1931-05-11

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Wednesday, the 13th May next, and every Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of motions and gov-

Immigration Act
ernment orders shall have precedence over all business except questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
He said: This motion would have been made before, but the interruption of the business of the house on Wednesday last made me think it undesirable at that time. The intention is to give this Wednesday clear for private business, and I trust this will be satisfactory.
Right. Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING .(Leader of the Opposition): I do not wish to oppose the motion, but if its purpose is to shorten the session by enabling the government to get on with the business of the session I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not the report in the press is correct to the effect that the budget will not be brought down until June. My right hon. friend a few days ago said he would probably be in a position early to advise the house when the budget would be brought down, and this might be an appropriate moment to express a view.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If this motion were disposed of as worded, it would take this Wednesday also from private members. That was not intended; it was intended that private members should have this coming Wednesday, so that the motion will have to be changed a little to read:
That after Wednesday, the 13th May next . . .
I should like to take the house into my confidence as to the cause of the delay in making an announcement. The illness of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryck-man) has greatly retarded the work in which I am engaged, and by reason of the seriousness of his illness, I am unable to make a definite statement. We had certain very definite matters arranged for a certain definite date, and that day he was taken ill. He has not been able to come to Ottawa since, but in no event shall we postpone the budget until June, I can assure my right hon. friend, although I shall have to go on without the assistance of the hon. gentleman who has given a great deal of attention to the matter during the last two months, and who has taken extraordinary care with respect to a large number of items. Without his assistance I feel very much lost, but that is the position and I think it is right to say so to the house.
Motion as amended agreed to.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
"a DECADE OF DEVELOPMENT"-ARTICLE BY MR.

Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I wish to table a copy of an
article intituled: A Decade of Development, which was given to the press some little time ago by S. W. Fairweather, Director of Bureau of Economics, Canadian National Railways, and which was requested by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) and I think some other hon. members.



IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 44, to amend the Immigration Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: As the Immigration Act now stands, it is possible for a variety of causes to deport people, no matter how long they have resided in Canada. Last year there were several cases that aroused a good deal of public interest, one case in which a woman was deported after some eighteen years' residence in Canada. Her connections in the old country had been broken up; she had during all those years established connections in this country and suddenly, because of some physical ailment of a rather serious character, she was deported. There have been a large number of cases of a similar character. Therefore I propose in this amendment that there should be no deportation after ten years' continuous residence. Just as in certain insurance policies there is a definite period after which the policy becomes non-contestable, after ten years' continuous residence in this country no one could be deported.
The second clause relates to those who have been resident for ten years in Canada and who may have been forced to go, we will say, to the United States for a short period to seek work. They very often find themselves unable to return to this country although they have lived here for a large number of years, and there have been certain cases where they have been threatened with deportation to the countries from which they originally came. The second clause would permit them, if everything else was all right, to enter Canada on account of their having resided in this country for ten years. I might put it a little more correctly in this way: after ten years' residence in Canada, they would not be precluded from reentering this country simply for the reason that they had gone elsewhere on this continent for a short period.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South) moved_ for leave to introduce Bill No. 45, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Canada Shipping Act
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MacINNIS:: The present Canada
Shipping Act is a rather old piece of legislation, and very much out of harmony with modern industrial conditions. The purpose of these amendments is to put the conditions under which seamen have to live and work more in line with modern industrial standards.
The first amendment provides for the physical examination of seamen. There is no provision for that in the present act. It has been brought to my attention that on occasions seamen suffering from contagious or infectious diseases have been taken aboard ship, or they have been taken ill after coming on board, thus creating a menace to the health of the other members of the crew.
The next amendment provides for more efficient inspection of water and provisions supplied for the crew than now prevails. At the present time the act provides only that the seamen may complain and if their complaint is not upheld by the person making the inspection, they are penalized for making the complaint. It also provides for a scale of provisions for the crew, somewhat more extensive than that for which the regulations now provides. There is also a provision for regulation of the hours of work and for compensation to seamen injured in the course of their employment. There is another provision that only ships registered in Canada shall engage in the coastal trade of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it well to say to the hon.
gentleman that certain of his observations as heard by me are in conflict with legislation over which at the moment we have very limited control. The statute of Westminster will clear up the situation. I mention this at the moment because I may not have caught the exact purport of his remarks but as the matter now stands, many of his suggestions could not be acted upon by this parliament.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: Might I point out that the whole act is obsolete and has been for the last twenty-five years. It is not these amendments alone that are out of date, the whole act is in need of revision.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) :: Is it not a fact that in view of the
deliberations of the 1929 and 1930 Imperial conferences, the revision of the Canada Shipping Act will have to be considered?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is
quite correct. If the proposals of Westminster

are adopted by both houses of parliament and the statute of Westminster passed, this will entail the entire revision of the Canada Shipping Act as well as the revision of many other acts that are upon the statute books at the present moment.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It is better to wait another year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is the reason
I made the suggestion.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would call the attention of the hon. member introducing the bill to the method in which the bill has been prepared and also to the rules relating to the preparation of bills. Perhaps he will give it his attention before the second reading.



REMONETIZATION OF SILVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	i-
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to direct a question
to the right hon. the Prime Minister. In view of the deliberations of the International Chamber of Commerce, which were concluded, I understand, yesterday, and in view of one of the recommendations of that congress for the holding of an international conference to study the question of the remonetization and standardization of silver, and in view of the further fact that the government of China has indicated its willingness to take the initiative in regard to the proposed conference and that the government of the United States has also indicated its willingness to facilitate such a conference, will the government of Canada be prepared to facilitate in every possible way the holding of such a conference?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The facility with which the hon.
gentleman asks questions is equalled only by his willingness to rely on everything he reads in the newspapers. The fact is that since this government came into power it has been steadily studying the silver question. There is in the city to-day perhaps the leading British authority on the subject. We have had more than one conference with him, and expect to have others. As to what may result in the way of an international monetary conference from the representations that have been made by various countries, including the United States of America, and notably the resolutions introduced by Senator Pittman it is too soon to indicate. But if the opportunity is afforded, this country will

Essex Terminal Railway
endeavour to discharge to the best of its ability the obligations that rest upon it as a great silver-producing country.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: On the 22nd of April an order of the house was passed with reference to the bringing down of correspondence relating to Riding Mountain [DOT] park. As the correspondence cannot be very voluminous, I would ask that the return be expedited.


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior):: I understand that the information
which the. hon. member has asked for has been transmitted to the Secretary of State.



VACANCIES IN REPRESENTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition) :: There are two
constituencies which have not been represented during this session in the House of Commons. One is the constituency of East Hamilton, where a vacancy occurred on October 13, 1930, through the death of the member, and the other is the constituency of Three Rivers-St. Maurice, where a vacancy occurred on January 4 of this year, through the death of the member. May I ask the government if it is the intention to bring on by-elections in those constituencies so that they may be represented in this parliament before this session is over?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure that the by-elections will
be brought on in accordance with the provisions of the law in that regard, if due attention is paid to the practice heretofore followed by those who were then in power,*


Ernest Lapointe: Imitation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The practice
heretofore followed has been to bring on the by-elections so that the constituencies could be represented. It was for that reason that I put the question to the Prime Minister in the form I did. I would ask him again if he expects to bring on the by-elections in time to enable these constituencies to be represented in this house at this session of parliament.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A delicate question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a delicate question,
but a question that it is not quite possible to answer because it involves the determination of two questions of fact with respect to neither of which is the government in complete control of the factors which would enable those questions to be answered.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What are the factors?


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of them is the
opposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The opposition is not a factor in these cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, as to when parliament prorogues. It is quite evident, Mr. Speaker, that the date of the prorogation of parliament will determine whether or not the constituencies are represented, having regard to the provisions of the statute; and as to when parliament will prorogue, no government can say.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can promise my right hon. friend that if he has the writs issued immediately and brings down a satisfactory budget, we will try to accommodate him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The questions have been answered. The two "ifs" which the hon. gentleman used entirely explain the situation.



AUSTRALIAN TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) if it is true that a bill based upon the proposed new Australian treaty has already received its first reading in the Australian parliament?


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: All matters pertaining to the Australian treaty must rest in abeyance until, by the consent of both governments the matter can be properly placed before both parliaments.



ESSEX TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 23, respecting the Essex Terminal Railway Company-Mr. Robinson-Mr LaVergne in the chair.
Section one agreed to.
On section 2-limitation of time for commencement and completion.
Questions
Mr. SPENCER:: As this company already has had twelve extensions I would ask why construction has not already been started?


Mr. ROBINSON:: My reply would be that construction will take place as soon as the Ojibway plant goes ahead. At the present time they have a wire loom and bin plate mill, I believe the tin plate mill is the first of its kind in Canada. When these two plants are running to capacity they employ about 500 men. For the past nine years there have been seven blast furnaces erected, and when conditions warrant work will be commenced. I may add that the construction of this road would prevent traffic through the Windsor and Sandwich section. If Ojibway does not go ahead there will be no cause to build the road.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The hon. member has not answered my question. I want to know why the railway was not previously built, considering the fact that the first extension was asked for in 1902, and since that date there have been eleven granted.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: My hon. friend will know that the steel industry in Canada has not been what we had hoped for, and owing to the war this construction has been delayed. As I say the road will not be constructed unless the program continues in Ojibway.


Mr. POULIOT:: They had plenty of time to prepare for the manufacture-


Sidney Cecil Robinson: What is the use of building a road if there is nothing for dt to do.


Jean-François Pouliot: They had enough time for the manufacture of armour plate. Is this an independent company or is it a subsidiary of the Canadian National Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Sidney Cecil Robinson: It is neither. The Essex Terminal Railway is an independent road, but the Canadian Steel Corporation are stockholders in the company.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is an independent company?


Sidney Cecil Robinson: Yes.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MacLEAN:: 1.	In view of the fact that Cuba has intimated her intention of increasing the duty

against Canada on potatoes and other products, has the government taken any action to arrange some trade agreement to prevent this increase?
2.	If so, have they been successful, and what is the nature of the agreement?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: 1.	Yes, the government sent a representative to Havana for the purpose of conferring with the Cuban government regarding better trade arrangements between the two countries.
2.	No agreement has yet been arrived at. Under present economic conditions there, especially in view of the depressed condition of the market for their principal product, sugar, lately selling at $1150 per cwt. while the production cost is about $2, the policy of the Cuban government is to encourage more diversified agricultural production by means of tariff protection on potatoes and other items. They are, however, willing to further discuss these matters, and this government is now giving consideration to proposals in that regard.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS, GASPE DIVISION
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	How much has been expended on the Gaspe railways in improvements since the lines were linked up with the Canadian National Railways?
2.	What work is contemplated to be done in the present year, if any?
3.	Are men from Bonaventure county employed in the work in that county, or is the work being done by outsiders?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	$410,910.
2.	Certain timber bridge replacements, application of about 25,000 yards of gravel ballast and replacement of five miles of rail.
3.	The men employed on these lines are recruited on the line itself and there are none taken from outside territory, with the exception of supervisory officers and skilled labour when such is required to perform any special work.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS, APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	In the capital structure of the Canadian National Railways as set out in the balance sheet at page 15 of the annual report for 1930, there appears the sum of $403,443,939.56 "on account of appropriations for Canadian Government Railways."
Does this sum cover the construction and equipment cost of:	(a) the Transcontinental
railway constructed by the government of Canada, east from Winnipeg to Moncton; (b) the lines known as the Intercolonial Railway of Canada, including the Prince Edward Island Railway, together with all branch lines and terminals thereof; (c) what is the amount

Questions
applicable to each; (d) at what period was the capitalization on these lines fixed at the above figures?
2.	Does the mileage statement by the Canadian National Railways as set out on pages 37, 38 and^ 39 of the annual report of the Canadian National Railways for 1930 include all lines covered by the capital assets of *2,111,519,813.46 as shown on page 14 of the report, and if not, what lines and mileages are excluded, and why?


Mr. MANION:: 1. (a) Yes; (b) yes; (c) statement attached; (d) original cost plus betterments as of December 31, 1930.
2.	The mileage statement of Canadian National Railways, as set out on pages 37, 38 and 39 of the annual report for 1930, plus the mileage statement for eastern lines, shown on page 54 of the report, includes all lines covered by the capital assets of $2,111,519,813.46, as shown on page 14 of the report.
Department of Railways and Canals Canadian Government Railways Capital Account to December 31, 1930
Intercolonial railway	1140,441,817 08
Prince Edward Island Railway. 15,098,150 40 New Brunswick and Prince
Edward Island railway	
International railway	
National Transcontinental railway	
Moncton and Buctouche railway Salisbury and Albert railway..
St. Martins railway	
Elgin and Havelock railway..
York and Carleton railway.. ..
Quebec and Saguenay railway.
Caraquet and Gulf Shore railway	
Lotbiniere and Megantic railway	
Cape Breton railway	
Vale railway	
Quebec bridge	
Van Buren bridge	
Long Lac cut-off	
Lake Superior branch	
Lawlor Building, Toronto..
Canadian Government railways Capital Suspense-branch line
aid (Cr.)	
Minaki Inn	
Malagash spur	
Hailfax ocean terminal	
Charlottetown Hotel	
Acadia Coal Company	
New Prince Edward Island car
ferry	
Capital Account to December 31, 1930-Con.
Abandoned right-of-way	 21,721 11
Murray River property	 7,540 04

Stores and Open accounts.. .. 16,882,081 62 Investment in C. N. telegraphs 1,455,328 09
Total investment	$427,323,362 30
Liability Account
Liability to Dominion	$403,443,934	56Liability to C.N.R. Co	
950,279	40
Liability for Unmatured purchase price of Moncton and
Buctouche railway	
70,000	00Liability for Uncashed cheques	3,714	31Betterments paid from C.G.R. surplus	
22,855,434	03Total liability	$427,323,362	30


INTERIOR DEPARTMENT, RETIREMENTS
Mr. CHEVRIER:: 
Thomas Gerow Murphy: Number 1: (a) 14; Ob) 2; (c) 10. These 10 employees are on temporary re-assignment, pending permanent appointment when vacancies cleared. Other re-assignments under negotiation, but not yet confirmed.
Number 2: (a) Dominion lands administration; Surveys bureau; National development bureau; Forest service; (b) Surveys bureau; (c) Department of National Revenue, Department of National Defence, Department of Agriculture, Post Office Department, Department of Justice.
Number 3: (a) $1,500; $960; $1,800; $1,620; $1,680; $3,285; $2,100; $2,040; $1,920; $3650; $1,380; $1,260; $1,140; $2,700;	(b) $1,500;
$1,380;	(c) $1,800; $1,080; $1,140; $1,140;
$1,500; $1,140; $1,380; $1,620; $1,020; $1,200.
Number 4:	At this date it is impossible
to say definitely.
1,342,481 02 3,251,463 17
173,260,095 58 549,387 98 678,872 08 383,837 84 203,553 54 64,712 81 7,904,280 19
1,172,538 55
186,336 16 138,722 49 49,885 69 21,706,664 49 28,223 27 2,847,547 01 1,250,310 22 1,243,834 59 32,362,008 64
450,573 02 1,091,354 40 29,290 75 2,358,418 30 689,460 14 2,700 33
1,071,317 74

143S
Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. REID:: Were any restrictions, regulations or instructions of any kind given or laid down by the Minister of Labour or by anyone acting under his authority, to the Minister of Public Works in the province of British Columbia or any official of the provincial legislature of British Columbia, prohibiting the expenditure or in any way restricting the expenditure of money under the Unemployment Relief Act for the purchase of tools, machinery or material of any kind, including cement, glass, hard-ware, lumber, cement or galvanized pipe or steel rails?


Robert James Manion: No.


WHOLESALE PRICES OF COMMODITIES
Mr. ROBERGE:: What was the wholesale price per pound of the following commodities at Montreal, on May 1, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931: factory butter, dairy butter, new laid eggs (per dozen), fat steers, fat cows, fat heifers, canners, veal calves, drinkers, hogs, sows, lambs, sheep?


Henry Herbert Stevens: See attached statements.
[Mi. Murphy.]
22110-92*
Dominion Bureau or Statistics-Internal Trade Branch Table 1


WHOLESALE PRICES OF CERTAIN COMMODITIES AT MONTREAL, MAY, 1921-1930, AND WEEK ENDING APRIL 30, 1931. ALSO SUPPLEMENTARY TORONTO QUOTATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Creamery butter No. 1 prints, per lb..,
(a) Eggs, fresh extras, per doz....
Steers, good over 1050, per ewt	
Cattle, good steers, per ewt., Toronto.
Cow, good, per ewt	
Heifers, good, per ewt	
Canners and Cutters, per ewt	
Calves, good veal, per ewt	
Hogs, bacon, per ewt	
Hogs, bacon, per ewt., Toronto	
Sows, No. 1 per ewt	
Lambs, good handyweight, per ewt...
Sheep, good handyweight, per ewt	
Sheep, choice, per ewt., Toronto	
*
[DOT]315 [DOT]29- 30
9-25-10 00
9-44- 9-62
8-25- 912
[DOT]331
*314
34-36	-34-36
7-25	7-54
806
8-75
[Stage Direction]
[DOT]32-33
*32-35
8-92
[Stage Direction]
[DOT]35
[DOT]34-35
7-	625 612 713 2-83 6-39
1300 12-58 10-23 800 6-47
8-	90
[Stage Direction]
[DOT]35
[DOT]365
7-47
7-11
800
14-22
7-	75
8-	812
[Stage Direction]
*38
[DOT]369
8-88
6-	98 8-51 3-65 8-63
10-62 10 09
7-	52
*7-18
[Stage Direction]
[DOT]36
[DOT]376
10-	44
8-	19
9-	54 4-01 9-77
11-	06 10-58
1929
*8-00
[Stage Direction]
*386
[DOT]353
11-21
8-	69
9-	97 4-53
10-	76 14-01 13-38
11-	32 10-65
*8-22
8
[DOT]331 [DOT]358 11-26 10-70 8-16 10-17 4-03 8-42 12-47 12-13 10-39 (B)	11-25
6-45 *7-06
Last week of April 1931
(B)
[Stage Direction]
[DOT]251
6-	30 6-22
4-	40
5-	20 1-65 5-60 8-30 8-29 5-65
7-	83 5-45
*5-33
(A) Eggs, new, 1921-1925.	(B) Nominal. *Sheep, good handyweight.
Ia ote. Livestock grades have changed during this period making it very difficult to obtain comparable prices.

Questions
[Stage Direction]
Table 2

[Stage Direction]
-	Good Heifers	Good Butcher Cows	Canners and Cutters	Veal Calves*	Sows	Good Sheep1Q21 	$8 50- 9 00	$7 00- 7 75	$3 00- 4 50	$6 50- -	$9 50- 9 75	$8 00- 8 50 8 00- 9 00 6	00- 7 00 7	50- 8 00 5 50- 6 75 8	00- - 7	50- - 8	00- 9 00 7 00- 8 00 7 00- -5 25- 5 501922 	4 00- 5 25	3 00- 5 75	1 00- 2 00	3 00- 7 00	8 25- 8 50 8 50- 9 00	1923 	7 50- -	5 50- 5 75	2 00- 2 75	4 50- 5 00	*pim 	5 50- 6 50	5 50- 6 00	1 50- 2 75	4 00- 5 00	5 50- -10 00-10 50	1925 	7 00- 7 85	6 00- 6 50	2 50- 3 25	5 00- 6 00	1926 	6 75- 7 00	5 50- -	2 50- 3 25	5 50- 6 75	11 50- -7 90- 7 75	1927 	8 50- 9 00	6 00- 7 00	2 50- 4 50	6 50- 7 75	1928 	9 25- 9 75	8 00- 8 50	3 25- 4 75	7 75- 9 50	7 50- 8 00	1929	9 50- 9 75	8 50- 9 00	4 00- 5 00	7 50-10 50	10 75-11 oU 9 50-11 00 5 00- 5 50	1930 	10 00-10 50	8 25- -	3 75- 4 50	5 50- 7 00	19§I	:	5 00- 5 25	4 25- 4 50	1 25- 1 75	3 75- 6 00	
Lower grade than given in preceding table.
f"Fair" quality heSers used for 1924. No good quality on offer.

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1 Who was appointed postmaster at Cap-a-la-Bnanche, in the county of Charlevoix, following the retirement or dismissal of Mr. Pierre Lapointe, former postmaster?
2.	Does the new appointee know how to read and write?
3.	By whom was this person recommended?
4.	Did the said appointee pass the examinations of the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Frangods Harvey (fils de Germain).
2.	No information to the contrary.
3.	Thomas Maher, Quebec.
4.	This position is exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act.


LES EBOULEMENTS, CHARLEVOIX, POSTMASTER
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Who was appointed postmaster at Les Eboulements, in the county of Charlevoix following the retirement or dismissal of Mr. J. U. Tremblay, former postmaster?
2.	Does the person appointed know how to read and write?
3.	By whom was the said person recommended?
4.	Did said appointee pass the examinations of the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Majella Tremblay was placed in temporary charge.
2.	No information to the contrary.
3.	Thomas Maher, Quebec.
4.	Matter of permanent appointment not yet submitted to Civil Service Commission.


MILLE VACHES, SAGUENAY, POSTMASTER
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Who was appointed postmaster at Mille Vaehes, in the county of Saguenay, following the retirement or dismissal of Mr. E. Bouliane, former postmaster?
2.	Does the person appointed know how to read and write?
3.	By whom was the said person recommended ?
4.	Did said appointee pass the examinations of the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Joseph Tremblay (Thaddee).
2.	No information to the contrary.
3.	Thomas Maher, Quebec.
4.	This position is exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act.


ST. IRENEE-LES-BAINS, CHARLEVOIX, POSTMASTER
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Who was appointed postmaster at St. Irenee-les-Bains, in the county of Charlevoix, following the retirement or dismissal of Mr. Joseph Girard, former postmaster?
2.	Does the person appointed know how to read and write?
3.	By whom was the said person recommended?
4.	Did said appointee pass the examinations of the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Pitre Gauthier.
2.	No information to the contrary.
3.	Thomas Maher, Quebec.
4.	This position is exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act.

Questions
i441


ST. FEREOL, MONTMORENCY, POSTMASTER
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Who was appointed postmaster at St. Pereol, in the county of Montmorency, following the retirement or dismissal of Mr. Cyrias Merrier, former postmaster?
2.	Does the person appointed know how to read and write?
3.	By whom was the said person recommended ?
4.	Did said person pass the examinations of the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Joseph Morency.
2.	No information to the contrary.
3.	Thomas Maher, Quebec.
4.	This position is exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act.


ST. HUBERT, ANCHORAGE MAST
Mr. DORION:: What is the cost to March 31. 1931, of the anchorage mast at St. Hubert, including land, buildings, equipment and all improvements?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: St. Hubert aerodrome and airship base-cost to March 31, 1931, $1,846,509.16 exclusive of operating charges.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS, BUREAU OF ECONOMICS
Mr. NICHOLSON:: In the Toronto Globe of May 2nd last, there appears a lengthy summary of a statement given to the press by Mr. S. W. Fairweather, Director of the Canadian National Railways Bureau of Economics, which statement purports to give in detail the capital expenditures on all Canadian lines from the date when they were taken over by the government to the end of 1930.
1.	(a) Has a copy of the above statement been furnished to the minister or the Department of Railways and Canals; (b) was Mr. Fairweather's statement made public by authority of the executive officers or board of directors of the national railways?
2.	(a) If not, on whose authority was it published; (b) will a copy be laid on the table of the house for the information of the members?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) Published by the Canadian National publicity department with approval of the management.
2.	(a) Answered by No. 1 Ob); (b) Copies in French and English are being laid on the table to-day.


DOCTOR J. B. CHAMPION
Mr. MYERS:: What money or moneys have been paid to Dr. J. B. Champion of O'Leary, Prince Edward Island, for services rendered as medieal doctor to returned soldiers, in each of the past four years?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1927-28, None; 1928-29, None; 1929-30, $126.65; 1930-31, $516.40.


HOME BANK SHAREHOLDERS
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Of the 1,686 shareholders of the Home Bank at the time of liquidation, how many of them met their double liability in full?
2.	What was the aggregate amount paid by the shareholders under their double liability as called for under the Bank Act?
3.	When will the liquidators be able to close the affairs of the Home Bank?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	No information.
2.	According to the latest report from the liquidators, dated April 21, 1931, the aggregate amount paid by shareholders in respect of double liability was $1/10832439, with interest of $56,190.08, or a total of $l,164,514.4o.
3.	No definite information. The liquidators are officers of the Supreme Court of Ontario, and the winding-up is subject to the supervision of that court.



INVERNESS-WOODSIDE, QUEBEC, MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	Was the contract of Joseph Tardif, for carrying the mail between Inverness and Wood-side, Quebec, renewed in 1931?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	Was the said contract subsequently cancelled. ?
4.	If so, on what date, at whose request, by whom, and why?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1,	2, 3 and 4.-Instructions were issued on the' 23rd April, 1931, to renew the contract with Mr. Joseph Tardif and withdrawn on the 29th April, 1934, at the request of Mr. Joseph T. Beaudoin. Public tenders were then invited.



LAURIERVILLE, QUEBEC, MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	Was the contract of Mr. Alphonse Gingras, for carrying the mail on route No. 2, Laurier-ville, Quebec, renewed?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	Was the said contract subsequently cancelled ?
4.	If so, on what date, at whose request, by whom, and why?
Questions


Arthur Sauvé: 1,	2, 3 and 4.-Instructions were issued on the 23rd April, 1901, to renew the contract with Mr. Alphonse Gingras and withdrawn on the 29th April, 1931, at the request of Mr. Joseph T. Beaudoin. Public tenders were then invited.



MILK EXPORTATIONS

Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	How much milk was exported, per month, from Canada to United States during the fiscal years 1929 and 1930?
2.	How much milk was exported, per month, from Canada to United States during the fiscal years 1930 and 1931?
3.	How much cream was exported, per month, from Canada to United States during the fiscal years 1929 and 1930?
4.	How much cream was exported, per month, from Canada to United States during the fiscal years 1930 and 1931?


Henry Herbert Stevens: 1- Exports of milk, fresh, from Canada to United States, by months, fiscal years ended March 31, 1929 and 1930, were: "
Months	1928-1929	1929-1930
	Gal.	Gal.
April.. ..	. 166,569	144,133Mav	. 232,333	262,364June	. 268.363	246,804July	. 423,238	415,562August	. 511,894	426,479September	. 436,555	401,779October	. 448,965	280,968November	. 360,065	220,115December.. ..	. 295.981	183,717January	. 252,846	132,041February	. 148,432	121,801March	. 208,620	163,991Total	. 3.753,871	3,099,7542. Exports of milk,	fresh, from	Canada toUnited States, by months, fiscal	years endedMarch 31, 1930 and 1931 were:	Months	1929-1930	1930-1931Gal.	Gal.April	144,133	64,550May	262,364	99,105June	346,804	146,724July	415,562	198.204August.. ..	426,479	190,899September.. ..	401,779	134,408October.. ..	280,968	89,016November.. .	220,115	64,838December	183,717	70,041January.. ..	132,041	55,144February	121,801	38,512March	163,991	57,037Total	3,099,754	1,208,478
3. Exports of cream, fresh, from Canada to United Sta/tes, by months, fiscal years ended March 31, 1929 and 1930, were:
Months	1928-1929	1929-1930
	Gal.	Gal.
April			128,860
May			218,153
June		.. 392,324	334,254
July			395,387
August	.. 361,867	329,767September .. .	.. 342,406	245,974October	.. 273,855	228,543November	. 199,951	166,535December	.. 103,093	72,368January	.. 92,868	48,591February	.. 60,093	43,216March	81,622Total	.. 2,833,640	2,293,2704. Exports of cream, fresh, from Canada to	United States, by months, fiscal	years endedMarch 31, 1930 and	1931, were:	Months	1929-1930	1930-1931Gal.	Gal.April	.. 128,860	59,430May	.. 218,153	163,095June	,. 334,254	181,854July	. 395.387	136,315August	132,775September	. 245.974	150,711October	. 228,543	128,646November	. 166,535	88,553December	. 72.368	54,853January	. 48,591	16,086February	. 43.216	4,962March	. 81.622	4,694Total	. 2,293,270	1,121,974SASKATCHEWAN-ABROGATION OF	LAWS CON-CERNING TEACHING	OF FRENCH	LANGUAGE


Mr. BOULANGER:: L'honorable Solliciteur general parlait-il au nom du gouvernement dont il fait partie quand il a exprime dernierement, dans la Chambre des Communes, le desir que soient abrogees des lois recentes adoptees par la legislature de la Saskatchewan pour prohiber l'enseigneme-nt du franqais dans les ecoles primair.es de cette province?
M. DUPRE: Le discours parle par lui-meme.



QUEBEC CITY POST OFFICE

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Was an eligible list set up by the Civil Service Commission on October 27, 1930, allowing the Postmaster General to appoint some one for the preliminary sorting of letters at the Quebec City post office?

2.	If not, did the Postmaster General inform the Civil Service Commission of the non-existence of such list, and was the Civil Service Commission requested to take necessary measures so that said position might be filled according to law?
3.	Was said position advertised as vacant by the Civil Service Commission, and did the commission send out the usual notices in connection with applications and the passing of examinations, so that an eligible list might be prepared?
4.	If not, when will the Civil Service Commission take action in the matter?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2,	3 and 4. See answer to No. 1.



GASCONS WEST, BONAVENTURE, POSTMASTER

Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Who has been named postmaster of Gascons
West, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, to replace Mr. David Morin, dismissed?	.
2.	On whose recommendation was the appointment made, did the department receive a report from the post office inspector that the new appointee was competent for the position and was centrally located for the majority of the patrons of the office?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	David Marin has not 'been dismissed.
2.	See No. 1.



SUNDAY CLOSING OP POST OFFICE LOBBIES

Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: 1.	Is there a ruling of the Post Office Department ordering post office lobbies kept closed on Sundays?	,	.	,	,
2.	If so, is it a general ruling to apply to the whole of Canada?
3.	If it is a specific ruling to apply to the post office at the village of Ranfurly, Alberta, what was the reason for said ruling?


Arthur Sauvé: 1 and 2. The general policy is to close post offices on Sunday. Exceptions are made in some instance, chiefly in the province of Quebec, where some offices are kept open to permit patrons to obtain their mail after driving to the village to church.
3.	It is not a specific ruling applying to Ranfurly, Alberta.



INTERIOR DEPARTMENT RETIREMENTS

Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Did the minister, the deputy minister, the assistant deputy minister, the clerk in charge of the personnel of the Department of the Interior, or any of them, and if so, which one or ones, with any other official or officials of the said department (and if so, who), m any way (and if so, in what way), participate^ in the selecting, choosing, naming, recommending or otherwise, of the employees of the said department who have received notice of their retirement?
Questions
2.	With whose opinions, expressions, recommendations or otherwise, did the Civil Service Commission concur, in reference to the retire-merits mentioned in answer No. 5 to question No. 19, answered by the hon. the Minister of the Interior on the 6th May, 1931?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Departmental recommendations were made on the basis of the minister's definition of policy already given to the House of Commons on the 20th ultimo, see page 718 of Hansard.
2.	With the recommendations of the department.



INTERIOR DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Are the following persons still in the employ of the Interior department:	William
Calder. Joseph D. Hale, William E. D. Halh-dav. Dr. Francis C. P. Henrotcau. Richard Holding, T. G. Madgwick, Russel D. Martin, William G. Pearce. Stanley W. Probert Roderick O. Redman, James Sim, Louis P. Collin, Richard J. C. Fahry. Wilfrid J. Flood, F. J. Fraser, John F. McMahon, John G. Philipps, Albert Victor Waite?
2.	If so, what is their occupation and salary.'1
3.	How long had these persons been living in Canada when they entered the service of the government?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	The seven last mentioned have not been employed in the department; Messrs. William Calder and Roderick 0. Redman are no longer with the department; the others are employed in the department.
2.	Joseph D. Hale, Forest Products Engineer, grade 3, S3,240; William E. D. Hailliday, Forestry Engineer, grade 2, $2,220; Dr. Francis C. P. Henroteau, Astronomer, grade 5, $3,840; Richard Holding, Senior Map Draftsman, $2,160; T. G. Madgwick, Petroleum Engineer, grade 3, $4,800; Russel D. Martin, Medical officer, grade 1, $2,520; W. G. Pearce, Telephone operator (Banff), $1,200; Stanley W. Probert, Process worker, $2,820; James Sim, Photographer, $2,580.
3.	No information.



ROSS RIFLE FACTORY BUILDINGS

Mr. POWER:: 1.	With reference to an amount of $6,250.75, which appears to have been paid for mo\mg stores from main building and fitting up Mams store and citadel casemates to accommodate ordnance stores (see page 1419 unrevised Hansard, May 6. 1931), was this work done by day labour or was it given by contract?
2.	If so, to whom was the contract awarded, and on what terms?
3.	Were there any other tenderers?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1. By day labour.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
Questions


Mr. POWER:: 1.	With reference to an amount of $4,159.77, which appears to have been paid for alterations and fitting portions of immigration building as ordnance stores (see page 1419 unrevised Hansard, May 6, 1931) , was this work done by day labour or was it given by contract?
2.	If so, to whom was the contract awarded, and on what terms?
3.	Were there any other tenderers?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1 and 2. Most of this work was done by day labour. Contracts were given as follow: Purchase and installation of second hand elevator, T. Babin, Quebec, $1,000; Installation of motor for elevator (motor was available in Ross Rifle factory), J. E. Guillimette, Ltee., Quebec, $337.
3.	No.



RADIUM DEPOSITS

Mr. HEENAN:: 1.	In view of the number of reported discoveries of radium in Canada, has the govern-m j taclllties for demonstrating the value and the cost of the recovery of this element?
. Has the government taken the necessary steps to ensure the control within Canada of radium deposits, so as to ensure supplies of 6ame for hospitals at reasonable prices?


Mr. GORDON:: Apartment of Mines has complete facilities for determining the radium content of any ore samples that may be submitted for examination, and for making concentration tests on radium ores, and has already examined samples from Ontario and from the Northwest territories. The department can also undertake the investigation and demonstration on a laboratory scale of processes that could be applied to the recovery of radium from any ore. Exact costs of recovery can be made only in a commercial plant, but estimates of the probable costs of recovery can be made on the basis of laboratory work.
2. Until such time as there is tonnage of commercial interest proven it is not considered necessary to take such steps as suggested.



R. D. CUMMING

Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	Is R. D. Cumming employed by the Dominion government?
2.	If so, in what department, in what capacity, and at what salary?
3.	Was he appointed by the Civil Service (commission, and were examinations held after public advertisement, and an eligible list established in connection with the position which he now occupies?
,,i- Jas the said R. D. Cumming president of the iemiskammg South Conservative Association?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Department of Pensions and National Health. Pensions advocate. $1,800 per annum,
3.	No. The appointment was made in accordance with the provisions of section 10K of the Pension Act.
4.	No information.



DRYDEN, ONT., MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. HEENAN:: 1.	When did the contract for carrying mail between the railway station and the post office at Dryden terminate?
2.	What was the contract price for this service?
3.	What is the name and age of the person at present holding the contract?
4.	Is he a returned soldier?
5.	Were tenders invited for this contract?
6- Was contract given to lowest tenderer?
7. What are the names of the tenderers and the price submitted by each?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Service performed under temporary agreement terminable at Postmaster General's pleasure.
2.	Seventy-five cents per trip under temporary agreement.
3.	Service is performed under temporarv agreement by M. R. Morris: No information re age.
4.	No information.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes: Lowest tenderer a minor, contract being completed with mother.
7.	William C. Gammon, Dryden, P.O., $480 per annum; John L. Skillen, Dryden, P.O., $650 per annum; C. W. Harris, Dryden, P.O.,' $700 per annum; Thos. J. Lewis, Dryden! P.'O., $720 per annum; John K. Livingston, Dryden, P.O., $720 per annum; Richard Coward, Dryden, P.O., $840 per annum; Robert J. Hadley, Dryden, P.O., $936 per annum; Michael R. Morris, Dryden, P.O, $936 per annum; Geo. Kelly, Dryden, P.O.! $938 per annum; Frederick Clinker, Dryden! P.O., $939 per annum; John Brown, Dryden! P.O., $939 per annum, (75 cents per mail).



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	How many permanent and temporary employees are there in the insurance department?
2.	What are their names and what salary does each draw?

Questions as Orders for Returns


ADVANCES TO CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What is the total amount of money that has been advanced each year by the federal government to the chartered banks in Canada under the Finance Act, since August 22, 1914?
^7|la^ has been the rate of interest paid?
3.	What has been the total of interest paid per annum for these advances?
4.	In what way are the banks assessed for taxation by the Dominion government?


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF ACT-BONAVENTURE
Mr. MARGIL:: 1.	What are the names of the various municipalities and towns in the county of Bona-venture, which have applied for grants under the Unemployment Relief Act?
2.	W hat grant was received by each municipality or town?
3.	What was the federal contribution in each case?
4.	What was the provincial contribution in each case?
5.	What was the municipal contribution in each case?
?[DOT]	amounts have been expended and
paid by the federal government to each municipality in each case:
7. Were any amounts granted to these muni* ci pah ties out of the special fund, and for charitable purposes, by virtue of the Unemployment Relief Act?


FISH TAX
Mr. MacLEAN:: 1. What amount was collected by the government, through the Department of Fisheries, from the tax on fish landed from beam or other trawlers built and owned in Canada?
What amount was collected from the same source from trawlers built outside of Canada?
3.	Is there any amount still outstanding and owing by the owners of those trawlers, if so, how much?
4.	In view of the decision of the courts, will the government continue to collect this tax?



RATES OF WAGES TO LABOURERS

Mr. HE ENA  N@: What were the rates of wages paid to labourers: (a) on the federal public building at Fort Frances, Ontario, in 1929; (b) on the federal Indian school public building at Kenora, Ontario, in 1928-29; (c) on the federal public building at Keewatin, Ontario, in 1930-31; (d) on the federal public building at Sturgeon Falls, Ontario, in 1930-31; (e) on the federal public building at Timmins, Ontario, in 1930; (f) on the work of the extension to the post office at Port Arthur, Ontario, 1929; (g) on the federal public wharf at Kenora, Ontario, in 1930?



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, COUNTY OF MONTMORENCY

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What are the names of the various municipalities in the county of Montmorency which have applied for grants under the Unemployment Relief Act?
2.	What was the grant received by each one?
3.	What was the federal contribution in each case?
4.	What was the provincial contribution in
each case?
5.	What was the municipal contribution in
each case?
6.	What sums have been expended and paid in each municipality by the federal government to date?
.7. Were sums granted to these various municipalities out of the special fund, and for charitable purposes, by virtue of the above stated act?



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, DRUMMOND-ARTHABASKA

Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	What are the names of the various municipalities and towns in the counties of Drum-mond-Arthabaska, which applied for grants under the Unemployment Relief Act?
2.	What grant was received by each municipality or town?
3.	What was the federal contribution in each
case?	..
4.	What was the provincial contribution in each case?
5.	What was the municipal contribution in each case?
6.	What amounts have been expended and paid by the federal government to each municipality in each case?
7.	Were any amounts granted to these various municipalities out of the special fund and for charitable purposes by virtue of the Unemployment Relief Act?



UNEMPLOYMENT BELIEF, COMPTON, QUEBEC

Mr. HOWARD:: 1.	What are the names of the various municipalities and towns in the county of Compton, Quebec, which applied for grants under the Unemployment Relief Act?
2.	What grant was received by each municipality or town?
3.	What was the federal contribution in each case?
4.	What was the provincial contribution in each case?
5.	What was the municipal contribution in each case?
0.	What amounts have been expended and paid by the federal government to each municipality in each case?
7.	Were any amounts granted to these various municipalities out of the special fund apd for charitable purposes by virtue of the Unemployment Relief Act.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, STANSTEAD, QUEBEC

Mr. HOWARD:: 1- What are the names of the various municipalities and towns in the county of Stan-stead. Quebec, which applied for grants under the Unemployment Relief Act?
2.	What grant was received by each municipality or town?
3.	What was the federal contribution in each case ?
4.	What was the provincial contribution in each case?
5.	What was the municipal contribution in each case?
1446	COMMONS
Questions as Orders lor Returns
6.	What amounts have been expended and
paid by the federal government to each municipality in each case?	_
7.	Were any amounts granted to these various municipalities out of the special fund and for charitable purposes by virtue of the Unemployment Relief Act?



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, SHERBROOKE, QUEBEC

Mr. HOWARD:: 1.	What are the names of the various municipalities and towns in the county of Sherbrooke, Quebec, which applied for grants under the Unemployment Relief Act?
2.	What grant was received by each municipality or town?
3.	What was the federal contribution in each
case ?	.
4.	What was the provincial contribution in each case?
5.	What was the municipal contribution in
each ease?
6.	What amounts have been expended and paid by the federal government to each municipality or town in each case?
7.	Were any amounts granted to these various municipalities and towns out of the special fund and for charitable purposes by virtue of the Unemployment Relief Act?



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, SHEFFORD, QUEBEC

Mr. HOWARD:: 1.	What are the names of the various municipalities and towns in the county of Shefford, Quebec, -which applied for grants under the Unemployment Relief Act?	.
2.	What grant was received by each municipality or town?
3.	What was the federal contribution in each
case?	,
4.	What was the provincial contribution in
each case?
5.	What was the municipal contribution in
each case?
6.	What amounts have been expended and paid by the federal government to each municipality in each case?
7.	Wove any amounts granted to these various municipalities out of the special fund and for charitable purposes by virtue of the Unemployment Relief Act?



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, MEGANTIC, QUEBEC

Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	What are the names of the various municipalities and towns in the county of Megantic, Quebec, which applied for grants under the Unemployment Relief Act?
2.	What grant was received by each municipality or town in each case?
3.	What was the federal contribution in each case?
4.	What was the provincial contribution in each ease?
5.	What was the municipal contribution in
each case?
6.	What amounts have been expended and paid by the federal government to each municipality in each case?
7.	Were any amounts granted to these various municipalities out of the special fund and for charitable purposes by virtue of the Unemployment Relief Act?
[Mr. Howard.!



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, BROME-MISSISQUOI

Mr. HOWARD:: 1.	What are the names of the various municipalities and towns in the counties of Brome-Missisquoi, which applied for grants under the Unemployment Relief Act?
2.	What grant was received by each municipality or town?
3.	What was the federal contribution in each
case?
4.	What was the provincial contribution in
each case?
5.	What was the municipal contribution in
each case?
6.	What amounts have been expended and paid by the federal government to each municipality in each case?
7.	Were any amounts granted to these various municipalities out of the special fund and for charitable purposes by virtue of the Unemployment Relief Act?



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, RICH MOND-WOLFE

Mr. HOWARD:: 1.	What are the names of the various municipalities and towns in the counties of Rich-mond-Wolfe, which applied for grants under the Unemployment Relief Act?
2.	What grant was received by each municipality in each case?
3.	What was the federal contribution in each case?
4.	What was the provincial contribution in
each case?
5.	What was the municipal contribution in
each case?
6.	What amounts have been expended and paid by the federal government to each municipality in each case?
7.	Were any amounts granted to these various municipalities out of the special fund and for charitable purposes by virtue of the Unemployment Relief Act?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS, DINING CAR EMPLOYEES

Mr. LAFLECHE:: What are the names of all dining and sleeping car employees of the Canadian National Railways travelling between Montreal and Halifax, and in the maritime provinces?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: For a copy of all petitions, resolutions, letters, telegrams and other communications and documents, received by the Prime Minister, Secretary of State and any other member of the government, from the Saskatchewan government or any member thereof, since January 1, 1931.



POST OFFICE EXPENDITURES, 1930

Mr. HANBURY:: For a return showing the total amounts appropriated during the first session of 1930,

Unopposed Motions for Papers
either in the main estimates or in any supplementary, to the Department of Post Office, and also a return showing the total amount of such moneys as were expended by provinces.



AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES, 1930

Mr. TOTZKE:: For a return showing the total amounts appropriated during the first session of 1930, either in the main estimates or in any supplementary. to the Department of Agriculture, and, also, a return showing the total amount of such moneys as were expended by provinces.



MR. L. A. TOURIGNT

Mr. GIROUARD:: For a copy of all documents, letters, complaints made to the Minister of Public Works or any member of his department since the first of August, 1930, regarding L. A. Tourigny, until recently caretaker of the public building at Victoriaville, Quebec, and specially complaints made by J. A. Beauchesne, A. Kirouac or any other person from the county of Arthabaska or elsewhere, as well as letters, correspondence received by the Minister of Public Works or any of his officials, including P. S. Gregory and J. A. Gingras, recommending the maintenance in office of the said Tourigny, and also any reports, letters or documents addressed by the said J. A. Gingras, Inspector of the Department of Public Works, regarding the said L. A. Tourigny.



MR. RODOLPHE DUPUIS

Mr. FAFARD (for Mr. Desrochers):: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, reports and recommendations for appointment and protests against such appointment, relating to the appointment of Rodolphe Dupuis to the position of pensions advocate at Ottawa.



DISMISSAL OF FRANCOIS PELLETIER

Mr. LARUE:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents relating to the dismissal of Francois Pelletier, ex-member of parliament for Matane county, in 1928, as special officer of the preventive service for the county of Matane.



MATANE POSTMASTERSHIP

Joseph-Ernest-Henri LaRue: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Post Office Department and the citizens of Matane, Quebec, relating to the appointment of the present postmaster of Matane.



DISMISSAL OF J. E. LANDRY

Joseph-Ernest-Henri LaRue: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Department of National Revenue and the citizens of Matane, Quebec, in connection with the dismissal of J. E. Landry, former customs officer at the port of Matane.



RIVIERE RENOUF BRIDGE AND DAM

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all contracts, acts, plans, reports and correspondence between the Department of Railways and Canals, the authorities of the Intercolonial railway, the Canadian National Railways and any person, relating to the purchase of part of lots 247. 248 and 250, in the neighbourhood of Riviere Renouf, in the parish of Trois Pistoles, in connection with the construction and maintenance of a bridge and dam on the said river.



TROIS PISTOLES FREIGHT AGENTS

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, requests, regarding the freight agents of Trois Pistoles, Quebec, since January 1, 1931.



LAC ST. JEAN POLITICAL PARTIZANSHIP INQUIRIES

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all testimonies and reports of Mr. Robert Cote, inquiry commissioner, in connection Avith the inquiries for political part-izanship held at Honfleur, St. Henri de Taillon, Langlais, Hebertville Station and Chamboi;d in the county of Lac St. Jean.



CHARLES W. MCLENNAN

Mr. RALSTON:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, telegrams, petitions and other communications to or from the Minister of Fisheries and any other ministers, minister, or official of the government and to or from any member or any official of the Civil Service Commission, and to or from any member of parliament or other persons or person, with reference to the service or fitness or otherwise or relating in any way to the dismissal or proposed dismissal of Charles W. McLennan, fishery guardian, river Denys, Inverness county, Nova Scotia.



ROSS RIFLE FACTORY-REMOVAL OF STORES

Mr. POWER:: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, exchanged since August 7, 1930, between the chairman of the National Battlefields Commission or any member thereof, and the Solicitor General, the Prime Minister, the acting Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, the deputy Minister of National Defence, relating to the removal of stores from the Ross Rifle building at Quebec, and the demolition, either in whole or in part, of the said building, and the transfer of the site of the said property to the city of Quebec.



DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS

Mr. VENIOT (for Mr. Power):: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, exchanged since August 7, 1930, between any person or persons, firm or corporation, and the Solicitor General, Prime Minister, acting Prime Minister, Minister of National Defence, deputy Minister of National Defence, or the director of contracts of the Department of National Defence, relating to offers or tenders or submission of prices or recommendations in favour of any proposed contractor or oppo-

Unopposed Motions for Papers
sition to any such contractor, in connection with the demolition of the Ross Rifle factory, Quebec, or any part thereof, together with all tenders, offers or prices submitted by any party or parties in connection with the said demolition.



TRANSFER OF SITE

Mr. VENTOT (for Mr. Power):: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, exchanged since August 7, 1930, between the mayor of the city of Quebec, or any member of the city council or any members of parliament and the Solicitor General, the Prime Minister, the acting Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, the deputy Minister of National Defence, relating to the removal of stores from the Ross Rifle building at Quebec, and the demolition, either in whole or in part, of the said building, and the transfer of the site of the said property to the city of Quebec.



REMOVAL OF MILITARY STORES AND MACHINERY

Peter John Veniot: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, exchanged since August 7, 1930, between any person or persons, firm or corporation, and the Solicitor General, Prime Minister, acting Prime Minister, Minister of National Defence, deputy Minister of National Defence, or the director of contracts of the Department of National Defence, relating to offers or tenders or submission of prices or recommendations in favour of any proposed contractor or opposition to any such contractor, in connection with the removal of military stores and machinery from the Ross Rifle factory, Quebec, together with all tenders, offers or prices submitted by any party or parties in connection with the said removal of military stores.



DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR-ESTIMATES

Thomas Reid: For a return showing the total amounts appropriated during the first session of 1930, either in the main estimates or in any supplementary, to the Department of Interior, and also a return showing the total amount of such moneys as were expended by provinces.



J. ARTHUR BERNIER

Mr. SEGUIN:: For a copy of all documents, letters, correspondence, memoranda, in connection with an inquiry held in the case of Mr. J. Arthur Bernier, former customs and excise district inspector at Montreal; also a copy of said inquiry and the report made in connection with same, along with a copy of all documents, letters and correspondence relating to the retirement of the said J. Arthur Bernier.



DOCTOR DIGOUT

Mr. ILSLEY:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, telegrams, petitions and other communications to or from the Minister of the Interior, and any other ministers, minister or official of the government or any member or official of the

Civil Service Commission and to or from any member of parliament or other persons or person, with reference to the service or fitness or otherwise or relating in any way to the dismissal or proposed dismissal of Dr. Digout from the position of medical attendant to the Indian reservation at St. Peter's, Nova Scotia.



WILFRID BOUDREAU

James Lorimer Ilsley: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, telegrams, petitions and other communications to or from the Minister of National Revenue, the commissioner of customs, and any other ministers, minister, or official of the government, and to or from any member of parliament or other persons or person, with reference to the service or fitness or otherwise or relating in any way to the dismissal or proposed dismissal of Wilfred Boudreau, officer of the Department of National Revenue, customs division, at St. Peter's, Nova Scotia.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Dropped.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Dropped.



CONSTRUCTION OF ICEBREAKER-HUNTERSTOWN

Mr. OASGRAIN:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, requests and correspondence exchanged with the Department of Public Works or any officer thereof at Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec with the authorities of Hunterstown, county of Mask-inonge, in connection with the construction of an ice-breaker at Hunterstown; also plans, estimates and specifications for the construction of said ice-breaker, along with a return showing pay lists with the names of all labourers and carpenters employed on the said works, the amounts paid to each one, and amounts paid to the contractors who had charge of the said works during the year 1930.



DEPARTMENT OF MARINE-ESTIMATES

Mr. McINTOSH:: For a return showing the total amounts appropriated during the first session of 1930, either in the main estimates or in any supplementary, to the Department of Marine, and also a return showing the total amount of such moneys as were expended by provinces.



RED CROSS, SASKATCHEWAN-POSTMASTER

Cameron Ross McIntosh: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, affidavits, reports and other documents received by the Postmaster General, or any of his officials with regard to the alleged partisanship of the postmaster at Red Cross, Saskatchewan.



NORTH BATTLEFORD-AGRICULTURE EXPERIMENTAL STATION

Cameron Ross McIntosh: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, affidavits, investigations, documents and reports received by the Minister of Agriculture, or any of his officials, or on departmental files before the present Minister of
Unopposed Motions jor Papers

Agriculture assumed responsibility for the department over which he presides, with regard to any recommendation made or conclusion arrived at in connection with the establishment of an agricultural experimental station in the northwestern part of the North Battle-ford federal constituency, either north or south of the Beaver river.



SPRUCE LAKE, SASK.-POSTMASTER

Cameron Ross McIntosh: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, affidavits, reports and other documents received by the Postmaster General, or any of his officials with regard to the alleged partisanship of the postmaster at Spruce Lake, Saskatchewan.



ST. ALBAN, QUEBEC, RURAL MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. DESROCHERS:: For a copy of all documents and correspondence exchanged in relation to Mr. Jos. Lecuyer, holder of the rural mail contract at St. Alban, in the county of Portneuf, Quebec, and also a return showing if an inquiry was held in this connection, the name of the inquiry commissioner, the place where it was held, and the result of same.



LORETTE INDIAN AGENCY

Jules Desrochers: For a copy of all advertisements, applications, recommendations, ratings, memoranda^ of points received as a result of examination, in connection with the appointment of Maurice Earl Bastien, Jr., as Indian agent for the Lorette agency, Quebec.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES

Mr. HURTUBISE (for Mr. Boulanger):: For a return showing the total amounts appropriated during the first session in 1930, either in the main estimates or in any supplementary. to the Department of National Revenue, and also a return showing the total amount of such moneys as were expended by provinces.



RIMOUSKI ACCOUNTS

Sir EUGENE FISET:: For a return showing the full and complete details of all accounts submitted by Mr. Gerard Sim>ard, of Rimouski, Quebec, amounting to $488.50 for ten days work, as appears in sessional paper No. 128 laid on the table of the house; and also showing the full and complete details of all accounts submitted by Mr. Alphonse Garon, of Rimouski, amounting to $966.90 for thirty-three days , work, as appears in sessional paper No. 128 laid on the table of the house.



ST. ZACHARIE CUSTOMS OFFICER

Mr. DENIS (for Mr. Lacroix):: For a copy of all orders in council, documents, correspondence, memoranda and reports in connection with the dismissal of Edouard Groleau as customs excise enforcement officer at St. Zacharie, Quebec.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-ARGENTEUIL

Joseph-Arthur Denis: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, letters, exchanged between the Minister of Labour at Ottawa and the director of unemployment at Ottawa, and any person or persons, in connection with the expenditures of moneys under the Unemployment Relief Act, in the township of Gore, county of Argenteuil, Quebec.



POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP

Albert Frederick Totzke: For a return showing the names of the persons charged with political partisanship whose conduct was investigated by Major Theodore Paquet, advocate of Quebec, together with an indication of the result of each such investigation, and of the expenses incurred in each case; also a return showing whether or not the person accused of political partisanship was present or was represented by counsel or otherwise, and the name of such counsel where he was so represented.



Mr. BOTHWELL:: For a return showing the names of the persons charged with political partisanship whose conduct was investigated by Robert Cote, advocate of Quebec, together with an indication of the result of each such investigation, and of the expenses incurred in each ease; also a return showing whether or not the person accused of political partisanship was present or was represented by counsel or otherwise, and the name of such counsel where he was so represented.



BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS

Paul-Arthur Séguin: For a copy of all documents, letters, correspondence, requests and petitions, in connection with the establishment of a reserve zone against bovine tuberculosis in the county of l'Assomp-tion-Montcalm.



ST. LAZARE DE BELLECHASSE POST OFFICE

Joseph-Fernand Fafard: For a copy of all documents, reports, correspondence, letters, telegrams, recommendations, requests, applications, protestations, relating to the dismissal of Madame Alphonse Leroux as postmistress of St. Lazare de Bellechasse, and the change in location of the said post office.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FAFARD;
For a copy of all correspondence, reports, memoranda and recommendations exchanged between the federal Minister of Labour or any other Minister of the federal cabinet and the director of unemployment at Ottawa, on the one hand, and the Minister of Labour of the province of Quebec, or any other minister of the Quebec provincial cabinet and the director . of unemployment, at Quebec, on the other hand, relating to:	(a) the date fixed for the commencement of works undertaken under the Unemployment Relief Act, 1930; (b) the date
Motions for Papers
[Stage Direction]
fixed for the completion of such (corks, together with all instructions, rulings and regulations issued by the federal government or its representatives in connection with the aforesaid matter.


Mr. TETRAULT:: For a copy of all documents, letters and correspondence, in connection with indemnities to be paid by the federal government for slaughtered animals in the province of Quebec, under the system of reserved zones, since the establishment of said system; also a return showing the number and the average indemnity of the slaughtered animals by counties, and the average indemnity per head of cattle ranging from the age of one, two, three and over, for registered animals and cross-breeds.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: I do not know whether the hon. member (Mr. Tetrault) is present or not, but it seems to me he hardly wants to get all the information contained in this notice of motion. This would mean going away back to the beginning of the system, many years ago, and it would involve a very voluminous return. I can see no objection to the information being provided if he really requires it over such a long period, but I suggest he might limit its scope.
Motion stands.



PENSION TRIBUNALS

Mir. DUFF:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, or instructions, sent by the registrar of the pension tribunal or the chairman thereof, or under the direction of either of the pension tribunals or any member thereof, and for a copy of all letters, telegrams or other eom-munications sent to the registrar or chairman of the said pension tribunal by any member thereof or by instructions of any member thereof.


William Duff: I was unavoidably absent, Mr. Speaker, when this motion was called the other day. I notice by Hansard that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) thought that this motion might be dropped. I can assure him and the house that I am quite willing to restrict its scope as much as possible, and consequently, I would amend the motion to read as follows:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, or instructions sent between the 1st of November, 1930, and the 1st of April, 1931, by the registrar of the pension tribunal or the chairman thereof, or under the direction of either the chairman or registrar of the pension tribunals holding sittings throughout Canada, and for a copy of all letters, telegrams or other communications sent to the registrar or chairman of the said pension tribunal by any member thereof or by instructions of any member thereof between the above dates.

That restricts the information to a certain period.


Murray MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I do not
gather from what the hon. member has said that his restriction would limit the correspondence very materially, for it covers practically the active period of the tribunals' work. I believe the furnishing of the required information would involve several hundred pages of returns. As was pointed out, I believe by the Prime Minister, the tribunals and appeal court are like judicial bodies and are largely independent of the department which I happen to have under my charge. I would suggest to the mover of this motion that there is no difficulty in obtaining the information such as he desires from any of these bodies, and if he would write to the tribunals or to any of the officials thereof, I feel satisfied that they would be ready to afford him such information.


William Duff: I do not quite understand
what the minister means. He first stated that this motion would involve very voluminous returns covering several hundred pages; then he asks me to write a letter to the tribunals to get the information. I think my request is a very fair one. If it takes a little time to secure the information I am willing to wait for it, but certainly I think I am entitled to what I have asked for.


Murray MacLaren: True, I stated that the information would involve a voluminous return of several hundred pages, but I still think that my suggestion to him is not inconsistent with the first part of my statement. Again I suggest that he communicate with the tribunal, and so get all the information he wishes without having it burdened with a lot of purely routine matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. Minister of Pensions (Mr. MacLaren) in his reference to these tribunals as being purely judicial bodies and thereby impliedly comparing them with our civil courts.


Murray MacLaren: Excuse me, I did not
say "purely" judicial; I said judicial.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So long
as we have in this house a minister responsible for the administration of the War Pensions Act, I think all questions should be answered by him, and I think all returns-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Speaker, these are
not debatable motions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. minister has spoken, and I thought I might have the same indulgence.

Motions jor Papers


Hugh Guthrie: No one can reply to the minister.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Cannot
anyone reply to ministers now?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was
going to suggest that the minister should furnish the return asked for.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This discussion is entirely out of order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Eusèbe Roberge: For a copy of all orders, and correspondence, in the possession of the government or any member thereof, reports, memoranda, including letters, confidential or otherwise, written by any member of parliament or minister of the crown or any other person, relating to the decision taken by the Minister of Public Works not to proceed with the construction of the public building at Black Lake, Quebec, for which construction the sum of $26,000 was voted in the estimates for the year 1930-1931.


George Halsey Perley: I should like to direct attention to the words "confidential or otherwise" in the third line of this resolution. It is a well known principle that confidential letters are not included in these returns.


Peter John Veniot: They are included if they are acted upon. That decision was made against me in 1929; any confidential message or letter, if acted upon, must be included in the return.


George Halsey Perley: I have never seen any confidential letters in these returns, I think these words should be left out.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion must be considered as it is printed. If the house does not wish to pass it, it may be denied. Those in favour will kindly say aye.
And the yeas and nays having been called for:


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I declare the motion lost.


George Halsey Perley: May I suggest that since the hon. member is not here perhaps the motion might stand until he comes. He may be willing to have these words dropped.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He is here.


Eusèbe Roberge: Mr. Speaker, the interest of my constituents requires that this correspondence be brought down, and I think that we are entitled to have it.


Charles A. Stewart: May I inquire if the motion now is refused by the house?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I called for the yeas; I
called for the nays, and I declared the motion lost.


Charles A. Stewart: May I point out that it is a rather peculiar procedure to refuse information of this character?
Motion negatived.



PEGGING OF WHEAT PRICES

Cameron Ross McIntosh: For a copy of all petitions, resolutions, recommendations, letters, telegrams, documents, reports, as well as an epitome of all verbal representations addressed or communicated to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture. or any other minister, recommending the pegging of wheat or grain prices from any farmers' organization, pool selling agency or unit thereof, municipality, board of trade, service club, community association and individual or collection of individuals, from the North Battleford federal constituency since July the 28th last, and the respective replies thereto.


Hugh Guthrie: In regard to this motion,
I am instructed to say that the documents are so many that it will take months to prepare them. There are literally thousands of them.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: This is only one riding.


George Halsey Perley: As a matter of fact, if the hon. gentleman wishes to put it through in this way I see no abjection. But the great bulk of these letters, telegrams and petitions are more or less in the same language and of the same purport. The ex-Mindster of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) amended a motion of his the other day so as not to require all these to be copied. Most of the answers were drawn up in the same terms, one after the other, and I thought possibly the hon. member might consider altering the motion somewhat with a view to receiving typical telegrams and letters and the total number of them, or something of that kind. I have no objection to his receiving the information.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. HEPBURN:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, other documents, on file in the Department of Immigration dealing with the deportation by United States authorities of one August Gabert, formerly of Toronto and Welland, to Germany, and with the pending deportation of his wife, Bertha, to the same country by the Canadian authorities.


George Gordon: If it is a fact, as seems to be indicated in the resolution, that the deportation of this woman is pending before the department, I have no personal knowledge of it, yet its pendency is likely on some appeal

International Peace-Miss Macphail
to the minister. I suggest to the mover of the resolution, who is not in his seat, that he allow the matter to stand until I have had an opportunity to look into it; because I doubt the wisdom of having an order of this character pass when an order for deportation may be pending in appeal before the person entitled to hear and determine such appeal.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In the absence of the mover, the resolution will stand.
Motion stands.



POLITICAL PARTISAN SHIP

Mr. VALLANCE:: For a return showing the names of the persons charged with political partisanship whose conduct was investigated by Fanning Gosselin, advocate of Quebec, together with an indication of the result of each such investigation, and of the expenses incurred in each case; also a return showing whether or not the person accused of political partisanship was present or was represented by counsel or otherwise, and the name of such counsel where he was so represented.
Mr. LaVERGNE: In every case the accused was represented by counsel.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, for every one hundred dollars spent on war one dollar should be spent to promote peace by instituting international professorships and scholarships in leading Canadian universities.
She said: I spoke on a similar matter last year, there was then quite a long debate on it, and I hope therefore that we shall not now find it necessary to consume ifiuch of the time of the house. The resolution last year was referred to the committee on industrial and international relations and that committee called four witnessess as follows:
Dr. O. D. Skelton, Under Secretary of State, Department of External Affairs.
Mr. Graham Spry, national secretary of the associated Canadian Clubs.
Dr. Norman A. Mackenzie, L.L.M., head of the Department of International Law, of Toronto university.
Professor P. E. Corbett, dean of the Faculty of Law, McGill university.

Dr. H. M. Tory, president of the League of Nations Society of Canada submitted a written memorandum. Letters from Dr. Murray, president of the university of Saskatchewan, Professor R. A. MacKay, of Dal-housie university, and Dr. Robert C. Wallace, of the university of Alberta, were also submitted to the chairman and were embodied in the report.
The committee reported back to the house and since the report is very brief, I want to give it to the house. They said:
1.	That the facilities that now exist in the Department of External Affairs should be extended and increased, especially in regard to the spreading of information on the international relations of Canada with other countries in the commonwealth of British nations, and also with other nations of the world. Your committee are of the opinion that this department is doing excellent work along these lines and recommend for your consideration the establishment of a central research library on inter-imperial and international matters in connection with the department.
2.	That the whole subject be given further consideration by a committee of the house at the next session of parliament.
It is because of the last paragraph in the report of the committee that I am again addressing the house on the subject. While the witnesses before the committee did not all agree with each other, nor did the members of the committee all think we ought to have chairs on international relations in the universities, nor did they all think we should have scholarships on international affairs in the universities, still there was a feeling in the committee and I think it was unanimous that Canada does lack in those facilities which will fit our young men and women, graduating from the universities, to become servants of Canada in our legations abroad or to serve Canada well in the field of research or journalism or the many other things requiring extensive knowledge of international affairs. As a matter of fact, I think we can go so far as to say that some understanding of international affairs and of the relation of Canada to the world as a whole, is required bv everyone twenty-one years of age and over. Everyone who votes today ought to have at least some understanding-and the greater the understanding the better-of international affairs.
Because I know what a lot of evidence and reports come to the desks of members. I am aware how difficult it is to find time to read them, so I want to review as briefly as I can some of the points made by the witnesses. Mr. Norman Mackenzie, who, as I said a moment ago, is head of the department of International Law in the university of Tor-

International Peace-Miss Macphail
onto, stressed the fact that we have not the library facilities that we should have. He said:
I know myself that our libraries are not adequate and any method of assistance that the government ean suggest would be desirable, and 1 am sure would be accepted.
At another place he says:
You might establish in Ottawa a library on international law and international relations in connection with the Department of External Affairs, in connection with the library of parliament, or in connection with the Archives. That is one way. Students would come here in their spare time, vacations and so on, to study.
Then, he gave another suggestion which seemed to me to have merit. He said:
I suggest that the Department pf External Affairs, in addition to the publications that it does issue from time to time, should compile each year a volume of those documents that are not seoret, those documents that are public documents, relating to international or interimperial affairs in Canada, and include with them the debates in Hansard on international affairs and imperial affairs. I think that kind of publication would be of great value to students of international law and international relations, not only in Canada but all over the world.
Dean. Corbett also made it clear that he did not believe that we had the facilities in our universities that we ought to have. Dr. Murphy asked Dean Corbett this question:
Do you feel our Canadian universities have not been keeping apace, in growth and knowledge, on international subjects?
Dean Corbett replied:
I am afraid that that is true. I think that the universities have lagged behind, that they have not recognized the charms and the importance of international affairs as a medium of liberal education, for one thing. I think that may be explained by the lack of money, but not' entirely. There has been a tendency among the universities to regard university training as to being exclusively aimed at the preparation of men for a business or professional life in this country, and too little attention to fitting them for life as members of the human community.
Professor R. A. MacKay of Dalhousie university told something of his work. He said that he taught the subjects of international law and international relations at Princeton and Cornell universities, and also at Dalhousie, and returned to Canada three years ago. He said:
Since my return to Canada three years ago, I have been more and. more impressed with our deficiencies in teaching international relations in Canada. In the first place, there is relatively little attention given to the field in our universities. Secondly, the facilities for teaching the subject in Canada are utterly inadequate. Rot a single library is adequately equipped for research work, except in isolated
subjects. In this respect eastern Canada is, perhaps, the worst section of Canada. For example, so far as I am aware, there is no collection of the British Accounts and Papers, or British, Foreign and State Papers, or British Hansard, in the maritime provinces. Nor is there any complete collection of the League of Nations papers, nor American government documents.
The same professor also said:
We need to train experts for public service, for teaching, for research, for journalism and other activities. At present there are really no adequate facilities for this in this country.
Dr. Skelton gave a most excellent speech. I shall not go into it because he did not give those short quotations that suit my purpose at the moment; but his speech is well worth reading by every member who has not already done so. Dr. Skelton, while he was very careful, admitted that much more could be done than was being done to fit students to function well in the realm of international affairs.
I am going to suppose that members of the house will Say: Whale this may be very good, it cannot be done because education is a matter over which the provinces have jurisdiction, and we cannot interfere. I want to quote what was said on that point by Dr. Skelton, Professor Mackenzie and Dean Corbett. May I quote from Dr. Skelton first. Speaking of scholarships he said:
They (the Dominion government) could establish scolarships without incurring the discrimination involved in selecting this institution or that institution for the grant of funds for a chair of international relations.
He goes on:
There is, further, a certain precedent in the aid given by the Dominion government to the National Research Council, which uses a large part of its federal grant, in establishing bursaries and scholarships to students in the natural sciences, though these are practically all used for graduate work in Canada itself.
I want the members to recall that Professor Mackenzie teaches international law, and in speaking of this difficulty of the provinces having jurisdiction over education, he says:
Now, among other things, I teach constitutional law, and realize that there are certain difficulties in the way of the Dominion government, or the federal parliament, interfering with the rights of the provinces.
Further on he said:
But I do feel that there are steps that the Dominion government ean and should take to bring the matter of education in international relations to the attention of the authorities in the provinces. One of the methods that I would suggest to the people that are interested in such things is the method that has been adopted by the Department of National Defence.

1454	COMMONS
International Peace-Miss Macphail
He goes into that method a little more fully. Dean Corbett, who is also a professor of law, in dealing with this point said that onee the principle was agreed to, he felt that anything that stood in the way of its being carried out could be overcome. Last year the then Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), speaking to my resolution, on March the 6th, said, at page 354 of Hansard:
By a request from the provinces or by negotiations of some kind a way might be found to effect the purpose of the resolution.
So we have all these authorities saying that if the government really wanted to give a grant to the universities of the provinces, a way to do it could be found. I agree with that, because I have noticed in this house that when the government really wants to make a grant, there are ways found to get around any difficulty. The cadet grant which goes to the provinces is certainly one instance, and another is the grants for technical education. Then, too, the federal government has charge of peace and war. It is their business to prepare the country so that if we go into a war we shall win. Those who believe that we can win security best by armaments rely upon the federal government for the armaments. So I think it is perfectly fair to say that if the Dominion government are looked to by the people of Canada to win security through armaments, they should also be looked to to secure security through other methods, one of them being education. We are spending a very great sum of money yet for armaments and military preparation. Possibly over 40 per cent of our total budget goes on war account, past and in preparation. So, while I am not stressing the one dollar for every hundred, because to me that would only be the thin edge of the wedge, I do not feel that it is too much to ask the Dominion government to give some leadership in this matter, and leadership in a financial way, to the universities to help them prepare graduate students to function well in the realm of international affairs.	[DOT]
I want to quote again, because it is really the evidence that I am most concerned with, what these men said might be done. Professor Mackenzie gave the sort of evidence that can easily be quoted from. He said:
I am not particular how it is done, but I do think that it is of great value to have as many young men and young women as we can from our country going to other countries for their post-graduate work. They go to Prance; they go to Germany; they go to Italy; they go to Great Britain; to the United States. They come back with a different attitude toward international relations and toward the opinions and ideas and cultures of other peoples.

And President Wallace, in the letter which he sent to the chairman of the committee, also stressed this point. He said:
My feeling is that scholarships sufficient in attractiveness to give our best men an opportunity to spend some time at Geneva and elsewhere in Europe would on the whole be the best service that could be provided to stimulate interest and knowledge in international affairs. As a rule it is not possible for universities with their relatively limited finances to provide such scholarships and we have to rely on public-minded citizens who are interested in this work or the Dominion of Canada to help out in financing such schemes.
Professor Murray of the university of Saskatchewan referred to the benefit they had received from the fact that certain of their professors had gone abroad. He said:
It seems to me the greatest assistance could be derived from travelling scholarships enabling students and teachers of the university to see conditions at Geneva and Europe at first hand. This opinion is given because of our experience here.
Two students and one professor, Mr. Simpson, Professor of History, were enabled to visit Geneva and study conditions in Europe and they returned ardent advocates of the League of Nations and firmly convinced of the necessity of promoting a better understanding among peoples of the world.
He stated further that it would be worth while for other people to go. As members of the committee will recall, Professor Skelton made a suggestion. His suggestion was that in examinations for the position of first, second and third secretaries of the Department of External Affairs those who stood first in the examinations would be appointed in the usual way to their positions in the department. Those who came next in the list would be given an opportunity at the expense of the Dominion government to go to Europe themselves, to attach to one of the legations for part of the year, and then to spend the rest of the year in a foreign university. The reference is rather long and I am not quoting the exact words. This winter I read with great interest a book entitled "Learning and Leadership" by Alfred Zimmern. I found in it a sentence which fits my resolution very well. In this book Mr. Zimmern discusses the great need of education because of our changed position in this world wherein the interdependence of nations plays so great a part. At page 54 I find the following:
The opening of the mind to international understanding is indeed not a special luxury for the few. It is an indispensable concomitant of democracy. It goes with the vote. "We must educate our masters," said an English statesman at a moment when the suffrage had been widely extended but no system of general popular education yet brought into being.

International Peace-Mr. Guthrie
And then he adds:
We are in a similar perilous interlude to-day. We have established an international political organization without providing the people with the means for understanding or controlling it.
That statement I feel is true, and it is because I feel it is true that again I urge the house to do something to help the universities prepare our people for the new responsibilities upon them. Dr. Skelton in his rather lengthy but most excellent speech before the committee stressed the shrinking character of the world to-day. He pointed out that humanity is one, and that we must know much more about each other than we have in the past. That for which I am asking in this resolution is not new. The national government of France has done a great deal to provide scholarships and to encourage students to come from other countries to their country, and to enable French students to study abroad. There are departments of international relations in several universities. There is one in the national college of Wales, and another at the London School of Economics. I might mention that Professor Zimmern was the first professor of international relations in the college of Wales. Many American universities have such a department and while Cambridge and Oxford do not so designate the departments, they have eight or more professors lecturing on international law and international relations. I feel that any hon. member who read from beginning to end the evidence I have in my hand would feel that in this country we lack facilities. We lack library facilities; we need more scholarships to send students abroad and bring others to us, and I think it is not too much to ask that at some point in Canada we should have a department in a university which could be called "the department of international relations." At the present time we have no such university department. I know as well as other hon. members in this house that we must have economic justice before we can have permanent peace. I realize that education alone will not bring the state I desire. Surely however if we have departments, professors and students who are devoting their time especially to the study of international relations as they exist to-day, we will be doing something to bring about economic justice. It is because this seems to me to be true that I again present the resolution before the house for its favourable consideration. All I ask hon. members to do is to have the resolution again sent to the committee on industrial and international relations.
22119-93J


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest this afternoon to the address which has just been concluded by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). I remember quite well that about a year ago the same hon. member addressed this house upon a motion similar to that to which she has just spoken. The hon. member is to be congratulated on the very deep interest she has always taken in this matter. The subject she has presented to the house is one which must be of general concern to all right thinking people in the various countries of the world; I refer to the great cause of international peace. I realize that it is to that subject she has directed her remarks. If I say sir, that in my humble judgment her proposal is more academic than practical, I trust she will take no offence at my remarks. I think perhaps the motion she has placed before the house may be viewed in the fight of an invitation to engage in a general discussion of the question of the furtherance of peace in the world; that, I take it, is the central idea of her motion. I believe she has in mind more the promotion of peace than a definite proposal for the expenditure of public money in a certain specific manner. One has but to look at the motion and note the exact language of it to form a proper conclusion. The motion is:
That, in the opinion of this house, for every one hundred dollars spent on war one dollar should be spent to promote peace by instituting international professorships and scholarships in leading Canadian universities.

Last year when the matter was under discussion the then Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), now the hon. member for Quebec East, raised an objection which to my mind is very formidable, namely,- that the motion as proposed is contrary to the express provisions of the constitutional act of this country. And I agree with the opinion in that respect expressed last session by the then Minister of Justice. We all realize that in this country we carry on within the confines of a written constitution, and I think we all know that section 93 of that written constitution very definitely prescribes that in and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in regard to education. I know of no section of the British North America Act which is so well known, and so well understood for that matter, as section 93 which I have just quoted, and in my opinion this motion as now drawn and presented to the house contravenes both the letter and the
1456	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Guthrie
spirit of that enactment. Holding that opinion, I for one could not agree that the house accept the motion in its present form.
I do not say for one minute that the constitutional difficulty is insurmountable. I recall many instances during the past fifteen or twenty years in this parliament when we have been able to overcome apparent constitutional difficulties by the manner in which parliament concluded to take action. This motion proposes a straight financial grant of one per cent of the amount which we now spend for armameuts for a special kind of education to be carried on through the agency of certain leading universities in the Dominion. That, in my judgment, Mr. Speaker, is, as I have said, a plain contravention of both the letter and the spirit of the British North America Act. I recall that on many occasions we have been able to circumvent some of the constitutional provisions by which this parliament is surrounded. I recall that this parliament did, on a former occasion, pass legislation to make grants for the construction of highways, and I realize that the question of roads, highways and bridges is purely and simply a question of municipal and of provincial legislation; but we did it, viewing the question of highways as being very closely concerned with the great transportation problems of the Dominion. But we did not do it in the manner suggested in this motion. We did it by a direct grant to the provinces in fair and equitable proportions, and we appointed the provinces the agency for the expenditure and control of that money within certain limitations and conditions which wq attached to, our grant. One need not argue before this house that parliament has no power to engage in ordinary highway construction; but we have power to make grants in aid of it, provided we make our grants through proper agencies and merely in aid of provincial work. So we did, only last August or September, in respect to unemployment- unemployment being a matter primarily municipal, then provincial, and lastly, and only lastly, a matter which pertains to the parliament of Canada; but we made our grants in that case direct to the provinces, and so we were able to overcome any constitutional objections. So we did in regard to technical education. Twenty-five years ago in this house it was urged in some quarters that parliament had no right to spend money upon technical education. I remember very well the discussions which then took place, because I think I had the honour of introducing the first resolution on the question of technical education. At first we thought the most we fMr. Guthrie.]
could do perhaps was to hold an inquiry, and a commission was appointed by the right hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and who was then Minister of Labour, to inquire into the whole question of technical education with the idea of ascertaining just what this parliament could do in regard to the matter. After the report was received parliament did take action, and in spite of section 93 of the British North America Act we made grants to the provinces. Having regard to the population of each province, our grants were upon a fair and equitable basis. We attached certain conditions and limitations to our grants, but we made the provincial authorities the spending authorities and allowed them control of the fund to carry on the great work of technical education within the various provinces.
Now, if such a course were adopted in this motion, I believe the constitutional difficulty would ibe overcome, but a considerable amendment of the motion as it is at present drafted would be required. If this parliament should consider it wise to make grants to further the objects so ably discussed by my hon. friend from Southeast Grey provision might be made for grants of money to the provinces, to be expended by them as they saw fit: but not, I submit, grants to the leading universities. No matter how worthy the object, no matter how good the intent, a grant by this parliament to any of the leading universities for the purposes mentioned in this motion would, I submit, be wholly unconstitutional and beyond the proper legislative sphere of the parliament of Canada. My view in regard to this proposal as it now stands before the house is that upon constitutional grounds it cannot be accepted.
However, there is another side to the question, and very briefly I propose to give the house my own views and opinions thereon.


Mr. CAYLEY:: How about the grants for cadet training in the public schools, especially the high schools?


Hugh Guthrie: That money, I understand, . goes to the provinces to be apportioned and spent by them, and is looked upon as part of, indeed it is included in, the expenditure of the Department of National Defence. Militia and defence is specifically mentioned in the British North America Act as one of the subjects over which this parliament shall have exclusive jurisdiction. But I submit that this motion should not be favourably entertained by this house for other reasons. Last year, as I listened to the discussion which took place on this motion, having particular

International Peace-Mr. Guthrie
regard to the able speech delivered by my hon. friend from Southeast Grey and to a number of other speeches which were then delivered, the only inference that I could draw from all I heard was that my hon. friend from Southeast Grey and those who saw fit to support the motion were under the impression that in some respects Canada was rather lagging behind in regard to this great question of world peace, that for some reason or other Canada was negligent or careless in regard to this question. I recall that my hon. friend from Southeast Grey mentioned that in Canada we have practically no peace societies, no magazines devoted to peace and no organized peace propaganda. These were some of the points which she urged last year as reasons why this house should adopt this motion.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am sure the Minister of Justice does not wish to misrepresent what I said. After having made the statement I did in that connection, I went on to enumerate the agencies we did have. I did say that as compared with other countries we were greatly lacking in such agencies, although I did not make the statement which the minister has just attributed to me.


Hugh Guthrie: Then let me say that my hon. friend stated that we had not sufficient peace magazines, peace societies and peace propaganda, and that as compared with other countries we were lacking in that respect. My view, Mr. Speaker-and I have given some considerable thought to the matter-is that of all the countries in the world to-day Canada has been in the forefront in her efforts in support of every movement for the establishment of world peace. That has been the consistent record of this country since the signing of the peace treaty at Versailles in 1919. Other countries may be open to criticism in respect of their efforts in regard to world peace, but of all the countries in the world Canada should be safe from any such criticism.
What is our position in that respect? We are but a small nation numerically; we are not rich. Canada consists of ten million people, at the most, in moderate circumstances, having a tremendous country to care for, yet we were among the first of the nations to subscribe to the peace treaty of Versailles, which was the starting point of all practical peace movements so far as the civilized world is concerned. Likewise we were among the first to subscribe to the covenant of the League o:f Nations, the first great practical measure that ever has been undertaken by the civilized nations to secure the peace of the world. Later
on we were among the first of the nations to subscribe to the theory of the world court, a permanent court of international justice to deal with disputes between nations and to settle those disputes by peaceable means. We subscribed to that at the very first opportunity, and we have adhered to that permanent court throughout all its vicissitudes from -that time down to the present. We have become a party to treaties having to do with the limitation of armament; we have become a party to the treaty for the renunciation of war, and what is more, we were among the first of the nations to accept what is known as the optional clause in regard to submission of all questions of international disputes to the permanent court at The Hague.
It is a strange thing, but within the last ten days no less than three members of this house have asked me just what is that optional clause, and I thought for general information and for convenience it might be well to put it on record. In the treaty under which the permanent court at The Hague is established, there is a clause which nations may aocept or reject. They may sign or they may refuse to sign, but having signed that clause they are compelled to submit practically all international questions to ithe arbitrament and decision of the permanent court. It is a matter of compulsion the moment they have signed the optional clause. Thai clause is as follows:
The undersigned, being duly authorized thereto, further declares on behalf of their government, that, from this date they accept as compulsory ipso facto and without special convention, the jurisdiction of the court in conformity with article 36, paragraph 2, of the statute of the court under the following conditions:
These are the conditions:
The members of the League of Nations and the states mentioned in the annex to the covenant may, either when signing or ratifying the protocol to which the present statute is adjoined or at a later moment, declare that they recognize as compulsory, ipso facto, and without special agreement, in relation to any other member or state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the court in all or any of the classes of legal disputes concerning:
fa)	The interpretation of a treaty;
fb)	Any question of international law;
(e) The existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;
(d) The nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.
The declaration referred to above may be made unconditionally or on condition of reciprocity on behaif of several or certain members or states, or for a certain time. In the event of a dispute as to whether the court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the court.
145S	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Guthrie
Let the house bear in mind that the court was constituted in 1920; its constitution then was settled. That constitution was revised in 1926, and Canada adopted that revised constitution. It was again revised and brought up to date in 1929, and again Canada adopted the revision. Canada has given her consistent support to the establishment of that permanent court for the settlement of international disputes for the last eleven years.
What has been the record of the court? There has been no outbreak of war since its establishment. It has settled case after case of very -far-reaching effect and of very great consequence which, under former conditions, might have resulted in actual hostilities. The record of the court up to date is clear; it is the highest record possible, because we have had no war and we have had no armed outbreaks. The more the nations throughout the world realize the situation and realize what that world court has attained and will attain in the future, I believe the more ready they will be, perhaps all of them, to become parties to the court and to sign the optional clause, as Canada has signed it, as Great Britain has signed it, and as all the British dominions now have signed it.
I grant that the outstanding defect of the permanent court to-day lies in the fact that our great and powerful neighbour to the south has not yet given its complete adherence to that international tribunal. We all hope the day may come, in the not too distant future, when the difficulties will be arranged which at the moment prevent the United States from joining the permanent court and adopting the optional clause. The parties are very close together at this moment, as a matter of fact; the senate of the United States has made five definite reservations, and if these reservations are accepted by the council and by the League of Nations the United States will become a party to the court. Four of these reservations are acceptable already to the League of Nations and to the court; one is still a bone of contention.
I believe most people think that perhaps within the next few months, or within the next year or two, these difficulties will be removed and the United States then will become a full-fledged member of the court and a full signatory to the optional clause, but the United States has lent powerful support to the work of that court and, indeed, to the establishment of the court in its inception. Many of the ablest jurists in the United States have done marvelous work to assist that court. Some of their ablest jurists

have been members of the court, and Mr. Kellogg, the former Secretary of State of the United States, is a member of it to-day, although the United States has not actually accepted the treaty.
The chief aim of that court is, perhaps, the highest aim which the human mind can contemplate: it is peace-international peace, world peace, the avoidance of war, the re-unuciation of war, the abolition of war, with all its dire consequences. Do not think me presumptuous, Mr. Speaker, when I say that the most important policy of this country and of every other country in the world to-day, the most important policy, whether foreign or domestic, is the maintenance of world peace. All other policies fade into insignificance at the merest suggestion of another world conflict. I grant you that it is somewhat discouraging to reflect that during the past year of grace the military and naval armaments throughout the world have increased rather than diminished. They were greater last year than they were prior to the outbreak of the war in 1914. The world's expenditures on naval and military armaments have been, I say, largely increased, notwithstanding leagues and covenants and courts and treaties of limitation, arbitration and renunciation. It only goes to show, Mr. Speaker, that men are not yet willing in this world to beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Something more, perhaps, is required. But that world court is doing all it is humanly possible to do at the moment. It is a practical agency; it is a powerful agency. I doubt whether we could add to its prestige or to its authority or to its power by passing this motion and establishing university scholarships as an aid in the peace movement. Let us devote our energies and our financial aid to those tremendous agencies for peace which are now at work in the world-the League of Nations, with all its ramifications, the permanent court, and the treaties of disarmament, if you will. And that is just another instance in which Canada has shown the world a wonderful example. No one can speak of this countiy as a militaristic country in any sense of the term. True it is that when the occasion arose Canada did herself proud and on short notice raised half a million men to take part in the great conflict. But, I repeat, we are not a militaristic people in any sense of the word. To-day we are the least taxed of any people in the world in regard to military or naval expenditures. I caught a word from the speech of my hon. friend from

International Peace-Mr. Luchkovich
Southeast Grey a moment ago which gave me the impression that she had said we spent about 40 per cent of our budget on armaments.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: For war expenditures past and present.


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose that includes interest on debt, pensions and the like. But it is a proud thing to know that to-day, according to the figures proposed in the estimates laid on the table this session, less than 4 per cent of our budget is for armaments. And if you take our expenditure on the basis of population you will find that this year it will be only $1.65 per head for all the people in Canada-far and away the lowest of any country in the- world. In the United States it is $5.85; in Great Britain, $13.70; in France, $7.60; in Australia, S3.85, and in New Zealand, $3.70, while in Canada, as I say, our expenditure is $1.65 per head for every man, woman and child in the country. Surely Canada is giving the world a real example in the w>ay of disarmament.
I do not say that we should go further in the matter of disarmament. I maintain that we have a trust in this parliament which must be carried out. We are trustees for the people of this country, for the safety of our land, and we must support some armament. Whatever is necessary to safeguard the shores of _ this country from invasion; whatever is necessary for the security of the life and property of our citizens; whatever is necessary to enforce respect for the rights of the people in regard to both life and property; whatever is necessary to maintain peace, order and good government, it is our bounden duty to supply a military force of sufficient strength to see to it that our shores shall remain inviolate, that our population shall be fully protected, and that peace, order and good government shall prevail in this country. I do not believe we can go much lower; indeed, the question that comes up in my mind is whether we have gone down too far already and have cut our estimate too greatly. True it is we have had to have regard to the conditions which prevail financially in Canada during the present year, and the extra cut has become necessary on that account. But I think we all realize that, with the vastness of our possession here, we must provide at least adequate military and possibly naval protection. And that, I am satisfied, this parliament will always grant. At the same time, however, I am glad to be able to state that among all the nations of the world that give returns and statistics
Canada, if judged by the actual figures^ is the least open to censure, the least open to criticism. But I do not think that we should be called upon to spend any more money than we are already spending, especially in academic pursuits such as that proposed in the motion which is now before the house.
Personally I have no objection to this motion going 'back to the committee which dealt with it last year. Much valuable information in regard to the nation seems to have been obtained from the deliberations of that committee. I do not think any practical result can come from the adoption of the motion, and while, as I say, I have no personal abjection to its going before that committee, for my part I think it would be better on all hands if we Simply allowed the matter to drop.


Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: I rise to place myself on record as being wholly in accord with the principle of the resolution moved by the hon. lady member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). I rise, firstly, because I am heartily in accord with the purpose of the resolution proposed by the hon. member, and secondly, because I have never before risen to support any lady- that is, on the floor of the House of Commons. In view of the fact that the subject under discussion is the question of peace, I believe it would be in place for me to set an example accordingly , by transposing my reasons for participating in this debate. Thus my chief reason would be to support a lady, especially when she is in such apparent but not real distress owing to the masterly speech delivered by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). And my second reason is my belief in what she says relative to peace.
Realizing as I do that many people in Canada and possibly some hon. members in this house-at least the Minister of Justice has said a few things with respect to what I am going to discuss-might frown upon the proposals made by the hon. lady member, on the ground that they are too purely idealistic, that is to say, righteous in theory but hopeless in practice, as suggested by the Minister of Justice, I should like to offer the Observation that in view of the tremendous necessity of our maintaining civilization, the best minds of the world, including no less a personage than a former prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, are recorded as doing something with respect to peace. Instead of ignoring the peace movement and regarding it as a sort of romantic dream, they are beginning to realize more
1460	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Luchkovich
and more that the peace movement is rooted in common sense and in the fundamental needs of genuine progress. The peace movement is not a mere pipe dream; it is rather the only practical and genuine cure for all the ills that mankind has fallen heir to because of the false and fallacious ideas held by our ancestors with respect to war as a solution for our national and international difficulties.
What great problem has the last war solved? Has it made this world a better, happier and safer place to live in? Who won the war? These are Questions I defy any hon. member to answer effectively and affirmatively. Believing as I do there is no single redeeming or permanently beneficial factor in war 1 cannot see why in the name of heaven we should tolerate or advocate war. The last war proved beyond doubt that there is no such thing as a victor in war; that on the contrary both the vanquished and the supposedly victorious are losers in such a futile conflict. In the words of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, civilization has to end war or war will end civilization. In an address to the World Alliance for International Peace, Mr. Meighen made the following very pertinent remarks:
This race of human beings has to adjust itself to new facts. That is, facts which never existed before. It has to adjust itself to new tremendous facts or pass out. The chief is this; science has given us so great a command over the elements of nature that millions can be snuffed out in this day in a mere matter of moments. Where hundreds fell before in manly contests, arm to arm, great cities, the whole countryside, can now be eaten up by the insatiate man of chemistry.
War has lost its efficacy; it can never bring victory again; it can only bring defeat and despair for both conquerors and conquered; it can leave nothing behind but victors in reaction, and vanquished in revolution, and all alike impoverished. This then is the situation which we face-a long concourse of nations wanting peace, knowing as they must know that a real war now would crush them one and all, drive them back through centuries to primitive poverty and emaciation, until our civilization passes out as did civilization of old, knowing all these things, but nevertheless fearful and arming, ever arming,^ in response to the instinct for security. We know, everybody knows that security by armaments for one country means insecurity for another, and that competitive armaments will end where they have always ended, in competitive war.
What is the conclusion? It is the plainest conclusion ever drawn from the plainest facts. There has to be found a substitute for armaments, something else that will bring security not only to one, but to all. The sovereign right of a single people to fight must yield to the sovereign right of all to live. The practically minded man sees that it means the allocation of forces now controlled by governments, those physical forces which make for 
international destruction, that it means their allocation to abide the judgment of an international congress and their steady reduction to the dimensions of an international police. Let us pray that it does.
I plead again the law of necessity-of imperious overwhelming necessity, for a movement toward this goal is the only substitute for the armament system of this day, a system which left alone, may in no distant time send civilization crashing to its doom.
I doubt whether there is anything in the English language more powerful in its condemnation of war than this excerpt from the speech of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. The remarks which I have just read, coming as they do from a former leader of the party now in power, are perhaps all the more interesting to the house and lend greater force to the resolution which the hon. member for Southeast Grey has this afternoon so eloquently sponsored.
The resolution is a worthy one, deserving the full support of every hon. member. The only criticism I would make of it is not that it goes too far, but rather that it does not go far enough. The resolution as it stands on the order paper would limit the expenditure on the promotion of peace merely to instituting international professorships and scholarships in leading Canadian universities. As I understand the matter, therefore, the young men and women of Canada would not receive the benefit of these peace lectures, or peace propaganda, or whatever you wish to call it, but would have to wait until they matriculated out of high school and entered the university. While I agree that it is better to hear these peace talks even at the advanced age of university entrance than to hear none at all, nevertheless it occurs to me that the best, most effective and proper time to inculcate peace propaganda is when our young men and women are still in the public schools, I believe in the propaganda of peace, but I believe the seeds thereof should be sown in the springtime of youth when the mind is most elastic and receptive. I believe in starting from the bottom up rather than from the top down. That is why I contend that the lessons of peace should commence when children are just beginning to go to school, rather than wait until they are out of public school and high school, and ready to attend the university.
There was a time when it was thought that the only way to get peace was to fight for it, when nations figured that the only way they could be left alone was to make themselves so strong that no one would ever dare to attack them. There were times even in the not too distant past when this opinion

International Peace-Mr. Luchkovich
was considered sound common sense, but as an axiom of international life to-day it has serious drawbacks; for it expresses, as pointed out by Mr. Meighen, in the eyes of the present day intense and extreme nationalism, the main justification for militarism. Therefore, to those of this generation who know but too well to what a pass militarism has brought the world, some alternative to a policy of preparedness, of armed peace, some plan inspired and practical, must present itself instead of the present out of date and bar-borous method of arming for war. I believe the only true alternative is the substitution of the propaganda of peace for the propaganda of war. It includes the consolidation of peace, which consists, on the one hand, in removing as far as possible the causes of war and the preparation of definite means of dealing with situations likely to develop into war. and on the other hand, in the systematic strengthening of international bonds.
I understand that that is the twofold task of the League of Nations, which not only provides the machinery for dealing with the danger of war but, better still, has created a group of institutions the object of which is the strengthening of international friendship and the mutual interdependence of the nations of the world. But there is one force, Mr. Speaker, which it cannot control at will, and on which it must count for the full success of its aims, namely, public opinion, or rather the collective will of each nation to peace, friendship and cooperation with other nations. This end can to some extent be attained by means of the various organs which normally influence public opinion. But the most radical and thorough means of attaining it, the only means that promise deep and lasting results, lie in the education of the younger generation, in the thoughts of peace and the realization of our world citizenship. It is with the latter thought in mind that I refer to the public school as the proper place to start a propaganda of peace. In view of the present curriculum and the various textbooks prescribed I know that it would be a very difficult task for any teacher to do any direct and express teaching on the subject of international peace. But in lieu of a general overhauling and reorientation of our whole educational system, I see no reason why the subject of international peace could not in the meantime be taught in an indirect and incidental manner. There are at least three subjects in conjunction with which it could be taught effectively and efficiently.
Take the subject of history, for instance. In conformity with our modern idea of peace
propaganda, a wider horizon than the history of any particular nation would need to be opened up. Broad notions of world history would need to be given so that the history of one's own particular nation could be seen in its true perspective. I do not mean to say that the standpoint should not be national, for our first concern, after all, is with the land of our birth; but it ought not to be narrowly and exclusively national, for nations may come and nations may go, but the international cosmos goes on forever. History shows us that the Greeks came and the Romans came, and faded away; and that may happen with any civilization, and if the races which war with each other in the older countries would only take cognizance of that fact they would realize wherein lie the seeds of future warfare on the other side of the ocean. I have always thought that there has been too much stress laid on war in our history textbooks, rather than on the progress realized in times of peace. Men like Hannibal and Napoleon are glorified in dozens of pages of our histories while men like Fulton, Stephenson, Faraday and Edison are barely mentioned. Not that history should be falsified in the interests of pacifism by eliminating all mention of wars. Wars certainly are facts of history, and all too significant facts, at that; but war when mentioned must be presented in its true colours, in its cruel and sordid details and its ruinous consequences, somewhat after the fashion of that great book which most hon. members have no doubt read, Journey's End, and that other wellknown book, All Quiet on the Western Front. I can still remember the way I was taught history when I was a young lad. We had to remember the date of every battle and the number of men killed in that battle, and if the fatalities were greater on the enemy side, we thought it quite proper and patriotic to enthuse and gloat over that fact. How we did thrill over the rout and destruction of the enemy! In our youthful experience we were too foolish to understand that the destruction of our enemies meant also the destruction of ourselves. In those days it was considered unpatriotic to think otherwise, so imbued were we with the pernicious war propaganda which even now is so insidiously destroying what is not but should be a paradise on earth. That is one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I support the resolution of the hon. member for Southeast Grey. It is a practical resolution. It is no mere pipe dream, as has already been suggested in this house. On the contrary, it is rooted in common sense and in the fundamental needs of our present-day civilization.

International Peace-Mr. Pouliot
Take the subject of geography. The teacher is afforded here an almost equally good opportunity for instruction in sane internationalism. Full advantage should be taken of the new and better methods of teaching the subject, of laying stress on international links at all times, on international communications of all kinds, international commerce and industry, and migration. The growing internationalism of science and sport might also be referred to incidentally. Look at the way the world has been brought closer together by means of railways, steamships, aeroplanes, radio and moving pictures. But facts of this kind will not produce the desired effect unless their significance is brought out. Think of the thrill of the first aeroplane flight across the Atlantic from Europe that was made together by a Britisher and a German. How vastly different and more humane was it than the murderous struggle between the British and German nations that took place in the- great world war of 1914. It should also be shown that the different countries of the world are becoming to an ever-increasing extent dependent upon one another, and that all this international life is dislocated by war, in which ordinary men and women suffer in countless numbers.
Finally there is the religious aspect of peace. That is too delicate a subject for a layman like myself to discuss, and I therefore leave it to the more competent care and inspired guidance of the great spiritual leaders of the world.
I know that the hon. member for Southeast Grey will pardon me for digressing from the resolution as it is worded on the order paper, because I feel confident that she will agree with everything I have so far said on this subject. Her resolution calls for a specific expenditure out of the Dominion treasury for a specific purpose, namely, that, "for every one hundred dollars spent on war one dollar should be spent to promote peace by instituting international professorships and scholarships in leading Canadian universities". While that does not include the whole gamut of human relationships from public school to the universities, nevertheless it would ultimately tend to reach our young boys and girls. Be that as' it may, I am sure that the main purpose of the mover is to eliminate the propaganda of war and to substitute for it the propaganda of peace. For that reason I am going to support the spirit of the resolution, the discussion of which I hope will be. facilitated if it is referred to a committee. I now move an amendment to that end:
That the motion be amended by inserting after the word "house" the following: "the

government take into consideration that"; and inserting after the word "peace" the words: "and that such an amount be granted to the provinces for the purpose of"; and by deleting the word "by" in line three; and adding to the motion the words: "and that this motion be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations for consideration and to report to this house."


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Mr. Speaker, will you
read the motion as amended, please?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am afraid I cannot
very well read the motion as amended. 1 believe however it would read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house the government take into consideration that for every one hundred dollars spent on war one dollar should be spent to promote peace by, and that such an amount be granted to the provinces for the purpose of instituting international professorships and scholarships in leading Canadian universities, and that this motion be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations for consideration and report to this house.
Without some redrafting I think the resolution is too involved to be intelligible; I cannot accept it.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata):	Mr. Speaker, in the first place I
wish most heartily to congratulate the mover (Miss Macphail). Often it has been said that our lady colleague represents the women of this country, and this. resolution proves the truth of that statement. There is no woman in Canada who would not be favourable to it. It says:
That, in the opinion of this house, for every one hundred dollars spent on war, one dollar should be spent to promote peace by instituting international professorships and scholarships in leading Canadian universities.
At present some money is spent by this country to help make possible the promotion of peace by the' League of Nations. Some people may think that the league will provide a utopia. True, its results are not always apparent, but it gives an opportunity to the people of every race, creed and nation to meet together at Geneva to discuss international problems of wide importance. As these people meet together at different intervals, it is possible for them to discuss together matters of common interest.
Some years ago in the New York Times an article was published by Marshal Foch to the effect that the next war would be the most terrible and the most disastrous in the history of the world. Warfare has gone from bad to worse, and science is all the time studying new means of destroying human beings and property. With the innovation of powerful aeroplanes, mighty dirigibles which cross oceans and continents, and bombs more

International Peace-Mr. LaVergne
destructive than any hitherto devised, a city the size of New York, London or Paris might be destroyed within a few hours. Hon. members will recall having read in the papers not so long ago that in Hamburg, Germany, several years after the war, people were killed on the street by gas compounded by scientists to be used in warfare. The world is not settling down. Twelve years after the signature of the Peace Treaty of Versailles there is general unrest. Every day we learn that countries abroad are unsettled, and there are riots everywhere. Monarchs have lost their thrones. In to-night's issue of the Evening Citizen appears the following statement concerning a riot in Spain:
Mob applies torch to Catholic buildings in anti-church outbreak.
This is only one instance of what has happened in Europe, despite the excellent work of the League of Nations and the good will of the leaders of every state.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Leaders of democracy.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am a firm believer in
democracy; it has done a great deal of good in promoting the welfare of humanity.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Where?


Jean-François Pouliot: One cannot always prevent crazy or greedy people from waging riots and wars; therefore everything should be done to promote peaceful relationships among nations.
If the house agrees to the resolution, I suggest that a part of the money be applied to the teaching of Canadian history in Canadian schools. How can we be proud of our country if we have not learned the history of our forefathers? In fact the history of Canada is one of the most interesting histories of any country in the world. The work of the pioneers and its continuance by their successors until Canada has reached its present stage of development should be taught to our children in the primary schools. Sometimes this teaching is not as complete as it should be. My hon. friend from Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovrch) suggested that part of the grant should be given to the provinces. That might well be done to encourage the provinces to promote the teaching of the history of Canada in the primary schools.


Alan Webster Neill: Have the provinces asked for it?


Jean-François Pouliot: If they have not, why not bring the matter up at the next interprovincial conference? It is a matter of the utmost importance.
Mr. LaVERGNE: It is not a very peaceful history.


Jean-François Pouliot: But it is a history that records very few riots,-except lately the Quebec riots, which were rather justified. The times were not peaceful when the French settlers had to fight the Indians who were massacring the first missionaries-the first propagandists of civilization in this country. Nor were the times peaceful when they had to fight to preserve Canada to the British crown. But, as my friend knows, French-Can-adians stood for the British connection in 1775 and 1812, in spite of the fact that they were invited by Montgomery to join the Americans in their war against Great Britain.
Mr. LaVERGNE: If my memory is good, they had a few fights with the British crown before that.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes; but not afterwards. With the exception of 1837. Certainly Canadians had to fight for their rights. For instance, Lafontaine fought in the. legislative chamber for the French language, but- he used constitutional means in fighting for and preserving our rights. To-day Canada has become a nation. We are proud of it. This position could not be attained at once on account of the old racial prejudices that existed, but little by little those prejudices have been overcome, Canada has asserted her rights, and to-day she is one of the most-admired nations of the world. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, while it is impossible to prevent war, any steps that will delay such a catastrophe must be favoured and supported by every right thinking citizen in this country.
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Montma-gny): Mr. Speaker, if I could see any good reason to become a feminist it would be in the debating ability of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). She has certainly shown equality in debate of woman with man, although I do not know whether I am paying her a very high compliment in saying that.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am not so sure.
Mr. LaVERGNE: But, as I indicated to my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pou-liot), I am not such a rabid believer in democracy. There is an old proverb, almost as old as civilization itself, which tells us, "Si vis pacem, para bellum,"-if you want peace, prepare for war. I should like to support the motion if I understood exactly what it meant.
-for every one hundred dollars spent on war one dollar should be spent to promote peace-
1464	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. LaVergne
Everyone agrees with that. But how can we do it? And how can we come to a balancing of accounts? In my opinion the motion goes back about 170 years for its inspiration; it goes back to Jean Jacques Rousseau, who believed in the inborn goodness of man, that man was born good but that ci vlization or society had made him bad; which I think is contrary to the doctrine of original sin; for I have been taught that man is born evil and that it is only by redemption that he can become good. As a result of the theories of Jean Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire we had the French revolution. About a year before the king of France was beheaded all the members of the French national assembly were kissing one another in the belief that the revolution had ushered in the era of eternal peace and eternal goodness. Then the poor king, who through weakness or lack of knowledge of human nature, had accepted those theories, was beheaded. For the next fifteen or twently years Europe was in a state of almost continual war. Then we had that great-great-grandfather of the League of Nations, La Sainte alliance-the Holy Alliance-which was to preserve eternal peace in Europe, and this practically meant world peace. We know what happened. France had to defend herself against three invasions culminating in the siege of Paris by the Prussians in 1870, which was followed by the worst condition of all, the destruction of France by Frenchmen fighting against one another.
My opinion, if it is worth anything, is that the best way to prepare for peace is to build up a strong nation, to get citizens in their youth to believe in their duty to their country-not to humanity as a whole. Serve your country and you will be serving humanity. Give everything you have, your thoughts, your will, your talents, your future, your whole soul to your country, and you will be doing more for the peace of the world than by believing in international doctrines, doctrines which have produced what we see in Russia to-day-starvation, the negation of civilization, of the belief in God, of the belief in everything that humanity has always held sacred. Of course, I may appear to some of my hon. friends as very backward, but two thousand years ago we were told in the Sermon on the Mount: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them." But even if you do believe in this doctrine yourself, it is impossible to get the other party to believe in it too. Suppose the whole of Canada were disarmed and we said:	We believe in
[Mr. LaVergne. 1
absolute peace; the peace of all humanity. We believe humanity is good; we are going to throw away all armaments; we are going to do away with all military education. We will do away with police, because we believe the people will stop robbing and stop murdering. As a great Frenchman said, with regard to the abolition of capital punishment, "Que messieurs les assassins commencent," or, "Let the murderers begin." Suppose Canada believed in this principle; could we be sure the other nations of the world would believe in it? What was the result in Belgium in 1914, a country whose neutrality was guaranteed by the great powers of Europe' The neutrality of Belgium was violated by Germany, a country which had signed the treaty of neutrality. Two years later the same people who had denounced the violation of the neutrality of Belgium were violating the neutrality of Greece; I refer to France and England. These are very lofty, idealistic sentiments, but they never will become anything more while human nature remains what it is.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Might I ask the
hon. gentleman what he would do with the League of Nations, which is perhaps one of the most idealistic institutions in the world to-day?
Mr. LaVERGNE: That is a hard question to ask me-what I would do with the League of Nations, which is only a repetition of the Holy Alliance of 1815. I believe the League of Nations is doing its very best, but I sincerely believe the League of Nations cannot stop war. I believe that the day Russia is prepared, as she is preparing now, she will jump on the nations of Europe and America in an attempt to force upon them her theories of utopia and her new civilization, if it may be so called, by means of war.
It is quite impossible to believe that war will ever disappear, after all the years of human history. That is my conviction. I may be wrong; I hope that some day we will have a world-although I am afraid we shall not see it-where humanity will believe in peace and charity, but that cannot be and will not be until the teachings of the Master, who came to this world two thousand years ago, are accepted. Two thousand years have passed; those teachings are not acoepted as yet, and I am afraid it will be a very long time before they are accepted.
In conclusion, my theory is this: If you want to build up peace for our country and for the world, build up citizens who believe in their country and in their duty to their country, who believe that their first duty is to give their life to their country. In my opinion

International Peace-Miss Macphail
there is no greater movement in this direction and no surer way of accomplishing it than by building up our cadet movement all through Canada. In that way our children will be taught not only high ideals but also discipline. They will be taught to believe in authority; they will be taught that their lives do not belong to them only but to their country. This brings me back to the history of Canada, to which my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) referred. I despise and hate the word French-Canadian.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is wrong with it?
Mr. LaVERGNE: We are not French-Oana-dians; we are Canadians and nothing else. We are Canadians who speak French, but we were Canadians under the French regime and we shall not be hyphenated by anybody in this country. The history of us Canadians of French descent and of French language is not peaceful. Our ancestors were warriors. They believed that they owed to their country, to their forefathers and to their children the only grant which God has given man, which is life. You can preach on any doctrine; can you do away with sorrow in this world? You cannot. As you live you will see your dear ones disappear and you cannot do away with the sorrow which you feel by any social law or legislation. Can you do away with sickness by passing an act of parliament? If you can I will be the first to support the bill. Can you do away with death? You cannot. We should not forget that this life is only a passage, a transition. All sorrows, all misfortunes, mean nothing in the great scheme of things. The Russians teach that religion is only opium for the people, but it is a mighty good opium in that final operation of death. Unless we believe we must fight for our traditions, any social legislation is absolutely useless.
In closing let me say this: I believe that if we want to prepare for peace we dhould prepare for war. Let us build up a strong nation; let us build up our cadet movement and put in the minds of our young people the thought that we are trying to build up citizens who will believe in discipline, in authority and in something higher than the selfishness of mankind. I remember when I was quite a young iman, as a young officer following a course, hearing a lecture by an Australian officer.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Is he not a lieutenant-colonel in the army now?
Mr. LaVERGNE: I am, and I am proud of it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not blame my hon. friend for it; I was simply asking the question.
Mr. LaVERGNE: And while I did not go to the front I did all I could do during the war; I enlisted and it was not my fault that I did not go to the front.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman knows I am one of his friends and that I would dislike to offend him.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Yes, I know. But I was about to say that this Australian told us that until they had compulsory service in Australia their young men had no manners. They would be rude; they would do anything. After the introduction of compulsory service the change in the youth of Australia was remarkable. I believe .there is no better education for the young man than a military education. He is taught the idea of discipline; he is taught respect and those higher things a citizen owes to his country. He is taught that not only his money but everything he owns, and above all his life and his soul, belong to his country.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It will take me only a moment or so to say what I wish to say. I was very much disappointed in the speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) this afternoon. Does the minister suppose I did not know, and that other members of the house did not know, the different things which have been done by the government of Canada and by other nations to bring about peace in the world? I may tell him that I am as familiar with them as he is. It is because the government does these things with which the people of Canada are not familiar, that I feel the need of further educational facilities, that the young people may get a thorough training in the international relations into which Canada has entered. If, as the Minister of Justice has said, we have taken first place in the world-'which I very much doubt-it would be a very good thing to keep that place. And that is all the more reason why we should have some education. The government of last year had a different way of getting out of the difficulty, although, of course, both governments successfully got out. But I must say, in fairness to the late Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), that his methods are niter. I do not think that the present Minister of Justice is informing the house correctly when he says that the Department of National Defence give their money to the province and
1456	COMMONS
International Peace-Miss Macphail
the province distributes it here and there for cadet training. That is not exactly true. I have here an extract from the minutes of the Board of Education, Toronto, of March 5, 1931, in which this statement appears:
That the sum of $200, received from the Department of National Defence as a result of two former pupils of Danforth branch technical school having enlisted in the permanent air force after taking a two years' course at Camp Borden, be appropriated to the credit of the school for orchestra requirements.
I have nothing more to say. There is no reason why I should excite mysef regarding the education of Canadian youth in Canadian universities any more than one other hon. member. I believe, as the four witnesses last year and the three professors Who wrote us, made perfectly clear, that there is need of greater facilities.
The Minister of Justice suggested that Canada was looking to new ways of ensuring security and peace. If that is true, then the Dominion government has jurisdiction so far as the method of bringing about that condition is concerned, just as it had jurisdiction in the sphere of armaments. I must say I wa3 not impressed with the hon. gentleman's speech. I did not think he made clear any real objection to the motion except on the ground of its wording, which I admit is poor. But I kept it in its present form because it bears a relation to the wording of the resolution of last year.
I see no reason why the house should not send the resolution to the committee, though I admit, in view of the statement of the leader of the government that they do not approve of it, its reference to the committee will not help very much. We know that government members are in the majority on committees and we know also, in spite of all the talk about democracy, that the government governs. All that the rest of us can do is talk, which I do not propose to do at greater length at the moment.


Hugh Guthrie: There is no objection on this side to the matter coming before the oommittee.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the house ready for the question?


Hugh Guthrie: With the consent of the house, I would move:

That the following words be added to the motion:
"and that the matter be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations to consider and report upon the same."
If that is satisfactory.
/Mr. SPEAKER: With the unanimous consent of the house, the resolution as amended will read:
That, in the opinion of this house, for every one hundred dollars spent on war one dollar should be spent to promote peace by instituting international professorships and scholarships in leading Canadian universities and that the matter be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations to consider and report upon the same.
Motion as amended agreed to.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


James Shaver Woodsworth: That, in the opinion of this house, it is desirable that Canada should have the right to amend her own constitution, but that in proceeding to make any amendment, scrupulous care should be taken to safeguard the rights of minorities.
He said: At the recent conference between the Dominions and the provinces re the proposed statute of Westminster we find that the subject matter of this resolution was under discussion. I might say that that conference in itself was without precedent and perhaps created a rather dangerous precedent, although I frankly admit that the results were very satisfactory. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has promised another conference to consider amendments to the British North America Act, so that it would seem opportune that the house should discuss the Whole question.
When I introduced a resolution along this line some seven years ago, I was attacked on two sides. The imperialists, on the one hand, accused me of wanting to cut the. painter by which we were bound to the motherland. Their objection has been largely silenced by the Imperial conference itself of 1926, in which we heard such statements as "autonomous communities" and "equal in status and in no way subordinate one to another". On the other hand, at that time the guardians of provincial rights were up in arms. They considered that our British connections were safeguarding minority rights, and that objection is still to the fore although it comes from Ontario rather than from Quebec. Of this, more a little later.

British North America Act
I frankly recognize that any difficulty that confronts us is not at Westminster but here in Canada. The British parliament will undoubtedly meet Canada's views in this regard. We in Canada must come to an agreement. On the other hand, there is not much doubt that [DOT] the existing situation is an excuse for inaction. So long as we think we have to go overseas to settle the matter, it is very easy for either the Dominion or the provinces to blame their lack of action upon the British North America Act.
It is practical considerations that lead me to introduce this amendment. Social legislation of almost every kind is blocked by the British North America Act. Further than that, we cannot carry out our obligations under the Versailles treaty until we have some blearer understanding of the relative jurisdiction of the Dominion and the provinces. There are a number of questions to be bleared up. First of all, there is the question: what amendments are needed? Then as to procedure-and this is one of the most knotty problems-there is the question: how can these amendments be secured? Again there is the whole question of what the United States people call constitutional limitations, that to which I have referred in the resolution itself when I urge that in proceeding to make any amendment we should see that scrupulous care is taken to safeguard the rights of minorities, a suggestion in which-whatever amendments are made- I believe every hon. member will fully concur.
I propose for a few minutes to give a brief survey of the situation as it exists to-day, also some of the anomalies with which we wrestle. Since confederation there have been before the courts not less than five hundred constitutional cases. Supposing we place the average cost at $5,000 a case, which I take it would be a very moderate estimate, the house can see that millions of dollars are involved in litigation of this kind. Only the lawyers benefit, and I would suggest to my lawyer friends to-night that some of them at least should be sufficiently patriotic to support this resolution and thus place the interests of the country at large ahead of their own pecuniary advantage.
There are questions relative to geographical boundaries. In the old, simple agricultural communities, it was comparatively easy to set up line fences, and when the fathers of confederation were drawing up the British North America Act, that is what was done. They simply said: here are certain things that come within the boundaries of the provinces. But the problem is not quite so easy in the more complicated life of to-day. For example, who owns the air? The old scripture says "The wind bloweth where it listeth," but Premier Taschereau says that Quebec owns the air over Quebec. The question arises:	What about flying in the air? The
supreme court states that the Dominion does not possess exclusive authority with regard to control of aviation, but that the provinces have some rights. There we begin to get into difficulties. So with radio regulations. That question is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. Then there comes the whole question of water powers. It is easy to stake the land; it is not so easy to stake, as it were, the water. Take the question of the St. Lawrence river, which is certainly a knotty problem. The St. Lawrence river is part of a great system of waterways, extending from the great lakes to the Atlantic; it has not only interprovincial connections, but also international relations. Therefore it is not so easy to say just who should control a great stream like that, or the hydro powers that may be generated on it. Let me remind the house that some years ago, there was some difficulty with regard to the head waters of the rivers that supplied power for Manitoba. To meet the situation certain water powers in Ontario were placed under Dominion control. This was done under that clause in the British North America Act which refers to such works as are declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada.
Take another question, the fisheries in British Columbia. It used to be that fisheries clearly came under Dominion control, but now in the processing of fish we find that the canneries have to be erected on the land, and hence it was discovered that the Dominion had not exclusive control and was not in a position to grant certain licenses. Life to-day is much more complicated than it was sixty years ago.
Take other matters that relate to what might be called the boundaries with regard to certain political relations. The supreme court, for example, a few years ago decided that a woman was not a person within the meaning of the British North America Act. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has evidently amended our constitution by what someone has termed judicial legislation. The British North America Act is regarded by their lordships as "a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits." Let me say with regard to that position that in the Canadian Bar review Mr. George F. Henderson, K.C. of Ottawa, has given us .a very interesting and incisive comment. He says:
If, having regard to considerations of political expediency and the welfare of the state, the statute can be construed in accordance with
British North America Act

legal principles, so much the better, but, if not, those principles must yield to "the larger view" which political exigency dictates, the semblance of an observance of legal canons being given to the opinion delivered in order not too greatly to shock those who pin their faith to His Majesty the king in council as the final court of appeal for all countries of the British commonwealth except England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
There are other matters which have not been quite so satisfactorily settled, and about which we still have a good deal of trouble. I shall briefly enumerate some of them.
Take the question of the troops that were sent down to Nova Scotia in 1925. Who was to pay the bill? That question was before the courts, and I do not know that it has been decided yet.
Then there was the question of soldiers operating cars in New Brunswick without licence-again a question involving Dominion and provincial control.
There is the question of taxation. The provinces, we all know, are restricted to direct taxation, and yet the gasoline tax, which a good many of our provinces have put into operation, comes dangerously near being an indirect tax.
Again, can liquor legally purchased in Quebec be brought into Ontario? Liquor to be purchased legally in Ontario, under the Liquor Control Act, must be bought from the government vendor. Liquor may be legally sold in Quebec, but that same liquor cannot be legally bought in Ontario.
Again, the right of the Dominion to control the manufacture of liquor is still an open question.
Take the question that we had up no later than this afternoon, when my hon. friend from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) was urging that a grant should be made to promote peace. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) takes the ground that it is quite within the competence of the Dominion government to make war and to foster the cadet movement, even although that means going into our schools; but it is quite outside our powers to do anything that will foster peace. You can see, Mr. (speaker, the difficulties into which this British North America Act is driving us.
Take another realm altogether, that of trade and commerce. In the old days, sixty years ago, trade was very largely local in character, and it was very easy to control it. But now under the British North America Act we have no definite line of demarcation with regard to the incorporation and licensing of companies. Let me give a few illustrations, which will be familiar to legal gentlemen at all events. The John Deere Plow case of 1913 established that 
a federal charter entitled the company to do business in the province and to resist many forms of provincial control. That was a blow at provincial control. On the other hand, the Bonanza Creek case, in 1915, established that a provincial charter under the British North America Act entitled a company to enter other provinces-a blow at federal control. Later, we had the legality of the British Columbia Produce Marketing Act challenged, and the act partly destroyed. We have had a dispute with regard to the Canada Grain Act. We have had our Old Age Pension Act of 1926 disputed by Quebec, although the question has never been carried to the courts. The British Columbia Minimum Wage Act was challenged. The Combines Investigation Act was challenged, and has recently been sustained. The Live stock and Live Stock Products Act, as far as it relates to grading, is really ultra vires of the Dominion parliament, and there has to be enabling legislation on the part of the provinces. The licensing and control of insurance companies is being protested by the province of Ontario. Some hon. gentlemen who were on the Banking and Commerce Committee a few years ago can remember the representations that were made in that regard. The Manitoba Sale of Shares Act has ben declared invalid. Concerning this Toronto Saturday Night of October 26, 1928, said very bitterly:
The privy council has decided that the provinces have no control over a rotten company so long as it is for the general advantage of Canada.
Now I come to the questions in which I am more particularly concerned; that is, matters relating to social legislation. Take the Canada Temperance Act; it is not at all clear as to where the jurisdiction lies. The Lord's Day Act has been challenged, and as a matter of fact it is put into operation in some of the provinces in a rather peculiar fashion.
Mr. LaVERGNE: That is settled by the act itself.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know, but they
were treading on such thin ice that they had to make some very special arrangements, and some of my lawyer friends tell me that it is not very good law when it is done in that fashion. '
There is the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. The privy council in 1925 when it upset the validity of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, in discussing the question of Russell vs. the Queen, had this to say:
It appears to thedr lordships that it is not now open to them to treat Russell vs. the Queen as having established the general principle that

British North America Act
the mere fact that Dominion legislation is for the general advantage of Canada or is such that it will meet a mere want which is felt throughout the Dominion renders it competent if it cannot be brought within the heads enumerated specifically in section 91.
I am not very familiar with these various decisions, but it strikes me that their lordships found it very hard to get over the Canada Temperance Aot, which had been held to be within the power of the Dominion parliament. The judges took the view, and to me this is positively funny, that intemperance at that time was so greait as to be, in their words anational calamity. . . . An epidemic of pestilence might conceivably be regarded as analogous. It is plain from the decision of the board of commerce case that the evil of profiteering could not have been so invoked; for provincial powers, if exercised, were adequate to it.
Now I come to the even more important question, and that is of our responsibility under the Versailles treaty arid the draft conventions subsequent thereto. Take the question of the minimum wage. We had that question before our select standing committee on industrial and international relations, and in the report of 1926 I read this:
It was stated by the Deputy Minister of Justice that according to the British North America Act legislative jurisdiction in regard to minimum wages is vested primarily in the provincial legislatures.	.
He also quoted section 132 of the British North America Act as follows:
The parliament of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or any provinces thereof us part of the British Empire, towards foreign countries, arising out of any treaty between the empire and such foreign countries.
Commenting on this he said:
There can be no doubt that where Canada has entered into am obligation by treaty-and in that connection I mean an association within the empire, of course-within the meaning of section 132 which I have just read-I do not think there is any doubt but that parliament has power to legislate for the purpose of carrying into effect the provision of the treaty.
The report concludes with these very significant words:
_ This opinion goes to show that the British North America Act by no means contemplates industrial problems of the kind and scope to which Canadians to-day must adjust themselves.
That seems to be a very fair statement of the situation in which we find ourselves. Sixty years ago life was comparatively simple. At that time there was no labour movement and very little industrial development. No one had foreseen the great European
war; no one knew that there would be an international labour office established and that we would seek the world over to standardize labour. No one realized any of these things. And so although the British North America Act may have admirably fitted conditions as they were at the time it was enacted, it falls far short of meeting the needs with which we are faced to-day. I would like once more to read that section of the report:
^This opinion goes to show that the British North America Act by no means contemplates industrial problems of the kind and scope to which Canadians to-day must adjust themselves.
I go on to note that although apparently it is impossible for us to pass a Minimum Wage Act in the Dominion, the Minimum Wage Act of British Columbia, a piece of provincial legislation, was declared ultra vires,
I wish now to go to the question of unemployment insurance, which during the last two or three sessions has been so much before the house. As you will remember, Mr. Speaker, a committee of this house was appointed to deal with that matter. The industrial and international relations committee report of 1928 referred to a report from the Minister of Justice, 1921, P.C. 2722:
In this view unemployment insurance has a pronounced federal aspect and on the whole the minister thinks the establishment of a system of unemployment insurance is competent to the Dominion in the exercise of its residuary legislative power with relation to the peace, order and good government of Canada.
Yet that committee reported that it was impossible for the Dominion to do anything about unemployment insurance. The other day the Prime Minister from his seat promised this house and the country that his government would enact a measure of unemployment insurance. At least that was the meaning which a good many hon. members took from his words; that was the meaning which the press spread abroad throughout the country. I understand that in some quarters there may be question about that matter, but it does seem to me that the Prime Minister ought not to allow so important a statement to be ambiguous. Hon. members should know very clearly what he meant. I would point out, however, that if we are to accept the report of the committee of this house appointed a year or two ago it is impossible for the Prime Minister to carry out his promise. What does the report say? I quote:
That the evidence of the Justice department makes it clear that the responsibility for such legislation rests on the provincial authorities, it being within their jurisdiction under the provisions of the British North America Act, but that it would be within the power of par-

British North America Act

liament to contribute by grant to such provinces as adopted such legislation following the precedent set in the matter of technical education, highway construction, and, more recently, the Old Age Pensions Act.
Then, there is the question of the eight hour day. According to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada:
The subject matter is generally within the competence of the legislatures of the provinces, but the authority vested in these legislatures does not enable them to give force of law to provisions such as those contained in the draft convention in relation to servants of the Dominion government or to legislate for those parts of Canada which are not within the boundaries of a province.
I think in view of the very hurried survey I have given of the actual situation which confronts Canada to -day that the ordinary man at least can realize the need for a change and for some qualifying amendments.
Two years ago I was invited to present this subject before the Canadian Club of Montreal. I accepted the invitation with some trepidation, because I thought I might have difficulty in persuading the people of Montreal in the province of Quebec to accept my proposal for changes in the British North America Act. To my delight, however, I found that a large number of them were tremendously interested in the question, and from the practical standpoint they were convinced of the need of bringing about these changes. They did not seem to see all the difficulties which some legal gentlemen in this house seem constantly to find.
Conditions are not static. Hon. members will recall that Alice in Wonderland-or was it the Queen-said:
You must run very fast if you would keep where you are.
I believe that to be absolutely true. Conditions are sweeping along very rapidly and we must keep advancing if we are to keep relatively in the same place, to say nothing of making advances. Acts must be changed in the letter if we would keep the spirit.
Further than that may I suggest if our forefathers had brains enough to devise a constitution to meet the needs of their day we should have brains enough to revise it to meet the needs of our day. Some of us revere the British North America Act as the laws of the Medes and Persians that cannot change. Let me urge: If we are not impotent, let us be the fathers of something. The fathers of confederation differed from the men about them in that they were willing to take a chance on a change. A precedent is merely the method by which someone makes an

escape from an impossible situation. It is time we set a few precedents in this house.
I have not time to discuss the legislation of other dominions, but I would simply remark they have the right to amend their constitutions; why has not Canada a similar right? Either we are a nation or we are not a nation. If we are a nation we should have the right to change our constitution. We hear a great deal about provincial rights. I suggest to the house that the fear of the minorities is not healthy. Their belief in the help that can come from Great Britain is entirely illusory, and I think the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) who unfortunately is not here tonight has come to accept that fact. I read from the proceedings of the Imperial conference the following statement:
Every self governing member of the empire is now master of its own destiny.
We should accept the position to which we have now attained. We are told that the provinces should be consulted. Should they all agree before action is taken? That of course is another question. At the Imperial conference it was decided in regard to the West-(minster Act that the ratification off the proposed act would be in the hands of the British government by August 1, 1931. The report of the conference of 1930 declared:
To this end it seemed desirable to place on record the view that the sections of the statute relating to the Colonial Laws Validity Act should be so drafted as not to extend to Canada unless the statute was enacted in response to such requests as are appropriate to an amendment of the British North America Act.
The conference did not explain what it meant by the phrase, "as are appropriate to an amendment." The Prime Minister was reported to have declared that the approval of the nine Canadian provinces would be necessary to ratification. The Montreal Gazette observed that consulting the provinces did not necessarily imply that their consent was essential. Up to this time the Prime Minister has been entirely and perhaps discreetly silent on this point. Apparently he yielded to the influence of Mr. Ferguson, who stated explicitly in the concluding paragraph of his memorandum issued just before the conference :
It is therefore earnestly represented that no restatement of the procedure for amending the constitution of Canada can be accepted by the province of Ontario that _ does not fully and frankly acknowledge the right of all the provinces to be consulted and to become parties to the decisions arrived at.
I would ask hon. members to note the words, "right of all the provinces". Here we come to the treaty or compact theory of

British North America Act
confederation, and I suggest that since this is purely a legal matter it must be met more or less by legal argument. Let me ask, what provinces gave consent? There were at that time only three provinces, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Canada, because we were still operating under the Act of Union of 1840. It is very doubtful if Quebec or Ontario could be said to have given consent, for they were then part of the province of Canada.
Further than that, what do we mean by the provinces? Do we mean the electorates? In New Brunswick the electorate were in favour of the principle of confederation, but they never pronounced on the London resolutions or the British North America Act. In Nova Scotia there was no chance for them to pronounce on anything before the British North America Act was passed; then they were opposed to it.
Do you mean the legislatures? Canada approved the Quebec resolutions but prorogued before the appointment of delegates to the London conference, and therefore could not approve the British North America Act before it was passed. New Brunswick authorized the appointment of delegates to the London conference but prorogued before the conference, and met again only after the British North America Act was passed. Nova Scotia authorized the appointment of delegates to the London conference and was the only one approving the reference after the British North America Act was passed. Prince Edward Island and British Columbia assented to the terms of union. There were no legislatures, of course, in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta until they were created by the Dominion parliament.
Did the governments consent? These did consent, except, of course, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Then we come to the other question that is more important: What is the pact to which reference is made? Was it the Quebec resolutions? These were approved by the legislature of Canada only, and by no electorate. Was it the London resolutions? These were not approved by any of the legislatures until after the British North America Act Was passed. In seven important matters the British North America Act differed from the Quebec resolutions. The British North America Act was not thus approved. The situation is well summarized by Mr. John S. Eiwart:
A statute arranged not in Canada but in England by delegates from Canada who, although bound by the Quebec resolutions, departed widely from them; by delegates from
Nova Scotia who were known not to represent Nova Scotia's wishes; and the proceedings purposely kept secret from the people who might by "reverberation" of it be "stirred to its depths" in opposition, can hardly be regarded as a contract.
And what procedure has actually been followed in obtaining these changes in the pact? I might say in passing that the reports of the debates are very illuminating. There is no support whatever for the contentions of the advocates of provincial rights, and the fathers of confederation who participated in these debates supported the changes by dominion action. Take the changes brought about by the Imperial parliament. In 1871 power was given to the Dominion parliament to create provinces. The act was passed on an address of both houses of the D|ominion parliament; the provinces were not consulted. In 1875 an act regarding the privileges of parliament was passed on the request of the Dominion cabinet only. In 1886 plenary power was granted to the Dominion parliament to provide for the representation of territories in both houses. This was passed on an address of the two bouses. In 1895 power was granted, to the Dominion parliament to provide fora deputy speaker for the Senate. This was-passed on an address by the Dominion parliament. In 1907 the change in regard to provincial subsidies was passed on an address of the two houses. Let me point out that the provinces were consulted for the first time on-this occasion. British Columbia protested and: secured only a slight verbal modification, lit 1915 a change was made with regard to additional senators from the west. This act also was passed on an address of the two houses, but the provinces were not consulted. In 1916 an imperial act dealing with the prolongation of the life of parliament was passed on a joint address of the two houses only. Last year the legislation for the return of the natural resources to the western provinces, as every hon. member will recall, was passed on the joint address of both houses, and only the western provinces were consulted. We must come to this conclusion, that in these eight acts the provinces were consulted only once,, in 1907, and then did not give unanimous consent.
Now take the changes made by the Canadian parliament itself. At least nine acts changing the financial basis of confederation were passed, and on these the provinces were never consulted.
I should like to point out that the basis of confederation has changed a great deal since
im
British North America Act

1S67. Judicial decisions have fundamentally changed the balance of legislative power, and for this I suppose, the late Lord Haldane was very largely responsible. There have been other developments which I can only enumerate; development of Canada's diplomatic service; appointment of the Governor General on the sole advice of the Dominion cabinet; separate negotiation and signature of treaties; membership in the League of Nations and on its council. The provinces were not consulted in any of these changes-changes which were much more important than many of the little things about which we make so much fuss.
Let me point out the effects of the theory that unanimous consent is necessary. Take the situation of the three western provinces. Is their consent needed? Then that is giving an altogether fictitious character to these provinces, and it is as if a child were supposed to ratify a contract which had been made long before he was born. Is the consent of these western provinces not needed? Then I, as representing one of these provinces, would be the first to protest, because we in the west have as much right, at the present day, as .any of the eastern provinces to be consulted.
If the unanimous consent of all the provinces is required there would be an inevitable tendency towards constitutional rigidity. This point I have not time to develop, nor have I the time to speak of the danger of the minority being given power to override the majority. We a,re here approaching the fundamental question of sovereignty. Mr. R. K. Finlayson, writing in the Free Press of December 8, 1928, gave this warning:
It required the Civil war to prove to the individual states of America that it is not the part of individual states to challenge the authority of the union by a sovereignty written into a piece of paper.
The trouble is that we think altogether too much in legal terms. The British North America Act is not altogether a contract. May I suggest that it more nearly resembles what marriage is according to the Roman Catholic idea as I understand it; it is much nearer to being something at a sacrament. The union has gone on for years, children are involved, and the parties must learn to rub along somehow.
The former Minister of Justice, at the Dominion-provincial conference of 1927, spoke of one procedure that might be followed in amending the British North America Act. He proposed that there should be different classes of questions dealt with in different ways. He said:
In order that adequate safeguards should be provided it was proposed that in the event

of ordinary amendments being contemplated the provincial legislatures should be consulted, and a majority consent of the provinces obtained, while in the event of vital and fundamental amendments being sought involving such questions as provincial rights, the rights of minorities, or rights generally affecting race, language and creed, unanimous consent of the provinces should be obtained.
.... In view of the present usage of automatic acceptance of proposals made and of the practice in all the other dominions, the minister contended that it would be better if in the future amendments to the British North America Act should be made by legislation of the Dominion parliament, subject to the conditions set forth. The questions on which unanimity of the provinces should be required might be specified under sections 93 and 133 and section 92, subsections 12, 13 and 14 of the British North America Act.
These sections refer to education, language, property and civil rights and administration of justice. I should like to suggest an alternative procedure. The Commonwealth of Australia has its constitutional act containing eight general clauses. Then follows the constitution, and so the rights of minorities might be recognized in our contemplated constitutional act. That is, there would be what the Americans call certain constitutional limitations. These would be clearly set forth in the preamble, and then we would be in a position to modify as long as we did not infringe upon these fundamental rights, which would be those now recognized under the British North America Act.
I take it that what we need before long is a constitutional conference. The Prime Minister has already promised that, but as I said, I am not at all sure that we can concede that all the provinces should be satisfied. As a practical measure I suppose it would be a good thing to call all the provinces into consultation, but certainly whatever the provinces may have to put forward, it does seem to me that the federal parliament should know what amendments it wants from its standpoint, and that means careful study and discussion.
I should like to close by urging again, as I did in the beginning, the pressing need for clarifying amendments. I urge that we should have the right to amend, recognizing that after all any trouble which exists is here in Canada, but that as long as we have to go overseas to seek amendments it means that it is going to be very easy to carry on as we have been carrying on and football important problems backward and forward between the Dominion and the provinces.
In the preparation of this matter I should acknowledge my debt to John S. Ewart, John W. Dafoe, Norman McL. Rogers, F. R. Scott, R. K. Finlayson, A. Grant Dexter, Brooke

British North America Act
Claxton, Eugene Forsey, and others, and to urge that now, with the Canadian League, Canadian clubs and many other similar organizations, and different newspapers taking up and discussing this question, the time is ripe for a full consideration of our constitutional problem by this parliament.


Hugh Guthrie: I should like to say just a few words
in regard to the very important matter which has been placed before the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). He has opened the discussion of a very broad and very involved problem, and I congratulate him upon the deep study he has given to the matter and the clear and pointed method in which he has elaborated his case before the house.
I think the house will agree with me, however, that the problem is one which is fraught with many very serious and very grave difficulties. This question of the constitution in Canada is now sixty-three years of age. We have progressed for sixty-three years under our present constitution, and on the whole I think the house will agree that our constitution has worked well. It is true that during the course of those sixty-three years some thirty-one amendments to our constitutional act have been sought from the imperial parliament, and I believe I am correct in saying that upon only one occasion was the advice of the provinces sought in regard to any of the proposed amendments. That occasion was with regard to the question of increased subsidies for the various provinces, but when the provinces were actually consulted on the question their opinions seem to have been disregarded. An amendment was made to our act not in accordance with the views expressed by the provinces at that time.
However, I agree that the time has come when we should seriously consider this whole question of amendments to the Canadian constitution. Last April a Dominion-provincial conference was held in the city of Ottawa, at which all the provinces were represented. The conference was called for the purpose of considering a single proposal set out in the invitation to the various provinces, namely the draft statute of Westminster. The invitation was confined to a discussion of that single question, but notwithstanding the precise language of the invitation, several representatives of the various provinces did have the idea that the general subject of amendments to the Canadian constitution was to be discussed and considered on that occasion. There is no doubt that in many of the provinces there is a fairly active movement for some better understanding as between the
federal and provincial authorities, and I believe the time is near at hand when the wliole question will be fully considered by representatives of this parliament and of the various legislatures, in the hope that some common ground may be found.
I think one cannot criticize the constitution of Canada, as it is often criticized, without having regard to the manner and method in which it was originally adopted. There is a little history in regard to the matter which is always worth remembering. As far back as the year 1864, or perhaps 1865, the question of the confederation of the British provinces in North America became acute, and the best brains of the Canada of those days and of the other provinces which now constitute Canada, as they existed then, were enlisted in solving the problem which then arose. In no British dominion was there in existence at that time a confederation similar to what was subsequently adopted for Canada, but there is no doubt that there was a model which was very largely made use of by the fathers of confederation in this country. That model was to be found in the federal system which then existed on the southern side of the international boundary line. Federal system as it obtained at that time in the United States, however, was said to be the cause of great difficulty; it was said to be the active cause of the civil war, which had been waged in that country between 1861 and 1865. Our forefathers had that example before them and they determined to avoid, as far as possible, the difficulties which beset the United States system. Their idea was to adopt a federal system with a strong federal government, whereas the theory of the United States system was strong state government with less federal authority. The framers of the Canadian constitution reversed the situation as it existed in the United States, and, in the apportionment of powers and jurisdiction as between federal and provincial authority, you will note that separate and distinct powers are granted to the provinces. Under sections 92 and 93 these powers are enumerated and the provinces are plainly told: these are your legislative powers. And in respect of these powers the legislatures of this country are supreme. Their powers are plenary. They are just as supreme within their own legislative jurisdiction as we in this parliament are in regard to our powers. But the remainder of legislative power of every kind was placed under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. It is true that certain specific powers are placed in section 91 as appertaining to the Dominion of Canada. But the general residuum rests with this parlia-

British North America Act
ment. In the United States the system was the reverse: all the residuum there rested with the state authorities.
Now, in considering our constitution it is well to keep that distinction always in mind. The object, the conclusion, the determination of the fathers of confederation was to form n strong cental government and to give certain designated rights to the various provinces of this Dominion. And on that theory the constitution was built up. Whether or not a treaty or an agreement was reached by the representatives of the various sections of Canada which were represented at the preconfederation conference, whether an agreement or treaty was actually reached, I know not. But something in the nature of an agreement was reached, and as a result thereof the British North America Act was drafted.
I am not inclined to view the pre-confederation arrangement as a strict or binding agreement. I am rather inclined to think that the fathers of confederation determined to form a new political entity, that all parties were willing to cast in their lot with that new political entity, in which each province or section of this country should have representation, and to agree that only such powers as were specifically given to the province should remain there. And therefore I have always contended that for the purpose of Dominion legislation all the provinces of Canada are represented in this parliament to-day. That, at all events, is my view of the system under which this country is governed.
When the conclusion was reached and the matter submitted to the imperial parliament, it was submitted as a form of agreement which had been accepted by all parties to constitute a new political entity. And when the act was passed that new political entity had legal force. We were proclaimed a Dominion on the 1st of July 1867, How came the power of amendment to the constitution to be omitted from the British North America Act in respect of federal powers? I submit, Mr. Speaker, it was not by accident that that omission occurred; it was clearly by design: because care was taken in the first subsection of section 92 of the act to provide that each province should have the right to amend ita own constitution as it might see fit. But in regard to the question of amendments with respect to federal rights, the act is absolutely silent. I contend, therefore, that the omission was by design. It was considered that there were certain rights, certain privileges provided for in that act which should be guaranteed to the Dominion of Canada; and the guarantor 
in that respect was the imperial parliament which passed the British North America Act.
The question now is: Has the time come for formulating some plan whereby our act may be amended by this parliament? Certain it is that there are many provisions in the British North America Act which appertain solely and exclusively to this parliament, and I, for one, can see no reason why this parliament should not of its own action make provision for amendments to these various sections as it should see fit. For instance, there are certain sections appertaining to the election of a Speaker of this House of Commons; there are certain sections appertaining to the constitution of a quorum in this house; surely, Mr. Speaker, there is power in this house to make amendments in respect of such matters without consulting the provinces.
My contention has always been that in all matters appertaining to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada the parliament of Canada has the right, and should have the right expressed, to make such amendments to the constitution as it shall see fit. But, on the other hand, the rights of the provinces of the country are just as plenary, just as high as the rights of this parliament. Can this parliament, therefore, by amendment or alteration of any kind, interfere with the rights which are specially set apart as matters of provincial jurisdiction and provincial concern, without the consent of the various provinces of Canada? Many of the questions which have been brought to the attention of the house to-night by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre are questions upon which the provinces of Canada maintain that they have exclusive jurisdiction. Can we then, without their consent, amend or alter the constitutional act of this country in respect of such questions? I submit that we cannot. In respect of any matters arising under section 92 or section 93 of the British North America Act, this parliament cannot, without the consent of the various provincial legislatures, amend the British North America Act in any respect. And how are we going to obtain that consent-because it is in regard to these very questions that the difficulty from day to day arises as between provincial and Dominion jurisdiction. If this parliament, for instance, were to seek an amendment to our constitutional act in regard to municipal institutions-I am putting some pointed cases

to take from the provinces legislative jurisdiction in respect of such institutions, would anyone say for a moment that we had the right to make such amend-

British North America Act
ment without the positive assent of the provinces? Suppose, again, we were to propose, by an amendment in this parliament, to take the administration of our criminal law from the various provinces of Canada-because the administration of law is specifically given to the provinces by section 92 of the act-do you think that this parliament would be justified in making an amendment of that kind without the consent of the provinces? Or suppose we were to seek to interfere in any way with the question of property and civil rights, which concerns many of the questions which my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre had in his mind: could it be fairly said that there is power in this parliament to change the legislative jurisdiction in respect of property and civil rights without the positive assent of the provinces? And I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, it is in regard to these very matters that we shall never get the consent of the provinces, because the provinces value very highly the jurisdiction to legislate in respect of these matters, which jurisdiction has been conferred upon them by the British North America Act.
I mention these matters merely to point out the serious difficulties, the practical difficulties that are ahead of us when we discuss the question of amendments to the British North America Act.
Let me put another case. We understand what the representation in this house consists of; we know what each province is entitled to have in this House of Commons and also in the upper chamber. We know that anomalies exist in that respect and that one small province would appear to be entirely over-represented, having regard to the representation of some of the larger provinces. But could anyone say for a moment that parliament, of its own free will, would be entitled to change the representation of the various sections of Canada either in this house or in the Senate? I submit we would not. That goes to the very root of the whole question. A question of that kind is fundamental. It was upon those figures that we agreed and for sixty years we have carried on. I submit no power would be given to us to change the representation of the various provinces as they exist in Canada to-day, without the consent of the provinces interested.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Is it not
true that that very thing was done and the entire balance of representation upset at the time British Columbia entered confederation?


Hugh Guthrie: That is not my view of
the matter. I know there have been alterations but they have always been tacitly agreed to. I am discussing the question where some province does not agree. What kind of consent must one require to make an amendment such as I have suggested? Is it only of the single province concerned? Is it of a majority of the nine provinces which make up confederation? Or is it the complete, unanimous assent of the whole nine provinces that is required before any alteration can be made? We know the provincial legislatures esteem very highly the legislative rights which they exercise. We know they consider that their powers are just as plenary as are the powers of this parliament, and I am inclined to think they will resent any suggestion on the part of this parliament in any way to limit or diminish their powers. During the recent conference which took place in April I had an informal discussion and I know many of the provinces want to change the sections of the act dealing with the question of taxation. I know some of the provinces want to change those sections of the act dealing with the incorporation of companies, and so on. But they do not desire to give way or limit in any way their own powers. What they desire to do is rather to encroach upon the powers which we claim belong to the federal government.


Charles A. Stewart: They had
them first.


Hugh Guthrie: They had certain rights,
and we likewise had certain rights. There is a cleavage in respect to these matters.
Another serious question that is bound to arise and in regard to which we may in the future have to ask for some change in our constitution, is that of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. As to that question opinion seems to be divided. Experience in Canada shows that many of the appeals that go to the privy council do not go directly from the Supreme Court of Canada, but rather from the courts of the various provinces. We in this country had a rather rude awakening in 1926 when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council handed down a judgment in a case that is rather well known in Canada, that of Nadan and the King, which decided that section 1025 of the Criminal Code of Canada was ultra vires. By section 1025 it had been provided in this country that there should be no appeals in certain cases to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but in the Nadan case, the appeal went directly from the courts of Alberta to the privy council. They did not ask our leave to appeal; they wen*
British North America Act

there as of right. The privy council in its judgment held that they had a right to appeal to that August body for justice, and at the same time held that our section 1025 of the criminal code, which forbade them that right, was beyond the powefs of the parliament of Canada. There possibly will be some conflict in regard to the views of the various provinces in respect to those appeals. Should we ask that this parliament have the right to amend the constitution to provide that there shall be no appeals to the privy council from the Dominion of Canada, or on the other hand should we ask that parliament have an amendment enacted to provide that in all cases there shall be appeals to the privy council?


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend not think that when the Colonial Laws Validity Act is repealed and our parliament will have the right of extraterritoriality for its legislation, then our section 1025 of the criminal code will become valid?


Hugh Guthrie: It may be revived in that way, and I think I am safe in saying that by the first of December next the Colonial Laws Validity Act will probably be repealed so far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned. It is under that Colonial Laws Validity Act that the difficulty in regard to these appeals has largely arisen. In all these questions there is in regard to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council a bit of history that it is perhaps worth while remembering. There was a time some seventy or eighty years ago when there was no Colonial Laws Validity Act in existence, but the common law of England was in existence and the common law of England provided that if any colony made a law that was repugnant to the law of England, the law of that colony should be void in so far as it was repugnant to the law of England. In Australia, or in one of the states of Australia, one of the judges gave such a bread interpretation of the common law doctrine, that the people were almost in arms. Practically all the important laws of Australia or of that colony in Australia were being set aside by this judge on the ground that their laws were repugnant to the laws of England. The Colonial Laws Validity Act was passed in the first instance not as a restrictive measure at all, but as an enabling measure. It was passed for the purpose of letting the people in South Australia and, I think, in South Africa know they had rights, and so long as they confined their laws within certain limits, they should not be declared illegal. But subsequently in its actual operation it was found that it hampered many of the dominions, including

the Dominion of Canada, and as a result of the conferences which were held in 1921, 1926, 1927, and the recent one, we have at last reached the point where there will be submitted to this parliament a proposal which, if ratified, will be sent forward to the imperial parliament and in December next a statute known as the statute of Westminster will be passed, which will obviate the difficulty in the future by repealing the Colonial Laws Validity Act so far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned.
But this is only one matter in regard to which our difficulties arise. I see practical difficulties-they crop up almost every day in this country7-as between provincial and federal jurisdiction. They are difficulties which are not insurmountable. We have had many of them in the past. We have overcome them in some way. It may be there have been five hundred constitutional cases decided by the courts in the last sixty years, but we have managed to muddle through and we all think our sixty-three years' experience has, on the whole, been a most satisfactory one. But the time is coming, perhaps the time is at hand, when some very critical questions are arising, and perhaps the most critical is in regard to the question of provincial and federal taxation. I agree with the suggestion that in the near future a conference should be summoned for the express purpose of considering some modus operandi upon which we can proceed to secure the right to amend the constitution of the Dominion of Canada. I do not think the language of the motion is sufficient at all. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has included a clause to the effect that he would preserve the rights of minorities by some kind of security or guarantee. Supposing he did; supposing the rights of all minorities were just as fully secured, assured and guaranteed as they are to-day under the British North America Act. That is not the difficulty that I see. He has still to elucidate some plan whereby he can from a basis of agreement in regard to matters which are provincial to-day, and which I think should be federal, and perhaps in regard to some matters which are federal to-day, and which perhaps might be better attended to by the provinces. In this proposal there should be a guarantee of provincial autonomy, because I -for one would not consent to lay hands upon any of those subjects in regard to which the provinces are expressly charged with legislative authority. I would not be one to lay hands upon any provincial rights in respect of those questions which arise under sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act without the express consent of the provinces con-

British North America Act
cemed. Those are the difficulties, and only some of the difficulties, which must be overcome, but I think that all these difficulties may in the end be satisfactorily arranged. I am by no means hopeless of the situation. I am entirely hopeful, and I think it would be well for this parliament if not at this session, at some subsequent session, to appoint a committee specially charged with the consideration of this question. We must prepare our case here before we call a conference, and it is a case that will require a great deal of preparation.
I do not accept in full the views of some of the provinces, such as the province of Ontario, as expressed last autumn before the Imperial conference which met at London. With some of those views I am in harmony, but with respect to many of them I think the province is carrying its case rather too far. But we cannot hold a conference without preparation. AVe must know in the first instance what we are prepared to agree on ourselves. Having reached that point I shall heartily favour the summoning of a conference of the provinces with the Dominion authorities to see what plan can be worked out so that in the future this parliament may be able to make the necessary amendments to our constitution.


Ernest Lapointe: This is a very important matter, Mr. Speaker, and it is of special interest at the present time owing to developments that have taken place recently, and in view of the proposed conference to be held at some future date between the provinces and the Dominion to deliberate on this question. It is imperative, therefore, that all the students of our constitutional system, indeed, that all the citizens of Canada, should give consideration to this very important problem, and I am rather grateful to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. AAroodsworth) for bringing forward this resolution were it only that it direct the attention of the people of Canada to the matter.
First I must say that I agree entirely with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) that the provinces are also interested in this matter, and that a change in the mode of amending our constitution is a fundamental one as to which the provinces have a right to be consulted, and on which they have a right to express their opinion. The British North America Act-my hon. friend the Minister of Justice has related the historical events that preceded it-was a compromise. It was an arrangement which was effected by Upper and Lower Canada more particularly, but ir. which Ne~ Brunswick and Nova Scotia also joined. It was to put an end to a situation which had brought the country to the verge of civil strife. The provinces
which existed at that time were British colonies, self-governing colonies, and they agreed to relinquish some of their powers and to entrust them to a central authority. They did that subject to certain conditions, some more or less important, others essential; and without those conditions being agreed to confederation could not have taken place. The provinces kept for themselves jurisdiction and power in certain local matters, in civil matters, home rule in matters which more intimately concerned themselves, and they gave to the central government jurisdiction in all matters which affected the people generally in all the provinces.
The British North America Act, as I have already had occasion to note, is not only the charter of the Dominion of Canada; it is also the charter of the provinces. Their powers and their jurisdiction are fixed and determined by that act. The powers and the jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada are also fixed and determined by that act It is in many cases a complicated and delicate matter to determine where the jurisdiction of the Dominion ends and where that of the provinces begins. The problem has given rise to many difficulties and to much litigation. I must say to the hon. member for AATnnipeg North Centre in that connection that when the power to amend our constitution is given to Canada, with the consent and the cooperation of the provinces, I believe he is wrong in believing that litigation over the constitution will automatically come to an end. The constitutional act, whether it is the work of the parliament of Canada in conjunction with the provinces, or whether it is an imperial act. will always give rise to difficulties, and the courts will have to pronounce upon them.
Mr. AArOODSWORTH: I think the coming conference ought tc exclude all lawyers.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think my hon. friend need express too much sympathy for the lawyers in connection with the change he is advocating.
Under the conditions as they are to-day, we have the right to amend our constitution. As a matter of fact, it has been amended in many instances. I think my hon. friend said that it had been amended thirty-four times since confederation. But those amendments have to be made through the statute enacted by the imperial parliament. In that matter the imperial parliament is not really a dominating power; it acts as a trustee and as a guarantor, and merely gives effect to the will of the Canadian people. The present system is due to conditions of our social life in Canada as they existed at the time of
British North America Act

confederation. Times have changed, however, and to-day the Dominion of Canada is not the colony it was in 1867. I am in accord with the principle that Canada and the Canadian people should have the right when they see fit to amend their own constitution, and when the provinces, which also are parties to the agreement, agree that a change should be made. At the present time the system of amending the constitution is rather vague, and not altogether consistent in every respect. The only suggestion is, as the Minister of Justice has mentioned: Have the provinces been consulted? The constitution has been changed many times without the consent of the provinces being sought. It was changed in 1907 in the matter of provincial subsidies, and at that time the province of British Columbia did not agree to the change. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that Sir Richard McBride proceeded to London and was heard before a committee of the imperial parliament. There he succeeded in having a certain word, or two words, added to the act, to the effect that the mode of payment that had been agreed upon would not be final, as had been provided in the act passed by this parliament.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think the hon. member means that words were taken out rather than put in.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, I agree with my
hon. friend. The word "final", which had been put in by this parliament, was taken out, so that Sir Richard could have his case reopened in this country when he saw fit.


Mr. CAHAN:: That alternative was open
to him in any case.


Ernest Lapointe: The alternative was open to him in any case, because parliament has always the right to change its own act.
I think that the amendments to the constitution could be divided into two classes: first those which would affect the provinces, which would add powers to the federal parliament and in that way affect provincial rights. In such cases surely the British parliament, even under the situation as it exists to-day, would not agree to pass a law to effect the change. Then the other class would be amendments which would give broader effect to the federal power within its own jurisdiction. I agree that the provinces under the constitution as it is need not be consulted, and that was the position taken by various prime ministers on other occasions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have said that the system to amend the constitution is vague. We really do not know what are the amend-

ments in respect to which the assent of the provinces should be first received and those in respect to which such consent is not necessary. However, although the imperial parliament acts only as a trustee, it nevertheless, as I said, constitutes legal subordination on our part to have to ask the imperial parliament to ratify any change we like to make. As my hon. friend from Winnipeg has said, Canada is the only dominion at the present time which has not the right to amend its own constitution. All the other dominions have that right. I will go further and say that Canada is the only country in the world having a federal system of government the constitution of which does not provide for an amendment and for a change by the country of that constitution should occasion arise. The United States have a federal system. There, as hon. members know, the constitution may be changed by a vote of two-thirds of both houses of congress, and such change has to be ratified by three-quarters of the states. Australia also has that right. Germany, which has had a new constitution since 1921, has the same right. The Reichstag can amend its own constitution provided a majority of two-thirds of the members agree to the change. Switzerland also has that right; there again a majority of two-thirds of the members is necessary and the proposed change has to be approved by the people. In Australia the same condition exists. A majority of two-thirds is necessary, and then the action has to be ratified by the states and even by popular vote. A similar or almost similar condition exists in New Zealand. In the Argentine republic a similar condition exists, the constitution may be changed by a majority of two-thirds of the Chamber. Canada, I repeat, is the only country in the world which does not possess that power. I believe an arrangement could be arrived at between the various parties to our constitutional pact by virtue of which we in Canada should have that power, with all the proper safeguards regarding provincial rights and the rights of minorities.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Suppose we have the
right to amend our constitution, does the hon. member think we could amend the constitution of any of the provinces?


Ernest Lapointe: No, no. I say that this should be done by cooperation. The provinces at the present time have the right to amend their own constitution, except with regard to the office of the lieutenant-governor; but on the question of the respective jurisdiction of the Dominion and the provinces, there is no doubt that this could not be changed by

British North America Act
either without agreement with the other. That is what I submit, and that is I think the solution of our problem, which is certainly fraught with many difficulties. Because there again how will that consent be obtained, and in what manner shall it express itself? Shall we require the unanimous consent of the provinces to every change that might be sought? I know that this will be the opinion of some, but with that I could not agree. This would make our constitution, I think, too rigid an instrument, and it would be contrary to the principles of the British constitution, which after, all is an instrument of progress. We must have a constitutional instrument which can possibly be altered to suit new facts, new ideas, and so keep progress with the progress of the country.
I was reading some time ago a work published by Dr. William Bennett Munro, a professor at Harvard, and who, I am told, is a Canadian, on The Governments of Europe, and I agree with the views he expresses as regards amending a constitution. He says:
The amending process may fairly be called the most important feature of any constitution. The purpose of a constitution is to preserve order but it cannot preserve order unless it promotes progress->and it cannot promote progress unless it is capable of being amended either formally or by judicial interpretation to meet the new needs that arise. A constitution should not be too easy to amend, for in that case it will fail to secure order, stability, and continuity in the nation's political life. Nor, on the other hand, should it be too difficult to amend, for it will then clog the wheels of political progress and serve as an incentive to coups d'etat or revolutions. The ideal amending process is one that assures stability without impeding the normal development of political and economic activities among the people. On this general principle all makers of constitutions have been substantially agreed, but they have been far from agreement as to the methods whereby the ideal can be attained.
I think those views are correct. A constitution should not be too easy to amend; on the other hand, it should not be too difficult to amend as the necessity arises. Again I say that to insist on having the consent of all the provinces to every change would be asking almost an impossibility; to ask that either British Columbia in the west or Prince Edward Island in the east should be able to block a change with which it is essential for the federal power to go ahead within the limits of its jurisdiction on certain matters, I do not think would be right; but on essential matters, such matters, for instance, as the protection of minorities, of language, of schools, as they are inserted in the British North America Act, I believe it should not be possible to make a change without the consent of all.
Mr. LaVERGNE: That is not much of a protection.


Ernest Lapointe: I think that is more a
protection than the present system. What is the present system protecting? My hon. friend will admit with me that'there are not many cases where protection has been extended.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: I think that protection
is more of a legend and a myth than a reality. I believe that the best safeguard of minorities in this country is in themselves, to assert their own rights to arrange with their fellow countrymen, and that a constitution agreed upon by all the provinces, which is a Canadian instrument, and which becomes the charter of the country, would, I think, be more a protection than the present one.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad my hon. friend agrees with me on this. I do not think that seeking outside of our own country a protection of our rights or prerogatives is consistent with the present stage of our evolution as a nation.
Mr. LaVERGNE : Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: I am pleased indeed that a conference is going to take place where the whole subject will be discussed by the representatives of this Dominion and the representatives of the provinces. I am glad of the suggestion offered by the Minister of Justice that a committee of this parliament should be formed next session for the purpose of preparing the Dominion case, of trying to agree on the proposal which will be submitted to that conference. That may be the only opportunity of us who sit on this side of the house to express our views as regards that subject, because the government naturally would supply the representatives at the conference, but we will certainly be pleased to cooperate with my hon. friend and his colleagues in trying to come to an understanding as to what ought to be the position to be taken by the Dominion at the conference. I also believe that all the constitutional authorities in this country, lawyers, professors and studepts, and common people as well-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest Lapointe: I mean the public at
large, although I do not think I need qualify it. I said "students," and every Canadian is a student at the present time. I think they
14S0
British North America Act

should consider this matter very carefully, offer their suggestions, discuss it in the press and in the universities, so that the best possible solution or decision may be reached when the time comes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, it is with some timidity and a good deal of natural diffidence that I venture upon this debate after the extraordinary brilliant speeches that have preceded the poor one that I am about to make. The only reason that I venture to enter into the discussion is that I hope before I sit down to offer a suggestion that has not yet been made in connection with this whole matter. I am further encouraged to enter the debate as the result of the closing remarks of my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Lapointe). Not being a lawyer; being only to a minor degree a student of this subject; being merely one of the common people, I feel that now that we have been included in the discussion of this problem I may, as a humble representative of one section of the common people, take a share in the discussion.


Ernest Lapointe: The invitation was
directed towards my hon. friend.


Edward Joseph Garland: I rather felt that this was the case. I would point out, however, that even in the debate that has taken place there is distinct evidence of the tremendous confusion that is possible even in the consideration of the amendment of the constitution. Why, the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat suggested at one stage of his speech that we now have the right to amend the constitution, and then within five minutes he said, "But I agree with the motion that we should have the right to amend the constitution." That is just one illustration in passing of the trouble we get into in the use of words in a question of this kind. I have no doubt in the world that I shall probably get into the same kind of bog myself before I get through. The Minister of Justice also suggested that we had progressed very satisfactorily for sixty years under the constitution, and having satisfied himself that wTe had progressed very satisfactorily he then proceeded to say a little later on that we had just blundered along somehow or other.
The latter statement is about right; we have blundered along, but in the meantime we have been blundering favourably in another direction. May I quote the words of Mr. Brooke Claxton, in the opening part of his article in the supplement to the McGill News

on the amendment of the British North America Act. He says:
The principle of self-development is as compelling in political organizations as in individuals, and the British Empire offers no finer aspect than that of a long procession of innumerable peoples-colonies, dominions, states -moving slowly but surely towards that end.
Towards what- end? Towards the end of self-development.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Might I ask a question? With all these amendments to the constitution and these imperial conferences; with the power to amend our own constitution, which Australia has, is it not a fact that to-day the British Empire has practically dissolved by its own consent, and exists only through sentiment?


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not want to enter into a discussion of that question, but I think if the hon. gentleman will read Professor Zimmern's book, The Third British Empire, he will find that is exactly the position in which the British Empire found itself in 1926 or about that time. Professor Zimmern is a far greater authority on that subject than I am; all I could do would be, to express my private opinion, in which I am sure the hon. gentleman is not interested.
During the past twelve years in particular this country, in common with the other dominions, has made most extraordinary progress in regard to this very thing which is mentioned by Mr. Brooke Claxton, selfdevelopment, so that to-day we have laid down this principle, that equality of status is, in so far as the United Kingdom and the dominions are concerned, the root principle governing our inter-relation. The old colonial position is past, or is rapidly passing. The Governor General has ceased to be the representative of the government of the United Kingdom; now he is the direct representative of His Majesty to this country. Even the position of the king has changed, for now he is clearly and definitely the king of Canada and appoints his viceroy on advice of Canadian ministers only, and the treaties that we enact by our own right contain words to that affect. "The King, in respect of the Dominion of Canada" is the phraseology actually used. We are, as it is set forth in the report of the recent conference, in no way subordinate in respect of any of our relations, internal or external, to any' other government in the commonwealth of British nations or any other government at all. We appoint our own ambassadors; we make our own treaties; shortly we are to pass the statute

British North America Act
14S1
of Westminster which will remove almost the last remaining vestiges of our colonial inferiority.	.
So, steadily and persistently, the growth of our autonomous state has proceeded. The status of severeign freedom, with one great exception at least, is now almost complete. That one exception is in respect of this very matter which we are now discussing We recognize the same king that is recognized by the other dominions. A king union is now in existence. The king acts, in so far as Canada is concerned, on the advice of his constitutionally appointed ministers in Canada and does not act, in respect of Canada, on the advice of anybody else. That is a remarkable advance. But have we reached equality? I submit to the house that we have not reached the equality in one respect at least. The constitutional position is such as certainly would not justify us in terming ourselves wholly autonomous. The constitution under which we function is not our constitution; we have not the power to amend it.


Peter McGibbon: We might have the
power if we wanted it.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, but we have not got it. All we possess to-day, with all due respect to the speakers who have preceded me, is the right to pass a humble address through both houses, and humbly petition the parliament of another country to pass an act to amend what we call our constitution. It is an absurd and anomalous position in view' of our assertions of equality of status.


Peter McGibbon: Was not that the cause-


Edward Joseph Garland: I would ask my hon. friend to let me go on. All that we possess is the power to ask another parliament to do for us what we cannot do ourselves, but I am very glad to-night to hear the unanimous opinion of this house as expressed so far that we should have the power, the right to amend the constitution. I submit that legally the parliament of the United Kingdom can destroy, remove, amend or modify what we call the constitution of Canada without even consulting this country. The British North America Act is not a treaty; it is not a compact, it is not a contract, by the -widest stretch of the imagination. The British North America Act is only a statute of the United Kingdom, nothing more and nothing less. The only body that can effect that statute, naturally, is the body which created
it, and that is the parliament of the United Kingdom. That is the proud position in which we find ourselves.
Hon. members have referred to this act as a contract; they have submitted that it is so much of a contract that the provinces must be consulted before amendments are submitted to the parliament of the United Kingdom. With all due respect I think my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice had some views of his own to express in that regard not long ago. I submit that there is no evidence, at any time, by either enactment or resolution, of any effect whatever upon which this claim can be based or entailing the consulting of the provinces. As a matter of fact the contrary is the case. On almost every occasion on which this parliament and the senate were called upon to consider amending the constitution, or rather a petition for the amendpaent thereof, the opposition raised this question of the right of the provinces to consultation and assent. All the way down the history of constitutional amendments you will find the point, raised that this is a contract and that this parliament has no power to change the contract without consulting the provinces. On every occasion this parliament rejected the opinion so expressed and proceeded to request the amendment without consulting the provinces.
Take next the classic case which has been mentioned in this debate, the case of 1907, with respect to the adjustment of subsidies. Consultation with the provinces had taken place prior to the meeting of parliament, but that consultation was not for the purpose of securing the consent of the provinces to the amendment but merely of getting their agreement to the terms of the change in subsidy. That was all. Moreover, it is to be noted that there is one definite illustration beyond any other-and this confirms me in my belief -to show that hitherto there has been no obligation upon this parliament to secure the consent of the provinces in regard to amendments to the constitution. I refer to the fact that British Columbia and Prince Ediward Island disagreed with the proposed amendment. Both of these provinces passed resolutions through itheir legislative chambers protesting against the terms and one, British Columbia, vigorously resisted them. One of the members representing Prince Edward Island in the house at that time spoke, he said, on behalf of the government and the people of that province, and placed himself in direct opposition to the proposed amendment. But it made no difference; the petition for the amendment was agreed to by this parliament
British North America Act

and went forward. When it went to London, Mr. McBride, the premier of British Columbia, accompanied the delegation and presented himself to protest against the passing of the legislation. It just happened by good fortune that there had been inserted in that bill three words-really two-which were utterly unnecessary and absolutely inapplicable in any statute, especially one such as this. Those words were, "final and unalterable." Those words, I say, were altogether inapplicable, and obviously so; because no amendment to any constitution, not even indeed to a statute of parliament, can be declared by one parliament to be final and unalterable for the simple reason that the succeeding parliament can do what it will with that enactment. And so, to save Mr. McBride's face, Mr. Chamberlain decided to have those words struck out, so that when Mr. McBride came home he was in a position to say that the honour of the province had been vindicated and a constiu-tional crisis obviated.
Bet us go back to 1869, when it was proposed to increase the subsidy to Nova Scotia. The Hon. Mr. Blake rose in the house and protested. He is reported as having said:
It was impossible to suppose that the representatives of the lower provinces had consented to the British North America Act with the understanding and knowledge that it could at any time be changed by a majority in the Canadian parliament.
Very striking words, these. A little later the Hon. Mr. Wood moved an amendment in which he held that the financial arrangements then in the act were a matter of treaty and that even parliament had not the power to change the terms.
Now, if ever there was an illustration of the right claimed by some that the provinces be consulted, it was then furnished. Here was the very essence of the claim of provincial rights-that the consent of the provinces was necessary. The Hon. Mr. Holton spoke. He held that the union was a pact or a treaty between the provinces, and he argued therefrom that they should be consulted. But what happened? The simple result was that the government's proposal was ratified in both houses. As to the contention that consent was necessary by the provinces, it did not succeed but was clearly rejected by parliament.
In connection with the Manitoba Act of 1870, confirmed by the imperial parliament in 1871, it is interesting to note what a well-known constitutional student and authority, John W. Dafoe, said in his article with reference to revising the constitution. That article 
appeared in Queens' Quarterly, the winter issue of 1930, and in it this authority states:
Considerable light is thrown upon the ideas current at that time with respect to the procedure to be followed in securing constitutional legislation by the discussion in the Canadian parliament, which preceded the passage of the British North America Act, confirming the Manitoba Act of 1870 by the imperial parliament in 1871.
The following are the words to which I wish to direct attention particularly:
If it was the understanding at the time of confederation that the provinces were to be parties, at least to the point of giving their consent, to constitutional legislation, it is a little remarkable that no province took exception to the admission to the family of Manitoba under special conditions as to representation, nor to the extensive powers conferred upon the Dominion by the British North America Act of 1871 for the establishment of new provinces.
There, if ever, was an opportunity offered, such as one cannot imagine unless it be the one in 1869; and yet there was no protest, no insistence even in the house, on the part of the advocates of provincial rights, upon the right of the provinces to be consulted.
In 1914 the House of Commons unanimously approved an address to the imperial parliament to change the representation in the Senate. Any student of constitutional history in this country will realize that that did directly affect the original terms of the so-called pact, especially in regard to the province of Quebec. The Senate was regarded as embodying a certain balance for the protection of such rights, and any modification thereof, any adjustment of representation in connection therewith, should certainly have been a matter for consultation with the provinces, if there is validity in the contention that the provinces should be consulted. But what is the fact? This house proceeded unanimously to pass the resolution. The bill went to the Senate and there Senator Dandurand held that approval of the older provinces, or at least consultation with them, should have been effected. But he did not even insist upon their approval; he held that at least there should have been consultation. And observe that in that case it had been the intention of the government to seek to bring about this material change by order in council. It was on that occasion that a motion was introduced-I forget who it was that introduced ,it-determining that in future amendments should be sought on petition of parliament and not of the government. The matter dropped, because the Liberals in the Senate insisted upon attaching to the resolu-

British North America Act
tion a rider to the effect that it should not take effect until the end of that parliament. The leader of the House of Commons at the time refused to accept the Liberal suggestion and the proposed resolution was dropped.
, In 1915 Sir Robert Borden again brought the address to the attention of parliament. There was very little debate in the Commons. ,No question was raised as to the consent of the provinces being required. As soon as the proposal reached the Senate, Senator Bostock, without any reference to the question of the consent of the provinces, once more added the proviso for delay and it was accepted by the leader of the house and by the house. It passed both houses and became, in effect, an application for amendment. And again there was no consultation with the provinces. I may observe, by the way, in connection with the debate that took place in this house following the insistence of the Liberal majority in the Senate at that time upon adding to the resolution their delaying amendment, that some caustic remarks were made; and one .of the most caustic and bitter was a lecture to the Senate, read in th'is house by the then Honourable Richard Bedford Bennett, the same gentleman I believe who is now the leader of the government. In the course of that debate he used this language1- and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether we should be called to order if we used such language to-day. He said that Senate was "an irresponsible body which has thwarted the will of democracy as expressed by this House of Commons."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Edward Joseph Garland: I say "hear, hear," too. I think it was very appropriate language under the circumstances. May I submit, in connection with the question of the complete consent of the provinces, it would be a tremendously serious thing if at any time this country were to acquiesce in the contention that the unanimous approval of the provinces should be secured before any amendment to the constitution is requested? It is exceedingly fortunate that so far this form of procedure has not been established, nor has at any time the requirement of consent of the provinces been established in law or in fact.
In view of the growth and of the importance of the Dominion to-day, in view also of the root principle of equality, in view of the expensive and irritating litigation entailed in an effort to cover matters that were never dreamed of by the fathers of confederation and to stretch the hitherto useful but now
almost outworn constitution to cover those points-in view of all this, it is certainly time to consider calmly and with the most meticulous care what attitude we should take in connection with this proposal. The constitution as we call it, is no sacred tablet. It should not be permitted to shackle our progress or in any way to hamper the evolution, social, economic or political, of this country, and certainly we are entitled now to seek that amendments to the act may be applied by us in our own right and that we shall not be under the obligation of appealing for them to another parliament. That is the smallest step that I would take. Is it not amazing that to-day in spite of all our boasted development of status we do not possess what every Canadian club or board of trade or horse racing organization possesses? These have constitutions of their own and power to amend them. Even our provinces have the right to amend their constitutions.
Speakers who have preceded me have referred to the position in respect to this matter in other of the dominions. In the South African Act of 1909, in the Australian Act of 1900, and in the Irish Free State Act of 1922, provision is made in every case for the amendment of the constitution.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With certain restrictions.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes. The British North America Act, as I have said, like any statute of the United Kingdom, can be amended only by the United Kingdom. What is the condition in Australia? The exMinister of Justice has already intimated in part what it is. In Australia the constitution may be amended by a vote of an absolute majority of both federal houses, approved by a majority of votes passed in Australia itself, and by a majority vote in a majority of the states.
In South Africa the constitution may be amended by an act passed in the usual way, except that amendments that affect either language or qualification of voters require a two-thirds vote of all members of both houses. In the Irish Free State there is in operation, commencing this year, a provision that amendments may be secured by an act adopted in the usual way and approved by the vote of the majority of persons qualified to vote or by a two-thirds vote of the electorate.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is provided the amendment is in conformity with the treaty.


Edward Joseph Garland: Of course.
We find that in comparison with these other
British North America Act

countries, we are relatively in a strait-jacket sixty years old. The problem facing us resolves itself into two heads: first the formulation of an amendment. How should this house or this parliament do this? How can Canada best express what she wants? It has become clear to me in recent years in particular, because of the insistence of the provinces on increasing their rights, that we can no longer escape the necessity, no longer escape what I think we are bound to regard as an obligation in the interest of peace, order, and good government, to consult the provinces. I am forced to that conclusion. Picking up again that excellent article by Brooke Claxton, I find he uses this language in regard to it. He deplores the increase of provincial power to the exclusion or diminution of federal power. To some degree I agree with him as did, I think, almost all speakers who preceded me. In this article he calls attention to this. He says:
The weight, of decision has swung backwards and forwards between provincial and federal rights, now favouring the one and now the mher. Since the case of Russell versus the Queen (1882) the general trend has been in favour of provincial rights and array from the express intention of the fathers of confederation to strengthen the central government. It was only in 1922, however, that the general power to legislate for the "peace, order and good government" of Canada became stripped of all effect, except in time of war or general national peril. The federal government, which used to be amply clothed with plenary power, is left without a stitch beyond a sword-belt. The result of all this has been to weaken the federal government's hands and to strengthen the provinces, to weaken national feeling and to strengthen sectional and provincial feeling, to cool the spirit of self-sacrifice and cooperation that during the tvar joined the country from end to end. "Provincial patriotism flourished vigorously under the fostering care of judicial decisions."
I am sure I hear those sentiments echoed in many mouths to-night.
Mr. LaVERGNE : That is. not corroborated by facts or jurisprudence.


Edward Joseph Garland: Just a minute. He continues:
This is the reverse of the process in the United States, where, since Marshall became chief justice, the general trend has been to strengthen the federal government and the power of the supreme court. Lord Bryce *wrote. "Had the supreme court of the United States of America been in those days possessed of the same spirit of strictness and literalitv which the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has applied to the construction of the British North America Act, 1867, the United States' constitution would never have grown to what it now is.

I submit it now becomes necessary that amendments to the constitution shall receive the support of the voice of all the people in all the legislatures in this country, not unanimously by any means, but by a method to be worked out by such a conference as has been suggested to-night. But the one thing with which I take issue in this amendment, taking it in conjunction with the speech of the mover, is this, that in the discussion of the motion-
That, in the opinion of this house, it is desirable that Canada should have the right to amend her own constitution.
-he dwelt almost entirely upon social and economic legislation, all of which may be adjusted by amendment to-day. So that the right of amendment by the Dominion is not involved in the major part of the hon. gentleman's address, and that was really the one thing that bothered me a little bit about it I do not want to strip the provinces of a single vestige of power which they should properly possess, but neither do I want to see the Dominion bereft of its powers and bedevilled by an infernal succession of appeals to litigation on matters so potent to common sense that one cannot for the world understand Why they should ever become matters of litigation. Let me just mention the two latest problems-the problem of aviation and the problem of radio. What interest under heaven can any single province have in the development of either of these great new enterprises which must inevitably be national in character? And yet you have the insistent and growing greed for power of the provinces, ever reaching out to grasp every new development that may take place. That problem has to be met.
The second thing which we have to consider is the enactment of the amendment, and in this connection let me submit to the house that it is not so much an amendment to the constitution that we need, as the creation of our own constitution, %, constitution in which all the necessary constitutional limitations shall be embodied. The occasion of the coming Dominion-provincial conference on this matter might well be the moment for the selection of a royal commission to redraft our constitution or draft a new one, clarrifying it, making clear the relative powers of the Dominion and of the provinces, especially where serious doubts still exist, ironing out many of the difficulties that can be ironed out by the application to the problem of reason and common sense.
* But that would not suffice. After the royal commission had drafted such a constitution,

British North America Act
it should be submitted to the people in a referendum, just as was done in the case of Australia. Let me recall to the members of the house-I think most of them are familiar with it-that the constitution which was drafted by a commission in Australia was submitted to the people of Australia in a referendum, and by a very large majority the first draft was rejected. The commission reconsidered the objections to the first draft, amended the constitution again, and once more submitted it to the people, whereupon it was accepted by a very large majority.
Mr. LaVERGNE: What if the amended constitution were rejected by one province?


Edward Joseph Garland: I will deal with that in a moment. In Australia they now have a constitution that comes from the people, and that is what I say Canada should have. The initial draft could be prepared by a commission at the direction of the Dominion-provincial conference. The draft could be submitted by a referendum to the people. If it was not satisfactory to the people, the constitution could be redrafted and submitted again until finally we evolved our own constitution, one arising from and out of the people of this country. After that has been done, I submit that before it should become the formal, official constitution, the draft might secure the consent by resolution of the two major and older provinces, Quebec and Ontario. I make this suggestion in order that we shall ensure definitely that such a constitution would not in any way violate any understood obligations of this country towards the so-called minority. It is a detail which may well await the maturer considerations of the proposed commission.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You do not believe in
equality of status among the provinces?


Edward Joseph Garland: This is not so much a matter of equality of status as a matter of carrying out an obligation-an obligation which we have towards these people, and which I personally, with all others, am willing to accept.
The world has advanced at a great pace since 1867. Science has brought up many new problems, some of which I have mentioned, and which demand solution, problems which certainly were undreamt of by the fathers of confederation and by the parliament of the United Kingdom which enacted the British North America Act. Surely the time has come for this country, which we boast has progressed more than, or at least as much as, any other country on earth, to reconsider in the light of the developments which have 22110-95
taken place in the last sixty years, its whole constitutional fabric and attempt to bring it up to date, instead of doing, as the Minister of Justice said we had done-just muddling through with something that inferentially compels us to muddle through; and he is right. All we are doing to-day is muddling through in a hideous mass of litigation from one year-end to another on questions that could be cleared up measurably by the application of rational, constructive, creative ability. As I said, we .have now to provide for problems that did not exist sixty years ago. Shall we continue to try to stretch this act to cover what it could never have been intended to cover-for that is what we are trying to do to-day-or Shall we now at last prepare our own constitution to meet more fully, more fairly, and more justly the problems of to-day, and make it a constitution more in keeping with the nationhood that we have acquired? Or shall we continue to spend fortunes in futile litigation in an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable? I stand for a new constitution for Canada-our own.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I intend to take up only a few minutes. I remember the first confederation day in July 1867 as distinctly as if it took place only a year or two years ago. Since that time, at least since I was a boy of fifteen, I have had intimate relations with nearly every prominent man on either side of politics in Canada, and I have heard the constitutional questions as they arose discussed by the men who made the issues. I think that my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Garland) perhaps lacks an intimate knowledge of the atmosphere in which and the conditions under which our constitution has developed. He has referred to a number of instances in which the parliament of Canada decided as to the exact terms of the amendments to be proposed to the imperial parliament, and in respect of which the provinces were not in particular cases consulted. Admitting that the parliament of Canada has control of the treasury of Canada, admitting that the parliament of Canada may distribute, by act of the parliament of Canada, its funds for such purposes as it deems appropriate, then, until last year, I do not remember any amendment to the British North America Act in which the provinces as provinces were intimately concerned. But I do say this, that from the very earliest times the leading public men in both political parties, because there were then only two parties in the main, have proceeded on the basis that in respect of those matters in which the provinces as provinces



British North America Act

were concerned they should be consulted before radical amendments were made to the British North America Act. When I say radical amendments I mean amendments such as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has described-reapportioning the division of legislative jurisdiction between the legislatures of the provinces and the federal parliament.
I quite agree that the time is coming when Canada, by the concerted action of the federal as well as the provincial authorities, may well exercise, the right and legislative power of amending the constitution of Canada. However, in providing ways and means for such amendment we must necessarily make such discrimination as the Minister of Justice made to-night and in which I understood the hon. member for Quebec East, the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), to concur. The constitution of Canada as expressed in the British North America Act, as pointed out by hon. members who have preceded me, deals with certain matters which should be within the competence of this parliament alone to decide. With respect to those matters the provinces are not interested and should not be consulted.
I will go so far as to say that even in certain minor matters a new apportionment of legislative jurisdiction might be made by the consent of the majority of the provinces. But amendments to the main structure of confederation, which forms the basis of the union of our people of different religions and different races, cannot be placed within the jurisdiction of this federal parliament alone if the peace and good order, happiness and contentment of our people is to continue in the future as it has in the past. Before the recent Dominion-provincial conference, simply trying my hand for the amusement of myself and the information of some of my friends, I drafted a clause which might be inserted in the new statute of Westminster with regard to future amendments to the British North America Act. But being present I felt the atmosphere of the recent provincial conference, and it was then quite clear to me that my personal ideas were altogether too radical to secure the approval of the conference. It seemed to me however-and this is merely a personal suggestion-that we might come to an understanding with the provinces to the effect that mere amendments to our own constitution such as parliamentary procedure, the constitution of our own parliament in so far as it does not affect the rights of provinces and their proportional representation therein, should be within the competence of this parliament, exclusively. With
fMr. Cahan.]
regard to those other matters which concern the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces, in contradistinction to the legislative jurisdiction of the Dominion, I think we might possibly find some line of division in respect to which a majority of the provinces concurring might authorize the Dominion parliament to proceed with amendments.
I heard the expression informally upon at least half a dozen occasions from half a dozen representatives of provinces of Canada during the recent provincial conference that it should not be within the competence of one provincial legislature, through indirect action for local and selfish motives, to prevent reforms being carried out which were approved by all the other provinces. I would not speak in terms of disrespect concerning the province of ' Prince Edward Island; I love that island, because it is the neighbour of my native province of Nova Scotia. I hold that province in great respect, and yet I heard it suggested on several occasions that the province of Prince Edward Island alone or the province of Nova Scotia alone should not be placed in the position of being permitted to thwart every measure of public reform desired by the other provinces of the Dominion. That issue must be met. With regard to these other matters, however, which deal with education and the like, which deal with race and language and frame the issues upon which the compromise was reached by the fathers of confederation, those matters certainly should not be changed except with the consent of those provinces which, by reason of their populations being largely of one race or the other, are therefore intimately concerned therein. My proposition was of no great value, but I suggested that the British North America Act might be amended by an act of the parliament of Canada which should pass both houses of parliament either by a clear majority of all the members or by a three-quarters majority in each house.


Ernest Lapointe: Or a two-thirds majority.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am giving perhaps a more conservative safeguard. Before such a measure should receive the assent of the governor general in the name of the king it should within eighteen months thereafter receive the approval of either the governments of the several provinces or the legislatures of the several provinces. I myself favoured the approval of the separate and distinct legislatures. There was a further provision that changes which affected interests of race, religion and education should be concurred in by all the legislatures of all the provinces. It

British North America Act
is along that line that I think the minds of men are working.
I do not believe in putting the whole Canadian constitution into the waste heap. I lived my youth with those men who framed our confederation. Perhaps it was because of my youth and their political stature that I have now so high an appreciation of their great intelligence and ability. I do not think that in this present day, even in this parliament, that we have the same political intelligence- well, perhaps I should not say that. However, there is such a thing as political intelligence. My hon. friend who preceded me spoke of other kinds of intelligence, but in regard to political intelligence I do not think we are in any way superior to the men who sat in the first parliament of Canada. I do not think we are more sincere or more patriotic, and I doubt if we understand the problems of our day more clearly than they understood the problems of their day. It is all nonsense to suggest, as my hon. friend has, that a few businessmen can express a political constitution in such terms of clarity as to preclude litigation with respect to it in the future.


Edward Joseph Garland: Not at all; I did not say that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understood that to be the suggestion of my hon. friend.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, I
never referred to businessmen. I referred to a royal commission appointed by an interprovincial conference. I am sure my hon. friend would not take issue with a royal commission.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not taking issue with a royal commission at all.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is not fair to say that I spoke of a few businessmen framing a constitution.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But the hon. gentleman seemed to cast some reflection on the present constitution by reason of the fact that it had given rise to litigation, and to suggest that such litigation was to be obviated' by the new constitution which is to be developed by some means such as he suggested. So long as mortal man finds it difficult to express his thoughts in concise, precise language, so long will thfere be litigation. I do not think that this Canada to-day has men in its midst who are more capable of expressing their views in concise, precise terms that will avoid litigation in the future than were those men who framed our original constitution. It is a matter of sincere congratulation to this country that we have developed as we have with
that consistent cordial cooperation which has distinguished men on both sides and of all parties who have represented Canada in this House of Commons. I sat in this press gallery in 1887 and 1888 as a reporter, with Sir John Macdonald leading the house, with Blake and Cartwright and Mills on the other side, and when Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Mr. Wilfrid Laurier, had hardly emerged into the political prominence to which he afterwards attained. The members of this house are not more intelligent than those men, though as intelligent no doubt in dealing with the problems which we have to deal with as were our predecessors in dealing with the problems of their day. And we will go on and deal with them. We want no revolutionary changes. Let us develop in the future as we have developed for the past sixty years, during which period we have avoided those grave perils and difficulties which had been foreseen from time to time by those who preceded us. To do that we must proceed by cordial cooperation and by consent. I would give to the provinces by consent the largest liberty that it is possible to give them; but I agree with those hon. gentleman who say it is their duty as members of this federal parliament to preserve intact to the fullest extent possible the legislative jurisdiction which we now enjoy, because the exercise of that jurisdiction by a parliament representative of all the provinces, of all the electoral districts of Canada, is absolutely necessary if we are to develop in the future as in the past as a nation under the British crown.
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Montmagny): Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to think we are wandering far from the resolution. If I understand it well, the resolution is to this effect: whether Canada is to be mistress of her own destiny, to be able to amend her constitution, or whether she is still to be under the imperial act which can be changed only at the will of Great Britain. I 'think that every Canadian proud of being a Canadian will agree with the resolution that Canada should be mistress of her own destiny, of her own constitution.
The resolution provides for the safeguard of the rights of minorities. I dhall come back to that later on. But objections have been raised to the consent of the provinces being necessary to a change in our constitution. In my opinion the provinces, as sovereign colonies, have retained to themselves certain of their original rights, and have delegated the balance to the central power. Whether we like it or not, I cannot see why this parliament should be able to amend the constitution so far as it affects such rights of the provinces
British North America Act

as were guaranteed by article 92 of the British North America Act. That is, their rights cannot be touched by this parliament, and the act in these respects can be amended only by their consent. Every right reserved to the provinces by section 92 belongs to the provinces, and this parliament could not, even by unanimous vote, take those rights away from them. I have heard to-night that this has been done in the past. But I would point out that the resolutions that have been passed from time to time to amend the constitution have not touched the rights of the provinces, except so far as they may have been included in section 91 of the act, in which cases the consent of the provinces was given by the vote in this house of the members representing those provinces.
Now, the question is this: Should Canada be mistress of her own destiny? I think we all agree on that, and if we do not, I am sure the dissenting minority would be very small. But at the same time we must understand that the pact of 1867 was the delegation by sovereign colonies to the central parliament of certain of their rights, reserving others, and the rights so reserved this parliament cannot touch. For instance, we cannot amend the civil code of the province of Quebec; we cannot amend the rights of the provinces with respect to their municipal law. Those rights belong to the provinces, and if we passed any resolution or any statute to curtail or take away those rights we would be disrupting confederation. Of course, there has been litigation. Wherever there is law there must be litigation, and since the code of Justinian, or even before that, since the law of the twelve tables, there has been litigation, and as long as laws are passed, even by the parliament of Canada-although the House of Commons as it is constituted to-day represents the best brains of the country-I am sure there is bound to be litigation regarding their interpretation. But I know this-and here I take issue with my friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland)-that far from the provinces en-croacbing on the central power, experience, jurisprudence and facts have demonstrated that every time that a province and the central power have passed concurrent legislation, the federal legislation was certain to supersede and to nullify the provincial legislation. Therefore, far from encroaching on the central power. I think all the provinces have seen their powers curtailed through the very letter of section 92.
My hon. friend very lightly, and I was going to say very broadly but that is not the word I want, stated that the rights of the

minorities should be preserved. Well, we had the British North America Act, by which the rights of the minorities were to be preserved. More than that, we had the declaration by Lord Carnarvon u'hen moving the adoption of the British North America Act in the House of Lords in 1865 or 1866. He stated that not only the minorities in esse but the minorities in posse should have the same rights the moment they entered union, and that Lower Canada was as just proud of her institutions as was Upper Canada. Lord Carnarvon said that any minority, be it French or English. Catholic or Protestant, the moment it entered the union with a system of separate schools or with certain rights of language, would have those rights preserved.
I ask this House of Commons how this pact has been kept. We have had the British North America Act amended without the consent of this House of Commons. It has been amended in Manitoba, where the rights of the minority have been curtailed by the legislature. I must say that this parliament tried to pass a remedial bill. I do not warn to open old sores, but the remedial bill was not passed, and every hon. member remembers why. Let me quote one point. In 1897, when Sir Charles Tupper was leader of the opposition, he offered the then Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the full support of the opposition if another remedial bill should be introduced. The Conservative government had just fallen over the cause of the minority in Manitoba, and I think there is no page in Canadian history of which a nation should be more proud and of which the Conservative party should be more proud than that which has to do with this action of the old leader of the Conservative party, who had been defeated in 1896 because he stood for the rights of minorities and for justice and liberty in this country.
This will show that in spite of our blunders we still manage to get through. I have heard from some people who call themselves very strong provincial rights-and not to bring any names before this house I shall not name the premiers of Quebec-that Canada should not be mistress of her owrn destiny, that our safeguard was in Westminster and the throne. I believe I am one of the last monarchists in the world just now-certainly I am not of the most convinced monarchists-and no one more than myself believes in the right of petition to the throne. However, I must.go further. I do not agree with the premier of Quebec: I think these are Canadian matters which should be settled between Canadians. I have enough confidence in my English-speaking compatriots to trust the destinies of the minority of this province in their hands.

British North America Act
Probably, and I think undoubtedly, there will be some who will not immediately accept the rights of the minority in this province. There are those who, rightly or wrongly-wrongly, in my opinion-think it is too bad that we should have two languages and two religions in this country. With regard to the two religions, even if the Roman Catholic religion disappeared I think my hon. friends who are not of my faith might find a little difficulty in agreeing among themselves. But let me go further: I know there is a school of thought who say, as they said sixty years ago, that this country must be English, even at the expense of ceasing to be British. I claim the greatest asset of this country is our dual language and our dual civilization, and I have enough confidence in the spirit of fair play and the Canadian spirit of my English-speaking compatriots to trust in their hands, rather than in the hands of Westminster or even the privy council, the destinies of the minorities of this country. That is why I heartily support the motion.
I think these are questions which should be discussed among ourselves. We may have bitter discussions at times, until we come to the conclusion that whether we be of French or English origin, of Catholic or Protestant faith, we have one common ground, and that is our common mother Canada, the land of our forefathers, the only land we care for and the only land to which we owe a duty. For these reasons I humbly support the resolution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre will close the debate if he speaks now. Does any other hon. member wish to speak?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems to me,
Mr. Speaker, with the tone of the debate which has taken place this evening, that there would be no great purpose served by putting this motion to a vote. There have been some rather minor objections to the motion; some criticism has been made as to the wording, and some hon. members might not care to support the motion just as it stands. So I feel that as on the whole the motion has received such very general support from all sections of the house, there would be no particular object gained in calling for a vote.
It appears to me that we have indeed made a very great deal of progress in the last few years. I cannot but recall with some amusement that when I first introduced this question seven years ago one of the newspapers printed a fine cartoon in which the Canadian
constitution was represented as a magnificent pillar, while the mover of the resolution was pictured as a tiny mosquito attempting to undermine or break down that pillar. We have, gone beyond that stage, and it is a great gain when we can seriously and dispassionately discuss, a matter of this kind. :
I welcome the suggestion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) that next year, or in! the near future, a special committee of this house will be appointed to prepare our case^ In that way we can see what amendments may be necessary, so that when a constitutional conference is called we shall be in a position to handle the matter with some intelligence. That statement from the minister is, I think, all that could be expected as a result of our discussion this evening. I quite agree with the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) in his eulogy of the giants of the older days, with their wonderful political intelligence, and of course all of us who live in these degenerate days must look back with a great deal' of reverence to the men of sixty years ago. At the same time, I would submit that we must work out our own problems in our own day and in our own way. And that is not to show any disrespect to those who have gone before us. As I said in my speech tonight, the men in that day differed from the others in that they were willing to take a chance in having some change from the conditions that had prevailed prior to their time; and we are most truly following in their footsteps when we undertake to make necessary changes in our day. So that, inasmuch as we are now confronted with a new set of circumstances, the only thing for us to do is to endeavour to bring about suitable modifications.
I would take exception again to the statement reiterated by the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) that there was an agreement. I do not wish to attempt to cover the ground which I went over before, but it does seem to me that it is impossible for us, in view of the historical data we have available, to hold that there was any definite agreement as to the terms of the British North America Act. The hon. member is on much safer ground in the sentiments he expressed in the latter part of his short speech. We have come to the point where we can trust one another, and I think the hon. gentleman will recognize that a statement of that kind from him will cause the rest of us to feel not that we must take advantage of any opportunity to get even with him or to get the better of him, but would rather provoke in us a desire to be worthy of such trust.
British North America Act

Mr. LaVERGNE : I think the agreement was arrived at in this way. Sir Alexander Galt, in the name of the minority of Quebec, requested that certain rights should be granted to minorities, either Catholic or Protestant, in all the provinces. It was he who, in the name of the Protestant minority of Quebec, requested that agreement on resolutions from Quebec.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I quite recognize
that certain agreements were made; we had a number of agreements. There were the original agreements of Quebec and London, and finally the British North America Act. Undoubtedly there were certain understandings. But my point is that we cannot hold to those in any hard and fast legal way. The British North America Act is not a contract in the sense of a legal contract. If I may use again the figure I ventured to use before, I would suggest that it is something in the nature of the marriage relationship. We have lived together, and the relationship has changed from a mere contract, so that we now entertain towards one another a certain degree of confidence and good fellowship, and affection if you like. The Dominion of Canada is more than a string of provinces: it is a family. In that sense we get away from the old difficulties as to whether Quebec and Ontario should be consulted, and they alone, since they were the old and original provinces, while the newer provinces are left out. Speaking personally, I may say that as a child I moved from the old province of Ontario to Manitoba. But I am just as much a Canadian as my cousins who remained in Ontario; and if there is to be any consultation I think I am just as much entitled to be consulted as those of my relatives who remained in this province. But that would not be the case if you held us to the old legal idea of Ontario as a distinct entity. Our grandfathers lived in different parts of the country and we may live also in different provinces, but we all live in Canada. The time has come when we should get away from the custom of thinking in purely legal terms. Let us think rather in terms of the actual conditions that prevail, and with a view to working out for the future a constitution which will really meet our needs as we see them to-day.
As my good friend the Secretary of State .(Mr. Cahan), whom I respect highly, was speaking, I could not but recall a resolution which I wrote out in a rather frivolous mood :about a year ago, when the ex-Prime Minister {Mr. Mackenzie King) was speaking so much about the British North America Act-we could not get anything done because of it, and so forth. And there was also a good 
deal of talk about the Kellogg pact and the idea of hanging it up in the schools. I know that irony is dangerous, but this is the resolution that occurred to me then as one which possibly might be suitable to place on the order paper:
. Whereas the tide of new and disturbing ideas is removing ancient landmarks, encroaching on hoary tradition, subverting archaic institutions, embarrassing routine administration and threatening established political equilibrium:
Therefore resolved that in the opinion of this house the government, after having obtained the consent of each and all of the provinces, should consider the advisability of hanging a suitably-framed copy of the British Aorth America Act in every schoolroom in Canada.
Cannot we get away from that old idea that we must always have respect for the letter of the pjst? Rather, we should seek to enter into the spirit of the fathers of confederation and to carry out their work along the new lines. I wish to express my own personal gratitude to the members of the house for the very thoughtful and considerate way in which they have received my resolution to-night, and with the consent of the house I beg leave to withdraw it.
Motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 12, 1931