1931-06-30

Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: On a question of privilege, I desire to refer for a few moments to an incident that occurred in the house last evening. During the speech which was being delivered by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), there were some interruptions, and during those interruptions you, Mr. Speaker, made the following remarks as reported in Hansard:
Mr Speaker:	I would ask hon. gentlemen to
desist trom loud remarks and interruptions while the minister is speaking. He has only ten minutes left, and a member cannot present his case when lie is continually interrupted.
I interjected this remark:
Mr. Duff:	Especially when they are speaking
from the other side.
You, sir, then said:
Mr. Speaker:	I resent that. The hon. member has no right to make any such statement.
Then a little further on the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) rose in his place and suggested that I should withdraw the observation which

I had just made. My reply to him was that I had heard the Prime Minister do the same thing that I had done, reflect on the Speaker. May I say to you, sir, and to the house that in my sixteen sessions in parliament I have always endeavoured to abide by and obey the rules of the house. Of course I do not pretend to be superhuman and I am liable to make mistakes, but may I assure you, sir, that in my first remarks, to which perhaps you had a right to object and to construe in a sense that was not intended, I did not mean to reflect in any way upon you, as Speaker of the house, when I interjected the remark:
Especially when they are speaking from the other side.
My last remark to the Prime Minister, where I ended up by saying "reflect on the Speaker," may be considered a reflection upon the chair and upon you. If in your opinion I have made any reflection upon you, the chair or the house, I gladly and willingly withdraw any remarks which might reflect upon the House of Commons, the chair or yourself.



NATURALIZATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary- of State) presented the report of the special committee to which was referred Bill No. 3, to amend the Naturalization Act.
He said: The report was unanimous.


Mr. T. H. STINSON (Victoria, Onit.):: With the unanimous consent of the house I desire to move:
That for the remaining period of the present session all private bills ready for presentation be read a first and second time and referred forthwith, and also that standing order 105 respecting the posting of all private bills referred to committees of the house be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: As regards the government notice of
motion standing in my name in connection with the Statute of Westminster, in view of what was said last evening that we dispose of order No. 27 for the second reading of Bill No. 47, to provide for the appointment of a Tariff Board, and then proceed with the government notice of motion. Perhaps we had better first dispose of order No. 27 and

Tariff Board-Mr. Bennett
then revert to government notices of motion. That is what we intimated at the close of last evening's business we would do.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Calling the
orders of the day first?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course.



UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister or the Acting Minister of Labour. Are they now in a position to give an outline of their scheme for the relief of people in western Canada who are in great distress and want? I am moved to ask this question in view of the number of letters and telegrams which I am receiving daily from my district. I will read just one short telegram which I received this morning, giving some idea of the condition that exists in the west. This is from Rockglen, Saskatchewan, under date of June 29, and is addressed to me at the House of Commons, Ottawa:
Fifteen families from Coal Creek colony are starving and request your investigation. Letter and details following.
William Griffin, chairman, Representatives Coal Creek colony.
I can read other letters showing that 98 per cent of the people in some of our municipalities are at the present time living on and taking relief from the municipalities and that the municipalities are to-day at the end of their resources and unable to furnish any kind of relief to these people. The conditions are appalling. It is absolutely necessary that something be done, and be done at once, if these people are to be kept from starving.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman knows perhaps quite as well as any other hon. member of this house that the primary responsibility with respect to caring for the citizenry of a province who are without food rests with the municipal authorities and the province.


Thomas F. Donnelly: The municipalities have no money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then have they made
appeal to the province? For as has been very often pointed out and is generally recognized, the duty rests primarily with the municipalities and with the province, and not with this parliament of the dominion. We have said, and we propose to continue to say, to the province that if the situation is as acute as the hon. gentleman indicates we will cooperate with them in any effort that may be necessary to deal with the situation. I saw the premiers
of two of the western provinces the other day. They were here for a day. They went away and came back again, and I saw them again. They are taking, as is their duty, an inventory of the very situation which the hon. gentleman has mentioned. I too have received many communications, many more than my hon. friend has, with respect to that whole loss of crop for three successive years in a great portion of the province of Saskatchewan. Obviously any statement that I would make on behalf of the Dominion government would have to be made after the provinces had thoroughly canvassed the situation, and when they were aware of just what had to be done, and were in a position to state in what manner we might assist them, for it would toe an intrusion into their affairs for the Dominion primarily to act in the situation. Nolt only would it be an intrusion, but one that might be resented, for already one of the provinces has stated that the government does not desire any assistance from the Dominion with respect to unemployment. This situation is not unemployment. It is far worse. It is a national calamity, in my judgment, if the information I receive is accurate, and to the extent that our services and assistance may be acceptable, within reasonable limitations, to the provinces affected, they will be available.



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 29, consideration of the motion of .the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett for the second reading of Bill No. 47, to provide for the appointment of a tariff board.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in availing myself of the opportunity which the rules afford to close the debate on .the motion which I made a few days ago in moving the second reading of the bill for the appointment of a tariff board, I do so with a due sense of the fact that the house does not desire to hear me or anyone else at any great length on this measure after the very full discussion which has already taken place, but, as has been observed, it is a matter of first rate importance, and I submit that there has been on the part of my hon. friends opposite a very apparent desire not to understand the motives which have actuated us in the action which we are taking.
First, I may say that .the question of motive cannot in any sense influence legislation. When I heard the right hon. gentleman
Tariff Board-Mr. Bennett

opposite (Mr. Mackenzie King) talk of motives, and talk of ulterior purposes, and talk of the use of language in some subtle sense, and talk of shackles and of rivettings upon the people, I realized that this was all so much camouflage and a waste of time and, worse than that, an insult to the intelligence of any hon. member of this house, for surely the right hon. gentleman realizes-he has been in parliament long enough to realize-that the very first rale that governs with respect to legislation is this, that the plain and obvious meaning must be attached to words that are used in their ordinary sense. It is not open to the courts which in the end determine what meaning must be attached to the words in a statute to attribute to them meanings that are not apparent on the face of the words. They take the obvious and simple meanings that attach to words.
Last evening while the debate was proceeding I sent to the library to get a book which every lawyer knows well, with respect to the interpretation of statutes, and one of the very first rales laid down in that book is that words must be used in their ordinaiy sense.
It is a sound maxim of law that every word ought, prima facie, to be construed in its primary and natural sense, unless a secondary or more limited sense is required by the sub' ject or the context.
All through it is stated that statutes are, and must always 'be, interpreted in the ordinary, plain meaning of the words.
There is nothing in this bill which requires any subtlety or requires any hon. gentleman opposite to attribute ulterior motives to those who prepared it. The bill is simply expressed in simple language. I might in passing say that the criticism urged against the measure by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) was a criticism that one might reasonably expect, a fair, reasoned criticism of the terms of the measure. It did not in any sense attribute to members on this side of the house or to the minister in charge of the bill any desire to perpetuate a particular system, or to fasten upon the people or shackle them or rivet upon them any particular form of legislation. It was a reasoned and thoughtful and considerate criticism of the measure on its merits. He found nothing in the language of the bill that was difficult to understand, neither did any other hon. gentleman who followed him except the right hon. leader of the opposition. But he found in every word something that was at variance with the plain ordinary meaning that is attached to the words and that would be attributed to them by any tribunal or by any man who

might read them. Just why he should endeavour to fasten upon this word and that word and give to it a limited meaning, or attribute to the authors of this legislation, the government of the day, a sinister purpose or an ulterior motive, I cannot for the life of me understand. Why is it that he always has ulterior thoughts in his mind? Why is it that he always deals with sinister things? Why is it that he is always talking about subtleties of language? The answer is simple and plain. Plain speaking, in simple terms, is something that he cannot understand because he has never been accustomed to it, because during the long yearn during which he was head of the government in this country language was used to disguise thought, and he cannot understand that there should be a government that uses language to express the plain meaning it has in mind-use clear unambiguous language, so that it is patent to everyone exactly what is meant.
In this bill we have endeavoured to create a tariff board. The amendment that was proposed, but which I shall not discuss, if you study its language with care, does endeavour to give a modified approval to the theory of a tariff board, but suggests that the only kind of a tariff board worth while is one that is a political appanage to the government of the day. That is all. That is what the amendment means, and what it says, that it must be a board over which the government has control. That is the first line of cleavage of thought between the government and the opposition. The government's theory of a tariff board is a tribunal clothed with power, possessing authority, and exercising jurisdiction to determine facts, to find facts on the evidence submitted, and that a finding of facts shall be just as much warranted on the evidence submitted as the judgment of a judge is warranted on the case he considers.
The leader of the opposition suggested that there was a great difference between social legislation and economic legislation and legislation of any other character. Whatever difference there may be in theory there is none in practice. Every statute of this parliament falls in the end to be interpreted by the courts of the country, the third branch of government. That is the reason why the appointment of judges becomes so all-important. Of all branches of our government there is none so important as the judiciary upon which is thrust at all times the duty of establishing the meaning that is to be attached to the statutes of the country and the interpretation of agreements between individuals themselves.
By this legislation, as I have said, we are endeavouring to create a tariff board. On

Tariff Board-Mr. Bennett
the second reading of a measure the rules are that the principle of the measure is to be considered, and it has been laid down on more than one occasion, in fact, it is embodied in the notations under the rules under which we conduct this assembly, that it is not competent upon the second reading of the bill to take it up and discuss it section by section. I did not, however, in any way intervene in the course pursued by my right hon. friend opposite because I thought his remarks in the house might shorten the discussion in committee.
The principle of the bill is, first, the creation of a tariff board-not a tariff and advisory board on taxation, but simply a tariff board. The very next question which obviously will be asked by any gentleman who once conceives that a tariff 'board is necessary is: How shall it come into being? It comes inlto being by the exercise by the executive of its appointing powers. How many shall be appointed? The answer is that three shall be appointed. Then comes the question: For what period of time shall they hold office? My hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) last evening gave the reason why the period of ten years had been selected. It might well have been that one member should hold office for ten years, another for eleven and another for twelve, so that continuity of practice and jurisprudence could be observed in such a tribunal. I would not object to such a provision being made. When it is suggested however that the appointment should be made during pleasure I ask any hon. member in this house who has had business experience this question: Do you think you will get competent men to undertake these onerous duties during pleasure? I quite agree for instance with the statememt made yesterday by my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition when he said that there are economists of note in this country. Of course there are. But does any hon. member assume he can get an economist of note to abandon his position at a great university, where in addition to a steady salary he has provision for a pension either under t-hfe Carnegie foundation or under the statutes of the university itself, and accept office on a tariff board during pleasure? I think not. I do not think any hon. member believes that would be possible. He would analyse exactly what is involved by the surrender of a present position for an uncertain tenure of office, an office to be fixed during pleasure. I think any hon. member would come to the conclusion that such a surrender would be most unreasonable to 22110-202
expect. It has been stated that the government holds office only during pleasure. I do not think it is proper to compare the status of one appointed to a position carrying certain statutory powers with that of a member of the house or of an administration.
Here we require a man who must first of all have a trained and disciplined mind. Secondly, he must have power to appreciate the value of evidence and be able to determine what facts have been established by such evidence. He must have education and training, and in addition he must be able to detach himself from those external surroundings and forces which would militate against his usefulness. How can that be done? How can it be done if that man is interested for instance in the result of an election, if he has to see whether or not he will be acceptable to another administration? Why should he be anxious or have to watch the returns of an election to learn whether or not this government or that shall come into ' office? This board may be termed an experiment. Some people may even think it represents a hope incapable of realization. I say, sir, to you and to hon. members in this house that so far as the government of the day is concerned it will make the most earnest possible effort within its powers to select men for the positions provided for in the measure who will be capable of discharging the duties of their high offices with credit and distinction to this country and to themselves. If any hon. member for a moment believes that political views or the bent of mind of individuals will be the determining factor in the selection of members of the board he is entirely mistaken.
First of all we must have a chairman of merit. In the very necessity of things one member of that commission must come from the province of Quebec. In the very nature of things one should come from the agrarian west. If three members are to constitute the court the chairman of that tribunal must possess the qualifications which would enable him to discharge the onerous duties devolving upon him. He must be in a position to discharge those duties because of his vast experience and training-not his experience as chairman of a board such as the one proposed but, on the contrary, experience in weighing evidence, sifting it out, ascertaining the facts established by the evidence and being able to grasp the testimony as it is presented and to ascertain the facts clearly established by such evidence. It has been contended that in determining the issues which must be settled by such a tribunal it is not proper that they should have the power to

Tariff Board-Mr. Bennett

determine what tariff duties will be imposed for the purpose of equalizing costs. They would not determine what tariff duties this government shall pass but would determine what duty imposed upon a given commodity valued at a given price would give equality of opportunity to all those engaged in the production of that commodity in Canada- not in some other country.
I ask any hon. member this question: Will he go to his city of Vancouver; will he go to his city of Montreal; will he go to his city of Quebec, Halifax or St. John and say to his electors, "I said in parliament that you should be put at a disadvantage in production in this country. I stood in parliament and said you should not have an equal opportunity or fair competition. I stood in parliament and voted that it was nobody's business what type of competition was against you or with what costs of production you were competing." No hon. member would make those statements; no hon. member would say that. We say that one of the first factors to be considered is the cost of production in foreign countries as compared with costs of production in our own country. With some care I followed the observations made by the hon. member for Hants-Kings concerning the remarks of Professor Taussig. May I say that I anticipated the very line of argument that was taken, because I said that the experience in the United States has in part been fortunate and in part unfortunate. Professor Taussig had once been a member of that board and while as a commissioner he had not achieved that measure of success he would have liked, his criticism against the tariff board is indicated in what was read to this house the other afternoon. I find that the present tariff board of the United States constituted as it is-the chairman being an ex-ambassador, Mr. Henry P. Fletcher, and the members being selected as the hon. member very properly reminded us, with due regard to their political activities- has had to deal with questions of very great difficulty. The board has had to ascertain the facts in connection with matters involving costs of production in foreign countries. I have collected about half a dozen of their decisions and one to which I now direct the attention of hon. members is report No. 13 of the second series issued just a few months ago-to be exact on March 12, 1931. This particular report deals with the price of edible gelatin. Edible gelatin is produced in the United States and is produced by other countries as well, notably the Netherlands. The report I now have in my hand, dealing with that commodity, recites the circum-fMr. Bennett.]
stances under which the application to the board was made. In fact, the application was made by a company carrying on business in the city of New York but whose works were in the Netherlands. In response to an application for a reduction in duty made on behalf of the New York agent of the Delft Gelatin Works in the Netherlands, the commission ordered an investigation of edible gelatin on March 7, 1930, and the public hearing was held on December 12, 1930. Then follows a description of the commodity and a resume of the prices at which it is produced in the United States. Following is a statement of the cost of production in the Netherlands. Reading from page 5 of the report I find the following:
As also shown by table 3, the Netherlands is the chief competing country for edible gelatin valued at less than 40 cents per pound, having maintained that position in each year since 1924.
The production of edible gelatin in the Netherlands is confined to a single plant, which uses ossein as its raw material. In 1929 about 55 per cent of the total sales of this plant was shipped to the United States: the corresponding proportion in 1924 and 1925 was 85 per cent.
Then follows the comparability of domestic and imported products.
I would like my hon. friends who are doubtful as to the ability of a commission to ascertain facts to listen to these words:
Basis of cost data.-Of the twelve domestic plants producing edible gelatin, ten were covered by the cost investigation; the others are of minor importance. The ten companies from which costs were obtained produce about 95 per cent of the total domestic output.
The cost data for nine of these domestic concerns were obtained directly from their books of record, and those for the other concern by means of a questionnaire. The data covered the calendar year 1929 for seven of the domestic producers and, for the others, the fiscal year most nearly corresponding to the 1929 calendar year.
The costs of production of the single Nether-land concern for the calendar year 1929 were obtained directly from its books.
To guard against disclosure of the Netherlands company's costs, either directly or inf erenti ally, from the average cost of the domestic product, the commission has omitted the detailed cost data from this report.
And they ascertained the costs in the Netherlands from the books of the Netherlands company, because it was realized that if any company from the outside desired that it should have freer access to the markets of the United States it should make known to the tribunal charged by law with that responsibility the cost data with respect to its own operations. And it did. But obviously, as illustrating the very provision made in the

Tariff Board-Mr. Bennett
bill now under consideration, it is not regarded as sound that one competitor should make known his cost of production, and so these costs thus taken from the books were treated by the tribunal as confidential. Just as sometimes in courts of law judges have permitted names to be written on a slip of paper rather than that they should be mentioned in open court, so when courts of law have had to deal with matters that appeared competitive between individual concerns, they have as a rule, unless fraud were charged, permitted that theire should be a confidential relationship observed regarding the disclosures made by the producer on the one band and the tribunal investigating on the others. Does not that seem reasonable? And all that is done by this measure is to provide that in a new country such as this, where the factor of efficiency must always be the primary and determining factor, and where efficiency and effectiveness must be the measure to determine whether or not an industry is being properly conducted; where that is so, it is not to be expected that you would make known to the world at large the low costs of an efficient concern as distinguished from the high costs of a poorly conducted concern. Just here may I add that my friend was entirely wrong when he suggested that we should put a premium on inefficiency. Far from it. The test both under this proposed bill and other similar legislation must ever be the highest form of efficiency in the country within which the test is proposed. I would agree with the hon. members for Hants-Kings (Mr. Usley) and Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) that if the test were the test of the least efficient industry it would put a premium on inefficiency. I have said frequently in public addresses throughout the country that never must the least efficient production be the teat by which tariffs are determined; the most efficient production and the lowest cost must always be the determining factors of that branch of the inquiry. I still say that of no tribunal of which I can possibly think, least of all the tribunal to be set up under the provisions of this statute, will it be possible to say as has been suggested-and it is a proper suggestion, because if that were so it would be an unanswerable criticism-that the costs of the least efficient industry in the country should be the determining factor as to what the measure of tariff assistance should be. So after the matter is thus considered the conclusion is arrived at by the tribunal, and I desire to direct the attention of the house 22110-202J
to the simplicity of the conclusions. May I read them:
The commission finds it shown by the investigation (a) that the duty of 20 per cent ad valorem and 5 cents per pound expressly fixed by statute on edible gelatin valued at less than 40 cents per pound does not equalize the difference in the costs- of production, including transportation and delivery to the principal market in the United States, of the said domestic article and the like or similar foreign article produced in the principal competing country; (b) that a decrease in the duty of 8 per cent ad valorem is necessary to equalize this difference; and (c) that the rates of duty necessary to equalize said difference are 12 per cent ad valorem and 5 cents per pound.
The commission makes no findings with respect to edible gelatin valued at 40 cents or more per pound.
Appended to this statement of findings is a summary of information obtained in the investigation.
Respectfully submitted.
That is signed by every member of the tariff board. Then follows the proclamation of the President of the United States, dated the 16th day of March of this year. The effect of that was to reduce by 8 per cent the ad valorem duty on edible gelatine valued at less than 40 cents a pound. That was brought about, not by advice, mot' by inferential Conclusions, but by findings of facts made by a tribunal constituted for that purpose. If my hon. friends would take the trouble to read that short precis I believe there is not one of them who would not say; "It will be perfectly satisfactory if we can set up in this country such a tribunal, a tribunal that will ascertain the facts as presented to it at a public hearing,"-or as they call it, a conclusion. That conclusion resulted, as I have said, in a reduction of the duty. I have under my hand another case in which the finding resulted in an increase in duty, and another in which there was no change. But in every case they found as a fact that it was necessary there should be an increase or a decrease to equalize the cost of -production between the domestic manufacturer and the chief competitor abroad.
Now, I submit to hon. members, could anything be fairer than that? I do think my hon. friends opposite have not in their minds the thought that we are honestly endeavouring to do something for this country that will enable us not to have a debate in parliament in which the leader of a great party will stand up and talk about many Canadians a* the survivors of feudalism, creating a court for themselves as did the barons of old.
Tariff Board-Mr. Bennett


Mr. EULER:: If my right hon. friend will allow me-how could this test be applied to the changes which were made last session and those which are being made this session?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am saying we are endeavouring to do that very thing.


William Daum Euler: To the ones being made now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, we are endeavouring to set up a tribunal which will do that. Human nature is always prone-with other considerations, with pressure of politics, with pressure of everything in connection with other affairs -to arrive at conclusions which are not judicial conclusions in respect to these matters; but every change made in the tariff submitted last September or at present is made upon a fixed principle to which I have so often alluded. I still believe that no tariff board is worthy the name in this country that does not realize that if once we conclude to engage in manufacturing on any scale-and we have concluded that this country is to be an industrial country-then the first consideration must be that with increasing efficiency as the days go by Canadians shall have an equal opportunity with their competitors to produce in this country. It is something which apparently my hon. friends opposite cannot understand, but I put this to any of the hon. gentlemen opposite-to my friends in the corner: Do you say that Canadians in this new, young country, endeavouring to build a nation, having embarked upon an industrial career as we have, should not have an equal opportunity with their chief competitors in other countries to make a success of the business in which they are engaged?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Certainly, we say they should.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: And they have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. Then if my
hon. friends mean it is only a question of a degree, if they say so, I say the best answer to that is with this tribunal provided by this bill we will have the answer to what is the necessary degree. There are the principles and that is the reason the provision is made for the tenure of office that I have indicated. I do not believe that men can do the best work that is in them in judicial positions-[DOT] and this board is a judicial body-if they are all the time thinking of other considerations. A leading man of this country said to me when I asked him the possibility of getting good men, "Oh, that is impossible." He said, "Who will work for S12,000 a year when, if 
he has the ability which enables him to deal with these questions, he will make $35,000 in private life?" That is the reason why, in this bill, provision has been made for the future of those men who serve a number of years, so that while having regard to other salaries paid in this country to judges and others we dare not-and when I say that I mean we should not-pay so large a salary to these three men as will put them out of line with all the others, we have made provision for their future so that if the tenure is interfered with at least they will realize that some provision has been made for them. We believe that thereby we will secure the best service possible in this country. A very distinguished Canadian said to me not long ago, "Mr. Bennett, the time has come when our country must realize that we must pay larger salaries in order to get results in government, as we do in business." You cannot do it if you expect men to leave the certainty of the positions which they occupy and take positions under government without giving them some certainty of tenure and some stability so they may feel that they are occupying positions judicial in character, and making a contribution to the well-being of this country. I am sure the men who occupy these positions will realize their obligations and responsibilities to the state. I want to say further that certainly they will do it, as far as I am concerned, without any suggestion from me as to how they should proceed in so far as parity politics are concerned. I can only say that.
It was only a short time ago that I heard it said, and it appeared in one of the newspapers, that this government would not appoint a tariff board because the great manufacturers of the country did not want such a board, and it was suggested that this government had not sufficient courage to create this board. Now we are told that we are to be condemned because we are doing it, and that we are doing it for the feudal barons of the country. Now, sir, just let me make this observation at this point: What does the right hon. gentleman mean by those words which flow so glibly from his tongue on every occasion, "feudalism," and "courts provided for the lords of the country"? What does he mean by "rivetting," "shackling." "ulterior motives," "sinister purposes"? What do all these words mean? Who are these men; who are these people against whom these attacks are levelled? Who are these men who are thus sneeringly held up to execration and disdain in this House of Commons and

Tariff Board-Mr. Bennett
elsewhere? Who are these men. who are spoken of as the lords of special privilege and whose rights are contrasted with those of the people? They are our fellow Canadians; they are men who have made their way in this country by dint of courage, enterprise, skill and ambition.


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: And special
privileges.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Special privileges? What are they? The hon. gentleman glibly uses the words used by his leader. What is a special privilege? A special privilege is one which appertains only to the individual or the class, and there is nothing of that kind here. Every man may engage in any trade or business in this country which is not prohibited by law, and I know of but few. If, as a result of his efforts, by his vision, his ambition, his foresight, his energy and his industry he achieves success, is he to be held up to ignominy and shame by the right hon. gentleman opposite and spoken of as a lord of the feudal days desiring special privileges? But I notice that at election time the party of my right hon. friend is always around where they are, and I resent as much as any man can resent these attacks against Canadians who have achieved some measure of success; whose success you glory in when it serves your purpose at election time and vilify because you think it is cheap clap-trap politics in the intervening time.
These are the things that make one wonder whether after all it is worth while to endeavour to make an honest effort to place upon the statute books of this country a measure which will enable men to have a tribunal to which they may appeal, which will not be political in its character, but composed of men who will have an ambition to serve the state. My own observation-it may be wholly erroneous-is that there is no country in this world where I have come in contact with men and women who have a higher sense of their obligations to the state than in Canada. You place imposts and taxes upon them, and ungrudgingly they pay them. At times of great national peril, when we must appeal to the accumulated wealth of the country to assist us in our difficulties, who perform those services for us? It is true they are paid for their services rendered, but who made possible the success of a great conversion loan in this country? Some men sneer and say it matters not, because they were paid for it. Well, the banks did this year's conversion loan for nothing, and they were glad to do it. These men are held up as feudal barons; we hear of their fastnesses, their
courts and the over-lordship they try to exercise over the people, but when I talk with them I am amazed to find that they are men with great human sympathies; whose contributions are the largest made; whose names, when their wealth permits-though in these days it does not-are at the head of every movement looking to the welfare of the people. It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come when a debate upon a tariff bill should not degenerate into an attack upon one's fellow Canadians, to make them the sport of rhetoric.
By reason of the office which I hold, during the last few weeks I have had occasion to come in contact with many of these men who are now called feudal lords and I can say to this house that I have seen no men so concerned as to their ability to maintain the integrity of their businesses in these times. They are concerned about their workmen. Someone sneers, but that is so. I know businesses in this country that are being maintained day after day running in the red; they are going behind, but the proprietors dare not, in the very nature of things, cease to carry on their operations because they will throw their employees out of work.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course they are
right, but why should we in this house now talk about them as requiring special privileges and becoming feudal lords? Why should it be said that this country is going back to the days of feudalism? I have asked it before:	Who are these men? Captains of
industry, you say; the president of a great power corporation, peradventure, or something of that sort. They were all right at one time; have they become all wrong now? They were excellent men and true a few short months ago; what has happened to them since? That is the question. I leave that thought with the house, because I feel that in these days no Canadian can afford to ask that his fellow Canadians have more than equal chances and fair opportunities, and if I thought this measure did not do something to bring that about it would not be submitted to this house. If I thought a shorter term of office would ensure a more efficient management of this board I would agree to it. I believe the measure can be improved to the extent of providing that they shall not all complete their term of office in the same year. In the United States that has been found an excellent idea. We have not followed that practice so much in this country, but to preserve continuity and stability of attitude of mind in approaching
Tariff Board-Mr. Bennett

these problems which will be before the board, I think possibly if they hold office for ten, eleven and twelve years respectively it might be better.
I have made these observations because other attacks also have been made not only as to the salaries but it has been suggested that we are endeavouring to do something to perpetuate a system on the Liberal party. The attitude of the Liberal party towards these problems was evidenced by its Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation, and I point out once more that that board could only come into existence, except by the inferred powers of government, by virtue of some statute that gives authority to the executive to appoint it. And when a former Prime Minister says that the authority consisted in estimates, we have fallen to a pretty low level of argument in debate. For the payment of money never constituted the reason for the creation of a body. By-laws have been set aside, orders in council have vanished in the courts of law, because there was not behind them the sanction of any law or authority of the legislative body itself.
Let us compare this 'bill with the last report made by the late advisory board. I refer to Mr. Moore's report of 1928-1929. In that report there appears the following statement:
During the fiscal year now ending, the board has spent thirty days in public sittings, devoted to the initiation or furtherance of inquiry in forty-one references. In the period under report, hearings or references were as follows:
First hearings	 26
Second hearings	 17
Third or further hearings	 4
Total	 47
Major subjects of investigation during the past year were: cement, paints and varnishes, aluminum and aluminum products, copper rods, sewing machines, coal and coke, printed matter and iron and steel.
Is there in this chamber this afternoon any member who will rise in this place and say that he has ever found in the reports of thait board a single finding of faot? Name one-just one. But here you will find, in this report from which I have just quoted, the following exceedingly interesting words:
The board has continued during the past twelve months its policy of visiting plants, and meeting at the scene of their labours many of those whose problems have been brought, directly or indirectly, to its notice. These visits have been of the greatest value, not alone in adding to the store of information available to the board and its investigators, but in establishing between the board and scores of industries an intimate understanding that has been mutually beneficial.

Could anything be more ingenuous, more naive than that-an intimate understanding between these feudal lords and the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation? An intimate understanding between the chairman, getting ready for an election, and the taxpayers of Canada. An intimate understanding between the chairman of the board and the special interests about which my hon. friend from South Huron (Mr. McMillan) spoke. This intimate understanding resulted at least in the chairman of the board being a candidate in an election and being now a member of this house. And in the constituency which he contested there is one of the largest industries in Canada. An "intimate understanding" between the "special interests" and the chairman of the board!
Then there came the delightful threat of the leader of the opposition when he said, "Well, pass it if you like; but I give notice that we are going to get rid of them anyway when we come in." That statement, however, he modified with an "if"; and I was rather grateful to him for that proviso, if only for the sake of his own reputation, because by adding the "if" he made possible at leadt the inference that if these men measure up to expectations they would not be disturbed in their office. Let me assure the house that if they do not measure up to their obligations as I see them we shall not have to wait for a change of government to see them replaced. I can assure the house of that.
This bill is really an effort on the part of the government, to .the best of its ability and with the aid of parliament, to enable facts to be ascertained by a tribunal uninfluenced by the administration of the day. Will it succeed? If it fails, it will not be because we do not give it a chance; if it fails it will not be because we have not done everything in our power to ensure its success. I was amazed when I saw some hon. gentlemen vote for an amendment which said in effect, "The only trouble with your bill is that there is not enough politics in it"-for that was what it meant. The second reading of a bill means but one thing, that we approve of the principle of the measure. The details may be discussed and possibly amended in committee, because there is no hard and fast rule that .precludes the acceptance of any suggestion which would improve the .bill as proposed. But the bill which is submitted to the house embodies the ripe experience of other countries in various parts of the world. For instance, when I was in England I thought I would find out how the Indian people dealt

Statute of Westminster
with such matters. And Sir Herbert Smith informed me that they had passed a statute to deal with the question of protection to be accorded by invoice to the steel industry. In this regard an inquiry was held and he gave me a copy of the proceedings, with the legislation that followed, whereby a certain measure of protection was given for a period of ten yeans for the purpose of equalizing the cost of production of steel in India. The evidence indicated that.
Now there is only one question to be considered in connection with this matter. In this country great industries have been established. Whether or not the Canadian people were always right in establishing these industries, this is not the time to inquire. Those industries exist, and hundreds of mllions of dollars have been invested in them. To refer to an industry with which there are thousands of your fellow Canadians connected as shareholders, as a special interest, is wholly beside the question. And to bring down calumny and make attacks upon those who head industries does not advance any argument a hairsbreadth. What we have to consider is this question: Shall we retain these industries or shall we not? That is the question. If I had any choice to make, I am not so sure that some of them I would have in this country. But the fact remains that they are here. And the government ask only two things from parliament in connection with these industries. One is that those engaged in these industries shall have, as I have always contended, an equal opportunity with their competitors to develop in this country; and the second is that they shall have that fair competition which is the basis of the success of all effort. In other words, that there shall not be dumped upon the markets of this country goods regardless of cost of production-that there shall be no dumping of the surplus products of other countries upon our own market. And given equal opportunity and fair competition, I deny that any men living can beat in their own work the people who inhabit this country.
The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) very properly indicated the difficulty of ascertaining what constitutes equal opportunity, and I do not believe that this should be left either to conjecture or to caprice. It should not be left to the pressure of political friend nor to the enmity of political foe. On the one hand there are those who see, in the noble toil of men who build up great industries in this country, that manifestation of amibition and courage which provides an incentive to younger men to emulate their
virtues while recognizing their faults. On the other hand, there are those by whom the heads of industry are denounced as a remnant of feudalism, setting up their own courts as "special interests", receiving special treatment. To eliminate all misapprehension, we are calling into being a tribunal whose duty it shall be to determine, upon evidence, facts, not fancies, upon which executive action may be taken to ensure to our fellow Canadians an equal opportunity and fair competition for the development of Canada. For that reason I submit this measure.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is iit the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On division.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the next sitting we can go into committee.
The house reverted to government notices of motions.



STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whereas the delegates of His Majesty's governments in the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland, at Imperial conferences held at Westminster in the years of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six and one thousand nine hundred and thirty, did make certain declarations and resolutions, which are set forth in the reports of the said conferences;
And whereas, pursuant to certain recommendations set forth in the report of the Imperial conference, held at Westminster in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, as modified by agreement made between His Majesty's governments, a conference on the operation of dominion legislation and merchant shipping legislation was held at Westminster, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine, and certain declarations, resolutions and recommendations were made, as set forth in the report of that conference;
And whereas, the delegates of His Majesty's governments at the Imperial conference, held at Westminster in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty, passed certain resolutions, set forth in the report of that conference, which read as follows:-
"(i) The conference approves the report of the conference on the operation of dominion legislation (which is to be regarded as forming
Statute oj Westminster

part of the report of the present conference), subject to the conclusions embodied in this section.
(ii) The conference recommends:-
"(a) That the statute proposed to be passed by the parliament at Westminster should contain the provisions set out in the schedule annexed.
"(b) That the 1st December, 1931, should be the date as from which the proposed statute should become operative.
"(c) That with a view to the realization of this arrangement, resolutions passed by both houses of the dominion parliaments should be forwarded to the United Kingdom, if possible by 1st July, 1931, and, in any case, not later than the 1st August, 1931, with a view to the enactment by the parliament of the United Kingdom of legislation on the lines set out in the schedule annexed.
"(d) That the statute should contain such further provision as to its application to any particular dominion as are requested by that dominion."
And whereas, the said report of the Imperial conference, held at Westminster in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty, also sets forth in a schedule certain clauses and recitals to be included in a statute which, it was proposed, should be enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom, and which, it was thought, might conveniently be called the statute of Westminster;
And whereas consideration has been given by the proper authorities in Canada as to whether and to what extent the principles embodied in the proposed act of the parliament of the United Kingdom should be applied to provincial legislation; and, at a dominion-provincial conference, held at Ottawa on the seventh and eighth days of April, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one, a clause was approved by the delegates of His Majesty's government in Canada and of the governments of all of the provinces of Canada, for insertion in the proposed act for the purpose of providing that the provisions of the proposed act relating to the Colonial Law's Validity Act should extend to laws made by the provinces of Canada and to the powers of the legislatures of-the provinces; and also for the purpose of providing that nothing in the proposed act should be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts of 1867 to 1930. or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder; and also for the purpose of providing that the powers conferred by the proposed act on the parliament of Canada and upon the legislatures of the provinces should be restricted to the enactment of laws in relation to matters within the competence of the parliament of Canada or any of the legislatures of the provinces respectively.
Be it therefore resolved that a humble address be presented to His Majesty the King, in the following wrords:-
To the King's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the	and Commons of
Canada, in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty praying that you may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom, pursuant to certain declarations and resolutions made by the delegates of Your

Majesty's governments in the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland, at Imperial conferences held at Westminster in the years of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twrenty-six and one thousand nine hundred and thirty, and pursuant to certain other resolutions made by the delegates of Your Majesty's governments in Canada and of the governments of all of the provinces of Canada, at a dominion-provincial conference held at Ottawa on the seventh and eighth days of April in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one, the said act to contain the following recitals and clauses, or recitals and clauses to the following effect:-
Statute of Westminster
And whereas, it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this act, that inasmuch as the crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British commonwealth of nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne or the royal style and titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the parliaments of all the dominions as of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
And whereas, it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the dominions as part of the law of that dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that dominion.
The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, shall not apply to any law made after the commencement of this act by the parliament of a dominion.
No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this act by the parliament of a dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future act of parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule or regulation made under any such act, and the powers of the parliament of a dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such act, order, rule or regulation, in so far as the same is part of law of the dominion.
It is hereby declared and enacted that the parliament of a dominion has full power to make laws having extraterritorial operation.
No act of parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act shall extend or be deemed to extend to a dominion as part of the law of that dominion unless it is expressly declared in that act that that dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.
Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this act sections seven hundred and thirty-five and seven hundred and thirty-six of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894,

Statute of Westminster
shall be construed as though reference therein to the legislature of a British possession did not include reference to the parliament of a dominion.
Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this act section four of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 (which requires certain laws to be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure or to contain a suspending clause), and so much of section seven of that act as requires the approval of His Majesty in council to any rules of court for regulating the practice and procedure of a colonial court of admiralty, shall cease to have effect in any dominion as from the commencement of this act.
(1)	Nothing in this act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.
(2)	The powers conferred by this act upon the parliament of Canada or upon the legislatures of the provihces shall be restricted to the enactment of laws in relation to matters within the competence of the parliament of Canada or of any of the legislatures of the provinces respectively.
(3)	The provisions of section	of this
act shall extend to laws made by any of the provinces of Canada and to the powers of the legislatures of such provinces.
(A number to be inserted corresponding to the section number of the second clause set forth in the schedule, Imperial conference, 1930, summary of proceedings, page 19.)
Notwithstanding anything in the Interpretation Act, 1889, the expression "colony" shall not, in any act of the parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act, include a dominion or any province or state forming part of a dominion.
All of which we humbly pray Your Majesty may take into your favourable and gracious consideration.
He said: In moving the motion that stands in my name for the adoption of a humble address to His Majesty the King in order that there may be passed a statute of the Imperial parliament to be known as the statute of Westminster, I do so with the utmost pleasure because I realize that it is the culmination of the long, long effort that has been made since we were a colony, to become the self-governing dominion that we now are.
The proposed statute might be considered from many angles, but I shall consider it from only three and I shall make my observations upon it as brief as possible. It may be considered first from the standpoint of what transpired at the Imperial conference in 1926, second, from the standpoint of what transpired at the conference on the operation of dominion legislation in 1929 and, lastly, from the standpoint of what transpired at the Imperial conference in 1930. I would not take so
much time to deal with some phases of this matter were it not for the desirability of placing upon the record a very short historical sketch of the various steps that have been taken in order that this motion might now foe made in this House of Commons. It will be recalled that the report of the Imperial conference of 1926 contained these words:
They-
That is, Great Britain and the dominions.
*-are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.
It is hardly necessary for me at this late date to say that that was not a correct state-menlt legally of the then position and that technically it could not be supported. It was rather the expression of a hope than the statement of a fact. It therefore became necessary, if the hopes expressed were to be realized, that legislation should be passed, not only by the Imperial parliament itself but by the legislatures of the overseas dominions. In other words, there must be an expression of a desire, coupled with action by the Imperial parliament. In order that that might be done with at least some semblance of regard to legal technicalities, there was set up a committee to deal with the operation of dominion legislation. That committee met in London. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was one of the members of it. The duties of that committee I think it is worth while stating to the house. They were as follows:
To inquire into, report upon and make recommendations concerning:
1.	Existing statutory provisions requiring reservation of dominion legislation for the assent of His Majesty or authorizing the disallowance of such legislation.
2.	(a) The present position as to the competence of dominion parliaments to give their legislation extra-territorial operations.
lb) The practicability and most convenient method of giving effect to the principle that each dominion parliament should have power to give extra-territorial operation to its legislation in all cases where such power is ancillary to provision for the peace, order and good government of the dominion.
3.	The principles embodied in or underlying the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, and the extent to which any provisions of that act ought to be repealed, amended, or modified in the light of existing relations between the various members of the British commonwealth of nations as described in this report.
That, it will be obvious, referred to the report of the conference of 1926. The conference on the operation of dominion laws
Statute oj Westminster

met in London in the fall of 1929 and in due course it made a report. That report was submitted to this parliament at its last regular session and, it will be recalled, was adopted without a dissenting voice. It was criticized, but no vote adverse to that report was taken. It is important to ascertain just what the recommendations of that conference were. The report, after noting the origin and purpose of the conference, dealt with the three main phases of United Kingdom control of dominion legislation on the following lines:
(a) Disallowance, and (b) reservation.
First, the existing condition was summarized. I need hardly say to hon. members that under the British North America Act it is provided that legislation passed by this parliament may be disallowed within two years by the sovereign acting upon the advice of his advisers, his council in Great Britain. The practice has of course become obsolete. But twice has it in any sense been set in motion since we became a dominion.
Second, with respect to statutes that are reserved for the action of the Imperial government, we mean that such legislation as was passed here would not on the last day of the session be assented to by His Excellency the Governor General, but rather, we being uncertain as to its effect upon either the interests of Great Britain or other imperial interests, it would be reserved for the consideration of the sovereign, acting upon the advice of the cabinet of Greait Britain. Obviously those two provisions with respect to disallowance and reservation constituted a very clear exception to the principle of equality of status, and so it became necessary to deal with them.
The report of 1929 in the second place indicated the constitutional position that neither power may now in practice be exercised by the United Kingdom government contrary to the wishes of the dominion government concerned except with reference to the Colonial Stock Act of 1900. It possibly becomes advisable that I should make a Short reference to that. The late Right Hon. W. S. Fielding was always very anxious that Canadian securities should occupy a preferred position on the London money market. As is perhaps within the memory of most hon. members, there is in England a provision whereby only certain securities can be treated as belonging to that preferred class-the consols, the securities of some of the municipalities, Indian securities and others. Mr. Fielding succeeded in inducing the British government so to relax their restrictions as to [Mr. Bennett.l
provide that Dominion of Canada securities might come within the preferred class, but this was not purchased without a price and the price that was paid was that we would consent to the British government advising that legislation passed by this parliament might be disallowed if it interfered in any way with the validity, shall I say for the sake of a better word, of those securities. That right still exists. That right has not been taken away. There are those who think that some steps should be taken in that direction. I recall that at the conference some discussion of an unofficial character took place, and the representatives of one of the dominions believed that it was valuable to have it still there, not so much in the case of Canada, but in respect to some of the other dominions. That is, the right to enjoy a preferred position with respect to securities was considered a matter of very considerable importance, and so the Colonial Stock Act of 1900 still remains.
The conference of 1929 further recommended that no action be taken for the abolition of the legal powers of disallowance and reservation, but it was stated that any dominion which wished to bring the legal position into harmony with the conventional position could do so by amending their constitutions in the customary manner, with the aid of the United Kingdom parliament when required, or by repealing the provisions of United Kingdom statutes providing for reservation of bills dealing with particular subjects.
In other words, the clear distinction between the conventional and the legal having been defined, it was suggested that no action be taken at the moment to change the strictly technical and legal position largely because of the Colonial Stock Act of 1900, but that the conventional practice be continued, and if any dominion saw fit to take the necessary action to modify or change the conventional into the legal it might do so.
Then there came up for consideration a question which has always been a matter of some difficulty, the extraterritorial operation of dominion legislation. That means, of course, as the very derivation of the word indicates, extending beyond the territory of the country. It will perhaps be within the memory of some members of this house that a former Minister of Justice endeavoured to deal with that problem. I refer to the discussions that took place in parliament on the initiative of Mr. Do'herty, sometime Minister of Justice. No accomplishment that is of any great value stands to the oredit of this parliament in that

Statute of Westminster
regard, and so when the conference on the operation of dominion legislation considered the question they considered it under three heads:
(1)	The existing position with all its uncertainties was reviewed, and those who remember the report presented to the house a year or more ago will recall that review.
(2)	Any limitation of extraterritorial power to particular persons-Canadian nationals, for example-or to legislation ancillary to peace, order and good government, was considered objectionable.
(3)	It was recommended that a declaratory enactment should be made by the United Kingdom parliament in this form: "It is hereby declared and enacted that the parliament of a dominion has full power to make laws having extraterritorial operation."
I am not one of those who does not realize that the exercise of that power is fraught with very many possibilities of danger, but the fact that the possibility exists does not militate against the conferring of the power. The mere exercise of it, as I have said, may at some time or another prejudicially atfect our own interests, but we must trust the common sense and good judgment of our own parliament not to exercise that power in such a manner as will cause either irritation or difficulty to others or evil consequences to ourselves.
Then came the other subject, the Colonial Laws Validity Act. I take it that there is no member of this house who has not heard of the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865. It is amazing, however, how much misapprehension there is with respect to it. The Colonial Laws Validity Act was originally passed as a measure of relief to the colonies, and not to subordinate them. It is rather odd that at this late day there should be those amongst our people who believe that the Colonial Laws Validity Act was to force something upon Canada or upon other parts of the colonial empire. Such was not the case. The fact is that the great judges of England held that the English law governs in certain parts of the world where England founded colonies; that is, an Englishman founding a colony took with him the laws of England, and that law was the supreme law of that particular locality. This became rather inconvenient. I think perhaps some members will recall the judgment of Lord Mansfield, if my memory serves me right-I have not had time to look it up-in which he dealt with that matter very, very exhaustively. The Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865 was an act passed by the parliament of Great
Britain to declare that colonial legislatures could pass laws at variance with the laws of England. Strange as it may sound, it conferred a power which was not previously possessed. Then came the second part, over which so much difficulty has arisen. It was provided in the second part of that act that if any statute passed by a parliament or legislature of the British Empire should be found to be repugnant to the provisions of a British statute, then the British statute governed. That sounds very strange in these days.


Mr. BOURASSA:: May I interject on this
very point, because it is very interesting and very important, if it was repugnant to a British statute dealing with matters concerning that part of the empire, not a general statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be if it was
repugnant to a statute that was general in its terms, and that is one of the difficulties, as I shall presently point out. It was my good or ill fortune to be associated in a case in which the matter last came before the privy council. A man, by name of Nadan, was travelling from Fernie to Montana with a Cadillac car laden with liquor. He passed through the province of Alberta. The car was seized. He was taken before a magistrate. He was fined because he had in his possession liquor that did not have upon it the stamp of the liquor commission of Alberta. He was fined for having liqour illegally in his possession, and the car was confiscated. The case then went to the court of appeal in the province of Alberta; that is, Mr. Nadan appealed to that court. The conviction, on a divided court, was affirmed. The case was then taken to the privy council. I appeared for the province. When leave to appeal was granted I raised the question whether there was any appeal to the privy council, this being a criminal case, and it having already been decided by our court and approved by the privy council, that a conviction for a breach of the liquor laws of Alberta in essence constituted a criminal offence. The court directed that the matter stand over until the main case was argued, and directed that the attorney general of England be advised. Accordingly when the case came on for argument in the fall, the then attorney general, Sir Douglas Hogg, the present Lord Hailsham, at one time a Lord Chancellor, appeared on behalf of the British government, it having been directed by the court that notice be given to him. The question was this: Did a section of the Criminal Code of Canada, passed when Sir John Thompson was Minister of Justice, prohibit
Statute oj Westminster

an appeal to the privy council in a criminal case. I was not interested in that phase of it, because so far as the province of Alberta was concerned, we merely listened to the argument, being concerned only with the determination of the merits of the appeal. The case was argued by counsel on behalf of the Dominion, by counsel on behalf of the provinces and as I have said by the Attorney General of England. In the end the court held that that section of this parliament was ultra vires for the simple reason that in the days of William there was passed a statute under which any subject of the realm had the right to appeal to the foot of the throne or to the privy council. The theory was that the poorest subject of the king might present his petition to the king for relief or for justice, and the king in turn might refer his petition to a committee of the privy council, a judicial committee of the privy council or that section of it which is appointed for the purpose of dealing with judicial matters. The result was that by reason of that provision in the statute of William the section of our code which prohibited appeals to the privy council was held bad because it was repugnant to the provisions of the British statute which permitted the appeal. So the action of this parliament in passing that statute was inoperative. That, shortly, is the last case which came before the privy council in connection with the Colonial Laws Validity Act.
So if there be a conflict or repugnance in dealing with a similar matter between the British statute and a statute passed by a legislature or parliament of a dominion, then the British statute governs because of that conflict repugnance. The conference of 1929 dealt with all these matters and recommended that a United Kingdom statute should be passed, providing that the Colonial Laws Validity Act should cease to apply to any law made by the parliament of a dominion, that no law passed by a dominion should be void or inoperative for repugnancy to United Kingdom legislation and, in positive terms, that a dominion parliament should have the power to repeal any United Kingdom Act so far as it was part of the law of the dominion. That, hon. members will observe, is to place us on an equality of status with Great Britain herself so far as legislative power is concerned, so that we might enact a statute which would repeal a statute passed by the United Kingdom parliament, the Imperial parliament so-called, if such statute was desired.
The third finding of the conference was that while the power of the United Kingdom 
parliament to legislate for the whole empire could not and need not be formally renounced, steps should be taken to prevent such legislation except at the express request of the dominion concerned. I need hardly point out to this chamber that no conference constituted as was the conference to which I have referred has for a single moment thought of renouncing the supremacy of the Imperial parliament, lest it be taken as a termination of the ties that bind together under the crown all the overseas dominions. So while the conference took steps to declare that only if, as and when the dominion concerned requested the Imperial parliament to act would it act in the passing of a statute. There was no occasion for the moment to take formal action to repeal or in any sense to lessen the relation between the Imperial parliament and our own with regard to the matter in question.
The fourth finding was that in the vital matter of succession to the common throne, action by all the dominion parliaments as well as the United Kingdom parliament should be required to effect a change. I suggest it is not necessary to dwell upon that more particularly. It was desirable that in legislating in the matter of succession to the common throne we should make a declaration that no change in respect to that matter should be had unless by the common action of all concerned.
Then follows the last paragraph, that express provisions should be included in the United Kingdom Act to make it clear that the new dominion powers would not confer any new power to repeal or alter the constitutional aots of the federal dominions, or to make laws on any solely provincial or state matters.
About that clause some difficulty has of course arisen. This may be the opportune time to say that under the present constitutional .practice in this dominion it is only necessary for this parliament by a majority -and this parliament includes the Commons and the Senate-humbly to address His Majesty asking that legislation be enacted to bring about the passing of legislation amending the British North America Act. That has been the practice heretofore. Amendments to the British North America Act were brought about by this parliament passing an address. When that address was forwarded to Westminster the statute was passed in the terms in which the address sought to have it enacted. That raised a question of very considerable importance-* May I say I am sorry to take so long in

Statute of Westminster
dealing with this matter, but it is impossible to deal with matters of this character in a short time, and when they are dealt with they must be considered fully.
Just prior to leaving for the conference of 1930 I received a communication from the province of Ontario saying that they did not desire that these changes should take place until they had an opportunity to be heard. I also received a communication from the province of Quebec. It is not necessary at this time to relate fully the attitude of the provinces, but they agreed that inasmuch as their constitutional rights as defined by the original act might be amended in the opinion of the governments of those provinces by this parliament by a majority vote they should have the opportunity before any such action was taken to present their views and make known their decisions. Having reached London, communications were sent to the various provinces by the premier of Ontario, who asked them, I was informed, whether or not they shared his views. I was not formally given notice with respect to all the views, and as the conference developed it became clear that it was essential that some step should be taken whereby no hasty or precipitate action on our part would in any sense induce the provinces to believe that their constitutional rights had been invaded or that there was any lessening of their power or authority.
We thus come to the conference of 1930. This conference gave extended consideration to the constitutional questions considered in the 1929 conference on dominion legislation. Two main resolutions were passed. The first approved the 1929 report, subject to certain provisions which I shall mention, and the second recommended the enactment by the United Kingdom parliament before December 1, 1931, of the statute of Westminster embodying the positive proposals of the 1929 report after the receipt of resolutions from the dominion parliaments with any desired further provisions applying to a particular dominion.
Hon. members will observe by my hasty reading that the effect of the conference of 1930 was that it recommended that action be taken by the parliament at Westminster to pass a statute before December 1 of this year whereby we should have conferred upon all the parliaments of the dominions the authority I have just mentioned, without again repeating them in detail.
As to Canada however special reference was made. Obviously the position of the Canadian delegation was one of some difficulty. I at once made the announcement to the conference that I had voted in this house for the adoption of the 1929 report, and that I did not purpose to change my view merely because my status had been changed. Therefore the next problem was as to what should be done at the moment to safeguard the interests of Ontario, Quebec and the other provinces, and not in any sense stop or prevent action being taken by the conference for the empire as a whole. I am bound to say the delegates from the other parts of the empire were extremely courteous in that regard. These paragraphs were inserted in the report:
The Imperial conference examined the various questions arising with regard to the report of the conference on the operation of dominion legislation and in particular took into consideration the difficulties which were explained by the Prime Minister of Canada regarding the representations which had been received by him from the Canadian provinces in relation to that report.
A special question arose in respect to the application to Canada of the sections of the Statute proposed to be passed by the parliament of Westminster-which it was thought might conveniently be called the statute of Westminister-relating to the Colonial Laws Validity Act and other matters. On the one hand it appeared that approval had been given to the report of the conference on the operation of dominion legislation by resolution of the House of Commons of Canada, and accordingly, that the Canadian representatives felt themselves bound not to take any action which might properly be construed as a departure from the spirit of that resolution. On the other hand, it appeared that representations had been received from certain of the provinces of Canada subsequent to the passing of the resolution, protesting against action on the report until an opportunity had been given to the provinces to determine whether their rights would be adversely affected by such action.
Accordingly, it appeared necessary to provide for two things. In the first place it was necessary to provide an opportunity for His Majesty's government in Canada to take such action as might be appropriate to enable the provinces to present their views. In the second place it was necessary to provide for the extension of the sections of the proposed statute to Canada or for the exelusion of Canada from their operation after the provinces had been consulted. To this end it seemed desirable to place on reemd the view that the sections of the statute relating to the Colonial Laws Validity Act should he 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. It also seemed desirable to place on record the view that the sections should not subsequently be extended to Canada except by an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom enacted in response to such requests as are appropriate to an amendment of the British North America Act.
I need not dwell upon those provisions. It is sufficient to say that those provisions having been inserted, on my return to Canada
Statute oj Westminster

I communicated with the various provincial governments, and on the 23rd of February, 1931, I invited them to attend a conference in this city for the purpose of dealing with the matter referred to. I think it perhaps as well that I should read to the house, although it does take a little time, the invitation that was sent out for that purpose:
Ottawa, February 23, 1931.
Sir,
I have the honour to invite the government of the province of-
Naming each province.
-to be represented at a conference which it is desired to bold with the governments of the provinces of Canada, at Ottawa, commencing on Tuesday, the 7th day of April of this year. The holding of the conference before the opening of the parliament of Canada was considered, but it was felt to be advisable to defer it in order to meet the requirements of the legislative programs of the majority of the provinces concerned. Further delay would defeat the purpose of the conference, namely, of affording the provinces an opportunity of presenting any views they might desire to express with reference to the changes that are involved in the proposed statute of Westminster, which the government of the United Kingdom has undertaken to bring before parliament during the current year.
At the Imperial conference, in 1926, consideration was given to certain questions relating to the operation of dominion legislation. These matters are referred to in the summary of proceedings at pages 14 and 15, under heading (c) "Operation of dominion legislation" and at page 16, under the heading (d) "Merchant shipping legislation." By tile action of the Imperial conference in 1926. the questions regarding the operation of dominion legislation were referred to an expert committee, and certain merchant shipping questions were referred to a sub-conference on merchant shipping legislation.
With the consent of all the governments, the expert committee and sub-conference were combined in the conference on the operation of dominion legislation and the merchant shipping legislation, which was held in the autumn of 1929, and submitted a report. Your attention is invited particularly to part V of the report dealing with the Colonial Laws Validity Act.
I then quote from the report, which I have already read, and concluded as follows:
You will observe that it was contemplated that the statute of Westminster would be enacted so as to become operative on the 1st December, 1931, and that it is necessary that its application to Canada should be determined so as to enable resolutions to be passed by both houses of the dominion parliament in time to be forwarded to the United Kingdom, if possibly by the 1st July, 1931, and in any case not later than the 1st August, 1931.
It is my purpose to introduce resolutions in order to ascertain the views of both houses of the parliament of Canada, in order that they may be presented to His Majesty, if possible by the 1st July, 1931, and. in any case, not later than the 1st August, 1931. It is in order

to enable the provinces to present their views in this matter that the present conference is being arranged.
On account of the necessity of action being taken promptly, it is not intended to consider any other matters at the proposed conference.
I am forwarding herewith copies of the report of the Imperial conferences of 1926 and 1930, and of the 1929 conference on the operation of dominion legislation.
Yours sincerely,
R. B. Bennett.
The conference met in this city and a draft was prepared of the statute of Westminster from the proceedings of the Imperial conference of 1926 and 1930, and we were fortunate in being able, without much delay, to arrive at a conclusion. I think it will be a matter of satisfaction to the house bo know that the representatives of the provinces and the Dominion unanimously agreed that we should insert as a section of the statute of Westminster the section which is now before the house. I may make some slight explanation with respect to the language of the statute of Westminster. You will observe from the notice of motion standing in my name before the orders of the day that you have there the bill in draflt form that will be submitted to the Imperial parliament. The recitals are not stated at length; there may be other recitals as well by the draftsmen. When you get down to the essential features you will observe by turning to page 5 that you have the statute in the general form in which it will appear. I thought it undesirable to put numbers before the paragraphs, because the draftsmen might place other numbers than those we used to designate those paragraphs. I therefore bad the printer put a small line between each of the paragraphs so that the house might understand that on pages 5 and 6 there appear what will be, we believe, the statute of Westminster. You will observe first-I am numbering the paragraphs-as I read:
1.	The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, shall not apply to any law made after the commencement of this act by the parliament of a dominion.
2.	No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this act by the parliament of a dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future act of parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule or regulation made under any such act, and the powers of the parliament of a dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such act, order, rule or regulation, in so far as the same is part of the law of the dominion.
3.	It is hereby declared and enacted that the parliament of a dominion has full power to make laws having extraterritorial operation.

Statute of Westminster
4.	No act of parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act shall extend or be deemed to extend to a dominion as part of the law of that dominion unless it is expressly declared in that act that that dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.
5.	Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this act sections seven hundred and thirty-five and seven hundred and thirty-six of the Merchant Shipping Act. 1894, shall be construed as though reference therein to the legislature of a British possession did not include reference to the parliament of a dominion.
That is, the restriction placed upon the supervisory power which was exercised under the Merchant Shipping Act over legislation passed by legislatures of British dominions shall not apply hereafter to this dominion. Then 6:
6.	Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this act section four of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 (which requires certain laws to be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure or to contain a suspending clause), and so much of section seven of tliat act as requires the approval of His Majesty in council to any rules of court for regulating the practice and procedure of a colonial court of admiralty, shall cease to have effect in any dominion as from the commencement of this act.
In other words, rules that heretofore were made for our admiralty courts that had to be approved by the king in council are no longer subject to that approval. Now comes the section which deals with Canadian interests. This is the section which the members of the conference conceded we should draft for ourselves. The sections that I have read to you were sections agreed upon at the conference in London in 1930, but by the report which I have just read it was provided that the Canadian central government might after conferring with the provinces draft a section which would, if approved by the Commons and the Senate, be accepted as our section in the statute of Westminster. It is with that section-and all this long preamble I have had to make for the purpose of endeavouring to give the historic setting- that we are now dealing. The section reads:
(1) Nothing in this act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.
In other words, lest it be concluded by inference that the rights of the provinces as defined by the British North America Act had been by reason of this statute curttailed, lessened, modified or repealed, we make in
the statute itself a declaration that such is not the case. Then subsection (2) proceeds:
The powers conferred by this act upon the parliament of Canada or upon the legislatures of the provinces shall be restricted to the enactment of laws in relation to matters within the competence of the parliament of Canada or of any of the legislatures of the provinces respectively.
It was thought by some representing provincial legislatures that under provisions as ample as these it might be competent for a dominion parliament to trench upon the jurisdiction of a provincial legislature and exercise powers beyond its competence. For instance, it was felt that it might be possible for this parliament to extend its jurisdiction, by trenching upon the jurisdiction of the provinces, to matters that are distinctly, and as the law now stands, solely within their jurisdiction, so it is provided by the subsectiou to which I have referred that there shall be, by reason of this law, no alteration in the authority or power of this parliament to deal with legislation which, under section 92 and the other sections of the British North America Act, is granted solely to the legislatures of the province. Subsection (3) proceeds:
The provisions of section ....	*
The number will be filled in by the draftsman :
.... of this act shall extend to law's made by any of the provinces of Canada and to the powers of the legislatures of such provinces.
(A number to be inserted corresponding to the section number of the second clause Bet forth in the schedule, Imperial conference, 1930, summary of proceedings, page 19.)


Mr. RALSTON:: I must admit I have not made a very careful study of this measure, and I know the Prime Minister wants to make it clear. Subsection 2 rela/tes to the pow'ers conferred on the legislatures of the provinces as well as those conferred upon the parliament of Canada. Is that power simply the power conferred by the next section, subsection 3, and having relation to the second section of the bill, up near the top of the page? Is that the only power conferred on the legislatures?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In reply to the hon.
gentleman I can only say that it is wider than that. It is intended to make it abundantly clear that there is no power to be derived from this statute that will enable a provincial legislature to enlarge the ambit of its powers under >the constitution, or to enable the Dominion to enlarge its powers by inference from this statute.
Statute oj Westminster


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry I did not
make myself clear. Does my right hon. friend think that within the four comers of this act there is any provision conferring powers on the provincial legislatures?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except in so far as the
removal of the restrictions would operate to confer that power, it is not a conferring power. I will give my hon. friend an illustration which I think will satisfy him on that point. The rules of evidence have, in some instances, become statutory in England, and those rules of evidence in some particulars only have been embodied in the jurisprudence of provinces. It will not be competent for the province to repeal the operation of that imperial statute, which otherwise it could not do. In the province of British Columbia, as my hon. friend the Minister of Justice reminds me, there is an illustration of that situation. Then comes the following:
Notwithstanding anything in the Interpretation Act, 1889, the expression "colony" shall not, in any act of the parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act, include a dominion or any province or state forming part of a dominion.
In other words, the word "colony" in the Interpretation Act of Great Britain includes Canada and Australia and South Africa. Hereafter, by reason of the passing of this statute of Westminster, they will be removed from the category of colonies, and unless the. legislation specifically mentions them at their request and with their consent, no legislation passed by the parliament of Westminster will be applicable to the Dominion of Canada or the other dominions.
I have been unduly long, Mr. Speaker, I know, in making this presentation of the circumstances under which it is now my duty to move that the motion standing in my name be adopted by this house, which I now do seconded by the Minister of Justice.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the house is indeed indebted to my right hon. friend for his clear explanation of the motion now before the chair. This is the completion of the work of the conference of 1926 and, as my right hon. friend has stated, it is the culmination of a long process in the development of nationhood on the part of Canada and the other dominions.
In 1926, as my right hon. friend has stated, the various nations of the commonwealth defined what were their inter-relations, in a clear and unequivocal way. They stated that they are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way

subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations. That was a formal and definite assertion of nationhood. It was the recognition of the fact that equality of status is the basic principle upon which the foundations of the British Empire are based.
My right hon. friend has stated that technically it was not exactly true in fact. I would be inclined to take exception to that statement. I believe that this was asserting the position as it was in fact, but not as it was in law; the laws of the empire and the various nations of the commonwealth had not reached the same stage that the facts of the empire had actually reached. It was essential that the laws of the empire should be made to harmonize with the facts of the empire, and that was the reason why the conference of 1926 adopted a resolution providing for the convening of another special conference, at which the legal representatives of the various nations of the empire would meet in order to try to come to a decision on the various points where the legislation of the various parts of the commonwealth should be altered or changed in order to make it coincide with the situation as accepted by everybody.
At that conference of 1929 I had the honour to represent the Dominion of Canada. Our work was not to enunciate any new principles. Far from it, the work of that special conference was to apply the principles which had been accepted by the conference of 19126. There is no need for me, especially after the argument of my right hon, friend, to go into details with regard to the various recommendations made by the conference of 1929 and which were accepted by the conference of 1930 and approved by that conference, as this motion before the house states.
Of course, I support with great pleasure the motion now introduced by the right hon. gentleman. I do so particularly bacause, reading the motion, I find ithat every paragraph of the proposed statute, as embodied in this resolution, is based upon one of the recommendations of the conference of 1929.
The first paragraph, concerning the law with regard to succession to the throne, as will be seen by reference to the report of the Imperial conference of 1930-I mean the report of the last Imperial conference, at page 21-is in accordance with the recommendation of paragraph 60 of the report of the conference of 1929.

Statute of Westminster
The second clause reads:
And whereas it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the dominions as part of the law of that dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that dominion.
This is based, according to the report of the Imperial conference of 1930, on paragraph 54 of the report of the conference of 1929. The succeeding clause, with regard to the Colonial Laws Validity Act, is based-paragraph 1 and 2-on the recommendation of paragraph 53 of the report of the conference on dominion legislation of 1929.
The next paragraph, with regard to extraterritorial operation of our legislation, is in accordance with the recommendation of paragraph 43 of the report of the conference on the operation of dominion legislation, as indicated at page 19 of the report of the conference.
The next clause is based on paragraph 55 of the report of the conference of 1929, as shown on page 20 of the report of the Imperial conference of 1930. The provisions concerning the Merchant Shipping Act and the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act are based upon the recommendation of paragraph 123 of the report of the conference on dominion legislation of 1929, as shown at page 20 of the report of the Imperial conference of 1930.
Then there is the provision with regard to the British North America Act:
Nothing in this act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.
On page 23 of the report of the conference on the operation of dominion legislation of 1929, it will be seen that a clause had been suggested and accepted by that special conference, varying as to the wording from the present one, but in which there was a special reservation that the British North America Act should not be altered by reason of that statute of Westminster which was then proposed. Here is the clause which was then suggested and which is part of the report of the conference of 1929:
(1)	Nothing in this act shall be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the Constitution Acts of the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Dominion of New Zealand, otherwise than in accordance with the law and constitutional usage and practice heretofore existing.
(2)	Nothing in this act shall be deemed to authorize the parliaments of the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia to make laws on any matter at present within the authority of the provinces of Canada or the
states of Australia, as the case may be, not being a matter within the authority of the parliaments or governments of the Dominion of Canada and of the Commonwealth of Australia, respectively.
May I say, without wishing to be in any way disagreeable or offensive, that our present High Commissioner in London was unduly afraid of his province losing any right or privilege as a result of the work of the conference of 1929. If my good friend, Mr. Ferguson, does not interfere more with the affairs of other parts of the empire than that conference interfered with his own province, we shall all be safe and happy in every respect.
There is a change, which I commend, as a result of the conference which was called by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister between the provinces and the Dominion, and which change is contained in section 3 of the paragraph concerning the constitution of Canada and the provinces. Therein it is stated that the provisions of the section of that act repealing the Colonial Laws Validity Act, with regard to the legislation of this Dominion, shall extend to laws made by any of the provinces of Canada and to the powers of the legislatures of such provinces. This is an extension which I commend. Of course, the special conference of 1929 could not make any such recommendation because we had no mandate from the provinces to ask for such a change. And it was then recognized that that extension could be made if the provinces saw fit to ask for it, in order that this statute might affect their legislation as well as the legislation of the Dominion. This is a beneficial result of the conference which my right hon. friend held with the provinces and at which they themselves agreed that this statute of Westminster, as far as the Colonial Laws Validity Act is concerned, should also apply to the legislation of the provinces.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Before the hon.
member passes to another point, I should like to ask him whether the fact that the provinces were consulted with regard to this statute and the consent of all the provinces was obtained, would seem to imply that in the future any amendments to the British North America Act must be contingent upon the consent of all the provinces.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall refer briefly in
a few minutes to that phase of the question, and if my hon. friend will permit me, I shall say what I want to say just prior to that. As a result of what I have stated I am indeed gratified that this resolution should be placed before the house, and I heartily support it.

Statute of Westminster

This statute of Westminster, when enacted, will certainly be a milestone in the process of nationhood of Canada and the other dominions of the empire.
But there are a couple of questions which I should like to touch upon very briefly. There is first the question of the right of amending our constitution, and that is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) had in mind in asking his question. I have already stated on other occasions and even during the present session when the house was discussing a resolution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with regard to the question, that I never felt that the necessity of having (to confirm by imperial legislation any change that we desire to make in the British North America Act, means essentially that Canada is a subordinate country. This is due to a condition peculiar to our country, and is the result of the situation which existed at the time of confederation and of certain conditions which prevail in Canada. I stated and I still state that this is not at all imposed upon us; it is a condition which comes to us of our own free will. Indeed, the Imperial parliament would be pleased at all times to be rid of the necessity of having to enact legislation which might be difficult when complications might arise as between the government of the dominion and the governments of the provinces or the government of one province concerning some change which might be asked in the constitution. But this was accepted by the parties to the confederation; it has been accepted since on account of our peculiar conditions and it is not at all imposed by a sovereign power upon a subordinate power. This might be likened to a condition which the Permanent Court of International Justice stated with regard to the European commission of the Danube case which was submitted to that court last year or the year before. The Permanent Court of International Justice said:
Restrictions on the exercise of sovereign rights accepted by treaty by the state concerned cannot be considered as an infringement of sovereignty.
I think this must be considered a similar situation when the case of the necessity of an imperial act with regard to a change in our constitution is concerned. As I stated, that was the view of experts, but there is no doubt that it gives rise to misunderstanding not only in this country but abroad, and if there might be devised a system whereby Canada, in common with other dominions of the empire and all federated countries of the

world, could in some way, as a result of a conference with the provinces, amend her own constitution, that source of misunderstanding would certainly disappear. Especially is this desirable on account of the view which the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has to my knowledge expressed in the house on two or three occasions. My right hon. friend has taken issue with me on this matter, and he has plainly argued that as long as Canada has not the power to amend her own constitution, there cannot be equality of status. Everybody now accepts the doctrine of the equality of status. I do not think there is any hon. member who is opposed to that doctrine, and if my right hon. friend believes now as he did before that there cannot be equality of status as long as that condition remains, it is his paramount duty to take steps in order that this obstacle should disappear. So that I may not be charged with misrepresenting my right hon. friend in that regard, I find that at the regular session of 1930, speaking on the address, he is reported on page 24 of Hansard as saying:
That report-
That was the report of the conference of 1929.
-makes certain recommendations, but, sir, can there be any such thing as equality of Btatus in this dominion and no subordination of one parliament to another if this parliament is deprived of the right to frame our own constitution? That is the test, the supreme test of equality of status.
Later on in the same session, when the report of the conference was submitted for approval, my right hon. friend again said, a3 reported on page 2612 of Hansard:
I put this question to the Minister of Justice: Can you say that you have equality of status if you do not have power to amend your constitution ?
Mr. Lapointe:	Surely.
Mr. Bennett:	The Minister of Justice is too
astute a lawyer to answer that question in the affirmative.
Mr. Lapointe:	Then I am not astute,
because I do answer in the affirmative.
Mr. Bennett: Surely the hon. gentleman does not wish to negative the first qualification of a state, which is the power to amend its constitution?
Mr. Lapointe:	A condition brought about
by our own will is not a subordination.
Mr. Bennett:	I put to my hon. friend a
fundamental principle which I think governs all these matters and which should be in our minds when we are discussing them. It is this: If it becomes necessary for another parliament to exercise its power in order that we may attain our ends, we are not on an equality of status with that power.

Statute of Westminster
Further on he said:
Power must ba exercised by another body, and whenever power has to be exercised by another body to effectuate a purpose that this state proposes, then that state and this one are not on an equality of status.
So there is no doubt in the mind of my right hon. friend that in order to put into effect the decisions arrived at unanimously at the conference of 1926, and I might add at the conferences of 1929 and 1930, in order to give effect to the principles there enunciated and accepted by all, he must see to it, if he is still of the same mind, that Canada secures the right and the power to amend its own constitution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. gentleman knows that it was suggested that there should be a conference with the provinces at a later date, to which all the representatives of the provinces who were here in April were agreeable, and we said that later we would call a conference.


Ernest Lapointe: I knew that, and I am pleased that such a conference was then suggested and is to be held.


Mr. CAHAN:: In the meantime the hon. gentleman might exercise his talents in educating our own province of Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: I thank my hon. friend for his complimentary suggestion, and if I have the same success there that I have had elsewhere it is possible that we may come to a happy conclusion. As far as the suggestion of my hon. friend is concerned, I have this to say. I have read many articles and many books on the question we are now discussing, both by authors who favour the changes that have taken place and by others who are not so enthusiastic about them, and I have always noticed that when it comes to a question of securing the right to amend the constitution of the Dominion of Canada, and perhaps also when the question of appeals to the privy council is being discussed, the opponents of change always bring in the name of Quebec as their last bulwark and safeguard against change and innovation. May I repeat what I have already stated in this parliament? I do not believe that the rights of the minorities in this country are linked with the legal situation as it exists now. Our ancestors fought for responsible government in this country. They tried to develop Canada as a nation under the British flag, and I do not think they ever contemplated that a status of colonial inferiority was necessary for the safeguarding of their rights. I do not believe that, and I was pleased the other day, 22110-2034
Mr. Speaker, when I said that you agreed with me on this, that the best safeguard which the minority has to protect their rights lies in themselves, rather than in some outside authority. I am of the opinion that Canadians as a whole, in Quebec as well as in the other provinces, would not permanently be satisfied with a condition under which they would be subordinated to another power outside the territory of Canada. It is not a new idea which I am expressing. I have already in this house and in the province of Quebec stated my views in that regard. I remember addressing a large audience in Montreal, at the Cercle Universitaire, at which a large number of the professional men and university students of Montreal were present, and there I expressed exactly the same views that I am expressing now, and I may add that those views were endorsed and supported by that audience without any restriction. So I think there is a possibility of reaching an agreement in that matter. It will be difficult work, I am quite willing to agree with my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), that this conference will have before it, but I believe there is a possibility of coming to an agreement and of devising safeguards just as strong as those which now exist in order to allay the fears which the minorities might have in regard to their rights.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If my hon. friend will allow me to say so, I have read many times his address before the Cercle Universitaire, and from inquiries I made I was under the impression that the audience by their applause expressed their enthusiasm rather in respect to the hon. gentleman's fervor and eloquence than in approval of the ideas he propounded on that occasion.


Ernest Lapointe: I am grateful to my hon. friend for his kind words, but I assure him that the audience was rather supporting the substance of and the ideas embodied in my remarks, because the rhetoric was very poor indeed.
As I just said, it will be difficult work, and I think to-day, as I did when my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) moved his resolution, that I might well appeal to all those who are interested in such matters to study and consider the subjects which are to be submitted to that conference. They are questions of great interest to all Canadians, and all Canadians should express in one way or another what they feel about them, and do what they can to help my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and his
Statute oj Westminster

colleagues and all those who will be parties to the conference in coming to the decisions which they will have to make.
When the question of equality of status is being discussed another question will arise, that of appeals to the privy council. There are some who believe that so long as we have an appeal to 'that committee we cannot say that we have complete equality of status. Again I say that the prevalence of this condition is of our own free will. The mother country at the conference of 1826, and the other conferences as well, made it clear that when one of the sister nations of the empire wants to do away with that appeal it is for her to decide. In Canada I know there is a strong body of opinion that we should retain that appeal to the privy council. Others think differently. So far as I am concerned, without being extreme in the matter or in any way expressing a forcible view, I am of the opinion that if Canadians are competent to make itheir own laws they should be competent to interpret them. I think it is a reflection on the legal men of Canada and on our judiciary to say that our supreme court should lack the competence necessary to inspire confidence in Canadian litigants. If that is so, by all means action should be taken to improve that condition. By all means the best men should be sought and appointed to the bench. Again I say that it is merely a matter of discretion on the part of our country. I believe we can retain the right of appeal without feeling any sense of inferiority or subordination, it is rather the merit of the question I am discussing.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: May I ask my hon. friend a question? If a situation arises under which some of the provinces desire to maintain their right to appeal and others do not, and this parliament desires to maintain it, what solution of the difficulty would my hon. friend suggest?


Ernest Lapointe: I quite recognize the difficulty. I was expressing rather a theoretical view, because I know that the provinces have their autonomy in that regard. They are supreme within their jurisdiction, and they may want to maintain the appeal. I do not say that we could oppose their view or prevent them from doing so.


Hugh Guthrie: Would my hon. friend approve the suggestion that a rule otherwise than one uniform in character should prevail. That is, that one part of the country should maintain the right and other parts of the country deny it?
[Mr. Lapointe.)


Ernest Lapointe: No, I agree with my hon. friend that such a condition would make for confusion. Certainly this is one of the difficult questions which I think ought thoroughly to be discussed at the conference which is to be called by my right hon. friend.
Mr. LaVERGNE: It is not so difficult as all that-an appeal to the king, which I believe in, should be an appeal to the king acting with his privy council in Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: That is another suggestion which might be discussed at the proposed conference, and I invite my hon. friend to submit his views.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I shall not be there 1


Ernest Lapointe: I merely invite my hon. friend to submit his views to the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister, and he may convince them that his proposition is sound.
There is one inconvenience in connection with the decisions of the privy council. Of course, as the house knows, it is not really a court, but is a committee advising 'the king, and the necessary result is that the decisions of the privy council are not binding, either upon other courts or upon itself. They change their views on certain matters, as the jurisprudence will show, and it is even suggested- and I think not contradicted'-that not only do strict legal principles rule in their decisions, but sometimes questions of policy as well are considered. The privy council therefore is a tribunal quite different from other courts. In this connection I might refer, Mr. Speaker, to an article by a prominent member of the bar in Ottawa, and a good friend of the Prime Minister. I refer to Mr. George F. Henderson. After the judgment was rendered by the privy council on the question whether women should be eligible for appointment to the Senate, Mr. Henderson rose and read a very cleverly written article to the effect that the decision might have been sound in matter of policy but was against the law as he had until then read it. Of course I was in favour of the decision as it Was then rendered, and I do not wish to discuss Mr. Henderson's contention. I cite it just to show what the impression is, among lawyers and other people as well, with regard to decisions of the privy council. Some think that those appeals should be retained more particularly in constitutional cases. I am not sure that even there they Can have a very strong case.
Mr. LaVERGNE : Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: Because after all, our sister nation of Australia takes an altogether different stand. Australia, both the common-

Statute of Westminster
wealth and the states, has made it difficult to go to the privy council on constitutional issues, because they claim that England not being a federal state the law lords of the privy council have not in federal matters the experience of judges who have to deal with questions affecting the relations between the state and the federal authority, and who could more saifely deal with such questions relating to the working of a federal state as arise in Australia.
May I say also that I believe it is very important that as long as we maintain the appeal a Canadian judge should sit when Canadian cases are before the committee. Two of the present judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are also members of the privy council, and it is in the interests of Canadian litigants that one member of the tribunal should be acquainted with Canadian conditions and Canadian considerations when Canadian cases are before the committee.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Could not the Supreme
Court of Canada act as a privy council in Canadian matters?


Ernest Lapointe: That is a question which we have to discuss. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has alluded to the Nadan case in which he took part as representing the province of Alberta. I think it was rather a shock to Canadian citizens when the decision was reached by the privy council that a law which had been on our statute books for over twenty years was ultra vires of the parliament of Canada, and that we in this parliament had no right to decide that in criminal matters there should be no appeal to courts other than those of Canada. I hope and believe that when this statute of Westminster becomes law the reason on which the decision of the privy council was based in that case will disappear, because then this repugnancy of our statutes to an old law of England will no longer be an obstacle to the validity of our legislation-as well as the other reason given, that Canada had no extraterritorial power in its legislation, and that therefore the appeal to the privy council could not be done away with by the parliament of Canada.
Before taking my seat, Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay homage to the public men of Britain and the other parts of the empire for having dealt with those questions in a very broad way, and for having realized that the surest method of maintaining our empire association is that it should be based on the solid rock of liberty, of autonomy and equality of status. I have no doubt that the bonds which
unite us, instead of being weakened, are rather strengthened by this new condition, based on the free will of all the citizens of the empire.


Mr. DUPRE:: We all agree on that.


Ernest Lapointe: I am pleased to see that Canadians as a whole have come to agree on this point, and that the citizens of the other parts of the empire have also reached the same conclusion. We are bound together by a common citizenship, by loyalty to the same crown and to the same king, and this is a stronger bond than any legislation on the statute books giving predominance to one part of the empire over the other parts. I gladly support the resolution.
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Montmagny): I desire, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and to endorse almost wholly their views. This legislation is certainly a step of which we ought to be proud. I think equality of status cannot be reached, and does not exist-we have to face the facts as they are-until Canada has the right to amend her own constitution; for undoubtedly so long as in this respect we have to submit to another nation we are in a position of inferiority.
So far as appeals to the privy council are concerned, I think that as we have the great benefit of the monarchical system, the right of appeal to the king always exists, and a subject has the right to bring his grievance to the foot of the throne that the king may use his prerogative to redress that grievance or to do him the justice he is entitled to. In the middle ages the king would dispense justice personally, and in fact usually did so; to-day he acts through his advisers. I think this is the solution. There is no need that we should go to the Imperial legislature to have our laws defined, but we could appeal to the king by having our own privy councillors advise the king on matters of appeal to the privy council.
As the hon. member for Quebec East has said, our common allegiance to the king is the strongest bond that unites the empire. Recognizing the great benefits which we enjoy under the monarchical system, and recognizing also our duties towards the king-emperor, I think it is about time that we gave that recognition some tangible form. I am one of those who in the far distant days were called "nationalists," and I still believe in Canada first, but I am also one of those who believe
Statute of Westminster

in our duty towards the king and the empire. I think that the dominions, or the self-governing kingdoms of the empire, should now place upon their statute books a law providing that we contribute our share to the civil list of the king and the royal family. This would be a far better way of recognizing the benefits of monarchy than indulging in protestations of very lofty sentiment. This seems to me an opportune time for us to recognize our duty by taxing ourselves for the maintenance of the king and the royal family.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, this legislation, as has been said, is extremely important, and while it does not, I submit, alter in the slightest the status which we have enjoyed for at least five years, it puts the seal and the signature to the deed. I submit the agreement was already arrived at, as appears by the report of the Imperial conference of 1928. The state of affairs actually existed; the deed remained to be signed, and this is the document by which we are to-day giving the seal of approval of this parliament.
There are just one or two points with regard to the form and effect of the address which it is proposed to present. My right hon. friend has suggested that the provincial conference was called in order that the provinces might be consulted, and in order to meet a request and something in the nature of a protest against the possibility of interfering with provincial rights. My hon. friend the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has already pointed out that at least as far as the form of the proposed statute is concerned, the conference on dominion legislation in 1929 expressly provided against any possibility of this act having the effect of permitting an amendment or repeal of the British North America Act, by the insertion of the clause which is at the bottom of page 29 of the report of that conference. I am not going to trouble the house by reading it, except to emphasize that as far as this feature is concerned, I submit the provincial conference was unnecessary.
In this connection may I say also to my hon. friend-and this may be regarded as a small point, but I submit it might be worthy of consideration-that the clause which has been substituted for the clause recommended in the conference of 1929, namely the clause at the bottom of page 5 of to-day's routine proceedings, possibly may be open to some misinterpretation along the line I desire to
[Mr LaVergne.]
indicate. This clause as now drafted provides that-
-nothing in this act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.
The provision recommended by the conference of 1929 was that nothing in this act should be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the constitution acts of the Dominion of Canada-.this, I assume, would mean these acts past, present or future. Probably my right hon. friend and his law officers have considered the effect of limiting the British North America acts which are saved from repeal or alteration to the acts from 1867 to 1930. I have in mind the possibility that there may be an amendment to the British North America Act hereafter, to which this act will not apply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has raised the question which was the basis of the difficulty of the provincial premiers and their governments. It is provided by the conference of 19E9 that the British North America Act could be amended, as a result of the practice theretofore prevailing, by a bald majority of this house and the senate, which amendment might interfere with or lessen the powers of the provinces. It was to overcome that difficulty that the conference was held and the words mentioned agreed upon as making it beyond question that there could 'be no such interference as would lessen, restrict or even amplify the powers possessed by the provinces under their respective constitutions.


James Layton Ralston: It is a matter of drafting; my right hon. friend has expert draftsmen, and I hesitate even to make ithe suggestion. What I am pointing out is that while the old clause provided that the constitution acts of the Dominion of Canada, which I submit include the constitution acts past, present and future, were not capable of repeal, the section we now have before us is limited to tlhe British North America acts from 1867 to 1930. Therefore it is possible that the very thing which my right hon. friend suggests could be done might occur, namely that a majority of this house and of the senate might present an address to His Majesty, and amendments to the British North America Act might be made in 1931 or 1932 which would not be saved at all by the provisions of this act. I make that suggestion to my right hon. friend for what it may be worth. As I say, he has had the benefit, of advice with respect to the drafting of the statute.

Statute oj Westminster


Richard Bedford Bennett: The premiers of the provinces agreed to this in its present terms.


James Layton Ralston: It may be for the protection of the provinces, but I submit there is at least room for doubt whetfher it does protect the provinces against repeal of any amendments made after 1930.
Now I should like to say a word with regard to the effect of the dominion-provincial conference which was held this spring. I said a moment ago that I did not think it went any further than the provision which was already contained in the recommendation of 1929, as far as the prevention of repeal or amendment to the British North America Act is concerned. But I should like the house to note that the provincial conference did a great deal more than that; as my hon. friend the former Minister of Justice said, iit made a very substantial contribution to the powers of the provinces, in this way: As I understand it, and as I read this address, the provinces emerged from that conference with a power I think no province ever had before; thait is, the power of repealing an imperial statute. That power is conferred by the terms address which is before us. I have no doubt that was intended; I suppose we can assume that there was some consultation with the authorities in Great Britain in order to be sure that such a clause would be acceptable. From what I have heard of the conference of 1929, however, the representatives of the United Kingdom were at least hesitant to confer the express power, even on the federal parliament, of repealing a British statute. They said, "Is it not going far enough if we indicate that any statute of the United Kingdom which is repugnant to a statute of the Dominion of Canada shall not have any force or effect, without going the next step and saying that the Dominion of Canada Shall have power to repeal that statute entirely."
However, as I say the conference of 1929 agreed that the Dominion parliament should have that power and now as a result of the dominion-provincial conference held this spring the provinces have the power to repeal a statute of the United Kingdom which is repugnant to a provincial statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But my hon. friend
realizes that it must be within the ambit of section 92.


James Layton Ralston: I quite understand that; of course one would not expect the provinces to have the power to repeal a statute which had nothing to do with anything over which they had jurisdiction, but I say that the result of the provincial conference has been to grant the provinces very substantial powers.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What is the objection?


James Layton Ralston: I am not making an objection; I am just leading up to the matter of the next dominion-provincial conference. I am trying to find out whether Some new practice is to be devised under which there is to be no amendment to the British North America Act except with the consent of or after consultation with the provinces, I notice my right hon. friend was very careful in his report of the Imperial conference not to suggest that the consent of the provinces was necessary, but only that they should be consulted. It seems to me that is important; it marks an entirely new step. If I look at the fact that the provinces were according to the 1930 report to be consulted, if I look . at the fact that they were brought together and their views obtained, if I look at the fact that now they are being given power to repeal an imperial statute if it concerns a subject within their ambit; if I look at the recital of the very resolution on the order paper, where I find-
. . . ; a clause was approved by the delegates of His Majesty's government in Canada and of the governments of all the provinces of Canada, for insertion in the proposed act for the purpose of providing that the provisions of the proposed act relating to the Colonial Laws Validity Act should extend to laws made by the provinces of Canada and to the powers of the legislatures of the provinces; and also for the purpose of providing that nothing in the proposed act should be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder; and also for the purpose of providing that the powers conferred by the proposed act on the parliament of Canada and upon the legislatures of the provinces should be restricted to the enactment of laws in relation to matters within the competence of the parliament of Canada or of any of the legislatures of the provinces respectively.
I am led to believe that at least some new practice is growing up and that after this the former practice with regard to the amending of the British North America Act may not prevail.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope the hon. gentleman realizes that it is not a question of amending the British North America Act. The conference was held with respect to the passing of the statute of Westminster.


James Layton Ralston: I realize that. But the
crux of the whole thing, the question on which the conference, as I understood it, was held, was whether or not the British North America Act could be repealed or amended by virtue of the powers conferred by the statute of Westminster.
Statute of Westminster


Richard Bedford Bennett: The letter of invitation
covers it.


James Layton Ralston: Yes; the letter of invitation provides that and points out this possibility of amendment of the British North America Act in regard to which all the apprehension exists. The conference was held for the purpose of clearing that situation. The view which one seems to gather from this combination of circumstances, namely, what was done at the imperial conference in 1930, suggesting that there should be a conference with the provinces; what was done when my right hon. friend came back and called a conference with the provinces; what was done with respect to the proposal that the provinces should have the right to repeal an imperial statute; and what appears in this recital, that all the provinces have consented thereto, which consent I am unable to find elsewhere in regard to previous amendments which have been made to the British North America Act-the view which one gathers from this combination of circumstances, I say, is opposed by the fact that the report of the conference of 1930 is very careful not to provide for the consent of the provinces, but only to give the provinces an opportunity to present their views. At page 18 the following appears:
Accordingly, it appeared necessary to provide for two things. In the first place it was necessary to provide an opportunity for His Majesty's government in Canada to take such action as might be appropriate to enable the provinces to present their views. In the second place it was necessary to provide for the extension of the sections of the proposed statute to Canada or for the exclusion of Canada front their operation after the provinces had been consulted.
But while this is the preamble-so to speak -when we come to the legal conditions which are to be complied with we find that the consent of the provinces is not mentioned nor are they necessarily to be consulted but that it is to be sufficient if the formalities required for amendments to the British North America Act are carried out. Note how the report proceeds:-
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. It also seemed desirable to place on record the view that the sections should not subsequently be extended to Canada except by an act of the 
parliament of the United Kingdom enacted in response to such requests as are appropriate to an amendment of the British North America Act.
Any idea which the provinces might have had, that their consent might be required, vanishes when we read the last sentence to the effect that the only procedure required to be followed is such procedure as is necessary and appropriate to an amendment of the British North America Act. And that procedure provides only for an address by both houses of parliament, without reference at all to the provinces.
I thought my right hon-. friend would have made clear what he regarded as the position of the provinces in relation to these matters, in view of what has taken place, and the appearance of importance which my right hon. friend has given the provinces particularly with respect to the last section of the statute. I agree with what has been already said, that the fact that we still go to the British parliament for amendments to the British North America Act does not in the least imply inferiority. It does not in any way qualify our equality of status, because we go to the British parliament by virtue of our own agreement. Wo are in exactly the same position in relation to the Colonial Stocks Act, to which my hon. friend referred. There is one case in which the right of disallowance is still permitted. That right is also given the British government by our own agreement.
I join with other hon. members in commending the legislation, in supporting the address, and in believing that it marks a most important milestone on the road of Canada's progress.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 50, respecting the Canadian Woodmen of the World.

Mr. Fraser (Northumberland).
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Florence Marshall.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 74, respecting the Railway Employees Casualty Insurance Company.-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri).

Dairy Industry Act


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 16, to amend the Dairy Industry Act (increase of penalties).
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Jones in the chair.
On section 1-Penalties increased.
Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I would like to know if the Minister of Agriculture has been consulted about this bill, and if so what he and the government think about it? The bill has been introduced by a private member. It provides for a very drastic increase in penalties. I would like to know wihat justification there is for this increase.


Mr. GOBEIL:: This bill was before the
agriculture committee. The Minister of Agriculture was present, also Mr. Ruddick, the dairy commissioner, and the bill was thoroughly discussed and approved by the committee without amendment.


Mr. NEILL:: May I ask the sponsor of
this bill what are the offences for which a severe punishment is provided under this section? The section does not say what those offences are.


Samuel Gobeil: It is the offence of adulterating dairy products.


Alan Webster Neill: I would ask the Minister of
Justice if his attention has been drawn to this bill, under which upon summary conviction a man may be punished to the extent of a fine not exceeding SI,000 for a first offence and $2,000 in the case of a second offence. A case of summary conviction would go before a justice of the peace, two or possibly one, and in many districts the justices of the peace are not lawyers or men pretending to have any great skill in or knowledge of the law or legal procedure and the hearing of evidence. They are often appointed primarily for the purpose of signing documents, and these men are to have the power, under this bill, of fining a man $2,000. I do not think there is any other section in the criminal code that provides such a severe penalty on summary conviction for an offence of this nature.


Hugh Guthrie: My attention was called
to the bill when it was before the house in the first instance, and I briefly discussed it on that occasion. I did point out that the penalties seemed rather extreme, and it was at my suggestion that the bill was referred
to the committee on agriculture. That committee, I suppose, has gone over it with its usual care, and has not seen fit to amend it.
I also pointed out that this bill was in conflict with an act at present on the statutes in regard to the adulteration of food, namely, the Food and Drugs Act, under which the penalties are much lighter than those provided by this bill. One difficulty is that prosecutions may be laid under the Food and Drugs Act and not under this legislation at all. I pointed that out in order that the committee might consider the matter, and see if they could not reconcile the present act with the bill now proposed, but evidently the committee in its wisdom has reported the bill without amendment.


Alan Webster Neill: I would point out that members of the agriculture committee are generally either farmers or members directly interested in the viewpoint of farmers, who possibly would not look at it from the point of view which the Minister of Justice has just suggested. I would ask the Minister of Justice if in his wide experience he has not found that an extravagant penalty often defeats its own object.


Hugh Guthrie: In many cases, yes.


Alan Webster Neill: It almost invariably has that effect where an extreme penalty is imposed for a comparatively trivial offence, especially a first offence. The magistrate or the judge or the defence find ways of evading the law rather than have a notoriously unfair sentence given. That phase is perhaps not my business. I am simply pointing these things out, and I think the Minister of Justice should use his authority as the first law officer of the crown to hang this bill up until it is further looked into.


Samuel Gobeil: This bill tvas presented at the suggestion of the dairymen's association of the province of Quebec after a resolution had been passed by that association, which is composed of experts in the butter and cheese business. They were brought before the committee, and Mr. Ruddick also appeared before the committee. This very question as to the penalty was put to him, and Mr. Ruddick was emphatic in stating that the penalties were not too high. He said that those who were adulterating butter were deliberately doing so, that they were no more or less than thieves, and that they should be punished. He was absolutely of the opinion that the penalties were not too high. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni suggests that an extreme penalty might defeat its own
Dairy Industry Act

object, that it might prevent a prosecution in some cases, or that innocent parties might be condemned. On the contrary, it was pointed out before the committee that the judge would always give the accused the benefit of the doubt, and that it would only be in cases where proof was positive that the penalty would be imposed. The dairy commissioner thought that in cases where there was absolutely no doubt as to a man's guilt the penalties were not too high. These men should be sent to gaol, he said.


Alan Webster Neill: My hon. friend uses the right word, or the wrong one, perhaps, when he uses the word "judge." If these cases came before a judge I would not have so much objection, but they will come before a local justice of the peace who may not know the elementary principles of the science of the law. My hon. friend has quoted in support of this bill the Quebec dairymen's association, who, he says, have endorsed it. Quite so, an ex parte endorsation. Expert dairymen, yes, but are they expert lawyers, or expert judges, or expert in determining whait will produce the result aimed at in this case? My hon. friend says that Mr. Ruddick thinks the penalties are not too high. With all due respect for Mr. Ruddick, who is a very able man in his own sphere, perhaps he is not qualified to judge on this question of penalties. They ought to go to gaol, Mr. Ruddick says, according to my hon. friend. Why not let 11s hang them? I can recall a case in Turkey where a baker was giving light weight in his bread. The sultan had him put into the oven and baked with the bread, and he boasted that that one case of severity stopped further infractions of that kind. Those are eastern ideas of justice; they are not western ideas.


Samuel Gobeil: May I point out that probably not one case out of a hundred would go before a local justice of the peace, as my hon. friend suggests.


Alan Webster Neill: It must.


Samuel Gobeil: These offences are taking place in Montreal and other big cities. I do not think there is one case out of a hundred in the rural districts.


Alan Webster Neill: There are many creameries in country places. My hon. friend says that these cases will go before a judge. They will not go before a judge, because the section says, "upon summary conviction." If the minister would have that changed to read, "on indictment," I would say no more about it.
(Mr. Gobeil.]


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This adulteration of butter
in the province of Quebec has reached such enormous proportions that a fine of $500 or even $1,000 is not a deterrent. It is not adulteration which is practised by those who make the butter. The farmers of the province of Quebec are as honest in their dealings as the farmers in any other province; but in the city of Montreal, where there is a population of about one million and a quarter, there are men who purchase from the farmer butter which is unadulterated and quite suitable for the market, and then in secret factories they manipulate the butter by adding to it large quantities of oil, purchased at a low price. The profits are so enormous in this illicit dealing in butter, that when the offenders are brought to justice they are willing to pay almost any reasonable fine that may be exacted. For instance only a short time ago one of the leading dealers in the city of Montreal purchased in that city a large quantity of butter which was represented to him to have been obtained from the farmers of a certain district in the province of Quebec who have the reputation of making the choicest quality of that product. The samples given to the dealer were found to be up to quality and standard. I am advised that he shipped a large quantity of that butter to England as per samples, but when it reached the old country it was found that thousands of pounds of that butter consisted 60 per cent of cheap oil. Rather than allow the reputation of'the province of Quebec to suffer from such a sale in the English market the dealer took the entire loss and had the butter shipped back, or destroyed, I have forgotten which. The fact remains however that to the dealer the butter was a total loss.
One case was brought to my notice where a man was buying good butter placing it in an old bath tub in his house and adulterating it with cocoanut oil. That butter was placed on the market and an enormous profit was derived owing to the fact that it was sold as a high standard product. Some penalties must be imposed. I am informed that the judges of the court of sessions in the province of Quebec have found it impossible to deter evil doers from adulterating butter by imposing the existing penalties. That is my information and therefore I am very much in sympathy with the object of the promoter of this bill. In justice to those who have to do with the health of a great city such as that in which I live, and to those who have at the same time to protect the reputation of the producers of butter throughout that province, heavy penalties should be imposed.

Dairy Industry Act


Thomas F. Donnelly: I fully agree with the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) when he says that evil doers who wilfully adulterate, butter should be severely punished. I can imagine that last year when the price of butter was around 35 or 40 cents a pound cocoanut oil might have been mixed with good butter. We have reached a time however when the prices of butter and cocoanut oil are about the same, and there would not 'be much profit to the man who mixed them. When this bill was before the committee I objected to it on the ground that some people, who are not adulterine butter but merely preparing it for the market may be punished for doing something they should be allowed to do. I would direct the attention of hon. members to subsections (to) and (cl of section 5 of the. Dairy Industry Act. Subsection Ob) is as follows:
No person shall mix with or incorporate with butter, by any process of heating, soaking, rechurning, reworking or otherwise any cream, milk, skim milk, buttermilk or water to cause such butter when so treated to contain over 16 per centum of water or less than 80 per centum of milk fat.
Then, subsection (c) is as follows:
No person shall melt, clarify, refine, rechurn or otherwise treat butter to produce "process" or "renovated" butter.
Hundreds of retail merchants throughout the country live at long distances from the farmers who supply them with dairy butter. Those merchants receive butter of different grades, different colours, different degrees of saltiness, and in many cases they want to mix the different butters together, wash it to make the whole of a similar 'quality and so place it on the market. If however in doing so those merchants produce butter which contains 16 per cent of water they are liable to the penalty. If they are found reworking the butter or rechurning it they are subjected to a similar penalty. The bill states:
.... melt, clarify, refine, rechurn, or otherwise treat butter to produce "process" or ''renovated" butter.
If a merchant renovates butter he is subject to a .penalty, and if he mixes water with the butter so as to cause it to contain 16 per cent water he is subject to a similar penalty. I object to the bill on that point, because some people, who are doing a legal and lawful business would be penalized.


Ernest Lapointe: May I ask my hon. friend the promoter of the bill if he agrees with the Secretary of State that all the evil doers are city people and that none of them live in the rural districts? Does the promoter of the bill wish to affect only the city people and not the farmers?


Samuel Gobeil: If butter makers or farmers
adulterate butter I do not see why they should not be punished as much as the city men. I may say however that about ninety-nine per cent of the complaints are from the big cities.
May I say that the farmer or butter maker who puts more than 16 per cent water in butter does not come within the section to which my hon. friend from Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) has referred. Such farmers or butter makers would come under section 6 of the act for the violation of which there is provided a maximum fine of $50 and costs. The present amendment is intended to affect only those who are incorporating into their product foreign matters such as cocoanut oil.


Paul Mercier: It is quite apparent that the member who has just spoken has made a study of the subject. Has he the number of convictions in each province for last year, so that we may know whether the difficulty exists only in the province of Quebec?


Hugh Guthrie: That information was placed on Hansard when the bill was before the house on a former occasion.


Mr. WILFRID GIROUARD (Drum-mond-Arthabaska) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I think that we should greatly hesitate in passing this bill. I am aware that the Dairy Industry Act was enacted some years ago for the purpose of protecting the market and supplying it with as pure a product as possible. On the other hand we should not pass a measure that might result in destroying the aim sought by the Act. In section 1, subsection (a) we find that for the first offence, a minimum fine of $500 or a maximum of $1,000 is provided. For the second offence the penalty is from $1,000 to $2,000. My first objection to this bill is that it does not allow sufficient latitude or discretion to the judge hearing the case. I have seen cases before the Arthabaska court where people acting in good faith were charged with having violated the Dairy Industry Act. After hearing the case, the magistrate had no alternative but to sentence those brought before the court, as the act was very explicit on that point, however, recognizing that these people were acting in good faith, the magistrate fined them the minimum amount. By this bill, the magistrate will not have this alternative. He will be forced, for a first offence-even in the case of a person acting in good faith-to fine this person $500, and should the party be unable to pay the fine and costs, his sentence will be at least six months detention with or
Dairy Industry Act

without hard labour. I share the views of those who believe that transgressors should be punished, however, I think, that the penalty should be in keeping with the offence.
When I consider that a person who might have violated section 5, subsection (b) specially, may be fined a minimum of $500 or sentenced to six months of detention with or without hard labour, I respectfully submit sir, that this penalty is boo severe.


Ernest Lapointe: We might as well hang him right off.


Wilfrid Girouard: Certainly. It is only necessary to read subsections (b) and
(c)	of section 5 to be satisfied that this bill goes too far:
No person shall mix with or incorporate with butter, by any process of heating, soaking, rechurning, reworking or otherwise any cream, milk, skim milk, buttermilk or water to cause such butter when so treated to contain over 16 per centum of water or less than 80 per centum of milk fat.
Then, subsection (c) is as follows:
No person shall melt, clarify, refine, rechurn or otherwise treat butter to produce "process" or "renovated" butter.
If the judge were allowed a certain discretion, he could fine those who openly transgress the law $500, and I would not find any fault in this respect. However, I think the act is too severe as regards those who unintentionally transgress the law. To inflict the minimum fine of $500 or detention in default of payment for such an offence, I submit is to go beyond the intention of the members who approved this act some years ago.
I am informed that the bill under discussion was approved by Mr. Ruddick, in committee. I readily understand that Mr. Ruddick does not object to enacting this measure, he should have stated, however, that by passing this bill we were destroying the good results which the act might otherwise have. It is not by inflicting exorbitant penalties that we can hope to remedy a state of things far less serious than what it is stated to be. Some instances of violation of the Act have been quoted in the house, but they are very few and isolated cases. The few infractions in Ontario or in Quebec would not warrant our enacting such an unjust measure, one depriving the judge who hears the case of all discretion as to the penalty to inflict.
We should amend this bill. Let the maximum penalty of $1,000 remain, but let us do away with the minimum fine of $500 so as to allow the judge or magistrate who hears

the case the option of determining whether the law has been intentionally violated or not. These are the only comments that I wish to make. I think that the sponsor of this bill would be acting in the interest of the farming class if he carried out my suggestions.


Mr. DUPUIS:: As a representative of the farmers I fully concur in the remarks of the hon. member for Druimimond-Anthabaska (Mr. Girouard). In the city of Montreal it has been found that usually it is only those engaged exclusively in the butter trade who are guilty of violations of the Dairy Industry Act which it is the purpose of this bill to discourage. I think it is a good idea that there should not be a minimum penalty of $500, but that this should be left to the discretion of the judges. Personally I have great confidence in our judges, and I know they are well qualified to decide whether an accused should be punished by a severe penalty or dealt with leniently as a first offender. In the case of those making a regular practice of adulterating butter with cocoanut oil or other adulterants, I think the minimum penalty of $500 is not too high, and that the object of the sponsor of the bill to punish those in our large cities who are engaged in the business of selling adulterated butter is to be commended; but where adulterated butter is sold unwittingly by a farmer, I am of opinion that the district judge should have discretion to deal leniently with the case.


Mr. SHAVER:: Did the hon. member ever know of a case where a farmer was prosecuted for adulterating butter?


Vincent Dupuis: I do not know of any, but I think that is an argument in favour of modifying the proposed legislation. Nobody in the world would desire to see a poor farmer convicted and fined $500, for he would not be able to pay the penalty and would have to go to gaol for six months. The farmers do not make a practice of adulterating their butter; it is the butter merchants in the cities who are guilty of this practice. I am not discussing this bill in any partisan spirit;
I am speaking not as a Liberal but as a representative of the farmers, and I congratulate the sponsor of the bill for introducing this measure. In cases where a judge is not given any discretion the accused sometimes is punished with undue severity. I remember a case of a postal employee who on New Year's day found that one of the parcels he had for delivery had been broken open. He found some advertisements of a playing card company and thought that since the address was lost he could take home one of

Dairy Industry Act
the advertisements in his pocket, but. he was caught while doing so and brought before the court. Although the judge found it to be only a mild offence and no deliberate intent to steal from the department, he said, "I have no discretion but to sentence you to at least three years imprisonment." This is a very hard upon the families of these men, and I believe in considering such a measure hon. members should remember these facts and take them into consideration. So I ask the sponsor of this bill to amend it by striking out the words "not less than $500" in subsection (a) and "not less than $1,000" in subsection (b), and leave the question of fine or imprisonment to the discretion of the judge. My hon. friend may rest assured that the judges of this country will impose upon guilty parties a sentence which will provide a proper punishment.
Mr. P1CKEL:	Mr. Chairman, this act is
not directed against the farmer. At the present time the farmer is having a pretty hard time to make ends meet. It is directed against the big firms in the city who adulterate butter by adding forty per cent to fifty per cent of cocoanut oil, which costs them from seven to eight cents a pound. The farmer wants to get rid of that competition. If the adulterator wants to evade that heavy penalty, he can do so by ceasing to adulterate the butter. That is all there is to it.


Mr. RINFRET:: Mr. Chairman, it seems
quite evident from what we have heard from different sources that there is some contention with regard to this bill, and I was quite impressed to hear several hon. members representing rural sections of the country speak against it. I think there is some force in the argument that at least the bill is not opportune at the present time. When a product is sold at a very high price adulteration is to be feared, and perhaps then it would be worth while to prevent it, but at the low price which is now obtained for butter I believe this bill is superfluous. If the price of butter continues to go down, as has been the case lately, soon there will be no ingredient cheap enough to mix with butter with any desirable profit. I do not say that in a jocular way; I do believe the time of the house would be better employed just now in trying to find some means of raising the price of butter rather than preventing an adulteration w'hich is becoming less and less advantageous to any one practising it. I find no fault with the hon. member for Compton, however; he promised to do something about butter, and
not being able to raise the price he has decided to deal with it in this manner.
Concerning the bill itself, I think there is much in the argument that some discretion should be left to whomever passes judgment in cases of this kind. I have had some experience in Montreal with certain butter dealers; in many cases perhaps I have been too tenderhearted in listening to their representations, but they convinced me that they had acted in fairly good faith, yet had contravened the very rigid regulations which quite properly govern the sale of butter. I think it has been the experience both in this parliament and in provincial legislatures that every piece of legislation which does not allow the judge a certain degree of discretion is bad. When you have a minimum of $500, even though the judge thinks the man is acting in fairly good faith, or if the man has not done much wrong after all; if the judge has either to impose a fine of $500 or release the man altogether, probably he will release him, so in certain cases I think my hon. friend will be working against his own desires.
My only experience with butter has been to eat a great deal of it during the course of my life, but it strikes me that the sections dealt with by this bill, that is to say sections 5 and 7 for which the penalties are provided, are rather extensive. Infractions should not be punished equally, since they are not equally harmful to the public. If my hon. friend wants to raise the amount of the fine, I think he will have to bring down a much more extensive bill than the one before us now. If I were a judge and it were left to me to impose a fine, certainly I would impose on a man who dipped butter in water or who put a little water into his butter a lesser fine than I would impose upon a man who mixed butter with margarine or some other foreign substance. If the fine is not too heavy it may be all very well to apply it to every adulteration, but if the fine is to be increased to $500 for the first offence and $1,000 or $2,000 for the second offence, certainly my hon. friend should differentiate between offences of various kinds.
So I think this bill is altogether wrong in many ways. It does not come at an opportune time, and I do not believe it would bring much relief to the farmer to learn that if his 18 cent or 20 cent butter is adulterated the person selling it may be fined $500. If my hon. friend could find some way to have butter sold at a higher price he would be doing something which would really help the farmers. My hon. friend may say that I am speaking from the political point of view, but
Dairy Industry Act

dealing directly with the bill itself, I think if my hon. friend wants these heavy fines with regard to adulteration he should differentiate between different offences. Finally, he should leave some discretion to whoever is to pass judgment in such cases, because rather than impose a fine of $500 upon a merchant or a farmer, many judges will say, "Since I have no discretion I will impose no fine at all," so that my hon. friend will be defeating his own purpose.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I think, if the present bill provided that, this minimum penalty of $500 should apply only to wholesale butter dealers, I would support the measure, but how numerous are the farmers who make butter and are unable to say whether it contains 16, 18 or 20 per cent of water.
I believe we should allow as much discretion as possible to the magistrate as regards the fines to be inflicted. Again, I say, if this bill were so amended as to include only the butter dealers, I should support it, otherwise if this fine is made generally applicable, I am bound to oppose it.


Mr. MYERS:: I should like to say just a word or two in connection with this bill. I am very sorry to see a matter of such great importance to the farmers of Canada, and to dairying in particular, which is after all a most important branch of agriculture, made the subject of political controversy. I am afraid that is what is being done, however. I wish I could see more farmers among the gentlemen opposite, but I feel sure there must be some hon. gentlemen on the other side who have the interests of the dairy industry sufficiently at heart to allow this measure to go through the house.
In the first place we must take into consideration the health of the people of Canada. I have had a good deal of experience with both creamery and dairy blitter, and I think I can safely say there is nothing so dangerous for a man to put before his children as butter which has been adulterated, or butter which is anything else than of standard grade. From the standpoint of health alone this bill should be passed without any controversy or trouble. You must remember, moreover, that, so far as the dairy industry in Canada is concerned, we might as well make up our minds to the fact that its future depends upon the export of butter from Canada to foreign markets. And when you go into foreign markets. And when we go into foreign markets, especially

the British market, with anything but the very best, you are only doing the industry in Canada a grave injury.
As regards the penalties, they are not too high. One hon. gentleman expressed the fear that some farmers might be found adulterating butter. Nothing is further from the case than that. It is true that farmers as a rule make some butter for their own use, and at some seasons of the year they do sell a little butter to the stores. But that is not the dairy industry of Canada; the dairy industry of Canada is carried on in our creameries and butter factories. And a certain dtandard is fixed; for instance, you must not have more than 16 per cent water content in your butter if you are to secure the highest grade. That is provided by the dairy act itself, and no change is proposed. I think this legislation should go through without further trouble, because it is in the best interests of the dairy industry of Canada and of our farmers generally.


Mr. PARENT:: It has been said that this legislation is aimed, not at the farmers of the country but at the manufacturers in some of our large cities such as Montreal. May I point out that the law is not made for any special group; it is made for everyone. It is enacted to protect as well as to punish.


An hon. MEMBER:: Everyone who is
guilty.


Louis-Étienne Parent: Everyone who is guilty
ought to be punished, but some laws are made to afford protection as well. So that while punishing those who may be guilty of adulterating butter, it protects certain groups, namely, farmers. It has been pointed out that a minimum fine of $500 is excessive. A case might go before a justice of the peace, and everyone who has had any experience of cases tried before justices of the peace in country places will realize that they have not that experience that characterizes judges of the high courts, and it is therefore difficult for them to render as sound judgments. If the accused has not the means to appeal the case, and if he cannot pay the fine imposed, he must go to gaol, notwithstanding that he may have a very good case on appeal. Under the explanatory notes the statement is made that, "the words to be replaced are in italics." May I read paragraph (e) of article 5:
(e) have upon premises occupied by him where any dairy produce is treated, manipu-

Statute of Westminster
lated, manufactured, or reworked, any substance that might be used for the adulteration of any such product and the presence upon any such premises of any fat or oil capable of being used for such adulteration shall be prima facie proof of intent so to use it.
I am glad that the Minister of Justice is in his place this evening, because I would point out to him that in a criminal case it is not only questions of fact that must be proved before the court; there must be prima facie proof of intent. How would a justice of the peace interpret those words "prima facie" in this connection? If there were the smallest addition of oil in the article produced he would almost certainly convict the accused. In my opinion this law is going altogether too far, with those added words with regard to prima facie proof of intent.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for Queens quite properly deplored any suggestion of politics in dealing with the situation before us, and I do not think he can say that I have approached the consideration of this subject in such a spirit. But I can also deplore his suggestion that anyone who has the interests of the dairy industry at heart must vote for this bill willy nilly. He is quite wrong in that regard. I have the interests of the dairy industry at heart and that is why I oppose the bill. I do not think it will serve the purpose for which it is intended, but will do more harm than good. There is already a minimum penalty of $400. Is not that enough? I agree with the hon. member who suggested that the difficulty might be met by striking out the provision with regard to the minimum penalty, leaving it to the judge to go as high as $2,000 if he wishes. I would also strike out the words "upon summary conviction" in the seventh line, substituting in their place the words "on indictment". I should not be afraid to take a chance before a court on indictment. The matter would be taken to a county court instead of to a justice of the peace; and as we all know, justices of the peace do not pretend to be versed in the art of weighing evidence. A justice of the peace might give a harsh decision or on the other hand be influenced by neighbourly considerations. He might say, "I have known Bill Jones all my life. He has got a certain percentage of foreign substance, perhaps water, into his butter by accident and I will not fine him $2,000". And he will acquit the man when technically he should not be acquitted. I have not heard anyone outside the province of Quebec advocating legislation
of this character, and if it is felt to be desirable in that province, I would say, confine it to the province of Quebec. It is sometimes a good thing to give people what they want for a time.
Progress reported.



STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bennett for the presentation of an address to His Majesty the King.
James Layton Ralston: With the permission of
the house, if the Prime Minister will allow me, in view of the fact that the address does not go to committee, might I mention to him one other matter of form which I had in my notes and which I neglected to point out at six o'clock. I submit that the address would be very much clearer, and its meaning would be more adequately conveyed, if the order of the last two paragraphs inserted by the dominion-provincial conference were reversed, section 2 made section 3, and section 3 made section 2. That would then put in its proper place the power of the province to repeal any act of the United Kingdom repugnant to a provincial act and would provide after that the limitation that the province could exercise that power only within the ambit of provincial jurisdiction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say that some
question arose as to the modification in any respect of the conclusions arrived at by the interprovincial conference, and in view of the fact that the conclusions were initialled by representatives of all the provinces, we did not feel at liberty to change a single letter in them. Hence they appear in just the form in which they were set up and agreed upon. 1 doubt not the draftsman in combining the various sections of the bill will take that into consideration, for he is in no sense bound by their order. But in view of the fact that a committee had set up and agreed upon this formula and initialled it, we felt we were not at liberty to make a change. I think my hon. friend would have felt the same way.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It
may be cruel to inflict a speech on the house in this temperature, but, on the other hand, the temperature is suited to a sedate debate such as this calls forth. I was naturally extremely interested, as I think were all members present this afternoon, in the masterly
Statute oj Westminster

presentation of these resolutions by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), following, as it does, the no less admirable speech that was made a few weeks ago by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) on the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). We can all congratulate ourselves on the progress that has been made in the last few years in the direction of complete autonomy for all ithe associated nations of the so-called commonwealth. For my part, If I may interject this reflection, it is a vindication of the prophecy which I made during the last election, that even if Canada were represented at the Imperial conference by the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues, they would not go back on the progress that had been made in previous conferences, in spite of some of their former denunciations of that progress.
As was stated, I think, by the Prime Minister himself, all those changes have come about by evolution. The illustration he gave, which was also referred to by the Minister of Justice and to which I referred some years ago, was the Colonial Laws Validity Act, the very interpretation and application of which constitute a striking example of what sixty-five years ago was considered a great advance in the liberty of legislation acknowledged to the dominions but is now considered as the main handicap to their exercise of that jurisdiction. This shows that the British constitution, whether as applied in Great Britain itself or in the various dominions, is in a constant state of progress, slow, if you like, but safe on that account. May I repeat at this point what I have stated several times elsewhere: in spite of many disagreements that have arisen, that must necessarily arise as between Canada and Great Britain, or as between Australia and Great Britain, or still more, as between Ireland or South Africa and Great Britain, those movements have been constantly in the same direction, sometimes at a quicker pace, sometimes at a slower speed, but always in the direction of more liberty, but liberty in order, always in the direction of more cooperation as between the various units of the British Empire, of a better coordination of the local powers of government and legislation and those which were still exercised by Great Britain as the supreme, imperial power.
It may seem pretentious on the part of a layman to intervene in a debate which is in some respects essentially legal and technical; but here again may I point out that what has made of the British constitution such a marvellous instrument for the government of
(Mr. Bourassa.]
human communities, is precisely the fact that it is not primarily or exclusively a legal enactment. As the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) very properly stated this afternoon -and may I generalize the idea?-the British constitution has advanced from step to step, built on facts before it was enacted into law. Most of those facts were either the result of slow-growing circumstances or imposed on the will either of the king or of parliament, or even of tribunals, by the strength of public opinion as asserted from time to time during some of the great crises that have brought about the evolution of law and administration in that great nation and, later on, in her possessions.
As regards the relations between Great Britain and Canada I wish this evening to confine my remarks to two points: appeals to the privy council and the power of amending our constitution. The Prime Minister has reminded the house of a case in which he occupied and I am sure, ably, the position of counsel for his province, that of Alberta, when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided that an enactment in our criminal code, which was then some thirty years old, if I am not mistaken, was ultra vires because it prevented appeals to the Privy Council in criminal cases. The Prime Minister says rightly that this was quite a surprise to the legal world. But may I complete the story? I am speaking from memory, because I have not had time to consult the records which I read some years ago; but the Prime Minister is in his seat and no one is better qualified than he to correct me if I am wrong. While declaring that that clause in our criminal code is ultra vires because it forbids the right of appeal to the privy council in criminal cases, first of all the judicial committee of the privy council dismissed the appeal; and they further expressed the view that it was neither the desire nor the purpose of the judicial committee of the privy council to encourage appeals in such cases from either Australia or Canada. It was suggested by the Attorney General of England in pleading the case, that the purpose and object of declaring the nullity of this clause were to maintain the principle; and it is quite clear to one who reads the plea of the Attorney General of England that the case in view was that of Ireland. Ireland not long before had concluded her treaty with England and had passed her Constitutional Act. The right of appeal to the privy council was not mentioned in either the treaty or the act, but everybody knew that it was the set purpose of the Irish government and the Dail Eireann to put a

Statute of Westminster
stop to all appeals to the privy council. Therefore the Attorney General of England, in order to reserve the right of appeal to some people in Ireland against the expressed wish of the majority of the nation, against the will of the parliament and government of Ireland, declared null in the Canadian statute a clause against which in itself they had no objection, against which no appeal had ever been taken to the privy council, and the application of which the privy council pronounced inadvisable. This evidences once more the fact that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is not primarily a tribunal, but a semipolitical, semi-judicial body; and they do not ignore that fact in England.
The Prime Minister spoke this afternoon of misapprehensions existing in Canada, and mentioned in that connection the Colonial Laws Validity Act: but I think there is one matter on which there is even more misapprehension, and that is when you hear at all times mention of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as being the highest tribunal of the empire. It is no such thing. No citizen of England is amenable to the Judicial Committee of ibe Privy Council. The highest tribunal of the realm is the committee of the law lords of the House of Lords. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has been kept as a semi-judicial and semi-political body in order to give expression to the right of appeal to the throne on the part of all subjects not living in England, anil also to keep control over colonial legislation. It is to give to the people of various tribes and colours, or, speaking more broadly, may I say that it is to give to the inhabitants of all subject parts of the empire, a means of appeal to the king without resorting to the House of Lords. So the right of appeal to the privy council is in itself a brand of inferiority. It is the highest tribunal open to all the inhabitants of all the various British possessions who are not fully-fledged British subjects of the king. That is one point of view.
Now for a more practical point of view. It is true, of course, that you may find among the members of that august body men with a broader knowledge of comparative law than the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, because they have to administer the laws of the various portions of the Indian Empire, for example, which in itself contains very many types or traces of legislation-Indian, Mohammedan, British, Dutch, Portuguese, and so forth. They have also to administer and interpret the constitutions of the various dominions which have grown up out of various circumstances, some resembling more the con-22110-204
stitution of the United States than the old unwritten constitution of England, and some the reverse. Undoubtedly the most eminent members of that body have a broader knowledge of all laws in force in the various portions of the British Empire than the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, or than the members of the House of Lords, who have to concern themselves exclusively with the administration of English law. But nevertheless, the argument remains which the exMinister of Justice made this afternoon: How can we develop in the minds of our Canadian citizens full respect for themselves and for their judicial institutions so long as there remains the impression, the prejudice, if you like, that there is no tribunal in Canada capable of adjudicating finally upon the laws of Canada, whether federal or provincial? So far as that aspect of the question is concerned, I think that in the interests of the growth of a sense of national responsibility and a broad sense of national duty there should be a change, and I hope the change will come. I will not say that I hope it will come suddenly, but as soon as a well-educated public opinion in Canada understands that after all it ought to be possible to secure justice within the four corners of this land and not be obliged to go across the ocean to receive it. It has been said that we do this of our own free will. Of course. There is nothing in our laws and in our customs of which we are not absolute masters if we so desire. All those remnants of colonial subserviency that we keep, we keep because we wish to; but I claim thait this is worse from a certain point of view than if it were imposed upon us by the supreme will of a parliament whose authority we still acknowledged; for it means that although we have the power of administering our own laws and our own affairs we have not sufficient confidence in ourselves or in the men whom we appoint to our various tribunals. I have frequently heard members of the bar in this house as well as in the old house in which I sat,-I have frequently heard the Prime Minister himself do so, who is one of the most distinguished members of the Canadian bar- express at times in what I thought exaggerated terms a great admiration for the judiciary of Canada. Well, the best way for the people of Canada to prove that they have confidence in their own judges is not to be afraid of receiving final judgment at their hands, instead of going across the ocean to get justice.
It has been said frequently, and this will form a natural transition to my second

Statute of Westminster

point, that on account of the diversity of provinces, races, religions and of the various groups that we have in Canada, it is better to submit all such differences for final adjudication to an outside tribunal, independent of prejudices as between province and province, religion and religion, or race and race. But again I repeat what I have said on previous occasions, that we shall not develop in this country a true national spirit, superior to all provincial, religious and racial prejudices, until we have faith enough in ourselves to think we are capable of administering our own laws. I shall not go into detail, but the history of our various interprovincial, inter-racial, or even, if you like, inter-sectarian quarrels, which have gone before the courts, demonstrate that at times good and bad judgments have been rendered, from the various points of view of those who look upon those judgments or have felt their effects, either in Quebec or Toronto or Winnipeg, or in Ottawa in the supreme court, or in London. The privy council has not hesitated at times to give a rather queer interpretation of the law and the constitution in order, probably, in their view, to appease certain difficulties. But I think that any fair-minded and well-informed legal man will admit that those judgments of the privy council were neither better informed nor more judicial than the judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of those matters. But in regard to this, as well as in regard to the constitution, without doing away with the safeguards that are contained therein and have resulted from the jurisprudence, somewhat contradictory at times, either in Canada or elsewhere, I will repeat what I have said with regard to the question of appeals to the privy council.
The constitution of Canada wall be more respected by all classes in Canada when our people realize they are the complete masters of their own fate, and that they may have peace when they want to have peace. There will never be a true feeling of self-respect, a true national spirit, so long as in the various provinces of Canada men of different races or creeds will, either with their eyes open or blindly, give way to this childish feeling: We may have our little troubles, we may have quarrels as between ourselves, but ultimately they will be settled because there is a constitution over which we have no power and we may depend upon the Imperial parliament not to disturb it. I claim, first, that this is not a healthy feeling, or a state of things constitutionally, legally, nationally or [Mr. Bourassa.l
even sentimentally proper to make of us a self-respecting nation, and that we should instil into the minds of all classes in Canada the thought that in order to have peace at home we must, first, act according to the great tenets of justice which are far superior to any statute or constitution, whether Imperial or national, and secondly, that those safeguards in the constitution must be preserved by the conscience of the people of Canada and not by the dictates of a tribunal or parliament in England.
I go further, sir. I say that the more we are masters in our own house, the more exclusive the control wo exercise over our constitution, our law's and our judiciary, the more will we be respected by the people of England and the people of other dominions, and the more will we be in a position to deal with them, either on tariffs or any other matters. I am not a flatterer of the British people any more than of other peoples. Certainly they have their defects and shortcomings; they have committed their full share of national crimes and blunders just as all nations have. Fortunately there is no nation of supermen on this globe of ours. There is one characteristic of the British nation, however, which it attained during its long run in history and has attached me to its institutions and its traditions in spite of the difference of temperament, in spite of the fact that, for many years I have at times criticized almost every group of men who happened to be in power in England. That feature is that under normal circumstances the British is the one European nation which responds most instinctively to any act of selfrespect on the part of a small people. They have no consideration for self-willing slaves. They may have more consideration for a subdued people upon whom they have imposed their laws and their conquest, and who endeavoured to break the yoke, as the Irish nation did for about six hundred years.
Go to London to-day, sir, either in those days when all the representatives of the various dominions gather together, or at any other time, and what will you find? You will find that the respect of the various classes of English people has grown towards the people of the various dominions in proportion to the assertion by each of those dominions of its will to rule itself. At the time of the conference of 1926 I happened to be in London- not as a member of the conference, of course. I went to see some of my old friends there, some Tory imperialists and some radicals- because I have friends on both sides. I shall

Statute of Westminster
never forget the query of one of the representatives of the old Tories,-the good old Tories, because there are some of those good old Tories in England-


Maurice Dupré: Thank you-not in Canada, though?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Well, in Canada?-no.
We will reserve that point for another occasion. There was a mixture of acuteness and naivete when he put this question: "What are your representatives going to do at this conference"? I said, "I do not know; I am not in the secrets of the government in power, or of any other government. If, however, the representatives of Canada act according to the mandate they have received from the people of Canada at the last election"-and that was a few weeks after we settled the constitutional question in 1906-"they will make a further step in advance." I hope my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition will forgive my next statement. The person to whom I was talking said, "I am afraid of one thing"-mind you, he was an old Tory- "I am afraid of one thing, that Mr. King will be too kind-hearted."-"What do you mean"? -"Why," he said, "he has the chance of his lifetime; with Hertzog and Fitzgerald, the three of them can carry the day."-"But, what do you mean"?-"Well, to tell you frankly, we are tired of all those discussions about dominion autonomy, and it is about time that you people in Canada, Australia and elsewhere proved to us that you are worthy of the concessions we are prepared to give to you. However, if you are afraid of some little provincial consequences in your own provinces, you cannot expect us to have more respect for you than you have for yourselves."
Of course some safeguards must be preserved. From the very composition of the country the need of safeguards arises. No one in this house has put it more clearly and more convincingly than did the Minister of Justice in his speech to which I referred a moment ago. Canada is not one country; she is a confederacy. I am not going to review the old theory of contract, agreement, solemn pact; those questions were settled long ago. In that respect I think the interpretation once given by Lord Haldane settled the question. The constitution of Canada is the result of a contract or of a treaty made between the provinces or the old colonies which established Canada. However, the very basis of the treaty was the abandonment by those colonies of their previous status and their acceptance of the new provincial status made for them by the act of confederation. The new prov-22110-2041
inces are in the confederation in exactly the same position, endowed with the same rights and obliged to the same duties as the colonies which established confederation. From a constitutional or national viewpoint there is no difference between the status of Alberta and that of Quebec, between the status of Saskatchewan and that of Nova Scotia. The old provinces agreed to form a confederacy; then they requested and received from the Imperial parliament an august mandate to form new units by carving out of the uninhabited regions of the northwest new provinces to come into the family. They were brought into the confederation not as sons and daughters but as partners, with an equality of legal and constitutional rights. In that respect, our constitution compares with that of Switzerland where all the cantons are sovereign units within a certain sphere. And the Dominion is a sovereign unit in another sphere. So far as I understand the object of the clause that is to be introduced into the statute of Westminster regarding Canada, it means that we choose to adjourn the consideration of such means by which we in Canada will be able to deal with our constitution as all the other dominions are able to do, that we freely choose to remain in a state of tutelage so far as that is concerned, and that this statute will not change the relative positions of the provinces and the Dominion.
I think, though, there is a point in what was indicated this afternoon by the hon. member for Shelfourne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). I simply mention it en passant because, of course, so far as that goes I plead my ignorance as a layman; but reading the first paragraph of the clause concerning Canada, and then reading it with the context, there is no doubt that if in the future this parliament, upon a joint address of both chambers to the Imperial parliament, secured some amendment which might indirectly, or even diredtly affect, not exactly the legal status-I suppose that could hardly be done-but that might affect, for example, the representation of the provinces in this parliament, I think t)he reservation made under this new statute will not cover such amendments. I think this covers only the amendments that can be made to the acte as they stand now. But supposing a new amendment was made which would effect a material change in the status of tlhe provinces, I am afraid they would hardly be protected by the other clause which gives them the power to repeal imperial statutes repugnant to their own laws.
Statute oj Westminster


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What clause is ithe hon. member referring to?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The peculiar clause relating to Canada:
Nothing in this act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.
Then:
The powers conferred by this act upon the parliament of Canada or upon the legislatures of the provinces shall be restricted to the enactment of laws in relation to matters within the competence of the parliament of Canada or of any of the legislatures of the provinces respectively.
Which is quite in accordance with the spirit and law of the constitution. But suppose we passed an amendment, for example, to diminish the representation of one of the provinces either in ithe Senate or here, or bo change some of the subsections of section 91 which may affect indirectly the provinces? The Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) in his speech of May 11 has made reference to possible changes in the constitution which might affect the provinces, although they relate to federal matters alone. I leave the legal gentlemen to go further into the matter, but I think it was quite right for the member for Shelbume-Yarmouth to raise that point.
However, I do not attach tremendous importance to it, because in my view of course this is not a final settlement of the question. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and the Secretary of State have stated previously, and as the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and my humble self have stated previously in the province of Quebec, the time must come when we will exercise our full jurisdiction over the constitution beyond what is already granted to the provinces under section 92. Of course the constitution of Canada at large or any rights belonging to the provinces cannot be changed by this parliament without the concurrence of the provincial legislatures. And of course they would not and should not consent to the right of the Dominion to amend its constitution being entirely unconditional without first asserting and having it acknowledged that this being a confederacy, no more than in the United States, no more than in Switzerland, no more than in Australia, the federal parliament exercising only part of the sovereign jurisdiction cannot make alterations in the constitution which would encroach upon an equal sovereign jurisdiction exercised by the various provinces. The time will certainly come when there will be enough wisdom, enough sense of self-respect either in the provinces or the Dominion of Canada, to find
fMr. Bourassa.]
means of exercising that right of amending our own constitution by cooperation between the Dominion parliament and the provincial legislatures.
There is just one point I wish to emphasize in the interests of my own province and in the interests of national amity and equity. I have never yet let it be stated or insinuated, and so long as I am in public life I will never let it be stated or insinuated that the province of Quebec is so forgetful of its sense of responsibility and of nationhood, that because of its timidity it would block the exercise of the sovereign will of the Canadian nation.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of course the province
of Quebec, and I think the other provinces as well, will resist any encroachment on the part of the federal parliament over what has been acknowledged and practised for sixty years as the undoubted rights of the various provinces; but I think also in all' those matters which are common to the whole nation, the people of Quebec, who were the pioneers in the fight for liberty and equality in this country, the people of Quebec who extended the franchise to the Jews before the British parliament did so, the people of Quebec who followed the example of Maryland and put all creeds upon the same footing of legal equality, Dissenters as well as Anglicans at a time when in England every man who did not conform to the ecclesiastical laws of the realm was still under legislative or government enactments that were humiliating to him, the people of Quebec who raised the standard of liberty and equality in their province before it was done in any other part of the British Empire, not excluding the United Kingdom itself-in all those matters which are common to the whole nation I should not like to see my province which has been in the vanguard for fifty years be now in the rearguard. I should like to see the thought grow in England that in Canada, once the first outstanding possession of the British Empire, the descendants of two nations that have so long warred against each other for the possession of the new world have finally found means of agreeing between themselves and planting in the soil of America the seed of a great free nation. I admit that on account of these difficulties with regard to the right of appeal to the privy council and the amendment of the constitution, I feel somewhat ashamed to find that in the year 1931 the Dominion of Canada is in the rearguard of all the dominions in the exercise of full-fledged autonomy. Sixty yef>rs

Statute of Westminster
ago we were in the vanguard in the race for political autonomy, but we have seen Australia go before us thirty years ago when it received its constitution in 1901. We have seen conquered South Africa go in advance of us, some ten years later, and finally we have seen that glorious little green island coming out from its tomb after seven centuries of foreign domination, and asserting in the teeth of the powerful British nation its right to equality. We have lived to see the day when the statesmen of England bow in respect to that heroic nation which to-day is in the vanguard of all British possessions in the exercise of full powers of autonomy, at the same time realizing the truth of the prediction of Daniel O'Connell, "Grant liberty to Ireland and you will make a friend of her." It took a long time for Britain to repent and see the light; but now she has at her very door a shining example of the fact that liberty granted is far more productive of international amity than law applied with force or maintained by constitutional enactments.
Therefore, sir, may I conclude by saying that I pray for the not too quick but constant advance of the principle contained in this legislation, and for the day when Canada will once more be in the vanguard instead of the rearguard of enfranchisement and autonomy.


Maurice Dupré: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate
the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) on the speech he has just concluded. He said in his opening remarks that he considered himself a layman, but may I say to him in front of the batonnier of the province of Quebec the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duran-leau), that if I were an examiner at the bar in my province I would be ready to have him called to the bar with no further examination.
Paragraph 66 of the report of the conference of 1929, which my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) knows very well, was the cause of certain protests last fall before we left for the Imperial conference. This paragraph, with which my hon. friend from Quebec East dealt, reads as follows:
We are accordingly of opinion that the inclusion is required in the proposed act of the parliament of the United Kingdom of express provisions dealing with the matters discussed in the three preceding paragraphs, and we have prepared the following clauses:
I refer to this clause in passing because it is my contention that subsections 1, 2 and 3 with which we have to deal to-day are taking the place of the paragraph I am going to read:
(1) Nothing in this act shall be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the constitution acts of the Dominion of Canada, the commonwealth of Australia and the dominion of New Zealand, otherwise than in accordance with the law and constitutional usage and practice heretofore existing.
Those last words were the cause of the protests. In other words, the report of the conference on the operation of dominion legislation in 1929 stated that nothing in the act should be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the constitution except in accordance with the law and constitutional usage and practice heretofore existing. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, and to put themselves on the safe side, Premier Ferguson, of Ontario and Premier Taschereau of Quebec sent protests to us. These (protests were printed .in all the newspapers; my hon. friends opposite are all acquainted with them, but may I quote to the house just three paragraphs. In his letter of September 10 Mr. Ferguson says:
The conference appears to have ignored the fact that the confederation of the provinces of Canada was brought about by the action of the provinces. Our constitution is really the crystallization into law by an imperial statute of an agreement made by the provinces after full consultation and discussion. The province of Ontario holds strongly to the view that this agreement should not be altered without the consent of the parties to it. On behalf of this province ....
Continues Mr. Ferguson:
.... I desire to protest most vigorously against any steps being taken by the Dominion government or the Imperial conference, to deal with the provincial treaty until the matter has been submitted to the provinces and they have had ample time to give the subject proper consideration.
To pursue the course indicated by the report of 1929 will not only greatly disturb the present harmonious operation of our constitution but I fear may seriously disrupt the whole structure of our confederation.
Mr. Taschereau, the Premier of Quebec, sent a protest along the same lines.


Ernest Lapointe: Not quite.


Maurice Dupré: I have not the text of the protest here, but may I say to my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice that if he refers to the newspapers of the time he will see in black and white that Mr. Taschereau not only endorses the letter written by Mr. Ferguson but quotes from it as well, and he states that he also wishes to protest against anything we might do in London which might encroach upon the rights of the provinces.


Ernest Lapointe: Anything which might alter the constitution is what he said.
Statute of Westminster


Maurice Dupré: So therefore Mr. Taschereau put himself on record, with Mr. Ferguson, as being opposed to the policy adopted by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice at the Imperial conference of 1926 and the conference of 1929. At all events, when we found ourselves there, we thought we should abide by the wishes expressed by Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Taschereau. We admitted the fact, submitted by Mr. Ferguson, that our constitution was really an agreement made between the provinces after full consultation and discussion, and we contended that the provinces should be consulted before any amendment or imperial statute should be passed.
We had two reasons for so doing. The first reason was that we did not want to alter any agrement which was arrived at between the provinces without consulting the provinces, and in the second place we did not want in any way to imperil directly or indirectly the rights of minorities. My hon. friend the exMinister of Justice said this afternoon that he thought the best safeguard the minorities could have were the minorities themselves. I would say to him that this need not be the only safeguard. What about a good text of law or a good clause that would also safeguard the rights of the minorities? The attitude taken by my hon. friend from Quebec East is very generous; it emphasizes the fact that he has great confidence in the spirit of justice and fair play of his compatriots. I agree with him on that point, but I say I would like also to be able to rely on some clause or text of the law in addition to trusting to the fair play and justice of those around me.


Ernest Lapointe: But could we not have that text of law enacted by a Canadian parliament instead of an imperial parliament?


Maurice Dupré: Then so much the better.
But my hon. friend would not be right in saying that the best or only safeguard of the minorities lies in the minorities themselves. I am saying this not because I am suggesting that my hon. friend is wrong; but standing by the rights of minorities, I wish to be on the safe side. And in addition to the safeguard mentioned by my hon. friend, I should like to have some legal clauses or texts of law.
As regards appeals ito the privy council, my hon. friend from Quebec East seems to be opposed to such appeals. And the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) seconded him. I agree with the latter part of the address given by the hon. member for Labelle, and I

say with him that Quebec will not blush when it comes to a question of leading the way. But may I suggest to him that, with regard to the question of appeals to the privy council, there are pros and cons. The remarks of my hon. friend from Labelle are to the point. But there are some very good arguments against his point of view. And the question is not whether Quebec would blush, or would not be able ito take the lead, but whether this is the opportune time to abolish appeals to the privy council. Some people will say that we should abolish these appeals; others will say perhaps that this is one of the few ties that still bind us to the British crown. I am not prepared myself to express an opinion definitely; I am only a young member and there are before me others of great experience. But I do not think that this is the proper time to say whether one is for or against these appeals. If the practice is an evil- which I am not ready to admit-there must be a remedy. And the question is-would not the remedy be worse than the evil if it were applied at the present time? A third point I wish to deal with briefly-


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend mentioned the necessity and desirability of having some legal text, as he put it, or statement of law by way of protection. Would he point out to the house any difference between the section contained in the report of the conference of 1929 and section 1 of the address which is now before this house, so far as protection of minorities is concerned 1 I invite him to do that.


Maurice Dupré: My hon. friend has misunderstood me, or else I did not express myself clearly; perhaps it is my fault. I was simply commenting upon the principle enunciated this afternoon by the ex-Minister of Justice when he said that, for him, the best or only safeguard of minorities was in the minorities themselves. That was all I was commenting upon.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend suggest that there is any difference, so far as protection of the rights of minorities is concerned, between the section as drafted by the conference of 1929 and the section contained in this address?


Maurice Dupré: I do not say there is a great deal of difference, but the point I am emphasizing is this: that before the statute which we are discussing was submitted to the house we did what my hon. friends opposite did not

Statute oj Westminster
do. We consulted the provinces in order to give them an opportunity to indicate whether the statute would be an encroachment upon their rights.


James Layton Ralston: But there is no difference between them.


Maurice Dupré: Now, the third point is with regard to shipping. At present our shipping legislation is the same throughout the empire. After the adoption of the statute which we are now debating, each dominion will be enabled to enact its own legislation with respect to shipping. I would Tefer you, Mr. Speaker, to the report, part 1, of the Imperial conference of 1930, with regard to the draft agreement as to British commonwealth merchant shipping. This will be found at page 30 of the report. Pant 4 relates to equal treatment, and contains three articles-10, 11 and 12. Article 10 reads:
Each part of the British commonwealth agrees to grant access to its ports to all ships registered in the British commonwealth on equal terms and undertakes that no laws or regulations relating to seagong ships at any time in force in that part shall apply more favourably to ships registered in that part, or to the ships of any foreign country, than they apply to any ship registered in any other part of the commonwealth.
The abject of this agreement is to preserve the necessary uniformity, to maintain the common status of British ships, and to ensure cooperation among all parts of the empire in shipping matters. Article 11, dealing with the same points, provides:
While each part of the British commonwealth may regulate its own coasting trade, it is agreed that any laws or regulations from time to time in force for that purpose shall treat all ships registered in the British commonwealth in exactly the same manner as ships registered in that part, and not less favourably in any respect than ships of any foreign country.
In other words, Canadian ships would have the same status in Ireland or South Africa or Australia as the ships of these dominions will have in our waters. But the important part for us is article 12, which reads:
Nothing in the present agreement shall be deemed-
(i)	to derogate from the right of every part of the commonwealth to impose customs tariff duties on ships built outside that part; or
(ii)	to restrict the right of the government of each part of the commonwealth to give financial assistance to ships registered in that part or its right to regulate the sea fisheries of that part.


Ernest Lapointe: That was recommended
by the conference of 1929.


Maurice Dupré: Yes, I admit that. But it
required the passing of the present statute in
order to give effect to the present draft agreement to which I am referring. What I am pointing out is that with the passing of the proposed statute there will come a day, at least I hope so, when Canada, having the right to impose customs tariff duties on ships built outside the Dominion of Canada, will be able to encourage the shipbuilding industry of this country. At the present time very many ships are built abroad which could be built in our country. We have in the province of Quebec shipyards and workmen, and I submit that as soon as the statute is passed we should see to it that our shipyards and our Shipbuilders are provided with work, thereby giving employment to our own workmen.
Just a few words now before closing. I observe a difference of opinion between the ex-Minister of Justice and Premier Taschereau with respect to the interpretation of clause 66 of the report of the Imperial conference of 1926. This afternoon I also heard the exMinister of Justice declaring himself to be against appeals to the privy council. I was thinking then of a session of the legislature of Quebec three or four years ago when a personal friend of the ex-Minister of Justice, a good Liberal like himself, the Hon. Mr. Theriault, then member for L'Islet, and now a member of the legislative council, rose with a motion to abolish appeals to the privy council. The opponent of Mr. Theriault was not a Tory, but the premier of the province of Quebec, the Hon. L. A. Taschereau himself. Mr. Taschereau then took exactly the opposite view to that taken by the ex-Minister of Justice. Of course there must be two schools of Liberalism: the school of federal Liberalism and the school of provincial Liberalism. It is a sort of combine and it works according to the chances they can have in either the provincial or the federal field.
I noticed when the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) was closing his remarks, he complimented the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). For this I thank him. I also compliment my hon. friend on the address which he delivered this afternoon. It shows for one thing, that contrary to what has been said by my hon. friends to the left of the Speaker, the Imperial conference was not after all such a fiasco or failure. If we were enabled to do what we were complimented this afternoon on doing, then the conference certainly led to something. I remember before the last election we were told that we could not go to the Imperial conference; that the only competent persons to go were the hon. members sitting on the Liberal side. When we returned from
Statute oj Westminster

the conference, we could have done what my hon. friends opposite would have done if they had achieved the same success-waved flags and boasted of our achievements. We did not do so. The Prime Minister did not do so; he is too modest for that. But I may say this: with regard to the constitutional side of the Imperial conference we have certainly done as much as our friends opposite did in 1926 or 1929, and the imperial statute in regard to which we are to pronounce ourselves to-night is the final touch given by the Prime Minister of this country to a legal monument which will doubtless mark an epoch in our Canadian history.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. BiENNETT moved:
That a message be sent to the Senate to inform their honours that this house has passed an address to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, praying that he may be graciously pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom, pursuant to certain declarations and resolutions made by the delegates of His Majesty's governments in the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland, at Imperial conferences held at Westminster in the years of Our Lord 1926 and 1930, and pur suant to certain other resolutions made by th« delegates of His Majesty's government in Canada and of the governments of all of the provinces of Canada, at a dominion-provincial conference held at Ottawa on the 7th and 8th days of April in the year of Our Lord 1931, in the manner set forth in the said address hereto attached, and requesting that their honours will unite with this house in the said address by filling up the blank therein with the words "Senate and."
And that the Clerk of the house do carry the said message to the Senate.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. BiENNETT moved:
That the said address be engrossed.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the sales tax,
it will be recalled that the Minister of National Revenue informed this chamber that the method of collection would be that adopted by the late government and not the method suggested by the resolution. To most members of the house it would appear that the logical method of collecting a consumption or sales tax would be once from the manufac-
[Mr. DuprS.l
turer, apart altogether from imported goods; but for some reason that I have never been able exactly to understand and that I confess I do not yet understand, except that manufacturers sometimes sell to retail merchants and the wholesalers are thereby placed in a difficult position, that method has not been adopted. I have never heard any adequate reason why the sales tax should not be collected from the manufacturers with respect to manufactured goods. This method was, however, disregarded owing to the pressure of those who thought it was not a proper one, the officials still believing it was, and in the end licences were given to wholesalers and to manufacturers as well and the tax has been collected by both.
When these resolutions were introduced a month ago it was believed that the proper method was what the officials considered to be the scientific method of collection, but those who had been long accustomed to the payment of the sales tax through the methods I have mentioned, sent in very strong representations, and in view of the promise I made to the house that in the endeavour to frame this taxation legislation regard would be had to the necessity for dislocating as little as possible the business of the country, the Minister of National Revenue stated that wo would revert to the former method of collection. I am bound to say that I have never held a higher regard for my fellow Canadians who have to struggle against very adverse conditions in the transaction of business than I have in connection with this taxation. I cannot recall that a single one of them has objected to the raising of the rate from one to four per cent. Under present conditions it is an amazing thing that men should accept the added taxation and ask only that the method adopted for the collection of the tax be made as simple as possible. Having regard to their experience and their knowledge of the method pursued, by reason of what transpired they would like to revert to the former method. So we agreed to do so.
There came then another question, and one about which I am sure most hon. members on the other side of the house have received communications. A long list of exemptions has been established during the years that have passed since this consumption or sales tax was first imposed. When the statutes were revised in 1927 the list was systematized, and it is a very, very long list. I confess to the committee that I had hoped, by reducing the exemptions, to realize a somewhat larger sum of money under existing conditions, but

322r>
Special War Revenue Act
once more, having regard to the economic conditions that obtain in this country, the difficulties that men are having in making any money at all, and the loss of purchasing power by reason of crop conditions in western Canada, the government concluded after mature and careful consideration that the best way this year, without committing itself to any action on future occasions, would be merely to rest content with increasing the rate from one to four per cent and making two or three slight adjustments that occasion had indicated should be made. So, with the committee's consent, we will revert to the form that existed prior to the first of June.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am pleased to hear that hon. gentlemen opposite agree that this will work some measure of improvement in the conditions affecting those who are called upon to pay the tax. I do not offer any apology for the change that has been made with respect to this matter. I stated in the house on the first of June that two principles governed administration in making this impost upon the people. One was to make it as light as possible having regard to the necessities of the country, and the other that there should be as little dislocation of business a3 possible. Those two conditions have been observed, and there has been no change in the impost. It is only that the list of exemptions has been left as it was except for one or two trifling exceptions which arose out of the adjustments which experience had shown would be sound.
The resolution, therefore, would leave the excise tax of one per cent upon the value of all goods imported into Canada payable by the importer or transferee who takes the goods out of bond for consumption, at the time when the goods are imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption. It would make that tax continue as it came into force on the second day of June, and applied to goods as is usual in such cases except as I have stated. There has been no change from that.
With respect to goods the duty paid value of which does not exceed $25, that are imported by mail or express, unless more than one entry is made by one importer at one time from one source of the value of $25, then the tax will not apply. That is the maximum sum which it is felt should be exempted, applying to goods that come through the post office or by express in the form of presents at Christmas time and small matters of that kind, so as to occasion as
little inconvenience as possible. It is felt that on the whole an average of $25 is a fail-figure.
With respect to the next matter, I think it was abundantly clear that it was not intended that a tax should be collected on raw leaf tobacco when imported by licensed tobacco or cigar manufacturers; material for the manufacture of binder twine for expor:, when imported by the manufacturers thereof; British and Canadian coin and foreign gold coin; fish and other products of the fisheries of Newfoundland; fish caught by fishermen in vessels registered in Canada or owned by any person domiciled in Canada, and the products thereof carried from the fisheries in such vessels; donations of clothing for charitable purposes nor to goods enumerated in customs tariff items 700, 702, 703, 704, 705, 705a, 706, 707, 708 and 709. Generally those items cover animals for circuses and menageries. The resolutions continue:
Provided that when raw furs imported into Canada are exported therefrom a drawback of the tax paid may be granted under regulations to be made by the minister.
Resolved, further, that section 61 of the said act as enacted by chapter 43 of the statutes of 1930 be amended to declare assignments of the right to receive shares prior to their issue-not taxable under section 58 of the said act, and that sales of bearer bonds to persons residents without Canada are exempt from the said tax.
That section 86 of the said act be amended to provide that the rate of consumption or sales tax be increased to four per cent.
That the said tax be payable upon the sale price of all goods manufactured or produced in Canada at the time of delivery to the purchaser, but in the case of any contract requiring the payment of the purchase price by instalments shall be payable as each of such instalments falls due and that in bona fide contracts made before the 2nd day of March, 1931, which bind the vendor to deliver at a fixed price, the increased rate shall be payable by the purchaser to the vendor.


Mr. POWER:: Is this a new tax?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the tax. As I
say, the resolution embodies the law as it now stands, not the one presented on the first, day of June. It is a reproduction of the statute as it now stands.


James Layton Ralston: I am looking at the
resolution which my right hon. friend first presented. The tax on both yachts and motor boats; is that on or off?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Off. I have had these
resolutions printed so that they may be available for distribution to-morrow.


Charles Gavan Power: Are these resolutions in the form of amendments to the original resolutions or are they entirely new resolutions?
Special War Revenue Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is an amendment of the original resolutions. I thought that the committee should have them all before them, so as to avoid confusion at the next sitting. I am now stating the purport of resolutions so that before the first day of July there may be a clear statement as to what was intended. The resolutions will be in the distribution office and be available to hon. mem-ben to-morrow.


Charles Gavan Power: We disregard the previous resolutions brought down?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that that would be the best way to deal with them.


Charles Gavan Power: So this is a new budget?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a new budget at all.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: An improved budget.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the lessening of taxation is an improvement then in the sense that the number of items included in the tax is not so great, I think my hon. friend is right, but if the necessities of the country have to be met as I believe they will have to be, I cannot hold out any hope that this vast list of exemptions from the sales tax can long continue. These exemptions, strange as it may sound, cover as hon. gentlemen will find when they get copies to-morrow, seven pages.


Charles Gavan Power: Has the present list of
exemptions been added to?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are some slight adjustments.


Charles Gavan Power: Additions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are merely in the nature of making perfectly clear matters about which there may be some little doubt to-day. In general there has been an ab' solute continuance of the existing condition. There are three items to which reference might be made.


Charles Gavan Power: Additions to what existed before the first day of June?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Mr. HANSON:: Would the exemptions now include the so-called expense materials?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that the exemption was being continued with respect to all the items of exemption existing prior to the first of June, except three, and those I will make perfectly clear.


James Layton Ralston: Is that retroactive?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are all from the
first of June.


James Layton Ralston: Any collections which
have been made will be based on that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Collections are made
monthly with respect to the licensed concerns. The others will get credit for them; it is only a matter of adjustment. The first payments under the act will not come due until tomorrow, and those are by licensees.
The customs items are very numerous. I have no doubt hon. gentlemen have seen the statute and will recall that there are five pages of them. Then, the wording of the budget items is made to conform to that of the items as the}' are now rather than as they were, and that effects some slight changes to which reference will be made.


Mr. VENIOT:: The tax put into force on the first of June was collected by the wholesalers, not the manufacturers. That wholesaler paying the tax to the government collected it from the retailer. The retailer naturally would add that tax to the price of his goods and the consumer would have to pay it. Why reimburse the wholesaler when he did not pay out the money?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There will be no reimbursement where there has been no payment.


Mr. JACOBS:: Has any estimate been made as to what amount of revenue the country will lose as a result of these new exemptions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The officials of the department do not feel disposed to give a definite statement in that regard. I hope to be able :to give the committee a more exact statement when complete computations have been made, but I may say that they amount to several millions of dollars.


Peter John Veniot: I may be a little dense,
but I still think that this sales tax which has been increased from one to 4 per cent must be collected from the consumer. The consumer paid to the wholesaler, and the wholesaler was supposed to pay to the government. If there is any reimbursement or readjustment, what right has the wholesaler to that money? That would be just so much more found money for him which actually belongs to the consumer. If the consumer cannot be paid I suggest that the treasury keep that money and not hand it over to the wholesaler.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point taken by my
hon. friend is perfectly clear and quite correct. If a tax has been paid and passed on to the consumer, certainly the wholesaler will not get it back.


Peter John Veniot: I hope not.

Special War Revenue Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is perfectly clear.
I propose merely to place these changes before the committee to-night in order that they may understand them.
If hon. members so desire I could give a short resume of the changes in connection with some of the items. For instance, the schedule covers "bakers' cake, and pies, not to include biscuits" in connection with which there 'had- been some difficulty previously. Then there is "peameal, pearl barley, split peas, barley meal, pot barley," in connection with which there had been some difficulty previously concerning classification. "Hops, when produced in Canada, as distinguished from the imported commodity; and "vegetable plants." Then there is "corn syrup, maple syrup and sugar cane syrup." This is amplified. Then there is "salt, when manufactured or produced in Canada" which is to be free from sales tax; previously the item was just "salt." "Fence posts" were described as round, and there was no provision for split fence posts. In connection with that some question was raised. Then there were "articles imported for the personal or official use of the British High Commissioner, ministers of foreign countries, consuls general who are natives or citizens of the country they represent and who are mot engaged in any other business or profession." This change conforms to what has been the practice. This practice had been pressed upon the former government, and I believe they were beginning to give effect to the representations made. Then there are "usual coverings to be used exclusively for covering goods not subject to the consumption or sales tax." Some difficulty arose concerning the tax imposed upon coverings when the goods which they covered were taxed under the provisions of the statute as it stood. This change is to bring about a reasonable condition. Then there are "materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture of usual coverings to be used for covering goods not subject to the consumption or sales tax." Then there are "articles and materials for the sole use of any bona fide hospital when purchased in good faith for use exclusively by the said hospital and not for resale." In practice that was being done, and there was a nice question as Ibo ' whether or not the statute was broad enough to permit its being done. Any doubt in that respect is removed.


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend reading exemptions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: They were
exempted before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact it is not quite clear that they were entitled to exemption.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend has referred to corn syrup, and such things as that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were three syrups specified there, and the point made by the officers was that it did not cover all forms of syrup, but only maple syrup. I think my hon. friend realizes that in connection with hospital supplies the question arose as to whether or not the language was sufficiently broad.


Charles A. Stewart: I notice the new definition for the tax in the list.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is specially provided.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Supposing after this
budget was introduced I went to the shop of a certain wholesaler and 'bought goods, the tax would be imposed by that wholesaler and he would collect 4 per cent for the goods I purchased from him. Does that wholesaler keep the money he collected from me or does he pay it to the treasury?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Obviously if he collected it he pays it to the treasury. There is no difficulty upon that score. He could not get the money back which he did not collect.


James Layton Ralston: As I understand it the exemption now comes into effect as of the first of June. How can collections be made from the wholesaler if there is no statute?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, my hon. friend has not grasped what I have said. With respect to the exemptions the wholesaler makes his return at the end of the month. He has not yet made his return. With respect to matters in connection with which he collected taxes on the resolutions as they existed, and passed them on to the consumer, he will pay them to the state.


James Layton Ralston: On what authority?


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the authority of the
resolution.


James Layton Ralston: I understand this resolution takes the place of the old resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly; he is not
going to escape the tax. If he has paid it he cannot get it back.


James Layton Ralston: How can he be collected from if there is no statute authorizing collection?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no proposal U collect it if he is not himself collecting it.
Special War Revenue Act


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I give a concrete
example? Shortly after the budget was introduced I was in the west. I went to purchase certain goods and I paid 4 per cent sales tax on goods which were exempt before the budget was introduced. I paid that tax to the wholesaler. Will that wholesaler give the money to the treasury, or will he put it in his pocket? Those goods were exempt before the budget was presented and will be exempt after this resolution passes the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have endeavoured to
make clear to my friend the point that it is not intended that any man shall collect money to which he has no right.


James Layton Ralston: He had a right then.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: He got the money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If he got it and has not
paid it to the state, he will return it to the consumer or pay it to the state.


Charles Gavan Power: How will he pay it to the
state?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We can easily provide
sections which will meet that difficulty, if there is any doubt about it.


Charles Gavan Power: A new section will have to
be provided.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am told there has been no difficulty in actual practice.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend understands our contention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thoroughly.


James Layton Ralston: If the exemption is retroactive, 4 per cent cannot be collected.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The 4 per cent is retroactive.


James Layton Ralston: I understand the 4 per
cent tax went into effect on June 1, and if the exemption is now retroactive the 4 per cent i3 thereby wiped out in respect of goods exempted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.
Mr. RALSTON. Therefore the 4 per cent cannot be collected unless a special section is added.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am told that the transactions are very insignificant, in fact are almost infinitesimal. If there is any difficulty a change can be made when the bill is in committee. That is my answer.


Ernest Lapointe: And the hon. member
for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) will get his
4 per cent?


Peter John Veniot: He cannot.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say if there is any
difficulty on that score it will be met. When Mr. Fielding introduced changes in his budget in 1922 and subsequently, I do not think there was any difficulty. I do not apprehend that there will be any here.


Charles A. Stewart: They certainly were not on any such scale as these.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are certainly not
on any large scale. The payments are made by men having a licence, and having no licence they will not be called upon to make payments under the licence.


James Layton Ralston: Up to the present time
they have collected one twelfth of the total amount which my right hon. friend expected to get from cutting out these exemptions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not accurate.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know what my
right hon. friend means.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It certainly does not
mean that because it covers a month they have collected a twelfth. You do not get your revenues equally in months.


James Layton Ralston: I would think you collected more in June.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You would not think
so if you knew the history. I have not the figures beside me of the exact amount, but the truth is that there is a very slight variation between the amount collected last year and this. As a matter of fact in the main I am bound to say they have been less, because in anticipation of an increased sales tax very large quantities of goods apparently were purchased. That is the reason we have fixed a definite date. I have not looked at the record lately, but my memory is that the amount received from the tax during the last thirty days is less than it was for the 9ame period last year.


James Layton Ralston: I am not speaking of the amount that has been received by the taxing department but of the amount collected by the manufacturer and the wholesaler from the retailer and the consumer, and which has not yet got to the treasury but is to-day in the hands of the manufacturer and the wholesaler. That amount does not get to the taxing authority because the statute under which it was imposed is wiped out so far as the manufacturer and the wholesaler- are concerned. I submit that my right hon. friend is wrong in saying that it is infinitesimal, unless the whole amount expected to be collected by the exemptions was very small. I

Special War Revenue Act
am sure he would not make a change in the exemptions unless expected to make a large amount of revenue. He has already warned us that there is going to be a very large diminution in the revenue because of the changes made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were the articles
referred to in the schedule I brought down. While the list is enormous, in many instances the items comprise small sums in volume. If he will take the list I presented to the house and compare it with the List-


James Layton Ralston: I have it here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -he will find they were selected in order that there might be an increase in revenue by reason of the diminution in exemptions.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my right hon. friend is quite correct in that. The articles on the exempted list undoubtedly are the articles that would bring the revenue. So the larger portion of revenue must have been collected.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those were covered by this clause. If the committee will permit, I propose to expedite the matter by presenting to them the bill this evening or to-morrow, because discussion of the resolution covers not only these matters but also the insurance matter and the excise tax, and then every opportunity will be afforded to discuss the bill in committee in the form in which it will become law in order that every member may have it before him.


Charles A. Stewart: It is now definitely decided what you are going to do?
Mr. BENNETT. So far as it is possible under present conditions to decide.


Charles A. Stewart: We should like to have the bill.


Charles Gavan Power: Are the income tax provisions included?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The income tax provisions were no part of the budget in spite of all the discussion that has taken place, and I reserve to myself the right to make a personal statement in respect to that matter when the time comes.


James Layton Ralston: They are on the sheet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But they are for next year.


James Layton Ralston: They are brought down with the ways and means resolution of 1931, the first sheet of which deals with the sales tax.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the hon. gentleman was told, a bill is to be introduced to consolidate the act. It has nothing to do with the budget resolutions.


James Layton Ralston: The ways and means
resolutions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly. If the committee is inclined to advance these resolutions to the extent of concurring in them and founding a bill on them, the bill will be introduced and distributed, so the committee may consider every item in it without prejudice to its rights.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to proceed in what would be the regular manner of moving to amend the resolutions which are now before the house in such a way as to bring before us the resolution in the form in which he has read it to us?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the intention, and if the house is agreed upon that we can introduce the bill. Then the house would go into committee-not to-day, of course- upon that bill, and the various items I have just mentioned and all the questions now asked would then be dealt with. That is the reason I was requesting my hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) to move that the resolution be amended-without reading it all-as follows, dealing with the various matters I have mentioned. If that were adopted by the house I have the bill upon which I would make a motion that it be read the first time. Then it would be printed for distribution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does that not deprive the committee of one stage? If the Minister of Fisheries moved the amendment and to-morrow we could have before us in printed form the resolution as amended, that would be the correct method of proceeding.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree entirely with what the right hon. gentleman has said, but it will enable the house to advance the matter in one step without in any sense curtailing the right of members or limiting discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All the discussion would be on the bill instead of in two stages?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes-a course which we
frequently pursue.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am anxious to expedite the matter, but I feel it is advisable to let us see the resolutions first,
Special War Revenue Act

and if there is nothing particular to discuss on them we can speedily consent to their passing in the regular way. Then the bill can be considered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The discussion must
take place either on the bill or on the resolution, or on both. If it takes place on the resolution it usually lessens discussion on the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point is that the
bill is a completed bill. It has been printed, and it merely means that the discussion would take place on the document in its completed form as it is intended to be enacted. But I will proceed along the lines suggested by my right hon. friend if he so desires.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it
would be preferable.


Peter John Veniot: Before the Minister of Fisheries moves the resolution I have a few remarks to add. We have been dealing with the sales tax both on goods manufactured in Canada and on goods imported. I see on page 7 of what was submitted on the first of June there is an increase in the newspaper rates. Would that be effected by separate bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, by the Post Office Department, as heretofore.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps I may be permitted to draw the attention of the right hon. Minister of Finance to a condition of affairs which has come to my attention. In 1927 the act was amended to reduce the rates on newspapers from 1| cents to 1 cent a pound. That was done with the object of capturing that portion of the newspaper traffic then going by express. The revenue, instead of falling with the reduction to 1 cent per pound, increased by $250,000, because we captured mail matter that had been sent by express within a radius of 75 to 100 miles. Now, since the rate has been brought back to li cents per pound, some of the large newspapers of Canada are issuing circulars asking their subscribers if they will consent to have their newspapers delivered to certain centres, such as drug stores or other dealers in newspapers and periodicals. If the subscribers consent, the newspapers will not be sent through the mails; the publishers will revert to the system followed before 1927. If that is done, instead of an additional sum being received through the increase of one-half cent per pound the government and the country will lose something

like $250,000. I am drawing this state of affairs to the attention of the Minister of Finance because I believe it would be better to leave the rate at one cent per pound and get the additional $250,000. Perhaps the minister might consider the matter and have it looked into.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been looked into
and my advice is not quite in accordance with the statement of my hon. friend. The addition to the revenues did not come from that source at all; it came from magazines and papers brought into Canada by car and posted from a point in this country. As far as the Canadian newspapers were concerned, about which we are speaking, the change brought about an additional deficit from the general handling of our mails. I do not know how it was arrived at; I have not the details before me at the moment, but I do know we received larger sums from the handling of mails coming from outside of Canada and that the mails originating in Canada showed a decrease in revenue by reason of the rate being reduced from li cents to 1 cent.
I am quite cognizant of what the hon. gentleman has said, that in some instances automobiles will be substituted for other forms of delivery and that newspapers will be left at. certain points in cities, where they will be picked up by subscribers. However, that does not apply to outside points to any considerable extent. For instance, in western Canada I know that at the present moment in some cases deliveries are made by automobile because of train service. In a general way the train service determines the deliveries made by newspapers to a not inconsiderable extent. If the mail service synchronizes, to use a word sometimes heard in this house, with the publication of the newspaper, then the mails are used, but if for any reason it is desired that the newspaper should be delivered at an earlier hour than the hour made possible by the train service, then the delivery is made by other conveyances.


Peter John Veniot: Notwithstanding what the
right hon. gentleman has said, I have had some experience in the matter, and the postal revenue did increase from postage paid on extra newspapers carried after this reduction. I am not talking about newspapers or periodicals coming from outside Canada. After we lowered the rate we captured a good deal of the business that had been lost to us, and that volume of business added to the revenue of the Post Office Department the amount I have stated. I will give an instance. The Montreal Star circulated hundreds of thou-

Special War Revenue Act
sands of copies of its daily editions by other means. They stopped that practice the moment the rate was lowered. Le Presse of Montreal, Le Soleil of Quebec, the Toronto Globe and the Toronto Star did the same thing. I have circulars from some of these newspapers in regard to what they propose to do now, although I have not them with me because I did not think this matter would come up to-night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The resolution has not
been called, but I see no reason why the hon. gentleman should not discuss it.


Peter John Veniot: I am bringing it up to-night so that the right hon. gentleman may consider it further before the resolution is proceeded with, because I am sure of what I have said.


Charles A. Stewart: Before the Minister of Fisheries rises to make his motion, if the Minister of Finance has further changes to announce I think it would be well for him to notify us of them. I confess that we have done a good deal of work in connection with these exemptions under the sales tax, but now they are all going to the board; apparently now we are reduced merely to the imposition of the four per cent tax.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Broadly speaking.


Charles A. Stewart: There are practically no exemptions discontinued, at any rate. If there are other changes in the schedules I think it would be well for the Minister of Finance to let us know, as briefly as possible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have prepared the bills with respect to the sales tax, the insurance items, the postal items and the cheque items. All those are items under the Special War Revenue Act. The matter to which the hon. member for Gloucester has just referred is, of course, a bill which will be introduced by the Postmaster General, and I think there are two other acts under other departments.


Charles Gavan Power: There is the Income War Tax Act and the Customs Tariff Act. If the right hon. gentleman will permit me, the budget resolutions known as the ways and means resolutions, as I read at the head of the pamphlet which was submitted to us tonight, are divided into four parts. There is the Income War Tax Act, the Special War Revenue Act, the post office and the customs tariff. As I understand the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister now, he proposes for the moment not to touch the Income War
Tax Act, and those are the amendments which are to be moved by the Minister of Fisheries. There was no mention of any of the items coming under the head of the Income War Tax Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only items dealt with in the amendment to be proposed by the Minister of Fisheries are in reference to the .Special War Revenue Act, and there ate no amendments except to the sales tax in that act. The stamp tax, the excise tax of 1 per cent, the insurance tax and the cheque tax also are dealt with in that act. Those are all the matters dealt with in the Special War Revenue Act, and it was for that reason I suggested that possibly the business of the house might be expedited if we took that bill as the basis for our discussion. That will complete that portion of the resolutions; so far as we are concerned, when we have given that bill its final reading in this house that will end the matter entirely.


Peter John Veniot: The Postal Revenue Act will be included in that bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; that is a separate matter altogether. My hon. friend will realize that this is a matter that relates to the Special War Revenue Act, and that title was continued in the revision of the statutes. These amendments come within the provisions of that statute, and what I have mentioned exhausts consideration of the items that fall within that act. The postal rate on papers falls within the provisions of another act, but the one cent stamp falls within this act, as I have stated.


Peter John Veniot: The government is adding one cent. Will that apply to air mail service as well as ordinary mail service? At present we have two different routes of air mail, one paying a two cent rate and the other a five cent rate. Will this addition apply to the two cent routes, making it three cents, and to the five cent routes, making the rate for those routes six cents? If it does not under the resolution, why should it not? I am asking this question not because I want to be critical; but if you add the one cent to the two cent rate applying to the air mail service, as it has been added to the two cent rate by train or otherwise you will get an additional revenue of nearly $190,000, while in respect of the five cent rate in connection with the air mail service the addition of the one cent would yield a further revenue of something like $100,000. It is important, therefore, that this should be considered.
Special War Revenue Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will take it up with the officials. In view of what the hon. gentleman has said, I may not have thoroughly understood it; but my understanding was as I have stated.


Peter John Veniot: I should like to have it looked into.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will look into it.


Mr. RHODES:: Special War Revenue Act

agricultural implements or agricultural machinery, n.o.p., and complete parts of all the foregoing;	_
409g. Incubators for hatching eggs, brooders for rearing young fowl, and complete parts of all the foregoing;
409i. Scythes, sickles or reaping hooks, hay or straw knives, edging knives, hoes, pronged forks, rakes, n.o.p.;
409j. Fanning mills; peaviners; corn husking machines; threshing machine separators, including wind stackers, baggers, weighers and selffeeders therefor; complete parts of all the foregoing;
409k. Windmills and complete parts thereof, not including shafting;
409n. Portable engines with boilers, in combination, for farm purposes; horse powers and traction engines for farm purposes, n.o.p.; and complete parts of all the foregoing;
409o. Equipment for generating electric power for farm purposes only, viz.: engine, gas tank, generator, storage battery, and switchboard; and complete parts of all the foregoing;
410b. Machinery and apparatus for use exclusively in washing or dry cleaning coal at coal mines or coke plants; machinery and apparatus for use exclusively in producing coke and gas; machinery and apparatus for use exclusively in the distillation or recovery of products from coal tar or gas; and complete parts of all the foregoing, not to include motive power, tanks for gas, nor pipes and valves 10J inches or less in diameter;
410c. Machinery and apparatus and complete parts thereof for use exclusively in producing unrefined oil from shales, not to include motive power, of a class or kind not made in Canada; 41 Od. Well-drilling machinery and apparatus, and complete parts thereof, of a class or kind not made in Canada, seamless iron or steel tubing over four inches in diameter for use exclusively in drilling for water, natural gas and oil, and in prospecting for minerals, not to include motive power; including goods enumerated in this item of a class or kind made in Canada;
410e. Well-drilling machinery and apparatus and complete parts thereof, and rope twenty-one hundred feet and over in length, capable of drilling wells of two thousand feet and over in depth, of four inches and over in diameter, and of raising and lowering casing over four inches in diameter for such wells, for use exclusively in drilling for water, nautral gas and oil, and in prospecting for minerals, not to include motive power;
410f. Machinery and appliances of iron or steel, of a class or kind not made in Canada, and elevators, and machinery of floating dredges, for use exclusively in alluvial gold mining;
410g. Articles for use exclusively in the metallurgy or smelting of iron, viz.: machinery and apparatus for sintering or nodulizing iron ore, concentrated or not, or flue dust; machinery and apparatus for use exclusively in the construction, equipment and repairs of blast furnaces for smelting iron ore, such machinery and apparatus to include hot blast stoves and burners, blast piping and valves connecting the blowing engines with the furnace, scale cars, charging and hoisting apparatus, blast furnace gas piping, cleaners and washers; and integral parts of all the foregoing, but not to include wrought iron pipe or valves 10J inches and under in diameter, nor structural iron work;

410k. Machinery and apparatus, of a class or kind not made in Canada, for use exclusively in handling ore and other materials to be charged into the blast furnace, from the dock, car or stock pile, at the smelting works;
4101. Ore chushers, rock crushers, stamp mills, grinding mills, rock drills, percussion coal cutters, coal augers, rotary drills, n.o.p., and complete parts of all the foregoing, for use exclusively in mining, metallurgical or quarrying operations;
410m. Diamond drills and core drills, not including motive power, and electrically operated rotary coal drills, of a class or kind not made in Canada, and integral parts of the foregoing, for use exclusively in mining operations:
410n. Diamond drills and core drills, not including motive power, and electrically operated rotary coal drills, n.o.p., and integral parts of the foregoing, for use exclusively in mining operations;
410o. Coal cutting machines, n.o.p.; coal heading machines; electric or magnetic machines for concentrating or separating iron ores; automatic scales for use with conveyors; and integral parts of all the foregoing, for use exclusively in mining or metallurgical operations;
410p. Sundry articles of metal as follows, for use exclusively in mining and metallurgical operations, viz.: furnaces for the smelting of ores; converting apparatus for metallurgical processes in metals; machinery for the extraction of precious metals by the chlorination or cyanide processes, not to include pumps, vacuum pumps or compressors; blast furnace blowing engines for the production of pig iron; and integral parts of all the foregoing;
410q. Pumps and vacuum pumps, and complete parts thereof, for use exclusively in the extraction of precious metals by the chlorination or cyanide processes;
410s. Amalgam safes; automatic ore samplers: automatic feeders; retorts; mercury pumps; pyrometers; bullion furnaces; amalgam cleaners; and integral parts of all the foregoing, for use exclusively in mining or metallurgical operations;
410z. Machinery and apparatus, n.o.p., and complete parts thereof, for the recovery of solid or liquid particles from flue or other waste gases at metallurgical or industrial plants, not to include motive power, tanks for gas, nor pipes and valves 10J inches or less in diameter;
411. Machinery for use in sawing timber, up to but not including the operation of planing, and complete parts thereof, not to include motive power, when for use exclusively in saw mills (for the purpose of this item motive power is defined as equipment for driving the machinery of the saw mill);
411a. Machinery, logging cars, cranes, blocks and tackle, wire rope, but not including wire rope to be used for guy rope or in braking logs going down grade, and complete parts of all the foregoing, for use exclusively in the operation of logging, such operation to include the removal of the log from stump to skidway, log dump or common or other carrier;
411b. Cylinder stave saws, wheel type stave jointers, crozing and champhering machinery, when for use exclusively in making staves;
431. Shovels and spades, of iron or steel, n.o.p.;
431a. Axes;

Special War Revenue Act
439c. Farm wagons, farm sleds, logging wagons, logging sleds, and complete parts thereof;
439d. Freight wagons, drays, sleighs, n.o.p., and complete parts thereof;
440k. Engines and complete parts thereof, to be used exclusively in the propulsion of boats or in hoisting nets and lines used in such boats bona fide owned by individual fishermen for their own use in the fisheries, under regulations pi escribed by the minister;
442. Articles which enter into the cost of manufacture of the goods enumerated in tariff items 409a, 409b, 409c, 409d, 409e, 409f, 409g, 409j, 409o, and 439c, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture in their own factories of the goods enumerated m tariff items 409a, 409b, 409c, 409d, 409e, 409f, 409g, 409j, 409o, and 439c, under regulations prescribed by the minister;
442a. Notwithstanding the provisions of tariff item 442, materials or commodities as hereunder defined or described, when imported by manfacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture, in their own factories, or the goods enumerated in tariff items 409a, 409b, 409c, 409d, 409e, 409f, 409g, 409j, 409o, and 439c, under regulations prescribed by the minister:-
(1)	Pig iron.
(2)	Bars or rods, of iron or steel, hot rolled.
464. Steel dies, of a class or kind not made
in Canada, valued at not less than one thousand dollars each, for use exclusively in stamping metal sheets or metal plates. . . . Provided that such dies shall be exported from Canada under Customs supervision within three months from the date of import entry;
476. Surgical and dental instruments of any material; surgical needles; X-ray apparatus; surgical operating tables for use in hospitals; microscopes valued at not less than $50 each by retail; and complete parts of all the foregoing;
476a. Glassware and other scientific apparatus for laboratory work in public hospitals; apparatus for sterilizing purposes, including bedpan washers and sterilizers but not including washing or laundry machines; all for the use of any public hospital, under regulations prescribed by the minister;
480. Crutches or specially constructed staffs for cripples:
538. Binder twine or twine for harvest binders;
663b. Articles which enter into the cost of the manufacture of fertilizers, when imported for use exclusively in the manufacture of fertilizers;
666.	Nitro-glycerine, giant powder, nitro and other explosives, per pound;
667.	Blasting and mining powder, per pound;
682. Fish hooks, for deep-sea or lake fishing,
not smaller in size than number 2-0; bank, cod, pollock and mackerel fish lines; and mackerel, herring, salmon, seal, seine, mullet, net and trawl twine in hanks or coil, barked or not-in variety of sizes and threads-including gilling thread in balls, and head ropes for fishing nets; marline, and net norsels of cotton, hemp or flax; and fishing nets or seines, and manila rope, not exceeding one and one-half inches in circumference, when used exclusively for the fisheries, not to include hooks, lines, nets or ropes commonly used for sportsmen's purposes;
692. Coins, cabinets of; collections of medals and collections of postage stamps; medals of geld, silver or copper, and other metallic 22110-205$
articles actually bestowed as trophies or prizes and received and accepted as honorary distinctions, and cups or other metallic prizes (not usual merchantable commodities), won in bona fide competitions;
695a. Paintings in oil or water colours and pastels, valued at not less than twenty dollars each; paintings and sculptures by artists domiciled in Canada but residing temporarily abroad for purposes of study, under regulations by the minister;	_
696. Philosophical and scientific apparatus, utensils, instruments, and preparations, including boxes and bottles containing the same; maps, photographic reproductions, casts as models, etchings, lithographic prints or charts; mechanical equipment of a class or kind made in Canada. All articles in this item, wheu specially imported in good faith for the use and by order of any society or institution incorporated or established solely for religious, philosophical, educational, scientific or literary purposes, or for the encouragement of the fine arts, or for the use and by order of any public hospital, college, academy, school, or seminary of learning in Canada, and not for sale, under regulations prescribed by the minister;
700.	Animals and articles brought into Canada temporarily and for a period not exceeding three months, for the purpose of exhibition or of competition for prizes offered by any agricultural or other association. . . . Provided a bond shall be first given in accordance with regulations prescribed by the minister, with the condition that the full duty to which such animals or articles would otherwise be liable shall be paid in case of their sale in Canada, or if not reexported within the time specified in such bond;
701.	Menageries, horses, cattle, carriages and harness of, under regulations prescribed by the minister;
702.	Carriages for travellers, and carriages laden with merchandise, not to include circus troupes or hawkers, under regulations prescribed by the minister;
703.	Travellers' baggage, under regulations prescribed by the minister;
704.	Apparel, wearing and other personol household effects, not merchandise, of British subjects dying abroad, but domiciled in Canada; books, pictures, family plate or furniture, personal effects and heirlooms left by bequest;
1017. Lapwelded tubing of iron or steel, not less than four inches in diameter, threaded and coupled or not when used in casing water, oil and natural gas wells, or for the transmission of natural gas under high pressure from gas wells to points of distribution.
Unenumerated
Iron or steel pipe, not butt or lapwelded, and w-irebound wooden pipe, not less than thirty inches in internal diameter, for use in alluvial gold mining; including articles and materials used exclusively or consumed in the manufacture of the said pipe.
Articles and Materials to be used Exclusively
in the Manufacture of Goods Enumerated in Customs Tariff Items
219a,-Dry preparations used for the same purposes as goods enumerated in item 219a.-281,281a. 391a, 406a. 406b. 409a, 409b, 409c, 409d. 409e, 409f, 409g, 409i, 409j, 409k, 409n, 409o 410b, 410d, including goods enumerated in this item of a class or kind made in Canada; 410e,
Special War Revenue Act

4i0f, 410g, 4101c, 4101, 410m, 410n, 410o, 410p, 410q, 410s, 410z, 411, 411a, 411b, 431, 431a, 439c, 439d, 440k, 442, 442a, 476, 476a, 480, 538, 663, 663a, 663b, 666, 667, 696, tubing enumerated in Customs Tariff Item 1017.
Materials, not to Include Plant Equipment,
Consumed in Process of Manufacture or Production, which enter Directly into the Cost of Goods Enumerated in Customs Tariff Items
281, 281a, 391a, 406a, 406b, 409a, 409b, 409c, 409d, 409e, 409f, 409g, 409i, 409j, 409k, 409n, 409o, 410b, 410d, including goods enumerated in this item of a class or kind made in Canada; 410e, 410f, 410g, 410k, 4101, 410m, 410n, 410o, 410p, 410q, 410s, 410z, 411, 411a, 411b, 431, 431a, 439, 439d, 440k, 442a, 476, 476a, 480, 538, 663, 663a, 666, 667, 696, tubing enumerated in Customs Tariff Item 1017.
That the provisions of section 88 of said act, and all orders in council providing for the payment of fifty per cent of the rate of Consumption or Sales Tax imposed on certain goods be repealed and the following schedule be substituted therefor as schedule IV.
Schedule IV
Boots and shoes, including rubber footwear;
Biscuits of all kinds;
Creosoted railroad ties;
Printing paper for use exclusively in producing newspapers and quarterly, monthly and semi-monthly magazines, weekly literary papers unbound, hymn books, religious tracts and Sunday school lesson pictures;
Moist mince meat;
Yeast.
The Goods Enumerated in Customs Tariff Items
as Follows When Produced or Manufactured in Canada
89.	Vegetables, prepared, in air-tight cans or other air-tight containers;
(a)	Beans, baked or otherwise prepared;
(b)	Corn and tomatoes;
(c)	Peas;
(d)	N.o.p.
90.	Vegetables, prepared or preserved:
(d)	Pastes, hash and all similar products, composed of vegetables and meat or fish, or both, n.o.p.
105.	Fruit pulp, with sugar or not, n.o.p., and fruits, crushed or frozen.
]05d. Jellies, jams, marmalades, preserves, fruit butters and condensed mince meats.
106.	Fruits, prepared, in air-tight cans or other air-tight containers, the weight of the containers to be included in the weight for duty;
(a)	Apricots, peaches and pears;
(b)	Pineapples;
(c)	N.o.p.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So as to make clear what we have done, I understand that the Minister of Finance has amended the section o>f these ways and means resolutions which appears under the title Special War Revenue Act, and that includes briefly pages 3, 4, 5, 6 and half of page 7 of the ways and means resolutions of June 1 as printed. Then may I ask whether to-morrow we might have, in substitution for these pages, the effect of his amendment as now moved? That

could be printed in the votes and proceedings and we could go right ahead with the resolutions, and where they are framed he could introduce his bills immediately.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The amendment moved by the Minister of Fisheries applies to the sales tax only. The resolutions dealing with the additional one cent for postage and cheques, and the excise, have not been changed. So that if this amendment now proposed is printed in the votes and proceedings it will contain the sales tax in its entirety.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We shall go
on to-morrow with the resolution?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the amendment
carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Motion (Mr. Rhodes) agreed to.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: When shall the committee have leave to sit again?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Next sitting.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, July 1, 1931.