1935-02-08

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the convention concerning seamen's articles of agreement adopted as a draft convention by the general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations at its ninth session in Geneva on the 24tli day of June, 1926, reading as follows:- Convention Concerning Seamen's Articles of
Agreement
The general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations, Having been convened at Geneva by the governing body of the international labour office, and having met in its ninth session on 7 June 1926 and
Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to seamen's articles of agreement, which is included in the first item of the agenda of the session, and
Having determined that these proposals shall take the form of a draft international convention.
adopts, this twenty-fourth day of June of the year one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, the following draft convention for ratification by the members of the international labour organization, in accordance with the provisions of Part XIII of the treaty of Versailles and of the corresponding parts of the other treaties of peace:
Article 1.-This convention shall apply to all seagoing vessels registered in the country of any member ratifying this convention, and to the owners, masters and seamen of such vessels. It shall not apply to: ships of war,
government vessels not engaged in trade, vessels engaged in the coasting trade, pleasure yachts,
Indian country craft, fishing vessels,
vessels of less than 100 tons gross registered tonnage or 300 cubic metres, nor to vessels engaged in the home trade below the tonnage limit prescribed by national law for the special regulation of this trade at the date of the passing of this convention.
Article 2.-For the purpose of this convention the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them, viz.:
(a)	The term "vessel" includes any ship or boat of any nature whatsoever, whether publicly or privately owned, ordinarily engaged in maritime navigation.
92582-39 J
(b)	The term "seaman" includes every person employed or engaged in any capacity on board any vessel and entered on the ship's articles. It excludes masters, pilots, cadets and pupils on training ships and duly indentured apprentices, naval ratings, and other persons in the permanent service of a government.
(c)	The term "master" includes every person having command and charge of a vessel except pilots.
(d)	The term "home trade vessel" means a vessel engaged in trade between a country and the ports of a neighbouring country within geographical limits determined by the national law.
Article 3.-Articles of agreement shall be signed both by the shipowner or his representative and by the seaman. Reasonable facilities to examine the articles of agreement before they are signed shall be given to the seaman and also to his adviser.
The seaman shall sign the agreement under conditions which shall be prescribed by national law in order to ensure adequate supervision by the competent public authority.
The foregoing provisions shall be deemed to have been fulfilled if the competent authority certifies that the provisions of the agreement have been laid before it in writing and have been confirmed both by the shipowner or his representative and by the seaman.
National law shall make adequate provision to ensure that the seaman has understood the agreement.
The agreement shall not contain anything which is contrary to the provisions of national law or of this convention.
National law shall prescribe such further formalities and safeguards in respect of the completion of the agreement as may be considered necessary for the protection of the interests of the shipowner and of the seaman.
Article 4.-Adequate measures shall be taken in accordance with national law for ensurin'* that the agreement shall not contain any stipulation by which the parties purport to contract in advance to depart from the ordinary rules as to jurisdiction over the agreement.
This article shall not be interpreted as excluding a reference to arbitration.
Article 5.-Every seaman shall be given a document containing a record of his employment on board the vessel. The form of the document, the particulars to be recorded and the manner in which such particulars are to be entered in it shall be determined by national law.
The document shall not contain any statement as to the quality of the seaman's work or as to his wages.
Article 6.-The agreement may be made either for a definite period or for a voyage or, if permitted by national law, for an indefinite period.
G12	COMMONS
International Labour Conventions
The agreement shall state clearly the respective rights and obligations of each of the parties.
It shall in all cases contain the following particulars:
(1)	The surname and other names of the seaman, the date of his birth or his age, and his birthplace:
(2)	The place at which and date on which the agreement was completed;
(3)	The name of the vessel or vessels on board which the seaman undertakes to serve;
(4)	The number of the crew of the vessel, if required by national law;
(5)	The voyage or voyages to be undertaken, if this can be determined at the time of making the agreement;
(6)	The capacity in which the seaman is to be employed;
(7)	If possible, the place and date at which the seaman is required to report on board for service;
(8)	The scale of provisions to be supplied to the seaman, unless some alternative system is provided for by national law;
(9)	The amount of his wages;
(19) The determination of the agreement and the conditions thereof, that is to say:
(a)	if the agreement has been made for a definite period, the date fixed for its expiry;
(b)	if the agreement has been made for a voyage, the port of destination and the time which has to expire after arrival before the seaman shall be discharged;
(c)	if the agreement has been made for an indefinite period, the conditions which shall entitle either party to rescind it, as well as the required period of notice for rescission, provided that such period shall not be less for the ship owner than for the seaman;
(11)	The annual leave with pay granted to the seaman after one year's service with the same shipping company, if such leave is provided for by national law;
(12)	Any other particulars which national law may require.
Article 7-If national law provides that a list of crew shall be carried on board it shall specify that the agreement shall either be recorded in or annexed to the list of crew.
Article 8-In order that the seaman may satisfy himself as to the nature and extent of his rights and obligations, national law shall lay down the measures to be taken to enable clear information to be obtained on board as to the conditions of employment, either by posting the conditions of the agreement in a place easily accessible from the crew's quarters, or by some other appropriate means.
Article 9-An agreement for an indefinite period may be terminated by either party in any port where the vessel loads or unloads, provided that the notice specified in the agreement shall have been given, wdiieh shall not be less than twenty-four hours.
Notice shall be given in writing; national law shall provide such manner of giving notice as is best calculated to preclude any subsequent dispute between the parties on this point.

National law shall determine the exceptional circumstances in which notice even when duly given shall not terminate the agreement.
Article 10.-An agreement entered into for a voyage, for a definite period, or for an indefinite period shall be duly terminated by:
(a)	mutual consent of the parties;
(b)	death of the seaman;
(c)	loss or total unseaworthiness of the vessel;
(d)	any other cause that may be provided in national law or in this convention.
Article 11.-National law shall determine the circumstances in which the owner or master may immediately discharge a seaman.
Article 12.-National law shall also determine the circumstances in which the seaman may demand his immediate discharge.
Article 13.-If the seaman shows to the satisfaction of the shipowner or his agent that he can obtain command of a vessel or an appointment as mate or engineer or to any other post of a higher grade than he actually holds, or that any other circumstance has arisen since his engagement which renders it essential to his interests that he should be permitted to take his discharge, he may claim his discharge, provided that without increased expense to the shipowner and to the satisfaction of the shipowner or his agent he furnishes a competent and reliable man in his place.
In such case, the seaman shall be entitled to his wages up to the time of his leaving his employment.
Article 14.-Whatever the reason for the termination or rescission of the agreement, an entry shall be made in the document issued to the seaman in accordance with Article 5 and in the list of crew showing that he has been discharged, and such entry shall, at the request of either party, be endorsed by the competent public authority.
The seaman shall at all times have the right, in addition to the record mentioned in Article 5, to obtain from the master a separate certificate as to the quality of his work or, failing that, a certificate indicating w'hetlier he has fully discharged his obligations under the agreement.
Article 15.-National law shall provide the measures to ensure compliance with the terms of the present convention.
Article 16.-The formal ratifications of this convention under the conditions set forth in Part XIIT of the treaty of Versailles and in the corresponding parts of the other treaties of peace shall be communicated to the secretary-general of the League of Nations for registration.
Article 17.

This convention shall come into force at the date on which the ratifications of two members of the international labour organization have been registered by the secretary-general.
It shall be binding only upon those members whose ratifications have been registered with the secretariat.
Thereafter, the convention shall come into force for any member at the date on which its ratification has been registered with the secretariat.

International Labour Conventions
Article 18.-As soon as the ratification of two members of the international labour organization have been registered with the secretariat, the secretary general of the League of Nations shall so notify all the members of the international labour organization. He shall likewise notify them of the registration of ratifications which may be communicated subsequently by other members of the organization.
Article 19.-Subject to the provisions of Article 17, each member which ratifies this convention agrees to bring the provisions of articles 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. 14 and 15 into operation not later than 1 January, 1928, and to take such action as may be necessary to make these provisions effective.
Article 20.-Each member of the international labour organization which ratifies this convention engages to apply it to its colonies, possessions and protectorates, in accordance with the provisions of Article 421 of the treaty of Versailles and of the corresponding articles of the other treaties of peace.
Article 21.-A member which has ratified this convention may denounce it after the expiration of ten years from the date on which the convention first comes into force, by an act communicated to the secretary-general of the League of Nations for registration. Such denunciation shall not take effect until one year after the date on which it is registered with the secretariat.
Article 22.-At least once in ten years, the governing body of the international labour office shall present to the general conference a report on the working of this convention and shall consider the desirability of placing on the agenda of the conference the question of its revision or modification.
Article 23.-The French and English texts of this convention shall both be authentic, and that this house do approve of the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not any hon. members desire to discuss this particular resolution. There are some they would desire to discuss, but if there is to be no general discussion on this one I will limit my observations with respect to it. This draft convention was adopted on June 24, 1926, at a meeting of the international labour organization, and has since been ratified on the dates I shall mention and registered at the registry office at Geneva by the labour organization's registrar. The following are the dates of ratification:
Belgium, October 3. 1927.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, June 14, 1929.
Bulgaria, November 29, 1929.
Colombia, June 20, 1933.
Cuba, July 7. 1928.
Estonia, May 10, 1929.
France, April 4, 1928.
Germany. September 20, 1930.
India, October 31, 1932.
Irish Free State. July 5, 1930.
Italy. October 10. 1929.
Luxemburg, April 10. 1928.
Mexico, May 12. 1934.
Nicaragua, April 12, 1934.
Poland. August 8. 1931.
Spain. February 23. 1931.
Uruguay, June 6. 1933.
Yugoslavia, September 30, 1929.
Broadly and generally, in our Shipping Act we have made provision for carrying into effect the main provisions recommended by the conference. It may possibly be desirable for me to say that Canada has not a very good record with regard to the ratification of draft conventions which have been adopted at Geneva. Up to January, 1935, the record was a rather unfortunate one, so far as we are concerned. The following list will indicate the number of conventions which have been ratified by the different countries:
Number
Country

	ratified
Albania	 1
Argentine	 9
Australia	 5
Austria	 13
Belgium	 23
Bolivia	 6
Brazil	  4
Bulgaria	 27
Canada	 4
Chile	 19
China	 5
Colombia	 24
Cuba	 II
Czechoslovakia	 13
Denmark	 11
Dominican Republic	 4
Estonia	 19
Finland	 13
Fiance	 13
Germany	   17
Great Britain	 18
Greece	 13
Hungary	 15
India	 13
Irish Free State	 2,1
Italy	 21
Japan	 12
Latvia	 17
Liberia	 1
Lithuania	 7
Luxemburg	 27
Mexico	  9
Tile Netherlands	 15
New Zealand	 0
Nicaragua	 30
Norway	 11
Paraguay	 0
Persia	 0
Poland	 17
Portugal	 8
Roumania	 17
South Africa	 5
Spain	 32
Sweden	 16
Switzerland	  7
T urkey	 0
Uruguay	 30
Venezuela	 4
Yugoslavia	 21
I place this on record not in any spirit of criticism but rather to indicate that we have not taken as prompt action as some of the

International Labour Conventions
other countries of the world. It is highly desirable that we should ratify these convention agreements. The treaty of peace makes certain provisions to which, in connection with the discussion on one other convention, I shall refer this afternoon. The international labour organization which came into being under the treaty has adopted a number of draft conventions of which, as I have said, we have adopted a limited number.
But apart altogether from our moral obligation under the treaty to ratify these conventions, I think it is in the interests of this country that we should do so, having regard to the necessity of maintaining and improving the standards of work and of living in the other countries of the world, especially the industrial countries with which we compete. We have sometimes complained of unfair competition and of conditions of living and labour in other countries, but failure on our part to ratify certain conventions that have been made has had the effect of creating a rather unfavourable opinion amongst other countries that have adopted them. They have contended that they were led into believing that, when we accepted them at the conference, where we were always represented, they would be put into effect, and sometimes it has been difficult to explain to them that a federal confederation has divided jurisdiction as between provincial legislatures and the federal parliament. But undoubtedly the acceptance of as many of these conventions as possible will have the effect of removing causes of friction and ill-will, and will improve economic international relations. We believe that the best way in which to bring about a better understanding between Canada and the other countries of the world is, so far as it may be possible within our power, to ratify arrangements that have been made by the common consent of countries that have been represented at international labour conventions; and the standards that have been adopted in the convention are standards that will thereby have international application and, in my judgment at least, have a most beneficial effect upon the relations between the several countries of the world and our own. As a matter of fact, most of these conventions represent but minimum requirements, and there are many countries that maintain higher standards than those provided for in the conventions themselves.
The convention to which I now ask the house to give its assent is one concerning seamen's articles of agreement with respect to which, as I have said, the essential legal requirements are embodied in the Merchant
I Mr. Bennett. J
Shipping Act which we passed last session. I think there is nothing further I need say with respect to this particular convention, and the only reason that I am asking ratification now is that it has been adopted by so many other countries and is in fact embodied so far as the legal requirements are concerned in our Merchant Shipping Act.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to take any exception to approving the convention which appears under government notices of motion, but rather to point out that what we are in fact being asked to do is more or less purely formal in its nature.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) himself has already intimated that the substance of this particular convention has been enacted into law by this House of Commons and that it appears as part of a statute which is already upon the books of this country. That being the case, it seems to me that we add nothing and subtract nothing from what we have already done, by a formal approval of the convention, unless it be a matter of some general conformity with methods adopted in some other countries.
The particular convention relates to seamen's articles of agreement, and if I am not mistaken those articles of agreement appear as part of the act respecting shipping which was assented to last year. Therefore this house is simply being asked to do again what it has already done. We had an example of that kind of thing all day yesterday when the house spent the entire day debating a resolution proposed by the honourable member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) approving of some of the trade agreements legislation which parliament had already enacted at the government's initiative. Here we are again being asked to approve other legislation which is already on the statute books, and I think it will be found with respect to the next two conventions that we shall be asked to approve that the same is true, that they also form part of the act respecting shipping which was passed as part of a consolidation, as honourable members will recall, at the end of last session.
What I do not understand is why, if we are to approve one or two or three or four or five of these draft conventions, of the international labour organization of the League of Nations, we should not approve all of them. Why single out these two or three especially for approval? It would be well I think to have placed on the record the different conventions that have been passed by the international labour conference and which have

International Labour Conventions
been communicated to the government; Then when parliament has before it a statement of all of the conventions we may later on discover the reason why some call for formal approval and others not. May I, however, before placing this list on the record say that I cannot agree with the statement the Prime Minister made this afternoon to the effect that Canada's record has been bad in the matter of our action with respect to these various conventions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ratifications.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister uses the word ratification. I do not wish to take exception to the use of the word ratification, but I am inclined to think the word "approval" would be the more correct one to use with respect to these conventions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was quoting from the language of the League of Nations itself- the process of ratification.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was quoting from the Prime Minister's resolution, which asks us to approve, which is I think more to the point. However, the Prime Minister a day or two ago meeting the representatives of the Trades and Labour Congress said, as reported in the evening press of February 6:
On the matter of ratifying international conventions adopted at Geneva, Mr. Bennett admitted Canada's record had been bad. However, five such conventions were down for ratification at the present session of parliament.
Anyone reading that statement would be inclined to think that this parliament had been remiss in its duty in the past in the matter of ratification, and that Canada had not been taking a place either as high or as effective as that taken by other countries. Now the direct opposite is the case, as the Prime Minister well knows. The Prime Minister has read us a list of the countries that have ratified this particular convention. I did not get the names of all of them but I took down a few-Albania, Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Colombia, Latvia, Esthonia, Hungary, and there were several others that will appear in Hansard. The reason that these particular countries have made it a matter of special concern to ratify is that in most cases they have not already had on their statutes the legislation that is being asked for by the convention.


Mr. DUFF:: And they relate more particularly to shipping.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and as
my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) reminds me, as regards this
particular convention they relate more particularly to shipping.
As the Prime Minister has said, the conventions for the most part represent the minimum requirements. As a matter of fact, Canada is one of the first countries of the world in her labour standards and her labour legislation; and it is because Canada has been able to send word to the labour office at Geneva that she had already enacted most of the measures asked for by these conventions that it has not been necessary to come before this parliament and ask for any approval of them. Instead of our record being bad, it has been so exceptional that it is beyond all challenge.
However, with respect to the procedure, if there has been any laxity of procedure, may I say that what was expected of this parliament with regard to the approval of these various conventions has consistently followed what was stated at some considerable length by the Minister of Justice of the day to be the intended practice when parliament had before it the first series of conventions that we were asked to approve. They were conventions that were drawn up at the labour conference in Washington in 1919, and there were several of them. It was important, it being the first time that parliament was called upon to deal with these conventions, that a careful statement should be made by the ministry as to the proper course of procedure. It so happened that a Conservative administration was in office at the time, the administration of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, and the Right Hon. C. J. Doherty was then Minister of Justice. Mr. Doherty not only explained very fully to this house what was expected of it in the matter of the approval of these various conventions, but he read to the house and placed on the record an order in council which outlined exactly the procedure to be taken and what was expected of this government and of the provincial governments. May I read from that order in council. It is a report that was confirmed on November 6, 1920, it reads:
The provisions of the labour part of the treaty of Versailles do not impose any obligation on the Dominion of Canada to enact into law the different draft conventions or recommendations which may from time to time be adopted by the conference. The obligation as set forth is simply in the nature of an undertaking on the part of each member within the period of one year at most from the closing of the session of the conference or, if it is impossible owing to exceptional circumstances to do so, within the period of one year, then at the earliest practicable moment, and in any case not later than eighteen months from the closing

International Labour Conventions
of the conference "to bring the recommendations or draft conventions before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies for the enactment of legislation or other action ", the treaty engagement being of this character it is not such as to justify legislation on the part of parliament under the authority of section 132 of the British North America Act, 1867, to give effect to any of the proposals of the said draft conventions and recommendations, which must be held, as between the dominion and the provinces to be within the legislative competence of the latter. The government's obligation will, in the opinion of the minister, be fully carried out if the different conventions and recommendations are brought before the competent authority, dominion or provincial, accordingly as it may appear, having regard to the scope and objects, the true nature and character of the legislation required to give effect to the proposals of the conventions and recommendations respectively, that they fall within the legislative competence of the one or other.
_ That is the statement made by the Minister of Justice of the day, embodied in an order in council, which order in council still remains and has not been changed. It sets forth the procedure to be followed, and every government up to the present has followed it. If any mistake has been made it has been a mistake of the minister of the day, but I do not think there has been any mistake. I think the then Minister of Justice gave a true interpretation, and it will be recalled that the minister himself attended some of the conferences held with respect to these matters. Not only that however; the Supreme Court of Canada was asked as to the obligation of this parliament with respect to these matters and gave a very definite opinion on the subject. I will not discuss these legal questions; so far as this side of the house is concerned, I will leave that to the ex-Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). In passing however I should like to quote two paragraphs from the direct answer given by the supreme court to a specific question directed by the government to the court as to the obligation and duty of this parliament with respect to these various conventions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not all of them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And may I
point out that the opinion given by the supreme court was a unanimous opinion. One of the questions submitted to the supreme court in the above mentioned reference was as follows:
What is the nature of the obligation of the Dominion of Canada as a member of the international labour conference, under the provisions of the labour part (part XIII) of the treaty of Versailles and of the corresponding provisions of the other treaties of peace with relation to such- draft conventions and recommendations
{Mr. Mackenzie King.]
as may be from time to time adopted by the said conference under the authority of and pursuant to the aforesaid provisions?
The reply of the supreme court thereto was:
The obligation is simply in the nature of an undertaking to bring the recommendation or draft convention before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment of legislation or other action.
The Prime Minister says not all of them, but that question and the answer covered all. So that there can be no doubt in the world as to the truth of the situation and the clarity of it.
May I say that with respect to all these conventions-I can speak only so far as the previous Liberal administration was concerned, though I think the same has been true of the government of my right hon. friend- the requirements as set forth by the then Minister of Justice and as indicated by the supreme court have been wholly and completely complied with. The procedure has been this. The conventions are communicated by the labour office in Geneva to the government of Canada, to the Secretary of State, I presume, or if sent to the governor general's office, are transferred to the privy council. At any rate, they go immediately to the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice examines the convention and decides to which legislative body having competent jurisdiction it should be transferred. If it is within the legislative competence of parliament to deal with the matter, then the convention is transferred to the minister of the department immediately concerned, and by that minister or some other minister the matter is brought before parliament. Let me say at once with respect <to all these conventions that they have been brought before parliament. They have been tabled, usually about the opening of parliament, and in a number of instances where their requirements have not already been met legislation has been enacted with respect to them. If on the other hand the Department of Justice maintains that they come within the legislative competence of the provincial governments, then the conventions are sent by the Secretary of State to the lieutenant governors of the provinces to be placed before the governments and legislatures of the provinces for action with respect thereto. That has been the practice that has been followed, and I do not think there have been any exceptions to it; I think it has been followed in all detail and completeness.

International Labour Conventions
I do not know that there is any necessity for me to say much more. I think it would be unfortunate if the impression went abroad that this country had been in any way behind other countries in adhering to labour conventions when as a matter of fact we have adopted to the full the procedure required and have gone far beyond most countries in the legislation which is already on the books.
To make clear what I have just said, I would point out, by way of illustration, with regard to one of the recommendations withdrawn the other day from the order paper, which the Prime Minister said had been placed upon the order paper by mistake, that as a matter of fact there was no necessity for it because this parliament had already enacted the legislation to which it refers, just as it has already enacted legislation with respect to the convention that is before us at the moment. This was the recommendation concerning the application of the Berne convention of 1906 on the prohibition of the use of white phosphorus in the manufacture of matches. I recall representing Canada at a meeting of the international labour office at Geneva before the League of Nations was ever established, at which time the question came up of the use of white phosphorus in the making of matches, and which occasions the disease called phosphorus necrosis, a horrible and hideous disease. A convention was drawn up at the time asking the different nations to take action to substitute a process which would do away with the use of white phosphorus and its prejudicial effects. A formula with respect to a substance called I think, sesqui sulphide was given to the world to be used as a substitute for white phosphorus. As Minister of Labour in 1910-11 I brought that question before the House of Commons and discussed it very fully. Hon. members will find on the records of parliament a very full statement of the nature of that particular disease. I introduced a bill into the house to put an end to the use of white phosphorus in the manufacture of matches; that bill passed this house, it was in I think 1911, but the election on the reciprocity issue came on unexpectedly and the course of the bill through parliament was not completed when dissolution occurred. A later government, however, that of Sir Robert Borden, with the late Mr. Crothers as Minister of Labour, introduced the bill and it was passed by both houses and became law. Indeed, it was law before ever the League of Nations was established. So far as adding
anything to what has already been done is concerned, we might as well be called upon to approve that particular law to-day as to approve what we are being asked to approve by this convention. Both are already on the statute books; the purpose has been fulfilled. What Canada did when, for example, she was asked as she was about this very matter to which I have referred, that of white phosphorus, was to reply to Geneva that we already had and had had for years upon the statute books a law which covered the recommendation. What would have, been the sense of asking parliament to ratify a convention on that particular subject when wre already had it on the statutes? I mention that because I take strong exception to the statement of the Prime Minister that we have been behind in any particular in fulfilling the obligations into which Canada has entered as one of the members of the League of Nations, especially with respect to labour conventions. We have been ahead most of the time.
If we have not been asked to ratify many of those conventions it is because, up to the present at least, it has been determined by the legal decisions and opinions that have been given not only by the law officers of the crown but by the Supreme Court of Canada that it was not within the legislative competence of this parliament to legislate on certain of those matters. I hope we shall not be asked to approve conventions that relate to subjects with regard to which we have no legislative jurisdiction, but that is something which apparently we shall have to consider. If I understand aright that it is the view of the Prime Minister that this parliament can deal with practically all of these matters, then we have a pretty big order ahead of us. In this connection I should like to place on record the various conventions which we should then be asked to ratify. This is assuming now that the federal government hereafter is going to be called upon to deal with all these matters of labour standards. The different conventions are as follows:
At the first session at Washington in 1919: hours of work. We are to be asked this afternoon to approve that convention. Why are we not asked to approve the others that were passed at the same convention?-unemployment; childbirth; night work (women); minimum age (industry); night work (young persons). These were all passed at the same convention as the one which is coming before us a little later to-day.



C18 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
International Labour Conventions
Richard Bedford Bennett: The subject of white phosphorous was also discussed at Washington.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad my right honourable friend reminded me of that, but it is not down here as a convention. At the second session at Genoa in 1920 the following conventions were passed: minimum age (sea); unemployment; indemnity (shipwreck); placing of seamen.
These are all matters that come within federal jurisdiction I think, and I imagine it will be found that they have been included in previous enactments of this parliament. Therefore there is no more necessity for asking parliament to approve those particular conventions than for asking it to approve over again the trade agreements as we have been asked to do on a private member's motion.
We come to the third session at Geneva, 1921. There was one convention with respect to minimum age (agriculture); one with respect to right of association (agriculture); one with respect to workmen's compensation (agriculture) ; one with respect to white lead (painting) and one with respect to weekly rest (industry). We are going to be asked to approve a convention with respect to weekly Test a little later. Why are we not asked to approve the conventions with respect to these other matters that relate to agriculture where they come within the jurisdiction of this parliament? They have all been considered. The Justice department has carefully considered the <]uestion of the particular legislative body to which they should be referred and departments of the federal government have considered those that relate to federal affairs. Why single out the convention with respect to weekly rest in industry and then omit the one that precedes and the others that follow, which are: minimum age with respect to trimmers and stokers, and medical examination of young persons at sea? I think I can explain why we are not being asked to approve these last two. They were approved by this parliament several years ago. My impression is that those particular conventions go back ten or fifteen years and that they were approved and were embodied in some legislation passed with respect to shipping at that time on a revision of the Shipping Act.
Now we come to the seventh session at Geneva in 1925 at which were passed conventions with respect to workmen's compensation (accidents); workmen's compensation (occupational diseases); equality of treatment (accident compensation); night work (bakeries).
Then the eighth session at Geneva, 1926: inspection of emigrants.

Then the ninth session at Geneva, 1926: seamen's articles of agreement; repatriation of seamen.
Then the tenth session at Geneva, 1927: sickness insurance (industry, etcetera); sickness insurance (agriculture).
Then the eleventh session at Geneva, 1928: minimum wage fixing machinery.
Then the twelfth session at Geneva, 1929: marking of weight (packages transported by vessels); protection against accidents (dockers).
Those are the other two we are to be asked to approve this afternoon. Why are they singled out of the lot? We have already enacted those that relate to the merchants shipping bill which was passed at the last session. We are now being asked formally to approve something that has already been done, but nothing is said about all these other subjects.
Then the fourteenth session at Geneva in 1930: forced labour; hours of work (commerce and offices).
Then the fifteenth session at Geneva, 1931: hours of work (coal mines).
I was going to say that later in the session we may be asked to approve these, but if so, let us have them before us as soon as possible and let them not be kept back until the very end of the session.
Then the sixteenth session at Geneva in 1932: protecting against accidents (dockers) (revised); minimum age (non-industrial employment) .
Then the seventeenth session at Geneva, 1933: fee-charging employment agencies; old age insurance (industry, etcetera); old age insurance (agriculture); invalidity insurance (industry, etcetera); invalidity insurance (agriculture); survivors' insurance (industry, etcetera); survivors' insurance (agriculture).
I see that the Prime Minister has given notice of bills that he is bringing in next week with regard to the eight-hour day and weekly rest. Evidently he is going to base these bills on what is in the convention with respect to those particular matters. But he has already introduced-and we were told wre would have the second reading of it this afternoon-a bill with respect to unemployment insurance which relates to other forms of social insurance. Why have we not been asked similarly to approve those particular conventions before taking up the bill that may or may not be based upon them?
I come now to the eighteenth session at Geneva in 1934: night work (women) (revised), workmen's compensation (occupational diseases) (revised), sheet glass works, unemployment provision.

International Labour Conventions
Those are the conventions, but there are also recommendations. It is important to notice that the construction that the league itself has placed upon conventions that come to a federated state is that a federated state is in a different position from what is termed a unitary state. As far as a federated state is concerned the office of the League of Nations itself has decided that the conventions shall be to a federated state in the nature of recommendations, recommendations which shall be passed on to the competent legislative authority, and there the obligation with respect to these particular conventions and recommendations ends as far as concerns fulfilling the requirements of the treaty.
Let me come then to the recommendations; it will explain why I omitted the one the Prime Minister referred to a moment ago, because it comes under recommendations. The first session at Washington, 1919, dealt with unemployment, reciprocity of treatment, anthrax prevention, lead poisoning, (women and children); labour inspection (health services); white phosphorous.
Second session (Genoa, 1920); hours of work (fishing); hours of work (inland navigation); national seamen's codes; unemployment insurance (seamen).
Third session (Geneva, 1921); unemployment (agriculture), child birth (agriculture), night work of women (agriculture), night work of children and young persons (agriculture), vocational education (agriculture), living-in conditions (agriculture), social insur-rnce (agriculture), weekly rest (commerce).
There is an interesting thing. In that particular list we have two subjects mentioned, vocational education, and weekly rest. We are going to be asked to approve a convention relating to weekly rest, but we have never been asked to approve a convention regarding vocational education. Yet as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) well knows, four sessions ago he introduced in this parliament a bill with respect to vocational education which passed both houses and is now law. We pointed out at the time that what was necessary with respect to all social legislation iwas to have the money available whereby it could be put into force. I told the minister at the time that I thought he would be wise to find out first where he was to get the money, and afterwards pass the bill. But after the bill was passed the Department of Labour notified the provincial government that 'because they had not any money, they were sorry the government could not put it into force, that money was required for other purposes, and that therefore this
vocational education measure would have to remain on the statutes a dead letter. It is on the statutes now; it has been passed by this parliament but it is a dead letter. I wonder why this government do not ask us to approve the convention under which reference was particularly made to vocational education, especially when at the same session there was a convention passed relating to weekly rest.
Now we come to the fourth session, (Geneva; 1922): migration statistics.
Fifth session, (Geneva, 1923): labour inspection.
Sixth session, (Geneva, 1924): utilization of spare time.
Seventh session, (Geneva, 1925), workmen's compensation (minimum scale); workmen's compensation (jurisdiction); workmen's compensation (occupational diseases); equality of treatment (accident compensation).
Eighth session, (Geneva, 1926), migration, (protection of females at sea).
Ninth session, (Geneva, 1926), repatriation, (ship masters and apprentices); labour inspection, (seaman).
Tenth session, (Geneva, 1927), sickness insurance.
Eleventh session, (Geneva, 1928), minimum wage-fixing machinery.
Twelfth session, (Geneva, 1929), prevention of industrial accidents; power-driven machinery; protection against accidents, (dockers) reciprocity; protection against accidents, (dockers) consultation of organizations.
Fourteenth session, (Geneva, 1930), forced labour (indirect compulsion); forced labour (regulation); hours of work (hotels, etcetera); hours of work (theatres, etcetera); hours of work, (hospitals, etcetera).
Sixteenth session, (Geneva, 1932), protection against accidents (dockers) reciprocity; minimum age, (non-industrial employment).
Seventeenth session, (Geneva, 1933), employment agencies; invalidity, old age and survivors' insurance.
Eighteenth session, (Geneva, 1934), unemployment provision.
Ordinarily I rvould apologize to the house for taking time to read through that complete record, but I think it is all important that this country should understand why some conventions have not been formally approved, and why at this moment the country is being asked to approve five out of that total of nearly one hundred, all of which are quite as important, and most of which are more important than at least three of the number we are being asked to approve this afternoon. I think it is only right that not only this country but

International Labour Conventions
countries throughout the world should know that what has taken place is that when these various conventions have been sent, on the advice of the law officers of the crown, to the lieutenant governors of the different provinces, in most cases it was possible for the provinces to send word to the labour office of the League of Nations that already their requirements have been embodied in legislation which in some cases is far in advance of what is required by the conventions; and there has been no necessity for asking any formal approval. The same thing has been equally true with regard to the legislation enacted by this parliament with respect to many of these matters; the subjects referred to had been anticipated by parliament and w'ere already upon the statutes.
In conclusion let me say that the desirability of having conventions of this kind as widely known and as generally applied as may be possible is perfectly obvious. The *whole purpose of the labour office has been to try to bring about some uniformity of standards between the different countries of the world in the matter of labour legislation, realizing that unless that be done those countries which are highest in their standards will be undermined by countries having lower standards. Canada is fortunately in the position that her standards are high; not as high as they should be, and far from what we hope they will be, but nevertheless relatively and comparatively much better than those of many other countries.


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), and of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) with reference to what in my judgment is one of the most important questions that has come before this parliament since confederation. I am fully conversant with the constitution and policies of the international labour office under the jurisdiction of the League of Nations. I think those interested understand generally that the conventions of the league are not mandatory, but merely sent out to the respective governments for their endorsement and to guide them in setting in motion their policies. I believe that when the history of the league is written the international labour office will stand out in bold relief from any other department of the league in its power for good, in raising the general social status of the working people of every country in the world.
The leader of the opposition quite rightly said that the tendency or driving force is to raise the living conditions and standards

of those countries which are much below our own; those countries in the east, and the eastern part of Europe, which have a tendency to lower the general standards.
But what I am most concerned about is action. The leader of the opposition has said that these conventions have come before this House of Commons before. But to-day, as I understand it, this house is being asked to advance them to a position of realization, of practical application. After all, that is the most important thing. You can bring them before the provincial legislatures and nothing be done. But as I understand it to-day the convention, for instance, in connection with hours of labour-in my judgment it does not go far enough, but that is beside the point-but it can be truthfully said that if the convention is adopted this dominion will be giving leadership to the rest of the British commonwealth, because no British government up to the moment, irrespective of party, has ratified the convention of 1919 with reference to the eight hour day. I think that is a statement of fact, so I welcome the policy of this government.
I am also in agreement to some extent with the position taken by the leader of the opposition, that possibly we have not taken sufficient interest in the league so far as the ratification of these conventions is concerned, but I think it is a fair observation to say that the attitude being taken by the parliament of this country in connection with what I consider to be these very important conventions will give leadership to the world, strengthen the position of the league and add to the influence of the international labour office in its efforts to crystallize world opinion in regard to practices affecting the workers 'both in industry and in agriculture in the various countries. I think in the broadest sense this is a move forward which will help improve the status of the workers, not only in this dominion but also in all the other countries of the commonwealth and, in turn, all the countries of the world.
I am not particularly interested in the legal aspect of the matter. I am not unmindful of its potentiality, but I welcome this evidence that this parliament is endeavouring to meet the needs expressed in these conventions, where those needs are predominantly of a national character, through the instrumentality of this House of Commons. I think it most important that we have some centralization of policy in connection with hours of labour, one day's rest in seven and so on, and that is why I take this attitude. I am willing to take the chance of people using the courts to throw sand in the machinery, because

International Labour Conventions
I think a great step forward has been taken to meet the very pressing problems of the present day in connection with industry and agriculture, in the fact that this parliament has set in motion policies, backed by the conventions of the League of Nations through the international labour office, that will make it possible to take national action on questions that we know in our souls demand such national action. That is why I say that when the history of this dominion is written, if it is proved conclusively that these very important matters come within the purview of this House of Commons it will stand out in bold relief, whether we like it or not. I have made some study of this question;
I have made these few remarks extemporaneously after listening to the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, but I think this action will prove conclusively to the world in general the deep interest taken by the people of this country in the League of Nations and the international labour office which, after all is said and done, was brought into being under the leadership of Sir Robert Borden and others of this dominion. I think Sir Robert Borden's name will go down in history for the part he played in connection with the treaty of Versailles, which set that machinery in motion. In these days, when the policies of the league are sometimes held up to ridicule, I think it well that this House of Commons should give recognition to the influence for good that is possessed by the league, by the adoption of these measures.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer just a
word with regard to some of the observations of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in reference to the real purpose of the resolution now under discussion. My right hon. friend seemed to be in doubt as to whether a resolution for approval of a convention was the same thing as the ratification of a convention. The resolution is for the approval of a certain draft convention submitted to this country under the authority of the League of Nations, or the labour branch of that august body. What is sought by this resolution is the approval by this house of that draft convention. Ratification is another thing altogether; ratification of a convention is the formal act, the final act, and I believe it consists in the signing of the convention or treaty either by the sovereign or by someone deputed by the sovereign for that purpose. All we seek at the present moment is the approval of the House of Commons of this draft convention. After the approval will follow the formal
ratification, and then I submit that the convention becomes part and parcel of the treaty of Versailles, and we are just as fully bound by a convention authorized by that treaty and properly ratified as we are by the other provisions of the treaty.
I mention this in view of the citation by my right hon. friend of an opinion expressed in this house by the late Right Hon. Charles Doherty in 1920, at that time Minister of Justice, and also in view of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on the same question. When the opinion was given in this house by the then Minister of Justice all that we had before parliament was a draft convention which had been adopted at a labour conference held in Washington in 1919, in pursuance of the terms of the treaty of Versailles. At the conference in Washington a draft convention was adopted for submission to the various nations who had signed the treaty of Versailles. In due course that draft convention came before the parliament of Canada, merely as a draft convention, and a question at once arose as to the nature of the obligations, if any, which had been imposed upon the Dominion of Canada by reason of the fact that we had become parties to the treaty of Versailles. The statement made at that time by the then Minister of Justice in my judgment was accurate in every respect as a statement of the law. In 1925 this question and other questions were referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, and in the judgment of that court the opinion given by the former Minister of Justice, Right Hon. Mr. Doherty, was elaborated and sustained. In the judgment of the present right hon. chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada I find this language:
It seems very clear that the duty arising under this clause is not a duty to enact legislation or to promote legislation; it is an undertaking simply to bring the recommendation or draft convention before the competent authority.
There was no other obligation cast upon this parliament merely by the submission of the draft convention. That was the stage the matter had then reached; that was the stage it had reached when the question was referred to the supreme court. But the situation will become entirely different if this parliament sees fit to approve and subsequently to ratify the draft convention. It then will become part and parcel of the treaty of Versailles, and as such I submit with a good deal of confidence it will come within the jurisdiction of this parliament under section 132 of the British North America Act.

International Labour Conventions


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to reserve any remarks I have to make as to the last point raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) until one of the conventions which in my view falls within provincial jurisdiction, namely the eight hour day convention, is taken up further. There can be no doubt that this convention is within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. One of the reasons why this draft convention which was adopted in 1926 has not been approved by this parliament,-although I believe when the Shipping Act adopted last year has been proclaimed it will be part of the law of the country-is that the powers of parliament in matters of shipping were restricted. In 1926 and again in 1929 one of the main reasons we took the stand which ultimately led to the enactment of the Westminster statute was that so far as authority or jurisdiction in shipping matters was concerned Canada was still a crown colony. The provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. which ante dated confederation by thirteen years were almost in their entirety applied to Canada. The Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 gave us the authority or jurisdiction to repeal some of the provisions, so far as their application to Canada was concerned. That authority however applied to only part of the act and our actions had to be approved by the imperial parliament. We were further restricted by the fact that we had no right to enact extraterritorial legislation, and undoubtedly to have full effect our laws relating to shipping must have such extraterritorial jurisdiction. We had no right to enact any law which would be repugnant to an act of the imperial parliament. In point of fact we stated that Canada was placed in an embarrassing position because she had no authority to enact the provisions to which she had pledged herself under conventions relating to shipping at international inferences. Since the Westminster statute >f 1930 this condition has disappeared and rnly last year this parliament enacted a new shipping act embodying the obligations which Canada assumed at the various international inferences regarding shipping. So there is nothing very extraordinary in the resolution before the house. It is within our jurisdiction to act, and in fact we enacted the provisions last year.
There is one observation however I desire to direct, to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is he sure the language of his resolution- and the same language appears in the resolutions following-is correct? He states: "That

it is expedient that parliament do approve" and so on. Have we the right to speak for parliament? We are the House of Commons. I believe we should speak only for the House of Commons, and then a message could be sent to the Senate in order to obtain their approval. I do not think we have yet removed the Senate from our parliamentary system.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of the resolution, and in this instance my support is given unreservedly. Sometimes as I listen to the debates in this chamber I have a feeling that some hon. members are afraid other hon. members may bring in proposals or recommend legislation of a beneficial character. So far as I am concerned I do not care who brings in the legislation, whether it be the government of the day or hon. members of the opposition. All I want to see is good legislation and good law. I believe the adoption of this convention is a step in the right direction and consequently I support it.
I believe the purpose of the international labour organization is to consider ways and means of improving internationally the standard of living of the working classes. They take the various occupations in which the working classes are engaged and set minimum standards for them. I believe the present convention is in that class. In my opinion there could be only one reason why we could or should oppose the draft convention, and it would be that if the standards in Canada concerning a particular occupation were higher than those mentioned in the draft convention it might be more difficult for the dominion to force the regulations. However if we have dominion law covering the point and enforce it I do not think we need have any fear. I believe it essential that w^e should give our approval to these conventions of the labour organization in view of the fact that Canada is a member of that body, and also because to-day we have international rather than national competition. In western Canada, and I speak particularly of British Columbia, we have a great many orientals. Many people seem to feel that the fact we have so many orientals in British Columbia their competition proves detrimental. However I maintain that the competition of the orientals in China and Japan proves a much greater detriment to the people of British Columbia than the competition of the orientals in that province. My reason for making that statement

International Labour Conventions
in this connection is that the standard of living of the oriental and other countries is lower than ours, and anything which can be done to improve that standard and bring it up to ours, or as the case may be bring ours up to theirs, is a movement in the right direction.
Article 22 provides:
At least once in ten years, the governing body of the international labour office shall present to the general conference a report on the working of this convention and shall consider the desirability of placing on the agenda of the conference the question of its revision or modification.
If we approve of this article but find that other countries have not approved or, on the other hand, have approved and are not living up to its terms, we may make a protest at a time of revision of the convention and in that way try still further to improve the standard of living of the working classes the world over.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just before
the Prime Minister speaks on the point that has been raised as to the drafting-this is a point of order, Mr. Speaker-may I say I think the matter would be simplified and the objection fully met if the resolution were worded: "That the house do approve of the convention," placing those words at the very beginning and deleting the words, "That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the convention." I doubt if the house should express an opinion as to what the Senate and the crown should do. We can only speak with respect to ourselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Dealing with the last
question raised by the right lion, gentleman first, it is only necessary to point out that the resolution merely indicates that it is expedient that parliament, that is both houses of parliament, and not dealing with the crown at all for the moment, approve.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It says parliament, not both houses.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know what it says,
and I am advised that this is the form that should be used. My first view was that we should merely say "that the House of Commons do approve," and that is all there would be to it so far as that is concerned; but as it stands. I believe it is the form that has been used on previous occasions, namely, that it is expedient that parliament should do so and so, just as we pass a resolution that it is expedient that some particular form of action
be taken. At one time, for instance, a resolution was passed in this house with respect to home rule. It is quite competent for us to say that it is expedient for parliament to take this or that action. That is my understanding at the moment, but in view of what the right hon. gentleman and the former Minister of Justice have said I shall make further inquiries and satisfy myself on that point before we rise this evening.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the
Prime Minister leaves that, may I draw to his attention that when I introduced an amendment to the motion for supply I was advised by the chair that this house could not give any direction to one of its committees. Now the resolution that I moved merely expressed the opinion that it was desirable that the estimates of a certain department should have priority. If this house cannot give an expression of opinion on what it thinks is desirable for one of its own committees to do, it surely cannot say what it is expedient that parliament and the crown shall do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am rather surprised
that the right hon. gentleman should avail himself of this opportunity to indicate why he is opposing the ruling of the chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not opposing it; I am supporting the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May very clearly lays
down the rule with respect to the committee of supply, which differs entirely from any other committee, and is the distinguishing reason why instructions could not be given, to the committee of supply in that way because supply involves the estimates in detail, as pointed out by May. There is that distinction between giving instructions to an ordinary or special committee and the committee of supply. May makes that point abundantly clear.
I really found it difficult to understand why the right hon. gentleman tsyice this afternoon in incorrect terms referred to a motion that had been adopted yesterday. He said that he could not quite understand why we were discussing some of these matters because parliament had already acted. He could not understand why yesterday and on other days parliament was discussing questions on private members' motions that had already been dealt with by parliament. Now, with all respect, may I point out how erroneous that statement is. The resolution of the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) was



G21 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
International Labour Conventions
that in the opinion of this house the operation of the trade agreements merited the approval of the house. It had nothing to do with the expediency of doing something by the house, but that the operation of the trade treaties merited the approval of the house, which is an entirely different thing.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The same
thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is so entirely different that the mere mention of it carries on its face the conviction that it is so. If we say that it is unwise to do something, and we do it, well and good; but when we say that the results of the operations of the trade agreements have been beneficial, that is entirely different; and the resolution moved by the hon. member for Toronto-Searborough was that the operation of the trade agreements merited the approval of the house.
Dealing with the matter of these conventions, I have only to point out to the right hon. gentleman that I think, if he will inquire he will find there has been much criticism in respect to Canadian action with respect to conventions at Geneva. I am only recording my impressions as I received them on the one occasion I was there. I was ill part of the time but I did discuss the matter with competent authorities, and all my colleagues who had been delegates came back with the same tale, that other countries, because we had accepted certain conventions, could not understand why we did not take further action with respect to them. I know I have explained that the unitary system of government, such as most of those countries have, operates in an entirely different way from the system that we enjoy, and that the distinction between the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures is entirely different from that jurisdiction which is exercised by the central authority in a federated body. I mention that not in any spirit of carping criticism but simply because it had been brought to my attention so frequently, and I thought it desirable merely to mention it, as no doubt it was mentioned to my right hon. friend by those who represented this country at various times at the international labour conferences at Geneva. It was with no intention at all of casting aspersions on my right hon. friend and his government in dealing with these matters, because I was well aware of the fact that in 1919 and 1920 when this matter was new, after the Washington conference, there was a difference of opinion among eminent jurists as to what action should be taken and a difference of opinion among members of the cabinet who 
happened to be of the legal profession, and finally action was taken referring the question to the Supreme Court of Canada, to determine where the jurisdiction of the province ended and that of the dominion began. I shall have something further to say about that presently in the light of later decisions by the privy council.
All I desire to say with respect to this particular convention is that it was thought desirable for reasons that I think are apparent on the face of it that this action should be taken, for last session we legislated with respect to a part of the matter, and the statute comes into force by proclamation, because it was a statute that it was hoped would have universal application in all parts of the British commonwealth. The hon. former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will recall that with the assistance of one of his colleagues and professional assistance from Nova Scotia, certain conclusions were arrived at in London in 1929, and the hope was expressed that we would have some form of established law relating to shipping throughout the entire British commonwealth. We have passed our statute. We have not brought one part of it into force because certain other dominions have not yet legislated with respect to the matter. But in the meantime, as these sections will not become operative until the act is proclaimed, we thought it was desirable to approve of this convention, and the house is therefore now being asked to take that action to-day. It is solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. There is no question about it because as the former Minister of Justice said, laws with respect to navigation and shipping are solely within the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament.
Therefore, without going further into the matter, because I propose to discuss some of the other resolutions at some length, I make this motion, and if there is any question as to its form I shall have it looked into again at six o'clock, and if it is thought that the suggestion which the right hon. gentleman has made better meets the situation I shall make the necessary motion to permit it to be done.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the convention concerning the

International Labour Conventions
marking of the weight on heavy packages transported by vessels adopted as a draft convention by the general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations at its twelfth session in Geneva on the 21st day of June, 1929, reading as follows: - Convention Concerning the Marking of the Weight on Heavy Packages Transported by Vessels
The general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations,
Having been convened at Geneva by the governing body of the international labour office, and having met in its twelfth session on 30th May, 1929, and
Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to the marking of the weight on heavy packages transported by vessels, which is included in the first item of the agenda of the session, and
Having determined that these proposals shall take the form of a draft international convention,
adopts, this twenty-first day of June of the year one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine, the following draft convention for ratification by the members of the international labour organization, in accordance with the provisions of part XIII of the treaty of Versailles and of the corresponding parts of the other treaties of peace:
Article 1.-Any package or object of one thousand kilograms (one metric ton) or more gross weight consigned within the territory of any member which ratifies this convention for transport by sea or inland waterway shall have had its gross weight plainly and durably marked upon it on the outside before it is loaded on a ship or vessel.
In exceptional cases where it is difficult to determine the exact weight, national laws or regulations may allow an approximate weight to be marked.
The obligation to see that this requirement is observed shall rest solely upon the government of the country from which the package or object is consigned, and not on the government of a country through which it passes on the way to its destination.
It shall be left to national laws or regulations to determine whether the obligation for having the weight marked as aforesaid shall fall on the consignor or on some other person or body.
Article 2.-The formal ratifications of this convention under the conditions set forth in Part XIII of the treaty of Versailles and in the corresponding parts of the other treaties of peace shall be communicated to the secretary-general of the League of Nations for registration.
Article 3.-This convention shall be binding only upon those members whose ratifications have been registered with the secretariat.
It shall come into force twelve months after the date on which the ratifications of two members of the international labour organization have been registered with the secretary-general.
Thereafter, this convention shall come into force for any member twelve months after the date on which its ratification has been registered.
Article 4.-As soon as the ratification of two members of the international labour organization have been registered with the secretariat, the secretary-general of the League of Nations
shall so notify all the members of the international labour organization. He shall likewise notify them of the registration of ratifications which may be communicated subsequently by other members of the organization.
Article 5.-A member which has ratified this convention may denounce it after the expiration of ten years from the date on -which the convention first comes into force, by an act communicated to the secretary-general of the League of Nations for registration. Such denunciation shall not take effect until one year after the date on which it is registered with the secretariat.
Each member which has ratified this convention and which does not. within the year following the expiration of the period of ten years mentioned in the preceding paragraph, exercise the right of denunciation provided for in this article, will be bound for another period of ten years and, thereafter, may denounce this convention at the expiration of each period' of ten years under the terms provided for in this article.
Article 6.-At the expiration of each period of ten years after the coming into force of this convention, the governing body of the international labour office shall present to the general conference a report on the working of this convention and shall consider the desirability of placing on the agenda of the conference the question of its revision in whole or in part.
Article 7.-Should the conference adopt a new convention revising this convention in whole or in part, the ratification by a member of the new revising convention shall ipso jure involve denunciation of this convention without any requirement of delay, notwithstanding the provisions of article 5 above, if and when the new revising convention shall have come into force.
As from the date of the coming into force of the new revising convention, the present convention shall cease to be open to ratification by the members.
Nevertheless, this convention shall remain in force in its actual form and content for those members which have ratified it but have not ratified the revising convention.
Article 8.-The French and English texts of this convention shall both be authentic,
and that this house do approve of the same.
He said: I think it well to place upon the record the dates on which this convention was ratified, not approved, by the various states represented at Geneva:
Union of South Africa-February 21, 1933.
Australia-March 9, 1931.
Belgium-June 6. 1934.
Chile-May 31, 1933.
China-June 24, 1931.
Czechoslovakia-March 26, 1934.
Denmark-January 18. 1933.
Estonia-January 18, 1932.
Finland-August 8. 1932.
Germany-July 5, 1933.
Irish Free State-July 5, 1930.
India-September 7, 1931.
Italy-July 18. 1933.
Japan

March 16, 1931.

International Labour Conventions

Luxemburg-April 1, 1931.
Mexico-May 12, 1934.
The Netherlands-January 4, 1933.
Nicaragua-April 21, 1934.
Norway-July 1. 1932.
Poland-June 18, 1932.
Portugal-March 1, 1932.
Roumania-December 7, 1932.
Spain-August 29, 1932.
Sweden-April 11, 1932.
Uruguay-June 6, 1933.
Venezuela-December 17, 1932.
Jugoslavia-April 22, 1933.
The substantial provisions of the convention will be embodied in our Canada Shipping Act, which was passed last session, particularly in section 468, when it comes into force, and for the reasons I mentioned with respect to the seamen's articles of agreement, I suggest that this convention, which provides for marking on heavy packages weighing more than a ton the exact weight in order that the handling of such packages may be done with the least possible danger to those engaged in the work of unloading ships, should be approved by the house.


Ernest Lapointe: With regard to this convention, the authority to deal with the subject matter of the convention under the peace treaty is clearly the parliament of Canada, and we have no objection to the approval asked for by the resolution, but my remarks on the previous resolution apply to this one also.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is is expedient that parliament do approve of the convention concerning the protection against accidents of workers employed in loading or unloading ships (revised 1932) adopted as a draft convention by the general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations at its sixteenth session in Geneva on the 12th day of April, 1932, reading as follows:


Ernest Lapointe: What I said with regard to the previous resolutions applies to this one.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: That, it is expedient that parliament do approve of the convention concerning the application of the weekly rest in industrial undertakings adopted as a draft convention by the general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations at its third session in Geneva on the 17th day of November. 1921, reading as follows:- Convention Concerning the Application of the Weekly Rest in Industrial Undertakings
I Mr. Bennett.]
The general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations,
Having been convened at Geneva by the governing body of the international labour office, and having met in its third session on 25 October 1921. and
Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to the weekly rest day in industrial employment, which in included in the seventh item of the agenda of the session, and
Having determined that these proposals shall take the form of a draft international convention,
adopts the following draft convention for ratification by the members of the international labour organization, in accordance with the provisions of part XIII of the treaty of Versailles and of the corresponding parts of the other treaties of peace:
Article 1.-For the purpose of this convention, the term "industrial undertakings" includes:
(a)	Mines, quarries, and other works for the extraction of minerals from the earth.
(b)	Industries in which articles are manufactured, altered, cleaned, repaired, ornamented, finished, adapted for sale, broken up or demolished. or in which materials are transformed; including shipbuilding and the generation, transformation and transmission of electricity or motive power of any kind.
(c)	Construction, reconstruction, maintenance. repair, alteration, or demolition of any building, railway, tramway, harbour, dock, pier, canal, inland waterway, road, tunnel, bridge, viaduct, sewer, drain, well, telegraphic or telephonic installation, electrical undertaking, gas work, waterwork, or other work of construction, as well as the preparation for or laying the foundations of any such work or structure.
(d)	Transport of passengers or goods by road, or inland waterway, including the handling of goods at docks, quays, wharves or warehouses, but excluding transport by hand.
This definition shall be subject to the special national exceptions contained in the Washington convention limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week, so far as such exceptions are applicable to the present convention.
Where necessary, in addition to the above enumeration, each Member may define the line of division which separates industry from commerce and agriculture.
Article 2.-The whole of the staff employed in any industrial undertaking, public or private, or in any branch thereof shall, except as otherwise provided for by the following articles, enjoy in every period of seven days a period of rest comprising at least twenty-four consecutive hours.
This period of rest shall, wherever possible, be granted simultaneously to the whole of the staff of each undertaking.
It shall, wherever possible, be fixed so as to coincide with the days already established by the traditions or customs of the country or district.
Article 3.-Each member may except from the application' of the provisions of article 2 persons employed in industrial undertakings in which only the members of one single family are employed.
Article 4.-Each member may authorize total or partial exceptions (including suspensions or diminutions) from the provisions of article 2,

International Labour Conventions
special regard being had to all proper humanitarian and economic considerations and after consultation with responsible associations of employers and workers, wherever such exist.
Such consultation shall not be necessary in the case of exceptions which have already been made under existing legislation.
Article 5.-Each member shall make, as far as possible, provision for compensatory periods of rest for the suspensions or diminutions made in virtue of article 4, except in cases where agreements or customs already provide for such periods.
Article 6.-Each member will draw up a list of the exceptions made under articles 3 and 4 of this convention and will communicate it to the international labour office, and thereafter in every second year any modifications of his list which shall have been made.
The international labour office will present a report on this subject to the general conference of the international labour organization.
Article 7.-In order to facilitate the application of the provisions of this convention each employer, director, or manager, shall be obliged:
(a) Where the weekly rest is given to the whole of the staff collectively, to make known such days and hours of collective rest by means of notices posted conspicuously in the establishment or any other convenient place, or in any other manner approved by the government.
(b)	Where the rest period is not granted to the whole of the staff collectively, to make known, by means of a roster drawn up in accordance with the method approved by the legislation of the country, or by a regulation of the competent authority, the workers or employees subject to a special system of rest, and to indicate that system.
Article 8.-The formal ratifications of this convention under the conditions set forth in Part XIII of the treaty of Versailles and of the corresponding parts of the other treaties of peace, shall be communicated to the secretary-general of the League of Nations for registration.
Article 9.-This convention shall come into force at the date on which the ratifications of two members of the international labour organization have been registered by the secretary-general.
It shall be binding only upon those members whose ratifications have been registered with the secretariat.	.
Thereafter, the convention shall come into force for any member at the date on which its ratification has been registered with the secretariat.
Article 10.-As soon as the ratifications of two members of the international labour organization have been registered with the secretariat, the secretary-general of the League of Nations shall so notify all the members of the international labour organization. He shall likewise notify them of the registration of ratifications which may be communicated^ subsequently by other members of the organiza-i tion.	_	.	.
Article 11.-Each member which ratifies this convention agrees to bring the provisions of articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 into operation not later than 1st January, 1924, and to take such action as may be necessary to make these provisions effective.
Article 12.-Each member of the international labour organization which ratifies this convention engages to apply it to its colonies, possessions and protectorates, in accordance with the provisions of article 421 of the treaty of Versailles and of the corresponding articles of the other treaties of peace.
Article 13.-A member which has ratified this convention may denounce it after the expiration of ten years from the date on which the convention first comes into force, by an act communicated to the secretary-general of the League of Nations for registration. Such denunciation shall not take effect until one year after the date on which it is registered with the secretariat.
Article 14.-At least once in ten years, the governing body of the international labour office shall present to the general conference a report on the working of this convention and shall consider the desirability of placing on the agenda of the conference the question of its revision or modification.
Article 15.-The French and English texts of this convention shall both be authentic and that this house do approve of the same.
He said:	This draft convention, adopted
at the third session of the international labour organization of the League of Nations on November 17, 1921, has been ratified by appropriate action by the following countries', the dates of ratification being indicated as I proceed:
Belgium-July 19. 1926.
Bulgaria-March 6. 1925.
Chile-September 15. 1925.
China-May 17, 1934.
Colombia-June 20, 1933.
Czechoslovakia-August 31. 1923.
Estonia-November 29. 1923.
Finland-June 19, 1923.
France-September 3. 1926.
Greece-May 11, 1929.	.
India-May 11, 1923.
Irish Free State-July 22, 1930.
Italy

September 6, 1924.
Latvia-September 9. 1924.
Lithuania-June 9, 1931.
Luxemburg-April 16, 1928.
Nicaragua-April 12. 1934.
Poland-June 21, 1924.
Portugal-July 3. 1928.
Rou mania-August 16, 1923.
Spain-June 20. 1924.
Sweden-December 22. 1931.
Uruguay-June 6, 1933.
Jugoslavia-April 1, 1927.
If it would better suit the convenience of the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who proposes to discuss the legal phases of these resolutions, I would defer discussion un-1 til we come to the one dealing with the forty-teight hour week, noting the hon. gentle-Rman's objection, and proceeding with this Bwithout discussion. I would note that his views are as indicated.
g Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East): 1 agree with the suggestion of the Prime Min-
Bister except to say, with respect to this one,

International Labour Conventions
that we had already national legislation regarding the Lord's Day, chapter 123 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, and when this convention was adopted at Geneva Canada was far ahead, I should say, of almost all the countries with regard to legislation of this kind. The Lord's Day Act makes it unlawful for workmen to work and for employers to make workmen work during the twenty-four hours from midnight on Saturday to midnight on Sunday, and there is a special provision that when, because of emergency or because of a special kind of work to be done, workmen have to be employed on Sunday, the employer under the law must give those who work in that way another twenty-four hours of rest during the following week. So with that reservation I have no objection.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to add just a word to what the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has said by way of drawing the attention of the house to the manner in wffiich the labour office of the league . had been advised of the approval by the government of Canada of this convention. This convention was passed at the third international labour conference at Geneva in 1921. When the matter was sent by the labour office to Ottawa, the Hon. Sir Lomer Gouin, who was Minister of Justice at the time, brought the matter before the cabinet with a recommendation which was subsequently passed on June 27, 1922, as an order in council. In that order the following appears:
So far as Canada is concerned, the draft convention and recommendation look to securing the twenty-four hour rest period on the Lord's Day, which is customarily, and by law required to be, observed throughout the dominion as a day of rest, and therefore, they involve legislation relating to criminal law, which is a subject within the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada. The Lord's Day Act (R.S.C., chap. 153) contains the existing legislation on this subject.
I am quoting the order in council from a record which appears in the Labour Gazette for July, 1922. The Gazette also sets forth the manner in which the authorities at Geneva were advised of the approval by the government of Canada of this convention. It was by sending to Geneva a copy of the order in council which was passed stating that this legislation was already on the statute books of this country. I have thought it well to add this much in order to make it clear that the authorities at Geneva were duly advised of the existing legislation and of the approval of the government of Canada in regard to that convention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just in answer to one question, I am familiar with the fact to which the right hon. gentleman has referred, w'ith the provisions of the Lord's Day Act to be embodied in a statute founded on the approval of this convention. But the Lord's Day Act does not go quite as far as this convention does in connection with cases in which the day of rest could not be the Lord's Day. For instance, I know of cases that came to my attention within the last few months in which men have been working continuously seven days a week without any day of rest and this convention does not contemplate that being done. Intimation of the existing legislation has been given to the international labour office as the right hon. gentleman has said, in more than one case. In fact, sometimes when during my tenure of office cables have come for information relating to a particular matter one is able to refer to statutes in one's own statute books, but it does not come within either approval or ratification so far as the convention itself is concerned if there is a difference in details between the convention and our legislation, and in order that there may be no question we have gone a step further than merely advising them; we have asked the approval of this house to this draft convention.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: That, it is expedient that parliament do approve of the convention limiting the hours of work in industiial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week adopted as a draft convention by the general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations at its first session in Washington on the 28th day of November, 1919, reading as follows:
Convention Limiting the Hours of Work in Industrial Undertakings to Eight in the Day and Forty-eight in the Week The general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations,
Having been convened at Washington by the government of the United States of America, on the 29th day of October, 1919, and
Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to the "application of the principle of the 8 hour day or of the 48 hour week," which is the first item in the *agenda for the Washington meeting of the conference, and
Having determined that these proposals shall take the form of a draft international convention,

International Labour Conventions
adopts the following draft convention for ratification by the members of the international labour organization, in accordance with the labour part of the treaty of Versailles of 28 June, 1919, and of the treaty of St. Germain of 10 September, 1919:
Article 1.-For the purpose of this convention, the term "industrial undertaking" includes particularly:
(a)	Mines, quarries, and other works for the extraction of minerals from the earth.
(b)	Industries in which articles are manufactured, altered, cleaned, repaired, ornamented, finished, adapted for sales, broken up or demolished, or in which materials are transformed; including shipbuilding and the generation, transformation, and transmission of electricity or motive power of any kind.
(c)	Construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, alteration, or demolition of any building, railway, tramway, harbour, dock, pier, canal, inland waterway, road, tunnel, bridge, viaduct, sewer, drain, well, telegraphic or telephonic installation, electrical undertaking, gas work, waterwork or other work of construction, as well as the preparation for or laying the foundations of any such work or structure.
(d)	Transport of passengers or goods by road, rail, sea or inland waterway, including the handling of goods at docks, quays, wharves or warehouses, but excluding transport by hand.
The provisions relative to transport by sea and on inland waterways shall be determined by a special conference dealing with employment at sea and on inland waterways.
The competent authority in each country shall define the line of division which separates industry from commerce and agriculture.
Article 2.-The working hours of persons employed in any public or private undertaking or in any branch thereof, other than an undertaking in which only members of the same family are employed, shall not exceed eight in the day and forty-eight in the week, with the exceptions hereinafter provided for.
(a)	The provisions of this convention shall not apply to persons holding positions of supervision or management, nor to persons employed in a confidential capacity.
(b)	Where by law, custom, or agreement between employers' and worked organizations, or, where no such organizations exist, between employers' and workers' representatives, the hours of work on one or more days of the week are less than eight, the limit of eight hours may be exceeded on the remaining day6 of the week by the sanction of the competent public authority, or by agreement between such organizations or representatives; provided, however, that in no case under the provisions of this paragraph shall the daily limit of eight hours be exceeded by more than one hour.
(c)	Where persons are employed in shifts it shall be permissible to employ persons in excess of eight hours in any one day and forty-eight hours in any one week, if the average number of hours over a period of three weeks or less does not exceed eight per day and forty-eight per week.
Article 3.-The limit of hours of work prescribed in article 2 may be exceeded in case of accident, actual or threatened, or in case of urgent work to be done to machinery or plant, or in case of "force majeure," but only so far as may be necessary to avoid serious interference with the ordinary working of the undertaking.
Article 4.-The limit of hours of work prescribed in article 2 may also be exceeded in those processes which are required by reason of the nature of the process to be carried on continuously by a succession of shifts, subject to the condition that the working hours shall not exceed fifty-six in the week on the average. Such regulation of the hours of work shall in no case affect any rest days which may be secured by the national law to the workers in such processes in compensation for the weekly rest day.
Article 5.-In exceptional cases where it is recognized that the provisions of article 2 cannot be applied, but only in such cases, agreeimente between workers' and employers' organizations concerning the daily limit of work over a longer period of time may be given the force of regulations, if the government, to which these agreements shall be submitted, so decides.
The average number of hours worked per week, over the number of weeks covered by any such agreement shall not exceed forty-eight.
Article 6.-Regulations made by public authority shall determine for industrial undertakings:
(a)	The permanent exceptions that may be allowed in preparatory or complementary work which must necessarily be carried on outside the limits laid down for the general working of an establishment, or for certain classes of workers whose work is essentially intermittent.
(b)	The temporary exceptions that may be allowed, so that establishments may deal with exceptional cases of pressure of work.
These regulations shall be made only after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned, if any such organizations exist. These regulations shall fix the maximum of additional hours in each instance, and the rate of pay for overtime shall not be less than one and one-quarter times the regular rate.
Article 7.-Each government shall communicate to the international labour office:
(a)	A list of the processes which are classed as being necessarily continuous in character under article 4;
lb) hull information as to working of the agreements mentioned in article 5; and
IcJ hull information concerning the regulations made under article 6 and their application.
The international labour office shall make an annual report thereon to the general conference of the international labour Organization.
Article 8.-In order to facilitate the enforcement of the provisions of this convention, every employer shall be required:
la) To notify by means of the posting of notices in conspicuous places in the works or other suitable place, or by such other method as may be approved by the government, the hours at which work begins and ends, and where work is carried on by shifts, the hours at which each shift begins and ends. These hours shall be so fixed that the duration of the work shall not exceed the limits prescribed by this convention, and when so notified they shall not be changed except with such notice and in such manner as may be approved by the government.
(b)	To notify in the same way such rest intervals accorded during the period of work as are not reckoned as part of the working hours.
(c)	To keep a record in the form prescribed by law or regulation in each country of all additional hours worked in pursuance of articles 3 and 6 of this convention.

International Labour Conventions
It shall be made an offence against the law to employ any person outside the hours fixed in accordance with paragraph (a), or during the intervals fixed in accordance with paragraph (b).
Article 9.-In the application of this convention to Japan the following modifications and conditions shall obtain:
(a)	The term "industrial undertaking" includes particularly-	_
The undertakings enumerated in paragraph
(a) of article 1;	_
The undertakings enumerated in paragraph
(b)	of article 1, provided there are at least ten workers employed;
The undertakings enumerated in paragraph
(c)	of article 1, in so far as these undertakings shall be defined as "factories'' by the competent authority;
The undertakings enumerated in paragraph
(d)	of article 1, except transport of passengers or goods by road, handling of goods at docks, quays, wharves, and warehouses, and transport by hand; and,
Regardless of the number of persons employed, such of the undertakings enumerated in paragraphs (b) and (c) of article 1 as may be declared by the competent authority either to be highly dangerous or to involve unhealthy processes.
(b)	The actual working hours of persons of fifteen years of age or over in any public or private industrial undertaking, or in any branch thereof, shall not exceed fifty-seven in the week, except that in the raw-silk industry the limit may be sixty hour's in the week.
(c)	The actual working hours of persons under fifteen years of age in any public or private industrial undertaking, or in any branch thereof, and of all miners of whatever age engaged in underground work in the mines, shall in no case exceed forty-eight in the week.
(d)	The limit of hours of work may be modified under the conditions provided for in articles 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this convention, but in no case shall the length of such modification boar to the length of the basic week a proportion greater than that which obtains in those articles.
(e)	A weekly rest period of twenty-four consecutive hours shall be allowed to all classes of workers.
(f)	The provision in Japanese factory legislation limiting its application to places employing fifteen or more persons shall l>e amended so that such legislation shall apply to places employing ten or more persons.
(g)	The provisions of the above paragraphs of this article shall be brought into operation not later than 1 July, 1922, except that the provisions of article 4 as modified by paragraph
(d)	of this article shall be brought into operation not later than 1 July, 1923.
(h) The age of fifteen prescribed in paragraph (c) of this article shall be raised, not later than 1 July, 1925, to sixteen.
Article 10.-In British India the principle of a sixty-hour week shall be adopted for all workers in the industries at present covered by the factory acts administered by the government of India, in mines, and in such branches of railway work as shall be specified foe this purpose by the competent authority. Any modification of this limitation made by the competent authority shall be subject to the provisions of articles 6 and 7 of this convention. In other respects the provisions of this convention shall 
not apply to India, but further provisions limiting the hours of work in India shall be considered at a future meeting of the general conference.
Article 11.-The provisions of this convention shall not apply .to China, Persia, and Siam, but provisions limiting the hours of work in these countries shall be considered at a future meeting of the general conference.
Article 12.-In the application of this convention to Greece, the date at which its provisions shall be brought into operation in accordance with article 19 may be extended to not later than 1 July, 1923. in the case of the following industrial undertakings:
(1)	Carbon-bisulphide works,
(2)	Acid works,
(3)	Tanneries,
(4)	Paper mills,
(5)	Printing works,
(6)	Sawmills,
(7)	Warehouses for the handling and preparation of tobacco.
(8)	Surface mining,
(9)	Foundries,
(10)	Lime works,
(11)	Dye works,
(12)	Glassworks (blowers),
113) Gas works (firemen),
(14) Loading and unloading merchandise; and to not later than 1 July, 1924, in the case of the following industrial undertakings:
(1)	Mechanical industries:	Machine shops
for engines, safes, scales, beds, tacks, shells (sporting), iron foundries, bronze foundries, tin shops, plating shops, manufactories of hydraulic apparatus;
(2)	Constructional industries:	Lime-kilns,
cement works, plasterers' shops, tile yards, manufactories of bricks and pavements, potteries, marble yards, excavating and building works;	.
(3)	Textile industries: Spinning and weaving mills of all kinds, except dye works;
(4)	Food industries: Flour and grist-mills, bakeries, macaroni factories, manufactories of wines, alcohol, and drinks, oil works, breweries, manufactories of ice and carbonated drinks, manufactories of confectioners' products and chocolate, manufactories of sausages and preserves, slaughterhouses, and butcher shops;
(5)	Chemical industries:	Manufactories of
synthetic colours, glassworks (except the blowers), manufactories of essence of turpentine and tartar, manufactories of oxygen and pharmaceutical products, manufactories of flaxseed oil, manufactories of glycerine, manufactories of calcium carbide, gas works (except the firemen) ;
(6)	Leather industries: Shoe factories, manufactories of leather goods;
(7)	Paper and printing industries: Manufactories of envelopes, record books, boxes, bags, Ixiokbinding, lithographing, and zinc-engraving shops;
(8)	Clothing industries: Clothing shops, underwear and trimmings, workshops for pressing, workshops for bed coverings, artificial flowers, feathers, and trimmings, hat and umbrella factories;
(9)	Woodworking industries: Joiners' shops, coopers' sheds, wagon factories, manufactories of furniture and chairs, picture-framing establishments, brush and broom factories;
(10)	Electrical industries:	Power houses,
shops for electrical installations;
(11)	Transportation by land: Employees on railroads and street cars, firemen, drivers, and carters.

International Labour Conventions
Article 13-In the application of this convention to Roumania the date at which its provisions shall be brought into operation in accordance with article 19 may be extended to not later than 1 July, 1924.
Article 14-The operation of the provisions of this convention may be suspended in any country by the government in the event of war or other emergency endangering the national safety.
Article 15-The formal ratifications of this convention, under the conditions set forth in part XII1 of the Treaty of Versailles of 28 June, 1919, and of the Treaty of St. Germain of 10 September, 1919, shall be communicated to the secretary general of the League of Nations for registration.
Article 16-Each member of the international labour organization which ratifies this convention engages to apply it to its colonies, i>roteeto-rates and possessions which are not fully selfgoverning:-
(a)	Except where owing to the local conditions its provisions are inapplicable; or
(b)	Subject to such modifications as may be necessary to adapt its provisions to local conditions.
Each member shall notify to the international labour office the action taken in respect of each of its colonies, protectorates, and possessions which are not fully self-governing.
Article 17-As soon as the ratification of two members of the international labour organization have been registered with the secretariat, general of the League of Nations shall so notify all the members of the international labour organization.
Article 18-This convention shall come into fore? at the date on which such notification is issued by the secretary general of the League of Nations, and it shall then be binding only upon those members which have registered their ratifications with the secretariat. Thereafter this convention will come into force for any other member at the date on which its ratification is registered with the secretariat.
Article 19-Each member which ratifies this convention agrees to bring its provisions into operation not later than 1 July, 1921. and to take such action as may be necessary to make these provisions effective.
Article 20-A member which has ratified this convention may denounce it after the expiration of ten years from the date on which the convention first comes into force, by an act communicated to the secretary general of the League of Nations for registration. Such denunciation shall not take effect until one year after the date on which it is registered with the secretariat.
Article 21-At least once in ten years the governing body of the international labour office shall present to the general conference a report on the working of this convention, and shall consider the desirability of placing on the agenda of the conference the question of its revision or modification.
Article 22.-The French and English texts of this convention shall both be authentic, and that this house do approve of the same.
He said: I gather from the observations which have been made by my hon. friends opposite that they question the jurisdiction of this house to deal with this matter. I therefore shall take some little time to communicate to the house why in the judgment
of the government there is no question at all as to the position which we occupy. If I thought we were doubtful, I would at once admit that, but I do not think the question is even doubtful.
That convention to limit the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week was adopted as a draft convention by the international labour conference at its first session on November 28, 1919. Since that date at the registry at the league office in Geneva ratifications have been deposited by the following countries on the dates indicated:
County-Date:
Austria-June 12. 1924.
Argentine Republic-November 30, 1933. Belgium-September 6. 1926.
Bulgaria-February 14. 1922.
Chile-September 15. 1925.
Colombia-June 20, 1933.
Czechoslovakia-August 24, 1921.
Dominican Republic-February 4, 1933.
France-June 2. 1927.
Greece-November 19, 1920.
India-July 14. 1921.
Italy-October 6. 1924.
Latvia-August 15. 1925.
Lithuania-June 19. 1931.
Luxemburg-August 16. 1928.
Nicaragua-April 12, 1934.
Portugal-July 3, 1928.
Roumania-June 13, 1921.
Spain-February 22, 1929.
Uruguay-June 6. 1933.
I assume it is not necessary for me to remind the house that the press has indicated from time to time that in the United Kingdom discussions in regard to a shorter than forty-eight hour week have been going on for some time and legislation may not be improbable. I merely mention that in passing. The labour unions of course are able to do much to enforce that decision in Great Britain.
It is desirable perhaps to indicate at some length the exact processes by which the government has solved the problem of jurisdiction. Article 23 of the peace treaty concluded at Versailles on June 28, 1919, provides that:
Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon, the members of the league:
(a) will endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women and children, both in their own countries and in nil countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend, and for that purpose will establish and maintain the necessary international organizations; .
The next subdivision deals with native inhabitants; the next;
(c)	will entrust the league with the general supervision over the execution of agreements with regard to the traffic in women and

International Labour Conventions
children, and the traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs;
(e)	will make provision to secure and maintain freedom of communications. . . .
And the control of disease. That is all I have to say with respect to that particular article, article 23 of part 1. That of course is part of the covenant of the league.
Then if we turn to part XIII of the peace treaty, which deals with labour, we find that section I deals with-
Organization of Labour Whereas the League of Nations has for its object the establishment of universal peace, and such a peace can be established only if it is based on social justice;
And whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled; and an improvement of those conditions is urgently required; as. for example, by the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum working day and week, the regulation of the labour supply, the prevention of unemployment, the provision of an adequate living wage, the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employment, the protection of children, young persons and women, provision for old age and injury, protection of the interests of workers when employed in countries other than their own. recognition of the principle of freedom of association, the organization of vocational and technical education and other measures;
Whereas also the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in their own countries;
The	high contracting	parties,	moved	by
sentiments of justice and humanity, as well as by the desire to secure the permanent peace of the world, agree to the following:
Then	follows chapter 1,	which	creates	the
organization.
A permanent organization is hereby established	for the promotion	of the	objects	set
forth in the preamble.
The	original members	of the	League	of
Nations shall be the original members of this organization, and hereafter membership in the League of Nations shall carry with it membership of the said organization.
Article 388
The permanent organization shall consist of:
(1)	a general conference of representatives of the members and,
(2)	an international labour office controlled by the governing body described in article 393.
Then follow provisions for meetings, and the methods by which representatives are sent to the meetings representing both labour and capital, employers and employees. We have always been represented at such gatherings. Then we come to the article dealing with draft conventions, which has already been in 
part quoted this afternoon by the right hon. leader of the opposition, it being article 405. And I direct particular attention to these words, in view of what I am about to say;
In the case of a draft convention, the member will, if it obtains the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, communicate the formal ratification of the convention to the secretary-general and will take such action as may be necessary to make effective the provisions of such convention.
If on a recommendation no legislative or other ation is taken to make a recommendation effective, or if the draft convention fails to obtain the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, no further obligation shall rest upon the member.
In the case of a federal state, the power of which to enter into conventions on labour matters is subject to limitations, it shall be in the discretion of that government to treat a draft convention to which such limitations apply as a recommendation only, and the provisions of this article with respect to recommendations shall apply in such case.
The above article shall be interpreted in according with the following principle:
In no case shall any member be asked or required', as a result of the adoption of any recommendation or draft convention by the conference, to lessen the protection afforded by its existing legislation to the workers concerned.
It was to that provision that I referred a moment ago.
Now, sir, bearing in mind that article and a further article, namely 427, we submit with complete confidence that this is within the legislative competence of the parliament of Canada. Article 427 sets forth the general principles that govern, and reads as follows:
The high contracting parties, recognizing that the well-being, physical, moral and intellectual, of industrial wage-earners is of supreme international importance, have framed, in order to further this great end, the permanent machinery provided for in section 1 and' associated with that of the League of Nations.
They recognize that differences of climate, habits and customs, of economic opportunity and industrial tradition, make strict uniformity in the conditions of labour difficult of immediate attainment. But, holding as they do, that labour should not be regarded merely as an article of commerce, they think that there are methods and principles for regulating labour conditions which all industrial communities should endeavour to apply, so far as their special circumstances will permit.
Among these method's and principles, the following seem to the high contracting parties to be of special and urgent importance:
First-The guiding principle above enunciated that labour should not be regarded merely as a commodity or article of commerce.
Second-The right of association for all lawful purposes by the employed as well as by the employers.

International Labour Conventions
Third-The payment to the employed of a wage adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of life as this is understood in their time and country.
Fourth-The adoption of an eight hour day or a forty-eight hour week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been attained.
Fifth-The adoption of a weekly rest of at least twenty-four hours, which should include Sunday wherever practicable.
Sixth-The abolition of child labour and the imposition of such limitations on the labour of young persons as shall permit the continuation of their education and assure their proper physical development.
Seventh-The principle that men and women should receive equal remuneration for work of equal value.
Eighth-The standard set by law in each country with respect to the conditions of labour should have due regard to the equitable economic treatment of all workers lawfully resident therein.
Ninth-Each state should make provision for a system of inspection in which women should take part, in order to ensure the enforcement of the laws and regulations for the protection of the employed.
Without claiming that these methods and principles are either complete or final, the high contracting parties arc of opinion that they are well fitted to guide the policy of the League of Nations; and that, if adopted by the industrial communities who are members of the league, and safeguarded in practice by an adequate system of such inspection, they will confer lasting benefits upon the wage-earners of the world.
Now I direct attention to the language I have just read, because it is an agreement to which Canada became a signatory, a party. The treaty of peace is stated to have been entered into between the associated and allied powers and the countries named; the United States of America, the British empire, France, Italy and Japan, these powers being described in the present treaty as the principal allied and associated powers; Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, the Hedjaz, Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, The Scrb-Croat-Slovene State, Siam, Czechoslovakia and Uruguay; these powers constituting with the principal powers mentioned above the allied and associated powers, on the one part; and Germany on the other part.
The signatures to the treaty are in the terms I mentioned the other day; namely, the British empire signed through representatives that appeared on her behalf when the treaty was concluded. I think I should mention that in order that there may be no apprehension with respect to it as we proceed. The words from the opening of the treaty with respect to the British empire are as follows:
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland of the British dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, by:
The Right Honourable David Lloyd George, M.P.. First Lord of His Treasury and Prime Minister;
The Right Honourable Andrew Bonar Law, M.P., Ilis Lord Privy Seal; _
The Right Honourable Viscount Milner, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., His Secretary of State for the Colonies;
The Right Honourable Arthur James Balfour,
O.M., M.P., His Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs;
The Right Honourable George Nicoll Barnes, M.P., Minister without Portfolio;
And, for the Dominion of Canada, by the Honourable Charles Joseph Doherty, Minister of Justice, and the Honourable Arthur Lewis Sifton, Minister of Customs.
Then follow the signatures on behalf of Australia, the Union of South Africa, New Zealand and India. So, as far as we are concerned, we'signed this treaty from which I have read extracts as part of the British empire.
It is important to bear in mind that an international treaty not only involves the acceptance of obligations; it must be taken to confer benefits as well. The obligations are with respect to other countries; the privileges are the benefits that, by the signature of other countries, we enjoy in consequence of their having become parties to the treaty. So there is a measure of mutuality and benefit conferred on each country by all the others, and when you have an important treaty, an international obligation signed by practically all the nations of the world in the manner in which this treaty was signed, conferring benefits, privileges and advantages by each country upon the other, with each country on the other hand accepting the obligations and responsibilities that are incident to the execution of such a document, you should have practically an ideal instrument so far as international relations are concerned.
I pointed out that there was a clear recognition on the part of those who made the treaty that there were varjdng forms of government in the countries of the world. The unitary form of government presented no difficulties, for the parliament of that particular country could deal with every matter that might arise for consideration. For instance, the parliament of the United Kingdom deals with matters touching the water works of cities such as Birmingham and Manchester; with local government in small areas and communities; with parish rates and poor law rates, and also with the great problems of defence of its territory on sea and land and with questions of foreign policy concerning disarmament and the peace
63S

International Labour Conventions
of the world. So a unitary system of government need have no limitations of any kind imposed upon it. But where you have a federal union or a federated state you must look to the instrument that created the state and to the constitution under which it operates to determine the extent of the power to be exercised by each of the units that comprise the state itself, and the power conferred by the constitution on the central authority.
It is important, therefore, to consider what powers have been given our provinces and what legislative juridiction has been conferred upon the central power. I do not propose this afternoon to enter into any lengthy argument in this regard, beyond saying that broadly and generally matters of a local nature are within the jurisdiction of the provinces, notably matters in connection with property and civil rights and other matters such as education, subject to limitations, and certain questions with respect to agriculture subject to the supreme power of the dominion parliament if it is exercised over the same subject matter, and questions of that kind. But when we deal with section 91 of the British North America Act we have an entirely different matter to consider. That section confers upon the parliament of Canada exclusive power to legislate for the dominion as a whole. The legislation, indeed, is prefaced by the words with which this parliament is so familiar, that is, the general term peace, order and good government for the whole of Canada, and the succeeding division of the powers by section 91 illustrates the subjects that have to be considered as indicative of the exercise of power with respect to peace, order and good government. I need not take time to run through them, because they are very familiar to every hon. member of this house. TVe are constantly exercising them. They relate to banks and banking; navigation and shipping; copyrights; bankruptcy; interest; legal tender; savings banks; weights and measures; sea coast and inland fisheries; postal service; the census and statistics, and matters of that kind. Therefore under our constitution which we familiarly refer to as the British North America Act, we have exclusive jurisdiction-and I should like hon. members of the house to bear in mind that the word is "exclusive"-conferred upon the legislatures of the several provinces, the words being:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say-
Then the closing sub-head, No. 16, reads:
Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province.
fMr. li rmett.]
It may be taken, therefore, that we must bear in mind in approaching this problem that there are certain matters within the exclusive jurisdiction-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not want to interrupt the Prime Minister but I think when he looks at his remarks he will see that his mind slipped rather quickly from the federal to the provincial field, without completing what he had to say about federal jurisdiction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that. The provincial power is exclusive, and I read the -words contained in paragraph 16 of section 92 for the purpose of making it clear that the broad and general provision of the statute is that matters generally of a local nature in the provinces shall be within the jurisdiction of the legislatures. But when we come to deal with section 91, which as I said is the section that confers powers upon this parliament, it will be found that the words are as follows:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces-
And for greater certainty certain subjects are mentioned, such as I indicated a few moments ago. Obviously to interpret those two sections is a matter of great difficulty. You have to rely upon judicial decisions, because the point at which there may be, shall I say, an interference with the fullest exercise of its powers by a provincial legislature, by legislation of the dominion parliament, is very difficult to determine. Therefore we have a long line of judicial decisions determining the extent to which the powers of the legislatures might be exclusively exercised and the subjects over which this central parliament has power, to the exclusion of jurisdiction on the part of the provinces. We have had many difficult cases before the courts. If I were asked what I thought was the greatest service rendered to Canada by the judicial committee of the privy council I would say it was found in the fact that there can be but one judgment in that tribunal. It is not a judgment in the narrow sense of the term; it is the advice which that committee of the king's council gives to the sovereign as to how differences should be adjudicated between his subjects or between those who are litigating, sometimes not his subjects, in his courts. As there is no such

International Labour Conventions
thing as a dissenting judgment in that committee; as there is no possibility of there being two opinions, strong though may be the differences of opinion between the individuals during the progress of the argument or even at its conclusion; as there must be but one judgment embodying the recommendation made to the sovereign as to how the matter in question should be disposed of, I believe that makes for a measure of harmony that otherwise would be denied. Consider, for instance, the many judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada in which sometimes acute legal differences all unconsciously have brought about a division of opinion, with two members of the court finding one way and three members another, or four members finding one way and one member another. It will be recalled also that in that very vital moment in the history of the United States when the question of the validity of an election for the presidency was under consideration, the supreme court of that country divided sharply upon political lines, and it was many years before the country recovered from the shock that the public conscience received by reason of the judgment then delivered.
So I believe that one of the greatest services, if not the greatest service, rendered to this country has been that the court of last resort, the judicial committee of the privy council, in arriving at its recommendations to the sovereign as to how matters should be determined that have called for the interpretation of our constitution, has been the fact that there can be only one recommendation. I think that has been one of the greatest safeguards of our daily life. Obviously I do not propose this afternoon to address hon. members of this house as though they were a court, because that would be unfair both to them and to myself. In my own simple way I should like to indicate to hon. members the principles which during the progress of the years have been evolved to enable legislatures and parliaments properly to deal with matters which come before them for consideration.
Only a few moments ago the right hon. leader of the opposition referred to the reference made to the Supreme Court of Canada by the government of the day with respect to the constitutionality of the provision in our law which deals with hours of labour. The report of the case will be found in the 1925 Supreme Court reports, commencing at page 505. I ask the house to bear in mind the date of that decision. As I have said it was in 1925. The case was argued on June 11
and on June 18 of that year judgment was given. I think it would be well to read the questions because they may be useful to hon. members who wish to discuss the matter. The questions submitted to the court were as follows :
(1)	What is the nature of the obligation of the Dominion of Canada as a member of the international labour conference, under the provisions of the labour part (Part XIII) of the treaty of Versailles and of the corresponding provisions of the other treaties of peace, with relation to such draft conventions and recommendations as may be from time to time adopted by the said conference under the authority of and pursuant to the aforesaid provisions?
(2)	Are the legislatures of the provinces the authorities within whose competence the subject matter of the said draft convention (Copy of which is herewith submitted) in whole or in part lies and before whom such draft convention should be brought, under the provisions of Article 405 of the treaty of peace with Germany, for the enactment of legislation or other action?
(3)	If the subject matter of the said draft
convention be, in part only, within the competence of the legislatures of the provinces, then in what particular or particulars, or to what extent, is the subject matter of the draft convention within the competence of the legislatures?	.
(4)	If the subject matter of the said draft convention be, in part only, within the competence of the legislatures of the provinces, then in what particular or particulars, or to what extent, is the subject matter of the draft convention within the competence of the parliament of Canada?
The unanimous decision of the court was given by Mr. Justice, now Chief Justice Duff, and the questions were answered as follows:
To the first question: the obligation is simply in the nature of an undertaking to bring the recommendation or draft convention before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment of legislation or other action. A
To the second question: Yes, in part.
To the third question: The subject matter is generally within the competence of the legislatures of the provinces, but the authority vested in these legislatures does not enable them to give the force of law to provisions such as those contained in the draft convention in relation to servants of the dominion government, or to legislate for those parts of Canada which are not within the boundaries of a province.
To the fourth question: The parliament of Canada has exclusive legislative authority in those parts of Canada not within the boundaries of any province, and also upon the subjects dealt with in the draft convention in relation to the servants of the dominion government.
The sense, therefore, of the answers to the questions as they appear at page 512 of the report is that there was no obligation upon the dominion parliament to enact legislation, and that the federal power had discharged its

International Labour Conventions
duty when it submitted to the provincial legislatures, through dispatches to the lieutenant governors, the matters tliat were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. There is one observation found at pages 510 and 511 in the judgment of Mr. Justice Duff to which I should like to refer:
It seems questionable whether government employees, in industrial undertakings carried on by the government, such, for example, as shipbuilding, are within the scope of the convention. The point was not the subject of argument before us, and concerning it no opinion is intended to be expressed.
It is necessary to observe, also, that as regards those parts of Canada which are not included within the limits of any province, the legislative authority in relation to civil rights generally, and to the subject matter of the convention in particular, is the dominion parliament.
Then after further discussion he gave the answers to the questions I have just read. That was in 1925. The development of our constitutional power by judicial decisions is of course not a static thing; there is constant movement and progress. Different judges have taken different views, and undoubtedly, as Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes has said, the state of .public opinion, generally, influences judicial decisions not to the extent of in any sense modifying precedents, but expanding in every possible way the meaning to be given to language to meet the new conditions under which people may live. Perhaps the most striking example of that is to be found in the decision given in the House of Lords in connection with trade conspiracies, f refer to Allen and Flood. The method by vhieh our common law has expanded to meet ;he demands made upon it by new conditions n our civilization is I think, as the late Mr. lustice Macready in England said, one of the most remarkable circumstances of our civilization.
But the interpretation of a statute is an mtirely different matter from the adjudication nf differences between litigants. Rules of construction have been framed during all the years, and the method to be applied in dealing with a given statute has usually become more or less settled by long practice and the passage of time. Only a few days ago my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) read to this chamber a summary of the rules which the present Lord Chancellor of England said he regarded as the general principles to be taken from a perusal of the cases. I need hardly point out to hon. members that over a period of sixty years it is quite impossible to say that complete consistency has governed

in the adjudication of various men who have dealt with the British North America Act. For instance, there was a day when under the strong and dominating influence of Lord Watson the swing of the pendulum was towards the maintenance, at the expense of federal power, of the provincial authorities. I need hardly say there was a relaxation of that condition, and in later years there was a saving towards the supremacy of the federal power. Particularly was that so when the events of the great war indicated how essential it was that there should be a strong law making authority, or that power should be in the central authority.
Perhaps before dealing with that point it might be desirable, for the purpose of making it part of my observations, to read the rules to which Lord Sankey has referred, because they may be of value to some hon. members who will read what is taking place this afternoon. He has said this:
While the decisions which the board has pronounced in the many constitutional cases which have come under their consideration from the dominion must each be regarded in the light of the facts involved in it. their lordships recognize that there has grown up round the British North America Act a body of precedents of high authority and value as guides to its interpretation and application. The useful and essential task of taking stock of this body of authority and reviewing it in relation to the original text has been undertaken by this board from time to time and notably, for example, in the cases of Attorney General of Ontario v. Attorney General of Canada and others; Attorney General for Canada v. Attorneys General for the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia: city of Montreal v. Montreal Street Railway Company, and in the same year Attorney General for Ontario and others v. Attorney General for Canada and another. In all these four cases the scope of the two sections was carefully considered, but it is not necessary to cite them at length because so recently as last year this board reviewed them in the case of Attorney General for Canada v. Attorney General for British Columbia and others, and laid down four propositions relative to the legislative competence of Canada and the provinces respectively as established by the decisions of the Judicial committee. These propositions are as follows:-
1.	The legislation of the parliament of the dominion, so long as it strictly relates to subjects of legislation expressly enumerated in section 91 is of paramount authority, even though it trenches upon matters assigned to the provincial legislature by section 02.
Now I am going to venture to make this observation as I go along. Many members will recall the case of the Union Bank and Tennant, a case in which it was contended that the provision made in the Bank Act

International Labour Conventions
by which security may be given without registry by way of chattel mortgage, and that all the power and authority so far as the mortgagee was concerned of a chattel mortgage-that that exercise of power by this parliament was beyond its competence because it infringed on property and civil rights in the province. But the privy council said no; although it does trench upon the exclusive powers of the provincial legislature, nevertheless if it is in its essential character a part of the banking legislation, which is solely within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, it must prevail, and it did prevail.
The second principle which the Lord Chancellor laid down is this:
2.	The general power of legislation conferred upon the parliament of the dominion by section 91 of the act in supplement of the power to legislate upon the subjects expressly enumerated must be strictly confined to such matters as are unquestionably of national interest and importance, and must not trench on any of the subjects enumerated in section 92, as within the scope of provincial legislation, unless these matters have attained such dimensions as to affect the body politic of the dominion.
3.	It is within the competence of the dominion parliament to provide for matters which though otherwise within the legislative competence of the provincial legislature, are necessarily incidental to effective legislation by the parliament of the dominion upon a subject of legislation expressly enumerated in section 91.
4.	There can be a domain in which provincial and dominion legislation may overlap, in which case, neither legislation will be ultra vires if the field is clear, but if the field is not clear and the two legislations meet, the dominion legislation must prevail.
Those four principles thus stated by the Lord Chancellor are to-day the beacon lights that guide this government in arriving at its conclusions with respect to the subject matter to which I have referred. The application of them is not easy; the reading of them is simple. The ascertainment of the facts to which they apply always becomes more or less complicated, but I think I can submit to this house without difficulty that with respect to hours of labour and with respect to the one day's rest in seven, there is no possible doubt, and especially with respect to the latter having regard to the provisions of the Lord's Day Act as coming within criminal legislation, that we have the authority to legislate.
Now I shall endeavour briefly to indicate how the enunciation of those principles came into being. This country claimed jurisdiction over aviation, complete and absolute. The case was submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada and decided against the contention of the dominion, and the reasons given were 92582-41
those given with respect to the hours of labour, only applied in a different way. It was the opinion of the court, not a unanimous opinion, but it was the opinion of a majority of the court, that aviation in its essential characteristics was engaged in by a government for the purpose of safeguarding its own properties and matters of that sort, and one judge instanced the case of a province initiating a service with that purpose in view. The case ultimately went to the privy council, and in considering that case it became necessary for the Lord Chancellor to make the statement he did. The case was argued before the privy council on the 10th, 14th, 16th, 17th and 20th days of July, 1931, and judgment was given on the 22nd day of October of the same year. I direct attention to the wording. It was those words of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to hours of labour, from which no appeal was taken to the privy council.
I shall trespass on the time of the house to direct attention to the fact that there was outstanding a convention with respect to aeronautics. I will point out that that convention was a convention under this very Peace treaty and that it was a convention that dealt with every phase of aerial navigation. Later parliament did exercise its powers and enact a statute in which regulations were set out at some length, and various other regulations were subsequently made dealing as the lords of the privy council said, with practically every phase of aeronautics. Now bear in mind that section, and I think it is desirable that I should read it at the moment. It is section 132 of our constitution, and section 132 reads as follows:
The parliament and government of Canada-
That is the executive:
-shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British empire, towards foreign countries arising under treaties between the empire and such foreign countries.
It will probably be within the memory of my right hon. friend opposite and the former Minister of Justice that when we were considering the Sockeye Salmon treaty I inquired of the Solicitor General whether he believed we had the power to override provincial rights in a treaty such as that, and I recall his answer. That, of course, was prior to these decisions. I confess that I have doubt, as I believe every member of the profession had, as to just what the decision would be in that set of facts.
Now if hon. gentlemen have followed me up to that point, I think they will realize



International Labour Conventions
that in the aeronautics case we had a treaty between the British empire, Canada being a part of it, and foreign countries, and in that case the privy council decided that section 132 governed and that provincial rights must be subordinate to treaty rights under the provisions of that section. That is the sense of the decision, and as was pointed out by the Lord Chancellor it is very undesirable to attach undue importance to a word or words, but one must always have regard to the ratio decidendi, the sense of the decision itself. Said Lord Chancellor Sankey:
The Supreme Court of Canada has decided the question in its several branches adversely to the claims of the dominion, and has held in effect that while the dominion has a considerable field of jurisdiction in the matter under various heads of section 91 of the British North America Act 1867, there is also a local field of jurisdiction for the provinces, and that the dominion jurisdiction does not extend so far as to permit it to deal with the subject in the broad way in which it has attempted to deal with it in the legislation under consideration.
During the sittings of the Peace Conference in Paris, at the close of the European war, a convention relating to the regulation of aerial navigation, dated the 13th October, 1919, was drawn up by a commission constituted by the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference. That convention was signed by the representatives of the allied and associated powers, including Canada, and was ratified by His Majesty on behalf of the British Empire on the 1st June, 1922. It is now in force between the British Empire and seventeen other states.
With a view to .performing her obligations as part of the British Empire under this convention, which was then in course of preparation, the parliament of Canada enacted the Air Board Act, c. 11, Statutes of Canada 1919 (first session), which, with an amendment thereto, was consolidated in the Revised Statutes of Canada 1927. under the title of the Aeronautics Act, c. 3. It is to be noted, however, that the act does not by reason of its reproduction in the revised statutes take effect as a new law. The governor general in council, on the 31st December, 1919, pursuant to the Air Board Act, issued detailed "Air Regulations" which, with certain amendments, are now in force. _ By the National Defence Act, 1922, the Minister of National Defence thereafter exercised the duties and functions of the air board.
No provincial legislature had enacted any legislation with respect to it but one of them had made protests against the exercise by this parliament of the powers in question. He proceeds:
The determination of these questions depends upon the true construction of sections 91, 92 and 132 of the British North America Act. Section 132 provides as follows:
"The parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British
IMr. Bennett.]
empire, towards foreign countries arising under treaties between the empire and such foreign countries."
It is not necessary to set out at length the familiar sections 91 and 92 which deal with the distribution of legislative powers. Section 91 tabulates the subjects to be dealt with by the dominion, and section 92 the subjects to be dealt with exclusively by the provincial legislatures, but it will not be forgotten that section 91, in addition, authorizes the king by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces, and further provides that any matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in the section shall not be deemed to come within the classes of matters of a local and private nature comprised in the enumeration of classes of subjects assigned by section 92 exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces. The four questions addressed to the court are as follows:
I will not read them except to say that the answers given were to the effect that the dominion and not the provinces had jurisdiction. Now, reading from the Lord Chancellor's judgment:
With regard to sections 91 and 92 the cases which have been decided on the provisions of these sections are legion. Many inquests have been held upon them, and many great lawyers have from time to time dissected them.
Under our system, decided eases effectively construe the words of an act of parliament and established principles and rules whereby its scope and effect may be interpreted. But there is always a danger that in the course of this process the terms of the statute may come to be unduly extended and attention may be diverted from what has been enacted to what has been judicially said about the enactment.
To borrow an analogy; there may be a range of sixty colours, each of which is so little different from its neighbour that it is difficult to make any distinction between the two, and yet at the one end of the range the colour may be white, and at the other end of the range black. Great care must therefore be taken to consider each decision in the light of the circumstances of the case in view of which it was pronounced, especially in the interpretation of an act such as the British North America Act, which was a great constitutional charter, and not to allow general phrases to obscure the underlying object of the act, which was to establish a system of government upon essentially federal principles. Useful as decided cases are, it is always advisable to get back to the words of the act itself and to remember the object with w'hich it was passed...
But while the courts should be jealous in upholding the charter of the provinces as enacted in section 92, it must no less be borne in mind that the real object of the act was to give the central government those high functions and almost sovereign powers by which uniformity of legislation might be secured on all questions which were of common concern to all the provinces as members of a constituent whole.

International Labour Conventions
Upon that observation we base the soundness of this proposed legislation, and these words I cannot too strongly commend to my hon. friends in this chamber:
It must no less be borne in mind that the real object of the act was to give the central government those high functions and almost sovereign powers by which uniformity of legislation might be secured on all questions which were of common concern to all the provinces as members of a constituent whole.
I will not further trespass upon the time of the house with respect to that phase of the judgment, but I will read further these words:
It is therefore obvious that the dominion parliament, in order duly and fully to "perform the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof" under the convention, must make provision for a great variety of subjects. Indeed, the terms of the convention include almost every conceivable matter relating to aerial navigation, and we think that the dominion parliament not only has the right, but also the obligation, to provide by statute and by regulation that the terms of the convention shall be duly carried out. With regard to some of them no doubt it would appear to be clear that the dominion has power to legislate, for example, under section 91, subsection (2), for the regulation of trade and commerce, and under subsection (5), for the postal services, but it is not necessary for the dominion to piece together its powers under section 91 in an endeavour to render them co-extensive with its duty under the convention when section 132 confers upon it full power to do all that is legislatively necessary for the purpose.
Then his lordship summed up in these words:
To sum up, having regard (a) to the terms of section 132; (b) to the terms of the convention which covers almost every conceivable matter relating to aerial navigation; and (c) to the fact that further legislative powers in relation to aerial navigation reside in the parliament of Canada by virtue of section 91, subsections (2), (5), and (7), it would appear that substantially the whole field of legislation in regard to aerial navigation belongs to the dominion. There may be a small portion of the field which is not by virtue of specific words in the British North America Act vested' in the dominion; but neither is it vested by specific words in the provinces. As to such small portion it appears to the board that it must necessarily belong to the dominion under its power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada. Further, their lordships are influenced by the facts that the subject of aerial navigation and the fulfilment of Canadian obligations under section 132 are matters of national interest and importance; and that aerial navigation is a class of subject which has attained' such dimensions as to affect the body politic of the dominion.
That disposes of the aeronautics case, and it will be observed that it is only authority 92582-41J
for one broad proposition. I have read the observations of the Lord Chancellor merely for the purpose of affording some illumination to our minds as we approach the consideration of the problem. The ratio decidendi of the case is that section 132 confers on this parliament the power to discharge every obligation under a treaty, whether it affects the dominion or a province, which we enter into as part of the British empire. It may therefore be taken that wherever, as a part of the empire, a treaty is made by the parliament of Canada, this parliament has complete jurisdiction to deal with every phase of the subject matter of the treaty to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the provinces of confederation. There remains therefore the second question, which is a more important one: To what extent has this parliament the power, when we have entered into a convention with other countries, to give effect to the terms of that convention when they clash with the jurisdiction which the provinces may have exercised or may exercise? In other words, is the question of the hours of labour per week and the day of rest a question of such importance, and so national in its character, that having bound ourselves thereto we must therefore give effect to it? I have read from the treaty of peace; I have read from the provisions of the League of Nations; I have read from the closing articles of the peace treaty the general provisions with respect to labour, and it will be observed that part of the treaty, which we signed, provides for a forty-eight hour week and for a day of rest. The general provisions are in no doubt at all but in clear-cut positive terms as part of the document which we signed as a part of the British empire, and which deals with that very subject, apart from every other consideration in the world. It deals in exact terms, and I should like to read them. The fourth and fifth guiding principles set down in article 427 of the treaty read:
Fourth-The adoption of an eight hour day or a forty-eight hour week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been attained.
Fifth-The adoption of a weekly rest of at least twenty-four hours, which should include Sunday wherever practicable.
Therefore, when the Dominion of Canada emerged from the conclusion of the peace treaty, it had signed it, not on behalf of a province but on behalf of all the citizens of the dominion, a treaty whereby it had bound itself by every means within its power to ensure a forty-eight hour working week and a

International Labour Conventions
day of rest during that period. Can there be any doubt therefore with respect to the jurisdiction of this parliament? Whatever doubts there may have been are fully resolved by the next case to which I direct attention, the radio case which was decided on February 9, 1932. In that case the rights of the provinces were put forward with very great force. It will be recalled that there was a convention outstanding there too. It was not however a convention made by Canada as part of the empire; it was a convention which Canada herself had signed with other countries such as Mexico, United States and Newfoundland. The judgment in that case was delivered by Lord Dunedin who says this-and I am not going to read at great length:
For this must at once he admitted the leading consideration in the judgment of the board

That is in the aeronautics case.
-was that the subject-fell within the provisions of section 132 of the British North America Act.
Which I have already read.
And it is said with truth that, while as regards aviation there was a treaty, the convention here is not a treaty between the empire as such and foreign countries, for Great Britain does not sign as representing the colonies and dominions. She only confirms the assent which had been signified by the colonies and dominions who were separately represented at the meetings which drafted the convention.
Bear in mind that the radio agreement was a convention just as this is. Then he proceeds to say:
But while this is so, the aviation case in their lordships' judgment cannot be put on one side. Counsel for the province felt this and sought to avoid any general deduction by admitting that many of the things provided by the convention and the regulations thereof fell within various special heads of section 91. For example, provisions as to beacon signals he would refer to article 10 of section 91-navigation and shipping. It is unnecessary to multiply instances, because the real point to be considered is this manner of dealing with the subject. In other words, the argument of the province comes to this: Go through all the stipulations of the convention and each one you can pick out which fairly falls within one of the enumerated heads of section 91, that can be held to be appropriate for dominion legislation; but the residue belongs to the province under the head either of article 13 of section 92-property and civil rights, or article 16-matters of a merely local or private nature in the province. Their lordships cannot agree that the matter should be so dealt with. Canada as a dominion is one of the signatories to the convention. In a question with foreign powers the persons who might infringe some of the stipulations in the convention would not be the Dominion of Canada as a whole but would be [Mr. Bcnaett.J
individual persons residing in Canada. These persons must, so to speak, be kept in order by legislation and the only legislation that can deal with them all at once is dominion legislation. This idea of Canada as a dominion being bound by a convention equivalent to a treaty with foreign powers was quite unthought of in 1867. It is the outcome of the gradual development of the position of Canada vis-a-vis to the mother country Great Britain, which is found in these later days expressed in the Statute of Westminster. It is not therefore to be expected that such a matter should be dealt with in explicit words in either section 91 or section 92. The only class of treaty which would bind Canada was thought of as a treaty by Great Britain, and that was provided for by section 132. Being, therefore, not mentioned explicitly in either section 91 or section 92, such legislation falls within the general words at the opening of section 91 which assigned to the government of the dominion the power to make laws "for the peace, order and good government of Canada in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces." In fine, though agreeing that the convention was not such a treaty as is defined in section 132, their lordships think that it comes to the same thing. On the 11th August, 1927, the Privy Council of Canada, with the approval of the Governor General, chose a body to attend the meeting of all the powers to settle international agreements as to wireless. The Canadian body attended and took part in deliberations. The deliberations ended in the convention with general regulations appended being signed at Washington on the 25th November, 1927, by the representatives of all the powers who had taken part in the conference, and this convention was ratified by the Canadian government on the 12th July, 1928. The result is in their lordships' opinion clear. It is Canada as a whole which is amenable to the other powers for the proper carrying out of the convention; and to prevent individuals in Canada infringing the stipulations of the convention it is necessary that the dominion should pass legislation which should apply to all the dwellers in Canada.
I will not detain the house by reading further from the judgment; that is sufficient for my purposes.
There is one word more I desire to say as to an additional ground upon which the proposed legislation is supported. It will be recalled that in dealing with the case of a federal union the treaty provides for a discretion being exercised. I particularly dwelt upon that provision. The discretion might be exercised by sending the recommendation down to a province and it might be exercised as we now propose to exercise it, by legislation in this house. That discretion which is vested in the government of Canada was exercised, it is true, in one way at one time. We now propose to exercise it as indicated in the judgments in the radio and aeronautics

International Labour Conventions
cases. We propose to exercise it as a matter that affects the whole of Canada in which uniform legislation with respect to hours of labour is a question not only of national interest; we cannot go behind the words of the covenant of the League of Nations which declares it to be of international concern. It is not provincial, not national, but international. Under these circumstances, how otherwise can we seriously become a party to a treaty that declares the matter with which we now propose to deal is one of interest not only to us as a nation but to other nations as well because it concerns the well-being and happiness of all nations and does something to secure and make for universal peace? It is on that principle that we support the legislation. Without going into the matter at any greater length-and I apologize to the house for trespassing so long upon its attention with respect to a matter of such vital importance-I move that we approve this convention on the basis of which we are founding the legislation, notice of which is now standing in my name.


Ernest Lapointe: I must say
that I envy my right hon. friend's fine power of confidence in his own views, and I should like to be as sure as he is of any opinion I may offer on a question of this kind. However, I humbly beg to differ from the views he has expressed and to say that his preliminary words to the effect that the government has resolved this question of jurisdiction are a little too hopeful. I am afraid that whatever the action of parliament on the proposed draft convention may be, nothing will be changed as to the respective jurisdictions of the provinces and the federal parliament.
May I say at the outset that I am one of those who believe in the principle of an eight hour day and a forty-eight hour week. I believe in many fields of activity the week might be even shorter, and I shall not surprise my right hon. friend when I say that conditions to-day as to an eight hour day and a forty-eight hour week are quite different from what they were when this draft convention was adopted at Washington. At that time this was the goal which labour wanted to reach, but that is not so to-day; and at the last international labour conference there was submitted a new draft convention making it a forty hour week of labour. All the representatives of labour at the convention strongly urged the adoption of that draft convention. Some of the employers objected and most of the governments' representatives were absent
when the final vote was taken. I am sorry to say that the Canadian representative was one of them. I shall quote his words later. He gave as an excuse that in Canada this power belongs to the provinces. At that time he had not been acquainted with the change of view of the law officers of the crown and probably of my right hon. friend. I say that by way of pointing out that no tremendously radical change is involved, because the provisions of this convention are as a matter of fact now in force in most of the provinces of Canada, and in most of the occupations of the Canadian people.
My right hon. friend bases his contention as to the jurisdiction of this parliament on article 23 of the peace treaty, and on the various sections of the labour part of that treaty. Section 23 reads as follows-and it is very important to note the first two lines:
Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon,-
The whole section is qualified by those two lines, "subject to and in accordance with the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon."


Richard Bedford Bennett: International conventions.


Ernest Lapointe: What are those conventions which are to be agreed upon? They are defined, the labour part, as the Prime Minister has said, in the labour part of the peace treaty, which provides in the main for two things: first, the organization of international labour machinery, known as the international labour office, and second, an international labour conference, that being the meeting which takes place annually or twice a year of the representatives of all the countries which are members of the League of Nations; and of late some countries which are not members of the league have joined the international labour office, I am very pleased to say, for the purpose of discussing and coming to decisions on subjects of interest to labour. How is it done? Article 405 of the treaty states how it is done:
When the conference has decided on the adoption of proposals with regard to an item in the agenda, it will rest with the conference to determine whether these proposals shall take the form:	(a) of a recommendation to be
submitted to the members for consideration with a view to effect being given to it by national legislation or otherwise, or (b) of a draft international convention for ratification by the members.
It is provided that a majority of two-thirds of the votes cast by the delegates present shall be necessary, and so forth; and that the con-

International Labour Conventions
ferenee shall have due regard to those countries in which climatic conditions, the imperfect development of industrial organization or other special circumstances prevail. Then it is said in the same article:
Each of the members undertakes that it will, within the period of one year at most from the closing of the session of the conference, or if it is impossible owing to exceptional circumstances to do so within the period of one year, then at the earliest practicable moment and in no case later than eighteen months from the closing of the session of the conference, bring the recommendation or draft convention before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment of legislation or other action.
In the case of a recommendation, the members will inform the Secretary-General of the action taken.
In the case of a draft convention, the member will, if it obtains the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies-*
I draw particular attention to those words:
-communicate the formal ratification of the convention to the Secretary-General and will take such action as may be necessary to make effective the provisions of such convention.
If on a recommendation no legislative or other action is taken to make a recommendation effective, or if the draft convention fails to obtain the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies-
And again I draw the attention of the house to those words:
-no further obligation shall rest upon the member.
In the case of a federal state, the power of which to enter into conventions on labour matters is subject to limitations, it shall be in the discretion of that government to treat a draft convention to which such limitations apply as a recommendation only, and the provisions of this article with respect to recommendations shall apply in such case.
These are the only forms of procedure devised for the international labour conference in the exercise of the functions entrusted to it by the peace treaty for the purpose of dealing with labour matters as they affect the nations of the world. As I have stated, Canada in the case of a draft convention will approve if it obtains the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies; the framers of the treaty quite realizing that there are countries in which there would be different jurisdictions as to the matters with which the draft conventions might deal, and that the member, in this case Canada, has first to obtain the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies. And it is further stated that if the draft convention fails to obtain the consent of the authority or
fMr. Lapointe.]
authorities within whose competence the matter lies, no further obligation will rest upon the member.
Well, what were the duties of Canada? My right hon. friend puts reliance on section 132 of the British North America Act in his argument that this comes within the power and jurisdiction of the federal parliament. Section 132 states:
The parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British empire, towards foreign countries arising under such treaties between the empire and such foreign countries.
Under section 132 it is the obligation that creates the jurisdiction. If there is no obligation on the part of the government or parliament, and I claim that under the sections of the peace treaty which I have read there is no such obligation, then section 132 fails to give jurisdiction to this parliament because there is not that obligation which alone creates the jurisdiction.
How did Canada act in this matter? My right hon. friend claims that all has been changed as a result of the judgments in the radio and aviation cases, with which I will deal later. Wfiat did Canada do? The views of this country were expressed by the government in an order in council dated November 6, 1920, and I wish to put part of this order in council once more on Hansard. It is P.C. 2722, and was based on the report of the then Minister of Justice. It reads as follows:
The minister further states that he is of opinion that the provisions of the labour part of the Treaty of I ersailles do not impose any obligation on the Dominion of Canada to enact into law the different draft conventions or recommendations which may from time to time be adopted by the conference. The obligation as set forth is simply in the nature of an undertaking on the part of each member within the period of one year at most from the closing of the session of the conference, or if it is impossible owing to exceptional circumstances to do so within a period of one year, then at the earliest practicable moment, and in any case not later than eighteen months from the closing of the conference "to bring the recommendations or draft conventions before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies for the enactment of legislation or other action." The treaty engagement being of this character, it is not such as to justify legislation on the part of parliament under the authority of section 132 of the British North America Act, 1867, to give effect to any of the proposals of the said draft conventions and recommendations, which must be held, as between the dominion and the provinces, to be within the legislative competence of the latter. The government's obligation will, in the opinion of tlie minister, be fully carried out if the

International Labour Conventions
After Recess
different conventions and recommendations are brought before the competent authority, dominion or provincial, accordingly as it may appear, having regard to the scope and objects, the true nature and character of the legislation required to give effect to the proposals of the conventions and recommendations respectively, that they fall within the legislative competence of the one or the other.
That order in Council also embodied the minister's opinion on the very question whether the provisions of the draft convention limiting hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week, adopted at the first session of the international labour conference at Washington, came within the legislative competence of the parliament of Canada or of the provincial legislatures. In the same order in council the minister reported that the proposals of this convention-and these are the words of the Minister of Justice, as contained in the order in council:
-involve legislation which is competent to parliament in so far as dominion works and undertakings are affected, but which the provincial legislatures have otherwise the power to enact and apply generally and comprehensively.
In 1923 there was a dominion-provincial conference, which I attended together with the then Minister of Labour. All these draft conventions were submitted to the delegates to that conference, and all agreed that these were matters for provincial action. In 1924 the then Prime Minister, my right hon. leader, moved a resolution which was adopted by the house, and which will be found at page 2466 of Hansard for May 23, 1924. The resolution read:
Resolved that it is expedient that a certain draft convention which was adopted at the first session of the international labour conference of the League of Nations, in 1919, limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week, be referred to the select committee on industrial and international relations for examination and report, having regard to the labour provisions of the treaties of peace and to the order in council of November 0, 1920, dealing with the jurisdiction of the dominion parliament and the provincial legislatures.
That committee, of which the Minister of Justice and I were members, sat and reported to the house that in spite of the order in council of 1920 and the views expressed by the law officers, the matter was of such importance that it should be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada by way of a reference.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, when the
house rose at six o'clock I was proceeding to indicate what Canada has done regarding the draft convention in connection with the eight hour day. I forgot to mention that from September 5 to September 7, 1922, a dominion-provincial conference was held in Ottawa as a result of which the following resolution was adopted:
That the conference has had under consideration the various proposals relative to labour which have emanated during the past three years from the international labour conference of the League of Nations. It is provided under the treaties of peace that the draft conventions and recommendations of this body must be brought to the attention of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies for the enactment of legislation or other action, and this conference is of the view that the authorities deemed to be respectively competent to deal with the matters in question should give careful and sympathetic attention to such draft conventions and recommendations with a view to enacting necessary legislation where this may be found practicable, and that the federal government undertakes on request from a majority of provincial governments to call a conference for the consideration of any aspects of these matters when this may be deemed necessary.
It was to give effect to this recommendation that the federal-provincial conference to which I referred this afternoon was called in
1923.	I quoted the motion made on May 23, 1924 by the then Prime Minister, the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) referring this draft convention limiting the hours otf work in industrial undertakings to the industrial and international relations committee.
That committee in turn reported to the house that although various opinions had been given it believed in order to obtain a final decision the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. When the report came before the house for discussion the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) took part in the debate. Speaking on July 18,
1924,	on an amendment moved by the present hon member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) the Minister of Justice is reported as having said the following:
I do not think there is any doubt as to the jurisdiction of this parliament in regard to dominion labour. But there is more than a doubt in regard to our jurisdiction to apply the eight hour day principle generally throughout the dominion. I have not a doubt upon the subject; I am satisfied that the ruling of the Department of Justice is right in that respect, and that the provincial legislatures have jurisdiction in such matters; but I run

International Labour Conventions
just as sure that this parliament has jurisdiction in regard to dominion works, and if parliament or the government is in sympathy with the proposal of the eight hour day as applicable to dominion operations and dominion works, there is no reason why this proposal should not be supported.
Then he added:
I would not support the amendment if it proposed to extend that principle into provincial jurisdictions over which I am satisfied we have no control. But a6 the amendment is purely applicable to dominion works I think it is in the right direction and I shall support it.
I commend to the present Minister of Justice the opinion held in 1924 by Hon. Hugh Guthrie.


Hugh Guthrie: That was before those
decisions.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, before the decisions; I shall come to the decisions. But would it surprise my hon. friend to learn that since the decisions were given he has expressed the same opinion.


Hugh Guthrie: No, not under the treaty making powers.


Ernest Lapointe: We will see about that later. In the same debate the then leader of the opposition, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, a former prime minister of Canada, who had much to do with the League of Nations and the international labour office, who is a distinguished jurist and who was never very anxious to make things easy for the then government, used the following language as reported at page 4763 of Hansard:
But I really think the question of jurisdiction is very well determined. I would have been content to accept the Justice department's view as to where our jurisdiction ends and where that of the provinces commences. I have my own opinions and I do not know that they differ from those of others on this subject. However, if there is something still in doubt, if particularly the Justice department has doubt, I have no objection to the submission to the supreme court. But the submission itself is not reailly any progress. It cannot be stated that by the submission we are taking any very effective step to carry out our undertaking.
Air. Martel: May I ask my right hon. friend a question, not for the purpose of interrupting him, but as a lawyer? Where does he think the power rests to enact an eight hour day, in the provinces or in the federal authorities?
Air. Aleighen:	It rests certainly with the
federal authorities so far as federal works are concerned. I do not know myself of any sphere where else it rests. I think the rest of the spheres are the provinces, and I never knew there was any real question of doubt in the matter. But there may be some clause as to which there is doubt, and if the Justice department so holds, the submission is right, but if the submission is merely for the purpose of delay, it is wrong.

Further on at pages 4764 and 4765 Mr. Meighen said:
We have no right in the world to invade jurisdiction where provincial jurisdiction is clear, and do so under the guise of declaring this work or that for the general advantage of Canada. To do so would be the grossest abuse of the powers of this house, and I would not for one moment consider any such suggestion, no matter from what side of the house it emanated. This expresses my general idea of a most embarrassing question, and I give it, not in any spirit of criticism, but merely as' my understanding of what this country is pledged to under the Geneva convention

Mark these words:
-and as well of what we are pledged to keep away from under our obligations as a party to the contract of confederation.
Reference was then made to the Supreme Court of Canada. The dominion government was represented before the supreme court by the present Deputy Minister of Justice as solicitor and by the late Eugene Lafleur, a distinguished jurist of Montreal, and Mr. O'Donoghue of Toronto as counsel for the attorney general of Canada. I wish to quote a few words from the factum presented to the supreme court, signed by Mr. Lafleur and his associate counsel, speaking on behalf of the justice department and for himself as a distinguished jurist. Having quoted article 405 of the peace treaty, which has been recited in this house this afternoon two or three times, he said:
It is obvious that these provisions of the labour part of the treaty do not impose any obligation on the dominion to enact into law tile different draft conventions or recommendations which may from time to time be adopted by the conference. This is merely an undertaking on the part of each member to bring the recommendations or draft conventions before the proper authorities.
This being the extent of the obligation, it does not justify legislation on the part of parliament to give effect to any such recommendations or draft conventions under the authority of section 132 of the British North America Act, which provides that the parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British Empire, towards foreign countries arising out of treaties between the empire and such foreign countries. The government's obligation will be satisfied if the different recommendations or conventions are brought before the competent authority, dominion or provincial, as the case may be.
And he adds:
The legislatures of the provinces are the authorities within whose competence the subject-matter of the draft convention lies and before whom such draft convention should be brought under the provisions of article 405 of the treaty of peace, for the enactment of legislation or any other action that may be deemed

International Labour Conventions
proper. This, it is submitted, is the case, subject to the sole exception of the legislation respecting dominion works and undertakings, as will be explained in answer to question 4.
The subject-matter is evidently included in items 13 and 16 of section 92 of the British North America Act, inasmuch as the regulation of the hours of labour affects civil rights in the province and if confined to labour performed in a province would be a matter of merely local or private nature in the province.
This being so, the legislative jurisdiction of the province over the subject-matter must be exclusive and would not be overborne by any attempt on the part of the dominion parliament to legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada, conferred by the first part of section 91, inasmuch as that power is only given in relation to matters not coming within the classes of subjects by the act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces. This point has been dealt with several times by the privy council, and it is only necessary to refer to the observations of Lord Haldane in the most recent case of Toronto Electric Commissioners versus Snider 1925, A.C., at pages 410-413.
As my right hon. friend is relying for the jurisdiction of this parliament, apart from article 23 and the labour part of the peace treaty, upon the residue power for peace, order and good government contained in section 91, I think it proper that I should read what section 91 says. The part of section 91 which concerns this matter reads as follows:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.
As was stated by the privy council in the case of Snider of Toronto, this question of hours of labour is exclusively assigned to the legislatures by section 92, and cannot come under this part of section 91 regarding the residue of matters which may be dealt with by this parliament for peace, order and good government.
Now I come to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the reference which was submitted to the court and to which my right hon. friend alluded this afternoon. It will be found in the Supreme court reports of 1925, page 505. I shall quote only the answer to the last question, because that is the one with which we are mainly concerned, dealing with the possible jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada in the matter. The question was:
If the subject-matter of the said draft convention be. in part only, within the competence of the legislatures of the provinces, then in what particular or particulars, or to what
extent, is the subject-matter of the draft convention within the competence of the parliament of Canada?
To that fourth question the supreme court answered as follows:
The parliament of Canada has exclusive legislative authority in those parts of Canada not within the boundaries of any province, and also upon the subjects dealt with in the draft convention in relation to the servants of the dominion government.
That is the jurisdiction of Canada in the matter of hours of labour. Then how can section 132 of the British North America Act apply? If there is no obligation, as was stated this afternoon, on the part of Canada with regard to this convention, where is our jurisdiction? It is the obligation towards foreign powers which gives to parliament jurisdiction to deal with a matter of this kind when bound by treaty so to do. Where are we bound? Well, it is only necessary to read section 405 of the peace treaty to find out what obligation, if any, there is on the part of this parliament or of the dominion with regard to a draft convention. It is not even called a convention; it is a draft convention, or in French, un projet de convention. There is nothing final to it. It is something which is suggested to the various members of this international labour conference for the purpose of their calling it to the attention of the authority within whose competence the matter lies to take any action regarding it which they see fit. Even the competent authority is not bound in any way. It is only a draft convention, I repeat. Then how can it be said to constitute an obligation on the part of Canada giving to this parliament under section 132 of the British North America Act authority and jurisdiction to deal with the matter? It is clear that the countries are not bound by it. Over fifty nations are members of the international labour organization. I do not think there are seventeen at the present time which have approved or ratified that draft convention, and my hon. friend claims that it is an obligation binding upon Canada. Well, let us proceed.
We were bound, so far as the employees of the dominion are concerned, by the decision of the supreme court, and it had also always been the view of the law officers of the crown in that respect. And to give effect to this obligation P.C. 670, an order in council approved by the governor general on March 27, 1930, was laid on the table of the house on March 31, as you will find at page 1082-3 of Hansard. By this order in council the dominion extended to all employees of the

International Labour Conventions
government of Canada the principle of the forty-eight hour week and of eight hours a day, and all the obligations by which Canada was bound were complied with when this order in council was passed by the government.
Under this administration-and this I wish to call particularly to the attention of the Minister of Justice-on February 17, 1932, at page 284 of Hansard, the then member for Kenora-Rainy River, Mr. Heenan, moved the following resolution:
Whereas, the Dominion of Canada is a signatory to the articles of peace of the treaties of Versailles, thereby subscribing to the principle of a maximum working day of eight hours: Therefore be it resolved that this house is of opinion that the government of Canada should take appropriate steps to ensure, throughout Canada, the fulfilment of our treaty obligations and conventions arising out of the peace treaty, relating to hours of work.
Mr. Heenan did not claim in his speech that this parliament had jurisdiction over the matter. He said:
In 1930, in order to carry out our treaty obligations, an order in council was passed, P.C. 670, putting all federal government employees who were working in excess of eight hours on an eight-hour day basis. On May 30 of the same year legislation was enacted, now known as chapter 20-21 of George V. placing all employees on government contracts or working at day labour on government work on the eight-hour day basis. My position in the matter is simply this. Mr. Speaker. 1 submit that the federal parliament having taken the mote out of its own eye, the federal government is now in a better position to approach the provincial governments with a view to having them enact legislation to carry out our treaty obligations. It will be seen, therefore, that this resolution simply calls upon the government of Canada to take appropriate steps to ensure throughout Canada the fulfilment of our treaty obligations with respect to hours of work. And I have no fear but that this house will unanimously adopt the resolution.
The Minister of Justice spoke for the government, as reported at page 286 of Hansard of the same day. He said:
The gist of the motion is that the government should take appropriate steps. As the motion was not carried during the last session of the house there were no steps to be taken, as a result of it. In fact the only steps that suggest themselves to my mind at the moment are those which were taken by the preceding government on four or five occasions, when the question was brought to the attention of the various provincial governments with the idea of enlisting their sympathies and having them pass the necessary provincial legislation to bring into force the provisions of the treaty of Versailles with respect to labour.

In my judgment this parliament has done about all it can do in respect of that treaty. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has given a brief resume of some of the steps which have been taken by this parliament to bring our national labour service into conformity with the requirements of that treaty, but fortunately or unfortunately the dominion powers are limited by our constitutional act; there are some matters which do not lie within our legislative jurisdiction and in connection with which we have no right whatever to legislate. One of these matters is the question of hours of labour, which is largely a provincial matter, and the most this government can do in regard to the general subject is to bring that question directly to the attention of the various provincial governments and request them to cooperate.
This has been done time and time again. It was not done directly after last session because the motion was not adopted by the house last session, but if this present motion is adopted the government will take steps without delay definitely to draw this matter to the attention of the various provincial governments.
Further on, the Minister of Justice made these observations, which I commend to the Prime Minister, who this afternoon took the view that Canada had not fulfilled most of its duties with regard to these conventions:
There is this further to be said in regard to Canada and the treaty of Versailles, and particularly with respect to the question of labour. While in Geneva last fall I had occasion to discuss the question with some of those who are better informed in regard to these matters than I am myself, and I was glad to learn that Canada was not lagging behind in regard to the provisions of that treaty. We were well in the forefront. I do not think any nation in the world has carried out all the provisions of that treaty. Some have done so to a much greater extent than others, but Canada's position is a very happy one in that respect. We have gone a much greater distance than many other nations perhaps more important in one aspect than Canada, and I felt very proud of the work that this dominion had accomplished.
My hon. friend said that his former opinions were expressed before the decision of the privy council was given. Well, the decision of the privy council in the aviation case, which is the one upon which my right hon. friend bases his argument-my right hon. friend shakes his head-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that the purport
of the aviation decision was that section 132 governed. The radio case went further.


Ernest Lapointe: Would it surprise my
right hon. friend to know that the radio case had been decided at the time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the Minister of
Justice said that, yes.

International Labour Conventions


Ernest Lapointe: The Minister of Justice spoke, as I have quoted his words, on February 17, 1932.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The decision was February 9.


Ernest Lapointe: The decision in the
aviation case had been delivered by the privy council on October 22, 1931, a few months before, and the radio decision had been delivered on February 9, 1932. Both those judgments were rendered before my right hon. friend expressed his opinion as he did.
I have something which is even better than that. Even the right hon. gentleman took a long time to change his views after the decisions in the aviation and the radio cases. One of those decisions was given in 1931 and the other in February, 1932. Only a few months ago, when my right hon. friend left for Europe, he sent to all the provincial premiers a letter dated August 31, 1934, and that letter was made public by the then Acting Prime Minister, the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) on September 13 last. It was published in all the newspapers of Canada on September 14 last. What was the view of my right hon. friend at that time? He says now that the question of jurisdiction has been resolved in favour of this parliament. It was not resolved in September last, because my right hon. friend in his letter, having said that it was his purpose to call a conference of the provincial premiers when he returned from the old country, stated that he wanted to place upon the agenda certain matters, one of them being the following-it was second on the list:
Are the provinces prepared to surrender their exclusive jurisdiction over legislation dealing with such social problems as old age pensions, unemployment and social insurance, hours and conditions for work, minimum wages, et cetera, to the dominion parliament? If so, on what terms and conditions?	[DOT]


Mr. McINTOSH:: That was their stand.


Ernest Lapointe: Am I not right when I say that when my right hon. friend wrote that letter to the provincial premiers on August 31, 1934, he had not reached the conclusion that we could simply say: We have the power, the jurisdiction, and we are going to exercise it? He was then of the opinion that this was the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. If it was the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in September, 1934, it is just as much so in February, 1935, and it was so when my right hon. friend spoke over the air in January of this year. Those broadcast expressions of my right hon. friend, fine as
they were, never had the effect of changing the constitution of Canada. They have not changed the constitution; the matter is still a provincial one, and if labour relies on the government's attitude for a new deal, I am afraid it will be a misdeal, because the proposed legislation will not have the validity which any parliamentary action concerning a matter so important should have.
My right hon. friend relies on the two decisions in regard to radio and aviation. Let me' say first that the question of provincial jurisdiction in matters such as this has been decided by the privy council many times in such cases as the Board of Commerce Act, the fair prices act of 1929; Toronto Electric Commissioners and Snider in 1925, where the question of peace, order and good government was dealt with by the privy council. My right hon. friend says that there has been a change; that there had been a development going on with regard to our respective powers, our respective jurisdiction. Well, even at that time the question was discussed and debated with regard to aviation and radio, and the privy council delivered judgment confirming provincial jurisdiction in various matters. They did it in the fisheries case in 1929, with which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) is well acquainted. They did it in connection with the Insurance Act in 1932, and I think the case is reported in the same volume of the appeal cases or the Dominion Law Reports where they decided in favour of the provinces. The only matter on which they based their decision was section 132 in both the aviation case and the radio case, but in both those cases there was no draft convention; there was a binding treaty on which the privy council based its decision. In regard to aerial navigation the treaty had been signed in 1920 with a large number of foreign powers, and my right hon. friend has read part of the judgment of the privy council. I desire to read a few words of it also as recorded on page 58:
Their lordships do not think that aeronautics is a class of subject within property and civil rights in the provinces, although hereagain. ingenious arguments may show that some small part of it might be so included.
Surely that cannot be said about hours of work.
Their lordships are of opinion that it is proper to take a broader view of the matter rather than to rely on forced analogies or piecemeal analysis. They consider the governing section to be section 132, which gives to the parliament and government of Canada all powers necessary and proper for performing the obligations towards foreign countries arising
International Labour Conventions

under treaties between the empire and such foreign countries. As far as section 132 is concerned, their lordships are not aware of any decided case which is of assistance on the present occasion. It will be observed, however, from the very definite words of the section, that it is the parliament and government of Canada who are to have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or any province thereof.
To sum up, having regard (a) to the terms of section 132; (b) to the terms of the convention which covers almost every conceivable matter relating to aerial navigation; and (c) to the fact that further legislative powers in relation to aerial navigation reside in the parliament of Canada by virtue of section 91 (2), (5) and (7), it would appear that substantially the whole field of legislation in regard to aerial navigation belongs to the dominion. There may be a small portion of the field which is not by virtue of specific words in the British North America Act vested in the dominion; but neither is it vested by specific words in the provinces. As to such small portion it appears to the board that it must necessarily belong to the dominion under its power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada. Further their lordships are influenced by the facts that the subjects^ of aerial navigation and the fulfilment of Canadian obligations under section 132 are matters of national interest and importance; and that aerial navigation is a class of subject which has attained such dimensions as to affect the body politic of the dominion.
The decision in the radio case was given a few months afterwards, on February 9, 1932. There again it was to confirm a treaty; that is to say the legislation that was passed was passed in consequence of a treaty binding Canada, signed at Washington on November 25, 1927 by the representatives of all the powers which had taken part in the conference; and this convention was ratified by the Canadian government on July 12, 192S.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was a convention, not a treaty.


Ernest Lapointe: It was a convention signed and binding and ratified, not a draft convention. There were, I think, eighteen obligations in the treaty which Canada had to fulfil. The idea pervading that judgment is that the whole subject of aeronautics is so completely covered by the treaty ratified between the nations that there is not enough left to give a separate field to the provinces as regards that subject. But let me say this: the law officers of the crown, while they were giving their opinion that the hours of work were under provincial jurisdiction, and never had any doubt in the matter, always claimed that radio and aviation were federal matters.

They always made a clear distinction as between these two matters and matters which come so clearly under property and civil rights, one of the classes of subjects which are exclusively provincial.
I said this afternoon that this question of the forty-eight hour week is not such a burning question at the present time. It was such a question in 1919, but almost everywhere the forty-eight hour week of labour has been adopted. Canadian labour, as well as labour in the other countries, is no longer claiming the forty-eight hour week; they are asking for forty hours.


Mr. HEAPS:: No, thirty hours.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, I did not think my hon. friend was going as far as that. But I know that all the representatives of labour at the last international labour conference in Geneva insisted on a new draft convention of forty hours a week. And the draft convention had been prepared. There had even been a preliminary conference about it, called the tri-partite conference, I think, in 1933, which had made a very interesting report on the matter and which had drafted a projected convention to be adopted by the international conference which was to take place last year. The draft convention was adopted in the committee, but when it came before the whole conference most of the delegates of the governments mysteriously disappeared; they were not there to vote, and although the draft convention carried by a pretty good majority there was not a sufficient quorum under the rules of the international labour conference to give validity to it. I was interested in reading in the record of the proceedings of that conference of 1934, on page 338, the remarks of Canada's delegate, who had been one of those absent when the vote was taken. There was a demand for an adjournment, and Doctor Riddell said:
I rise to support the proposal of Mr. Martens for an adjournment. In connection with his statement, I might be permitted a word in explanation of our vote on article 1. The government of Canada is a federal government. The Supreme Court of Canada has declared that the question of hours is a provincial matter. The provinces have stated in their replies to the questionnaire that the office draft did not offer sufficient flexibility for them to aprove of the adoption of that draft. The amended draft went still further; therefore we had no option but to abstain.
So even the representatives of Canada, speaking for Canada at the international labour conference, were giving as a reason

International Labour Conventions
for their line of action at the last international labour conference the fact that under the constitution of Canada hours of work are a matter of provincial jurisdiction.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If I may ask a question,
who was the representative who took that stand at the Geneva conference?


Ernest Lapointe: Doctor Riddell.


Abraham Albert Heaps: He was a government representative?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Acting under government
instructions?


Ernest Lapointe: I suppose so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he is the permanent representative at Geneva. He was not instructed.


Ernest Lapointe: I have been a delegate
of Canada to various conferences at Geneva, both constitutional and as to labour matters, and as a delegate I would not have taken a stand like this without first asking for instructions from the government I represented; that is all I can say.
Now I was saying that this forty hour week of labour is not a very radical thing at the present time. I have heard it said occasion-all that my own province of Quebec is sometimes backward in matters of labour legislation. That of course is not correct; for Quebec has led in many respects with regard to labour legislation. But may I call the attention of the house to an act respecting the limiting of working hours, passed by the Quebec legislature in 1933, 23 George V, chapter 40, which gives to the lieutenant governor in council the right to order the number of hours per week or per day during which a workman employed in manual labour may work; and in no case should the number of working hours be less than six per day or thirty-three per week, so that as far as possible employment might be assured for two or more crews of workmen employed at the same work. There have been proclamations under this act. On July 14, 1933, the building industry, comprising the building, repairing and demolishing of buildings of every kind, and covering especially the men employed as bricklayers, carpenters, joiners, cement finishers, roofers and so on, were all brought under this act. From and after July 1, 1933, the duration of effective labour in the building industry within the limits of the Montreal division should not exceed eight hours per day and the total hours of effective labour
in the course of a single week should not in any case exceed forty, eight hours less than is proposed under this draft convention. Other trades and occupations since have been brought under the operations of that law, so this is not such a great discovery.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That has not been applied to the textile industry?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think so, but it should be. I am quite willing to agree with my hon. friend in that regard, and to say that it should apply to the textile industry as well
I have spoken at greater length than I had intended, Mr. Speaker, and I do not know that I have anything to add except this: Mj hon. friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell), who is a good friend of mine, became very enthusiastic this afternoon over this great change, with the parliament of the dominion assuming jurisdiction with regard to draft conventions of the international labour conference. The other day I heard my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) express himself as being very much pleased, when the resolution in connection with unemployment insurance was under discussion, because at last the parliament of Canada was assuming jurisdiction in the matter. May I tell my hon. friends that the assumption of jurisdiction does not create it. I believe they respect the constitution as much as I do, and may I tell them that the safeguards and protections in the constitution are more important to the labour people than they are to those who employ them. The safeguards in the constitution are more important to the minorities than they are to the majorities. They are more important to the poor than to the wealthy, because the wealthy always find a way to protect themselves. So when there is such an obvious encroachment as this on the powers of the provinces under the constitution I say that my hon. friends may be ill advised to be pleased that parliament should go beyond and over the constitution. I think those who have at heart the progress of labour legislation, those who want reforms as much as my right hon. friend does, will think it better to achieve those reforms in a valid way. There should be no loopholes left. No one will receive anything if labour is given not an instrument which is legal and valid, but something which is against the constitution and which will not stand in our courts.
I see that my right hon. friend has given notice of a bill to enforce this provision. I sincerely hope that before this bill becomes part of the statutes of Canada the jurisdiction of this parliament will be ascertained, or at

International Labour Conventions
least that there will be some understanding and agreement with the provinces, whom my right hon. friend wanted to meet last September because of their exclusive jurisdiction in the matter, so that good and valid legislation may be placed on the statute books of Canada regarding hours of labour and other progressive labour legislation, which I am quite willing to support.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I think in all parts of
the house there will be absolute agreement that since the two decisions of the judicial committee of the privy council which we know as the aviation and radio cases the constitutional atmosphere has been a good deal clarified in regard to the jurisdiction of this parliament and of the provincial legislatures in Canada. I had occasion once before, during the present session of this house, to discuss for a few moments some of the constitutional difficulties which have heretofore confronted us in the Dominion of Canada in regard to our constitutional act, and there is no doubt that until the decisions in the two cases I have just named there was considerable conflict of judicial opinion, in regard to many difficult and intricate questions under sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act.
My hon. friend from Quebec (East (Mr. Lapointe) laboured for some time in an effort to distinguish those two cases, the aviation and radio cases, from the question dealt with in the resolution before the house. He has most fervently advanced the theory that in the aviation and radio cases Canada was bound by positive treaties and conventions. That is true, and the resolution before parliament to-day is the first step in bringing about another binding international convention, just as binding as the radio convention or the aviation treaty, which came about through the treaty of Versailles. My hon. friend from Quebec East must remember that the government now proposes, by this resolution, to adopt and eventually ratify the draft labour convention drawn up in Washington in 1919.
Reference has been made to opinions which I have hitherto expressed in regard to provincial jurisdiction in respect of hours of labour and, I think also in regard to minimum wages. Under the circumstances which existed at the time, I was correct in the views I expressed and I would not alter the opinions which I expressed on those occasions. I stick to them yet; they were right. There was no treaty or convention under consideration; there was no proposal to ratify a treaty or convention at that time. The resolution now before the house proposes the approval of a

convention which makes an entirely different problem. In 1924 when I expressed myself in regard to hours of labour nothing had been done towards the adoption of the draft convention which came to us from Washington in 1919. It was an academic ques'tion we were discussing; the opinion I then presented to the house was a correct opinion, and I stand by it to-day. When I spoke in 1932-and by the way, let me interject at this point that when I spoke on February 9 to the motion moved by Mr. Heenan in regard to minimum wages-


Ernest Lapointe: No, the eight hour day


Hugh Guthrie: Well, the same point was involved. When I spoke at that time I spoke without knowledge of the decisions of the judicial committee of the privy council in the two cases referred to. I think the hon. member for Quebec East at that time had no knowledge of them either.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, I had.


Hugh Guthrie: We get newspaper and telegraphic reports that an appeal has been allowed or an appeal has been dismissed, together with a brief summary, but the report of the case does not reach Canada until months afterwards. The information came in the report of appeal cases for the year 1932, and arrived here in mid-summer.


Ernest Lapointe: Is it not true that the Department of Justice receives copies of judgments long before the reports are issued?


Hugh Guthrie: Not much before. We do receive them as a rule within six to eight weeks.


Ernest Lapointe: I was there too. I know.


Hugh Guthrie: The radio case was, I think, decided just five or six days after I had spoken in the house. However, that is beside the point. I am now basing my opinion upon the fact that we propose to ratify this draft convention. The object of the resolution is to enable us to do so, and if the convention be ratified, as I assume it will be, then I submit that under our treaty making power in our constitutional act we have undoubtedly authority to pass the necessary legislation. If we do not intend to ratify the convention, and if it is merely to remain a dead letter as it has remained since 1919, then the opinions I expressed in the house in 1924 and 1934 I still hold. I believe they were correct. I place the question squarely before the house under section 132 of the British North America Act, and I have no hesitation in asserting jurisdiction for this parliament under that section.

International Labour Conventions
But it is not only upon that ground that jurisdiction may be claimed for the parliament of Canada in regard to this resolution. There is the matter of the regulation of trade and commerce within the dominion, and the matter of foreign trade. There is the establishment of equilibrium in matters of trade between the various provinces of the dominion. There can be little doubt that in all interprovincial trade and in all foreign trade this parliament has exclusive jurisdiction. I say on that among other grounds this legislation is justified, but in the meantime I am placing the matter before the house, so far as my opinion may carry weight, solely upon the ground of our constitutional right to bind the provinces and bind Canada under the authority of section 132 of the British North America Act.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we have listened to the observations of three of the most eminent legal gentlemen in the Dominion of Canada. As an ordinary layman I can speak with very little knowledge or authority on constitutional questions; my understanding of them is limited. I did however upon one occasion have some practice in criminal law. In the year 1919, to which reference has been made so often to-day, along with six other persons I stood at the bar of justice, and while there I got a little insight into criminal proceedings. For reasons I do not desire now to explain I defended my own case, acting as my own lawyer. Most of the accused had the benefit of legal counsel. All those who had legal counsel were found guilty. Some few weeks after the trial I met the late Judge Metcalfe, whom some hon. members would know, and discussing the case he said, "Heaps, it is a good thing for you that you had no lawyer defending you; if you had you would have gone to gaol along with the rest." So when it comes to questions of lawyers and legal opinions I am sometimes sceptical of the luminaries and the stacks of books and precedents brought forward in an effort to seek something from the musty past and to adjust it to modem conditions.
I was deeply interested in the splendid presentation of the case by the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I sincerely hope and trust that when he speaks about a forty hour week, or a week even shorter than that, he speaks for his party particularly in the province of Quebec. Next week when the government introduces the bill providing for a forty-eight hour week I am sure he, along with other hon. members, will have an opportunity to vote for a shorter working week than at present obtains, and that it be
provided for in the bill. I sincerely hope we shall be able to cooperate in asking for a thirty hour week, or as a compromise a thirty-four hour week. I hope such a proposal will have his support and the support of many [DOT]other hon. members.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why work at all?


Abraham Albert Heaps: To-day we have heard about the radio and aviation cases, but I believe there is a case which is more important than those, namely, the case of the millions of Canadian people who are to-day looking for remedial measures and a way out of the difficulties in which they find themselves. Of course we realize the importance of our constitution and the British North America Act. At this point may I say, along with the former Minister of Justice, that I am as much prepared as he is to respect the rights of minorities, and particularly those in his own province. I will go as far as he goes in defending the rights of the people in his province. I believe a discussion of the needs of the people of Canada is of greater importance than a discussion of the British North America Act.
It has been pointed out this afternoon that the opinions of legal luminaries change with changing conditions, and I believe it was pointed out further that a recent judicial decision had changed one which had been given formerly, and made legal that which was formerly illegal. For two reasons I am pleased that the government has seen fit to bring in this legislation. First of all, assuming the legislation is legal, it will give centralized authority in the dominion, so far as hours of labour are concerned. There can be no doubt that centralized authority is essential, if we are to have anything approaching harmonious understanding between the Canadian provinces. For instance, we cannot have men and women in one part of the dominion working fifty or sixty hours a week and in another part, in similar industries, working only forty-four hours. Only this morning I received a communication which I have forwarded to the proper minister. It contained the information that a dominion contract has been called for. A western manufacturer complains that in certain eastern factories employees are working for wages as lowr as twenty cents an hour, whereas in the western provinces the wages are twenty-five to thirty per cent higher. Naturally we cannot have such a condition of affairs continue in the Dominion of Canada.
Then I am glad for another reason, Mr. Speaker, that legislation of this character is introduced. It shows that this parliament is beginning to recognize that the limitation of

International Labour Conventions
working hours is essential so far as Canada is concerned. This is the first time, I believe, that parliament has gone on record through legislation dealing with a maximum working week; it is the first recognition by parliament that such a limitation of working hours is in the best interests of the Dominion of Canada.
My good friend the former Minister of Justice spoke of labour and a new deal, and then he brought in the constitution. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the implication is that the British North America Act is of greater consequence, of more importance to the people of this dominion than a new deal. I am not for one moment arguing whether what the government is proposing is a good thing or a bad thing. Personally I am inclined very much to the opinion of the former Minister of Justice. I do not think that a forty-eight hour week begins to touch the situation, so far as the hours of labour are concerned in this dominion. Nevertheless it is a recognition of certain principles, and because of that we are compelled to support the resolution and the bill which will be brought before the house. But when my hon. friend the former Minister of Justice speaks of a new deal, and then at once throws in its way all the constitutional difficulties he can possibly think of, I would ask how are we ever going to get a new deal if we are always to put the constitution ahead of it? In other words, we can never have a new deal unless, as I have said before, we recognize that the British North America Act was made for the people of Canada and not the people of Canada for the British North America Act.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sure my hon. friend does not wish to misinterpret me.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I certainly do not.


Ernest Lapointe: If he will allow me, what I said, and what I still say, is that this should be done but that it should be done in a proper and constitutional way. I am not throwing the constitution in the way. I said that we should make the necessary amendments or come to the necessary understanding. The thing will be better if it is well done.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes. It is only a question of interpretation of the powers of parliament, and I suggest that perhaps the lawyers who have considered this legislation have given it just as much consideration as my hon. friend who has just taken his seat. Legal gentlemen may not agree upon a certain interpretation, but the members of the government feel that what they are doing is the right and proper way to proceed, and I am glad they are taking

hold of the situation in the way they are; let those who oppose this form of legislation come out in the open and say they oppose it.
We talk about the rights of parliament and the sovereignty of the constitution, but when we speak of sovereignty one thing that should not be forgotten is the sovereignty of the people. The sovereignty of the people should be supreme. So in matters of this kind, while I respect the constitution and want to see things done in a constitutional way, I say we cannot ignore the demands of the people of the Dominion of Canada; for if we allow our constitution to be so rigid and inflexible, it will break down and cause no end of chaos in this dominion. To-day we find that there are representations from all sections of the country and from every shade of opinion in the country to the effect that the rights which the government are taking upon themselves at the present time should be exercised by this parliament, and that such questions as hours of labour and a minimum wage should be and probably are a matter of federal right instead of provincial.
My hon. friend from Quebec East read from certain laws that have recently been passed in the province of Quebec relating to the building industry and a forty hour week. I am glad that the province of Quebec has recognized a forty hour week, and in a sense I approve of that legislation. The reason no doubt they made it a forty hour instead of a forty-eight hour week in the building industry in the province of Quebec was that the men were not even working a ten hour week on the average, and so nobody was hurt by that legislation. But I venture to assert that the province of Quebec did not bring in any legislation providing for a forty hour week in those industries in which at the very moment we are sitting here employees are working fifty-five and sixty hours a week-such industries and trades, for instance, as have been investigated during the past few months. What conditions were found in those industries? Girls were working fifty-five and sixty hours a week; and in the whole of the province of Quebec I think the information came out that they had only one or two inspectors to enforce some of these laws. It is one thing to have laws on the statute books, but it is another thing when it comes to enforcing them. If laws of this kind are to be made effective it can be done only when you have not the competition that exists to-day as between province and province only when the whole matter is dealt with uniformly right across the dominion. If we have power to put this legislation into effect I hope that the laws that we pass will be strictly enforced

International Labour Conventions
by the proper authorities. But if we are going to allow the judiciary, as has been suggested, to interpret at all times what the laws really are and what the constitution of the country is, who is going to be sovereign in this Dominion of Canada? Is it to be parliament and the people, or is it to be the judiciary as it is in the United States? I for one would hate to see this country put in the same position as the United States where if a certain law is not liked by a group of individuals it has to go before the supreme court of the United States for-shall I say?-its endorsation; and in reality it is the supreme court of the United States which in the final analysis dictates what the laws are that are passed by congress. Personally I want to see this parliament supreme and representing the people. I do not like the judiciary interpreting the law too much. In fact, I do not like them at all when it comes to a question of interpreting the law. I would rather see that left to parliament to deal with, as it is in Great Britain. You do not see a great many judicial interpretations of the law in Great Britain.
I had not intended to speak on this question at all, Mr. Speaker, and I was prompted to do so only by what was said by the former Minister of Justice. However, I am extremely glad that this legislation is being brought down, because as I said when the resolution on unemployment insurance was before the house last week, I attach far more importance to the shorter working day and increased wages than to the bill dealing with unemployment insurance. I do not regard the forty-eight hour iveek as a panacea for any of the problems which are facing us at the present time, but if the forty-eight hour week is reduced to about a thirty hour week we shall be going a long way towards solving some of the difficulties through which this country is passing at the present time. I am glad to give this legislation my endorsation. A great many things have happened since 1919, and to-day when the house is being asked to approve of a forty-eight hour week I may say that the forty-eight hour week or the eight hour day is as obsolete in 1935 as the twelve hour day was in 1919. I hope that when the measure is brought down dealing with the forty-eight hour week, amendments will be permitted looking towards a shorter working day and a shorter working week, and that such amendments will receive the sympathetic consideration of this House of Commons.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, in
view of the length of the discussion and the wide range it has necessarily taken, it may be well to remind the house that what we have 92582-42
before us at the moment is not a bill providing for an eight hour day, of which the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has given notice, but a draft convention of the general conference of the international labour organization. It is that draft convention which this house is being asked to approve. I will read the resolution so that it will be clear in the minds of all present:
That, it is expedient that parliament do approve of the convention limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week adopted as a draft convention by the general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations at its first session in Washington on the 28th day of November, 1919, reading as follows:
This afternoon we approved of four draft conventions of the international labour organization. We have approved of all of them in the light of what we believe to be the legislative competence of this parliament, and we have approved of them to the extent of that competence. We on this side are prepared to approve of the draft convention now before us with respect to hours of labour in exactly the same way and on exactly the same terms. We approve of the draft convention so far as the legislative competence of this parliament permits us to do so, in other words in so far as the jurisdiction of this parliament is concerned.
There is one thing above all else which is important in this as in all matters of public relations and human affairs, and that is for us to be at least honest with ourselves as members of parliament, honest with those whom we represent, and particularly as members desirous of promoting social reform to be honest with those whose interest we hope to be able to further by any action we may take in this parliament. There come to my mind in this connection the words of the exMinister of Justice, my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), when he said that an assumption of jurisdiction does not create jurisdiction. I think it is important that we should all remember that. I might change the word "assumption" to the word "assertion" and say that an assertion of jurisdiction does not confer jurisdiction. Nor does the assertion of legislative competence confer legislative competence, even if that assertion is made by the present Minister of Justice or by the Prime Minister; that does not make the least bit of difference. Legislative competence is either here or it is not here, and when the matter comes to be decided it will be decided by that branch of government which exists for the purpose of settling questions of legislative competence. The Prime



International Labour Conventions
Minister has repeatedly and most emphatically said that of the different branches of government he regards the judicial as the most important, and he has given as his reason for that opinion the fact that the judicial branch is the one that determines these very questions of legislative competence. So that whatever we do here is done in the light of what we believe to be our legislative competence. If I believed that the courts of the land when the competence of any of this legislation came to be decided were going to present a certain point of view, I should feel it my duty to bring that fact to the attention of those who are interested in the legislation. And as leader of the opposition in parliament it is part of my duty with respect to the legislation which has been introduced to point out any feature which is likely at present to be misunderstood or to which exception later is likely to be taken. I should be very much remiss in my duty as leader of the opposition if I did not reemphasize what has been so ably said this afternoon by my colleague, the ex-Minister of Justice, with reference to jurisdiction, if I did not reemphasize what has already been given as the opinion of all ministers of justice who have held office in this country since the League of Nations was created, as well as the opinion which have been given by the Supreme Court of Canada. I need not say more than that.
I should perhaps point out to my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), who has just spoken, that I entirely agree with him when he urges the desirability of uniformity in legislation as between the provinces and as between the dominion and the provinces. Unquestionably uniformity of labour standards is something to be desired, and it is to be desired not in the field of Canada alone, because the whole purpose of these conventions is to bring about uniformity so far as may be possible throughout the world. It is not going to help Canada, as much as we should like to see her helped, for her to have the best standards, though they may be uniform, if other countries have lower standards. Unfortunately, as my hon. friend knows better than anyone else perhaps, where there are two standards competing with each other the baser of the two is apt to prevail in the long run. It has therefore been the hope of those interested in labour matters at Geneva that they would be able to bring about such uniformity of laws that those countries with high standards would not suffer by reason of their virtue and that the mean country would not profit in virtue of its meanness. That
fMr. Mackenzie King.]
is the whole purpose underlying uniformity. But there are two ways of bringing uniformity about.
I think the tragedy of this parliament has been that though we have been here through five sessions at a time when labour matters were to the fore and when the provinces as well as the dominion were all in a mood to work together for improving industrial conditions, there has been no conference between the provinces and the dominion that amounted to anything with respect to labour legislation. Two or three conferences have been called but they have been over night affairs; representatives of the provincial governments have come here from the different provinces to discuss certain measures and on their arrival they have been asked by the ministry what their views were with regard to certain questions, without the ministry telling them anything about its views. With respect to this very question of the hours of labour there was a conference no more recently than two years ago, and when the representatives from all the different provinces came the question wras:	which of your
rights are you prepared to give up? We wish to know that before we proceed any further. That was the substance of the remarks addressed to them by the Prime Minister himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was in the letter
of last fall, but they did not meet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but I am referring to the conference prior to that; the same thing occurred at the conference. They were asked what they were prepared to surrender. Some were quite prepared to surrender certain of their rights but they wanted a quid pro quo; they wished to know in the taking over of services who was going to foot the bill. Others were not prepared to surrender anything and no decision was reached. Had a real effort been made during these five years to bring into conference the different provinces of the dominion with a view to securing uniformity with respect to the shortening of the working day, there would not have been any trouble in attaining that end, and we should now have had an eight hour day and a forty-eight hour week effective in the various trades from one end of Canada to the other.
May I point out further that, as the exMinister of Justice said, there are different ways of going about things. We are living under a parliamentary system of government. Whatever we may be in the course of the

International Labour Conventions
next year, we are at present not a full-fledged dictatorship. The method by which we have hoped-some of us at least-to effect reforms in this country for some time to come is the parliamentary method. It would be an unhappy day for labour in this country if it ever began to hope for its reforms from a dictatorship. They might seemingly gain something until they themselves became members of the servile state. Once members of the servile state they would soon find out where they stood under a system of regimentation, with a dictator at the head of affairs. So long as we have a parliamentary system of government, a constitution which governs the country, there should be observance of the proper methods of procedure with respect to effecting any changes that may be necessary. Therein lies the second great tragedy, it seems to me, of this parliament's failure to proceed as it might have done in these matters. If there had been a conference, as it was repeatedly suggested from this side there should be, to consider this very question of jurisdiction, this very question of amendments to the British North America Act, what would appear to be necessary in the way of amendments to the act might have been known at least four years ago and steps could long ago have been taken to have the act amended wherein it may be necessary to amend it. Had that been done, we would not have had to-day to wait for what amendments may be necessary to the British North America Act to effect certain purposes much to be desired, for agreement between the provinces and the dominion to effect a desired result; all that would have been settled long before this.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has been one of those who along with hon. members of the opposition have urged upon the government during each of the past five sessions that the provinces be called into conference with a view to taking steps at once to have the British North America Act so amended as to give us power in these social matters to legislate as may be necessary. But his appeals and those from this side have fallen on deaf ears. Unfortunate as this may be, we have to look the facts in the face. The mere making of assertions as to what is or is not to be does not meet the situation in any way that can be at all helpful. It may help to serve the purposes of a general election, although I do not believe it will even do that. But a very serious situation for labour and the country will arise if the legislation which we are passing in this parliament dealing
with great social problems should all of a sudden come to naught because of the fact that instead of building our house upon a rock we are building it upon sand, and instead of building upon truth we are building upon error. Some of us want to avoid that kind of situation. We wish to see these reforms put through, but on a solid, enduring and truthful basis; and it is on that ground alone that we are prepared to support them.
As to the eight hour day and the approval of this house, I imagine there are some hon. members who have forgotten and probably some who never knew that as long ago as 1910 this house approved the principle of the eight hour day. We had in the parliament of 1908 to 1911 Mr. Alphonse Verville, of the city of Montreal, who like my hon. friend was a representative of labour. Mr. Verville brought in on one or two occasions a bill for an eight hour day with respect to public works and undertakings of the federal government. His bill for one reason or another did not get support the first year or two, but may I say that when I had the honour of being taken into Sir Wilfrid Laurier's cabinet as Minister of Labour and Mr. Verville reintroduced his bill, I moved in the house that the bill should be referred to a special committee to deal with the question of hours of labour on public works. I was subsequently elected chairman of that committee, and I have in my hand a copy of the report of its proceedings: proceedings of the special committee on Bill No. 21, an act respecting hours of labour on public works, comprising reports, evidence and correspondence, December 9, 1909, to May 3, 1910. This, as one may see, is a voluminous compendium, comprising between 700 and 800 pages, but as I recall the matter, and as the proceedings record, we had not concluded the taking of evidence at the end of that session. Next session, when Mr. Verville reintroduced his bill, instead of having the committee go over the matter further, the House of Commons passed the bill through its different stages. I supported it very strongly, maintaining the principle of an eight hour day for labour on all federal government undertakings or on whatever might come within the legislative competence of this parliament. As I have said, the bill passed the House of Commons. Therefore this house approved the eight hour day principle at that time. The bill went to the Senate; it passed its first reading and its second reading there, so that the Senate approved the principle of the eight hour day. After second reading in the Senate the bill

International Labour Conventions
was referred to a committee. As happened in respect to another measure of which I spoke this afternoon, dissolution took place suddenly on the reciprocity issue before a report had been made by the Senate committee, and the legislation was not enacted at that time. But as a result of the discussion and of the action taken then, the government from that time on-I am speaking now of Liberal administrations, although I think the same is true of the administration that followed that of Sir Wilfrid Laurier-construed the fair wages resolution which had been passed by this house, and which related to wages and hours on government work, as one which should fix as a maximum number of hours for work, the eight hour day. I speak subject to correction, but my impression is that the Labour department gave that construction to what was meant by a fair day's work-an eight hour day-and the schedules that were attached to the various contracts fixed the day at eight hours.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not until later.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister says: "Not until later." He may be right, because as all hon. members know, after 1911 we passed to the decade which was the period of the war, and certainly during the war it may well be that in some cases longer hours were permitted. But after the war I think the eight hour day principle was pretty generally observed. At any rate I can speak for the administration of which I was the head from 1921 to 1930. Throughout that time the Labour department felt itself bound by the fair wages resolution as we interpreted it and by orders in council as we passed them, to give effect to the eight hour day with respect to government work. As has been referred to this afternoon by the exMinister of Justice, our government did not stop at public works and undertakings-and it will be noticed that this draft convention relates to industrial undertakings-the government took in the public service generally in its endeavour to further the principle of the eight hour day. I think I should read the order in council that was passed. It was referred to by the ex-Minister of Justice, but I think it should be placed on record in full because it shows to what extent the late Liberal administration at any rate was prepared to support the eight hour day principle generally. It is P.C. 670, approved by the governor general on March 27, 1930, and was laid on the table of the house on March 31, 1930, as reported on pages 10S2 and 1083 of Hansard:
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 19th March, 1930, from the Minister of Labour, submitting as follows.
May I say that this and one other order in council summed up what there had been in the form of regulations during the previous years and put them in the form of formal orders in council.
1.	That it was recognized in the labour part of the treaty of Versailles and the corresponding provisions of the other treaties of peace, that the wellbeing-physical, moral and intellectual- of industrial wage earners is of supreme international importance, and that although differences of climate, habits and customs, economic principles and industrial traditions, make strict uniformity in the conditions of labour difficult of immediate attainment, there are methods and principles for regulating labour conditions which all industrial communities should endeavour to apply, so far as their special circumstances will permit.
2.	That approval was expressed in the peace treaties of the principle of the eight hour working day.
3.	That a draft convention was adopted at the first session of the conference of the international labour organization (League of Nations) in 1919 to limit hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight hours per day.
4.	That the draft convention above mentioned was referred in 1924 to the select standing committee on industrial and international relations of the House of Commons of Canada for examination and report.
5.	That on the recommendation of the committee on industrial and international relations of the House of Commons, approved by the House of Commons, the draft convention on hours of work in industrial undertakings was referred by order in council to the Supreme Court of Canada with a view to determining the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial authorities, respectively, on this subject.
May I point out that this is the very draft convention which is -before us at the present time. It was referred to a select committee of the house, and the committee, of which I think my hon. friend was a member, on which at any rate all parties in this house were represented, were unanimous in their decision that the matter should be referred to the supreme court for an opinion. And the members were unanimous as well in their approval of the principle of the eight hour day. So again this house approved in that manner the principle of the eight hour day. The order in council continues:
G. That the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada contained the following declaration: "The subject matter is generally within the competence of the -legislatures of the provinces but the authority vested in these legislatures does not enable them to give the force of law to provisions such as those contained in the draft convention in relation to servants of the dominion government, or to legislate for those parts of Canada which are not within the boundaries of a province."

International Labour Conventions
7.	That a report from the Civil Service Commission, which was submitted to Your Excellency in Council under date of February 16, 1925. showed that the standard daily hours of work of monthly rate employees in the government department are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., with an interval for luncheon and a halfholiday on Saturday, and that the standard hours of prevailing rate employees, numbering 1,576 in Ottawa and 18,264 outside Ottawa (of whom 12.247 were postmasters paid on percentage basis), are 44 hours per week, based on an eight hour day for five days, and 4 hours, or a half day, on Saturday. Certain exceptions to these standard hours of work were also noted in the report of the Civil Service Commission.
8.	That request has been made to the government for the granting of the eight hour day to its own employees.
9.	That it is desirable that the principle of the eight hour day should be applied to any branches of the public service of Canada in which it is not now observed.
The minister accordingly recommends that, except in cases where the work of employees is intermittent in character, or the application of this rule is not deemed to be practicable or in the public interest, the hours of work of any employees of the dominion government who are still required to work more than eight hours daily be reduced to eight hours daily, with a half holiday on Saturday.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
E. J. Lemaire,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
That order in council was approved, and as I have pointed out it extends the principle to the public service as set forth in its provisions.
But the late Liberal administration did not stop there. One of the last measures that was enacted before we went out of office was the passing of an eight hour day act. I have in my hand the text of the measure;
An act respecting fair wages and an eight hour day for labour employed on public works of the Dominion of Canada.
1.	This act may be cited as The Fair Wages and Eight Hour Day Act, 1930.
2.	In this act the expression "minister" means the Minister of Labour.
3.	(1) Every contract made hereafter with the government of Canada for construction, remodelling, repair or demolition of any work shall be subject to the following conditions respecting wages and hours:
(a)	All persons in the employ of the contractor, sub-contractor, or of any other person doing or contracting to do the whole or any part of the work contemplated by the contract shall be paid such wages as are generally accepted as current from time to time for competent workmen in the district in which the work is being performed for the character or class of work in which they are respectively engaged; provided that wages shall in all oases be 6uch as are fair and reasonable;
(b)	the working hours of persons while so employed 6hall not exceed eight hours per day except in such special cases as the governor in council may otherwise provide, or except in cases of emergency, as may be approved by the minister.
Then there are other particulars which help to make more definite that provision, and there is one which says;
The governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister, may make regulations with regard to wages and hours herein provided for and without limiting the generality of the foregoing may provide by regulation for-
And a series of provisions or sections are set out all of which are intended to ensure the carrying out of the letter as well as the spirit of that legislation.
So I may sum up by saying that as long ago as 1910, this House of Commons approved the principle of an eight hour day to the extent of its legislative competence and authority; that again 'by its interpretation of the resolution respecting the payment of fair wages and the application of hours and fair conditions in connection with public works it has approved it, and that by order in council and by legislation, as I have already stated, it has approved it. So far, therefore, as this resolution is concerned as it comes to this parliament from Geneva via the government, in the light of orders in council read this afternoon, which still stand, because they have not been repealed, I think this house should have no difficulty whatever in approving the draft convention. Certainly those of us who belong to the Liberal party are only too ready to approve it in those terms.


Angus MacInnis: Listening to this discussion reminded me of the story told about Galileo, who, tortured on the rack for saying that the world moves, recanted, but in an aside said that it moves for all that. I am inclined to agree with Galileo, that the world does move. The right hon. gentleman who has just taken hit seat (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated that his government began the agitation for the eight hour day in 1910. In 1919 the international labour organization took it up, and now almost sixteen years later it has come up here for approval. Surely we are making progress 1 As the right hon. gentleman said, I cannot see at the moment what particular useful purpose our approval can serve, unless it be for election purposes. But I noticed, when he was telling us of the achievements of the Liberal government, that the order in council he read was passed on March 27, 1930, just a short time before the dissolution of parliament. So I presume that the present government has learned something from the government that preceded them.
The eight hour day is obsolete to-day. I have before me the legislative program of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada placed
662	COMMONS
International Labour Conventions
before the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and members of the cabinet in 1932. In the paragraph referring to hours of labour I find this:
For the past ten years requests have been submitted seeking compliance by Canada with the eight hour day convention of the international labour office.
Then it goes on to point out that this has been submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada for decision. Now for ten years, that is ever since 1922 when the Liberal party came into office, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada have been trying to have this convention approved. There is no reason why we should oppose this resolution, but unless we do something more than just approve we are not doing anything. For the last four or five years the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada at their conventions have gone on record in favour not of the eight hour day and the forty-eight hour week but of the six hour day and five day week, which as a matter of fact has been adopted already in some instances. If we are going to put the unemployed workers of this country back at work; if the unemployed workers in all the industrial countries of the world are to be employed again, we will have to go further, possibly, than the six hour day and five day week.
Looking in this direction the right hon. leader of the opposition stated that labour had nothing to gain from a dictatorship. I should like to point out to the right hon. gentleman that if and when a dictatorship comes in this country it is far more likely to come through the owning classes than through the labour movement. If there is any movement in this dominion that is opposed to a dictatorship I would say it is the labour movement. That is not only true of Canada; it is true of other countries as well. The people who have financed the dictatorship in other capitalist countries have been the owning and the ruling classes of those countries, so the right hon. gentleman need not concern himself with whether or not we are in favour of dictatorship.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has not understood me at all. I have always gathered that labour was not in favour of a dictatorship, and I was warning labour against a dictatorship in this country, which may come a little sooner than some expect.


Angus MacInnis: That is quite right, but I would say that my right hon. friend gets his greatest support from the place where the danger in that regard is greater than it is anywhere else in Canada to-day. We must work for a shorter day, a shorter week, a better

regulation of our hours of labour and a division of work if the people of this country are to benefit from their great heritage here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I do not know just why
so much heat and feeling should be introduced into this debate. To me it is the discussion of a matter of very great interest, which should not arouse any animosities and which should not be the occasion for the expression of so much bitterness.
In the first place objection was taken with regard to the form of the resolution. I said that I would look it up this evening at recess, and I find that my recollection was correct. When the resolution was being prepared I suggested that it should be in the terms of the resolution introduced by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) when dealing with exactly the same situation in 1928. In the journals of that year I find the following:
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King (Prince Albert) it was resolved,-That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the slavery convention signed at Geneva on the twenty-fifth of September, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, and which was signed, on behalf of Canada, by the Canadian representative duly authorized to that effect;
And that this house do approve of same.
That applied also with respect to two other resolutions, one with respect to an international sanitary convention and the other dealing with another matter. I mention these because I thought it desirable that we should have a uniform form of resolution-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -and I am responsible to that extent for the resolution being in its present form. I still think it was better to follow the form used by the right hon. gentleman than the form which was suggested this afternoon. On further consideration I think it is correct to say that it is expedient that parliament should pass it and that this house should take the necessary action in that direction.
So much for that point. May I again suggest to the right hon. gentleman that he is hardly fair to himself when he suggests that during the last few years an interprovincial conference might have been held at which these matters might have been disposed of. The right hon. gentleman was in power in prosperous times, when the difficulties of the great depression were not overhanging all government activities. Yet from 1921 to 1930 I find it difficult to discover anywhere in the record anything that would indicate that

International Labour Conventions
unity or unanimity was secured as between the provinces and the dominion with respect to any matters of this character. I am not unmindful of the fact that an interprovincial conference was held; I am not unmindful of the fact that it laboured for many days; I am not unmindful of the fact that the results were negligible.
I also have to remind this house that I have never thought it necessary that a long time should be taken in disposing of conferences. We called the conference to deal with the statute of Westminster, and let me remind this house that had that statute been passed in the terms suggested by the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) it would have done violence to the rights of a part of this dominion. In consequence of the objection of the provinces, commencing with Ontario, at the conference of 1930 I asked that section 7, dealing with the Canadian situation, should be allowed to stand until I could send over a draft of the section. On my return to Canada a draft section was prepared in our office, with the assistance of others as well as of myself, and we called a conference. That conference met at ten o'clock in the morning. The next day the initials of every premier of Canada had been appended to the section in approval; in one case it was the representative of the premier, but that included the premiers of Quebec and Ontario. That was done in less than thirty-six hours. If you have prepared something; if you know what you want to do and have an opportunity for a frank and full discussion, there is no reason why it should not be done as it was on that occasion. At every conference we have held since 1930 we have had definite proposals to submit to the provinces when they attended. They have expressed their views and we have been prompt in signifying our approval or disapproval of their suggestions, and the conferences have terminated. Always they have sat just as long as it was desirable to sit in order to do the business. No purpose is ever served by having conferences last longer than is necessary to dispose of the business with which they have to deal.
May I further remind this house that the matter to which the right hon. gentleman referred, namely insurance, was a matter about which there had been grave differences of opinion. Following the Citizens Insurance Company and Parsons case back in the early days the privy council had determined by a long series of decisions that the business of insurance was under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the provinces. Yet three of
the provinces at the conferences we held expressed not only their willingness but their desire that we should take over insurance from them, because they, felt they had neither the machinery nor the revenues with which adequately to deal with the matter, having regard to the magnitude of the business itself. But the older provinces were not so inclined, with the result that the discussion did not bring about any fruitful result. Nor will such discussions bring about any fruitful result so long as the greater provinces, and particularly the largest of all, believe they have quite as much ability as we have and have the legislative competence to deal with insurance, and continue to do so.
I mention that in passing because there was also another matter under discussion, namely companies. We did agree, and I am happy to say that it was unanimous so far as the provinces and the dominion were concerned, that we should have a uniform Companies Act. But when it came down to terms there was such a difference of opinion that it was impossible to arrive at any uniform act which was acceptable to all.
With respect to other problems with which we had to deal we were able to arrive at conclusions very speedily. I do in all fairness submit to this house that if during these long years of toil and depression, where we have been able to bring about a measure of agreement with the provinces in connection with so vital a matter as the statute of Westminster and with respect to other matters with which we have had to deal, arising out of the depression, we are hardly censurable compared with those who had ten years or thereabouts to deal with these problems and -bring about a solution of them by unanimous agreement with the provinces.
I might also say that when the case to which we have been referring this aftemon with respect to hours of labour was argued before the Supreme Court of Canada the position taken by the province of Ontario was a very simple one. They said this:
Edward Bayly, K.C., appearing for the Attorney General of Ontario, argued that the dominion parliament has exclusive power to sanction ratification of the draft convention of the international labour conference, and that if a draft convention is formally ratified, thereupon becoming binding upon the dominion, a further obligation will rest upon the dominion authorities to take whatever action is necessary to make its provisions effective. In the absence of ratification of the eight hour day convention by the federal authorities, it was contended' on behalf of the province of Ontario that its subject matter is probably within provincial legis lative control.
664	COMMONS
International Labour Conventions
So that if we are to apportion blame on the basis of non-intervention by way of effective effort it will clearly appear that within the argument made by the province of Ontario before the Supreme Court of Canada the lack of attention was on the part of the federal government for not ratifying the convention and thereby making it a federal law. That in itself explains not only why it has not heretofore been regarded as a federal matter, but also why we are now seeking ratification before following it with a legislative enactment, notice of which appears on the order paper.
I do not propose to do more than make one observation with respect to one statement of the former Minister of Justice. I refer to the letter which I sent to the provinces last year. Of course he realized when he was reading it I was putting before the provinces the position which they had taken. We have had frequent discussions about this at various conferences, informally. I was surprised to hear the right hon. gentleman suggest that in any sense we were endeavouring to compel them to do anything. There were informal discussions with respect to the legislative capacity of the legislatures in connection with social matters as distinguished from the power of the parliament of Canada. Frequently that was the discussion in general terms. The letter which I sent out in August or the early part of September, 1934, to all the premiers was predicated upon putting before them the position which I understood they took and which I believe is really the position which many of them did take, although I do not think the province of Ontario did take it as strongly as has been suggested, namely that they claimed exclusive jurisdiction. It has always been a subject matter of discussion as to the terms on which they were willing to part with it-and I refer to old age pensions and matters of that kind. I was not endeavouring to express an opinion in that letter, because my opinions have never been expressed to them in those terms.
But there was another matter which arose. A conference was to be called. During my absence an effort to raise issues was made by the premier of Quebec, and again in an editorial in the Vancouver Sun; and at the meeting at whioh the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) accepted his nomination he said that we were going to endeavour to raise racial and religious issues at that conference. When I came back and asked the various premiers-I do not wonder the hon. gentleman smiles-whether they were prepared to meet in conference, one of them said he could not come before Christmas, and I

advised by telegram every one of them, and made a statement in the press that such action had been taken. I would deprecate any effort to raise the issues mentioned in the editorial in the Vancouver Sun, or the warning given at his nomination convention by the hon. member for St. Boniface. I.mention this in passing-


Mr. HOWDEN:: I do not remember any such warning.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All he has to do is to read his speech when he accepted nomination, and if he will do that 'I will make it right for him in this house if he does not find that what I have said is correct.
To proceed further: There are three propositions I desire to make to this house. The first one is this, that on the issue as to the question which we now submit should be decided in the affirmative, as to the jurisdiction of this parliament, the Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law of November, 1934 contains an article upon the constitutional capacity of Canada to give effect to an international labour conference. Mr. Jenks, in his article, refers to the observations of Mr. Justice, now Chief Justice Duff, in dealing with the question of jurisdiction. Mr. Justice Duff after dealing with article 405 made this reservation of some importance:
No question is submitted as to the duty of the member arising under the succeeding clauses of the same article in the event of the competent authority or authorities giving its or their consent to the recommendation or draft convention; and upon this no opinion is expressed.
Mr. Jenks proceeded in his discussion to point out that no question was asked of the Supreme Court of Canada as to the competence of this parliament. He said:
The direct question: "Is the dominion competent under any provision of the British North America Act to enact legislation giving effect to the convention?" was never properly before the court.
And it was not. Then arguments were lodged in favour of the dominion jurisdiction, and at one point, as an instance of the strange anomalies of life, the dominion joined with the province of Quebec and argued against its own jurisdiction. That is disclosed by the record.
I am not concerned about the arguments; I am not concerned about the theories; I am concerned only about one thing, namely the practical question. I think one can speak to it without any difficulty. I could not help but think in the Socratic method: as the

International Labour Conventions
hon. gentleman was arguing: Did the government sign on behalf of the British empire the treaty of peace? With the provisions with respect to labour that I urged this afternoon the answer to that must be yes. That is clear.
There is just one further point to which for some reason the hon. gentleman this afternoon would not refer. Article 405 in the treaty reads in part:
In the case of a federal state, the power of which to enter into conventions on labour matters is subject to limitations, it shall be in the discretion of that government to treat a draft convention to which such limitations apply as a recommendation only, and the provisions of this article with respect to recommendations shall apply in such case.
Therefore there was -conferred upon the government of the day a discretion. That discretion the Liberal government exercised by making recommendations to the provinces and ultimately making a reference to the courts in which, as Mr. Jenks said, the direct question was never settled. This government proposes to exercise the discretion in the opposite sense. We propose to exercise a discretion by exercising our legislative powers and passing legislation after ratification of the convention. That is all there is to it.
I do not think that the problem of law is as obstructive and as difficult as might be suggested. The only reason I read from the judgment this afternoon was a very simple one, namely so that members of the House of Commons who are interested in reading these matters, and many of them are, might at least have before them the decisions of the court in that regard. They would have before them the statements made by the judges in arriving at their conclusion and the reasons which governed their action.
Now, Canada claims to be a nation; Canada signs conventions; Canada makes treaties. The ex-Minister of Justice, who spoke this afternoon, signed the Halibut treaty as a minister, and as the Minister of Justice for Canada. We have claimed, and rightly claimed, that under the pow'ers conferred upon us we have become a nation. (Tf we are a nation there must be somewhere in this national government-and I do not use the term "national government" in the sense in which it is sometimes used-in this national federal government there must !be somewhere a power to speak for all the citizens of Canada. That being so, as Lord Sankey said, certainly no one province can do it. Certainly you cannot piece it together by saying that in the aggregate all the provinces can do it. But the body corporate,
the entity, is the Dominion of Canada, and that dominion speaks through this parliament with respect to matters to which we have bound ourselves by our treaty obligations.
I submit with deference that the former Minister of Justice has confused the words "obligation" and "power". The question of power is the question of jurisdiction. The question of obligation is the acceptance of responsibility. The dominion does not accept the responsibility except through the execution of a treaty. If it accepts that responsibility in the exercise of a discretion then the power is conferred by section 132. When the obligation is accepted the power is conferred by that section 132. It is so simple. It is like an ordinary everyday agreement. If a man is willing to accept an obligation it follows that he has the power to do it, or the obligation should not be made.
Now the treaty of Versailles provides for two things: (a) the renunciation by taking action of a national obligation-, or in the case of a discretion (b) the acceptance of the obligation If the nation accepts the obligation, then the power is found in section 132. Side by side with the responsibility marches the jurisdiction to exercise it. That jurisdiction may or may not be exercised, but there is the power to exercise it. During the last sixteen years this parliament was not asked to ratify the convention. It might have been; it was not. What was done was to pass an order in council dealing with part of it, and to refer to the terms of the peace treaty itself, in article 405, to what labour meant and to all that concerns its wellbeing; but every word and every line of that obligation is national in its character. It is not divided into nine parts. It does not concern nine provinces. It concerns them in the aggregate, and in the aggregate they become the Dominion of Canada, and therefore the obligation is national, and not provincial. The sum total of provincial Obligations can never be exercised with respect to a national matter in connection with which the country as a whole has bound itself by treaty, by piecing together piecemeal the legislation of the provinces. It must be a national exercise of the power, and that can be done only by this parliament. That is the point I desire to make and which I think concludes the question that was raised by hon. gentlemen opposite.
Let me say this The hon. gentleman was somewhat cynical with respect to the conclusions at which lawyers -arrive, and he was uncertain whether or not an opinion was held at this moment or at that moment. I do think it was unfair to suggest that a letter asking

International Labour Conventions
for a conference and dealing with the problems as put forward by the provinces, and what their attitude was, represented the attitude of the one who had extended the invitation. Obviously that can never be so. The subject matter of the discussion does not indicate the opinion of the person who extends the invitation. It would be ruinous to any conference if that were so; that is quite clear.
There is just this to be said. I did say that law was a progressive science in dealing -with the construction of our constitution. I did not for one single moment mean, as was suggested, that opinions of lawyers differ merely because they happen to be different men. But the development of civilization broadened the attitude of mind towards judicial decisions, and I quoted from the language I think of Mr. Justice Wendell Holmes, who said that common law was based not on logic but on experience. The interpretation of statutes is still governed by the same general rules to-day as it was three hundred years ago; but the broadening of the attitude of mind and outlook in the light of present day civilization is well represented by the method in which this constitution of ours has been slowly evolved and developed.
I did say that I have arrived at a conclusion, which the hon. gentleman suggests is erroneous. I am always willing to say it may be, but as far as my mind is concerned I have no doubt, and I am just as apt to be right as the hon. gentleman. I had a very substantial experience in the practice of my profession and with respect to the framework of the constitution, if he will look at the law books he will find that the position I took was supported by the privy council in all cases in which I had the privilege of arguing before them. I can say that with some degree of confidence.


Ernest Lapointe: Not in the Nadan case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not arguing the Nadan case on that point at all. That was the dominion. I drafted the Alberta act, with the assistance of Mr. Farley, of Edmonton, and the attorney general of that province, when the question of its constitutionality came up in the Nadan case, entrusted me with the responsibility of defending my own statute. What happened was that the dominion intervened and claimed that there was no right of appeal to the privy council. I was acting for the province, to sustain the conviction which had confiscated a Cadillac car costing about five or six thousand dollars and likewise its cargo of liquor. In the event the privy council decided the conviction was valid, the

car properly confiscated to the crown, and likewise the contents, which went to make happier the lives of some individuals. But so far as the constitutional point was concerned, that was settled by counsel representing the dominion. The present Lord Hailsham appeared for the attorney general of England. My memory is that the dominion was represented by Mr. Greene, although I am not quite certain as to that. Perhaps my hon. friend will remember.


Ernest Lapointe: No, I am sorry I do not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At any rate I was appearing in the interests of the province of Alberta.
You have here, Mr. Speaker, a question of first importance. We are going to enact legislation based on the ratification of a treaty, of an agreement, of a convention, and that raises a single, simple question: Did Canada under the peace treaty assume obligations? If she did, was there a convention made pursuant to that? Did Canada ratify it? If she did, in my judgment, there is no power except the parliament of Canada to deal with the question with which we are concerned.
I think it is unfortunate that we should get into a discussion as to the attitude of this party or that, or of this member or that member, with respect to these matters in the past, except as one is compelled to make answer to observations made by those opposite. This is a problem partly legal, partly social, but in any event national; and if it is national, if there should be uniformity of law, as is agreed upon by all; if there should be no conflict between provinces with respect to the terms and conditions under which they prepare goods for export; if there should be uniformity in hours of toil and cessation from toil so that there will be equality as between the provinces when goods are sold on the markets of the world, and if there should not be a mad competition-in invitations to induce manufacturers to set up their factories in this province or in that because in a particular province he may work his labour longer hours than in another-if that is wrong, as everyone agrees it must be, there is only one method by which it can be dealt with, and that is by uniformity of law. That uniformity cannot be secured by piecemeal legislation, to use the language of the books, by one province enacting an eight hour day law and another a nine hour day; by one province making limitations of this character and another of another. Rather there must be placed upon the statute books of our country a broadly conceived statute that will ensure uniformity and equality in the work with respect to the matters in which the workman is interested.

International Labour Conventions


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What does the Prime Minister claim as regards the draft convention respecting hours? Does he claim equally with respect to all the other draft conventions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I explained, without going into details this afternoon, that there are some of them that are so clearly not covered by the principles to which I referred that they might be regarded as purely provincial. And that was mentioned by Lord Sankey in the judgment I referred to this afternoon. I will say this, however, that each one of them, so far as we are concerned, will be dealt with on its merits as it arises. But what we are inviting this house to do is to enact legislation that will provide that a forty-eight hour law is valid in every province of confederation. I agree with what has been said, that conditions have greatly changed since 1919. Never were opportunities better to enact legislation than then. Never was the opportunity greater than at that time and following the war, during the period that my hon. friend was in office. Never, I say, was there a greater opportunity. Let us see what happened in relation to the so-called Lemieux Act. That act was passed and put on the statute books and remained there twenty odd years before it was attacked in the court. But I think it was the opinion of nine lawyers out of ten that it was invalid as it stood. At least, that was always the opinion whenever we had friendly discussions respecting the validity of statutes, and it was not until the Snider case was taken to the court of last resort that the matter was cleared up. It was suggested that we should refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. But what did the privy council say? The privy council has said that the opinion of the supreme court in the matter is no better than the opinion of the law officers of the crown; and Lord Loreburne said that an opinion should not be asked for because the thing to be determined is not the validity of a hypothetical question but the validity of a concrete statute that may be enacted by the legislature, whether it be parliament or the provincial legislature. That was dealt with at some length, and Lord Sankey took this view. He said, "We cannot be draughtsmen for the Dominion of Canada. We cannot have submitted to us the whole of a statute and be asked to say what is good and what is bad therein." And in any event, the view has been held that such an opinion is no better than that of the law officers of the crown, being advisory only. He points out, further, another reason which I think is so sound that merely to mention it carries the conviction necessary in the case. Other people are bound.
This is an international obligation, and when other nations and other peoples are affected by advisory opinions and they are not before the court, it is inadvisable that such opinion be given, because it affects in any event only your own people and cannot be better, as has been said, than that of the law officers of the crown.
I was glad to hear the closing observations of the leader of the opposition that he proposed to support the passage of this resolution. One would hardly think, from the clamorous manner in which opposition was received by his adherents this afternoon, that they were anxious that anything should be passed emanating from this government. It is always one of the misfortunes of party strife that parties are unable to see that something may be beneficial to the country even though it emanates from Nazareth. The old cry, "Can any good come out of Nazareth?" was beautifully exemplified by what took place this afternoon-loud cheers and counter cheers when words were uttered against the efficiency of the legislation or the validity of the resolution-and then winding up with a magnificent display of rhetoric about undying devotion to a great cause, and the shortness of hours, so that one could hardly count the time between going to work and ceasing from work; and declaring, "We will support the measure with all our might."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize the Minister of Public Works, on 'behalf of His Majesty, to enter into an agreement w'ith the corporation of the city of Ottawa to extend the period of the existing agreement with the corporation for one year from July 1, 1934.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved that the house go into
Hudson Bay Route
[Stage Direction]
committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide for the collection by the dominion government of dues to be applied towards the maintenance of the lighthouses and buoy erected or placed by the British government on or near the coasts of the Bahamas and Leeward islands, from ships arriving at and departing from ports in Canada which derive benefits from the said lighthouses and buoy.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. M. STITT (Nelson):: I wish to
ask the government a question based on the report of the imperial shipping committee for 1934, on the subject of marine insurance rates on hulls and cargoes out of the port of Churchill, Manitoba. On page 6, section 13 of this report there appears the following:
In our opinion, the evidence, which has now been accumulated by us and which has been published in our reports, tends strongly in the direction of the view that during the open season of navigation for a well-found vessel the risk of casualty is little, if any, greater on the Hudson bay route than on the voyage to Montreal by way of the St. Lawrence.
My question is this:	What steps is this
government taking to have these rates, which are now five times greater than those from Montreal out of Churchill, brought somewhere near a parity with those prevailing out of the port of Montreal?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman's question will
remain as a notice. The fact is that the imperial shipping committee has been dealing with this matter under the chairmanship, I think, of Sir Halford Mackinder, who is thoroughly familiar with the question and made a report last year. The committee will make another report before navigation opens for 1935. The question, as the hon. gentleman put it, was as to what the results of the season's operations indicated with respect to casualties on the route, and the suggestion is that if there were no casualties then the rates should be revised downward. That is the position, but it will be looked into carefully and an answer given by the Minister of Marine.



PRIVILEGE-MISS MAGPHAIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss AGNES MAGPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: I should like to offer an explanation
of a statement made by me in the house on January 24, when we were discussing the resolution of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) with respect to the establishment of a federal health policy. In reply to the contention of the Minister of Pensions and National Health, that the country was in the main well provided with hospitals, I said:
I know there are splendid hospitals and doctors and nurses, but what does that matter when the people cannot get into the hospital without guaranteeing payment, and when they have not the money to pay for care in the hospitals? In the city of Owen Sound people have actually been kept waiting on the steps of the hospital until the hospital authorities could be assured there was going to be full pay for their hospitalization. Everyone in this house knows of innumerable instances where people have not been able to secure hospital treatment or the care of a nurse in their own home simply because they could not afford to pay for it. There are hundreds and thousands of nurses out of work in Canada who would be only too glad to take care of the sick, as the sick would be only too glad to be taken care of. But there must be dollars to bridge the chasm between unemployed nurses and uncared for sick.
I believed that the statement made by me at that time was correct, but the name of the hospital was used inadvertently. I had not intended to use the name but I did believe that the statement I made was accurate. If I may be allowed to do so, I should like in support of the statement I made, to refer to the Public Hospitals Act, 1931, passed by the Ontario legislature, a copy of which I received this morning. I would refer to the provision contained in section 18, subsection 1, on page
7.	I shall not read it. It is an amendment that was offered in 1933, which leads me to believe that there was difficulty as regards the admission of indigent patients without delay into hospitals. I had conversations with two reeves of rural municipalities last week end who said that until recently hospitals did communicate with either the clerk of the township or the reeve before admitting indigent patients into the hospitals with which those two reeves had to deal. Since that time however I received from the president of the General and Marine hospital board, Owen Sound, a letter, the tone of which I appreciate. He points out-and I want to put his statement on record-that my statement was unfair to the Owen Sound hospital. I am giving only

Privilege-Mr. Howden
two or three paragraphs which deal particularly with the matter. He said:
This notice came to me as a shock that anyone could imagine such a thing could happen, or any person ever had to wait admission on account of funds. The first duty to patients entering the hospital is to take care of the sick; rich or poor are all treated alike; no patient delayed on account of funds.
This is his statement. I would not go so far as to say that rich and poor are treated alike, but I am reading the statement he made. The next paragraph reads:
There is a necessary chart to fill out when entering, which can he done by relatives or friends if not at patient's bedside. In this chart the question of payment is asked, but all are treated alike.
I can say to you that in my experience of fifteen years as president of the Owen Sound General and Marine hospital and some years before that as member of the trustee board, I have never known of any patient being delayed in entering the hospital on account of funds. Many cases have been entered when we knew the prospects of payment were not good, also foreigners from whom we had no chance of collecting.	.
I said that that would be all, but there is really one other paragraph which should go on record. It is as follows:
This hospital is rated as an A-l standard hospital, a rating that we jealously guard, and if anything happened as stated above we would lose the high standing that we now enjoy.
The letter is signed: J. R. McLinden, president. I want to be fair to the Owen Sound hospital and state that I do regret, and that I did regret the moment after I finished speaking, not having verified the statement. which I used at the time and which I then believed to be correct.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. HOWDEN
On the orders of the day.


John Power Howden: Before the orders of the day are called, may I say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in discussing the resolution before the house a few moments ago intimated that on the occasion of my nomination I had referred to a provincial conference that was sitting at that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that. Look and see what I said.


Ernest Lapointe: He did not speak about the hon. member at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I did.


John Power Howden: I understand that I am accused of having made remarks tending to arouse racial prejudice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


John Power Howden: I caught just the tail end of the remarks, but I believe that was the gist of it. So far as my last nomination is concerned, it was an acclamation and my speech was exceedingly brief and merely one of appreciation of the nomination. I have a very clear and definite recollection of the speech that I made at the convention of 1930, and I believe I am justified in giving an unqualified denial to any statement that I raised racial prejudice at that time or at any time. I represent a constituency where French Roman Catholics and English Protestants are well represented-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the hon. member has quite covered the point of order. As a matter of fact he should state the words of which he complains and then argue the point of order, but he does not seem to be very clear on that point.


John Power Howden: I have not the printed text before me and am speaking from memory, but since I am not going to be allowed to speak, then I desire to give an unqualified denial to the statement of the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that I would look up the newspaper and read to this chamber the report of the speech made 'by the hon. gentleman in which he warned his constituents of certain possible results that might come to them.


Mr. DUPUIS:: But the right hon. gentleman is not allowed to read newspapers, and the hon member may have been misquoted.


John Power Howden: The Prime Minister may read a report of a speech from a newspaper, but I insist that in all my career I made no such remarks in any speech.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Richard Bedford Bennett: I stated yesterday that we would endeavour to take the order dealing with unemployment insurance. I am prepared to proceed with it but I cannot complete the second reading in the time available. I said that we would then take supply. We are prepared to take a few items in supply in the Department of Pensions and National Health.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All right; take supply.



PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
Employers' liability compensation, $40,000.
Mr. GRAY:: Will the minister explain this item?
670	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: It has been the custom for a number of years for the dominion to become responsible for workmen's compensation claims if pensioners in receipt of a pension of twenty-five per cent or over are employed. One can easily see that it might be possible that such workmen might be more liable to accident on account of being incapacitated to the extent of twenty-five per cent by war disability, and therefore it has been the custom for a number of years for the federal government to be responsible for such workmen's compensation.


Ross Wilfred Gray: How much was claimed by way of compensation during the year 1934?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Prior to December 31, 1934, there were twenty-seven claims in Alberta totalling approximately S4,000; one in British Columbia, approximately $100; thirty-eight in Manitoba, approximate!}' SI,670; one in Nova Scotia, $100; seventy in Ontario, $5,300; nine in Saskatchewan, S201 and five in Quebec, $2,388.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sheltered employment, $50,000.
Mr. SANDERSON:: Will the minister explain this item?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: This is in connection with the vetcraft shops. We maintain at Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton and Victoria, what are called vetcraft shops. They were started after the war, with the idea of giving sheltered employment to soldiers who were not able to hold their place on the open labour market. It is not being followed qidte as much now as in those days, but still we have the shops in those five cities. Of course they are not self supporting. They manufacture certain articles very well indeed, but their rate of production is not equal to that of men who are one hundred per cent efficient. This is to make up the loss on those shops.


John Power Howden: Are these men able to
earn anything at all from what they produce?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Oh, yes. The proceeds from sale of products that they made last year amounted to $118,004. Since I have been in the department I went through the vetcraft shop at Montreal and was quite favourably impressed with the way they were getting on. In that shop there were about 28 men working, and they seemed happy. I looked over the goods, talked with their sales agent, and it seemed to me it was being operated very efficiently.


John Power Howden: The reason I asked is
that we had one of these shops in Winnipeg. Unfortunately it was burned down two or three years ago, by accident no doubt, and I think some thirty men were thrown out of employment. Although many appeals were made to the government to reestablish this shop, they did not succeed. Is it the policy of the government to continue these shops, and if so, is there any possibility of reestablishing the shop we had in Winnipeg?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, I do not think it is the policy to start any new shops. It is not an efficient operation, but it does give employment to a number of these men. But it is my judgment, and that of the department, that no additional shops should be established.


John Power Howden: Do I understand that any shops that might by accident be destroyed will be discontinued?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I could not give a
definite answer to a hypothetical case. I hope nothing will happen; if it should, it would have- to be considered on its merits.


John Power Howden: It is not fair to these men in Winnipeg. I understand they were doing very well and turning out excellent goods. The building was destroyed by fire one night, and all attempts to have it reestablished have failed. I appeal to the minister to give the matter consideration, even at this late date, and if possible to do something for these men.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I shall be glad to
look into it.


Frederick George Sanderson: What is the total
number employed in these shops?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: On December 31
last there were 10 at Halifax, 20 at Montreal, 47 at Toronto, 17 at Hamilton and 28 at Victoria, British Columbia.


Frederick George Sanderson: There is no shop at
London?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: Was there not a shop there at one time?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Not in my day.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: What kind of men are employed in these shops? Are they partially disabled?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Oh yes, they are all pensioners with twenty-five or thirty per cent disability, and as a rule men who have lost a good deal of their vim and energy; although in some cases when they get the chance to

Supply-Pensions and National Health
work without being pressed as they would be in ordinary commercial life they get along fairly well. Many of them are able finally to get out and take their places in industry.


Ross Wilfred Gray: How does a veteran obtain
employment in the vetcraft shops?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Our officials in these centres throughout Canada are in close touch with the returned soldiers; for instance men seeking relief or in need of medical attention on account of their pension disability come into the office. There are not many vacancies, but when one occurs whoever is in charge of the vetcraft shop intimates the fact to our official; he keeps his eye open and recommends a suitable man whom that occupation would help; and the man is taken on.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Does the minister think th?
work might be extended in order to include unemployed veterans?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I do not think it will. It filled quite a gap in the years after the war, but it is not an economical undertaking.


Vincent Dupuis: I received this morning a letter from a war veteran at Coronach, Saskatchewan. He had about 800 acres of land in the drought area, I understand, and he is completely ruined. He has four children, and, having been one of my schoolmates at Normal school in Montreal years ago, and hearing that I was a member of parliament, he wrote and begged me to try to obtain something for his family. 1 frankly admit that I should have seen the minister, but as the case might 'be general enough to deserve a public answer I thought it appropriate to put it before him now. This man has nothing except S48 a month pension. He said he borrowed three or four thousand dollars to buy what he needed, and his crop last year was absolutely nothing. I am sure that the minister will give me the proper information which I can send to him.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: What I suggest in a case like that is that the hon. member come down to the department and see me, and I will put him in touch with the proper official. It is hard to make a statement here on an individual case. There are many of these cases in respect to which some suggestion may be made to help. If the hon. member would see me it would be much the -better plan.


Vincent Dupuis: I shall excuse myself again; I knew this answer would be given. But
these veterans were allowed after the war to go farming if they were able to do so, and hundreds of them went on the land; I thought there must be many cases like this one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not with 800 acres.


John Power Howden: Is the administration of the vetcraft shops directly under the department, or under the civil sendee commission?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: 'It is directly under the department.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: When did these shops commence operation-immediately after the war?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What has been the
amount spent under this item since the commencement, as compared with the item we have to-night?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: For the years for which I have the figures, they are as follows:
1930-	31	
$95,0561931-	32	
23,0001932-	33	
6,0001933-	34	
16,000


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to Last Post fund, $60,000.
Ross Wilfred Gray: I note an increase in this
item. I presume that is due to the fact that many of the veterans who are unemployed are dying without resources. The minister might explain what call is being made upon this fund. I think we are all heartily in accord with the vote, and we are sorry to see the necessity for an increase.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That is the case;
it is necessary to ask for an increased appropriation this year because of the number of burials expected, which it is estimated will number about 621.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pension appeal court, $19,800.
Frederick George Sanderson: I would ask the minister to let this item stand.
Item stands.
War veterans' allowance committee, $14,400.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: This is merely the
salaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
672	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
National health: the administration of the acts respecting food and drugs, opium and narcotic drugs and proprietary or patent medicines, including the laboratory of hygiene, 1130,000.
John Power Howden: I would like this item
to stand. It is a large item, and I am not prepared to discuss it to-night.
Item stands.
Pensions payable to men on active service, Northwest rebellion, 1885, and general pensions, and civil flying $21,000.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Would the minister give the number of men receiving pensions in the various branches?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: At the present time there are 46 pensioners and six dependents receiving pensions under this vote.


Ross Wilfred Gray: How are they divided?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There are twentyfour pensioners in regard to the Northwest rebellion, 21 privates, one sergeant, one warrant officer and one lieutenant. There are 21 general pensioners. These are made up of men belonging to the permanent force who were in receipt of pensions before the great war, men who were hurt in militia camps or in some other way. They are still being paid pensions, some of them under this heading.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and National Health:	salaries,
$149,390; contingencies, $30,300.
Ross Wilfred Gray: Would the minister explain
the increase?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The increase comes about in this way: There are three employees, one clerk grade 4, one clerk grade 3 and one stenographer grade 2, who formerly were paid out of the salary vote which we have not yet touched. Their work is more on the health side, and they are being transferred to this vote. Their salaries total 84,740. Offsetting that there are three positions that were provided for in last year's estimates which are not provided for this year. Those salaries total about 83,600, leaving a net increase of $2,150.


Frederick George Sanderson: I should like to ask
the minister for a little more detailed information. Just what officials come under this vote?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: 
Ross Wilfred Gray: Do we still maintain medical officers at European ports in connection with immigration?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, we have some, but they do not come under this vote. They come under the vote that was allowed to stand.


Ross Wilfred Gray: They do not come under this item?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Not those in Europe.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, February 11, 1935