Mr. SANDERSON:: What amounts of money have been paid from the federal treasury to the provinces of Canada, by provinces, in each of the several fiscal years since April 1, 1922, on account of subsidies?
Questions


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Subsidies to Provinces paid from 1922-23 to 1929-30
Fiscal Year	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba$	$	$	$	*	$1922-23	381.931	88 381.931	88 381.931	88 381.931	88 381.931	88 381.931	88 381.931	88 381.931	88	661,866 06 661,866 06 661,853 67 661.841	28 661.841	28 661.841	28 661.841	28 661.841	28	666.765	76 666.765	76 666.765	76 666.765	76 666.765	76 666.765	76 666.765	76 666.765	76	2.256.419	88 2.256.419	88 2.256.419	88 2.256.419	88 2.256.419	88 2.256.419	88 2.256.419	88 2.256.419	88	2.642.611	68 2.642.611	60 2.642.611	68 2.642.611	68 2.642.611	68 2.642.611	6S 2.642.611	68 2.642.611	68	1,466,380 16 1,485,118 56 1.501.551	36 1.501.551	36 1.491.836	16 1.491.836	16 1,500,213 76 1,508,591 361923-24	1924-25	1925-26	1926-27	1927-28	1928-29	1929-30	3,055,455 04	5,294,792 19	5,334,126 08	18,051,359 04	21,140,893 44	11,947,078 88Fiscal Year	Saskatche- wan	Alberta	British Columbia	Total for all the Provinces$	$	$	$1922-23	1,763,883 00 1,901,069 00 1,757,005 00 1,850,755 00 2.032.575	00 2.032.575	00 2,047,935 00 2,063,295 00	1,628,638 20 1,651,536 60 1.674.435	00 1.674.435	00 1.643.942	20 1.643.942	20 1,657,188 60 1,576,685 00	738,816 66	12,207,313 28 12,386,136 08 12,281,390 89 12,375,128 50 12.516.740	50 12.516.740	50 12,553,724 50 12,496,958 501923-24	1924-25	1925-26	1926-27	1927-28	1928-29	1929-30	738,816 66	
15,449,092 00	13,150,802 80	5,910,533 28	99,334,132 75
Department of Trade and Commerce
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions paid to Government of British Columbia.
1925-26					
1926-27					
1927-28					
1928-29					
1929-30					
Total					
GRANTS TO MARITIME	PROVINCES		the several	fiscal years since April, 1, 1922, on


Frederick George Sanderson: What amounts of money	have	been paid	account of special grants to the said provinces pending further consideration of provincial sub-	from the federal treasury to the provinces of Canada, by provinces,	maritime in each of	Mr. MACKENZIE KING:	Fiscal	Pr. Edward	Nova	NewYear	Island	Scotia	Brunswick Total1927-28	S 125,000	$ 875,000	$ 600,000 $1,600,0001928-29	125,000	875,000	600,000 1,600,0001929-30	125,000	875,000	600,000 1,600,000$ 375,000	$2,625,000	$1,800,000 $4,800,000


GRANTS FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION
Frederick George Sanderson: What amounts of money have been paid from the federal treasury to the provinces of 
Canada, by provinces, in each of the several fiscal years since April 1, 1922, on account of highway construction?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Dominion Aid Payments under The Canada Highways Act
-	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	OntarioApril 1, 1922 to Mar. 31, 1923	
April 1, 1923 to Mar. 31, 1924	
April 1, 1924 to Mar. 31, 1925	
April 1, 1925 to Mar. 31, 1926	s 106,277 01 124,079 40 34,158 56 180,025 21 15,156 10	$ 811,068 84 97,347 82 61,601 76 12,288 79	$ 371,973 01 297,202 60 56,365 65	$ 1,143,879 51 1,117,065 68 1,306,766 21 640,490 61	$ 2,047,918 28 1,377,440 88 840,646 14 181,671 32 50,000 00 53,269 37Mar. 1, 1927 to Mar. 31, 1928	459,696 28	982,307 31	725,541 26	4,208,202 01	4,550,945 99-	Manitoba	Saskat- chewan	Alberta	British Columbia	T otalsApril 1, 1922 to Mar. 31, 1923	
April 1, 1923 to Mar. 31, 1924	
April 1, 1924 to Mar. 31, 1925	
April 1, 1925 to Mar. 31, 1926	
April 1, 1926 to Mar. 31, 1927	
Mar. 1, 1927 to Mar. 31, 1928	$ 165,547 47 557,372 32 79,279 87 133,535 04 57,744 29 257,045 27	$ 544,820 71 360,130 31 335,759 SO 85,943 71 163,966 25 121,860 93	$ 210,585 93 415,374 01 59,629 88 792,220 18	$ 662,910 88 135,571 13	$ 5.854.395	81 4,066,210 14 2,925,163 92 1,649,328 69 346,496 52 1.224.395	751,250,524 26	1,612,481 71	1,477,810 00	798,482 01	16,065,990 82


GRANTS FOR AGRICULTURAL INSTRUCTION
Frederick George Sanderson: What amounts of money have been paid from the federal treasury to the provinces of
Canada, by provinces, in each of the several fiscal years since April 1, 1922, on account of agricultural instruction?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Grants to Provinces under the Agricultural Instruction Act
1922-23	1923-24	Totals	Alberta	
S 100,448	43	$ 66,937	64	$ 167,386	07British Columbia	
69,199	06	61,842	92	131,041	98Manitoba	
77,113	11	68,665	65	145,778	76New Brunswick	
64,110	80	50,938	67	115,049	47Nova Scotia	
81,716	69	61,783	51	143,500	20Ontario	
336,303	26	254,001	57	590,304	83Prince Edward Island	
31,749	22	27,068	32	58,817	54Quebec	
271,113	76	208,339	45	479,453	21Saskatchewan	
81,728	48	80,422	27	162,150	75S 1,113,482	81	$SS0,000	00	$1,993,482	81
Questions

,2544


GRANTS FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
Frederick George Sanderson: What amounts of money have been paid fiom the federal treasury to the provinces of
Canada, by provinces, in each of the several fiscal years since April 1, 1922, on account of technical education?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -	1922-23	1923-24	1924-25	1925-26	1926-27$	$	$	S	$Prince Edward Island	5,858 40	6, 550 56	1,950 76	7,254 66	7,757 33Nova Scotia	33,160 00	35,501 95	34,623 67	30,999 96	31,494 87New Brunswick	17,476 06	20,382 00	43,040 51	93,874 50	76,208 59Quebec	128,182 27	328,682 25	263,399 70	299,143 78	403,944 25Ontario	314,206 97	347,636 30	347,638 30	347,636 30	347,636 30Manitoba	25,121 14	20,092 49	19,500 37	19,488 77	20,056 34Saskatchewan	18,263 84	18,397 18	17,249 37	20,083 89	18,021 83Alberta	71,019 91	57,613 63	62,215 61	72,731 78	85,789 16British Columbia	34,932 38	53,535 26	40,860 4S	53,123 05	56,627 03Totals	648,227 03	888,391 62	830,476 77	944,336 69	1,047,535 80-	1927-28	1928-29	1929-30	Totals8 11,981 85 29,224 77 70,107 03 329,072 14 347,636 30 27,529 51 17,048 13 74,000 10 59,355 49	$ 20,369 79 47,083 50 48,637 81 372,890 80 347.636	30 28,527 44 25,159 90 92,222 30 169.637	42	8 22,117 30 21,525 08 51,951 21 125,302 35	$ 83,840 71 263,619 SO 421,677 71 2,250,617 64 2,400,024 77 201,857 57 194,730 03 537,372 31 536,634 84
41,541 51 60,505 89 21,779 82 68,563 73	
				
				
				
				
	965,955 32	1,152,165 26	413,286 89	6,890,375 38


GRANTS FOR AMORTIZATION OF DEBT AGAINST SCHOOL BUILDINGS
Frederick George Sanderson: What amounts of money have been paid
the several fiscal years since April 1, 1924, on account of the amortization of the debt against certain school buildings, construction of which was commenced prior to the expiration of the Technical Education Act?
from the federal Nova Scotia and	treasury to the provinces of New Brunswick in each of	Mr. MACKENZIE KING:	Nova Scotia.. . New Brunswick..	1924-25 .S 20,000 . 5,000	1925-26 $20,000 5,000	1926-27 $20,000 5,000	1927-2S $20,000 5,000	1928-29 $20,000 5,000	1929-30 $8,389 08	Totals $108,389 08 25,000 00S 25,000	S25,000	$25,000	$25,000	$25,000	$8,389 08	$133,389 08


GRANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT OFFICES
Frederick George Sanderson: What amounts of money have been paid from the federal treasury to the provinces of
Canada, by provinces, in each of the several fiscal years since April 1, 1922, on account of employment offices?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Questions
-	1922-23	1923-24	1924-25	1925-26	1926-27$	%	$	$	$8,274 88 6,808 32 18,314 96 82,764 92 30,755 94 30,528 08 28,845 76 30,739 74	7,421 94 6,312 92 17,081 78 69,991 09 23,016 89 25,151 76 20,757 79 30,265 83	4,229 71 4,082 42 13,249 72 61,379 77 14,279 59 18,844 59 13,631 04 20,303 16	3,932 42 4,143 88 15,124 48 59,893 13 13,914 05 19,645 64 13,736 05 19,610 35	3,955 64 4,103 34 16,207 96 60,814 49 12,677 15 19,225 02 13,422 51 19,593 89
Alberta						
					
	237,032 60	200,000 00	150,000 00	150,000 00	150,000 00
					
-	1927-28	1928-29	1929-30	Totals$	8	8	$3,902 39 4,054 52 16,797 95 61,617 45 12,478 91 18,752 66 13,130 52 19,265 60	3,845 26 3,992 90 16,797 98 61,381 08 12,715 38 18,886 30 i 12,932 20 19,834 96	3,931 08 3,984 74 18,334 65 61,570 02 11.507	58 18,452 11 12,712 28 19.507	54	39,493 32 37,483 04 131,523 42 519,411 95 131,345 49 169,486 16 129,168 15 179,121 07
Quebec						
					
					
					
					
					
		150,000 00	150,000 00	150,000 00	1,337,032 60


GRANTS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
Frederick George Sanderson: What amounts of money have been paid from the federal treasury to the provinces of Canada, by provinces, in each of the several
(a)	1922-23
	.. .. $ 1.149 41
New Brunswick	 Quebec		.. .. 4,833 48 .. .. 38,574 58 . .. 519,598 85
Manitoba		.. .. 82,741 67 .. .. 18,232 71
	.. .. 50,899 26
British Columbia		.. .. 207,242 20
Totals		.. .. $923,272 16
fiscal years since April 1, 1922, on account of unemployment relief:	(a) Department of
Labour; (b) Department of Pensions and National Health?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1923-24	1926-27	Totals
	6,720 25	7,869 66 4.833 48
		38,574 58 565,446 21 97,487 66 18,232 71
1,275 54	44,571 82 14,745 99	
2,852 14	11,436 50	65,187 90 207,242 20
		
4.127 68	77,474 56	1,004,874 40


(b) Province	1922-23	1923-24	1924-25	1925-26	1926-27	1927-28	1928-29	1929-30	-	Total Payments by Provinces$	$	$	$	$	$	S	$	$	%Alberta	44,316 86	5,003 68	6,389 15	7,262 84	7,352 50	9,762 51	6,836 34	11,333 26	98,257 14British Columbia	101,478 10	5,924 71	2,524 14	11,765 55	29,078 54	43,228 70	56,852 80	71,795 92	Manitoba	75,817 00	39,930 88	69,469 84	51,061 00	43,219 58	47,786 34	47,827 66	92,311 54	467,423 84New Brunswick	25,846 19	633 63	252 69	1,136 43	1,642 50	2,767 11	3,854 42	7,852 74	43,985 71Nova Scotia and Prince	Edward Island	57,700 47	9,007 52	5,545 23	44,134 03	13,995 50	7,187 44	10,272 91	17,820 24	165,663 34Ontario:	Eastern	39,088 43	22,026 43	36,593 47	29,994 29	38,560 58	45,144 57	50,109 79	62,717 63	324,237 19	Central	456,164 68	147,793 07	210,829 69	150,373 73	158,662 68	160,021 90	112,585 48	137,135 39	1,533,566 62	Western	20,587 65	2,837 28	5,872 90	6,290 82	5,920 18	40,115 03	17,208 18	30,137 60	128,969 64	Totals for Ontario	515,840 76	172,658 78	253,296 06	186,658 84	203,143 44	245,281 50	179,903 45	229,990 62	1,986,773 45Quebec	195,860 82	73,363 71	90,084 84	66,616 71	71 612 41	68 404 6Q	64 640 60	70 468 KQ	Saskatchewan	19,223 83	5,486 07	6,409 18	3,909 62	4,036 67	5,971 62	8,741 39	16,374 42	70,152 80Great Britain, U.S.A. and	1,036,084 03	312,008 98	433,971 13	372,545 02	374,081 14	430,479 91	378,929 47	517,942 33	Total for Canada.	3,856,042 01other Countries	2,079 32	58 39	54 86	2,142 57
Total		1,038,163 35	312,008 98	433,971 13	372,545 02	374,081 14	430,479 91	378,987 86	517,947 19		3,858,184 58
Note. No relief was paid to the provinces by the Department of Pensions and National Health but the above is a statement of monies spent in the various provinces for the relief of unemployed pensioners.
2546	COMMONS
Questions

Questions


GRANTS FOR ERADICATION OF VENEREAL DISEASE
Frederick George Sanderson: What amounts of money have been paid from the federal treasury to the provinces of
Canada, by provinces, in each of the several fiscal years since April, 1922, on account of eradication of venereal diseases?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Province	Fiscal Year 1922-23	Fiscal Year 1923-24	Fiscal Year 1924-25	Fiscal Year 1925-26	Fiscal Year 1926-27Alberta	
Ontario	
Nova Scotia	
Saskatchewan	
Manitoba	
New Brunswick	
British Columbia	$ 11,979 62 57,473 68 10,573 86 15,361 63 12,611 20 7,517 83 14,628 19 47,388 80	$ 12,069 68 60,171 83 10,744 33 15,537 16 8,930 75 6,710 35 10,759 61 48,430 14	$ 9,052 26 45,128 86 8,058 25 11,652 87 9,385 52 5,966 74 8,069 71 36,322 61	$ 7,711 18 38,443 12 6,864 43 9,926 52 7,705 58 5,082 78 6,874 20 30,941 48	$ 7,711 18 38,443 12 6,864 43 9,926 52 7,995 07 5,082 78 6,874 20 30,941 48
Total payments by years						
177,534 81	173,353 85	133,636 82	113,549 29	113,838 78-	Fiscal Year 1927-28	Fiscal Year 1928-29	Fiscal Year 1929-30	Total payments by Provinces$ 6,504 21 32,425 93 5,790 00 8,372 80 6,743 67 4,287 22 5,798 23 26,098 47	$ 6,504 21 32,425 93 5,790 00 8,372 80 6,743 67 4,287 22 5,798 23 26,098 47 173 50	$ 6,504 21 32,425 93 5,790 00 8,372 80 6,743 67 4,287 22 5,798 23 26,098 47 204 68	$ . 68,036 55 336,938 40 60,475 30 87,523 10 66,859 13 43,222 14 64,600 60 272,319 92 378 18
Total payments by years						
		96,020 53	96,194 03	96,225 21	1,000,353 32
2419-161J
fMr. Mackenzie King.


GRANTS FOR WAR PENSIONS
Frederick George Sanderson: What amounts of money have been paid from the'federal treasury in each of the fiscal years since April 1, 1922, on account of war pensions in each of the provinces?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: European War Pensions
-	1922-23	1923-24	1924-25	1925-26	1926-27	1927-28	1928-29	1929-30	-	Total Payments$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$	$2,115,444 80	2,134,766 11	2,224,654 41	2,374 071 22	2 416 589 27	2 538 403 43	2,643,151 96	2,580,157 07	19,027,238 273,636,002 31	3,719,668 21	3,876,291 78	4,136,639 24	4,210,723 74	4,422,975 67	4,605,492 06	4,495,728 24	33,153,521 252,692,384 30	2,716,975 04	2,831,378 34	3,021,545 18	3,075,659 08	3,230,695 27	3,364,011 59	3,283,836 28	24,216,485 08961,565 82	970,348 23	1,011,206 55	1,079,123 28	1,098,449 67	1,153,819 74	1,201,432 71	1,172,798 67	8,648,744 67Nova Scotia and Prince	1,859,027 25	1,876,006 58	1,954,999 33	2,086,305 01	2,123,669 36	2,230,718 16	2,322,769 91	2,267,410 76	16,720,906 36Ontario-	Eastern	1,794,922 86	1,811,316 70	1,887,585 56	2,014,363 46	2,050,439 38	2,153,796 85	2,242,674 39	2,189,224 18	16,144,323 38	Central	6,987,378 29	7,051,197 14	7,348,100 93	7,841,629 17	7,982,067 60	8,384,423 44	8,730,411 03	8,522,337 00	62,847,544 60	Western	1,987,236 03	2,005,386 34	2,089,826 87	2,230,188 11	2,270,129 32	2,384,560 80	2,482,960 93	2,423,783 92	17,874,072 32	96,865,940 3010,769,537 18	10,867,900 18	11,325,513 36	12,086,180 74	12,302,636 30	12,922,781 09	13,456,046 35	13,135,345 10	2,371,862 36	2,393,525 63	2,494,309 49	2,661,837 42	2,709,509 19	2,846,088 69	2,963,534 02	2,892,903 39	21,133,570 19Saskatchewan	1,538,505 31	1,552,557 17	1,617,930 48	1,726,597 25	1,757,519 47	1,846,111 58	1,922,292 34	1,876,477 87	13,837,991 47Total	25,994,329 33	26,231,747 15	27,336,283 74	29,172,299 34	29,694,755 95	31,191,593,63	32,478,730 94	31,704,657 38	233,804,397 592548	COMMONS
Questions

Questions


GRANTS FOR OLD AGE PENSIONS
Frederick George Sanderson: What amounts of money have been paid from the federal treasury to the provinces of
Canada, by provinces, in each of the several fiscal years since April 1, 1922, on account of old age pensions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1927-28	1928-29
Prince Edward Island	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	 $242,303 86
Saskatchewan	 191,041 97
Alberta	
British Columbia	 131,452 01	399,340 95

Totals

Totals
$131,452 01	$832,686 78	S2,806,853 14


$3,770,991 93 SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS TO PROVINCES SINCE APRIL 1, 1922
Frederick George Sanderson: What is the total amount of money paid from the federal treasury to the provinces of Canada, by provinces, since April 1, 1922, on account of subsidies, special grants to the maritime provinces pending further consideration of provincial subsidies, highway construction, agricultural instruction, technical education, amortization of the debt against certain school buildings, construction of which was commenced prior to the expiration of the Technical Education Act. employment offices, unemployment relief, eradication of venereal diseases, war pensions and old age pensions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Payments to provinces since 1922
Ontario	 $ 32,558,138 76
Quebec	
26,031,085	35Nova Scotia	
10,011,859	55New Brunswick	
8,945,286	92Prince Edward Island.. ..	4,176,946	47Manitoba	
15,017,320	34British Columbia	
9,320,947	48Alberta	
15,729,473	79Saskatchewan	
18,547,441	15Total	$ 140,338,499 81
The above amounts do not include the sum of $237,370,421.60 that has been expended on soldiers' pensions and relief to unemployed pensioners in the various provinces of Canada.


NATIONAL PARK, QUEBEC PROVINCE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape
Breton):
1.	Has the government reached any decision as to the establishment of a national park in the province of Quebec?
2.	Has any representation been made to the government regarding this matter: (a) by the province; (b) by others; if so, who are they?
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	It is the policy of the government to develop a national park in each province, provided the province makes available for this purpose, free of charge to the Dominion and free of encumbrance, a compact area of national parks standard. So far the provincial government of Quebec has not suggested to the department that it take over for administration as a national park any area in Quebec, and no representations in this regard seem to have been made direct to the department by other parties.
2.	(a) and (b) answered by No. 1.


SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS TO PROVINCES, FISCAL YEAR 1930-31
Frederick George Sanderson: What is the total amount of money paid or estimated to be paid from the federal treasury to the province of Canada, by provinces, during the fiscal year 1930-1931, on account of subsidies, special grants to the maritime provinces pending further consideration of provincial subsidies, highway construction, agricultural instruction, technical education, amortization of the debt against certain school buildings, construction of which was commenced prior to the expiration of the Technical Education Act, employment offices, unemployment relief, eradication of venereal diseases, war pensions and old age pensions?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING		
Ontario	.$ 5,536,537	61Quebec	. 2,300,518	35Nova Scotia	. 2,195,631	28New Brunswick	. 1,713,348	22Prince Edward Island	. 529,136	56Manitoba	. 2,176,835	03British Columbia	. 1,304,114	89Alberta	. 2,164,939	21Saskatchewan	. 2,760,167	80Total	.$20,681,228	95
Questions

Note: The above figures do not include the sum of $51,250,000 that is expected to be spent in the various provinces on soldiers' pensions, relief to unemployed pensioners and veterans' allowances during the fiscal year 1930-31.
cision as to actual cost of the movement has not yet been reported by the Board of Railway Commissioners, consequently an amount cannot at present be estimated.
(b) From Alberta:


ASSISTED FREIGHT RATES ON COAL
[Stage Direction]
Fiscal year	Payments
Frederick George Sanderson: What amounts of money have been paid, or are owing, from the federal treasury to railways, in each of the fiscal years since April 1. 1922, in connection with assisted movements of coal to the central provinces:	(a) from the
maritime provinces; and (b) from Alberta?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: (a) From maritime provinces:
Fiscal year	Payments
1922-	1923	
1923-	1924	
1924-	1925	
1925-	1926	
1926-	1927	
1927-	1928	
1928-	1929 (owing)
1929-	1930 (owing)
4,298 08
47,454 72 83,192 48
Total

1922-1923		
1923-1924		
1924-	1925	 1925-	1926	 1926-	1927			 3,217 91
1927-1928		
1928-	1929	 1929-	1930			 23,318 27
Total.. ..		 S 93.281 15
Note: In addition to the above, 150,812 tons of maritime province coals were transported to the province of Quebec during the fiscal years 1928-1929 and 1929-1930 under t'he $3 freight rate as provided by Order in Coun-


MARITIME FREIGHT RATES ACT, PAYMENTS
Mr. SANDERSON:: 1.	What amount has been paid by the government to railways under the Maritime Freight Rates Act (1927) from July 1, 1927, to December 31, 1929, on account of the 20 per cent reduction in rates enjoyed by shippers east of Levis and Diamond Junction. Quebec?
2.	What sum has been paid by the government to each raihvay in the preferred area on rate reduction account during the period in question?
3.	What sum has been contributed by the government on deficit account to Canadian National Railways during the same period, as provided by the Maritime Freight Rates Act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: cil P.C. 539, dated 30th March, 1928. A de- 1. $7,596,852.89.
2. 20 per cent reductions	July 1 to December 31, 1927	Calendar Year 1928	Calendar Year 1929	T otal$	s	$	$Canadian National Railways Eastern Lines.... Canadian Pacific Railway, including Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal & Railway, New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company	
Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway	931,809 89 130,962 64 9,974 20 4,905 52 890 39 13,597 03 86,971 71 10,980 96 150,408 00 12,964 11	2,151,527 75 261,051 34 24,015 70 12,370 03 3,237 85 31,507 33 180,936 59 21,436 23 277,632 24 16,705 85	2,451,818 12 258,494 36 *6,786 23 *5,143 29 3,412 32 32,064 79 197,804 72 20,395 47 257,914 02 29,134 21	5,535,155 76 650,508 34 40,776 13 22,418 84 7,540 56 77,169 15 465,713 02 52,812 66 685,954 26 58,804 17Quebec Oriental Railway Company	Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway	
Cumberland Railway and Coal Co	Dominion Atlantic Railway	Maritime Coal, Railway & Power Company.... Sydney & Louisburg Railway Company	
Temiscouata Railway Company	
1,353,464 45	2,980,420 91	3,262,967 53	7,596,852 89
				
Deficit, Eastern Lines				
3. Canadian National Railways, Eastern Lines deficits (other than occurring from Maritime Freight Rates Act)		2,117,936 42	4,200,356 51	4,762,217 22	11,080,510 15
				
	3,471,400 87	7,180,777 42	8,025,184 75	18,677,363 04
				
*These Gaspe lines acquired by Canadian National Railways June 1, 1929. 

Questions


TECHNICAL ADVISERS TO THE TARIFF BOARD
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	What parties acted as technical advisers to the tariff board in connection with the revision of the iron and steel duties?
2. How many days were such advisers m attendance and on what dates?
3.	What were their qualifications for the position?
4.	How many and who of them were actively
engaged in the iron and steel trade when appointed?	.	,	,	,
5.	What remuneration was paid to each ot said advisers?
6.	Are they still connected with said board or when did their connection cease?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	D. H. McDougall; G. D. MacDougall; J. Dix Fraser; Prof. G. E. Jackson; Prof. W. A. Mackintosh.
2.	D. H. McDougall-25 days, fiscal year 1928-29 (intermittently); G. D. Macdougall- 14 days, fiscal year 1928-29 (intermittently); J. Dix Fraser-20 days, fiscal year 1928-29 (intermittently); Prof. G. E. Jackson-June 15, 1927, to Oct. 15, 1927; Dr. W. A. Mackintosh- July 7, 1927, to Nov. 30, 1927. May 18, 1928, to Oct. 6, 1928. Summer of 1929 (intermittently) .
3.	Messrs. D. H. McDougall, G. D. Macdougall and J. D. Fraser are engineers specialising in the iron and steel industry. Professors Jackson and Mackintosh are economists.
4.	Messrs. D. H. McDougall, G. D. Macdougall and J. Dix Fraser were engaged in the practice of their professions as consulting engineers in respect to the iron and steel industry.
5.	D. H. McDougall, 8100 per day; G. D. Macdougall, $50 per day; J. Dix Fraser, $75 per day; Prof. G. E. Jackson, $400 per month; Prof. W. A. Mackintosh, $400 per month.
6.	Their investigations in the iron and steel industry ceased on the following dates: D. H. McDougall, February 27, 1929; G. D. Macdougall. February 27, 1929; J. Dix Fraser, February 27, 1929; Prof. G. E. Jackson, October 15, 1927; Prof. W. A. Mackintosh, October 1, 1929.


IMPORTS OF FARM IMPLEMENTS
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What was the value of farm implements
imported into Canada during each of the calendar years 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929?	.
2.	What was the value of farm implements imported into Canada during each fiscal year ending March 31, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930?
3.	What was the value of farm implements exported by the Dominion of Canada each year since 1924?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1. Canada's imports of farm implements and machinery during the calendar years 1924 to 1929, were:
Calendar Year
1924		$	6,585,750
1925		 11,234,839
1926		 17,630,949
1927		 26,101,338
1928		 39,893,490
1929		 31,845,326
2. Canada's imports of farm implements and machinery during the fiscal years ending March 31, 1924 to 1930, were:
Fiscal Year
1924		$ 11,766,285
1925		 6,494,986
1926		 13,336,650
1927		 18,946,288
1928		 29,636,449
1929		 40,292,899
1930		 30,075,453
3.	Canada's exports of farm implements and machinery during the fiscal years ended March 31, 1924 to 1930, were:
Fiscal Year
1924		$	9,339,519
1925		 11,342,712
1926		 13,628,341
1927		 17,412,947
1928		 15,643,381
1929		 15,870,918
1930		 18,396,688
"patronage" SOUTH ESSEX


Mr. GOTT:: Who holds the government patronage for the riding of Essex South or who is the recognized government representative?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am in a position to answer question No. 24 at this time, and my answer would be "the government".


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in any way relating to the work done in connection with the reconstruction or building of the guard pier situated to the eastern or seaward side of the coal loading pier at Pictou Landing, Nova Scotia.
2.	All correspondence between any department of the government and the district engineer, Halifax, or any other parties in Nova Scotia, relating in any way to that structure.
3.	Memorandum of cost of the work so far done, together with the estimated cost of completion.

Unopposed Motions for Papers


CIVIL SERVICE SALARY INCREASES
Mr. DUFF (for Mr. Chevrier):: For a return showing amount of all increases, adjustments of bonuses, allowances, etc., granted to the civil service of Canada, both inside and outside services, since the first day of January, 1922, and similar increases, bonuses and allowances, during the same period granted to employees of the federal government not under the Civil Service Commission.


SPRUCE FALLS PULP AND PAPER COMPANY
Mr. GLEN (for Mr. Bradette):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the Ontario government respecting the strike of paper makers at Spruce Falls Pulp and Paper Company, Kapuskasing, in October, 1928.


SUBMARINE CABLE, PICTOU ISLAND
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	A copy of all reports or representations made to the Minister of Public Works or any officer of the department relative to the breaking and repairing of the submarine cable between Pictou island and the mainland of Nova Scotia as between the dates, January, 1925, and April 30, 1930.
2.	Copy of all instructions issued by the Public Works department or any officer thereof to the officer responsible for the maintenance of said cable.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 263, respecting the capital stock of Prudential Trust Company-Mr. Casgrain.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment by the Senate to Bill No. 139, to incorporate the Hamilton Life Insurance Company.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for government notices of motion:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I understand there are one or two members who would like to speak on the resolution which is in the name

of the Minister of Justice, but these hon. members will not be in the house until this afternoon. If it is agreeable we might return to this motion during t'he course of the afternoon.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I mentioned the matter in that sense, and it would be very acceptable if that could be arranged in that way.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, could we manage in some way to understand what is going on? At this end of the chamber we could not hear that dialogue at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that there are one or two members who I know desire to speak to this resolution which is in the name of the Minister of Justice, but they will not be in the house until this afternoon. I was asking if it would be agreeable to the house to return to this motion this afternoon, and the leader of the opposition stated that so far as he was con-concerned it would be agreeable. I hope it will be equally agreeable to hen. members in the far corner.



NAVAL CONFERENCE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the international treaty for the limitation and reduction of naval armament, London, April 22, 1930, signed in respect of the Dominion of Canada by the plenipotentiary named therein, and that this house do approve of the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the house has had before it for some time the copy of the London naval treaty, 1930, which was signed at St. James Palace, London, on Tuesday, April 22, 1930, and the approval of parliament of this treaty is being asked at the moment so far as the House of Commons is concerned. May I say that the treaty is signed on behalf of Canada by the Hon. Philippe Roy, who is our minister at Paris. As the house is well aware, Canada was represented at the conference by the Hon. Mr. Ralston, our Minister of National Defence. The conference, as hon. members are aware, lasted for a month or two. In order to permit of the return of the Minister of National Defence after the Easter recess Mr. Roy was requested to be present

in London for the concluding days of the conference and to sign the treaty on behalf of Canada.
It is appropriate and in the interests of all that whatever is to be said on this matter should be said by the Minister of National Defence. I shall leave it to the minister to speak on behalf of the government in asking for approval of the treaty by this house. However, before we do so, I think I may say, on behalf of hon. members of this parliament and indeed on behalf of the people of this country, that we have reason to be more than proud of the manner in which Canada was represented at the naval conference by the Minister of National Defence.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the importance of
the subject perhaps would justify one in devoting more time to this question than is possible at the moment, in view of the lateness of the session. I am aware, of course, that it is not to any extent a contentious matter, but it is one in connection with which perhaps the members of the house and the country would desire some information from one who happened to be more or less closely associated with the negotiations.
Let me say at the outset that I greatly appreciate the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and I am fully sensible of the honour which was conferred upon me in giving me an opportunity to be present on that momentous occasion. I am glad that apparently what was done will approve itself to the country and to this house and I can only say that the efforts which were put forth and the work which was accomplished was due not to any one man or any group of men but to the spirit of cooperation which seem to pervade that whole assembly.
Just here may I say that the coming over of the Hon. Mr. Roy, Canadian minister to France at a time of inconvenience to himself, to take up the threads of a discussion with which he had not been at all familiar except through press reports, was a matter of great satisfaction to me and to the delegation, and on behalf of the delegation and on behalf of Canada I want to express our appreciation to Mr. Roy for having taken up that work at that late date in the progress of events, and having seen it through successfully. He grasped fully and rapidly the great many intricate points which had been the subject of discussion, and which required to be known and understood in those final days in order that definite progress might be made.
When speaking of the delegation I want to acknowledge the fine services of our advisers,
26, 1930
Naval Conference-Mr. Ralston
Commodore Hose, Chief of Naval Staff; Mr. Pearson, First Secretary of the Department of External Affairs; and Lieut. Colonel Vanier, our representative on the committees at Geneva; and of Major Brown, the secretary of the delegation. All of these gentlemen gave efficient and unfailing cooperation in connection with Canada's part of the work of the conference, and their help and constant interest were invaluable.
It is difficult just at the moment, so close to the conference, for one to back off, as it were, and get any sort of perspective to give to this house and the people of Canada regarding the progress of these negotiations. May I just divide-and this is my own personal division for the purpose of clear thinking, and perhaps for the purpose of easier understanding -the conference into four periods. The first period was during the first three weeks in which discussions were had with regard to procedure and method. By procedure I do not mean simply the way in Which the conference itself was to proceed, but I mean the system which was to be adopted for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the conference. As we all know, the objects of the conference were the limitation and if possible the reduction of naval armament, and one of the important questions which arose was the method whereby that was to be done. The first three weeks were taken up with procedure, with deciding how the affairs of the conference would be carried on and deciding the method and system whereby the objects of the conference were to be carried out. There were of course at the same time many informal discussions regarding the naval needs of the powers represented. As a result of these latter discussions it was possible in the next two weeks, from about February 9 to February 19, for the various powers to formulate and publish their statements, showing their respective naval needs and also the position which they took with regard to the objects of the conference.
The third period was one of some difficulty during which we were faced with the situation that one of the great powers, France, was not represented by any delegate directly authorized by its government. The French government had been defeated, and for the time being that country was represented by His Excellency M. Fleriault, the French ambassador and M. Massigli, one of the experts of the foreign office.
The last stage was the final four weeks when the French delegation returned newly authorized, and during which time definite decisions were arrived at as to the matters which had
2554	COMMONS
Naval Conference-Mr. Ralston
been the subject of discussion, and the final treaty was signed.
Concerning the method of procedure, although there were plenary sessions, the real work of the conference was largely carried on in the offices of the members of the various delegations. One or two heads of one or two different delegations would meet together for informal discussion; meetings were held in the office of the Prime Minister at the House of Commons, others at St. James palace, others at 10 Downing street, and others at the offices of the delegations at the various hotels. There could not have been a more fluid or elastic or adjustable system for a conference. It was, I believe, due to those informal discussions that the success and progress which is recorded in the instrument now before us wTere achieved.
I will not say anything as to the first formal meeting of the conference, but I will proceed directly to the matter of method, which required considerable attention during the early stages of the conference. The points at issue with regard to the method to be adopted were simply these; one set of powers said, "We believe that limitation should be achieved by simply allotting to certain powers a total global or world tonnage;" the other set of powers said, "That is all right, we are perfectly willing that a total world tonnage should be allotted but we want specified the classes of ships into which that tonnage is to be divided, and the maximum tonnage provided for each class." In other words, there was a contest or controversy between the advocates of the "global" and the advocates of the "category" systems. After considerable discussion the matter was referred to a committee of experts and a solution was arrived at which seemed generally satisfactory to all concerned but which, owing to certain reservations, has not been formally embodied in the treaty. That solution was embodied by the committee in a very simple sentence: "that each power represented at the present conference shall indicate, after an exchange of views with the other powers, how it will allocate its global tonnage." In other words, the principle of global tonnage was accepted, but each nation was to indicate to the others how it proposed to allocate that total into the different categories. It followed naturally that if this indication as to how the tonnage would be allocated among the different classes was inserted in the treaty then the advocates of global tonnage and the advocates of category tonnage would both be satisfied. As I have said, this proposed solution has not been em-[Mr. RaM'** |
bodied in the treaty but it has been forwarded by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the chairman of the conference, to the league disarmament commission and will be considered by that body.
The next question was that raised by Italy. Italy contended that the thing to be settled first was not the amount of tonnage to be held by each particular nation or the amount of tonnage in a particular class which was to be 'held by any particular nation, but the proportion or ratio of tonnage to be held by those nations; in other words, whether nation A would take the same amount of tonnage as nation B, or would nation A have two-thirds or some other proportion of the tonnage of nation B. That was the question which Italy contended should be settled first, and it was put on an early agenda for consideration. However, at the request of the other powers, Italy agreed finally that the discussion might go on with regard to tonnage and classification, reserving always to Italy this matter which Italy contended was a question of first principle, that of ratio.
As I have said, while these discussions were going on during the first three weeks, the matter of program in informal discussions came up. The heads and members of the various delegations were meeting and discussing the statements which would be made as to their absolute or relative naval needs. The time came, on February 7, when the nations one after another submitted their statements to the world and to the conference. If we could adopt the analogy of a court of law, one would say that at that time the nations submitted their pleadings or their statements of claims.
On the morning of February 7, the United States published its statement, and perhaps the outstanding feature in that statement was the fact that that nation was willing to abandon its claim for twenty-one 8-inch gun cruisers, and to reduce that claim to eighteen 8-inch gun cruisers, but asked the right to reduce to fifteen 8-inch gun cruisers and to make up the difference in order to maintain parity with the British commonwealth of nations by additional 6-inch gun cruisers. An hour or two could easily be consumed in analyzing these statements, but my time is limited.
The statement of the United Kingdom was published on the same day. It dealt with general principles, pointed out that there mutt be a transition period when naval armament must be maintained, and it particularly urged reduction in capital ships.

Naval Conference-Mr. Ralston
The French statement followed on February 13, and called for a tonnage something like
724,000	in 1936, and pointed out that this was a great reduction from France's 1913 tonnage.
The statement of Japan followed on February 17. An examination of the statement showed that it offered an opportunity for discussion and a basis for possible agreement.
Italy published her statement on February 19, in which she reiterated her position, namely, that she felt that she must claim a parity with the strongest European power; secondly, that she was willing to reduce as low as the strongest European power and, thirdly, that she was willing to consider the abolition of submarines along with the abolition of battleships.
Using the analogy of a court of law, that brought the powers "at issue."


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
stated that the United States submitted its case indicating the ships it would require to be placed on a parity with the British commonwealth of nations, and he stated also that the United Kingdom then submitted its statement. Was that a statement on behalf of the British commonwealth of nations, and if so, what was Canada's submission in that regard, as well as the submission of Australia and the other portions of the British Empire?


James Layton Ralston: The statement submitted
by the United Kingdom was one signed and submitted on behalf of the government of the United Kingdom.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was Canada's submission?


James Layton Ralston: The submission of Canada and also of the other dominions was that they would agree to a collective total being stated for all the members of British commonwealth of nations and that they would agree that their respective naval requirements [would not be such as to cause that collective total to be exceeded, it being left entirely for the British commonwealth of nations amongst themselves to agree as to what proportion each of them would require in the way of naval armament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was any proportion
agreed to on behalf of Canada?


James Layton Ralston: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then Canada made no
offer of anything at any time at this gathering?


James Layton Ralston: This was not a conference for the purpose of providing naval armaments. This was a conference not for agreeing to provide, but rather for the purpose of agreeing to restrict naval armaments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has but
evaded my question. My position, however, is this: the British Empire submission was not made as an empire. The hon. gentleman says that the United Kingdom made the submission, and there is an agreement that the component communities comprising the British Empire would come to an understanding amongst themselves. I asked whether Canada had made any submission. He said no, that Canada had offered to reduce. What can Canada reduce beyond what she now has?


James Layton Ralston: I told my hon. friend that the time had not come for the agreement as to contribution. We are at present talking about an agreement to restrict, and the agreement to restrict was that Canada's naval needs and requirements would not be such as to cause to be exceeded the collective total stated by the United Kingdom in its statement and which is now contained in the treaty as the collective total for the British commonwealth of nations. When the time comes for the members of the British commonwealth of nations to meet together and decide upon their requirements, that will be the time when my hon. friend's question may be properly answered.


Mr. McGIBBON:: That is not an answer at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not intended to be.


Ernest Lapointe: What does my hon.
friend want?


Peter McGibbon: What is the government's policy?


James Layton Ralston: I do not want to evade
the question. This was a conference for the limitation and restriction of naval armaments, and the agreement made is one made on behalf of the British commonwealth of nations, signed by the component parts limiting themselves to those total needs in the aggregate. The fact that the statement was issued by the United Kingdom loses its significance entirely when we see in the treaty signed by all parts of the British empire that the total stated was the maximum total needs of the members of the British commonwealth of nations.
Then came just at a rather unfortunate time the defeat of the French government with, as I said, the necessity of proceeding without any directly authorized representative of the
2556	COMMONS
Naval Conference-Mr. Ralston
French government. The discussions went on with the French ambassador and with M. Massigli, representative of the French foreign office. I cannot speak too highly of the punctiliousness and the endeavour to cooperate shown by those two gentlemen under very difficult circumstances. Considerable progress was made in discussion, although not as to decision with regard to matters which affected the French republic. At the same time discussions were proceeded with between what we may call the high seas group, that is, Japan, the United States, and the British commonwealth of nations. Those discussions continued during the three weeks when the French were not formally represented by a government representative, with the result that just about the time when the French government were able to send a newly authorized delegation, a despatch was sent to Japan, a compromise proposal, a proposal emerging from the discussions which had been held by the members of the so-called high seas group, and a proposal which is practically the one which is now embodied in the treaty regarding the naval restrictions of the forces of those three nations.
Then came the fourth period. The French delegation was back and conversations were renewed more directly between France, Italy and the United Kingdom with regard to the European situation. It would take some time to go into all the details of those conversations. The inside story of those conferences will, I suppose, never be fully known, but one can indicate what has already been made public with regard to the subjects considered at those conferences. Those subjects were two: first, there was this question with regard to parity as between France and Italy, Italy claiming she should have parity with the strongest European power, meaning France; Italy claiming that owing to her situation on the Mediterranean her position was that of an island in an inland sea, a sea which might be easily blockaded, and therefore desiring that she should have control. France pointed out that she had possessions in Africa and required freedom of the Mediterranean for the purpose of communicating with those possessions. France also reminded those with whom she had conversations that her territory had been the subject of invasion no less than three times in a century. It was realized early that the question between those countries was not one which could be settled by experts, but was one which would have to be solved through the activities and efforts of statecraft.
Coupled with that was the other question as to whether any assurance could be given to

France with regard to her position in Europe. As the house knows, the discussions on that, terminated finally without any decision being made. There were three phases of it. The suggestion was made that there be some sort of a consultative pact, similar to the four power Pacific pact signed at the time of the Washington conference, that the nations would consult each other at a time when there was apprehension of war. I do not know that I am stating these in the order in which they were discussed. Second, there was a suggestion of a Mediterranean Locarno, some agreement whereby one nation would be guaranteed against another, as is done in the case of the Locarno treaty. Third, there was discussion as to whether or not any arrangement could be arrived at or any settlement reached by way of making some interpretative statement concerning the meaning of Article XVI of the covenant of the League of Nations. Those discussions took some three or four weeks. Along towards the end of them a suggestion was made that the conference should adjourn for six months in order to give those representing particularly France, Italy and the United Kingdom, an opportunity of going home and consulting their people and carrying on further negotiations after those consultations had been had, retaining the chairmanship and good office of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The decision was reached that it was not desirable to adjourn at that time particularly in view of the fact that the conference was still waiting for a reply from the Japanese government respecting the compromise proposal which had been sent some weeks before. Finally, about the first of April, the reply of the Japanese government was received. That reply, as hon. members and the country know, was generally favourable to the compromise proposal which had been suggested. After that more attention was directed to an endeavour to reach some conclusion with regard to the European group, and finally the treaty which is now on the table of the house, was signed, with this in mind and with this understanding, that the conference was not terminating its labours; that, as the Prime Minister has stated, it was only writing the first chapter of the book and that the end had not been reached, but that another chapter was to be written in the negotiations which are still being continued and regarding which newspaper reports are appearing from time to time. That in barest outline is the history of the proceedings with regard to the conference.
Just one or two outstanding features may I bring to the attention of the house? First,

it seemed to me that one of the great factors in the conference was that it was opened by His Gracious Majesty the King, that he himself saw fit to go there on the first official occasion after his long illness to meet not only with his own subjects but with the representatives of other nations-he, the Commander-in-Chief of the army and the Commander-inChief of the navy-and to put before them reasons why there should be a continuation of the spirit of the Washington conference and a further limitation of armaments. There were millions of his subjects all over the world who joined with His Majesty and said Amen to the hope he expressed, that the
Results of this conference will lead to the immediate alleviation of the heavy Durden or armaments now weighing on the peoples of the world, and also by facilitating the future "work of the league preparatory commission on disarmament hasten the time when a general disarmament conference can deal with this problem in an even more comprehensive manner.


Mr. IRVINE:: As the minister is dealing
with the outstanding features now, would he state what was the ultimate object of the conference? I do not mean to be jocular at all; I am sincere.


James Layton Ralston: The ultimate object which filled the mind of every man who was there was the object of limiting and, if possible, reducing naval armaments in the world.


William Irvine: But for what purpose? What was the ultimate object of that reducing?


James Layton Ralston: As one of the means
towards the end of attaining the peaceful settlement of international disputes.
The second feature, which I just mention in passing, and which relates to the question which has just been asked by my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), is that those present at the conference were I believe filled with a sense of their duty to endeavour to achieve the objects for which the conference had been called. If hon. members can picture the meetings which were held, they were not meetings of those who were to be controlled by a majority vote. There must be the unanimous and willing concurrence of those who were present there. No man could be inveigled into making some decision or snap judgment which would be of any benefit to those who endeavoured to get it from him; an apparent advantage gained in that way would be short-lived. The result was that there was carried on straightforwardly and in low voice, and without heat and without rancor, discussions by men who were sincerely
26, 1930
Naval Conference-Mr. Ralston
impressed with their responsibility and with the anxiety of those who sent them there; and I believe that that was one of the things which helped to achieve the success which I think this house will agree was achieved in the document which is before us.
Another feature is that the three greatest naval powers in the world have agreed on a matter affecting national sovereignty, have agreed to restrict the rights which they had to taking such means as seemed to them best in their own interest, and have agreed to consult others with regard to that right which is essentially theirs if they wish to exercise it; and three powers who could not reach agreement on all points have not turned their backs on one another but have agreed to keep on trying. One could not fail to acknowledge 1he tact and resourcefulness and patience and courage of the chairman, the Right Hon. J. Ramsay MacDonald, whose shoulders bore so largely the brunt and burden of the labours of the conference at the same time that he was carrying on the heavy responsibility of Prime Minister of Great Britain, attending not only discussions but even divisions in the House of Commons, and bringing at the same time all the resourcefulness and humanity of his nature to bear upon problems exceedingly dear to his heart and concerning which he has spent so much energy in the early stages, in his visit to America and in the conversations and negotiations that preceded that visit.
The results are, first, that nine battleships are being scrapped within eighteen months or two years. Under the Washington treaty the}' would not necessarily have been scrapped before 1936.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are due to be
scrapped in any event, as I read the Washington treaty.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, before 1936. But they will be effectively scrapped within eighteen months, and completely scrapped within two years. That means that nine of these floating fortresses will be off the seas within two years instead of by 1936.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: What is the age of these nine vessels? -


James Layton Ralston: In 1936 they would be getting up to the age of twenty years.


Mr. GEARY:: Pretty well obsolescent.


James Layton Ralston: At the same time we must remember that one of the objects of the conference, and one which was the subject, of serious discussion, was whether battleships could not be given a longer age, thereby ob-
2558	COMMONS
Naval Conference-Mr. Ralston
viating the necessity for replacement sooner. If all the nations agree to the same age for replacement the degree of obsolescence at that age makes no difference.
Next with regard to auxiliary craft. The Washington conference provided no limit for the total tonnage of cruisers. Hon. members will remember that at Washington the total tonnage was limited of air craft carriers of over ten thousand tons and of battleships, but no limit was achieved for cruisers except the maximum unit tonnage of ten thousand tons. The Geneva conference was called for the purpose of endeavouring to do what Washington had failed to do and go a step further and bring about an agreement for a maximum total tonnage limitation for cruisers. Geneva, as we know, failed in that respect-London has succeeded. I have figured roughly, and I think I am correct, that as a result of the London conference something like 550,000 tons of auxiliary craft, cruisers, destroyers and submarines provided for in the built, building and authorized program, will be done away with by the terms of this treaty. Now
550.000	tons of auxiliary craft is a substantial amount. Somebody may say that of that
550.000	tons, 278,000 tons have yet to be built. That is so, but it had already been authorized and the money for it voted. Judging by the attitude immediately after Geneva, the great thing which has been achieved is to get a definite limitation. Without this treaty there is no limit but national resources and public opinion.
Hon. members will remember that immediately after Geneva the tendency seemed to be to launch upon vast building programs without limits, and that would have been sure to precipitate the very thing which this conference was most anxious to avoid-competitive armaments. Add to these achievements which have been made by three powers, the fact that not only three-but five powers have agreed definitely to delay the replacement of some fourteen battleships which would otherwise have been built before 1936, and a further agreement by the three powers that a small aircraft carrier shall be included in and charged to the aircraft category. Let me state here, because I think Canada was particularly interested in this, that the Washington agreement had provided that aircraft earners of over ten thousand tons should be charged to the aircraft category. I believe that 35,000 tons was the total. There was no provision in regard to aircraft carriers smaller than that; nations might build these craft of 10,000 tons or less and treat them simply as cruisers, but these smaller craft were capable

of a great deal of destructive and terrorizing effect. It was felt that this new and most destructive weapon should have more restrictions put upon it than had been achieved at Washington, and the result of the discussions was that an aircraft carrier of ten thousand tons and less has been put in the aircraft category, and any nation which builds these small craft has to take them out of the total charged to that category, instead of charging them as might otherwise be done to the cruiser category.


Peter McGibbon: Does the minister consider Canada's aircraft a military weapon?


James Layton Ralston: That is a matter of
opinion. My hon. friend knows exactly the position. I would suggest that 'he permit me to answer his question when the estimates are before the house. We are talking of aircraft carriers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have not any.


James Layton Ralston: No, we have not any. Another agreement which was arrived at between the five powers was with regard to the unit size of submarines. The unit size of submarines was a difficult question to settle. It was brought up by France particularly. France claimed the necessity for some large submarines. The United States, Great Britain, and, I think, Japan as well had one or two large submarines. An agreement was arrived at which reduced France's request for large submarines from six to three, the unit size to be not more than 2,000 tons with 5-inch guns, except that each nation was to be allowed three submarines of a unit size of not more than 2,800 tons with 6-inch guns.
Another agreement was arrived1 at with regard to submarines which took the place of what is known as the Root clause. Under the Root clause the Washington conference had endeavoured to provide that submarines should be subject to the same rules as surface vessels in attacking merchant ships. That treaty was not adopted by one of the nations, with the result that it never came into effect. This conference practically achieved the object of that treaty by getting an agreement between all five powers that submarines should be subject to the rules applicable to surface vessels in attacking merchant ships, and a definite declaration of international law in that respect was agreed to.
Then there was an agreement as to what would constitute vessels exempt from the treaty. It took the experts a good many weeks to prepare definitions for vessels which were to be exempted, these are adopted and

Naval Conference-Mr. Ralston
appended to the treaty. The rules with regard to the scrapping of vessels were also settled.
The result was that the hopes expressed by His Gracious Majesty the King at the outset of the conference were substantially achieved and the " high mission begun at Washington was continued with outstanding success at London.
Now, with regard to Canada's interest in the conference. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition mentioned it a few minutes ago. Canada has a very modest naval force. She makes no apology for it at all. The very fact that Canada has a modest naval force was one reason why it was considered essential that she should be present with 'her sister dominions to present the views of those nations who do not desire a large naval armament if they .possibly can avoid iti. I believe that it was for the benefit of the conference that those nations were there to present that point of view, which is the point of view of not only the dominions of the British commonwealth but of a great many of the smaller nations of the world.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the minister state what our " modest naval force " is?


James Layton Ralston: There are two destroyers-


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not built.


James Layton Ralston: There are two destroyers, the Vancouver and the Champlain; there are two building, the Saguenay and the Skeena; and three mine sweepers.


Mr. KAISER:: Do those two vessels belong to Canada?


James Layton Ralston: Those two vessels were
obtained from the British Admiralty under an agreement that Canada might use them for naval defence provided she met the somewhat substantial cost of refitting.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: We do not own them.


James Layton Ralston: That is a legal question;
I will bring down the order in council in relation to the matter if my friend desires.
I think Canada's presence at the conference was amply justified because of her interest in the relations existing between the nations of the world by which she is surrounded. She finds that an agreement has been arrived at in which she is particularly interested, between the British commonwealth of nations and the United States, whereby the impasse which existed between those nations at Geneva has now been done away with and there has emerged from the conference complete unity and complete harmony in regard to naval matters. That is also true of the great empire
of Japan which is our nearest Pacific neighbour. Canada comes from that conference in the extremely fortunate position of feeling satisfied with the outcome because of the fact that the conference has resulted in this agreement between those three great nations.
Something else, I think Canada contributed to the conference. Canada's naval program is based primarily on her naval needs. Her needs in the first place consist of the necessity providing for coast defence and protection, for a reasonable distance out to sea of the trade in and out of her great ports. But in addition to that Canada might claim naval protection on the south. She has done away with the necessity for the protection by agreement. She has substituted a treaty for battleships. That treaty has worked well, and Canada, I believe, at the conference constituted a striking demonstration of a country which was able not simply to talk of disarmament, but which had been able to find a substitute for armament. Such a substitute I believe is necessary in the last analysis. I do not believe we can just simply disarm and leave it at that. International disputes are bound to arise; there are bound to be difficulties with regard to trade; there is bound to be friction because of congestion of population in some parts of the world and paucity of population in other parts; there will always have to be taken into account the passions to which men are subject. To guard against international disputes in the future we should try to find machinery to adjust differences between nations just as we have such machinery for settling disputes between individuals; that is, we must find a means of settling international disputes without resort to force. It seems to me that Canada was able to give an example of such means by pointing to our International Joint Commission. This was more than once referred to in the discussion in connection with the conference, and I believe that in this way there is great hope for advancing the future peace of the world.
My own feeling is that we in Canada should endeavour in every way possible to emphasize and show how effective is this method of what I may term preventive defence. The idea is to forestall the use of force by machinery for reason and discussion, something to which the people can instinctively turn when national clouds threaten. Public opinion is becoming increasingly interested in these matters. I think we should direct our energies not only to finding those methods, but also to bringing to the minds of our people a knowledge of just what those methods are. I believe that too much cannot be said for this point of view, that there should be brought
2560	COMMONS
Naval Conference-Mr. Woodsworth
to the minds of our men and women, our boys and girls, the idea that instead of mobilizing battleships there is some simple method to resort to when an international dispute occurs. I believe our people ought to be so educated and informed that when an international difference arises they can at once answer the question "what do we Jo now?" And they will be able to answer that question if our public men, our League of Nations' societies and all other agencies by spreading national information make it a matter of dominion-wide education to bring before our people the idea that there are other methods of settling international disputes than by force, and just what these methods are.
I have given, Mr. Speaker, the results of the conference in a brief and sketchy form. I believe the house will approve the treaty which has been signed. I think it marks a very definite step in advance along the road of international peace, and I believe the idea of disarmament embodied in the treaty, with the idea which I have endeavoured to express of providing substitutes for armaments, will together constitute a powerful factor in promoting the peace of the world.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to compliment the
Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) upon the splendid sentiments to which he gave expression in the latter part of his speech. He urged that we should have some substitute for armament; that we must find machinery for the settlement of international disputes without resorting to arms. He stressed the need for the development of "preventive defence". I feel that if this policy can now be carried out and if in any way the recent conference contributed to that end, much has been accomplished. When I heard the earlier part of the minister's speech, I wondered whether in practice that had been the actual result of the conference. I have before me a copy of the book Disarmament by Solvador de Madariaga, and in connection with the attendance of the minister at the conference I thought of a paragraph contained in this book.
The military profession cannot recognize any duty above that which constitutes its very essence; the ensuring the safety of its country. A military delegation sent to discuss disarmament problems can not and should not envisage them-as it is implicitly requested to do-in a somewhat general and abstract light. It can only view them as it should only view them, with an eye on the home forces. "Which of the possible answers to the question will increase my strength or weaken that of my potential adversaries?" Such is the only possible criterion which a military delegation can and should adopt, and any one who expects military

men in Geneva to think in the abstract ways of the intellectual or in the give-and-take ways of the politician misses the main point. But if that _ is so, it will be easily seen that a commission composed of military delegates can seldom find unanimity outside general negative propositions. To this objective limitation a subjective obstacle should be added. By temperament the soldier is not a good negotiator. His tactics are those of war:	surprise,
stratagem, deep laid plans, concealment and rush-while his aim and glory is complete victory.
In another place I find the following:
Under this light, armaments appear to us as instruments of policy. They are indeed the most important instrument of policy, together with financial power-a rare thing. It is evident, therefore, that no disarmament is possible as long as no alternative instrument of policy to armaments is devised, and no reduction of armaments is possible as long as the utility of armaments as instruments of policy has not been reduced.
I was very glad indeed to hear in the latter part of the minister's statement the definitely expressed advocacy of such an alternative. I was afraid that prior to his visit to London the minister was distinctly stressing the value of armaments. In fact I am not so sure but that the minister has had some slight change of heart since his visit to the naval conference, and perhaps that has been brought about through bis close association with Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, of whom he has spoken in such laudatory terms. In the London Free Press of November 30, 1929, I find the following:
Canada must maintain a trained and adequate military defence force in peace time in order to be able "to wage neutrality."
I ask hon. members to note the words "to wage neutrality." To my mind they indicate a very great contrast to his present advocacy of some "substitute for armament." I hope that the phrase "preventive defence" which he used to-day does not embrace a military force capable of waging neutrality. To continue with the extract from the newspaper:
Canada must maintain a trained and adequate military defence force in peace time in order to be able "to wage neutrality" should the occasion ever arise, declared Colonel the Hon. J. L. Ralston, Minister of National Defence, in an address here last night. The minister spoke in the Hotel London to a distinguished gathering representative of the military, political and civil life of western Ontario. The occasion was a dinner tendered to Colonel Ralston by the officers of military district No. 1. under the auspices of the London Garrison Officers' Association. Every one of the 24 units in military district No. 1 was represented.
In the course of his speech the minister said:
You see before you your humble servant, who stands on the firing line in the House of Commons and tries to get money votes for the

Naval Conference-Mr. Woodsworth
maintenance of the defence forces of Canada. And I assure you that there is no more popular indoor sport in Ottawa than trying to clip a few hundreds of thousands off the estimates of the Department of National Defence. However I want you to feel that in the last two or three years something has been done with regard to these appropriations.
My object has not been to attempt to have a large defence force in Canada, but to have efficient to a high degree what modest force we have. The militia, engineers, and stores votes have been increased within the last few years. So far as the naval arm is concerned, last year for the first time the House of Commons voted money whereby Canada can buy and build her own naval vessels and thus assume her proper position as a nation among the great powers of the world.
It seems to me a serious thing if it is the opinion of the minister that the building of a navy represents the way in which Canada can assume her proper position among the great nations of the world. Such a conclusion would be altogether out of keeping with the tone of the latter part of the speech delivered to-day by the hon. gentleman. The other day in the committee on industrial and international relations-


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend knows that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, than whom I think he will agree with me there is no greater advocate for peace, points out that there must be a transition period. There is no inconsistency. in the fact that some force is required during the transition period; my hon. friend must know that Great Britain is asking for fifty cruisers.


James Shaver Woodsworth: 2562	COMMONS
Naval Conference-Mr. Woodsworth
outlawry of war, is the one topic that has been taboo at the present conference. Instead we have discussed the strength of fleets, ratios, parities, yardsticks, tons and guns, torpedo-tubes and cruisers, and in so doing have delivered ourselves into the hands of the naval experts and their nationalist and reactionary backers. The attempt is being made now, and will be made in the future, to blame the failure on France or alternatively on Italy, or, if this fails, on Japan. But the real reason is that the delegates have all been thinking about "unthinkable wars" and trying to bluff each other and finesse each other for some slight advantage on agreed building programs.
I think anyone who has read anything about the naval conference must recognize that the great fundamental questions were not discussed and that essentially the greater part of the conference was devoted to technical questions. I should be very glad indeed to think that what the minister said in the latter part of his speech were true, that the naval conference had marked anything like a real id vance.
Now, with regard to our part in naval disarmament, in looking over the treaty I note that on page 4 the following wording occurs:
His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India; for Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the League of Nations;
There follow the signatories for Great Britain. Then later on we have these signatories "for the Dominion of Canada." This is in accordance with the phraseology adopted by the Imperial conference of 1926. Further, on page 29, we find the same phraseology in section 2:
As soon as the ratifications of the United States of America, of His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, in respect of each and all of the members of the British commonwealth of nations as enumerated in the preamble of the present treaty	
And so on. Here again we have equality of status recognized, as at the Imperial conference of 1926, but now I turn to page 24, and in the schedules I find this phrase:
.... for the British commonwealth of nations ....
That is a new phrase, and in article 16, subsection 3, the same phrase occurs again, allocating so many cruisers to "the British commonwealth of nations." In this case the use of the term, "commonwealth" is somewhat ambiguous. Does it mean the empire? In 1926 the phrase seemed to mean the selfgoverning dominions; now it appears to be 
equivalent to the empire itself. This is no small matter. It is not merely a technicality in phrasing but involves the question as to how far we in Canada are responsible for imperial defense. The statement is made that we are to have a maximum of fifteen cruisers. I will read the text, which is subsection 3 of article 16:
The maximum number of cruisers of subcategory (a) shall be as follows:	For the
united States, eighteen; for the British commonwealth of nations, fifteen; for Japan, twelve.
How are these to be allocated? Supposing Australia built two and in that connection it may be asked whether the Australian is to be scrapped, as has been suggested. If so, is Australia to build another cruiser? Supposing Canada should build two or four cruisers, and I believe the latter number was suggested by Mr. Borden. Does that mean that the total for the British Empire is to be only fifteen, and that this number is to be diminished by the cruisers provided by the various dominions?


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: That would leave only seven for the British commonwealth of nations.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, my hon. friend suggests this might mean only seven for the British commonwealth of nations. Will the allotment of the British Empire be cut down by the number provided by the various dominions? From my point of view, this is the important question: is there any understanding between the Dominion and Great Britain as to how the fifteen ships are to be allocated? No indication of that is given in the report now before us, and no indication has been given by the minister himself.


James Layton Ralston: There is no understanding.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems to me that this arrangement is a very loose one, and my former question still stands. I am glad that there is no understanding, but in case of Australia or Canada building any ships, does it mean that the number allotted to the British commonwealth of nations, that is fiftteen, is to be cut down by the number built by the self-governing dominions?


James Layton Ralston: The agreement is that our naval requirements will not be such as to cause the collective total for the British commonwealth of nations to be exceeded. There is nothing loose about that, that makes it absolutely certain that there cannot be more than fifteen of these particular eight-inch gun cruisers afloat on the seas for the whole British commonwealth of nations.

Naval Conference-Mr. Irvine


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is no arrangement as to the allocation as between Great Britain and-*


James Layton Ralston: None.


Edward Joseph Garland: In the event of Australia constructing four cruisers, which is quite possible when we realize Australia's attitude towards this question, that would leave Great Britain with only eleven? Is that satisfactorily understood?


James Layton Ralston: There will be no danger of Australia or any other nation constructing any vessels coming within this treaty without consultation with the other parts of the British commonwealth of nations.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would like to
ask one more question before taking my seat: AVe have participated in this conference and it is proposed that we participate in this naval treaty; we have agreed to this particular number of ships-does that mean that we-that is, Canada-are under obligation for imperial defence?


James Layton Ralston: We have agreed to a
certain number of ships; there is no agreement or any obligation further than the obligation we had before we went to the conference.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The very fact that we are parties to the limitation seems to me to imply a certain moral obligation to live up to that agreement. Supposing Great Britain should find herself in difficulties about providing for the fifteen ships, or faced with some other crisis; would that mean that because we have participated in the conference we would be more or less under an obligation for imperial defence?


James Layton Ralston: The British commonwealth of nations have agreed, not that they shall have fifteen ships-they may have only five- but that their total collective strength shall not exceed fifteen ships. There is no obligation of any kind to contribute to any greater extent than the obligation which existed before we went over to the conference.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is a very
satisfactory answer. Although there are many things I would like to discuss in connection with this whole question, I do not desire to detain the house any longer.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a few remarks regarding the treaty now under discussion, but I want it clearly understood that the criticism which I intend to offer is not directed against the government nor against the representative whom this government had at the naval con-2419- 162t
ference. I think it is only fair to say that the government of Canada deserves a great deal of credit for the attitude it has taken on all matters pertaining to world peace. The actions of this government are praiseworthy in so far as its attitude on the matters of the League of Nations, the Kellogg pact, the optional clause and naval reductions are concerned. I think it is true also that our representative has brought a great deal of credit to Canada. I do not doubt his ability nor have I the slightest doubt as to his sincerity of intention. The actions of Canada have revealed a very fine spirit in regard to the future peace of the world. My purpose is to criticize the conference itself and the method adopted in achieving the aims for which it was called. I am not so much interested in armament reduction, but I am interested in removing the cause for the use of armaments. I think that is a brief statement of the criticism which I intend to make of the conference.
Let me speak now of the conference itself, and the end which it sought to attain. As stated by the minister in reply to my question, the ultimate object was, first, to relieve the nations from some of the burden of preparation for war, and, second, to promote the ultimate peace of the world.


James Layton Ralston: Just reverse the order.


William Irvine: That would make my criticism still more severe. There might be something said for removing a little of the burden of taxation to be brought about by a reduction in armaments, but to say that that reduction is going to make for world peace is a very doubtful assumption. We must measure the results of the conference by the achievements attained.
I do not intend to say very much about the reduction in the burden of taxation brought about by naval restrictions, because I do not know that that means very much. We are not assured that the people will be saved that amount of taxation which otherwise would have been expended in naval preparation. There is no doubt that the reductions brought about as a result of the conference will reduce the purchasing power of the people of the particular countries. It is an unfortunate fact that we have to build navies in order to be able to feed our people, but that is part of the economic absurdity which belongs to civilization. For instance, if Great Britain with her millions of unemployed were to reduce her shipbuilding program by so much, it would further increase her unemployment problem. If it could be assumed that some of the money which would have gone towards the building of battleships
Naval Conference-Mr. Irvine

would go towards the building of highways or the building of homes for the people of Great Britain, then there would be a clear saving to the people.


Edward Joseph Garland: Surely that is a fair assumption.


William Irvine: Not by any means, but if you desire we will deal with it as such. For the moment, I am not going to enlarge on that particular phase of the matter.
My main object is to deal with the other side of the matter, namely, what progress will be made towards world peace by the reduction of naval armament. As I listened to the minister reviewing the results of the conference, I must say that I felt that world peace was still further away than I had thought it to be. The results, as I gather them, were that nine battleships which were to be scrapped in 1936, are to be scrapped within two years instead of waiting until the end of 1936; that in regard to auxiliary craft there was to be a reduction in tonnage of 550,000, of which 250,000 tons have not yet been built ; that fourteen proposed battleships are to have their construction delayed; that there is to be a reduction in the size of submarines; that in the next war there is to be a sort of moral law for submarines, and that finally, so far as Canada is concerned, we still hold by the principle that a treaty is better than a battleship and that our relations with the United States for the last century are proof of that. Much might be said in regard to this latter point, but I do not propose to stop to discuss its merits or demerits further than to say that there has so far been no reason why the United States should want to fight Canada. The United States have had up to the present time all the territory they desire and we have so far no trade they consider worth while fighting for. So it is not quite correct to say that a treaty has taken the place of battleships. If the day ever comes when the United States require more territory or when our trade should seriously challenge theirs, then we shall have the test whether or not a treaty is as valuable as a battleship.
Let me emphasize first of all that it would be a mistake if we over-estimated the value of the sentimental gesture such as the naval conference is. So far as I can see the conference was a competition amongst the powers concerned for an advantage in the next war. That is the first thing that is noticeable. Second, so far as reduction of armaments is concerned, the proposals are practically use-

less. There seemed to be a desire on the part of the conference to make war a sort of gentleman's game: if you are going to shoot me, I propose that you shoot me with a revolver of a certain calibre, and if you will agree to that, I will promise not to shoot you except with a revolver of the same calibre; if you will promise not to shoot me with a rifle that carries beyond a certain distance, I will reciprocate with a similar promise. In other words, we are trying to make war civilized, endeavouring to reduce it to a gentleman's game. Would it make any difference to me if you killed me, whether the bullet had travelled two miles or twenty feet or whether it came from a rifle of one calibre or another? That seems to be the first absurdity on the face of the whole naval conference.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend
think that possibly that consideration might have something to do with the point he mentioned first, namely, the reduction in the building of naval armaments, the making of smaller calibre guns and fewer of them? Will it not at least achieve that object if it does not achieve the other one?


William Irvine: Probably there would be
something to that point, provided that other economic considerations were taken into account; but as regards bringing about peace, I think H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw by their criticism in this regard have put the whole conference out of consideration. What does it matter to a British sailor whether he is killed by a shell that has travelled eighteen miles or twenty miles? What does it matter to a sailor of any country whether the ship that sinks under him is of the 10,000-ton class or the oO,000-ton class? That reduces the whole thing to an absurdity so far as its effect upon world peace is concerned.
But there is another point which is even more fundamental than that. There are those who speak with greater authority on naval matters than I shall ever be able to do, who suggest that in future wars, battleships, submarine and, indeed, all present kinds of seagoing war craft will be obselete. As a matter of fact, just about the time when the Prime Minister of Great Britain was closeted with the President of the United States discussing the advisability of eliminating a cruiser here and a cruiser there, a scientist was addressing a club in the city of London. It is reported in the press that this gentleman stood up, holding in his hand a teaspoon filled with a certain kind of powder, and he stated that in that teaspoon there was enough power to

Naval Conference-Mr. Bennett
kill the entire population of the city of London in fifteen minutes. If there ever should be another war and Canada were to honour me by making me an admiral, I would exchange the entire fleet for that teaspoonful of powder. My point is that when the next war comes the battleships which have been to some extent eliminated by the naval conference will be as extinct as the dodo. Just imagine if you like that we have another conference next year and decide that we shall outlaw bows and arrows in future wars! The absurdity of that must be very clear. To my mind the absurdity of curtailing our building of battleships by one here and one there, the reduction of their tonnage and the making of a smaller calibre gun in the next war is equally ridiculous in view of the scientific advances that have been made.
Much might be said in this regard, but I shall not delay the house beyond the time required to make one other observation. I said at the outset that I was not so much interested in reduction of armaments as I was in the removal of the need for using them, and the naval conference has done nothing in that respect. It is regrettable that all the splendid idealism of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, for whom I have the profoundest respect, and all the fine spirit of peace developed in Canada and other countries of the world, should be dissipated through the avenues of a hopeless sentimentality and not directed toward the economic centre and causes of all wars. Why do nations seek to protect themselves by armaments? They seek security in armaments from .the insecurity of economic conditions and under economic competition there will always be some nation left behind, suffering from economic insecurity. The only hope, then, is to move towards a greater internationalism than has been suggested by the naval conference. The only thing is to recognize the principle of economic cooperation among the nations of the world. That is the basis of world peace. A move in that direction would be worth much more to the future peace of the world than any naval conference, and yet not one single step has been taken by any nation of the world in that direction. I am not criticising Canada any more than any other nation for not having taken that stand. My object in saying anything at all on this matter is to point out that the people of Canada who are looking forward to peace will not rest their case on the naval conference nor on the Kellogg pact nor on the League of Nations, but they will seek to go further and tackle the question of peace in a much more fundamental way.


Hon.   I@: I have on frequent occasions
indicated my views with respect to conferences of this character. After we signed the Briand-Kellogg pact by which we outlawed war, it has always seemed to me extremely difficult to determine any reason for talking in terms of armaments. I have expressed that view so frequently that I shall not do more than indicate it to-day.
The conference called by the right hon. the Prime Minister of Great Britain was for the purpose of limiting naval armaments. It was for more than that. It was also for the purpose of bringing about naval disarmament so far as that might be possible. It failed of its high purpose, but it did achieve something, and the treaty which is before the house to-day for ratification indicates the results of the conference. The hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has indicated the part that Canada took in the discussion. I rather deprecate the idea of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) delivering a eulogy upon his colleague and then his colleague offering his sincere thanks for the eulogy which has been delivered.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend think that it was not deserved?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the point
Cabinet solidarity is one of the prices of responsible government, and a fitting reference to the fact that the government was properly represented at the conference by the minister would, of course, be quite in keeping with the situation, but the habit of delivering fulsome eulogies on the services of colleagues is not conducive to improving the conditions of representative institutions. I say that with very great consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
my hon. friend that I was speaking simply as a Canadian and giving utterance to an opinion that I believe was universally expressed throughout the whole of the British Empire.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You see, even that does
not in any sense deter me from making the observation. The Prime Minister was speaking as the Prime Minister of Canada, and in no other capacity does he act in this house. That is perfectly clear. I for one have no desire to withhold from the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) the warmest encomiums that may be given to him for the services that he rendered to this country. The hon. and gallant gentleman has served his country in more fields of activity than in this house, and he has served his country
Naval Conference-Mr. Bennett


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate informing their honours that this house has adopted a resolution approving of the international treaty for the limitation and reduction of naval armament, London, April 22, 1930, signed in respect of the Dominion of Canada by the plenipotentiary named therein; and that the clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: With the permission of the house I desire to table a copy of the sockeye salmon fisheries convention between Canada and the United States for the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries in the Fraser river system, signed at Washington on the 26th day of May, 1930 by the Hon. Mr. Stimson, Secretary of State, on behalf of the United States, and by the Hon. Vincent Massey on behalf of Canada.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.



DOMINION AND MERCHANT SHIPPING LEGISLATION

Ernest Lapointe: That this house approves the recommendations of the conference on the operation of Dominion legislation and merchant shipping

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Lapointe
legislation, held in London in 1929, and considers that steps should be taken at the forthcoming Imperial conference to ensure their being given effect at an early date.
He said:
The mutual relations of the group of selfgoverning communities which compose the British commonwealth of nations have been defined by the Imperial conference of 1926 in a clear, striking and unequivocal way. The report says:
Their position and mutual relations may be readily defined; they are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status and in no way subordinate one to another, in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.
That definition was further emphasized in two sentences of the report which I shall quote:
Every self-governing member of the empire is now the master of its destiny. In fact if not always in form it is subject to no compulsion whatever.
And then, farther on:
Every dominion is now' and must always remain the sole judge of the nature and extent of its cooperation wfith the other units of the British commonwealth.
These statements assert the nationhood of the dominions, and their union with Great Britain as well as between themselves through a common allegiance to a single crown, and through a free association. They more particularly adopt and accept "equality of status" as the root principle governing inter-imperial relations. They make it clear that full freedom and equality are at once the condition and the assurance of enduring association and effective strength. The principles thus and there declared have been accepted as the conventional basis of the relationship between the various members of the British commonwealth. In Great Britain there have been no dissentient voices amongst the responsible statesmen. The only mild objections which have been raised came from theorists who have not had the heart to reconcile themselves to the new facts and the new situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was a discussion in the House of Lords.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but everybody approved of the report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not everybody.


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely; I think even my hon. friend will approve of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is another matter.


Ernest Lapointe: I will refer to that point later.
Sir Cecil Hurst, who has been legal adviser in the British Foreign Office for a great many years, and who was only a few years ago appointed one of the judges of the international court of justice, and than whom no one is better qualified to speak on this subject, used the following language, when lecturing at the Harris Foundation in the United States in 1927 ;
In the twentieth century Great Britain accepts, and accepts gladly, the new status of complete equality with herself to which the dominions have attained. The period of subordination has, so far as they are concerned, come to an end. Even if the position of primus inter pares is given to her by the dominions, she will enjoy it only because they give it to her and not because she has a prerogative claim to it as a right. What equality means among the autonomous communities of the empire is the absence of any form of control by one community over another, the idea which is expressed in the words "in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs" which figured on the formula adopted in the Imperial conference resolution of 1926.
The then Home Secretary who was a member of the conference of 1926, and who is now a member of the House of Lords with the new title of Viscount Brentford, speaking in the House of Commons on March 15, 1927, said:
The dominions of the crown, the great selfgoverning dominions, are certainly since the last Imperial conference co-equal with the United Kingdom. They do not belong to this parliament; they are not in any sense subject to the jurisdiction of this parliament.
All the dominions have accepted the principles which I have mentioned. True, in Canada, the question was the subject of a debate during the session of 1927, and the then leader of the opposition, the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) moved a resolution reading in part as follows:
That it is not desirable that this house should be deemed tacitly to have acquiesced in the declarations and recommendations contained in the report of the proceedings of the Imperial conference of 1926.
The resolution was voted down by this parliament, and a large majority of the house clearly signified its approval of the report. At this time I shall not commend or discuss the principles enunciated in 1926; they have been accepted. Even those who opposed, ridiculed and criticized, have been moved forward by the wave of public opinion and are nowr occasionally heard basing arguments on the doctrine of equality of status, however timidly and half heartedly they may propound

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Lapointe
that doctrine. I will devote myself to a brief consideration of the work and the report of the conference on Dominion legislation which I had the honour to attend as the representative of Canada.
As the house is aware, that conference was set up for the purpose of examining the legal restrictions of dominion self-government which stili survive from an early period, and of suggesting the most appropriate means of bringing these legal forms and practices into harmony with the constitutional position of equality as laid down by the conference of 1926. In some instances these survivals constitute a serious restriction on the power of the dominion parliaments to enact legislation which they consider essential or desirable. In other cases their obsolescence makes them inoffensive in practice, but they afford ground for misunderstanding both at home and abroad. It is quite true that under a flexible constitution bid forms do not usually keep pace with actual developments; legal definitions instead of preceding the facts generally come later to sanction them. English public law has been built up in this manner and that is what makes it such a vigorous and adaptable instrument of government. The difference between the legal position and the facts brought about by new development however, is adjusted usually by constitutional fictions and conventions, but the time inevitably comes when certain fictions and practice have to be transformed into definite rules of law.
In that regard I cannot do better than quote the words of Professor W. P. M. Kennedy, of the university of Toronto, in an address which he read before the Canadian Bar Association last year, which was published and circulated by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition as president of the Canadian Bar Association. At page 14 he said:
The divorce between constitutional law and constitutional theory-reflecting the realities of national groupings-broke up the first empire, ire there dangers of the continuance of that divorce to-day? Who can tell? Of this much I feel certain, that no sane subject of the crown ought to impose legal changes when clear-cut and unequivocal demands require them. You know the doctrine of varied aspects of the indivisable crown. For myself I do not look on the terms of "Canadian" and "British subject" as the horns of a dilemma, as two exclusive categories, rather are they two aspects of an indivisible legal fact. I believe it is not impossible to combine that fullest and most complete dominion autonomy with the deepest and most profound imperial unity; and I want neither, if I cannot have both. But there is always a danger when the laws of empire do not square with the facts of empire. To-day the sky is unclouded; but some Grenville, some North, some Townshend may lie hidden in the womb of time. And we have got
to remember that no theory of law, no sub-stansive law, can per se hold the empire together. Unity is deeper, more elusive, more subtle, than the statute book of any parliament, than the conventions or laws of any constitution; and the "if's" and "but's" of legal objection fortunately have proved to be the stones, rejected by the narrow-minded, which statesmen have built into our imperial fabric. I have stated my faith. I am no legal doctrinaire. Nothing'is more irritating than speeches and editorials about limitations on our autonomy, except perhaps speeches and editorials emphasizing the legal situation at the expense of facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You might read the
olosing paragraph also.


Ernest Lapointe: The closing paragraph of what?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The closing paragraph of the address. I will not bother you, if you have not it at hand.


Ernest Lapointe: The conference of 1929
was held in order to recommend ways and means of adjusting inter-imperial relations from the legal point of view in order that the law might be brought as far as possible into harmony with the present political status of the dominions and to secure the foundation of the British commonwealth on a firm and stable basis. The conference derived its authority and mandate from the report of the Imperial conference of 1926, which after it approved of certain changes which it deemed necessary to effect in order that the doctrine of equality should be upheld, considered that in the application of principles to certain existing situations detailed examination would be required. The Imperial conference accordingly recommended that a committee should be set up, with terms of reference on the following lines:
To inquire into, report upon, and make recommendations concerning-
1.	Existing statutory provisions requiring reservation on Dominion legislation for the assent of His Majesty or authorizing the disallowance of such legislation.
2.	(a) The present position as to the competence of Dominion parliaments to give their legislation extra-territorial operation.
(b) The practicability and most convenient method of giving effect to the principle that each dominion parliament should have power to give extra-territorial operation to its legislation in all cases where such operation is ancillary to provision for the peace, order and good government of the dominion.
3.	The principles embodied in or underlying the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, and the extent to which any provisions of that act ought to be repealed, amended or modified in the light of existing relations between the various members of the British commonwealth of nations as described in this report.

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Lapointe
The question of merchant shipping was also considered by the Imperial conference of 1926, and it was also decided to submit this question to a special committee, the terms of reference reading as follows:
To consider and report on the principles which should govern, in the general interest, the practice and legislation relating to merchant shipping in the various parts of the empire, having regard to the change in constitutional status and general relations which has occurred since existing laws were enacted.
The members of the conference of 1929 were therefore bound by their mandate, and the nature of their work was limited by the terms of reference as expressed in the report of 1926. Our task did not consist of enunciating new principles but in applying and giving effect to the principles accepted in 1926.
Before taking in their order the various subjects mentioned in the terms of reference, may I call attention to the desirability of preserving the conventional element in our constitution. The conventions always have been an important and even a dominant factor in the constitutional system; indeed, it would not be desirable or wise to erect a legal framework of our constitutional relations so as to merge the flexible conventional elements into a single rigid and restricted legal form. The possibility of easy growth and cooperation should be preserved. The peculiar genius of the British constitutional system has been the adjustment of relations by understandings and usages. All that is required is that old formulae and antiquated legal fictions, inconsistent with and contrary to the present state of inter-imperial relations, should be modified or eliminated. As Professor Kennedy stated, the laws of empire must square with the facts of empire.
The first question submitted was that of the power of reservation of dominion legislation. This question falls into two categories, discretionary reservation and compulsory reservation. Under the British North America Act, sections 55 and 57, Canada possesses only discretionary reservation while in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa certain subjects may be compulsorily reserved. Under the old form of law in Canada the Governor General in assenting to legislation adopted by parliament may make certain reservations for the King's assent, and that legislation is reserved until that assent is signified to the Dominion by way of proclamation. There are provisions relating to compulsory reservations in the Merchant Shipping Act, which are applicable to Canada, but I will deal later with that phase of the question. The discretionary power reservation has been dealt with in a satisfactory manner by the declara-
tions of the Imperial conference of 1926 relating to the position of the governor general. The governor general is now the representative of the crown and is not in any sense a representative of the government of the United Kingdom, and any power of reservation which he possesses is no longer inconsistent with equality of status. However, that power can be exercised only in accordance with constitutional practice, that is, upon the advice of the Canadian ministers. It was agreed that a conventional statement by the Imperial conference is all that is required, stating also that His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom will not advise His Majesty the King to give the governor general any instructions to reserve bills presented to him for assent. It was decided also that it would not be in accordance with constitutional practice for advice to be tendered to His Majesty by the government in the United Kingdom which would conflict with the views of the government concerned. It was agreed further that those dominions which possessed the power of amending their constitutions could do so, and that those dominions which required the cooperation of the parliament of the United Kingdom for such amendment would have only to take the proper steps in order to have the necessary legislation passed.
Practically the same principles apply to disallowance, the second question. Section 56 of the British North America Act, which is embodied in other dominion constitutions, is a remnant of the earlier stages of responsible government. Disallowance has not been exercised in relation to Canadian legislation since 1873, or to New Zealand legislation since 1867; it has never been exercised in Australia or South Africa. It is customary to say that the power of disallowance is as dead as Queen Anne. It was the unanimous agreement that a conventional declaration should be made in accordance with the amendment of the constitution as desired by the dominion.
A difficulty arose in connection with disallowance regarding dominion securities appearing on the British trustees list. The Colonial Stock Act of 1900 empowers His Majesty's treasury in Great Britain to make regulations governing the admission of dominion stock to the list of trustee's securities in the United Kingdom. One of the conditions prescribed by the treasury under that act is a requirement that in order to have stocks admitted to the British treasury list, a formal agreement shall be made whereby the British government shall have the right to disallow any legislation which it thinks might affect the securities adversely. This is a matter of

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Lapointe
agreement, and the right of disallowance can be exercised when the dominion government has complied with the conditions. If this principle is adhered to by the treasury, it may have the effect of preventing borrowing by the dominion in the London market. However, as a matter of fact Canada has not borrowed in that market since 1913.
I come now to the question of extraterritoriality, as to whether or not the parliaments of the dominions have the power to enact legislation which would have extraterritorial effect. This question has been discussed in this country and in the other dominions with a marked difference of opinion. There is a conflict in the views expressed by the courts and in the writings of the authorities, both as to the existence of territorial limitations and as to their extent. The decisions of the Privy Council cannot be said to have solved the issue in any definite or unequivocal way. The case of McLeod which originated in New South Wales is usually quoted as the case w'hich established the limitations. That was a case of bigamy and the Privy Council decided that a citizen of New South Wales could not be prosecuted for bigamy when the second marriage occurred outside the territory of New South Wales because the offence had been committed outside the jurisdiction of the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Our supreme court has held substantially the same.


Ernest Lapointe: By a majority. As the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) says, this question has been discussed in Canada. It was referred to the supreme court and two judges expressed the view that Canada had full extraterritorial power in the matter of bigamy, but three judges decided otherwise. It was in order to meet that difficulty that the Canadian parliament enacted an amendment to the criminal code to the effect that when a person leaves Canada with the intention of going to another place for the purpose of entering into a second marriage, he may be prosecuted, the offence being supposed to have been committed prior to his leaving the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Intent being the essence of the matter.


Ernest Lapointe: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: The same thing arose in Buffalo.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. I come now to the Colonial Laws Validity Act, to the principle of the legislative supremacy of the parliament of Great Britain which it embodies, and which creates the most important of all the constitutional anomalies with which the conference had to deal. From the historic point of view, having in mind the circumstances under which British rule was carried across the seas by settlement and conquest, one can easily understand this legislative supremacy and how necessary it was. Strange as it may appear, the act at the time it was passed, was rightly regarded as an enlargement of colonial legislative power rather than a restriction of it. It was enacted to remedy a situation created by the application of the common law rule, that legislation by colonial legislatures was void if repugnant to the law of England. Many decisions had been given by the Supreme Court of South Australia, invalidating several acts of the legislature of that colony under that rule, creating a condition of difficulty and chaos.
The Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865 was enacted for the purpose of conferring upon colonial legislatures the power of making their laws, even though repugnant to the English common law, but it declared that a colonial law repugnant to the provisions of an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom extending to the colonies either by expressed word or by necessary intentment, should be void to the extent of such repugnancy. The act, of course, conferred validity upon the various laws of the legislature of South Australia which had been declared void by the courts.
As I stated, the aot extended the then existing power of colonial legislatures, but it was enacted two generations ago. In 1865, when the act was enacted, not a single dominion had come into existence and the colonies were small and scattered, being mere communities. The legal situation which was then appropriate, is now recognized to be wholly unsuited to the present day needs and wishes of the dominions. In important fields 
of legislation the restrictions upon dominion legislative powers are causing serious inconvenience by preventing the enactment of legislation adapted to particular needs. All the members of the conference agreed that the Colonial Laws Validity Act was absolutely contrary to the doctrine adopted at the Imperial conference of 1926 and that it was necessary that the legal position should be brought into conformity with the changed facts. This is provided for by, first, a recommendation that the Colonial Laws Validity Act should be repealed in so far as it applies to a dominion; second, a recommendation that there should also be a substantive enactment affirming the power of the parliament of a dominion, lest a simple repeal of the act might be held to have restored the old common law doctrine. In the third place, in view of the existence of the legal power of the Imperial parliament under the common law, it was considered that the apropriate method of reconciling the existence of this power with the constitutional position, is to have the Imperial conference adopt a statement embodying the conventional usage, and that this convention should also appear in the proposed act to be adopted by the parliament of the United Kingdom.
I now come to certain remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in a speech which he made in the house on the address in the session of 1928. As reported on page 25 of Hansard of that year my hon. friend, referring to the conference of 1926, said:
So as long as the Colonial Laws Validity Act remains on the statute book of Great Britain we have no equality of status. We may as well face these things. Nothing could be worse for this country than to tell the young men of Canada that we have equality of status when we have not.
Then at page 26, he said:
Therefore until such time as the Colonial Laws Validity Act is repealed

and I have no doubt that members of this house would like to know precisely what that act provides-it follows that there can be no equality. It seems to me that nothing could be more fatal, nothing more injurious than to have the younger men of this country wake up some morning and find a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to the effect that certain legislation passed by this parliament was invalid on the ground that it was repugnant to the provisions of a statute passed by the parliament at Westminster.
Further he said:
Until such time as the British parliament at Westminster repeals that statute to which I have been referring our inferior position must continue.
I have here the provisions of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, which I have no doubt will be of interest to some of our friends, and I will take the trouble to quote from it.

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Lapointe
Then I asked my hon. friend this question:
Mr. Lapointe:	Do I rightly infer from my
hon. friend's remarks that he will join with me in asking to have the Colonial Laws Volidity Act repealed?
My hon. friend replied:
My hon. friend, confronted with the difficulty of his own situation, seeks to escape by asking someone else a question. He will find that I am too old to be caught in that way.
I resort to the language of Mr. Gladstone, "I will prescribe when I am called in." I will use every endeavour in my power, so long as I occupy this position to see to it that this country shall maintain a status of partnership within the British Empire and an equality with other partners in the commonwealth.
So that my hon. friend did not answer my question as to whether he would help me in 1920. Now that this thing has been achieved and we merely desire the approval of parliament, I have no doubt that he will gladly give his approval; at least I have less doubt in that respect owing to the fact that my hon. friend has recently given expression to a sound Canadianism and has even referred to equality of status. So I trust that we shall make it unanimous. My hon. friend this year, however, in his speech on the address, owing to the fact that this obstacle has been removed, found another one. He says on page 24:
That report makes certain recommendations, but, sir, can there be any such thing as equality of status in this Dominion and any subordination of one parliament to another if this parliament is deprived of the right to frame our own constitution? That is the test, the supreme test, of equality of status.
I do not agree with my hon. friend there. We do not possess that power at present as a result of the circumstances under which confederation was formed and because our people have not wished it otherwise. But that condition exists solely by will of the Canadian people, and not by reason of the control of a superior non-Canadian authority. Indeed the British authorities would gladly relinquish the exercise of such functions, and they do not hesitate to say so owing to possible amendments to the constitution that might be asked for and objected to by some of the provinces and the serious situation in which the Imperial parliament would thereby be placed. How can this be considered to be a condition of subordination? . All restrictions rest upon our own will. They are not imposed upon us, but we respect and keep them because we want to do so, and they cannot take away from us the character and the rank of a nation.
As pointed out in this report, the question of another mode of amending the constitution
is a matter for future consideration by the appropriate Canadian authorities, and by nobody else. How can this be deemed to be a subordinate situation? The question of adopting another method of amending the constitution has already been discussed on various occasions. It is an important question which requires careful consideration, but I repeat, it will be for the Canadian people, through the appropriate Canadian authorities, to decide as to any changes that may be desired in that respect. The views that I have expressed are I believe the views of the statesmen of Great Britain in that regard.
I shall quote the words of Mr. Amery, former Secretary of State for the Dominions, who was one of the leading members of the conference of 1926. He said:
What it does mean is that each partner in the empire is equally entitled to exercise every function of national life, and if any such function is carried on for the purpose by some other part of the empire, that is a matter of convenience or mutual arrangement, and not an evidence of subordination on the part of one partner in the matter to another.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the minister state who are the appropriate Canadian authorities?


Ernest Lapointe: The Dominion parliament would certainly be one of the main appropriate Canadian authorities, and certainly the parties to the pact of confederation have also the right to be consulted and the right to discuss any new methods proposed.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: May I ask
a question?


Ernest Lapointe: Well, this is rather a
technical subject.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I shall be brief. In view of what the minister states, that we have equality of status, would he explain what was meant by the phrase of the late Lord Balfour that, although we had equality of status, it did not universally extend to functions. If it does not universally extend to functions, what is the good of it?


Ernest Lapointe: I think the words of Mr. Amery which I have just quoted answer the question of my hon. friend, and I would refer him to them.
The merchant shipping legislation is a most important question, surrounded with many difficulties. It was the subject of a special reference by the Imperial conference of 1926, and was submitted to a special committee by the Imperial conference of 1929. A member of the Canadian delegation, Mr. Burchell, of Halifax, had the honour to be selected as chair-
2574	COMMONS
Shipping Legislation-Mr. Lapointe
man of that committee and his work as such has received the commendation of all the members of the conference. That special committee presented a unanimous report, which also was adopted unanimously by the conference. May I briefly relate what the present position is with regard to this question?
The Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, that is the imperial act, is substantially so far as its application of Canada is concerned a re-enactment of the provisions of the 1854 act, which antedates the British North America Act by thirteen years. Under section 91 of the British North America Act the exclusive legislation authority of the parliament of Canada extended to all matters coming within the class of subjects enumerated therein, including navigation and shipping. At the Imperial conference of 1897 Sir Wilfrid Laurier claimed that under the constitution of Canada our powers to legislate over shipping were plenary and absolute and subject only to the powers of this house. It was practically a reiteration of the stand taken by Sir John Thompson as to the unlimited power of Canada in dealing with the subjects mentioned in section 9*1 of the British North America Act. It must, however, be admitted that the decisions in the court indicate, although not with absolute certainty, that their opinion is that imperial statutes passed before and after confederation in regard to such matters as shipping and navigation over-ride the legislation of the parliament of Canada. Since 1911 the practice has been established that enactments of the parliament of the United Kingdom in relation to merchant shipping have not been applicable to the Dominion, but even there this situation gives rise to a difficulty which I will note Under the legislation enacted by the parliament at Westminster Wore 1911, and it is by far the most important statute concerning the empire, Canada is dealt with as if it were still a crown colony. The legislation of 1854, which was made for the British possessions of that day, is substantially the legislation which is still applicable to Canada. Under these acts, combined with the operation of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, the legal position may be summarized as follows:
(a) The parliament of Canada, under the authority contained in section 735 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, may repeal any provision of that act other than those of the third part which relate to emigrant ships, and not to ships registered in the Dominion. The Dominion parliament is thus in a position to substitute its own laws, but the act provides that such repeal must be confirmed by His Majesty in council in the United Kingdom,
fMr. Lapointe.]
and it does not take effect until approval has been proclaimed in the Dominion. Under other sections of the 1894 act, if there is any conflict of laws on certain subjects, the case is to be governed by the provisions of the 1894 act, and not by the laws of the Dominion. The parliament of a dominion has no authority to-enact legislation repugnant to the legislation of the parliament of the United Kingdom relating to ships coming into the harbours or territorial waters of the dominion if such ships are registered in other parts of the British commonwealth or even are foreign ships.
The parliament of Canada under, another section of the Merchants Shipping Act of 1894, that is section 736, may enact legislation to-regulate the coasting trade of the Dominion. But in this case also such legislation must contain a suspending clause providing that the act shall not come into operation until His Majesty's pleasure thereon has been publicly signified in the Dominion. It is also enacted that such legislation treat all British ships in exactly the same manner as ships of such Dominion, and when His Majesty has agreed to grant rights and privileges in respect to the coasting trade to foreign states, those rights and privileges must be respected by the Dominion.
Further, the legal situation is still more confusing because of the fact, as I have already stated, that legislation of the parliament of the United Kingdom since 1911 was expressed not to extend to the dominions. The restrictions, however, imposed by the Merchants Shipping Act were not removed, and because of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. legislation passed by a Dominion parliament on the same subject may be held to be void and inoperative on the ground of repugnancy.
There have been international conventions relating to shipping. Indeed, the modern tendency is that laws and regulations concerning navigation and shipping should become as far as possible internationally uniform, and it has already been made so in various respects of maritime law. It is found, however, that if a dominion parliament desires to enact and enforce these regulations and laws, it may find it impossible to enact legislation to that effect a3 certain fields of jurisdiction appear to be reserved for the parliament of the United Kingdom. In Australia the situation is obviously the same, and may I quote the words of former Attorney General Latham, who was attorney general in the government of Premier Bruce-no better imperialist can be found anywhere-in a book he published

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Lapointe
entitled Australia and the British Commonwealth. At page 103, in the chapter dealing with the Merchant Shipping Act, he says:
The position in Australia with regard to merchant shipping and navigation is confused, obscure and radically unsatisfactory.
The concluding words of the chapter, speak-of sections 735 and 736 of the act, are as follows:
It is submitted that they belong to a past age and that their continuance serves no useful purpose.
It was unanimously agreed that the existing legal situation is no longer in accord with the constitutional status of the United Kingdom and the dominions. The recommendations which have been made are rather extensive in their character and are all described in the report which all members of the house have in their possession. I will merely state that the recommendations regarding the extraterritorial effect of dominion laws, the Colonial Laws Validity Act, reservation and disallowance. are all applicable to the constitutional position of legislation affecting merchant shipping. When these conclusions are given effect to, and the restrictions imposed by sections 735 and 736 of the Merchant Shipping Act are removed, the ground will be cleared for cooperation amongst the members of the British commonwealth in all matters which call for concerted action. The conference has indicated many subjects as to which agreement is recommended in the interests of all the various subjects relating mainly to common status, standards of safety, and uniform treatment of all British ocean going ships in the ports of the British commonwealth.
In that respect, may I call attention to the recommendation concerning the coasting trade. While it is recommended that the governments of the commonwealth might agree for a limited number of years to con-, tinue the present position under which ships of any part of the commonwealth are free to engage in the coasting trade of any other part, it is specifically stated that this will not affect the right of any part of the commonwealth to impose conditions of a general character on all ships engaged in its coasting trade, or to impose customs tariff duties on ships built in other parts of the commonwealth or outside it, or to give financial assistance as it thinks fit to its own ships.
There are also recommendations concerning internal discipline and agreements with the crew, certificates of competency and service, courts of inquiry, distressed seamen, mutual enforcement of law, forfeiture, and carriage of goods by sea. The report, I submit meets
the constitutional considerations in favour of freedom of action, and the business considerations in favour of substantial uniformity.
May I say that it has received favourable consideration on the -part of various shipping interests, and although there remains the question of detail of some difficulty, the whole subject will receive careful consideration by aill the .departments concerned and by the shipping interests before final action is taken.
Now I come to the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act. The legal situation with reopect to admiralty jurisdiction is substantially the same as under the Merchant Shipping Act. At the present time admiralty courts in the dominions constituted under the provisions of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, and their jurisdiction is the same as that of the high court in England under that act. Rules for regulating the procedure and practice can be made by a colonial court of admiralty, but they cannot come into operation until approved by His Majesty in council. Any colonial law which affects the 'jurisdiction or practice in the courts, must be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure.
A complicated situation arises by reason of a recent decision of the Privy Council to the effect, that the jurisdiction of an admiralty court in the dominions, is that of the high court of England as it was when the act was passed in 1890, and that all of the important additions made to the jurisdiction of the high .court since 1890, do not apply to the courts in the dominions.
The whole situation is certainly not in accord with the present constitutional status of the dominions, and the recommendations of the conference are, that each dominion shall have power to repeal the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act if it so desires, and may establish courts under its own laws. It is, however, emphasized that as far as possible, there should be uniform jurisdiction and procedure in all admiralty courts in the British commonwealth of nations. In this as in other respects, while the principle of freedom and equality is being given effect to, the desirability of cooperation is expressed and the means of achieving it indicated.
The members of the conference approached their task in the spirit which inspired the framers of the declaration of 1926, and it is the result of their work which I now submit for the approval of the house. The British Empire of to-day is an association of states, each member of which possesses an international capacity, and in which there is no longer a single central power having exclusive initiative and control. This association
2576	COMMONS
Shipping Legislation-Mr. Lapointe
has its origin in an agreement among autonomous nations which propose to obtain by common action certain common objects, each of them retaining its liberty and the full exercise of self-government, domestic and external, and subject only to the restrictions inherent in the very ideals of the association. We are giving to the world a demonstration of the fact that partnership and cooperation do not mean absorption, and that in our great association each nation has its own individuality and leads its own life. We are proving in a most convincing manner that the only true union among the democratic peoples lies in the unrestricted liberty both of their institutions and of their relations with each other and with the world, and that full freedom of action united by the powerful bond of the imperial crown, which is the keystone of the alliance between the dominion and the mother country, will permit pursuing in an unfettered manner the policies which best suit their needs, and the freedom which they enjoy and which will continue to be the strongest factor in the maintenance of harmonious and useful relations. If the legal bonds may appear to have been altered or diminished the real strength of the whole structure has effectively increased, because a community of self-governing nations can work together in peace and unity only through voluntary cooperation in unrestricted freedom. The more prosperous, the more contented and the more free the dominions are, the stronger, the better organized and the more united will be the commonwealth. May I quote the words used by Lord Balfour a few months ago in the House of Lords?
The commonwealth is held together far more effectually by broad loyalties and common feelings of interest and devotion to the great world ideals of peace and freedom than by anything else. A common interest in loyalty, in freedom, in ideals, that is the bond. If that is not enough, nothing else is enough.
At every stage of the constitutional development of the dominions there have been critics and reactionaries who have professed to see the coming dissolution of the empire; those prophets of disaster however have been consistently proved to be wrong. Self-government implies trust, confidence, reasonableness, and common sense on the part of those who enjoy it. Self-respect, self-confidence and selfcontrol are as necessary to nations as to individuals. The recommendation I have mentioned will be submitted to the Imperial conference to be held this year in the month of September. On two or three occasions my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, has stated that the man who will represent Canada at that conference must receive a man-
date from the Canadian people. With this statement I heartily agree. I believe also however that this parliament should be given the opportunity to express its views on the important report which will be submitted to that Imperial conference. Certain statements which are disquieting and startling in their lack of appreciation of the present position of our country are sometimes made by responsible and public men. May I quote one statement as an illustration? A few weeks ago my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie)-who is absent from the house, and for whose recovery from illness I express my hearty wishes-used the following words:
Since January. 1926, we have had representations in London at a peace parley. You would almost think it was a six power instead of a five power parley. We are gradually interfering in the affairs of Europe generally	 We are poring as a nation when we are not a nation at all.
This parliament and indeed the Canadian people must see to it that this shall not be the spirit of those who represent Canada at this momentous convention. Shall Canada speak in terms of a nation, or shall she speak in terms of a backwoods community in need of aid and control? I submit this resolution in order that parliament may unequivocally accept the principle which has been accepted by all the statesmen in the various parts of the commonwealth, and in order that the representatives of Canada, whoever they may be, may be able to convey to the conference our full cooperation in the doctrines laid down by the conference of 1926, and our conviction that the very foundation of the empire rests on the solid rock of liberty, autonomy, and equality of citizenship and nationhood.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrenee-St. George):: I think this house is to be congratulated upon the fact that at length some of the suggestions of the Imperial conference of 1926 have been presented to this parliament for its approval and confirmation. My hon. friend has referred to the mandate which he and those who represented Canada had received when they attended the meeting of the committee at London in 1929. They certainly have not sought and have not received a mandate from this House of Commons or from the Senate of Canada. Although suggestions contained in the Imperial conference resolutions of 1926 concerned not only this Dominion and its relations to the other dominions but, in most part, concerned also the intimate relations existing between this parliament and the legislatures of the several provinces, I have yet to learn that the several

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Cahan
provinces were ever officially notified of those resolutions or were ever asked to consider them or to give legislative sanction or even an official opinion in respect thereto. That,
I think, has been a very serious omission on the part of the government.
In recent discussions of the political relations of this dominion to the United Kingdom and to the other dominions, we have consistently maintained that those who desire the survival of that vast political entity, known as the British Empire, should constantly insist that all existing political machinery should be employed to develop common political ideals and to ensure the cordial cooperation of the government of the United Kingdom and the governments of the several dominions in carry- . ing their common ideals into full practical effect.
In considering the report of the Imperial conference of 1926, I have repeatedly directed attention to the fact that the ultimate solution of the problems presented by that report will affect every phase of our political, commercial and social life. Every man and woman, who is entitled to Canadian citizenship, whether by birth or naturalization, is interested in ascertaining what will be his rights, privileges, obligations and duties, whenever he passes beyond the frontiers of Canada, after the constitutional changes, which are now proposed, are brought into full effect.
Every Canadian shipowner ife concerned to know what will be the status of his ship, its officers and crew, on the high seas, or in British and foreign ports, when they are no longer subject to the Merchants Shipping Acts and to the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of the United Kingdom.
Every Canadian merchant, engaged in the foreign trade of Canada, is directly interested in the ultimate preservation of the manifold rights and privileges which appertain to British subjects in their commercial intercourse with foreign countries, under the terms of existing treaties between the government of the United Kingdom and the governments of foreign states.
The people of this Dominion desire, I am convinced, not merely the barren and futile right to enter into separate relations wiith foreign powers, but also the assurance, especially with regard to Shipping, that the whole weight of British diplomacy and of British authority should be on their side in case their vital interests are imperilled. In fact, existing imperial acts and treaties, applicable to Canada and to Canadians at home and abroad, affect our material interests in innumerable ways. If 2419-163
these are to be wiped out, their abrogation will involve the immense constructive work, on the part of the dominions, of devising a whole series of constitutional conventions and interimperial and international agreements and treaties which will clearly determine the relations of the dominions between themselves, as well as with foreign countries, if the empire shall hereafter remain a subsisting political entity and not merely a free association of independent sovereign states.
For myself, I am fully convinced that the complete breach of our continuous community of political relations and of political ideals would not only make for serious domestic dissensions, and perhaps induce even civil strife in Canada, but would seriously diminish the growing influence of this country upon world affairs; for no dominion is strong enough, even if it so desired, to afford the luxury of a completely independent political policy in respect of its external affairs. In discussing this subject in this house on the 29th of May, 1928, I made a statement, which I now repeat:
I have had occasion to look into the statutes of the parliament of Great Britain which still apply to us and, the longer I pursued my investigations, the more statutes and treaties I found which directly affect us. I would suggest to the government that when they come to consider the modification of these statutes they will find their ramifications so extensive as almost to appall them. Before the next imperial conference this government should make haste slowly, and, by such expert assistance as is available, should probe these matters to the bottom. They should do this not with a view to organizing some method of taking this dominion out of the commonwealth, but to devise ways and means by agreement and concurrent legislation, and, by new conventions where legislation is not necessary, for the purpose of keeping this Dominion within the British commonwealth. Let us keep Canada in the empire as a dominion fully conscious of its rights and privileges, but also conscious that we must play our parts, man for man and government for government, with those of the other dominions of the commonwealth, in maintaining the political unity of the empire to which we now belong.
Briefly, I am persuaded that it is in the best interests of Canada that the British commonwealth of nations, which is commonly known as the British Empire, should remain a subsisting political entity, and not merely a free association of independent states.
I frankly confess that in entering upon a study of the report of the recent London conference on the operation of dominion legislation, and particularly merchant shipping legislation, my opinions are doubtless coloured by such important considerations as those I have just mentioned. The assertion of



Shipping Legislation-Mr. Cahan
" equality of status " as between the United Kingdom and the several dominions is utterly inadequate to define the whole of the political relations which should continue to subsist between the dominions to each other and to the United Kingdom. The London committee appear to have ignored all such other considerations.
Lord Milner, in his lifetime, fully recognized the necessity of an equal partnership between the United Kingdom and the dominions, but, he added:
Undoubtedly the working of it out in practice without bringing about a severance of relations between us and the dominions will be one of the most complicated tasks which statesmanship has ever faced.
The recent addresses of General Smuts in Canada contained a strong appeal in favour of the developing by constructive efforts of the continuous community of our interimperial relations.
The report of the recent London conference on the operation of dominion legislation and merchant shipping legislation is now before us. In the words of the London Post, the conference " has produced an obscure, pedantic and tedious report," and I may add concerning this report that prolix as it is, it is almost wholly lacking in intelligently directed constructive effort or effect.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a good Tory
comment.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is a very intelligent comment. The report first considers the right of the crown, on the advice of the government of the United Kingdom, to disallow dominion acts, and the right of the Governor General to reserve dominion bills. The report alleges that there is no provision in our constitution, the British North America acts, "requiring" reservation. That is literally true, but there are provisions authorizing such reservation of dominion bills. The reservation by the Governor General of bills passed by the parliament of Canada is authorized by sections 55 and 57 of the British North America Act, 1867. The disallowance by the king in council, that is by the government of the United Kingdom, of statutes enacted by the parliament of Canada, within two years after copies of such statutes are received by the Secretary of State at London, is authorized by section 56 of the British North American Act, 1867.
These provisions of the British North America Act may only be amended or repealed by a new act of the parliament of
TMr Cahan.)
the United Kingdom, and, so far as Canada is concerned, the committee, after a verbose explanation, conclude that:
We desire to place on record our opinion that it would be in accord with constitutional practice that if so requested by the dominion concerned the government of the United Kingdom should ask parliament to pass the necessary legislation.
That is, for the repeal of these sections. This conclusion is evidently regarded by the committee as an expression of profound wisdom, although it might more aptly be described as trite and commonplace, except that the committee has ignored completely the right of the provinces to be heard in respect of such amendments to the British North America Acts, to which they became parties when admitted to this Dominion as provinces.
The committee points out that under the provisions of the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, the Treasury of the United Kingdom is authorized to prescribe the conditions under which a colonial stock, that is, the bonds or debentures of any colony, may be authorized as investments for trustees under the Trustee Act of 1893 of the United Kingdom. One condition so prescribed, as pointed out so clearly by the Minister of Justice, is that the British government may disallow dominion or colonial legislation which appears to the government of the United Kingdom to alter any of the provisions affecting the stock to the injury of stockholders resident in the United Kingdom, or which would involve a departure from the original contract in regard to such stock. The committe reported:
"the right of disallowance in respect of such legislation must remain and can properly be exercised.
There is to be no complete repeal of the disallowance exercised by the Imperial government under the British North America Act of 1867. Might I suggest that the Canadian members of that committee might have considered as an alternative that perhaps the time would soon arrive when the governments of the dominions and especially the government of Canada might very properly seek an agreement with the British treasury for the amending of the existing British treasury regulations governing the admission of dominion stocks to be inscribed as trustees' securities. We may no longer desire to procure such inscriptions by conceding to a British ministry the right to veto legislation which is intra vires of a Canadian parliament, and certainly the time has now arrived when the British treasury may rely upon the good faith

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Cahan
of the Canadian parliament in carrying out such conventions and understandings as now exist concerning such inscriptions of dominion securities, without being placed under the penalty of having their legislation vetoed by a British ministry.
The minister discussed at length the extraterritorial operations of Dominion legislation, and he referred to certain resolutions passed in recent years by the parliament of Canada, but he failed to indicate to the house how seriously the subcommittee, of which he was a member, had departed from the views expressed by a previous resolution of this parliament. A joint address of the Senate and Commons of Canada to His Majesty was passed unanimously by the House of Commons on June 24, 1920, and by the Senate on June 26, 1920, requesting an amendment to section 91 of the British North America Act to provide:
Any enactment of the parliament of Canada otherwise within the legislative authority of the parliament shall operate and be deemed to have operated extraterritorially according to its intention in like manner and to the same extent as if enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom.
That joint address, which was passed by the unanimous vote of this house, contained as one of its essential terms the principle that the enactments of the parliament of Canada, which were to have extraterritorial operations, were to be confined to such statutes as were within the legislative jurisdiction of parliament. That was a very important reservation. Subsequently, on July 17, 1924, this house passed an amended address to His Majesty, substituting the following words:
An enactment intra vires of the parliament of Canada, if expressed to operate extraterritorially, shall have and be deemed to have had that operation, if and in so far as it is a law for or ancillary to the peace, order and good government of Canada.
I believe that resolution was proposed to this house by the present Minister of Justice. When it was first introduced to the house the words "intra vires" were omitted, and it was only in the Senate that these words were introduced after considerable discussion and after objections had been voiced by the premiers of some of the provinces, particularly by the premier of Ontario. These two words were then introduced in the resolution by the Senate, and the resolution passed in the terms which I have just stated.
When the imperial conference met at London in 1926, the sole authority of the representatives of Canada at that imperial conference in regard to dealing with the question 2419-163J
of extraterritorial operation of Dominion laws was the resolution of July 17, 1924, giving extraterritorial effect exclusively to enactments otherwise intra vires of the parliament of Canada. The imperial conference recommended as follows:
That each dominion parliament should have power to give extraterritorial operation to its legislation in all cases where such operation is ancillary to the peace, order and good government of the dominion.
The Minister of Justice, behind the back of parliament and in total disregard of the previous instructions of parliament, eliminated the words "intra vires" from the proposal then made and recommended. The subcommittee of that conference has expressed the following opinion:
The introduction of a reference to legislation ancillary to the peace, order and good government of Canada is unnecessary, would add to the existing confusion on the matter, and might diminish the scope of the powers, the existence of which it is desired to recognize.
I think the Minister of Justice should tell us what powers that committee had in view which they so desired to recognize. He has failed to elucidate the object and intent of the Canadian representatives in agreeing to that recommendation, but I think the context affords an answer. The member of this government, who sat as representative in that committee, desired to recognize the complete severance of those political ties and reciprocal duties and obligations which bind the dominions to each other and to the United Kingdom. In utter disregard of the terms of the resolution of July 24, the committee recommended an imperial enactment by which it should be declared and enacted:
That the parliament of a dominion has full power to make laws having extraterritorial operation.
That is, they seek powers unrestricted on the one side by any interimperial obligations or relationships, or on the other, by any concern for the constitutional rights and interests of the several provinces of Canada.
Surely the proposed enactment should not confer unlimited powers, but should be restricted to such matters as are within the legislative jurisdiction of a dominion parliament. We certainly should not seek in this way by indirect means to wipe out all restrictions upon dominion legislation, particularly as each and every province is intimately, if not vitally, concerned in those existing restrictions being adhered to. I respectfully suggest

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Cahan
that the clause should be drafted in some such form as this, before the house is asked to give complete approval of it:
It is hereby declared and enacted that the parliament of Canada, in respect of matters within its legislative jurisdiction, has full power to make laws having extraterritorial operation.
Otherwise you are infringing upon the rights and privileges of each and every province of Canada under the constitution as it at present exists, and I submit that this government, this house and parliament have no moral or constitutional right to change the constitution of Canada in vital respects without calling together the representatives of the provinces and obtaining their opinion in regard to the proposed changes.


Mr. THORSON:: Surely my hon. friend
appreciates the fact that the jurisdiction of the provinces is absolutely unaffected by any recommendation contained in the report.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will deal with that in a
moment. I do not agree with that at all. That is just where the crux of the whole matter arises in respect of extraterritorial legislation. It is true that the committee expressed the pious hope that hereafter each dominion should make provision for granting to the others the customary extraterritorial immunities with regard to internal discipline, which are usually conceded to and enjoyed by the armed forces of one government when present in the territory of another government with its consent. It is presumed that, despite the Kellogg peace pact, we may hereafter be involved in war and that military forces of this dominion may be sent abroad into some other dominion or into the United Kingdom by the dominion parliament and government. In any event, it is assumed that the relations between dominions, and between the dominions and the United Kingdom, shall hereafter be those which subsist between independent sovereign states. That is the whole gist and purport of these resolutions and of the report giving extraterritorial effect to the legislation of the parliament of Canada.
The extraterritorial legislation of a dominion is evidently intended to apply to acts committed beyond the territorial limits of the dominion, that is on the high seas or within foreign states or even within the territorial jurisdiction of the United Kingdom or of another dominion or some other colony or possession of the British Empire. But, to apply to acts committed by whom? Surely not to acts committed within the United Kingdom by Englishmen, Scotsmen or Irish-

men who are domiciled in the United Kingdom. Surely not to acts committed by Australians who are domiciled within the Commonwealth of Australia. It is true that sovereign states are deemed to have extraterritorial jurisdiction, as the Minister of Justice has pointed out, over their own nationals wherever they are, and the United States have gone one step beyond that and assumed that they have jurisdiction within their own territory over nationals of other countries for acts committed outside the territorial limits of the United States. But who are to be deemed Canadian nationals under the proposal made by the subcommittee? Who are to be deemed Australian nationals? Does a British subject who is bom in Canada and has been domiciled in Canada, who retains his British allegiance, remain a Canadian national when he crosses our southern border and takes up his residence in the United States? What class or classes of persons are to be subject to such extraterritorial legislation as the Dominion of Canada may hereafter enact? All British subjects now possess a common status throughout the empire and throughout the world, by virtue of the fact that they are British subjects. After this proposed legislation passes, in what respect will Canadian nationals be British subjects when outside of the territorial limits of Canada?
The preservation of our status, rights and privileges as British subjects is, I believe, the predominating political purpose of a large majority of the people of this Dominion, and any efforts made directly or indirectly to subvert and destroy that status will not receive the commendation of the Canadian people as a whole.
The London committee's report, it seems to me, does not disclose any intelligent effort to achieve that end and purpose to which I have referred. It is apparent that the committee have confined their efforts to ascertaining the practicability and most convenient method of dissolving existing political ties, but none whatever to the work, so eminently desirable, of evolving a new constitution or convention, by virtue of which the legislative and administrative autonomy of the dominions may be maintained, and by which the common status of British subjects and the common privileges of British citizenship may also be preserved for all time to all British peoples.
But the report says that the dominions are freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations, and upon that the Minister of Justice has to-day repeatedly

Shipping Legislation-Mr, Cahan
rung the changes. So they are in fact freely associated as members of the League of Nations. But the British Empire is a political entity; the League of Nations is not. There are other grave differences. The British Empire is a legal person; the League of Nations is not. We enjoy throughout this empire an imperial citizenship, but there is no such thing as citizenship in the League of Nations. The writ of habeas corpus runs throughout the British Empire to its uttermost parts for the protection of the life and liberty of all who owe allegiance to the British crown. The prestige and power of the British Empire assure the liberty and safety of the British subject, in whatever dominion he may be domiciled, whenever and wherever he sails upon the high seas, and whenever and wherever he travels in foreign parts. But what definite measures are proposed in this committee's report to ensure the preservation of these liberties and privileges once the empire is disrupted into independent states? I submit that there are none whatever.
No intelligent study is made by the committee concerning the disintegrating effects of their proposals upon the unity of the empire, and the portentous and perilous results that will necessarily flow therefrom, if full effect be given to their recommendations for the repeal of existing statutes before new conventions and new agreements are devised in substitution for the unitary political system which now subsists.
My hon. friend has referred at length to the Colonial Laws Validity Act. The report approves of the enactment by the parliament of the United Kingdom of a statute in the form following:
(1)	The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, shall cease to apply to any law made by the parliament of a dominion.
(2)	No law and no provision of any law hereafter made by the parliament of a dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England or to the provisions of any existing or future act of parliament or to any order, rule or regulation made thereunder, and the powers of the parliament of a dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of the dominions.
Obviously, though not expressly stated, the reference to "the provisions of any existing or future act of parliament" refers to acts of the parliament of the United Kingdom; and it is equally obvious that the clause respecting "the powers of the parliament of a dominion" to repeal or amend any such imperial act, in express terms, authorizes the Dominion parliament to repeal or amend any present or
future acts of the parliament of the United Kingdom relating to any dominion, even including those acts by which any such dominion is constituted, since there is no doubt whatever that an act of parliament of the United Kingdom which constitutes a dominion is part of the law of the dominion.
The Minister of Justice would, if he had an opportunity, doubtless retort as did my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) that there is a subsequent provision in the proposed enactment that:
Nothing in this act shall be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the constitution acts of the Dominion of Canada	otherwise than in accordance with the law and constitutional usage and practice heretofore existing-
I think that if my hon. friend had wished to protect the rights of the constituent provinces of the Dominion he could have found far more definite and specific terms to employ than those which I have just quoted. There is no law or constitutional usage or practice heretofore existing by which any such amendment or repeal of the British North America Act could be enacted by the parliament of Canada. Other dominions under their different constitutions have certain powers of amendment; we have none.
Surely the intention of the draftsman could be more clearly and definitely and less clumsily expressed than by first baldly declaring that the Dominion of Canada has full power to repeal or amend its constitution, and then intimating in a final clause at the close of the report that that object can only be effected in a way which does not at present exist.
Moreover, the committee's report clearly announces that our provincial "legislation will continue to be subject to the Colonial Laws Validity Act and to the legislative supremacy of the parliament of the United Kingdom." The report adds that:
It will be a matter for the proper authorities
in Canada	to consider whether and to
what extent it is desired that the principles to be embodied in the new act of the parliament of the United Kingdom should be applied to. . . . provincial legislation.
One could not conceive of a proposition more half-baked, if I might use the term-


Ernest Lapointe: There is no word bad enough 1


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is sometimes difficult to find appropriate parliamentary terms. If the Colonial Laws Validity Act is to have no future application to Dominion legislation, why should it have any effect upon and curb and restrict the legislative jurisdiction of the various provinces of Canada? If the Colonial
25S2	COMMONS
Shipping Legislation-Mr. Cahan
Laws Validity Act is to be kept in force with respect to provincial legislation, why during the recess or why now does not the Prime Minister call together the representatives of the various provinces to ascertain what their views are, so that in dealing with this question we may not deal with it in an inadequate manner? If the Colonial Laws Validity Act is to be repealed in respect of Dominion legislation, a conference might ascertain now in what manner the repeal should be expressed so as to give to the provinces exactly the same jurisdiction in respect of matters within their legislative jurisdiction as is now to be given to the parliament of Canada?


Edward Joseph Garland: May I take it that the hon. gentleman is in favour of the repeal of the act with respect to the provinces?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think I have expressed my opinion very fully.


Edward Joseph Garland: Not quite fully, I think.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I shall before I am through, but I wish to do it consecutively and in a manner that comports with my own views.
This raises at once the broad question whether the government of this Dominion, even with the approval of this parliament, has the constitutional right to procure the enactment of an imperial act, in the terms now suggested, without first procuring the consent or approval of the governments and legislatures of the several provinces of Canada. I, for one, have very grave doubts as to the constitutional propriety of any such action. The government of this Dominion, in my opinion, has no moral or constitutional right to procure the enactment of the proposed legislation without first obtaining the formal consent of the several provinces.
I come now to another important phase of this report, the merchant shipping legislation The keynote of this part of the report is the declaration that:
The new position will be that each dominion will, amongst other powers, have full and complete legislative authority over all ships while within its territorial waters or engaged in coasting trade; and also over its own registered ships both intraterritorially and extraterritorial^.
To attain this end the committee advocates the repeal of all restrictions or limitations upon dominion legislation which are at present contained in the merchant shipping acts of the imperial parliament. Then, they say, the ground will be thus cleared for cooperation by the dominion and the United

Kingdom in respect of those shipping interests in which practical considerations call for concerted action; and they suggest that such concerted action should, as the Minister of Justice stated, take the form of agreements, for a term of years, which may hereafter be negotiated as to:
(a) Uniformity of laws throughout the British commonwealth;
(b)	Reciprocal aid in the enforcement of laws in the jurisdictions of other members of the British commonwealth; and
(c) Limitations to be observed in the exercise of each dominion's legislative powers.
Although the committee recognize the difficulty of framing a complete list of subjects upon which uniformity is desirable, in respect of which, it seems to me, the whole British shipping world should be consulted, and certainly the shipping interests of Canada, before suioh approval is given, they enumerate several ithat occur in their minds.
They seek a common status, involving:
(a)	Uniform . minimum qualifications for ownership to govern the registry of ships in [DOT]the United Kingdom and in all the dominions, and
(b)	The establishment of such a common status for all dominion shipping as will entitle dominion ships to the same recognition as is mow aocorded to British ships.
But they fail utterly to suggest how this common status is to be achieved. They propose a Canadian registry for Canadian ships, which whether in Canadian waters or beyond the territorial limits of Canada, will remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. The protection of such ships, the security of their trade, will then be the sole responsibility of the parliament and government of Canada. The government of the United Kingdom will then have no duty or responsibility in the premises. Their masters and owners, suffering unjust treatment in *foreign jurisdictions, can only appeal to the *Canadian government for relief and redress *of wrongs.
When that situation arises, I confidently predict that there will remain no ships of 'Canadian registry engaged in foreign trade, excepting those owned by the Canadian government; for Canadian shipowners, for their own protection, will transfer the registry *of their ships to London, Liverpool or some other port of the United Kingdom, and thus place their property and interests on the high seas and in foreign ports under the protection of the government and admiralty of the United Kingdom.
The committee recommend that uniform standards should be observed by all the

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Cahan
*dominions in all matters relating to the safety of dominion ships and those on board; and the general adoption of appropriate conventions to secure that end; or, at the least, that ea-ch dominion should inform the others -we are now getting back to the old principle of negotiation of treaties-of any substantial modifications proposed to be adopted, and the reasons therefor, in order that uniformity may be maintained.
Before destroying the existing imperial legislation in respect of British shipping, which ensures a common status for British ships throughout the world, and secures uniform [DOT]standards of safety, both in respect of ships and seamen, is it not most desirable that the *governments of the dominions should first *undertake the comprehensive yet onerous task of framing, by concerted action, such necessary conventions and agreements as the committee deem essential? It takes a thousand years *to develop a political system, a single hour may suffice for its complete destruction.
The committee recommend, not as precedent to but as subsequent to the repeal *of the existing imperial legislation, which applies to the ships of all the dominions, [DOT]that each dominion should now accept *the principle that legislation with extraterritorial effect, enacted by one dominion, should not be made to apply to the ships registered in another dominion, without such other dominion's consent. Why not now seek to obtain a general agreement *to that effect, before wiping out the existing [DOT]legislation which secures such desirable uniformity of action.
The committee also report that continued *uniformity of treatment is desirable for all ocean-going ships of each of the dominions in the ports of any other dominion. They
say:
Such uniformity of treatment is regarded as an asset of very considerable importance, especially for the negotiation with foreign governments who may seek to discriminate in favour of their own ships and against British commonwealth ships.
When we consider the vast ramifications of this subject of securing uniform treatment of dominion shipping throughout the wide world, and its paramount importance to every owner of shipping, who is domiciled in a dominion, this feeble and-I use another and more expressive word-almost infantile pronouncement of the committee appears by contrast to be utterly inadequate. No suggestion is made that the governments of the United Kingdom and the governments of the several dominions should first adopt an agreement or convention, whereby the power, authority and influence of the whole commonwealth would be utilized
to protect and safeguard the shipping interests of any dominion which is discriminated against or otherwise unjustly and unfairly treated by a foreign government. The committee merely recommends that the government of the United Kingdom and the governments of the several dominions "might"-note the word "might"-not "should" agree for a limited number of years to continue to permit the ships of the one to engage in the coasting trade of the other, and that no one part should give to foreign shipping more favourable treatment than to the ships of the other parts of the British commonwealth.
The committee also recommends agreements to the effect that the law of each member of the British commonwealth, in which a ship is registered, should apply to the ship and its crew in respect of all matters of internal discipline, and to all contracts with the crew; that certificates of competency granted to officers of ships by one dominion, or one part of the British commonwealth, should be recognized as valid in all other dominions or parts of the commonwealth; that the principles governing the constitution and procedure of courts for the investigation of casualties to ships should be uniform; and that the investigation should be held in that dominion or part, in which the ship is registered, no matter when the casualty takes place, if its governmental authority so desires. The committee also recommends reciprocal arrangements for the relief of distressed seamen, for the mutual enforcement of the law of the dominion or part in which the ship is registered, in respect of offences committed on such registered ships; but it fails to suggest any definite provisions to effect those ends.
It gives as an excuse for its utter inaction that:
The .position which obtains at present is only possible because the system of law which is applied is a unitary system, and, When that system comes to an end, a solution of the difficulties which arise will have to be sought in other directions.
Why not seek them now? Why did not the committee when in London sit down and draft at least a tentative agreement between the governments of the several dominions and Great Britain whereby these common interests would be hereafter conserved, leaving to each dominion in local matters to give legislative expression to its autonomy? This puerile pronouncement naively suggests that, when the legislation, which is now proposed, is enacted by the imperial parliament, even in respect to those all important matters in which all parts of the British commonwealth have common interests, the existing unitary system will be

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Cahan
completely destroyed, and moreover the committee confess their incompetence to suggest, at the present time, the terms of any convention or agreement whereby in the future concerted action of the United Kingdom and of the dominions may be ensured.
The committee recommend that each dominion should have power to repeal the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, which ensures uniformity of jurisdiction and procedure in all essentials in admiralty cases, and then expresses the pious thought:
We think it highly desirable to emphasize that so far as is possible there should be uniform jurisdiction and procedure in all admiralty courts in the British commonwealth of nations subject, of course, to 6uch variations as may be required in matters of purely local or domestic interest.
But they make no real effort to attain that most desirable end.
The committee have suggested that a new tribunal be established for the determination of justiciable disputes and differences between members of the British commonwealth. The hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Lanctot), in seconding the reply to the Address of His Excellency the Governor General, urged that such interimperial questions might well be submitted to the permanent court of international justice. The Minister of Justice did not dissent from that view. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) urged also that such matters should not come under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council but rather be relegated to some international body of jurists akin to the Hague tribual.
I personally entirely concur in the recent action of this government and of the governments of the United Kingdom and of the other dominions, when giving their adhesion to the Permanent Court of International Justice, in excepting from it jurisdiction disputes arising between themselves.
The governments and legislatures of the several provinces of Canada may be said in one sense to be sovereign within their respective jurisdictions; yet I conceive it would be destructive to all sense of dominion unity, if interprovincial and interdominion disputes were relegated to the decision of an international tribunal; and I trust the day is far distant when the British dominions will enter into a convention or agreement to submit such differences as may arise between them to any court external to the empire, and thus to permit rival foreign powers to determine what hereafter shall be the political relations of these dominions to one another.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has already arbitrated, by agreement, between two dominions in the Labrador boundary case, between two provinces of Canada in another case, between two Australian states in another, and also between the government of the United Kingdom and the government of Northern Ireland, and for the present it appears to me that the governments of the dominions might well consider the advisability of agreeing to vest in that same judicial committee, reconstructed as it may be for the proper exercise of such jurisdiction, the right to arbitrate justiciable disputes hereafter arising between the several dominions of the commonwealth.
There is a wide range of matters of paramount interest to all parts of the British Empire, and in respect of these interests, which are common to all the parts, unity of action and uniformity of legislation can be secured only by coordinated enactments of the imperial and of the dominion parliaments, or by the negotiation of new conventions or agreements between all the parts of the British commonwealth. The committee have resolved that such unity of action and uniformity of legislation shall no longer be secured by imperial enactments; but it is clear to me that the abrogation of the legislative supremacy of the parliament of the United Kingdom will be conducive to harmonious and concerted action, if at all, only when the United Kingdom and the several dominions shall have previously agreed upon certain definite coordinated enactments or upon a series of constitutional and interimperial conventions or agreements, which shall clearly determine their future political relations inter se.
And here I may interject the opinion that the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act and the argument of the Minister of Justice do not necessarily involve the complete renunciation of the paramount authority of the parliament of the United Kingdom to exist as a sovereign legislature, with legislative jurisdiction in matters of common imperial concern; and that the committee are un-doubtely mistaken in their assumption to the contrary.
They are undoubtedly mistaken, and from certain parts of their report it is evident that they do not assume that the paramount legislative authority of the imperial parliament or Ihe parliament of the United Kingdom is to be completely abrogated; for, at least, the Colonial Laws Validity Act is to be kept in full force and effect with regard to the legislation of the several provinces of Canada.

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Cahan


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a common law principle.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so. The fact that the peoples of all of the dominions are admittedly united in a common allegiance to the British throne implies that common interests undoubtedly exist, not only in relation to their external affairs with foreign countries, but also in respect to their interimperial relations; and within those two areas, however restricted they may be deemed to be, some means must be devised for preserving and facilitating their unity of legislative action.
The committee have in some respects gone far beyond and in others fallen far short of the reasonable implications of the resolutions of the Imperial conference of 1926. Am I mistaken in the suggestion that the absence of the restraining influence of the Prime Minister at this recent subconference enabled the Minister of Justice, who was present and one of its guiding spirits, to give free and full expression to certain separatist tendencies in respect of which the members of the government are not quite unanimous?
" Equality of status " among autonomous communities, in the mind of Lord Balfour, who drafted the resolutions of 1926, meant nothing more than the absence of the exercise of power or authority by one community over the other or others of them. To use Lord Balfour's felicitous phrase, they were-
In no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs.
Or, in the words of Sir Cecil Hurst, who was one of the legal advisers of that conference, and who now sits as British representative on the Permanent Court of International Justice:
This equality of status is not inconsistent w'ith the continued existence of legal rights now vested in the parliament of Great Britain, or in the ministers of the crown in Great Britain, which are not vested in dominion parliaments or ministers, provided that those rights are only exercised in respect of any dominion, in accordance with the -wishes of the parliament or the people or the government of the dominion concerned.
It is this recognized principle that forms the basis of our existing imperial citizenship.
The status of a British subject throughout the empire and in all foreign countries depends now upon the legislation of the parliament of the United Kingdom, and it is now a matter of understanding between the governments of the United Kingdom and of the dominions that no change shall be made in this legislation, except after a new agreement, to which they shall all be parties, to substitute new amending legislation for the existing statutes. That is the principle which should
now govern proposed amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act. Uniformity in legislation affecting British shipping is of vital concern to all parts of the empire, and uniformity in the shipping laws of the empire can be preserved only by formal agreement between all autonomous parts of the empire to the effect that, before any repeal of existing legislation shall be effected, amending laws, which are to be substituted for the existing laws, shall first be devised and accepted by all of the dominions. That principle, which should be deemed imperishable if the political unity of the empire is to be preserved and maintained, is utterly disregarded in the recent report, to which the Minister of Justice is a signatory on behalf of Canada.
The report, in which the Minister of Justice concurs, advocates that power be vested in each dominion parliament to repeal in whole or in part the existing Merchant Shipping Acts. Each dominion is to act on its own initiative. The alternative, which I respectfully suggest, is that the existing merchant shipping acts should stand, until by concerted action the dominions have agreed in specific terms upon the new laws which are to be substituted therefor, so as to preserve uniformity of legislation in respect of all shipping interests which are of common concern, and so as to preclude any dominion from such premature and ill-considered action as may trench upon and destroy or prejudicially affect or discriminate against the substantial shipping interests of any other dominion.
In closing, I most insistently urge that parliamentary approval of these proposed radical and far-reaching constitutional changes should not be pressed during these closing days of this short and rather turbulent session, and if approved should not be deemed to represent the matured views of the very large shipping interests of Canada and should not be pressed as representing the considered opinions of the several provinces of Canada. The provinces should have been consulted in respect of the proposed increase of federal powers and the proposed extension of the federal legislative jurisdiction, which are embodied in this report, and in which are involved the power of this parliament to repeal imperial enactments.


Mr. ILSLEY:: It does not involve power to repeal the British North America Act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Possibly it does not; I have discussed that point and have given my opinion with regard to it. I think that is very much in doubt, but it does expressly vest in the dominion parliaments the right to repeal a large number of acts of the parliament of the

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Cahan
United Kingdom which form the very basis of civil rights in each and every province of Canada, and I defy anyone successfully to contradict that statement.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: May I ask one question?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend can reply later on; he will have plenty of time then. The provinces have a right to be heard in respect of all proposed constitutional changes which concern their relations with the British crown, their relations with the government and parliament of this Dominion, the proposed extension of federal legislative jurisdiction, and the extent to which provincial legislation should hereafter have extraterritorial effect. It is certainly inexpedient and probably futile, in my opinion, to proceed further without the express approval of the several provinces and, therefore, before this parliament authorizes these constitutional changes, in my opinion, an interprovincial conference should be convened in Canada to consider their full effect, and to procure concerted action in relation thereto.
In the matter of the merchant shipping legislation, I think that the procedure proposed in this report will inevitably involve the dominions in serious difficulties and interminable disputes. Within certain limits, there should be uniform merchant shipping legislation for the whole empire, dealing with British shipping interests in general, and the sphere of independent dominion legislative action should be strictly defined by common agreement. To destroy by one sweeping blow the existing code of marine and shipping law, without any prior constructive effort to reach an agreement as to what elements of the existing system should be conserved in the best interest of all the constituent parts of the empire, appears to me futile and foolish.
We established a precedent in 1914 by framing and adopting the British Nationality and Status of Alien Acts, the terms of which were agreed upon by the representatives of the governments of the United Kingdom and of the dominions and then confirmed by imperial enactment as well as by the several dominion legislatures. That precedent might well be followed in the reform of the Merchant Shipping Acts.
The representatives of the several governments, which meet at the Imperial conference, before the enactment of the proposed amendments to our dominion constitutions, should sit in conference and, after hearing the expert evidence and representations of all British shipping interests in the dominions and elsewhere, should reach a common agreement with
[Mr. Cahan. 1
respect to the provisions of the new shipping law, which should have general application throughout the empire. The tentative provisions, so agreed upon, then should be embodied in coordinated enactments of the parliaments of the United Kingdom and of the dominions, under the clear understanding, as in the case of the Naturalization Acts, that they should not hereafter be amended except by common consent.
These constructive efforts should be fully achieved, and the enactment of these new conventions and agreements should be simultaneous with the repeal of the existing statutes. To proceed otherwise is as foolish as to dig up a mighty oak tree by the roots, in order that a few of its upper limbs may be pruned of their superfluous and mouldering branches.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) upon his very able presentation this afternoon. He has given the house and the country a comprehensive and indeed an eloquent account of the proceedings of the conference on the operation of dominion legislation and merchant shipping legislation which sat in London during the closing months of 1929. I also wish to compliment the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) upon the very exhaustive criticism of the report and of the minister's speech to which we have just listened.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot agree with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George in many of the remarks which he made and in many of the arguments which he advanced. He has denounced the draftsmanship of the report as clumsy; he has said that the language is prolix; he has termed the efforts of the conference as feeble and infantile and half-baked. I cannot agree with him in the application of those adjectives to the report of the committee. My reading of the report left me with the impression that it was expressed in very concise and very apposite language, and that it accomplished a great work which was in accordance with the findings of the Imperial conference of 1926, that conference the report of which was drafted by the very ablest statesmen of the British Empire. I could apply laudatory adjectives,
I suppose, to the report, but after all it does not make very much difference whether a member of this house uses uncomplimentary or complimentary adjectives; the people of the country will decide for themselves whether they approve of the step that has been taken and will express their view as to whether they consider it to be a forward step.
My criticism of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is this: His attitude is

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Ilsley
decidedly reactionary. I do not want to be thought to be using the language of party politics when P say that his attitude is conservative, the attitude of the person who opposes change, who talks about the many hundreds of years that it takes to build up institutions and the danger of shattering those institutions at a single blow. His criticism of this report is essentially that it is new. He says that the association of nations which constitute the British commonwealth of nations is not like anything that exists; it is not like the League of Nations; it is not a legal person; it is not a state. I admit that it is different from anything else which exists. It is a new form of association of nations but I am thankful to say that there are people in this country as well as in other countries who are not afraid to try something new.
A few of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George I desire to answer very briefly, and then I should like to advance arguments of my own on the other side of the question. The hon. member pointed out that there were 115 imperial statutes which apply, either by express words or necessary intendment, to Canada. The hon. gentleman would almost lead us to believe that if we carried out this report we would be repealing the whole 115 statutes at one fell swoop. That is not the intention of the report at all; we are taking simply -the power to repeal or amend those acts so far as they extend to the Dominion of Canada. However, it is one thing to take power and another thing to exercise that power. Unless we possess that power it would be idle to talk about equality of status between this country and the motherland. Bu-t it is unnecessary for us to exercise that power if the retention of those acts upon the statute books of the mother country would be of advantage to this Dominion or to the British Empire as a whole.
The hon. member stated that the extension of extraterritorial powers to the Dominion of Canada would give the Dominion the power to encroach upon the powers of the provinces. When the proposed imperial act, which would give us the power to pass legislation having extraterritorial effect, is considered it will be seen that the Dominion of Canada receives no power as far as the provinces are concerned which is not given to it by section 91 of the British North America Act. The very provisions of the proposed act itself and the whole spirit and intent of the report make it abundantly clear that the British North America Act will be in no way affected by the legislation which it is recommended should be passed in pursuance of the report.
I think the hon. gentleman was compelled towards the end of his speech to admit that the British North America Act was not affected, and that the powers of the legislatures of the provinces were not being encroached upon. The hon. member stated that we should call -together the provinces and find out whether they wish to have the same power given to their legislatures, that is, the power to enact legislation conflicting with imperial legislation. Possibly that is a good suggestion, bu-t the old saying that Rome was not built in a day applies to it. This matter is not a vital one, and there will be plenty of time to take that step. If the provinces wish the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865 so far as they are concerned, so that they will be enabled to pass legislation which conflicts with the legislation passed by the imperial parliament, there will be plenty of time to work tha-t out. This report does not propose to deal finally with everything at this moment, but it is a considerable step forward in doing what was started in 1926.
In dealing with the merchant shipping legislation, the hon. member seemed to think that we were about to wipe out-these are the words he used-the legislation upon the statute books of Great Britain. I think I have replied already to that argument. A great deal of the legislation which affects Canada undoubtedly will remain for many years to come; we simply take the power to do away with the anomalies and absurdities which are inherent in the present system of merchant shipping legislation as applied to the Dominion of Canada.
An ordinary Canadian reading the British North America Act and seeing that by section 91 the Dominion of Canada is given exclusive power to legislate on shipping and navigation, immediately would come to the conclusion that we have the power to control our own shipping, that is, ships registered in Canada, and that we have the power to control and regulate the shipping in our territorial waters of foreign countries and other parts of the British commonwealth. However, such is not the case. The Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865 provides that if -the legislation of any British possession is repugnant to the provisions of any imperial act which applies to that possession, either by express words or by necessary intendment, the legislation of the possession in question is invalid, inoperative and void to the extent of such repugnancy. The merchant shipping acts of Great Britain extend back over a long period of years, but for our present pur-
25S8

Shipping Legislation-Mr. llsley
found the field preempted by imperial legislation. The imperial legislation that has been passed since 1910 has exempted the dominions from its operation. The problem was well summed up in the report of the conference, *and I should like to read a few sentences to the house:
What, therefore, the parliament of such a dominion as Canada or Australia is required to do since the year 1911, is by means of its own legislation, to endeavour to work into the existing shipping legislation of the parliament of the United Kingdom, applicable to such a dominion, certain modifications and additions embodied in international conventions to which the dominion may be a party, of which may otherwise be desired. This it must do, avoiding repugnancy to any legislation of the parliament of the United Kingdom, and avoiding also the field of legislation into which the parliament of a dominion cannot enter by reason of restrictive provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and in such acts as the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890. This in some cases may be impossible. For instance, the Brussels International Maritime Conference of 1826 agreed upon certain rules of law relating to maritime mortgages and liens, and other rules relating to the limitations of the liability of owners of sea-going vessels. If a dominion parliament desired to confer upon its courts jurisdiction and authority to enforce these rules of law, it might find it impossible to enact legislation fully implementing the conference agreement in respect of foreign ships or ships registered outside the dominion, as these fields of jurisdiction appear to be partially, if not wholly, reserved for the parliament of the United Kingdom. In respect of mortgages and liens there may even be difficulty for the same reason in regard to ships registered in the dominion itself.
These are some of the principal objections to the system of merchant shipping legislation as it exists at the present time. It is all very well for the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George to point out the dangers that may exist in the future if we adopt this report, but it must not be lost sight of that the situation which exists to-dav is very, very bad, and it is worth taking some little risk to get rid of the present objectionable features.
What are the remedies for the evils described in the report?
(1)	That the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1S65 be repealed in so far as it applies to any dominion. This will enable Canada to pass valid shipping laws, instead of those which are invalid because they conflict with acts of the imperial parliament.
(2)	That each dominion shall have the right to repeal imperial legislation extending to the dominion. This will enable us to go through the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, and amending acts, and the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act of 1890, and repeal those sections that are not suited to our conditions.

There are many sections which for the sake of ensuring uniformity in this country and the United Kingdom we may wish to leave there, at least for the time being; but there are other provisions which we shall probably wish to repeal at once, replacing them with enactments of our own.
(3)	That each dominion shall have power to make laws having extra-territorial operation. That has been dealt with.
(4)	That each dominion shall have full control over its own ships both extraterritorially and intraterritorially, and also full jurisdiction over all ships British or foreign which come into its harbours or territorial waters.
(5)	That each dominion shall have full control over its own admirality courts.
If these recommendations are put into effect, most of our present troubles with shipping legislation will disappear. It will be said that the new plan has some disadvantages. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George himself pointed out, however, that equality of status is not inconsistent with differentiation in function, and it may be advisable for many years to come to permit the imperial parliament to retain on its statute books legislation which applies to all the dominions, for the sake of preserving uniformity. The important point is that in all these respects in which repeal of that legislation and the passage of new legislation by ourselves should take place, it can take place. It does not follow that the present system must be entirely scrapped. We can retain the good and discard the bad, and do this all in a manner compatible with complete political equality between this country and Great Britain.
In conclusion, I want to say a few words about the broader aspects of the situation brought about by the Imperial conference of 1926 and the conference of 1929. After the war, Great Britain and her dominions were in their constitutional development confronted with three alternatives. They might remain as they were, stand still, preserve the status quo. Or they might move towards closer organic union along the lines laid out by Sir George Parkin in the early nineties, in his book on imperial federation. Or they might do as they have in fact done, establish perfect political equality between one another, while preserving the crown as the sole or main visible connecting link between them. The more the first two alternatives are considered, the more unwise, the more impracticable they appear. No one would argue to-day that either of these alternatives should be adopted or should have been adopted at the close of

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Woodsworth
the war. Had either been adopted there are many people who believe, and I agree with 1hem, that in all probability the British commonwealth of nations would not have held together. Believing as we do in the preservation of the British commonwealth of nations, we should have regarded such an eventuality as a misfortune to ourselves and a misfortune to the world. Happily, however, statesmanship found another way, a way that has led to these recommendations and to this resolution. What, after all, is the tie which binds the empire together? It is only the common sovereignty of the king? Or is it not also, as Professor Zimmern says, a common outlook upon public affairs, a common political philosophy, a common idealistic tradition? This outlook, this philosophy and this tradition have been and are based upon a deep love of liberty. It is because the recommendations which this resolution sanctions recognize the aspirations of the various parts of the British commonwealth of nations towards liberty, and reconcile these aspirations with some degree of organic unity, that they are highly worthy of support. Indeed, the work of the Imperial conference of 1926 and of the conference of 1929 on the operation of dominion legislation and merchant shipping legislation is a striking and notable proof of the political capacity, the genius for statesmanship, of the peoples of the British commonwealth of nations, and as such merits the approval of this house.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on his part in the preparation of this report. I have often had to differ from the hon. gentleman; therefore it gives me great pleasure to be able to commend his work in matters regarding dominion status. In a recent editorial on the pages of the Ottawa Citizen I was reproved because I had given very little credit to the Liberal government. Let me say at this time that while the Liberal government cannot boast of any great accomplishments in the matter of domestic policy, especially as regards labour, I do feel that it has done good work from the standpoint of international relations. Perhaps the viewpoint of labour should not remain unexpressed in connection with this matter, especially since there is a labour administration in Great Britain.
This subject is of a highly technical and legal nature. The report deals with many matters concerning which I frankly admit I am not competent to speak. It does however relate to a question of great public importance in regard to which everyone should entertain a more or less definite opinion. It seems to me the report is a clear-out dominion document; in it there are no modifying phrases such as "within the empire." The member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) regrets that the restraining opinion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had not, owing to his absence, been exercised upon the Minister of Justice.
I wish only that there had been an absence of the restraining sense of provincial rights; there it seems to me is one of the weaknesses of the report.
The member for St. Lawrence-St. George emphasizes the unity of empire. I am sure when we come to consider the matter we must agree that any unity must be founded on a living spiritual union rather than on musty legal documents. If legal bonds are necessary I submit that there is the same reason for such ties among the members of the League of Nations. After all we cannot stop at the small nation stage; we must go to the larger national unity. We cannot stop at the nation, we must go to the empire; we cannot stop at the empire, we must go to the world organization. To my mind the necessities of the case must ultimately drive us to the setting up of constitutional machinery for international relations. I do not intend to go into this phase of the matter at greater length. The member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) gave us a very excellent quotation on this point from the words of Professor Zimmern. The quarrel of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is not with this report but rather with that which preceded it, the report of 1926.
There are definite points to which I might call the attention of members of the house. Provision is made for the succession to the throne, yet there is no provision whatever for the appointment of the governor general. It seems to me that when we were considering the heir to the throne we might very well have given some consideration to the appointment of the Governor General of the Dominion. If it is in perfect keeping with the spirit of the conference of 1926 that the appointment of the Governor General of the Dominion should be left to Canada; indeed, I should like to go further and suggest that the time is very soon coming when the Governor General of Canada should be a Canadian. Action along this line already has been
2592	COMMONS
Shipping Legislation-Mr. Woodsworth
taken by Australia, I understand, and now that we have here our own representative of the government of Great Britain, who is able to perform a very important function, I cannot see why, if the King of England is our King, we should not have a governor general who is in a peculiar sense our own representative.


Mr. POULIOT:: May I ask a question?
Does the hon. gentleman believe that it would be proper to have the Chief Justice of Canada as governor general and that the chief justice of each province should be lieutenant-governor de facto?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems to me that is an admirable suggestion and I do not see why it should not be carried out. It would save a great deal of unnecessary expense, and perhaps might avoid the setting up in this country of certain class distinctions that are not in harmony with the democratic traditions of newer countries.
I regret further that no provisions is made for Canada amending her own constitution. On page 29, article 66 of the report, we have the statement put very clearly:
Nothing in this act shall be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the constitution acts of the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Dominion of New Zealand, otherwise than in accordance with the law and constitutional usage and practice heretofore existing.
I wish, however, that occasion had been taken to make some provision for such alteration. I can understand that the minister may say he had no mandate, and perhaps that may be a justification.
We have provision in this report that in certain matters of legislation, Canada is not to be subordinated to Great Britain. On page 25 we find the following:
No law and no provision of any law hereafter made by the parliament of a dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England or to the provisions of any existing or future act of parliament or to any order, rule or regulation made thereunder, and the powers of the parliament of a dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of the dominion.
But let me point out that in these types of legislation the provinces are still subject to Great Britain. At page 31, section 71, I find the following:
In the absence of special provision, provincial and state legislation will continue to be subject to the Colonial Laws Validity Act and to the legislative supremacy of the parliament of the United Kingdom, and it will be a matter for the proper authorities in Canada and in 
Australia to consider whether and to what extent it is desired that the principles to be embodied in the new act of the parliament of the United Kingdom should be applied to provincial and state legislation in the future.
Whilst the Minister of Justice may take the view that here again he had no mandate from Canada or from any province of Canada, a bolder policy would have given to the provinces in this regard the same rights that have been secured for the dominion. I often wonder when Canada will be mistress in her own house and when the provinces will find greater security in their fellow Canadians than they do in certain laws which are on the statute books of Great Britain.
I note in the daily press of May 21 that when this report was discussed the other day in the South African parliament an amendment was introduced affirming the right of South Africa to secede from the commonwealth. According to their view the recommendations of this report, to use the words of the news item, "must not be taken as derogating from the right of any member of the British commonwealth to withdraw therefrom." Their amendment was passed on the ground not that South Africa wished to secede but, again to use their own phrase, "in order to put the matter beyond a doubt." It seems to me that such a resolution is not necessary; indeed, I would suggest that it indicates what some modern psychologists have termed an inferiority complex. I take it that secession is an inalienable right of a free people, a sovereign nation. Fancy Great Britain debating the question of secession. If we are indeed as free as we are told we are under the present arrangement, then we ought not to have to discuss any matter of that kind. It will be recalled that the report of the Imperial conference of 1926 declared, in relation to the United Kingdom and the dominions, that they are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any respect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.
Then again in this report there are the words:
These principles of freedom, equality, and cooperation have slowly emerged from the experience of the self-governing communities now constituting that most remarkable and successful experiment in cooperation between free democracies which has ever been developed, the British commonwealth of nations. . . .
I take it that if our association is indeed that of cooperation, we must admit that we

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Woodsworth,
are free to take our own course having regard to the best interests of our own country. That does not mean that in any sense we are false to the larger group with whom we are associated.
However, there is another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the house. I have been troubled over since 1926 by the question as to what is our relation to the parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the League of Nations, the various crown colonies and dependencies. I have wondered further as to our relationship to the parts of the empire which, shall I say, are not self-governing. I think of one nation that is outstanding, in a class by itself; that is India. The question of India is discussed in the report before us at page 13 and at page 50, and the whole matter is left in abeyance, left to the government of Great Britain and to the government of India. I hesitate at this time to discuss a matter so complicated as that of British administration in India; I am loath in any way to embarrass the Labour government of Great Britain. .1 am doubtful whether, under arrangements existing since the Imperial conference of 1926, Canada has any direct responsibilities; hence any advice from us might be regarded as gratuitous. Yet I recall that some years ago, even under our previous status, this parliament took a stand regarding the granting of a larger measure of self-government to Ireland, and I do not know why such a stand was not taken at the conference in regard to India. India is a member of the League of Nations; Canada is a member both of the assembly and of the council, and if as members of the British commonwealth of nations we have not the right to advise Great Britain as to her policies in India, then I take it that we have a right to speak in that regard because of our common relationships in the League of Nations. Article 11, of the treaty of peace provides:
It is also declared to be the friendly right of each member of the league to bring to the attention of the assembly or of the council any circumstance whatever affecting international relations which threatens to disturb international peace or the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends.
I confess that I have a profound respect for the ideals of Mr. Ghandi, even though I cannot endorse many of his methods. In the Times Book of India, which I have in my hand, there aippears a full page picture of Lord Irwin in his viceregal robes. On the opposite page is a small insert of Mr. Ghandi, an insignificant squatting dark figure clad only in a loin cloth. Lord Irwin is of my own 2419-164
race, yet my sympathies are with Mr. Ghandi. In the future, Mr. Ghandi, in spite of what may seem to be fanatical eccentricities, may well be regarded as one of the greatest men of his age. Perhaps Lord Irwin will be remembered as having been the Viceroy of India during the time of Mr. Ghandi. It might be well for us to remember that Pilate, the representative of imperial Rome, is known to the world only because he was the governor who crucified an obscure Galilean, regarded then as now as a teacher of impractical and subversive doctrines.
Whether or not we have the right to speak because of our membership in the commonwealth of nations or because we are common members of the League of Nations, it seems to me that there is a common humanity and justice which transcends all national boundaries. I received the other day an appeal for self-government for India from some American leaders of thought, signed first of all by Mr. John Dewey, the veteran educationalist who has inspired so many. I will read one paragraph, as follows:
It is no adequate answer to point to the obstacles in India to the establishment of a successful national government. They will not be overcome by foreign rule resting on bayonets. India has presented her case to the world against foreign government based solely on conquest, a government alien to her spirit and her desires, which despite the individual probity of its officials has exploited the Indian people and profoundly humiliated their spirit. Were the ease for independence less strong it would still be true that no believer in democracy, no opponent of imperialism, no advocate of a fellowship of free peoples can accept the right of any British government to put down by force of arms the revolt of India's millions.
It may seem to be an insult for Americans to make an appeal of this character; yet it was only a few months ago that British leaders appealed against the American action in the Sacco-Vanzetti case, and in more recent times British leaders have appealed1 against the religious persecution which is said to be pro' ceeding in Russia. I am loath to embarrass the British government by even mentioning this matter at this time, yet I am not at all sure that instead of embarrassing the government, outside opinion may help to strengthen the hand of the British Prime Minister. The views on India of the British Prime Minister were stated at the last League of Nations assembly. His address at that time included the following:
Outside of Europe there is an old world, old in civilisation, old in philosophy, old in religion, old in culture, that hitherto had been weak in those material powers that have characterized the western peoples. But that old world, wrapped in slumber as we thought, has now be-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if my hon
friend would mind if I asked him a question? Does he think at the present moment, in view of the very serious situation and the difficulties being experienced in preserving law and order in India, it is desirable that observations of that kind should go abroad from this parliament?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have only a few
remarks more to make. As I said, I was loath to do anything whatever to embarrass 2419-X64.1
the British government, if my poor words here would indeed embarrass them, but it seems to me from what I have already quoted from Mr. Ramsay MacDonald that he is as anxious as I or anybody else to settle this question by peaceful means, and I am not at all sure that an expression of opinion in this house may not do something to strengthen the hands of those who are seeking to settle matters by pacific means.
I was going to say that Great Britain advanced the cause of the British Empire in granting self-government to South Africa. It seems to me, as has been shown by the Minister of Justice this afternoon, that Great Britain has made a decided advance at the last Imperial conference the report of which we are discussing to-night.
Great Britain cannot be said to be the divinely appointed policeman of the world, and the sooner we get out of our heads the idea that she is, the better. My viewpoint to-night is simply this: if we believe in selfgovernment for ourselves, why not urge that there be self-government for other portions of the British Empire? May I say to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) that I think that is a reasonable attitude? He may say that India is not as capable of selfgovernment as we are. Possibly not, but when I was a child I remember we were told that Ireland was not ready for self-government and it took a long time before Great Britain came to the decision that Ireland was ready. We 'have to-day a few Irishmen who claim they were ready all along. I would urge that just as we desire self-government for ourselves, the time has come when a great body of people such as those in India ought to be given an opportunity, even though they may not immediately succeed, of working out their own destiny.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Mr. Speaker, I warmly welcome the resolution so ably introduced this afternoon by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and for two reasons I hope it will receive the unanimous support of the house. In the first place, the adoption of the resolution will involve acceptance without reservation of the doctrine that Canada is entitled to equality of status with Great Britain and the other British nations in that free association which, for want of a better name, is called the British commonwealth of nations. In the second place, it will be a definite mandate from this house to our Canadian representatives at the next imperial conference, whoever they may be, that when they speak at that conference their
2596	COMMONS
Shipping Legislation-Mr. Thorson
voice shall be that of Canadian autonomy over Canadian affairs, whether those affairs be external or domestic, and of free association of Canada with her equal sister British nations in that great league of British nations that has been established. Canada must at that conference play a role worthy of her place in the history of the British dominions, as the laboratory of constitutional experiment and the workshop of constitutional progress.
The Imperial conference of 1926 adopted a striking definition of the relationship of the dominions towards one another and towards Great Britain. I wish to repeat it here:
They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.
Ever since that definition was framed there has been raging controversy as to its meaning, and many have directly challenged the accuracy and even the truth of the definition. There have been two distinct schools of thought, that of the legalist, who sees no change of legal machinery, and who denies that there has been any change of status; and that of the constitutionalist, who realizes that under the British system of government constitutional convention outgrows and replaces legal theory when the need for a change arises. The legalists trained in the atmosphere of the courts and steeped in legal precedents have stressed the purely legal argument. They point out that the Dominion of Canada owes its existence as a legal entity to the British North America Act, a statute passed by the parliament of Great Britain; that the British North America Act is the charter of Canada beyond which its legislatures, whether federal or provincial, cannot validly go, and that neither the dominion nor the provinces can amend its provisions. They argue also that Canada cannot validly give extra-territorial operation to its legislation. They contend that the status of Canada is that of a dependency, and they cap their argument by showing that all legislation passed by the parliament of Canada is subject to review and an unrestricted power of disallowance by the government of Great Britain and by advancing also the doctrine of the legislative sovereignty of the parliament of Great Britain over Canada. They point out as a legal fact that our legislation is subject to the restrictions of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, and that Canadian legislatures are powerless to pass valid legislation repugnant to any enactment of the parliament of Great Britain extending to

Canada. Therefore, for example, Canada has no final control over her own shipping, nor over her own judicial system. The privy council has ruled that Canada cannot validly prohibit appeals to the privy council. In the face of these facts the legalists triumphantly proclaim: How can Canada be equal in status with Great Britain? The hon. leader of the apposition (Mr. Bennett) and his distinguished predecessor in that office, the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) have been able and outstanding exponents of the point of view of the legalists. They even seem to gloat over the badges of legislative inferiority which have been pinned on Canada and her sister dominions. There is a great deal of force and much truth in the argument of the legalists; but they have not painted the complete picture. They have missed the spirit of the system of government under which we live. It has been left to our statesmen both in Great Britain and in the dominions assembled in solemn conference to catch the spirit of our constitutional position and embody it in the definition of equality of status to which I have just referred. They belong to the school of the constitutionalists, who realize that our constitution is a living thing capable of growth and expansion to meet the needs of changing conditions, and it is not confined to statutory enactments. They know that constitutional conventions are a vital part of our constitution and that these conventions have sanctions behind them at least as powerful as the sanctions of the law. Throughout the whole course of British constitutional development there has always been a distinction between legal theory and constitutional fact, between the legal power to act and the constitutional right to exercise that power. Frequently the legal forms are left unchanged and still remain on the statute books in theory, but the constitutional right to apply the forms has ceased in fact by reason of the development and crystalization of constitutional conventions and practice. In that distinction between legal power and constitutional right lies the vitality and capacity for growth of the British constitution. For example, the king has still the unrestricted legal power of veto, but he has not exercised that power for over two hundred years, and his constitutional right to exercise it no longer exists. Similarly, the government of Great Britain has still by virtue of section 56 of the British North America Act unrestricted legal power to disallow every single act of legislation that we may pass this session. But who will admit their constitutional right to exercise that legal power? What would happen, Mr. Speaker, if they sought to exer-

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Thorson
cise it? The power of disallowance has not been exercised for fifty-seven years, and by reason of the constitutional convention that has grown up that it should not be exercised, the constitutional right to exercise it is as dead as the royal veto. Similarly, other constitutional conventions have grown up with the result that the constitutional status of the dominions has changed, and the Imperial conference of 1926 accepted the doctrine of equality of status as a matter of constitutional right and reality, no matter what the legal status might be.
The Imperial conference of 1926 said that equality of status is the root principle governing the relations between the dominions and Great Britain, but it recognized very frankly that existing administrative legislative and judicial forms are not wholly in accord with the constitutional position defined by it, and recommended .that steps should be taken by Great Britain and by the dominions with a view to overhauling and repairing our legal machinery, so that legal theory might be brought into conformity with constitutional fact. It was recognized that in the case of the relationship of the dominions towards one another and towards Great Britain constitutional development had so far outgrown legal theory that legal change was essential in order that a broad foundation of autonomy and equality might be laid for the new structure of the future.
The report which is now before this house is that of the conference which was appointed by Great Britain and the dominions to carry out the recommendations of the Imperial conference of 1926 and is the result of their deliberations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not to carry them out, but to determine what had to be done to carry them out.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It deals with a great
number of matters of complexity and importance, but I shall confine myself to those recommendations of the report which, when carried into effect will increase our autonomy over our own affairs, remove the badges of legislative inferiority that we now wear, and give us that full self-government and equality of status to which we are entitled as a matter of legal as well as constitutional right.
In the first place, the conference recognizes that the dominions should have the same right to give extraterritorial operation to its legislation as is possessed by Great Britain with respect to its own enactments. There has been great controversy whether this right is not already possessed by the dominions. I
have held the view that this parliament does possess the power to give extraterritorial operation to its legislation in order that it might effectively and adequately act within its own sphere of jurisdiction, and that the decisions of the courts denying that power are based on wrong principles. But it is proposed to place this question beyond all dispute and to recognize the power without any reservations whatsoever by an enactment of the parliament of Great Britain to the following effect:
It is hereby declared and enacted that the parliament of a dominion has^ full power to make laws having extraterritorial operation.
When that enactment is passed one of the badges of legislative inferiority will drop from our lapels, and it will not be open to our courts to declare that our legislation is invalid by reason of its being extraterritorial in its operation. We shall then have fuller control and greater autonomy over such matters as fisheries, taxation, shipping, air navigation, radio communication, marriage, criminal law, smuggling, immigration, deportation, and other matters involving extraterritoriality. Who can deny that these are all matters of selfgovernment in which the Canadian people are vitally interested? Why then should our antonomy over them be any longer restricted?


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask the hon.
gentleman how it would increase our legislative powers with respect to deportation and radio communication? The privy council has held that we have full power of deportation. How would it widen our legislative powers with respect to radio communication?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That question I shall not deal with at the moment. When the recommendations of this report are implemented we shall have absolute equality of status with Great Britain in this respect, and I think this parliament may be trusted to pass reasonable legislation within the jurisdiction it possesses.
A great portion of the report deals with the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1866. That act has had a curious history. When it was enacted it was described as "an act to remove doubts as to the validity of colonial laws," and its purpose undoubtedly was to extend the powers of self-government of colonial legislatures beyond the narrow limits which had been assigned to them by judicial decisions particularly in the courts of South Australia. But at the same time the act imposed restrictions upon the legislative powers of the dominions in that it rendered void all acts passed by the dominions to the extent of their repugnancy to legislation of the parliament of Great Britain
259S	COMMONS
Shipping Legislation-Mr. Thorson
extending to the dominions. The parliament of Great Britain has in the past asserted and exercised its legislative sovereignty over the dominions, notwithstanding the various constitutional acts, such as the British North America Act, with all their implications of selfgovernment, by extending its legislation to the dominions, Where it has done so it has abridged the right of self-government of the dominions affected and cut down their autonomy. The parliament of Great Britain has acted in this manner for the purpose of obtaining in respect of important legislation uniformity throughout the dominions. But it is recognized by the report that this procedure is no longer constitutionally appropriate in the case of the dominions in view of their constitutional equality of status with Great Britain. It is proposed therefore to repeal the Colonial Laws Validity Act in its application to laws made by the dominion parliaments, and to remove the restrictions upon their rights of selfgovernment which were imposed by the operation of the act. It is proposed to accomplish this by an enactment of the parliament of Great Britain in the following terms:
(1)	The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1805, shall cease to apply to any law made by the parliament of a dominion.
(2)	No law and no provision of any law hereafter made by the parliament of a dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the la\v of England or to the provisions of any existing or future act of parliament or to any order, rule or regulation made thereunder, and the powers of the parliament of a dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of the dominion.
When this legislation is enacted two other badges of Canadian legislative inferiority will disappear. This parliament will have full and complete control over Canadian shipping-a control which it does not possess to-day. It will of course be desirable to have uniformity as far as possible in the matter of shipping legislation, and the Canadian parliament can be trusted in that respect. But that uniformity will hereafter be the result of willing cooperation and concurrent legislation; it will no longer be imposed upon Canada by a parliament which is not responsible to the Canadian people.
The privy council has ruled in the case of Rex v. Nadan that the Canadian people cannot prohibit appeals to the privy council, even if they should wish to do so. That is a denial of self-government; for how can it be said that we have full self-government if the judicial function of government upon which we depend for the administration of justice, for the adjudication of our rights and the FMr. Thorson.]
preservation of our liberties, is withheld from us, or we are restricted in the scope of its exercise? When this legislation is enacted it will be within the power of this parliament to abolish appeals t'o the privy council, at any rate in respect of all matters over which this parliament has jurisdiction. Whether this parliament should within its competence abolish appeals to the privy council is perhaps a matter of opinion, but surely there can be no question that Canada should have the right to abolish such appeals if, in the exercise of her free judgment she wishes to take such action. The abolition of appeals from Canadian courts to the judicial committee of the privy council is for the Canadian people to decide, and for no one else.
The report goes further, Mr. Speaker, than merely to recommend an increase of autonomy to the parliaments of the dominions, and to indicate the means whereby such an increase is to ibe brought about. The fundamental principle underlying the report is that of equality of status of all the British nations that are to be affected by the report, and the right of all of them to full self-government, complete autonomy over their own affairs, and freedom from external supervision or control. That *autonomy cannot be effectively exercised, and the right of self-government is not complete, so long as the parliament of Great Britain asserts or exercises its legislative sovereignty over the dominions, otherwise than at their request and with their consent. The doctrine of the sovereignty of the parliament of Great Britain over the dominions is absolutely inconsistent with the conception oi equality of status that has been accepted. It is recognized by the report that the parliament of Great Britain has no longer the constitutional right to exercise its legal powers of sovereignty over the dominions otherwise that at their request and with their consent. It is recommended1-and this is the most important recommendation contained in the whole report-that the parliament of Great Britain shall renounce its sovereignty over the dominions in so far as it is within its power to make such a renunciation. That, Mr. Speaker, is the outstanding recommendation of the report, and the fundamental principle upon which the whole report is based. It is recommended that this renunciation of sovereignty should be embodied in a constitutional convention, and that the constitutional convention should be placed in the proceedings of the coming Imperial conference in these words:
It would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all members of the commonwealth in relation to one another that

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Thorson
no law hereafter made by the {parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any dominion otherwise than at the request, and with the consent of that dominion;
It is further recommended that this constitutional convention itself should appear as a formal recital or preamble in the proposed enactment of the parliament of Great Britain, and in order that there might be no doubt about the matter it is recommended that this principle should also be expressed in the enacting portion of the proposed constitutional act in the following terms:
Be it therefore declared and enacted that no act of -parliament hereafter made shall extend or be deemed to extend to a dominion unless it is expressly declared therein that the dominion has requested and consented to the enactment thereof.
That, Mr. Speaker, is, in my opinion, the most effective renunciation of the doctrine of the legislative sovereignty of the parliament of Great Britain over the dominions that it would be possible for that parliament to make. When that renunciation takes place there will be a binding agreement of equality of status 'between Great Britain and the dominions and a pledge that the parliament of Great Britain will not exercise its legislative powers in respect of the dominions otherwise than at their request and with their consent. This will mark the constitutional end of the doctrine of the sovereignty of the parliament of Great Britain over the dominions and the termination of their colonial status as dependencies of Great Britain. When effect has been given to these recommendations, the constitutional right of the parliament of Great Britain to exercise its legislative powers over the dominions, otherwise than at their request and with their consent, will be dead. It will be as constitutionally dead as the royal veto power, and the power of disallowance. One more badge of legislative inferiority will fall
to the ground.	.	.
Only one badge of legislative inferiority then remains in Canada, and it will depend upon Canada herself how long she will continue to wear it. The constitution of Canada, so far as it depends upon the British North America Act, is left untouched, and no power of amending that act is conferred. In fact it will be provided in the proposed constitutional act that Canada shall not be allowed to repeal or alter the British North America Act otherwise than in accordance with the law and constitutional usage and practice heretofore existing. It is not defined in the report what that constitutional usage and practice is. It will not be possible for Canada, in view of these provisions, to repeal
those sections of the British North America Act which provide for the disallowance of Canadian legislation by the government ol Great Britain and the reservation of bills for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure.
It is recognized by the report however that these powers are constitutionally dead and that if the dominion parliament wishes to have the provisions relating to them deleted from the British North America Act, all that will be necessary will be to make the request, and the necessary machinery will be automatically set in motion.
It will be further provided in the proposed constitutional act that the dominion parliament will not be authorized to encroach upon the provincial field of jurisdiction. There is to be included in the proposed constitutional act the following clause:
Nothing in this act shall be deemed to authorize the parliament of the Dominion of Canada or the parliament of the commonwealth of Australia to make laws on any matter at present within the authority of the provinces of Canada or the states of Australia, as the case may be, not being a matter within the authority of the parliaments or governments of the Dominion of Canada and the commonwealth of Australia, respectively.
The constitutional status of the provinces remains unchanged, and their legislative jurisdiction remains intact. The conference felt that it had no authority to speak for the provinces, and that the terms of reference did not extend to them. When effect is given to the recommendations of the report this parliament will have no more power to amend the British North America Act or to encroach upon the provincial field of jurisdiction than it has had heretofore. Certain curious anomalies will result in our federal system. While the dominion parliament will receive a very substantial increase of autonomy in its sphere of jurisdiction there will be no increase of autonomy to the provincial legislatures. The provinces will remain subject to the Colonial Laws Validity Act and the legislative sovereignty of the parliament of Great Britain. They will continue to be dependent political entities; they will continue to be restricted in their rights of self-government, even within their own spheres of jurisdiction. They will not possess that full autonomy over their own affairs which every self-governing body ought to have. For example, while it will be competent for the dominion parliament to abolish appeals to the privy council in respect of subject matters within its jurisdiction, it will not be competent for the provinces to prohibit such appeals, even in respect of those subject matters which are assigned to the

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Thorson
British North America Act to the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces; for the Colonial Laws Validity Act steps in and prohibits them from so doing. The provinces will remain in their inferior legislative position until they take steps themselves to improve it. The report indicates however the solution of the problem when it points out that it will be a matter for the proper authorities in Canada to consider whether, and to what extent, it is desired that the principle to be embodied in the proposed constitutional act of the parliament of Great Britain should be applied in the future to provincial legislation. I cannot believe that the provinces of Canada will willingly continue in this status of legislative inferiority as compared with that of the dominion, when they fully appreciate the significance of these constitutional changes, and their own anomalous position in relation thereto. I agree with the suggestion that an interprovincial conference should again be called for the purpose of removing the absurd anomalies which now exist, and also for the purpose of working out a scheme for amending our constitution in a manner suited to our changing needs, and conducive to a national development of which all Canadians may be proud. The problem of devising machinery for amending our own constitution is a Canadian problem for the Canadian people to solve. Its solution will require mutual confidence of the provinces in one another and in the dominion. When we in Canada solve that problem the last badge of legislative inferiority can be taken down; it is within our own power to remove it. When we have agreed among ourselves as to our constitutional machinery for amending our constitution, the parliament of Great Britain will automatically give legal effect to our wishes, and in that respect it will be an automatic machine registering legal effect upon the wishes of the Canadian people.
In conclusion may I say that the growth of Canada towards national status and nationhood is both right and inevitable. Canada is no longer a dependency of Great Britain; she does not belong to the people of Great Britain; she belongs to the people of Canada. Canada is a nation; we are united-and are glad to be united-with the people of Great Britain in common allegiance to the one crown, but our union however is that of equality and free association. We are British subjects; we are proud of being British subjects, and we are British subjects just as are the people of Great Britain. Is there any reason why we should not enjoy self-government in Canada to as full an extent as the people of Great Britain do? Is there any

reason why our autonomy over our own affairs should be any less that their autonomy over theirs? I can think of no such reason, nor can any Canadian who is proud of his country and anxious to promote its full development. The spirit of the British constitution belongs to us in Canada just as it belongs to the people of Great Britain, and we are joint heirs with the people of Great Britain to the great traditions of liberty upon which the British constitution is founded. What is the essence of the British constitution? Let me express it very simply. It is the right of all peoples who live under it to sedf-govemment and autonomy over their own affairs. It is because we value that right that we desire effect to be given to this resolution. I am not alarmed, Mr. Speaker, over the future of Canada, because I have faith in Canada and in the genius of the Canadian people to work out a destiny for her, worthy of her great potentialities. That destiny belongs to Canada, and the responsibility for it lies with the Canadian people. I am willing to leave it in their hands. The future of our relationships with our equal sister British nations rests now upon the broad foundations of autonomy and self-government. That foundation is the strongest and safest foundation for the superstructure of the future that the genius of British statemanship hias ever been able to devise.


Edward Joseph Garland: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. Minister of Justice
(Mr. Lapointe) this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, referred to a paper read before the Canadian Bar Association by Professor Kennedy of Toronto university, which paper he very properly said I had circulated in considerable numbers amongst members of the profession.
I should like to read the two closing paragraphs of that paper:
First: let dominion autonomy be sane and realistic. There is a serious danger to-day that a dominion may become a cross between the individual and his "rights" and the reasonable man of the common law and go strutting about seeking privileges for merely doctrinaire reasons, may in other words become an imperial nuisance. We must not mortgage the future to abstractions nor bankrupt the general welfare of the empire by speculating on the stock market of theoretical extensions of legal rights for which the general will is not prepared. I have a profound contempt for grandiloquent nonsense about autonomy which is divorced from social facts. The empire if it is to survive, must move on Darwinian not on Newtonian lines.
Secondly: We must keep the whole question of empire and of commonwealth out of the mire

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Bennett
of party controversy. We shall play with sacred things if we ever fight elections on this issue. It will he in the future, as it has always been in the past, the political unforgivable sin, when either empire loyalty or dominion loyalty or both are debased by political charlatans, the empire-each dominion-is greater than any ephemeral party trilimp, and ought to be dearer to us than any political office. Loyalty is a great virtue; we 6hall rob it of its subhmest meanings if we tarnish it on the political hustings. To do so would be like taking a "chalice of the grapes pf God' and using it as the loving-cup of libertines.
Whom I listened this afternoon and this evening to some of the observations that have fallen from hon. gentlemen I wondered why they dealt with the problems that we are now considering in the tone in which they did. What resentment did they harbour against the little islands in the North sea? What had those islands done to us that hon. gentlemen should speak in terms of "striking from us the shackles that bind us?" Why should we endeavour to have the people of this country believe that we are suffering untold wrongs which we in some way must rise up and redress? Why should we endeavour to induce the rising generation to believe that in this day great numbers of Canadians have been suffering from the oppression heaped upon us by the government of Great Britain, and now at last under the guidance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) we have risen up and shaken off that oppression? Surely there must be something wrong in that attitude ol mind.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said that for that reason they were like the magna charta.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The magna charta went farther than being merely declaratory; it was decidedly different from a mere statement of existing conditions. At least most of us who have read British history will say that while in part it was declaratory, in other instances fMr. Bennett.]
it was not. Those who are interested in the matter should turn to the address of the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on December 13, 1926, and they will find that he then expressed the views, which have perhaps been softened to some extent by the passage of time-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not a bit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -that he realized that they were but declaratory of the position which had been attained not by Liberal statesmen, not by Conservative statesmen, but by the-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Nobody suggested that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am very gjlad that the hon. gentleman has said that nobody now questions that fact. It is delightful to think that the hon. gentleman himself has now ceased to question it. Be that as it may, I say that for the moment no one will contend that these privileges and usages found in the declaratory resolution were the work of any one man.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Certainly not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As Professor Kennedy
has said, they represent the true Darwinian principle; they are the result of evolution.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: And as inevitable as
evolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the hon. gentleman now believes that they are part of the inevitable process of evolution. If however anyone will listen to his observations at this time and compare them with the observations of the hon. member for Bow River, who has just taken his seat, I think they will find some difficulty in accommodating themselves to .the view that the expression of his opinion represented evolution, but they would be rather inclined to the thought that his remarks were revolutionary.
Be that aS it may, I think there is a general recognition of the fact that the resolutions of 1926 are declaratory due to the vision and foresight and statesmanship of succeeding generations of statesmen who have directed the destinies not only of Canada but of all other dominions throughout the empire, and in the motherland as well. Particularly might it be said that we owe our position not only to ithe different parts of the empire but to the sacrifice, the courage and the blood of 60,000 Canadians; I think that faot can safely be stated. When the resolutions of 1926 declared that this country had attained equality of status with other parts of the British Empire and .there was no subordination of one

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Bennett
part to another, we realized, and the Prime Minister subsequently stated in this house anl elsewhere, that that was a statement of a condition which required to be qualified, because many events had to take place before it could be fully realized. It was because of that fact that a committee was set up under the Lord Chancellor, and which at a later date was presided over at the London conference by our Minister of Justice. As a result of the deliberations of that body, which represented every part of the self-governing portions of the empire, we have the resolution that is now before this house seeking approval of the work of that committee.
I recall very clearly that the late Bonar Law said that at any time if Canada desired to leave the British Empire there was no one in England who would raise a hand to stop us. In his lifetime he made it abundantly clear, born though he was in Canada, that if the people of Canada intimated, as apparently the member from Bow River hopes they will, their desire to dissociate themselves from the empire-


Edward Joseph Garland: That inference is absolutely untrue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman says the inference is untrue, and yet he has stated it.


Edward Joseph Garland: I said no such thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hon. members will have to read his speech.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask that the hon. gentleman be allowed to continue without interruption.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not concerned
about the interruptions, Mr. Speaker.
May I further point out that that was the opinion not only of Mr. Law but of others, that if in time this country solemnly and seriously determined that the moment had come when we should dissociate ourselves from the British Empire, we might do so as far as Great Britain was concerned. They said that they would be sorry to see it happen, sorry to see the disruption and disintegration of the British Empire.	,
To proceed a step farther, we come to the matter of the appeals to the privy council. One would think that some stern power was sitting up devising ways and means of preventing Canadians from being able to appeal to the privy council. Did not Lord Chancellor Birkenhead and Lord Chancellor Haldane declare over and over again that if at any time 2419-165
the Canadian people took the necessary action to determine that they did not desire that their appeals should be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, they would indeed be content because it would mean so much less labour for them?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: What about Lord Cave's decision in the case of Rex vs. Nadan?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am very glad to answer that; I was counsel in that case. It merely was this, that as a matter of law as it then stood, this country was not. in a position to deprive its citizens of the right to appeal. That is all, but if we indicate that we desire that the power should be exercised by the motherland, whose statutes admit the appeal, there would be no hesitancy in the passing of an amending statute. In other words, both Lord Chancellor Birkenhead-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The hon. gentleman is
not stating the grounds of that decision correctly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The grounds of that decision, of course, were that there was a repugnance to a British statute, and the Colonial Laws Validity Act applied.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: And our section of the
Criminal Code was contrary to the Colonial Laws Validity Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say that
I do not require to be enlightened by the hon. gentleman in that regard, and I am sure the rest of the house will spare itself that supreme pleasure at this moment.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: You may as well state
the grounds of the decision correctly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not even stating
the grounds of the decision; I was indicating what Lords Chancellor Birkenhead and Haldane and several other Britiish statesmen who were not members of the legal profession had indicated, that if this country in form and manner provided indicated to the British parliament a desire that we should no longer have appeals to the privy council, such action would be taken, and that the British law lords and jurists were not imposing their services upon the Canadian people but that the Canadian people were utilizing their services because they were available. They were available because we were part of an empire, and every citizen in that empire, however humble and poor he may be, has the right to present his petition to the foot of the throne and have his grievance heard by the Judicial Com-

2610	COMMONS
Shipping Legislation-Mr. Bennett
mittee of the Privy Council. Only a few days ago a poor, weary traveller from India presented a petition in person to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, being a committee of the sovereign's advisers, and was heard, and a lady from Canada in person presented her case before that committee and succeeded, not because the British people coaxed her to go there; not because the judicial committee or any other committee asked that she bring her litigation there, but because she desired that the most eminent judges the world knows should sit and determine her case. The reason that the appeals to the privy council exist to-day is that the Canadian people desire that they should exist, and if at any time during the last fifty years this parliament had forwarded to Great Britain a resolution asking that appeals to the privy council be discontinued, the necessary action would have been taken by the British parliament and the necessary legislation passed in that regard.
It is another thing, however, to say that we should pass legislation prohibiting an appeal, because that would be unconstitutional as the parliament of one dominion seeking to deprive the citizens of that dominion of the inherent right that belongs to every citizen of that empire, namely, the right to present his case to the foot of the throne. You will recall that we are told in Holy Writ of the appeal made to Caesar in ancient days, and the appeal being made to Caesar, "unto Caesar shalt thou go." So it is that we have always had the right, during the last half century, through the imperial parliament, to deprive our citizens of the privilege of presenting their appeals to the privy council. If we have not done so it is because we have not so desired and if at any time we so desire the necessary action may be taken.
That clears up at least two of these matters. Now we come to something far more serious, far more complicated, and more far reaching in all its implications and consequences. The action taken by the conference at London is to give effect to a resolution that conferred equality of status upon Canada and Great Britain. That is, it became necessary, if this equality of status was to be realized, that certain outstanding imperial legislation should be either repealed or amended; it should be stricken out in its entirety and no longer have any applicability to this country or else it should be amended. The matters were taken up one after the other by that conference, and the report which we have before us was presented. That report deals at great length with

the various matters which were considered. It will be remembered that it dealt with the origin and the purpose of the conference; then it took up the shipping act and the position of India, and the real questions before the conference. These were all by way of introduction. We dealt with the age-long discussion with respect to disallowance. Disallowance is not a matter that is at all singular when applied to Canada; it is a part of the survival of the idea of empire. When new communities were added to the empire by discovery, by conquest or by annexation, certain laws were made applicable to those new communities. If by discovery, then the laws of England became applicable in the absence of any laws from any other section of the world. There were no legislatures; there were no bodies to enact legislation, and so that law that we call the common law representing the accumulated common sense of centuries, became applicable to that new community thus discovered and added to the British Empire. Legislative power there was none in this new community, for it had no institutions; it had no legislature, to pass decrees or ordinances of any kind or character whatsoever. Therefore the legislation passed in London at the parliament at Westminster had applicability to this new community, because it had been added to the empire.
That is all that may be said about that, and when new institutions did grow up; when Cornwallis, for instance, signed at Halifax the first order on this continent for an election of members who constituted the legislative assembly of Nova Scotia, there grew up a community with power to pass laws for the peace, the order and the good government of the colony called Nova Scotia. There came a time when the legislation passed by this new colony was repugnant to or conflicted with the legislation passed by the parliament at Westminster. If that legislation was repugnant to the common law, the judges at Westminster decided that the legislation of this new colonial legislature was invalid if it conflicted with the common law of England as declared by the judges. The Colonial Laws Validity Act, as the minister very properly indicated this afternoon, was intended to expand and not to restrict the powers of colonial legislatures. Why do I say that? Because it provides that in case of repugnance or conflict between the common law and the legislation of a colonial legislature, the legislation of the colonial legislature shall prevail over the common law. But the very essence of the idea of empire still obtained, and in case of conflict, if there should be any, be-

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Bennett
tween t'he legislation of the parliament at Westminster and the legislation enacted by the legislature of the colony, whatever it might be, then the legislation passed at Westminster should prevail. The Colonial Laws Validity Act so provided.
That act was passed in 1865, two years before this confederation. What did it mean? It meant this, in practice:	That when this
parliament enacted a law that provided that there should be no appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in criminal cases, if that enactment conflicted with the British statute, as it did, the British statute should prevail and the right of appeal should be maintained, because the humblest subject had the right-not under Canadian law but under British law-to present his grievance to the foot of the throne.
The question of disallowance is somewhat similar in its history, because the power rests in the federal government here at Ottawa to disallow a provincial statute if in the opinion of the Justice department that statute contravenes well defined principles of jurisprudence, that is, if it is beyond the legislative competence of the legislature to enact such a statute there is power in the governor general to disallow and declare that statute toi be of no effect. It wild be recalled that only a few years ago a Statute was passed by the legislature of Nova Scotia and was disallowed by the governor in council because it was felt that it was repugnant to natural justice and to the ideas which were held in this country as to the rights of individual citizens. It will be recalled that the Hon. Edward Blake took the view that instead of disallowance being exercised by the federal power, it was desirable that the matter should be referred to the courts which would determine whether the power exercised' by the provincial legislature was or was niot legally exercised. The power of disallowance has fallen into disrepute, having been exercised only once or twice during tihe past quarter century. It is said that disallowance is not in keeping with our institutions, and that for a period of two years or one year, as the case may be, there should not be power in the king in council to disallow a statute passed by a dominion parliament in the exercise of its plenary powers as a parliament. Some of the speeches would be inclined to make us think that we are trying to extract something from the government of England which it was reluctant to give us; something like pulling teeth. At all times and upon all occasions that government has expressed the utmost willingness to meet any views which we may express in that regard. Why look upon this 2419-1651
as something wrung by a son from a reluctant mother? This is something which is given without question, something which represents the fulness of the operation of the institutions of our country. The power of disallowance disappears.
Another question arises, as was pointed out, although not fully, by the hon. Minister of Justice. We desire, and when I say "we" I am not distinguishing between Liberal and Conservative governments-it just happens to [DOT]be a Liberal government-that our securities should be trustee securities in England. The Hon. Mr. Fielding desired it and for a long time he endeavoured to secure that concession. By reason of difficulties which were experienced in days gone by in connection with securities to which attention might be directed, we provided by an agreement with the British treasury that if legislation of this parliament menaces the validity of securities which have become trustee securities under the laws of England, that power of disallowance may be exercised. This provision is not peculiar to this particular country. It is pointed out in the report that there were certain provisions in that regard in the Colonial Stock Act of 1900. The reserving of statutes passed by this parliament for the consideration of the. sovereign in council has not been in use for, a very long time. It now disappears.
With these recommendations no difficulty will be experienced, but when we consider the question of the extraterritorial operation of dominion legislation, we are on different ground altogether, and one which may lead to complications of the first order. I shall not take up the time of the house by discussing them at length, as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has presented them with a wealth of detail. I think it will be agreed that the Right Hon. C. J. Doherty gave the fullest possible explanation regarding the exercise of extraterritorial powers which has ever been given in this house. I think my hon. friend the Minister of Justice will bear me out in that statement with reference to the address of Mr. Doherty in introducing his resolution dealing with this matter. He went into the matter with a wealth of detail and knowledge and precedents which has not been since revealed in this [DOT]house. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has said, there are those who believe that it is incidental to the exercise of our powers as a parliament that we should legislate in an extraterritorial sense. That view is not held by all. As I pointed out this afternoon, while the hon. Minister of Justice was speaking, our supreme court expressed a divided opinion upon divorce legis-
2612	COMMONS
Shipping Legislation-Mr. Bennett
iation. If I remember correctly, that matter did not go to the privy council. The privy council held in the Cain case that we had such powers. It is a very nice question, but one which I will not take the time to discuss, as to whether or not we possess already the power to enable us to enact legislation of an extraterritorial character. There is a possibility of grave difficulties in this regard, which those who had charge of this matter at London last fall did not fail to recognize. Extraterritorial legislation may bring about difficulties, but it is not my purpose to do more than point out the possibilities where you have various parts of the empire that may be affected thereby. It will be observed from the report made by the committee that special provisions were made to deal with this matter.
We now come to the question of dealing with our constitution, which is one of first importance. At page 29 of the report we read:	.
Nothing in this act shall be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the constitution acts of the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Dominion of New Zealand, otherwise than in accordance with the law and constitutional usage and practice heretofore existing.
Nothing in this act shall be deemed to authorize the parliaments of the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia to make laws on any matter at present within the authority of the provinces of Canada or the states of Australia, as the case may be, not being a matter within the authority of the parliaments or governments of the Dominion of Canada and of the Commonwealth of Australia respectively.
I put this question to the Minister of Justice: Can you say that you have equality of status if 3'ou do not have power to amend your constitution?


Ernest Lapointe: Surely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Justice is too astute a lawyer to answer that question in the affirmative.


Ernest Lapointe: Then I am not astute, because I do answer in the affirmative.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the hon. gentleman does not wish to negative the first qualification of a state, which is the power to amend its constitution?


Ernest Lapointe: A condition brought
about by our own will is not a subordination.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I put to my hon. friend a fundamental principle which I think governs all these matters, and which should be in our minds when we are discussing them. It is this:	If it becomes necessary for another

parliament to exercise its power in order that we may attain our ends, we are not on an equality of status with that power. That is axiomatic, and it is one of the difficulties in connection with this matter. It is so axiomatic that I sent to the library to obtain an elementary book on constitutional cases, of which the second edition is under my hand. If it is necessary to call into operation the legislative power of another state to enable this state to attain its ends, then there is no equality of status as between this state and that. Leaving that aside for the moment, may I direct attention to these words on page 28 of the report:
Canada alone among the dominions has at present no power to amend its constitution act without legislation by the parliament of the United Kingdom.
The Minister of Justice, when he signed that report, which contains paragraph 63 on page 28 stating in terms unequivocal that this Dominion "alone among the dominions has at present no power to amend its constitution act without legislation by the parliament of the United Kingdom," certainly will not say there can be any such thing as equality of status if that statement is correct. That does not require argument, does it? The Minister of Justice this afternoon said that if Canada desires to have its constitution amended, all it had to do was to express that desire as we are doing in the terms of the address we are now making to the imperial parliament regarding western natural resources and the imperial parliament would act upon our address. But that begs the question. Power must be exercised by another body, and whenever power has to be exercised, by another body to effectuate a purpose that this state proposes, then that state and this one are not on an equality of status. That is clear beyond per-adventure, so clear that the Minister of Justice recognizes it in paragraph 63 on page 28 of the report.
Following the discussion to which attention has been directed, is a legal anomaly which I shall refer to only in passing, and that is this, that while the Colonial Laws Validity Act is no longer to apply when we are dealing with legislation of this parliament, such power as still remains in the Colonial Laws Validity Act will be applicable against Quebec, or Ontario or New Brunswick or Nova Scotia or any other province of the Dominion. That is the position that the conference provides for, as will be found in paragraph 71 on page 31 of the report.
There remains for consideration a matter which, I think, might well involve the atten-

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Bennett
tion of the house for days, and that is the question, of navigation. The greatness of this empire has been built up, of course, upon its power to man and sail ships, to penetrate to the most remote parts of the world, to carry on trade and commerce to meet the demands of peoples of all nations and living under all flags, and to bring their products and commodities to other lands for sale and barter. Every one admits that. The history of the navigation laws of this country would take entirely too long a time for me to trace tonight and I shall not endeavour to do so. But let me say this: I was not long since discussing this matter with a gentleman of the Liberal faith in politics, one of the most distinguished of what is called the advanced school of Liberal thought, to which the hon, gentleman referred this afternoon; and he felt that in dealing with this question as we have, we have taken a step that probably we should not have taken without having some alternative to substitute for present conditions. My only criticism is not a criticism that is urged against the principle of this country having full and plenary powers to deal with matters of navigation, but rather that in the exercise of those powers we should by conference and consultation with other parts of this great empire have an alternative scheme to take the place of what we now have.
I put this question to the house: Is it well for us that we and other parte of the British Empire should have differing laws with respect to navigation when one reads in that report all that is involved and implied, for instance, our rights that flow from being able to command the protection of the forces of the motherland under given conditions, the right to appeal to consuls, the questions of conditions in courts, the question of dealing with sailors, and so forth? Is it not well that we as an empire should have uniform laws in that regard? I think it will be admitted that that is so. I shall not deal at length with the report, but if hon. members will take the trouble to read it they will find it deals with the whole problem of carriage of goods by sea, the whole problem in connection with the enforcement of law, naval courts, destitute seamen, courts of inquiry and certificates of competency and service, internal discipline and agreements with crews. Is it not well that there should be some form of general agreement between the various maritime dominions which constitute the British Empire? That is not as a matter of theory, but as a matter of practice. It is necessary that it should be so if Canada is to take its place as a great maritime power. I recall that in days gone by there were on the registry of
Canada more ships in point of tonnage than there is now. Before the day of iron ships we were building ships in great numbers. That day is past, but in that day we had the benefit of all the advantages and experience of the motherland in dealing with problems connected with navigation and shipping.
Now are we to say, without having any alternative scheme to take its place, that present conditions should be replaced by something that leads we know not where, the end of which we know not? The hon. gentleman this afternoon said that we were afraid to break new ground. It is sometimes better to be careful than careless; it is sometimes better to be discreet than otherwise, and history teaches us that unless we have some alternative to offer to an existing condition, you can give no excuse or reason why you should change that existing condition. The essence of progress is not change; it is a change from one condition to another, the new condition being better than that from which you changed. Here we have no alternative offer, nothing whatever. In fact, this report suggests that in dealing with matters of navigation it is well to remember that we should retain existing conditions for a season -lest what? Lest by trying an innovation we meet with disaster.
If there is one thing which is complicated, it is the law of shipping, as any gentleman who is familiar with the law in that regard knows. It is one of the most difficult subjects in the whole fabric of the law for law students, so difficult in fact that in every generation in Great Britain there are only two or three great shipping lawyers, men who are supreme in their profession, masters of the whole theory and practice of shipping laws. When I read these paragraphs as I did and saw the matters with which they dealt, I asked myself, as I asked friends of mine and as doubtless hon. members are now asking themselves:	What is to
take the place of existing conditions? What do you offer as a substitute? What shall replace it? Is it something better, or is it something worse, or nothing at all? At the moment it is nothing at all, and I submit with great confidence to my hon. friend that we should not lightly change a condition unless we have to offer for it something that is at least as good if not better. It is because of my difficulty in that regard that to this one phase of the whole report more than to any other, I direct attention. I also direct attention to the admiralty courts, because they have been so closely connected, so allied to the progress, growth and development of our whole system of navigation and maritime
2614	COMMONS
Shipping Legislation-Mr. Bennett
laws that if we were to say suddenly that we shall set up new tribunals dealing with these matters I think the house will agree that the observations made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George this afternoon indicating that Canadian ships will not remain upon the Canadian register upon such conditions, were not an overstatement of the case. Does any hon. gentleman think they are too far-fetched in view of the implications that are involved? I think not. Our merchant marine is now somewhat limited. It will become less in tonnage as the days go by, and you will find that the great ships owned by Canadian enterprise will be registered not from Canadian but British ports. I am sure every hon. member of -this house realizes that there is tied up with this very matter one of the most difficult of all questions in the world. The flag a ship flies over her taffrail is the flag that determines the measure of protection she receives from the people of the world, and when we come to consider that we have the British flag, with the arms of the provinces in the fly, authorized for flying upon the seas, one begins to realize all that is involved in this problem. I have heard gentlemen discuss this matter whose knowledge of it is so very great that I feel I know but nothing when -talking with them, gentlemen dealing with matters of shipping and matters of piracy on the high seas, and who have discussed with me the implications of our endeavour in this regard. I confess that when I listened to them I realized how far-reaching were the possible consequences of the action that we are asked to take to-night. It is for that reason that I have suggested that we should proceed slowly in a matter of this kind.
Who has complained? Has any man complained? Has any injustice been done? Has anyone for a single moment asserted that the rights and privileges of Canadians have been invaded, or wrested from them? To the British consuls wrho are sent out by Great Britatin all over the world Canadians have appealed on every occasion where matters affecting shipping were concerned. When the I'm Alone was sunk, if you read the life of Captain Randall, you will see that the first person he went to was the British consul. He is the man that the ship wrecked mariner always goes to. The master of a ship in distress in a foreign port always goes to see the British consul. Can we longer claim the right to go to the British consul if we are to set up our own views with respect to this matter, unless indeed we make a contribution to his upkeep, as possibly we may be asked to do? I know not; that may be. But if we 
pass this legislation, if we then suggest that the British consul shall be appealed to, we have divested ourselves of that right by the very action we are taking.
I was born beside the sea. I have seen great ships come and go since I was a youth. I realize just what part they play in the commerce of the world. I have listened to seafaring men tell tales of their experiences in far off lands ever since I can remember anything, and I know this, that the one tale which they have invariably told is that in moments of stress and strain, whether from the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, or from Quebec or the Pacific, the man they have gone to with their complaints has always been the British consul, and from him they have had the protection that came to them because their ships flew the flag of empire. It is because of that I say in all seriousness to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that I think this matter should be proceeded with slowly. Discussing it with a great legal mind in this country, by common consent I think the foremost Liberal legal mind in Canada, he agreed that we should have some alternative before we destroyed the existing condition.
I shall not weary the house with further discussion, but I should like to make this observation in answer to what was said by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre. I deprecate more than I can say introducing into a discussion in this house at this time conditions in India. I have no desire to exaggerate, but, sir, I am profoundly convinced that whatever there may be about those little islands and their history, the greatest tribute that men will pay to them in the future will be to their administration of law and order and justice in India. There less than one hundred thousand men have maintained law and order among a population of hundreds of millions. The attack made tonight by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre I think was wholly unwarranted, and I do not like to see it go out from this house as representing in any sense a desire upon the part of this Canadian House of Commons to interfere with or even discuss problems of which it knows so little, and about which we are so illadvised. The only discussion I have had about India was certainly a very limited one. It was with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and when I heard him make the statements he did,
I then and there resolved that for me to discuss conditions in India would be indeed but to give evidence of my profound ignorance of a problem so far-reaching in its consequences and so complicated involving questions of caste and of various races and religions that I t.hink

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Bennett
we all should hesitate before we offer to express opinions on India at a moment when all the power of intellect of British statesmen is being used for the purpose of finding a solution of one of the most difficult problems of our time.
One word more, and I make it of general application. This afternoon and this evening we have heard the words " state " and " nation " bandied about and used as if this were an independent country. Those who read the observations of the hon. member for Bow River in that regard will read into them that he interprets the speech of the Minister of Justice to-day as warranting a conclusion which, if true, means that we are on the verge of jumping off into independence. It means that or nothing. I do not interpret the hon. gentleman's observations in that sense. His committee had no such object in mind. In the broad and general sense there is no man in this country who professes the Conservative faith in politics who has not endeavoured, so far as I know, from the days of Sir John A. Macdonald until to-day to see to if that Canadians occupy no subordinate position within our empire. The term " equality of status " is a term coined by a great philosophic statesman, the late Lord Balfour. It perhaps aptly expresses in a few words what every Canadian would wish, but when we use it we must always remember that in the ultimate analysis it is the judges who interpret and determine what things mean, and resolutions of this House of Commons have no place before the courts. They may not be cited because they are not authoritative. They may not be relied upon because they constitute no binding legislative act. When this parliament acts, it acts through the Senate, the House of Commons, and the King. The three bodies that constitute this parliament must act together. A resolution of this House of Commons has no binding power and no authority upon which judicial process may be predicated or founded. It is well that we should always keep in mind the essential meaning of a state. When we use the word "state" or "nation" let us remember that these words in international law have a well-defined and well-understood meaning. They have a meaning which is as exact in its terminology, as complete in all its implications, as the word, for instance, that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Crerar) looked for in the dictionary the other day. I hold in my hand the second edition of Outlines of Constitutional Law, and the introductory words are these:
The state.-A state is an independent political society, occupying a defined territory,
and the members of which are united together for mutual protection and assistance. Its function is to repel aggression from without, and to maintain law and order within its own dominion.
That is a modern and legally authenticated definition of a state. The first point is that it is an independent political society. We must always remember that loose speaking, involving loose thinking, with respect to constitutional matters, brings great difficulties. That has been so; it is so in this case. It is essentially desirable that we should utilize words in their exact meaning, and not use wrong terminology in referring to matters which have well-defined constitutional and international meanings.
Then you proceed to the next point, Government defined:
The sovereign, according to Austin, is the person or persons having supreme authority in an independent political society, and in every state there must be a sovereign power which exercises and controls the functions of government, and conducts and regulates the intercourse with other political societies. "The aggregate of powers," says Sir William Markby," which is possessed by the rulers of a political society is called sovereignty. A single ruler, where there is one, is called the sovereign; the body of rulers, where there are several, is called the sovereign body, or the government, or the supreme government. The rest of the members of a political society, in contradistinction to the rulers, are called the subjects.
Now, may I refer to these words as words which every hon. gentleman, whether a member of the legal profession or not, can fully understand and realize the importance of:
The internal functions of government are commonly divided into three categories, namely [DOT]-(1) legislative; (2) judicial; and (3) executive. The legislature makes, alters and repeals the laws. The judicature, or judicial bench, interprets and applies those laws; the executive carries those laws into effect. The sovereign power of a state may be vested in a single individual, as in an autocratic state, or in a smaller or larger body of citizens, as in the case of an oligarchy or of a democracy. The allocation of sovereign powers may vary indefinitely, but whatever the form of government may be its functions must, in a modern state, be delegated to a large number of persons. Sir William Anson divides those persons into the following classes, namely, legislators, main-taineTS of order, and protectors of state independence in dealings with other societies.
These are the meanings which attach to the words I have used, and the division of government into legislative, judicial and executive branches is as old as the time of Aristotle. The legislative function we exercise here through the .commons, the Senate and the sovereign. The judicial function is the function that, under our institutions, is delegated to those who sit upon the bench; they inter-

Shipping Legislation-Mr. Bennett
pret the laws, and the meaning they give to them is the meaning warranted by precedent and authority. Every hon. member, whether he be a lawyer or not, realizes that you cannot. describe Canada as a "state" or as a "nation" and be within the terms of the interpretation which the courts will give to these words. These resolutions have no place before the courts, as I have already said; but when they are crystallized into legislation and enacted by the parliament of Westminster they must be interpreted, and that is the reason it becomes so important that the far-reaching consequences of these acts we are about to pass upon should be considered in every phase. I do regret more than I can say that this matter should be discussed in this parliament so late in the session. In my judgment it should be very seriously studied by the various members of this house.
Sir, in the end they mean this. They mean that we have cut the painter completely, that we have let go the moorings that have heretofore tied us to the islands in the North sea. We have obtained equality of status by the prooess that I have indicated-by the blood and sacrifice of Canadians upon the field of battle and by the genius of our statesmen.
But, sir, it must not be forgotten that when we do these things and make ourselves, as the hon. gentleman has said, "in no way subordinate one to the other," we have attained a position which no longer means that unity of power which has made possible the development of our maritime supremacy. It means more. It does not mean difficulties in the field of domestic legislation; there are none. There is not a Canadian but desires to see what the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg so appropriately termed "constitutional practice embodied in statutory form." That is all that many of these recommendations amount to, merely the embodiment in statutory form of the constitutional practice that has grown up since confederation.
But there is the other phase of it, the phase that breaks new ground. The unitary system that has prevailed, that ties together every part of a quarter of the world's people inhabiting a quarter of its area, you have broken into fragments so far as their position one to another is concerned, and they can depend no longer upon the united action and the power and the authority that come from a unitary system in its dealings with the peoples of the world. We should pause and think before we do these things, we should understand their implications. As the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George said this afternoon they involve 150 imperial statutes that affect and 
touch the national life of Canada. Have we considered this? Do we realize it. Are we fully cognizant of all that is involved? I think not. Gladly do I give my approval to the changes that are but domestic in their character, that place upon the plane of statutory enactment the constitutional practice evolved during the last half century. But if I had the power this night I would ask that these amendments should not be made without full and fair consideration by the provinces, by all those who are concerned in the far-reaching consequences of a change in the system, a change that strikes at the very foundation of that unity which makes possible the strength of this country as a part of the greatest maritime power in the world.
That is the reason, sir, that I have ventured at some length to point these matters out. I certainly resent as deeply as anyone can resent the idea that one party in this country is the party that is entitled-to what? To credit. It has been said in various parts of the country that the Liberal party is responsible for any effort towards equality of status. Sir, the record does not so prove, and if some of us desire to point out, as it is our duty to point out in this house, the implications and the far-reaching consequences of legislation contemplated by the resolution, we do it not in any spirit of opposition but rather from an earnest desire that any amendment that may be made which will in any sense change the relations now existing between us and the other parts of that entity called the British empire should be made only after the fullest consideration of all the consequences that may follow. And I trust that the words of Professor Kennedy will ring in the ears of hon. members, and that, they realize that grandiloquent terms about autonomy and equality of status are but sounding brass and tinkling cymbal. They do not constitute changes. The changes thus made are not recognized in the courts; the legislation that follows is what binds, and we should pause. and consider very carefully before we give approval to legislation of far-reaching consequences which we have not contemplated.
That, sir, is the position we take with respect to these matters. All who read the two great addresses of the Right Hon. J. C. Smuts while visiting this continent cannot but realize that he of all men who had made so great a struggle for the autonomous units that constitute this empire realized the dangers towards which we are moving when he said that we have obtained equality of status. What is our duty now? The consolidation and the strengthening of empire. That will never, never be brought about by the passing of legislation

Private Bills
that cuts our moorings and leaves us floating in the great sea of the world, content to work out our destiny alone, instead of continuing in unity and combination with the other nations that constitute this empire.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and other hon. members if it would be agreeable to them to conclude the debate this evening.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
Minister of Justice wishes to reply. I do not know that there are any other speakers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, there are those on
this side who do not desire to continue tonight.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the debate was adjourned.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 314, for the relief of Nellie Carr Weeks.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Donald Bur-well Ross.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Cherry Ray Fletcher.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No, 317, for the relief of Eleanor Ernest -Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Hazel May Roland.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Reginald Ernest Ball.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Marion Elizabeth Gamsby.-Mr. Sanderson.
Bill No. 321, for the relief of Ethel Long Nightingale.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Winnifred May Cahill.-Mr. Ryerson.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Gertrude Lockhart.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Frederick Max Quick.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 325, for the relief of Daniel Mc-Quistan.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 326, for the relief of Anna Ruel.- Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 327, for the relief of Ethel Adine Ross.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 328, for the relief of Ronald Paterson.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 329, for the relief of Rosanna Cbristena Jarrett.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Bill No. 330, for the relief of James Lean.- Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 331, for the relief of Lyal'l John MacDonald.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 332, for the relief of Essa Mulant Durry.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 333, for the relief of Esther Eleanor Zryd.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 334, for the relief of Ida Jane Gertrude Rea.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 335, for the relief of Thomas Green. -Mr. Gray.
Bill No. 336, for the relief of Inez Elizabeth Gross.-Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 337, for the relief of Viola Tur-quand.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 338, for the relief of Norville Alberta Gourley.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 339, for the relief of Martha Brown Hemsley.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 340, for the relief of Edward Baker. -Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 341, for the relief of Herbert Machen.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 342, for the relief of Marjorie Mary Gwendolyn Dempsey Davis.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 343, for the relief of Wilfred Nathaniel Bickle.-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw). '

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1931, was presented by Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Tuesday, May 27, 1930