1937-01-19

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 7, to amend the Dominion Franchise Act.
Mr. BENNETT:: Explain.


Mr. RINFRET:: The purpose of the amendment is to postpone the revision of the existing list for one year. It is similar to the one adopted last year.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HARBOURS AND PIERS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Government Harbours and Piers Act to substitute the Minister of Transport for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; to except from the operation of the act harbours under the management of the national harbours board; to confer on the minister power of appointment of officers, clerks and employees; to deal with the collection and disposition of tolls and dues and to charge certain expenses against such tolls and dues.
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. 0. B. ELLIOTT (Kindersley): I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister

Death of Indian Boys
(Mr. Mackenzie King) regarding the enlistment of Canadian volunteers in the Spanish civil war. The question is this: Is it the intention of the government to support the British policy of banning the recruiting of Canadian volunteers for the civil war in Spain?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend was kind enough to give me advance notice of this question. I shall give him at the moment an answer which will perhaps serve the immediate purpose, but the subject is a large one and there may be something more to be said with respect to it later on.
In view of recent developments, the question whether any special action should be taken regarding control of enlistment in Canada for military service in foreign countries has been under examination. Canada is not included in the twenty-seven countries, all European states, which are represented on the non-intervention committee organized to deal with the Spanish situation, and which has made recommendations to the governments represented thereon for the prohibition of the substantial enlistment on both sides in the Spanish conflict which has taken place from European centres. The question, however, will continue to be given consideration.



CUBAN DUTY ON SEED POTATOES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce): When the orders of the day were called yesterday a question was addressed to me by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) respecting the admission of Canadian certified seed potatoes into the Cuban market. I find that the information which would answer this question is somewhat technical and does not lend itself to an oral reply. If the hon. member would be willing to place his question on the order paper, I think that would be a more satisfactory means of affording the information desired.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGCJS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I wish to ask the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs whether he will make a statement to parliament with reference to the death of the four small Indian boys who were
found dead on the ice of Fraser lake in northern British Columbia on the morning of January 2. The circumstances under which these boys died have been commented on in the press throughout Canada and I think that, inasmuch as they were wards of Canada, parliament is entitled, to a statement from the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice this morning that he intended to ask this question. May I correct him on one point. There is no longer a superintendent general of indian affairs, since that office was merged with the Department of Mines and Resources.
The information we have at the present time with respect to the sad occurrence to which the hon. member refers is very briefly as follows: On New Year's Day, January 1, four small Indian boys, ranging in age from seven to nine years, left the Indian school at Lejac in northern British Columbia, on the main line of the Canadian National Railways, for home, and were frozen to death. An inquest was held a few days later. As far as the facts are disclosed by the report of the coroner's inquest, and also the report of the Indian agent for the district, they appear to be as follows: On January 1, which was of course a holiday, these youngsters asked in the morning or some time later in the day if they might be allowed to visit their parents some seven miles distant across Fraser lake. Permission was refused by the school authorities for the reason that the distance was so great. The boys were present at four o'clock in the afternoon when refreshments were served to the Indian children. At six o'clock they were reported absent from attendance at the evening meal by the Sister Superior. Apparently that report did not reach the principal of the school until nine thirty, according to the information we have. In the meantime these youngsters had left to travel seven miles to their home. The weather was rather severe at that time, and as hon. members will know, since this district is in the neighbourhood of the 50th parallel of latitude, the evening falls early there. They probably did not leave the school until dusk or approaching dusk. The principal assumed that they had gone home. Now here there comes a conflict in the reports. In a letter which the principal of the school sent to his superior in Winnipeg he stated that there were a number of Indian families visiting at the school on this day, the parents of these children not being among them, and they surmised that the youngsters had gone

Death of Indian Boys

back to the reservation with one of these families. Unhappily this turned out not to be correct.
The bodies were not discovered until the next day. The following forenoon, or about noon, the school authorities dispatched a sleigh to bring the youngsters back to the school. When the homes of the parents were reached it was discovered that the boys had not arrived; search was instituted and in a short time the bodies were discovered on the ice of Fraser lake.
An inquest was held on January 4, and the school was exonerated from any blame. It may be of interest to the house, because the occurrence is a very sad one, if I give the finding of the inquest. After stating that death was due to exhaustion and consequent freezing, the jury reported:
We, the jury, feel that such circumstance was unavoidable in view of the evidence in this case.
We feel, however, that more definite action by the school authorities might or should have been taken the night upon which the disappearance took place.
Further, it is our opinion that more cooperation between the authorities and the parents of the children would in future help to lessen the danger in the future of any repetition of such an incident.
Also that excessive corporal discipline, if practised, should be limited and that better understanding would exist between pupils and disciplinarians if the latter were Englishspeaking.
There is no evidence that there was any corporal punishment. It is true 'that a report appeared in some of the western papers that the youngsters had received corporal punishment as a result of which they had left the school. I think that is unlikely, especially in view of the fact that they left on a holiday when the ordinary school was not in session and when apparently they were having the festivities usually associated with New Year's Day. We have not yet received, although we have wired for it, a copy of the evidence taken at the inquest. In fact I am not sure the evidence was reported verbatim, and I am unable at the moment to inform the house on that point. But if it was reported verbatim the report will ibe received in due course and will be studied. In the meantime I am giving consideration to the matter of recommending to my colleagues that an inquiry into all the relevant facts be made by a judge. But before reaching a final decision on that I prefer to wait and study the evidence taken at the inquest if it is available.



ABDICATION OF KING EDWARD VIII


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 1, respecting alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this
bill is to secure the assent of the parliament of Canada to the alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne set forth in the act of parliament of the United Kingdom intituled, His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, 1936. The United Kingdom Act is printed as schedule two to the bill, which is now before the house.
It may perhaps serve to limit discussion and to make clear exactly what is intended by the provisions of His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act if I read, to the house what was said at Westminster by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on the second reading of the bill, and also what was said in the House of Lords by the Lord Privy Seal, who was in charge of the measure in the House of Lords.
As hon. members will recall, the abdication bill was introduced in the commons at Westminster on December 10 and received its first reading on that day. The second reading took place on the morning of December
11.	Speaking on the second reading, the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin said:
The provisions of this bill require very few words of explanation from me at this stage. It is a matter which of course concerns the dominions and their constitutions just as it concerns us. As the house will see, four dominions-Canada. Australia. New Zealand and South Africa-have desired to be associated with this bill. As regards the Irish Free State, I received a message from Mr. de Valera yesterday telling me that he proposed to call his parliament together to-day to pass legislation dealing with the situation in the Irish Free State. The legal and constitutional position is somewhat complex, and any points with regard to that which anyone desires to raise would more properly be dealt with at a later stage.
The bill gives effect to his majesty's abdication, and provides that His Royal Highness the Duke of York shall succeed to the throne in the same way and with the same results as if the previous reign had ended in the ordinary course. It is necessary to have an act of parliament because the succession to the throne is governed by the Act of Settlement, which makes no provision for an abdication or for a succession consequent upon an abdication. It is also necessary expressly to amend that act by eliminating his majesty and his issue and descendants from the succession. This is affected by subsections (1) and (2) of clause 1.
Subsection (3) deals with the Royal Marriage Act, of 1772. This act provides, in effect, that

Succession to the Throne-Mr. Mackenzie King
no descendants of George II, other than the issue of princesses married into foreign families, shall be capable of contracting a marriage without the consent of the king, with the proviso that where that consent is refused in the case of such a descendant above the age of 25, he may give notice to the Privy Council, and the marriage may take place after twelve months unless within that period both Houses of Parliament have expressly declared their disapproval of the marriage. The act was passed merely to provide a measure of control over the marriages of those who might succeed to the throne or whose descendants might succeed. It would be clearly wrong that the provisions of the act should apply to his majesty and his descendants, who, on the passing of this act, will cease to have any right in the succession.
Those were Mr. Baldwin's words on the second reading. Viscount Halifax, Lord Privy Seal, spoke as follows in the House of Lords on the second reading:
The bill itself is a plain and simple and short one. Your lordships will observe that in the second paragraph of the preamble the bill records the consent of the Dominion of Canada and the assent of the Commonwealth or Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa to it. The preamble is drawn in rather complicated form consequent upon the statutory form of the Statute of Westminster, and the preamble represents the result of protracted consultations with the governments of the dominions, and as it stands, carries the full agreement of all the dominions that are mentioned in it.
Clause 1 gives effect to his majesty's declaration of abdication and makes the necessary provision to that end. I might perhaps particularly call your lordships' attention to the words in subsection (1), "and there shall be a demise of the crown." Tile purpose of those words is to make it clear that the passing of the crown by other than death does in fact constitute a demise of the crown in order that what I may call the machinery of the state shall continue without interruption.
I believe that up till a certain date in our history that was not so-various remedial measures to avoid such interruption have from time to time been passed, and these remedial measures have always talked about demise. Therefore it is important to secure the remedial effect of those measures for the continuation without interruption of the matters to which they referred by employing that phrase in this bill.
Subsection 2 makes it plain that the necessary alteration of the Act of Settlement follows the surrender by his majesty, on his behalf and of his descendants, in the succession to the crown, and, lastly that that having been done and his descendants being thereby excluded from the line of succession, subsection 3 makes it plain- as indeed would be no doubt considered appropriate-that the Royal Marriages Act no longer applies to any such issue.
I might supplement what is set forth in these two statements by adding that the title to the crown was vested by the Act of Settlement of 1701 in the heirs of the body of Sophia, Elec-tress of Hanover and granddaughter of James
31111-5J
I. This provision involved the crown descending, with certain exceptions, as if it were real property, under the law of inheritance of the United Kingdom before 1926, when this branch of the property law was altered. Power remained in the king inparliament to alter the succession. Until 1931 this power to alter the succession was vested solely in the parliament of the United Kingdom. In that year formal recognition was given to the fact that the succession to the throne was a matter of direct and deep concern to all the members of the British commonwealth of nations. That recognition is set forth in the Statute of Westminster, both in section 4, which was read repeatedly yesterday, and in the preamble. Let me re-read section 4 of the Statute of Westminster:
(4) No act of parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act shall extend or be deemed to extend to a dominion as part of the law of that dominion unless it is expressly declared in that act that that dominion has requested and consented to, the enactment thereof. '
As the parliament of the United Kingdom could niot, under the terms of the Statute of Westminster, pass an abdication act which would extend or be deemed to extend to Canada unless the dominion had requested such legislation in advance and consented thereto, steps were taken in the most expeditious and appropriate manner to convey that request and consent and to secure their expression in the United Kingdom Act. Steps are now being taken to secure the assent of the parliament of Canada necessary to the alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne.
I need not repeat what was said yesterday with respect to the manner in which this dominion signified the request and consent of Canada to the enactment of the abdication act. I wish, however, to answer, if I may, a point which was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) on a previous day, when he inquired whether it was not a fact, if the action of the government on December 10 was constitutional, that further legislation was unnecessary.
My reply to that question is, certainly not. The action of December 10 was designed to secure immediate legal effect to the change. The present legislation is designed to carry out the constitutional convention expressed in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster. Let me read the constitutional convention as it appears there. Of course the preamble, as hon. members know, is not an operative part of the statute; nevertheless
68	COMMONS
Succession to the Throne-Mr. Mackenzie King
whatever appears in the preamble is of special significance in relation to the purposes of this statute itself. The constitutional convention is set forth as follows:
And whereas, it is meet and proper to set nut by way of preamble to this act, that, inasmuch as the crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British commonwealth of nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne or the royal style and titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the parliaments of all the dominions as ot the parliament of the United Kingdom.
The act which has been passed by the British government does alter the law touching the succession to the throne, and it is for that reason we are now asking the assent to its provisions of the parliament of Canada.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In what regard does it alter the law?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the particular which I have just quoted in what I read from the statement of the Prime Minister of Great Britain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The succession to the throne is still the same as it was under the Act of Settlement; the Duke of York succeeded.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: But the children of Edward will be barred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are none.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There have been days, as I think my right hon. friend said yesterday, when there were pretenders to the throne, and it might be advisable to provide in advance that no pretender who might arise in future should be able to cite his right to the succession by virtue of no change having been made in the law touching on the succession at the time George VI succeeded Edward VIII. It was necessary expressly to amend the act of settlement by eliminating the former King Edward VIII and his issue and descendants from the succession.
May I mention another reason why it is advisable that this parliament should give its assent to the alteration in the law respecting the succession. The British North America Act, the written part of our constitution, repeatedly makes specific reference to the crown and the position the crown holds with respect to legislation in our parliament and in the legislatures of the several provinces. The preamble reads:

Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one dominion under the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom

I direct the attention of the house to the fact that the reference there is to the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Similarly section 2 contains the following words:
2. The provisions of this act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the heirs and successors of her majesty, kings and queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
And in other sections of the act-section 9, for example-executive government and authority of and for Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the queen. I might mention sections 17, 55, 56, 57 and 91, all of which have reference to the queen and her successors. I shall leave it to my hon. colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to deal with the legal aspects of the matter. I hope I have explained, in a manner which will permit debate to proceed intelligently, the purpose and significance of the measure and why it is introduced at this time.
Before concluding may I address a few remarks to my hon. friend, the member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan). Last night he and I spoke with reference to the relation of parliament to abdication, and I thought at the time and saw, when reading Hansard later, that we were speaking at cross purposes. I had in mind the right of a sovereign to abdicate. My hon. friend was emphasizing the necessity of parliament acting with respect to abdication. I thought he was pointing out that the sovereign could not abdicate unless parliament permitted him so to do. If that was his point of view I must maintain the position I took at the time, namely that parliament cannot prevent a sovereign from abdicating if he wishes to abdicate. 'I grant that action by parliament is essential to validate the position of the successor where a sovereign has abdicated or been deposed, and it was for this reason the parliament at Westminster took the action it did when Edward VIII executed an instrument of abdication, and1 asked parliament to give effect to it.
I had in mind at the time of speaking one or two authorities on the subject. In this connection I should like to quote a paragraph from an article by Mr. J. A. Spender, which appeared in the January Fortnightly under the heading King and People. I believe hon.

Succession to the Throne-Mr. Cahan
members will agree that few if any persons are more qualified than Mr. Spender from a wide knowledge and close study of parliament and its proceedings to speak with authority upon the position of the sovereign in relation to parliament and the people. In this article at page 7 Mr. Spender says:
Learned lawyers suggested all manner of
difficulties in the Statute of Westminster when the question of the King's abdication arose. It has never been questioned that abdication is within the discretion of the sovereign. It was a favourite device of Queen Victoria's to hint at this possibility when displeased with her ministers. She had this remedy, she reminded them in 1871, if they would insist on keeping parliament sitting interminably and compelling her to remain in England until it was prorogued. Taking from the Lords their power to alter or reject measures, she told Campbell-Bannerman when he was minister in attendance at Balmoral in 1894, was something which "might be obtained from a president, not from her." The question at this point was not whether the sovereign has the right to withdraw, but what measures would be necessary to validate the position of his successor and to bar the succession to any children of the former king.
There was no difficulty about this in the British parliament, but corresponding legislation was necessary in all the dominion parliaments, and it was asked with some apprehension, would they all accept the Duke of York, might not some of them seize the opportunity to advance republican ideas, and if one of them dissented, would not the validity of the succession be open to question by all under a strict interpretation of the Statute of W estminster ?
The event dissipated all these fears and alarms. The commonwealth parliaments acted in unison with Great Britain and with remarkable unanimity and promptness.
This quotation, I trust, will serve to make clear what I was seeking to assert with respect to a sovereign's right to abdicate, and the function of parliament with respect thereto.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the authorities-or alleged authorities-which are quoted, and particularly with reference to the observations of Mr. Spender, may I say that I regard Mr. Spender's article as a popular interpretation of the difficulties which arose in England by reason of the king signing his letter of abdication, rather than an expert opinion upon the constitutional difficulties therein involved.
At the outset I desire without reservation whatsoever to acknowledge the validity and sufficiency of the act of parliament of the United Kingdom enacted on December 11 last, and entitled His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, 1936, which received the assent of His former Majesty King Edward
VIII. There can be no doubt about that, and I will not find it necessary to repeat this observation in the argument I am about to make. That is fundamental. The act known as His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act was enacted by a parliament having paramount jurisdiction and authority, and its validity cannot be questioned. Therefore I say that there is no doubt whatever, and that no doubt can arise as to the status of our present king, George VI. His Majesty has succeeded to the throne, and to all the rights, privileges and dignities thereunto belonging.
I desire nevertheless to consider the act of the parliament of the United Kingdom and the measure before us in the light of the grave constitutional precedents which have been established thereby. Upon the former king assenting to the act in question, there was a demise of the crown. I suggest, still, that there was no demise of the crown until that act passed and was assented to. It is not necessary for us to split verbal subtleties over the matter. Upon the demise of the crown, the act expressly provided for the succession of our present king, George VI. Furthermore it provided a few details in connection with the demise and the exclusion of any possible heirs of the former king I shall repeat the provisions:
(1) Immediately upon the royal assent being signified to this act, the instrument of abdication executed by His present Majesty on the 10th day of December, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-six, set out in the schedule to this act, shall have effect and thereupon His Majesty shall cease to be king and there shall be a demise of the crown, and accordingly a member of the royal family next in succession to the throne shall succeed thereto and to all the rights, privileges and dignities thereunto belonging.
That act was passed by a supreme parliament. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Statute of Westminster, in so far as those provisions may not have been in accord with the act passed on December 11, that latest act was valid.
A proclamation was then made that the new king had ascended the throne. The ordinary formalities were complied with in the streets of London and in the public places of tihat city. Thereupon an instrument was signed by His Excellency the Governor Genera! of Canada, and also I think by the Secretary of State of Canada, which declared to the people of Canada that King George VI had succeeded to the throne. It was provided, and properly so, by whoever had jurisdiction in the matter, that every member of this house should subscribe to the oath of allegiance to the new king before taking his seat in the 'house.
70	COMMONS
Succession to the Throne-Mr. Cahan
The king mentioned in the British North America Act, which- has not -been amended, is the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I suggest that there can be no division of the throne. At times I read in the papers of the king as the king of Canada, which may be a popular style of reference. I saw also what I thought was a rather silly and grotesque statement by a newspaper in one of the maritime -provinces to the effect that for the first time the king was being recognized -as the king of certain provinces in this dominion. The king is the king of the different provinces, in a sense; the king is the king of the city of Ottawa; the king is the king of the county of Wright, but only because these different localities with certain geographical descriptions are included in the Dominion of Canada, in the commonwealth of nations and with the possessions and territories of the crown throughout the British Empire.
There is but one king and no matter what action was taken by the government of Canada it could not effectively destroy the legal fact that the proclamation of George VI as king in London under a statute of the imperial parliament constituted him as king with all the attributes and qualities which are mentioned in the British North America Act. In fact we had to consider this whole question in a statute passed in 1934 with reference to the oaths of allegiance, after the Statute of Westminster had been duly enacted in 1931. Chapter 21 of the statutes of 1934 provided that except in the case of the oath to be given under the provisions of the Naturalization Act, which is provided for by a special statute in accordance with another imperial statute dealing with naturalization, and excepting the oath prescribed for members of parliament by the British North America Act, which this parliament could not amend or modify, the oath of allegiance to be administered in Canada on all occasions shall be the following:
I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George the Fifth, his heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.
Then follows another provision:
(2) Where in the said oath of allegiance the name of His present Majesty is expressed, the name of the king or queen of Great Britain. Ireland and the British dominions beyond the seas, for the time being, shall be substituted from time to time.
Clearly admitting that there could be no separate king for Canada, and clearly admitting that in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, which we all recognize, the king of the United Kingdom
I^Ir. Cahan.]
is and will continue to be the king mentioned and described in the British North America Act, 1867, which establishes the Canadian constitution. The king of the United Kingdom is "His Majesty" who is a constituent part of all legislation passed by the parliament of Canada.
I am not dealing -with the provisions of other dominion constitutions because they are somewhat different. There was a distinct provision in the Union of South Africa Act of 1909, and again in the act of 1934. My impression, which is that of one who is not acquainted with their law and constitution beyond reading from time to time the provisions thereof, is that the Union of South Africa has declared that the king of the United Kingdom shall be deemed to be the king of South Africa under its constitution. Certain reservations have been made which just suggest the possibility that South Africa might change its allegiance -by secession. Similar suggestions have come from the Irish Free State from time to time, but none of these have any validity except as hypothetical oases suggested for the purposes of political discussion.
When an abdication has taken place which is recognized by a statute applying to every part of the king's dominions, colonies and possessions, why should we at this stage take the novel and ineffective course of providing by statute that this king, who has been proclaimed in Canada as elsewhere throughout the empire, should be deemed by an act of the parliament of Canada to be the king of the United Kingdom and of all parts of the empire? I should like to suggest that the drafting of the bill to confirm the abdication act was perhaps hurriedly done. But the "whereases" provided in the preamble to that act are not binding provisions of the statute, and have no legal effect in construing the enacting clauses themselves.
I notice that in a statement which was given to the public by the Prime Minister on December 10 last he said:
Following upon the receipt this morning of the expression of the king's declaration and desire, an order of his excellency the governor general in council was approved, embodying the necessary request and consent to the enactment of the appropriate legislation as regards Canada by the parliament of the United Kingdom, and the government of the United Kingdom was advised accordingly.
He then proceeds to deal with the Statute of Westminster, and says:
The statute as a whole does apply to Canada, which is therefore guaranteed under section 4 that no legislation of the United Kingdom

Succession to the Throne-Mr. Cahan
parliament can apply to Canada unless Canada has expressly requested such application in advance, and consented to its terms.
The order in council of December last, as the Prime Minister stated last evening, is the only document by which Canada requested and consented to the proposed act of the imperial parliament. The newspapers state that the meeting of council was convened at 9.30 in the morning. I assume that some time must have elapsed for so momentous a decision to be given by the members of His Excellency's council, but 9.30 in the morning in Ottawa is 2.30 in the afternoon at Westminster. About three o'clock at AVestminster the bill was introduced in the parliament of Great Britain. So that any criticism I make of the order in council and of the statute which is alleged to have been passed in consequence of that order in council is softened and modified somewhat by the fact that these hon. gentlemen meeting at 9.30 in the morning, had only a half an hour in which to approve and finally carry through the order in council dealing with so momentous a matter, and then have it embodied in the form of a cable addressed to the government at Westminster.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I explained yesterday that the government had very carefully considered all possibilities and had given the utmost time and thought to what it might be necessary to do in what necessarily would be a very short time. The fact that council met formally between 9 and 9.30 to pass the order in council does not mean that the order in council had not been very carefully considered and very carefully drafted a day or two days before it was approved.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was trying to excuse the right hon. gentleman, as one who, with his colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), introduced that draft order to council, because on its face it seems to be one of the most hopelessly confused examples of draftsmanship that has ever come to my knowledge among the records of the privy council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is only my hon. friend's opinion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is my opinion, and I am stating it frankly.


Ernest Lapointe: We have had my hon. friend's views on other legislation before.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Let us deal with the Statute of Westminster. The Statute of Westminster
was not drafted with such expedition as was the Act of Abdication or the order in council upon which it was assumed to be 'based. The Statute of Westminster was approved at an imperial conference, which reported upon the operation of the dominion legislation in 1929, and the provisions of the proposed statute, so far as they refer to Canada in that recommendation and report of 1929, signed by the present Minister of Justice, were accepted and approved at a later date by resolution of a provincial conference held at Ottawa in 1931. In the meantime the imperial conference of 1930 had met and approved of the recitals to the proposed Statute of Westminster, but the prime minister of that day, the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), suggested that before final assent should be given to the provisions of that statute they should be considered by the representatives of the provinces of Canada. The result was that a provincial conference was convened in Ottawa early in 1931; on June 30. 1931, a joint resolution of both houses of parliament was approved by the Commons, and on July 6, 1931, that same joint resolution approving of the terms of the statute was passed by the Senate of Canada. It appears in the volume of our statutes for 1931.
The Statute of Westminster was subsequently enacted in December 1931. My right hon. friend the prime minister in his address stated that some significance was attributable to the fact that in respect of the request and consent of the dominions, it was not stated in section 4 of the Statute of Westminster that that should be the request and consent of the parliament of Canada; and by reason of the fact that the parliament of Canada was not mentioned he assumed, as he often makes assumptions, that the government of Canada could act in requesting and consenting that imperial legislation should apply to the Dominion of Canada in a special way, as provided under section 4 of the Statute of Westminster.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend's leader made the same assumption.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not catch it if he did, but even if he did, if it came up for discussion my leader is always open to hear discussion of legal points, and I have known him as well as eminent men on the bench to reverse their preliminary opinions after hearing a full discussion.
Where, I would like to know, does the dominion government get authority for any order in council except through a Canadian statute? Has it not been declared time and
72	COMMONS
Succession to the Throne-Mr. Cahan
time again by the competent courts of Canada that an order in council passed and approved by His Excellency the Governor in Council is valid and legally effective only when there is found supporting statutory authority for the passing of that order in council? This is not the United States of America. There, by their constitution, the president is made the chief executive of the republic, with vast powers vested in him, the like of which are not known outside of one of the modern states-fascist or nazi or communist. We have lived so long in proximity to the United States and the Prime Minister has considered American legislation and American methods to such an extent that he evidently loses sight of the fact that this country is not a part of the United States of America, and that the United States constitution does not apply to Canada. In this country no order in council is effective unless it has the authority of a Canadian statute behind it to render it valid and effective. In the conference of the premiers of the dominion that was the issue we were considering; we considered it time and again, studying the possible effect of those clauses of the proposed Statute of Westminster which would have effect within the confines of Canada. As I remember, it was distinctly said that the request and consent of the Dominion of Canada inevitably and necessarily meant one of two things: either that that request and consent should be made by parliament, as we were discussing it then, in the way in which parliament has always made similar requests and consents, by joint resolution of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada; or that it must be made, if made by a government, in virtue of some statutory authority enacted by the parliament of Canada, expressly vesting in the government the right by order in council to transmit such request and consent.
The right hon. gentleman and those associated with him have presumed without any such statutory authority, by an order in council passed by the governor in council alone, to request and consent to imperial legislation, and to secure that imperial legislation passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom should extend to Canada as part of its fundamental law. This action by order in council had never entered1 the mind of any sane man who attended either of those conferences at which I was present. It never was discussed; it never was suggested. What does it mean? And it is to this that I wish to call attention, because the action of the government, in requesting the passing of this
[Mr. Cahan.)
Declaration of Abdication act, establishes a precedent of most momentous import to the whole people of Canada. It implies that a government in Canada, simply because it deems it politic to do so, without statutory authority from the parliament of Canada- with no more authority than the three tailors of Tooley Street had to enact imperial legislation-may propose that legislation intimately concerning and affecting Canada, passed by the United Kingdom, shall apply as part of the law of Canada and become effective and be recognized necessarily by all the courts of Canada without the Commons consenting, and without the Senate of Canada consenting. What does that signify?
The right hon. gentleman says that if the Commons of Canada does not approve of the arbitrary action which has been taken, then it can vote to turn out the government and put another government in office. That is the reply he makes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; it was my hon. friend's leader who said that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You said it first.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely the hon. gentleman does not think that I would be able to get ahead of his leader to that extent.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not trying to get ahead of anyone. I did not understand him to say so. But what does it mean? It means that the Commons of parliament has supreme authority and is in a position to exclude the Senate from legislative action in respect of important measures affecting the life and property of the people of this country. That is what it means. It means a violation of the express provisions of our own British North America Act, that legislation shall be enacted by the two houses of parliament, and that they alone can grant authority to the government. They alone have authority to enact and apply legislation to the whole dominion.
Now this order in council is a precedent. In my lifetime, which is short, it may not cause grave difficulties in Canada. It may not do so within a year or two, but I am convinced as I stand here to-night, with eternity in front of me, that the time will come when that precedent will be regarded by the people of the country as a whole as a most violent disruption or attempt to disrupt the whole constitution of Canada as at present expressed in our British North America acts, and as expressed in the com-

Succession to the Throne-Mr. Cahan
plementary legislation which parliament has passed by virtue of the authority of those acts.
I have an entirely different theory. I may be wrong, but I doubt whether section 4 of the Statute of Westminster applied to this condition at all. I doubt whether it applied to the abdication of King Edward VIII. I doubt whether legislation should have been passed under that section, because, no constituted parliament or government of any dominion had the legislative jurisdiction to deal with an act of abdication. We are circumscribed within the four corners of the British North America Act. Do you find there any authority for the parliament or Canada to change the succession or to deal with the accession of a new king, or to exclude a former king and the heirs of his body from the succession? Do you find that anywhere in the British North America Act? That is one of the subjects which have never been vested by the imperial parliament in any dominion of the commonwealth. It never was vested in Canada. Therefore, when we dealt with that matter, the imperial parliament was unwilling and regarded it as imprudent to divest itself of its exclusive authority to deal by legislation with such matters.
The right hon. gentleman read the provision :
. . . that any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne or the royal style and titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the parliaments of all the dominions as of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
That was not placed in one of the enacting clauses of the Statute of Westminster and in the deliberations of the several imperial conferences attention was directed to that fact. The Minister of Justice has subscribed his name to at least two reports which I remember, in which it is expressly stated that the placing of such a clause in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster was a mere convention, that it simply stated expressly what were the conventions then existing which had grown out of the use and custom of the United Kingdom in its relations to the dominions and others. And it was said that if that clause were inserted in the statute as one of its enacting clauses of the Statute of Westminster it would effect such rigidity as would render it almost inapplicable to cases of exigency and crisis which might hereafter arise. Therefore that clause was placed in the preamble where it has no effective legal binding authority or obligation.
But in dealing with that clause the various conferences or parliaments considering the
matter never suggested that the assent of the government of this dominion might be required. It was not left open to the suggestion that following some precedent of some despotic country the government or the despotic head of that government, without statutory authority from its parliament, could deal with such an important matter without consulting the popular assembly if such existed. But this preamble has no legal or [DOT]binding authority; it is inserted by way of advice as to the constitutional procedure that should be followed. It says:
And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this act that, inasmuch as the crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the crown, it would be-*
It does not say it is.

it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne or the royal style and titles shall hereafter require the assent-
Of whom? Of the governor general in council? Of the Minister of Justice? Of the Prime Minister? No. It expressly states:
-shall hereafter require the assent as well of the parliaments of all the dominions as of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
Yet the right hon. gentleman goes to another section and says that because the word* " Dominion of Canada " are there mentioned it is left perfectly free for the governor in council without statutory authority to assume that position and to fulfil that definite requirement of constitutional custom and procedure.
I have taken a good deal of time. I have a number of authorities; I do not intend to cite them, but when this matter was before the imperial conference of 1930, at which Canada was represented by the present leader of the opposition, it was made clear on page 18 of the British report-I have not the Canadian report at hand-as follows:
To this end it seemed desirable to place on record the view that the sections of the statute relating to the Colonial Laws Validity Act should be so drafted as not to extend to Canada unless the statute was enacted in response to such requests as are appropriate to an amendment of the British North America Act. It also seemed desirable to place on record the view that the sections should not subsequently be extended to Canada except by an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom enacted in response to such requests as are appropriate to an amendment of the British North America Act.
That paragraph clearly indicates the nature of the request which was to be made by or
74	COMMONS
Succession to the Throne-Mr. Cahan
on behalf of Canada in order that an imperial enactment might hereafter extend to Canada as a part of the law of Canada.
Now I ask the right hon. gentleman what is the real significance of this bill which he proposes to enact? The bill contains certain recitals by way of preamble, and then goes on to say:
1. The alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne set forth in the act of the parliament of the United Kingdom intituled "His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936" is hereby assented to.
What is the recital? The recital is:
Now, therefore, His Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada enacts as follows:
Who is "His Majesty"? His Majesty King George VI, if you please. He is the king to whom we owe allegiance. It in fact recites:
Now therefore His Majesty King George VI, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows.
It proceeds to enact a ratification, or purports to enact a ratification, of the abdication of his predecessor, which was already ratified and confirmed only with the assent of his predecessor; it ratifies and enacts that his own succession to the throne is confirmed and made regular, and that the heirs of the body of the late king shall no longer be entitled to assume the office of sovereign of the empire. And that we, the parliament of Canada duly assembled should now pretend to enact such a statute as that with the consent of his present majesty, appears to me to be the most ridiculous suggestion that I have heard in my time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend a question: Did I understand him to say that King George VI succeeded to the throne only with the assent of King Edward VIII and that such assent was essential to King George Vi's succession to the throne?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I say he did succeed to the throne by an act assented to by the former King Edward VIII; there is no doubt about that. And until King Edward VIII had given his assent to the abdication act, King Edward VIII remained king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is just the point I want to bring out. Suppose King Edward VIII, instead of waiting after he had signed the instrument of abdication, had left England and gone to the South Pole, and had refused to take any further part in

legislation. Does my hon. friend still say that his assent would have been necessary in order to effect a demise of the crown?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We have one precedent for what the right hon. gentleman has stated; it is clear, and I need not go into it. There was a king, King James II, who did not formally abdicate but who left the kingdom, went abroad and took up his residence there. The parliament of Great Britain enacted a bill known as a declaration of rights; in fact I think there were two declaration of rights dealing with the matter, the final one being dated February 16. 1689, declaring that James had abdicated and that the throne was vacant.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but James did not-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Wait a moment. In defiance of the law and of the constitution that then existed, he had abandoned the throne, had fled to a foreign country although he had not signed an act of abdication. The parliament which was summoned declared that his acts were equivalent to an abdication and should be regarded as a formal abdication. Parliament declared that the throne was vacant, and proceeded to provide that the succession should be through William and Mary and their heirs failing, to the heirs of the body of Anne, and failing them to the heirs of the body of William.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They validated the position of James IPs successor.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I disagree with the words; rather than validating his abdication they practically expelled him from the throne.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said they validated the position of his successor as king.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That was involved, but I do not quite see how that applies to this case. This succession is established. King George VI is king. The succession remains to the heirs of his body, and the descendants of King Edward VIII are precluded from claiming the throne. There is not one scintilla of legal enactment required to perfect it, yet we are asked or we invite the new king to go through the farcical action of assenting to a Canadian act ratifying the abdication of his brother, his own accession to the throne and certain other results that flow therefrom. What is necessary, rather, is to find some formula whereby the precedents established on this occasion by my right hon. friend may be limited for all time to this particular incident.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, oh.

Succession to the Throne-Mr. Cahan


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, it is easy to laugh, but I think it is more serious than that. What have we done? The statute passed in England asserts in its preamble that this dominion- I am not referring to the others-has requested and consented to the enactment of this abdication act, and the imperial statute is based upon that preamble. It was Mark Twain, I think, who wrote a story about a boy who declared, "It is so because my father says it is so, and if my father says it is so it is so even if it ain't so." That is about the position in which we are placed.
Whether the government of Great Britain were fully advised as to the confusing contents of the order in council that was passed, or whether it was simply stated to them by cable that Canada requested and consented to this enactment, I do not know. I do not agree at all with the contention of the right hon. gentleman that whatever correspondence passed should not be brought down by him in parliament, on the ground which he stated, that these were communications between two parties. That may be so, but the communications which are relevant and material were the communications sent by the right hon. gentleman for the purpose of procuring an act of the parliament of Great Britain. They are not exempt from production by reason of the fact-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The order in council covers that; it is all set forth there.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No request and consent is contained in the order in council. All that is contained in the order in council is approval of the imperial parliament making a misstatement in a preamble to an imperial act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The order in council is all there was.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If that is all there was it is clear that this order in council does not contain an express request and consent. The right hon. gentleman had many precedents available. Time and again this parliament, by joint resolution, has approved of addresses to his majesty requesting and consenting that certain legislation should be enacted applicable to this country. I remember that on two or three occasions-as the Minister of Justice must recall, although I have not the record before me-we passed joint resolutions containing requests and consents of that kind. For instance, I believe we did it in connection with parliament's request for extraterritorial jurisdiction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my hon. friend arguing that we should have waited and called parliament?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not saying my right hon. friend should have waited for parliament, but he seems always to have in his mind that he should have followed the precedent set by Australia. I have information before me which would indicate Australia was so well advised of what was impending -I do not know whether they were better advised than my right hon. friend-that on December 4 a special summons was issued for a special session of parliament on December 10.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend think we should have done that?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The right hon. gentleman says he was so taken up, he had so much to do, that he had not time to consider or to deal with the question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, he did not say anything of the kind at any time or in any place.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, that is pretty nearly what he said; I cannot bear in mind the absolute details of it. Here is a long statement in which the Prime Minister of Canada states that so far as Canada is concerned parliament has been called to meet on January 14, and that it could not be summoned in special session before definite action was taken by His Majesty which would require the consideration of parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Quite true.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is true, yes; but there are other considerations. The preamble to the Statute of Westminster is not a binding legal document; it is only a suggestion as to the constitutional procedure which should be adopted in ordinary times when there are no emergencies. But the right hon. gentleman declares there was an emergency. He knows what took place; I do not know. It was perfectly clear that section 4 of the Statute of Westminster did not necessarily refer to a statute such as the Abdication Act which alone was within the competency and jurisdiction of the imperial parliament. Why did he not make it clear that it was impossible to follow the constitutional procedure or convention, recited in the preamble of that statute and that he didi not object to the Abdication Act as an emergency measure? Instead of that, as a precedent for all future time, we have an imperial parliament declaring that Canada did request and consent, whereas as a matter of fact one may look within the four corners of the order in council and fail to see any request or consent in accord with the precedents hitherto established in Canada. All we find is that the
76	COMMONS
Succession to the Throne-Mr. Cahan
governor in council met and approved of an act being submitted to the parliament of the United Kingdom reciting a preamble in which were stated certain alleged facts which were not quite in accordance with the true facts or in accordance with the constitutional practice which had hitherto prevailed in Canada.
I believe this bill is unnecessary; it is futile, and it can have no effect but to cover up a condition which hon. gentlemen opposite appear more or less anxious to conceal. At this date, if hon. members opposite had wished to have the position regularized, so far as it is possible to regularize it, it would have been quite sufficient to have introduced a joint resolution of the House of Commons and the Senate approving of the government acting in an emergency to the extent to which they did, so as to make it clear that its action by order in council formed no general precedent for the future enactment and application to Canada of imperial legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I confess I have followed with some difficulty the observations of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). Although he speaks always with a great display of learning, I am not at all sure-and I believe other hon. members must be in the same position- that at the conclusion of his observations the real position he is taking was quite clear.
First of all he contends that the act of the imperial parliament, His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, was all that was necessary, but on the other hand he criticizes the government for having resorted to an order in council expressing to the imperial parliament the request and consent of Canada to the passage of the act, instead of having done so by way of parliamentary enactment. I suggest the two positions are contradictory, and at least one of them should be abandoned by the hon. member. When the Statute of Westminster was enacted fears were expressed in many quarters, both in Canada and outside of it, as to the dangers which might arise in times of crisis because of the lack of unity which would be the result of the enactment. Fortunately events which have taken place have shown those fears to be groundless. There has never been greater unity throughout the British commonwealth than was displayed in the month of December last. After the crisis had passed the London Times used this language:
The past few days have provided a searching test under which the free association of the

British commonwealth has demonstrated a fundamental unity exceeding anything which could have been guaranteed by the most rigid paper constitution.
My hon. friend has referred to the British North America Act, and I agree with him when he says that strictly speaking, from the legal point of view, at the moment the present king came to the throne he became our sovereign. I would invite the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) to the fact that the British North America Act is still the constitution of Canada. Section 7 of the Statute of Westminster specially enacts that nothing in that act may have the effect of repealing or amending the British North America Act. By the wording of section 2 of the British North America Act the king of the United Kingdom is our sovereign. The section is as follows:
2. The provisions of this act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the heirs and successors of Her Majesty, kings and queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
The crown is interwoven through many of the sections, and so long as the British North America Act is not repealed-it was thought by Canada that it should not be repealed or even amended until there was some consent on the part of the various parties to the agreement of confederation-those sections of the act apply to us in the strictly legal viewpoint.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The implication is that
they might be amended by another act of the imperial parliament, namely, the Statute of Westminster.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, by
implication, and to that extent it does apply to Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: I think
the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was wrong when he said the other day that the Statute of Westminster does not mean anything. If there had been no Statute of Westminster he would not have been able to speak on the law of succession to the throne. That would have been none of the business of the Canadian parliament. My hon. friend would have been deprived of the opportunity of making the eloquent address he made the other day, as well as the one which I am sure he is going to make to-day.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: We can speak
about it, but we cannot do anything else.

Succession to the Throne-Mr. Lapointe


Ernest Lapointe: At any
rate my hon. friend is taking advantage of the privilege to speak about it. My hon. friend differs from the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George; he runs too fast, while the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is stuck in motionless immobility. He sticks to the British North America Act, and he considers tihat nothing has been changed by the enactment of the Statute of Westminster. Under the Statute of Westminster anything that concerns the crown is the concern of all the members of the commonwealth. That is the constitutional convention embodied in the preamble. It means something, notwithstanding what the >hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With my hon. friend's
permission, may I direct his attention to the fact that it only purports to be a statement of existing constitutional practice, which makes it still stronger.


Ernest Lapointe: That makes my argument all the stronger. The Statute of Westminster was enacted following the imperial conference of 1926 which appointed a committee of dominion representatives to consider and study the legislation of the various dominions and of the United Kingdom. The imperial' conference of 1930 gave effect to the proposals of the committee of dominion representatives. I should like to direct attention to the report of the conference on the operation of dominion legislation, 1929, paragraphs 56, 59, 60 and 61. These paragraphs deal with the effect of conventions in British constitutional law, and they read:
56. The association of constitutional conventions with law has long been familiar in the history of the British commonwealth; it has been characteristic of political development both in the domestic government of these communities and in their relations with each other; it ha3 permeated both executive and legislative power. It has provided a means of harmonizing relations where a purely legal solution of practical problems was impossible, would have impaired free development, or would have failed to catch the spirit which gives life to institutions. Such conventions take their place among the constitutional principles and doctrines which are in practice regarded as binding and sacred whatever the powers of parliaments may in theory be.
59.	As, however, these freely associated members are united by a common allegiance to the crown, it is clear that the laws relating to the succession to the throne and the royal style and titles are matters of equal concern to all.
60.	We think that appropriate recognition would be given to this position by means of a convention similar to that which has in recent years controlled the theoretically unfettered powers of the parliament of the United Kingdom to legislate upon these matters. Such a
constitutional convention would be in accord with and would not derogate from and is not intended in any way to derogate from the principles stated by the imperial conference of 1926 as underlying the position and mutual relations of the members of the British commonwealth of nations. We therefore recommend that this convention should be formally put on record in the following terms:
Then follows the recommendation. Paragraph 61 follows:
61.	We recommend that the statement of principles set out in the three preceding paragraphs be placed on record in the proceedings of the next imperial conference, and that the constitutional convention itself in the form which we have suggested should appear as a formal recital or preamble in the proposed act to be passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom.
This constitutional convention which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George brushes aside with much levity, has been considered to be binding upon all those who have had anything to do with it since the Statute of Westminster was enacted. My hon. friend may say that the procedure adopted by this government was childish, frivolous and ridiculous-I forgive him for those words; but it was not considered so by the law officers of the crown in Canada or by the law officers in the United Kingdom who were jealous in attempting to reconcile this constitutional convention with the legality of the proposed statute. It was not considered so by the law officers in the governments of the other commonwealth nations. My hon. friend stands in splendid isolation as far as this opinion is concerned. I think we can rely upon the view of the gentlemen to whom I have referred.
One part of the imperial statute gave effect to the abdication of the then king and provided for the accession to the throne of the lawful successor and heir to the succession, the Duke of York, but there was also a provision in the statute which was in effect an alteration of the law of succession, as provided for in the Act of Settlement.
Subsection 2 of section 1 of the act bars His Majesty and his issue, if any, and descendants of such issue, from any right of succession to the throne, and provides that section 1 of the Act of Settlement shall be construed accordingly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is merely declaratory if the statute is complete in describing the demise of the crown.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It must be.


Ernest Lapointe: No, because I am afraid that under the Act of Settlement, and it was so considered by the authori-
78	COMMONS
Succession to the Throne-Mr. Lapointe
ties in Great Britain, if the former King Edward happened to contract a marriage and had children by that marriage, his children would have had a serious claim to the succession.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not children born after
the demise.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a
debatable question, I agree, but my right hon. friend will agree that in a situation like the one that existed-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is sound to make the declaration.


Ernest Lapointe: -precautions had to be taken. These were two different things. The recital in the preamble, upon which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George bases his whole contention, mentions that it is according to the present practice under the new constitutional situation that any alteration in the law of succession should be assented to -by the parliaments of the dominions. But the only alteration is the one I have just mentioned. I agree with my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) that the giving effect to the abdication and making the road free for the accession of the next in line, the Duke of York, did not constitute an alteration in the law of succession, not at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the minister repeat that? I want to be sure about that.


Ernest Lapointe: I say that
1	agree with the leader of the opposition that giving effect to the abdication of his former majesty by the imperial parliament and clearing the road for the accession of the next in line, the Duke of York, under the statutes as they then existed did not constitute an alteration in the law of succession. What constitutes an alteration in the succession law is, in my opinion, the provision in subsection
2	of section 1 of this bill, which precludes the possible children of His former Majesty Edward VIII from having any claim to the throne of England. That was an alteration, and that was the only part of the law that comes under the recital in the preamble of the Statute of Westminster. We are acting within the four corners Of that act by asking parliament to assent to this alteration in the succession act.
My hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George states that our assent to that part of the imperial act providing for giving effect to the abdication and the accession of King George VI should have been given by way of parliamentary legislation, not by order in
TMr. E. Lapointe.]
council. The position in that respect has been very well explained both by the Prime Minister and by the leader of the opposition.
The third recital of the Statute of Westminster reads as follows:
And -whereas it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said dominions as part of the law of that dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that dominion:
This new convention in that recital was adopted for the purpose of reconciling the existence of the legal power in the parliament of the United Kingdom to legislate for the dominions, which legal power undoubtedly exists, with the now established constitutional position, namely, equality of status between the United Kingdom and the dominions. But there is a difference between the convention embodied in recital number three and the convention embodied in recital number two. There it was regarded as a practical consideration affecting the drafting and interpretation of statutes; it was thought desirable that the principle should be expressed in the enacting part of the act, and that gave birth to section 4. Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster reads:
No act of parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a dominion as -part of the law of that dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that act that that dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.
Well, the difference of opinion between the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, and myself, the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition-and here I disagree with my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre- is that the term "dominion" as it is used in the second last line of section 4 of the Statute of Westminster clearly applies to the government, and not to the parliament of the dominion. There are many reasons for that. In other parts of the Westminster act, whenever it was the intention that the parliament of a dominion should act, it was so expressly declared. As was stated yesterday, in the section referring to the Commonwealth of Australia it is specifically provided that:
The request and consent referred to in section 4 shall mean the request and consent of the parliament and government of the commonwealth.
If section 4 meant the request and consent of the parliament of the dominion, why should the statute, three sections later, refer to the parliament, when it comes to the Common-

Succession to the Throne-Mr. Lapointe
wealth of Australia? What the leader of the opposition said yesterday with respect to this matter is quite right. When the resolution to concur in the Statute of Westminster was discussed in the parliament of the commonwealth, Mr. Latham, now Sir J. G. Latham-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Chief Justice.


Ernest Lapointe: I had the privilege of meeting him at the conference of 1926, and when this matter was under discussion in the parliament of the commonwealth he took the position that the word "dominion" there meant the government. Here is what Mr. Latham said:
What is meant by "that dominion"? Generally it means, in practice, the executive government of the dominion. I propose to ask the house to amend that provision by requiring that the request and consent shall be made and given by the parliament and by the government. We are asked to do something very remarkable.
Further he says:
For the word "dominion" I am proposing to insert the words "parliament and government." The object of my amendment is that, instead of the request being from a dominion, it should be from the parliament and the government of a dominion.
I consulted the reports of the debates in the commonwealth and I saw that Mr. Latham's amendment was not agreed to by the then government-the Scullin government-but they accepted another amendment along the same lines, moved by Mr. Lyons; and it is that amendment, then adopted by the parliament of the commonwealth, that has been inserted in the Westminster act, to make a special provision and disposition as far as t'he Commonwealth of Australia is concerned. And later, when the Westminster bill was before the British House of Commons, Sir James Withers moved:
That section 4 be amended by inserting, after the second word "that", in line 5, the words "the parliament of". But upon Mr. J. H. Thomas, Secretary for the Dominions, explaining that the clause was drafted in its present form at the request of the dominions themselves, the amendment was negatived.
There is therefore no doubt that the intention was that it should be the government of the dominion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question?


Ernest Lapointe: I have only forty minutes. I did not interrupt my hon. friend.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was not in the clause as submitted to the government.


Ernest Lapointe: If the Speaker will allow me extra time I shall be glad to answer the question.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The clauses dealing with Australia and Australia's procedure were not included with the clauses submitted to the Dominion of Canada or the government of Canada at the time. Only those clauses were submitted to the Dominion of Canada which referred to action by the Dominion of Canada, and so, at the time that the clause with reference to Canada was approved, there was no way of comparing the two or noting the difference.


Ernest Lapointe: Does not my hon. friend think that as a member of the government at the time, if he thought it should be the parliament instead of the government, he might have moved and tried to get the change that Mr. Latham succeeded in getting in Australia?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was perfectly clear without that.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not the opinion of everyone else.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was the opinion of the conference that dealt with it.


Mr. POULIOT:: Is St. Lawrence-St. George dissatisfied with our king?


Ernest Lapointe: I agree that the idea underlying the placing of the section as it is with regard to Canada and the other dominions, which did not ask for a special exemption from this provision, was to meet occasions such as the one that confronted us in the month of December- occasions of emergency when it was necessary, in spite of what is being said to the contrary, to act speedily. And the result shows the marvellous elasticity of the British constitution, which always meets emergencies as they arise and deals with matters in such a way that the common sense of statesmen in a time of crisis prevails over the precision of a distinguished lawyer. We were at a time when the situation was a disturbing factor in Canada as well as in Great Britain and in every other nation of the commonwealth, and I believe that even my hon. friend will admit that a prompt decision then was a service rendered to the nation. Indeed, every British citizen, in Canada and elsewhere, was hoping, and expressing the hope in very clear language, that this crisis would come to an end as speedily as possible. Well, then, I repeat, the elasticity of the British constitution worked, and it resulted
80	COMMONS
Succession to the Throne-Mr. Lapointe
in a decision that satisfied everybody in Canada except those who cannot be satisfied with anything the government does. My hon. Mend from Winnipeg North Centre, I am afraid, is among those. I must say that his famous telegram, of which he spoke the other day did not raise in Canada the disturbance which was expected. Everybody everywhere expressed the hope that we would deal with this matter immediately and without confusion.
If the constitutional convention, which is enacted in section 4, requiring the assent and request of the dominion, means anything- and it does mean something-it means that everything that is of concern to all the members of the commonwealth should be dealt with by all the members of the commonwealth. If we had to do anything it had to be done immediately or there would have been chaos in Canada. Even with what was done, I was constantly receiving telephone messages, even from distinguished judicial authorities, asking what should be done- whether they should hold court, whether there was still a king, and so on. My hon. friend laughs, but they were not all so sure of their ground as he is, and they were afraid of what might be the outcome of procrastination and further delay. The whole matter was settled by the government interpreting. correctly as I believe, the feelings of the population of Canada; and after all that is what is meant by the Westminster act in providing that the assent of the dominions shall be given. It means the assent of the people of a dominion, and the will of the people was clearly manifested. I claim that it was legal and more than legal; it was sensible. With all due respect to my hon. friend, I must say, when he uses the words "absurd," and "ridiculous," and "frivolous," that we would have done the absurd thing if we had done what he suggests.
My hon. friend ridiculed the argument that if a wrong has been done in any way parliament has the remedy in its hands. That is quite true. There is nothing extraordinary in that contention. Parliament has always the remedy in its hands, and parliament is satisfied with the way in which this matter has been settled. My hon. friend has tried to convince his leader and in my turn I hope to convince him; I hope he will see that we could not have acted otherwise in the circumstances.
The present bill, as I have said, is necessary because of the alteration in the law of succession, which is quite a different thing. Subsection 2 of section 1, according to my view,

changes the law of succession by depriving of the throne the possible children and heirs of Edward. In the event of marriage there is, as I said, no retroactivity needed, because there is no child, no marriage even, at the present time.
May I now just sum up my contention on these two points. Upon the abdication of Edward VIII it became necessary because of the attendant circumstances for the parliament of the United Kingdom to enact legislation for two main purposes: first, to make the abdication and the accession of George VI effective; second, to alter the law touching the succession to the throne. In so far as the contemplated legislation would relate to the abdication and succession it would extend at once to the dominion as part of the law of that dominion, and would consequently require the previous request and consent of the dominion to the enactment thereof, in accordance with section 4 of the Statute of Westminster. In so far as the legislation would operate to alter the law touching the succession to the throne, the assent of the dominion parliament is required in accordance with the constitutional convention set out in the second recital to the Statute of Westminster, but such assent could be given within any reasonable time thereafter, as it would not be a condition precedent to the enactment of the legislation but merely a convention limiting its operation in the dominion. With regard to the former the government took the action which was required under section 4, which admittedly does not require the assent of parliament. With regard to the latter the government now asks the assent of parliament to the alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne, so as to give effect to the convention. Inasmuch as such alteration can operate in the future only in the event of there being issue of the Duke of Windsor, it is not necessary that such assent should have any retroactive effect.
I desire, Mr. Speaker, to conclude these remarks by a word or two as to the importance of the throne in the British constitution. It is the bond. When His Majesty's Abdication Act was discussed in the British House of Commons a socialist member, Mr. Stephen, supporting an amendment to the effect that the throne should be done away with and we should have a republic, said-I have his words here-that it was a fallacy to claim that the dominions are bound to the empire by the British throne, that there was no bond between the various parts of the commonwealth embodied in the throne, but that

Succession to the Throne-Mr. Woodsworth
the only bond was economic necessity, and this would last even if a republic were instituted in the United Kingdom. I am pleased that when the vote was recorded in the British House of Commons the amendment was rejected by a vote of 403 to 5. Mr. Stephen certainly did not interpret correctly the feelings of the dominions. I have been a long time in public life in Canada; I have been in this parliament I am ashamed to say how many years, and I think I know pretty well the sentiments of Canadians as a whole. I have had relations with public men in the other dominions. I desire to say to-day that the British throne is the cement, the bond that unites all of us, and if it should disappear and be replaced by some other form, as suggested by this gentleman, I am afraid that the end of the British Empire would be in sight and that Canada would soon not be part of the British commonwealth of nations. That is the great and the consoling lesson which comes to us as an outcome of all these troubles, which caused concern to many people throughout the commonwealth and even throughout the world. But we are proud to say at the end that the action which has been taken, the sentiments which have been expressed, the feeling of all British citizens throughout the world, have been such that we have demonstrated not only to everyone in our own dominions but to all the world the granite strength of the British constitution enshrined as it is in the British throne.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This is obviously rather a field day for the constitutional lawyers. Neither by training nor by temperament am I fitted to enter upon the purely legal aspects of this case. But since the vast majority of the people of Canada are not constitutional lawyers perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words with regard to some other aspects of the matter.
I confess that as I have listened to the discussion so far I have not been very greatly enlightened, but indeed somewhat confused. We have had brought before us a great many legal and metaphysical subtleties. Whether the crown is unitary or divisible and multiple I do not quite know. I would say this, that as a Canadian I believe that Canada ought to be able to have something to say with regard to who is to rule over Canada. Whatever that may mean as to the throne being divisible or unitary, let the lawyers argue. Again I confess that even the genial Minister 31111-6
of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) did not altogether clear up my difficulties with regard to the distinction between legal and constitutional. Possibly it is because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has not had as long and formal training in law as have some of the others who have spoken, that I could not follow his argument, but I thought that he mixed the two on occasions, even when he was trying to make the distinction clear. Again that may be merely because I cannot clearly follow a strictly legal argument.
I feel the same way when we are told that the preamble to the Statute of Westminster does not constitute an operative part of the statute. As I said the other day, it seems to me that whatever may be true ordinarily, in this particular case at least the preamble occupies a very important place, since it lays down a constitutional convention. It would appear to me, with only a layman's outlook, that it ought to have a real place in the statute if we invoke the statute at all, concerning the desirability of which there seems to be some question.
Again, we heard the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) talking about the demise of the crown. I think I had better read his statement. He said:
We call it in technical parlance his abdication, but we had no precedent for abdications and as to the implications of them, and the statute, in order that there might be no difficulty, in that section declared that there was a demise of the crown. The king was dead.
Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East):	Hear, hear;
that is right.
Mr. Bennett:	The king was dead. And from
that there followed


Ernest Lapointe: My "hear, hear" applied to the part concerning the demise of the crown.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister took that interpretation, did he?


Ernest Lapointe: It applied to the demise of the crown; that is what I meant.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The right hon.
leader of the opposition interpreted the phrase in the sense that the king was dead, and if a demise of the crown does not mean that I do not know just what it does mean. Well, really, speaking again as a layman, if the king is dead I do not quite see why we should worry so much about barring the king's issue. My hon. friend beside me suggests that he might have a posthumous child, but that does not alter my argument. In

82	COMMONS
Succession to the Throne-Mr. Woodsworth
this as in many other instances we are just tied up with mere legal subtleties, forgetting realities altogether.
In the same way the leader of the opposition says that this statute must be construed in a certain way but it is not altered. Well, if that is true and if that kind of interpretation is going to guide us, I am afraid that the ordinary people among us are not going to get a great deal of enlightenment. The Minister of Justice was perhaps rather hard on the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), when he said he was stuck in motionless immobility. I think that was his phrase. I did feel, however, that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George had not advanced a great deal beyond colonial days, and was not giving anything like sufficient importance to the passing of the Statute of Westminster and the position which Canada has occupied ever since the war. I did agree very heartily with him, however, that statutory authority is necessary if orders in council are to have validity. Further it seemed to me that he was quite correct when he said that this bill and the discussions on it were very largely farcical. After listening to hon. members on both sides of the house who have spoken so far, I am inclined to believe that the statement I made on Friday last still stands.
In the first place let me say that there has been no opportunity for us to move that the correspondence should be brought down. The Prime Minister has not absolutely refused to do this, as my motion has not come before the house, but the right hon. gentleman intimated that he thought to do so would be very undesirable. I would point out that the Prime Minister has himself quoted certain documents and referred to others. According to the rules of the house I believe these should be laid upon the table. Let me say further that the bill which is before us, touching the succession to the throne, really cannot be discussed intelligently without the house being in possession of all the facts. I think that is clear. We are asked to pass an important piece of legislation supplementing, if you like, the legislation passed in Great Britain; validating, if that is the correct word to use, the order in council passed a few weeks ago; yet we do not have the facts of the case fully before us. Surely these facts cannot be said to be in any real sense confidential. It is true that they are of a somewhat intimate nature, and I have no desire whatever to create any further scandal than already has been created, but at the same

time this house is not able to say in advance whether the government was justified in the position it took.
It is all very well for the government to come now and tell us that from the information it had at its disposal it was quite justified. I do not think that is quite good enough. I do not think the Prime Minister himself is following the best traditions of this house when he asks us to take his own, unsupported word with regard to what has taken place. If the leader of the opposition was correct in the statement he made yesterday, undoubtedly in any case the proceedings of this house lack all reality. He said:
So far as the government of the day is concerned, it staked its life upon the action which it took, and under our system of constitutional government, with the administration commanding as it does a majority in the House of Commons, the question becomes nothing but_ a matter of recording the will of that majority upon the records of this house.
If the government is so sure of its majority; if parliament has fallen so low that the government can absolutely count upon the backing of every one of its members, I say it is not a very good outlook for democracy. The Minister of Justice has referred to the confusion that might have arisen if the cabinet had not taken action. That is nothing to the confusion that might arise if this house showed some independence and did not endorse what has been done by the government.
In spite of his large majority the Prime Minister seems very anxious to obtain any support he can get. Yesterday he very gladly accepted the backing offered by the leader of the opposition, though technically the position of the leader of the opposition differed very widely from the position the Prime Minister himself holds. The leader of the opposition said that the statute dealing with the succession had not been altered. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice agrees with that, but I know that a short time ago the Prime Minister did not agree. That is what he said in his statement to the public on December 10. First he quoted a clause from the Statute of Westminster:
-any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne or the royal style and titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the parliaments of all the dominions as of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
After that quotation he said:
Questions arise as to the procedure required to carry out this provision of the Statute of Westminster, which were not contemplated when it was drawn and enacted-[DOT]

Succession to the Throne-Mr. Woodsworth
Then he makes this explicit statement:
The action involved in giving effect to His Majesty's instrument of abdication constitutes such an alteration.
I do not think the Minister of Justice admits that to-day, but that is what the Prime Minister said in his message to the public. I repeat his words:
The action involved in giving effect to His Majesty's instrument of abdication constitutes such an alteration.
To-day the Minister of Justice is trying to make us believe that all we in this parliament have to sanction is the question of the succession, as it may affect any possible children of the king. However, at the time he gave the public interview the Prime Minister was clearly of the impression that the very fact that one king took the place of another involved an alteration in the succession. Followiing that the Prime Minister said that it was necessary for parliament "to take appropriate action to give its assent to the alteration in the succession." Evidently he had in mind the alteration in the succession caused by the abdication and by the accession of King George VI.
I should like to learn the exact meaning of the word "request." In his statement to the public the Prime Minister said this:
The use of these words, "request and consent," does not of course refer to the initiation of any part of the proceedings other than the inclusion of Canada in the contemplated legislation. They embody the safeguarding words expressly provided m the Statute of Westminster.
That is rather curious. Let me read what appears in schedule two of the act of the parliament of the United Kingdom:
And whereas, following upon the communication to his dominions of His Majesty's said declaration and desire, the Dominion of Canada pursuant to the provisions of section four of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, has requested and consented to the enactment of this act, and the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand and the Union of South Africa have assented thereto.
I should like to know why it is sufficient for the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand and the Union of South Africa to consent, while it seems to be necessary for the Dominion of Canada to "request" as well as to "consent." I can scarcely believe that in a document of so great importance the words could be loosely used; they must have some real meaning. In view of the statement the Prime Minister made to the public a few weeks ago, and in view of his evident desire to escape any great responsibility in the circumstances, I should like
31111-6J
to know what "request" really means. That particular word was not touched upon by the Minister of Justice.
I hold in my hand a document I received a few days ago, copies of which I believe were sent to the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition. It comes from Doctor W. P. M. Kennedy and is an advance copy of an editorial headed "Canada and the Abdication Act," which is to appear in the University of Toronto Law Journal. On this technical point I venture to quote a footnote to one of the paragraphs:
It will be noticed that Canada alone invoked section 4 and apparently that Canada as distinct from South Africa and of course as distinct from Australia and New Zealand (to which the statute does not apply), "requested" the abdication act as well as assented to it.
In the text of the article Doctor Kennedy states:
It is, however, interesting to note that for Australia, if and when that statute operates for Australia, the statute contemplates, on special Australian request, that the "request and consent" necessary under section 4 will mean those "of the parliament and government of Australia." Does the absence of any similar rule for Canada in section 4 mean in proper circumstances, such as a change in the British North America Act, that "request and consent" may come through Canadian order in council?
I suggest that is a question which should be answered to-day. May I now return to the imperial enactment, and point out that in it there is no mention whatever of the Irish Free State. In the Statute of Westminster the word "dominions" is given this meaning:
1. In this act the expression "dominion" means any of the following dominions, that is to say, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland.
That is the meaning of it. And, if I may be permitted to read it again, the preamble of the Statute of Westminster states:
. . . that any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne or the royal style and titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the parliaments of all the dominions as of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
So far as the Irish Free State is concerned we have had no such assent.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Oh, no. The Irish Free State did not consent to the abdication act; it passed one of its own acts. That is different. The British act applies everywhere, and the Irish Free State is not exempt. Sec-
84	COMMONS
Succession to the Throne-Mr. Woodsworth
tion 4 is very specific, and in order that the situation may be clear in our minds I shall read it again:
No act of parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a dominion as part of the law of that dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that act that that dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.
The Irish Free State did not do so. Just what the situation is in Ireland with regard to the king, I do not know. It is a question I would leave to the constitutional lawyers.


Ernest Lapointe: The Irish Free State have a constitution of their own; the British North America Act does not apply to Ireland.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not talking
about their act but about an Imperial act. The minister must not try to sidetrack me in that way. Section 4 is very explicit, and I suggest that the meaning of the word "dominion" is no less clear.
I do not intend to go into the complicated question of all that took place, or the alternative the government may have had. I know there are difficulties, no matter which way one looks at the matter. I would point out, however, that for several months there has been an extended series of articles appearing in the United States press. Undoubtedly expressions of opinion from the United States had an immense effect upon Mr. Baldwin, because he stated that he had received a stream of letters from the United States and Canada. I should like to know from whom those Canadian letters came. They could not very well have come from private individuals, because such letters would not have had such great influence upon Mr. Baldwin. We do not yet know who wrote officially from this country. We do not know that; we have not been told. Yet apparently they had a great deal of influence upon Mr. Baldwin.
Further, in the United Kingdom a certain measure of censorship was imposed and United States journals were not allowed to circulate freely. Why? That question has never been satisfactorily answered. Since the affair has been over we have had a great variety of explanations circulated in the United Kingdom, but we in this country have no means of judging just how true some of those assertions may be. We would be able to judge a little more correctly if we had the papers before us. Certain articles have been given wide circulation in Canada. One paper, published in Ottawa, suggested the other day, I think rightly, that these are the things which tend
rMr. Woodsworth.]
to undermine the monarchy. I would go further and say that they tend to undermine confidence in our democratic institutions.
Personally I have never been convinced that the affair of Mrs. Simpson was a sufficient motive for the action taken by Mr. Baldwin. I have never been able to convince myself of that. If my suspicion is correct, I cannot feel very happy that our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and our government should have fallen in line with the action taken by Mr. Baldwin and his government. So far we have had no possible way of knowing just where the truth lies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that the government of this country could prevent the king from resigning?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, but I do say that because of Mr. Baldwin's stand-apparently that stand was endorsed by the Prime Minister of this country-the king was put into a position where he was almost forced to go.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Again this is a matter upon which, without the documents being before us, we can have only the very vaguest of ideas.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have his word for it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We have his word for it!


An hon. MEMBER:: That should be
enough.


James Shaver Woodsworth: An hon. member suggests that that should be enough, but anyone who knows what goes on during a long series of negotiations realizes how much such statements may mean if they are taken without regard to the circumstances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought I had made clear to my hon. friend and other hon. members that the first communication this government had from Mr. Baldwin on this matter was after the third interview Mr. Baldwin had had with His Majesty the King. The first interview was at Mr. Baldwin's instance; the next two interviews were held at the instance of His Majesty. It was only after the second of these later interviews that Mr. Baldwin communicated with me asking me my opinion, in order that he might be guided in his consideration of the matter with which he had to deal. Surely this will make clear how much there has been in the way of correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of Great Britain.

Succession to the Throne-Mr. Pouliot


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is probably better then that we did not get into this game earlier.


An hon. MEMBER:: Game?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes; that is what I call it. It has been very decidedly a game and unless the papers are brought down we cannot tell how far we are involved. May I repeat, we have the right in this parliament, when discussing a matter of this kind, to have all the relevant facts before us. As I said the other day, I am not so much concerned with who occupies the throne as I am with what part Canada played in the abdication. It seems to me that the decision on what is undoubtedly a most important matter ought not to have been left entirely in the hands of the government. They say, "What could we do?" Well, they could have called parliament. That might have led to a little confusion, but in actual practice I do not think it would have been very great. They might have given a provisional assent. If parliament has any worth while part to play, any assent should have been provisional. That was not done.
I am afraid that if a government can take such action without protest, it will be able to follow the same procedure in connection with other matters. If I have a correct understanding of what was done, the statute itself was very largely set aside. As I say, I do not understand all the implications of the distinction between a statute and a constitutional convention, but if either a statute or a constitutional convention was set aside, it seems to me that it might be very easy for a government in the future to proceed along much the same lines in a great matter such as war or some other national emergency. I regret that with such stalwart defenders of parliamentary rights as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice in the house, it should devolve upon a humble private member to attempt to stand up for the rights of parliament. I feel sure that had the leader of the opposition been Prime Minister and taken the action which was taken, and which he says he himself would have taken, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice would be doing what I am doing to-day, only more forcibly and eloquently.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I commend the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) for the stand which they have taken in this matter. The other day on the train I met a United States citizen who told me how marvellous he thought the British
countries were when a king could go and another one come in and the wheels of government continue to turn smoothly. He told, me that he thought that was something which: could not be done in many countries of the world.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has said that he does not understand the distinction between constitutional and legal matters. The best explanation of that lack of understanding is that there is no distinction. Probably he never heard about constitutional law. We have to adopt legislation which has been passed at Westminster ratifying the abdication of the former king. I agree with those who say that that abdication had no legal effect until the king had sanctioned the bill which was passed by parliament. The Prime Minister has pointed out that the king had a perfect right to abdicate. That abdication was made valid by his sanction of the bill, his last act as King of the United Kingdom.
I do not intend to speak at any great length on this matter, but I should like, sir, to direct your attention to one point. Every member of this house has taken an oath of allegiance to the new king. As I understand it, this matter could have been discussed before, but the fact is that we are now confronted with a fait accompli. King George VI is our king, and no one can change that. Even though the Statute of Westminster did not exist, there would still be the same king. We have taken an oath of allegiance to him; therefore why say any more about it? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said that all hon. members and all the people throughout the country are not constitutional lawyers. I admit that, but we are all British subjects, and we must act accordingly and pass this bill as soon as possible without talking any more about it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is the house ready for the question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would
not have had anything to say on this, but in view of what has been said this afternoon I think I should make a few observations. It is now almost six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But for the observations
that were made during the progress of the
86	COMMONS
Succession to the Throne-Mr. Bennett
debate this afternoon I should not have intervened at this time, but I think it well that certain matters, the accuracy of which can be determined, should be disposed of by reference to the record, and that there should be no misapprehension of the conditions under which the action taken by the government was taken-not because I am in any sense endeavouring to support the government, for it is quite capable of doing that itself, but because this is a matter which concerns not governments but parliament and the people of this country. From that angle I speak, not a9 the leader of a party nor yet in defence of the action taken by the government, but rather as a citizen of this country who is interested in seeing that there should not be placed upon the record statements which are wholly inaccurate with respect to what occurred prior to the action that was taken. For it would be indeed a strange anomaly if we in this parliament should, even by our silence, suggest censure of those who are members of another parliament; and I think we would resent their being critical of our actions when they had not before them the facts upon which we had proceeded. The suggestion that the Prime Minister of Great Britain acted in any other than a becoming manner is one which, I think, should not be heard in this parliament. I may be wrong in that view, but that is my present conviction with respect to the matter.
That there is room for acute differences of opinion with respect to some phases of this matter is, of course, beyond question. The learned argument to which we listened this afternoon with so much interest, presented by the distinguished constitutionalist who represents St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), and the view in the opposite sense expressed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) indicate how differences of opinion may arise with respect to matters of this kind. But, after all, there are certain fundamental matters which, I think, we must consider.
First, it was a condition and not a theory that confronted us when this situation arose; *and it is of no use to assume that the British people-and when I use that term I include Canadians as well-are concerned about theories when the application of common sense to conditions will bring about a solution that is at once in the interests of the country and in harmony with a reasonable interpretation of the statutes under which we operate.
In the first place, without any action at all on our part, our present king became our sovereign. The constitution of this country is

partly written and partly unwritten. It is written in so far as the British North America Act is concerned, but one of the sections of that act provides that certain rights, privileges and prerogatives which appertain and belong to sovereignty may be exercised and do belong as of right to the representative of His Majesty in this country. About that I shall say something further in a moment. Our written constitution provides that the crown, in which is vested the executive power of the country, shall as of right devolve upon the successors of Her late Majesty, Queen Victoria. When she departed this life her son ruled in her stead and was king of Canada because of the provisions of the British North America Act, and when his son succeeded to the throne there was no necessity of legislation being enacted; for by virtue of his birth, he being the eldest surviving son of the deceased sovereign, he became King Emperor of the British Empire. Likewise, when the late King George V of happy memory departed this life, his son, the Prince of Wales, succeeded to the throne; and by his accession, there being no time when the throne is vacant, he became King Emperor of the British Empire. Therefore, so far as we were concerned, no action on our part was required and none was taken except the proclamation to indicate to all the people of our country that a change had come about in the sovereignty. So far as we were concerned, I submit, the former King Edward VIII succeeded to the throne lby due process of law under the provisions of the Act of Settlement of 1700 and the provisions of our written constitution, namely, the British North America Act. That was the position at that moment. When he indicated that he desired to abdicate, I think there can be no question as to the soundness of the observations made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that it was his right to abdicate if he saw fit to lay down the burden. But the mere act of signing the abdication did not in itself complete his abdication. I think that is all it is necessary to say on that point, for it will be recalled that when he did transmit to parliament, through his prime minister, the instrument of abdication, the last paragraph of it read:
I am most anxious that there should be no delay of any kind in giving effect to the instrument which I have executed and that all necessary steps should be taken immediately to secure that my lawful successor, my brother, His Koyal Highness the Duke of York, should ascend the throne.
I submit that that single paragraph is a complete epitome of the whole situation,

Succession to the Throne-Mr. Bennett
namely, an instrument of abdication executed by the sovereign, which is the resignation of an office, if we were to use the terminology
that would apply in the case of a private individual relinquishing an office. Under the provisions of our law, for instance, with respect to the resignation of members, with respect to resignations from governments, the acceptance of them is what constitutes the completion of the transaction. So with respect to the instrument of abdication which was executed by the sovereign; it did not become effective until such time, as indicated in the last paragraph of his letter to parliament, as such further steps were taken as might be necessary to make the abdication effective.
In the Act of Settlement there are no provisions with respect to abdications. Without going into the matter in detail, may I say that what happened in 1688 has been variously estimated-and I use the word "variously" deliberately-by historians in accordance with their general attitude of mind as they approached the question. Was there an abdication or did the conduct constitute an abdication? These were questions which at that time were much canvassed and discussed. Sufficient for our purpose it is to say that there was an abdication in law; that is, the throne became vacant by reason of the action taken by the then holder of the crown. That constituted an abdication; and in 1688-89 legislation was passed with respect to the devolution of the crown and as to the successor of James II. There being, therefore, no law applicable to the subject it became necessary that action should be taken by parliament to accept this instrument of abdication as a final and irrevocable relinquishment of the king-emperorship by the then holder thereof. The act of parliament was not necessary for the purpose of providing for the devolution of the crown in the event of there being a vacancy. It was only necessary, if at all, as the minister pointed out this afternoon, for another purpose entirely. The result was that parliament, urged to prompt action on December 10, took the action with which we are now all familiar and which I shall not take the time to refer to again. The statute has been read and re-read. But in my judgment the essential thing to remember is that the statute, by what we sometimes refer to as a legal fiction, provided for the abdication of the sovereign, namely, by a declaration that that instrument of abdication constituted a vacancy of the throne and amounted to the demise of the sovereign. It so declares in terms. In other words, as I said yesterday, the king was dead.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can there be
such a thing as a vacancy of the throne, and is it true that the king dies? Is not the maxim "the king never dies," and is it not the fact that the throne remains, the crown remains? There may be a demise of the crown but the crown remains. It is merely transferred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman perhaps was not in his seat at the moment when I spoke about that before. The theory of our law is, "The king is dead; long live the king." That is the expression.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what
we say when the royal person holding the position of king dies and another royal person succeeds to the throne. But is the theory not that the king never dies?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. The king himself
of course dies but the kingship continues. That is the real distinction. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) was fearful that I should indulge in hair-splitting arguments and I am endeavouring to free what I have to say from any suggestion of that sort. I desire to make it clear that parliament, dealing for the second time with the question of the abdication of a ruling sovereign, had to devise ways and means of dealing with it. They could not and did not say: We accept the abdication, but they said:	The action taken, followed
by our acceptance of it in the manner we have provided, namely, by declaring that this constitutes a demise of the crown, enables the incidents that follow the death of a sovereign immediately to ensue. And the very moment that the reigning sovereign affixed his signature, gave his approval, to that statute, he as king was dead. He still survived, and may long live, I hope, as an individual, but as king he was dead. He had ceased to occupy the office. There had been a demise of the crown.
The demise of the crown brought about an immediate result. That is what I take it the right hon. Prime Minister means. The immediate result was that the person entitled by law under the Act of Settlement to do so at once succeeded to the crown. The old practice was-it has a very interesting history, but I shall not burden the house with history -that a few members, as many members as possible of the old sovereign's privy council, together with as many gentlemen of quality
88	COMMONS
Succession to the Throne-Mr. Bennett
as could be assembled, met together, and at once, in order that no one else might take such action, made a declaration that so and so "is our lawful sovereign lord and king and is of right entitled to the throne and crown." That declaration was made, it will be recalled, some few hours-or I think a Sunday intervened, to be exact-after this statute had become law. Now the operation of law had nothing to do with the act of the parties. By the operation of law our present sovereign became our king under the Act of Settlement. There was no change in the succession there was merely an acceptance of it. What is more, the statute itself so declares. The important thing to keep' in mind is that parliament's action was limited to declaring that in consequence of the instrument which had been executed by the then king and which after much opposition on the part of the government and the people was accepted, because the king would not withdraw it-he maintained that he could not; it was irrevocable; he would not change his mind-the king was dead. The individual still lives. And on the death of that king his successor was, as pointed out by the former king in his letter to the parliament of Great Britain, his brother the Duke of York. The former king's own language being very clear on that point, although it is not binding at all, indicates that he had a clear appreciation of what the situation was. He said, that all necessary steps should be taken immediately "to secure that my lawful successor, my brother the Duke of York, should ascend the throne."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not like to interrupt my right hon. friend, but I cannot see where he finds ground for his statement that parliament declared that the king was dead. Parliament may have declared a demise of the crown, but a demise of the crown is not the same thing as a decease of the sovereign.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly the same. It may not serve any useful purpose to discuss these matters technically, as was said this afternoon; my effort is to avoid that, but the language of the statute is this:
Immediately upon the royal assent being signified to this act the instrument of abdication executed by His present Majesty on the tenth day of December, 1936. set out in the schedule to this act. shall have effect, and thereupon His Majesty shall cease to be king and there shall be a demise of the crown, and accordingly the member of the royal family then next in succession to the throne shall succeed thereto and to all the rights, privileges and dignities thereunto belonging.

There cannot be anything clearer than that as indicating that as far as the king himself was concerned he was dead. The moment that document which he executed was accepted by parliament, he was dead in his kingship, in the same way as on the resignation of a prime minister he ceases to be prime minister the moment his resignation is accepted. He is still the individual, but the office he held has passed to another. So the king no longer was king. His office had passed from him because parliament had accepted his renunciation of the throne, which technically we call the acceptance of his abdication. I think there is no difficulty with respect to that. But the discussion indicates what chances there are for different views with respect to matters of this kind.
The only question then that remains for consideration is the simple single one as to what action should be taken by the Dominion of Canada in order to meet the situation. I humbly submit that there was no change in the succession. I shall not argue that, because the Minister of Justice holds the other view. But certainly the Act of Settlement has not been modified or changed. Inasmuch as it would be impossible either that one who had ceased legally to occupy the throne, and who might thereafter have issue, should sit on the throne himself, or that his issue should, the action that was taken by the parliament at Westminster was action which we lawyers sometimes speak of as being taken "out of abundant precaution," as the minister said this afternoon. I shall not use the Latin phrase which is used to express it. But what happended was that parliament, for the reasons which I pointed out yesterday and shall not repeat, took steps to make it abundantly clear that the implication of law should also be fortified and strengthened by a definite and deliberate statement in a statute of the realm. That is the position.
Now why was it necessary as far as we were concerned to take any action?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I may be permitted to interrupt again-I hope my right hon. friend will not feel that I am interrupting to embarrass him in any way-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a bit.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -but simply to bring out the truth of the matter, which he as well as all of us are interested in bringing out. Does my right hon. friend disagree with

Succession to the Throne-Mr. Bennett
the Prime Minister of England, who said in the House of Commons at Westminster:
It is necessary to have an act of parliament because the succession to the throne is governed by the Act of Settlement, which makes no provision for an abdication or for a succession consequent upon an abdication. It is also necessary expressly to amend that act by eliminating His Majesty, and his issue and descendants from the succession.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have already dealt with the first question, Mr. Speaker, and answered it twice. So far as the second question is concerned, I merely say that if the logic of the statute is to be accepted, namely that there was a demise of the crown, it follows that, the sovereign being unmarried, he had lost his right and that any issue he might have had also lost their right. But out of a desire to render it clear beyond peradventure, so that there should be no doubt in the future and that no pretender could set up a claim, parliament enacted the statute which it did. For had parliament been dealing with the matter in the sense in which it has been suggested it should, it would have amended the Act of Settlement. It did not amend the Act of Settlement; it makes it perfectly clear that the Act of Settlement is not amended. On the contrary you are merely to place a construction upon that act providing for a demise of the crown where previously no such provision existed. That is the language of the statute itself.
However, Mr. Speaker, the important matter which we have to consider is what action the Dominion of Canada should have taken at that moment. I said the other day, and I repeat, that I entirely approve the action taken by the government and that I would have taken the same action had I been in the position of the Prime Minister. I would not have taken it in the same way. I thought it undesirable to go further into that matter the other day, and but for this debate I would not have discussed the matter at all. I would not have taken the action in the manner in which it was taken by the government. I think on investigation and inquiry it will be found that it was not necessary to take the action by order in council. I do not think order in council was the appropriate method by which it should have been done. I shall not do more than say that, because I realize that there is much force in what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that under different circumstances it would have provoked acrimonious discussion and very great opposition had a government of which I was head taken a step such as that.
I only say that on investigation I think, sir, it will be found that the method employed is open to grave censure. I shall leave the matter at that, because I do not intend to traverse a field that can have no fruitful result; for by the method employed the necessary action was taken. That is all that need be said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would my right hon. friend mind telling the house what method he would have adopted?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has not the slightest intention of doing so. He is going a very long way now in supporting the view which he thinks was necessary in the interests of the country as well as the unity of the empire, in supporting the action taken by the government in bringing about the result it did, but the methods employed were, I believe, not methods that were sound, constitutionally or otherwise. I do not think there is any answer to certain statements which were made this afternoon by the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George as to the methods employed, but that need not be discussed at the moment. It is sufficient for my purpose to say that the action taken by the government made iX abundantly clear that the government desirerf to associate itself with the British government, and requested that the government at Westminster should indeed speak for us as well as for themselves as far as the operation of the statute was concerned; and they did so.
Of course, sir, differences of time made many difficulties. The position of the government was extremely difficult. The bill was introduced on the afternoon of December 10, and of course in this country it was not the same hour as it was at Westminster. But the action taken by the government brought about the appropriate result. That is the important thing to remember, and I agree with what has been said here so frequently during the course of the debate, that not only was the welfare of the Canadian people to be considered, but we had to bear in mind our own position with respect to the future if we did not take that action. Here we would be in the position so appropriately pointed out this afternoon by the Minister of Justice. Here we would be with a king, under the British North America Act, he being king of this country as much as he was king of any part of his realm, he being a successor to Queen Victoria within the terms of that statute. That is clear. If we had called parliament it is perfectly apparent that by so doing we would have placed ourselves in
90	COMMONS
Succession to the Throne-Mr. Bennett
an anomalous position, and I think one might say that a somewhat harsher word would better describe our position.
I happened to be far removed from this section of the country at that particular time, and it is not unfair to say that many people in the world were waiting to see civil disturbances within the British Empire. It is not unfair to say that there were many who believed that this organization of which we speak as the British commonwealth of nations could not survive the strain. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance-and I associate myself with what was said by the Prime Minister in that regard-that there should be no apparent weakening of this great institution which we have built up through the ages; that its power to function should be apparent to all the world, and that it should function without question by the voice of a united people speaking for every part of the great self-governing dominions.
Reference has been made to conditions in Ireland, but it will be found on investigation that the ultimate action taken by the parliament of the Irish Free State was not at variance with the general principle that has been asserted in this house. Therefore I think it is quite appropriate that we should enact this legislation in view of the fact that we desire also to remove any possible doubt that may exist, if there is any-and in my judgment there would be very little- as to the condition that might arise in the event of His late Majesty marrying and having issue. Inasmuch as that contingency is one which always must be contemplated, the action taken out of abundant precaution will make it quite clear that in no part of the king's dominions, whether it be in that part of it over which the parliament of Great Britain has complete jurisdiction or those parts over which that parliament has divested itself of jurisdiction, can there be any possibility of an assertion on the part either of the late king or of his descendants of a claim to the throne of his fathers.
I think that is about all that can be usefully said in that regard. But there was one observation made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that, I believe, should not go unchallenged. It had to do with the action which was taken by the Canadian government, and to which I referred a few moments ago. As I have said, I have no intention of defending the action taken by the government. That is not my duty; hon. gentlemen opposite are quite well able to do it themselves. But in his speech in the

British House of Commons Mr. Baldwin did not use the language which my hon. friend attributed to him. These were his words:
There were two things that disquieted me at that moment. There was coming to my office a vast volume of correspondence, mainly at that time from British subjects and American citizens of British origin in the United States of America, from some of the dominions, and from this country, all expressng perturbation and uneasiness at rvhat was then appearing in the American press.
That is a vastly different matter from assuming that Mr. Baldwin said he was receiving a great deal of correspondence from the Dominion of Canada. What he said was that he was receiving a large volume of correspondence from British subjects and American citizens of British origin in the United States, and from some of the dominions. He did not say it was Canada, and I think it is appropriate to point that out, for the inference, if any, to be drawn from my distinguished friend's observations would be that there might be some people who were acting in an official capacity-and he used the word "official"-or quasi official, who were sending letters with respect to this matter to the Prime Minister of England. He made such reference in his speech and I am quoting his words.
There is just one other point made by the hon. member which I think should be cleared up and which is as to whether appropriate action was taken to give His late Majesty the most ample opportunity to consider what course he would pursue. All that one need do is to look at the letter he sent to parliament, the first sentence of which reads in this way:
After long and anxious consideration I have determined to renounce the throne to which I succeeded on the death of my father, and I am now communicating this my final and irrevocable decision. Realizing as I do the gravity of this step, I can only hope that I shall have the understanding of my people in the decision I have taken and the reasons which have led me to take it.
Had it ended there, the answer to the hon. member would be almost complete. But it did not end there, for when that letter was received, instead of at once acting upon it or going to parliament and making it clear that this was an irrevocable decision, the government passed a minute which they then asked the Prime Minister to communicate to His Majesty. They passed a very careful minute in order that there might be no misunderstanding with respect to the matter. That minute impressed upon

Succession to the Throne-Mr. Bennett
the then sovereign the desirability of considering his position, in order that there might be no question as to his having the fullest possible opportunity of considering what action should be taken. His answer is a matter of record. He said perfectly clearly that he regretted he could not change his mind. The letter that Mr. Baldwin sent to His late Majesty was in these words:
Mr. Baldwin, with his humble duty to the king.	[DOT]
This morning Mr. Baldwin reported to the cabinet his interview with Your Majesty yesterday, and informed his colleagues that Your Majesty then communicated to him informally your firm and definite intention to renounce the throne.
The cabinet received this statement of Your Majesty's intention with profound regret, and wished Mr. Baldwin to convey to Your Majesty immediately the unanimous feeling of Your Majesty's servants.
Ministers are reluctant to believe that Your Majesty's resolve is irrevocable, and still venture to hope that before Your Majesty pronounces any formal decision Your Majesty may be pleased to reconsider an intention which must so deeply distress and so vitally affect all Your Majesty's subjects.
Mr. Baldwin is at once communicating with the dominion Prime Ministers for the purpose of letting them know that Your Majesty has now made to him the informal intimation of Your Majesty's intention.
Then Mr. Baldwin stated that the following reply had been received from His Majesty the night before:
The king has received the Prime Minister's letter of the 9th December, 1936, informing him of the views of the cabinet.
His Majesty has given the matter his further consideration, but regrets that he is unable to alter his decision.
There the matter ends, and I think it cannot possibly be suggested that the government here or the government in Great Britain did in any sense endeavour either to expedite or to hurry forward tihe answer His Majesty would give as to the course of action he should pursue, but left to his sole and unfettered discretion the determination of the issue he had himself raised.
For, as the Prime Minister pointed out, although Mr. Baldwin was very careful to indicate that he had intended to ask for audience with the king, before he had done so on either of the two occasions when he saw him after the matter was first broached the king had anticipated his action by asking Mr. Baldwin to come to see him.
I mention these points because I am sure the hon. member would not desire that there should be left by innuendo or veiled suggestion in the minds of the Canadian people the thought that either in Great Britain or
in this dominion there were any who were endeavouring to expedite the action of His late Majesty the king in departing from the throne of his fathers. I think that is abundantly clear from the extracts I have read. In view of the differences of opinion that have been apparent among lawyers and others, I believe we can proceed to enact this legislation out of abundant precaution-to use the language of the books-in order that there may be no question as to indicating what our course should be, and so that there may be a direct statement upon the statute books of this country.
The action taken by the parliament at Westminster in pursuance of the action which was taken by the government here was such as was calculated to be in the interest not only of the Canadian people as a whole and individually, but of the world at large, particularly all those parts of it comprised within the area which we call the British Empire. For the world itself, as well as the empire, was concerned in the preservation of peace and the maintenance of law and order over that great area of the world's surface.
One other word might be added, and it is this: Not only was such action desirable and necessary in the interests of the people of the British Empire and of the world at large, but it was necessary that it should be taken without delay. For, if the foremost dominion were to delay, then the effect that many expected to follow would indeed have followed. I believe there is no doubt with respect to that. I can only commend the government for taking the action it did take, regretting only that it was taken in the manner in which it was. That, however, is another matter altogether, and need not enter into this discussion. The sure and certain result of delayed action would have been inimical to the peace, happiness and prosperity of the Canadian people; of that I think there is no doubt, even as in other parts of the king's dominions those responsible for the administration felt that similar results would follow if assent were not given to the legislation that was enacted.
I have spoken at greater length than I had intended, because certain questions which were asked had the effect of diverting my attention from the bare statement of facts I had intended to make. I desire to repeat, however, that in a great crisis, by prompt action we have avoided uncertainty and disquietude. We have given to the world, including the British dominions and Great Britain, an example of the operation of a constitution partly rigid and written, and partly the development of constitutional

Succession to the Throne-Mr. Bennett
practice through all the years. It is well also to remember that the preamble, which after all is not part of the enacting clauses of the bill but can be turned to for certain purposes only, was worded deliberately in a certain way because it was desired in the preamble to make known that the constitutional practice discussed in the old chamber at the time of the death of the late Queen Victoria and later, which involved the great self-governing dominions, was such that they could not have a voice in the succession at the moment because that was fixed by the rigid word of the written constitution and by the Act of Settlement. But in those incidents which arose out of the operation of the constitution it was intended that their voice should be heard; that they should be consulted, and that parliament itself should deal with such changes as might be made, always on the assumption that the action taken in all cases would be the same. It could not be otherwise, notwithstanding what has been said with respect to the Irish Free State, that matter having been settled in substantially the same way but by a different method.
It would be indeed an anomaly if we were in one breath to contend that we were part of the British Empire, and then, in the next, to say that we could take ourselves out of the empire. We are part of it regardless of any action we may take. We are part of it by reason of the British North America Act, the accepted method of amending which is safeguarded under the Statute of Westminster. Those provisions were inserted in the Statute of Westminster because of the action taken by the then premiers of Ontario and Quebec, who were fearful that certain changes might be made because of the operation of the act in its broad and general terms. A meeting was held here in Ottawa, the results of which will be found in the archives of the Department of External Affairs, initialled by the representatives of every province of confederation. Those results are responsible for the provisions with respect to the constitution which are contained in the Statute of Westminster.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for trespassing so long upon the time of the house in connection with this matter. I had already expressed my views about it, but I felt that some reply should be made to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre before the bill was given its second reading. He misunderstood my suggestion with respect to the majority of the right hon. gentleman. What I said, and what I repeat, applies to every govern-
ment where you have representative institutions. The government of the day is formed and operates on. the assumption that it has at all times a majority of the members of the House of Commons supporting it. It is on that assumption that the executive from time to time arrive at decisions, having a clear understanding that they have behind them the support of the majority of the House of Commons. That is responsible government. That is the result of representative institutions.
Just as Disraeli, without parliamentary authority, provided for the purchase of the Suez canal shares and subsequently had his action confirmed by parliament and the money provided-he had been able to secure a loan for the purpose before parliamentary action was taken-so now we are about to confirm by statutory legislation certain necessary action that was taken. If the government had not behind it the support of the majority of its members it would never have passed the order in council in question, but with sure and certain knowledge that under our representative institutions it could at all times command that support, because that is the basis upon which our institutions operate, the government took the action it did. We are here, without a dissenting voice, I hope, to give that action the approval which its importance demands and which I feel sure will remove any doubt which may arise in the mind of anyone as to the necessity for its being enacted.


Mr. R. E. FINN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to take up only a moment or two of the time of the house. When I was a member of the government of Nova Scotia under the late revered Hon. George H. Murray, the former King Edward VIII visited that province and was entertained at Halifax by the government. Afterwards in 1916 I had the honour of attending a banquet in the city of London tendered to him and presided over by the present hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), who was then overseas minister. On his right sat the then Prince of Wales and on his left the present king, the former Duke of York.
I think that under all the circumstances we should tbe reserved in any statements that we make. If congratulations are in order, I should like to congratulate the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) upon concurring with the government in the action taken. This action was taken so that the solidification and unification of the British Empire would not be imperilled. It has been

Succession to the Throne-Mr. Finn
stated that there was a difference in time between here and London, and the fact is that the government of Canada had perhaps only a half hour or an hour in which to act. They acted wisely and they acted well when they passed the order in council. The Statute of Westminster provides ithat the request and consent of the commonwealth of nations must be obtained when action of this kind is taken by the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
This afternoon the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) referred to the preamble of the Statute of Westminster, but in doing that he did what many lawyers sometimes do in court. Sometimes a lawyer will read a certain portion of a judgment and leave out sentences which do not bear out the view which he is trying to impress upon the court. I propose to read that part of the preamble which the hon. member did not read. The preamble reads:
And whereas it is meet and proper to set cut by way of preamble to this act that, inasmuch as the crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British commonwealth of nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the commonwealth in relation to one another-
The balance of the preamble not read by the hon. member continues:
-that any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne or the royal style and titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the parliaments of all the dominions as of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
There was no alteration whatever in the succession because that is settled by the British North America Act which has not been amended and which cannot be amended. Section 7 of the Statute of Westminster reads:
Nothing in this act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.
The British North America Act, which is our constitution provides under section 2:
The provisions of this act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the heirs and successors of Her Majesty, kings and queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Then we come to section 4 of the Statute of Westminster, and what does it provide? It provides:
No act of parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a dominion as part of the law of that dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that act that that dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.
And it became necessary, in what was perhaps the greatest crisis in the history of the British Empire, for the government of Canada by order in council to request and consent to the enactment of the legislation that was passed by the parliament at Westminster and assented to by His former Majesty King Edward VIII, enabling the Duke of York to become our present King, George VI.
I am not going to deal for one moment with what happened in the British House of Commons or with the events or motives of the Baldwin government that led up to the final result. All I have to say in that regard is, as hon. gentlemen on all sides of this house know, that the British House of Commons voted almost unanimously, irrespective of party, Liberal and Conservative, representatives of labour and other members of different views, for the enactment of that legislation which made George VI our present king. Only five members of the British House of Commons voted against it.
I should also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it was not only right but a gracious act on the part of the right hon. leader of the opposition to take the position that he did in concurring in the action which the government took at that time, in order to help save what is the finest entity in the world to-day, the British Empire, which stands out as a bulwark against all sorts of destructive doctrines and misunderstandings throughout the world to-day.
I was surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George this afternoon. He comes from my own province of Nova Scotia, from my own city of Halifax, and when he spoke of that great country to the south of us I was reminded of that day not very long ago in the history of this young Canada of ours when the present president of the United States visited this country and delivered an eloquent and human address in both languages in the historic city of Quebec. I had the honour and pleasure of hearing him. I saw him step forward on the arm of his son and wave his hand to -us as to a friendly neighbour. I wonder what he will think when he reads the words of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George with reference to that country, which is truly a friendly neighbour of ours, and particularly so under its present president who in recent months received an almost unanimous verdict from the people of his country. My hon. friend's remarks may leave on the minds of some unthinking people in this country-and by unthinking I mean simply those who perhaps, through lack of educational opportunities or lack of time, have not developed themselves sufficiently to dif-

Succession to the Throne-Mr. Finn
ferentiate-a viewpoint that is not real, that is not manly, that is certainly not utopian, a viewpoint such as will never bring nations together as Canada and the United States have been brought together, separated as they are only by an imaginary boundary line.
It is my earnest hope and desire that the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Mackenzie King) will supplement his highly successful efforts of last year by a further trade treaty with the United States, opening to us a wider and a larger market in that great country of 125,000,000 people, and at the same time develop a greater market for our products within the British Empire.
Mv right hon. friend the leader of the opposition has just recently returned from a tour of the empire, around the world by the empire trade route. He has had opportunities such as few in this house have had of visiting different parts of the world. Excluding England and parts of Europe I may say that I have had the opportunity of visiting two of the far countries visited by my right hon. friend, South Africa and Australia, and I say that the contribution of the right hon. gentleman to-day and yesterday in this house and on this issue-and he has a mind not only brilliant but active, one such as I would be proud to have-has brought about in this house a unanimity on the succession bill that will tell the world where the British Empire stands to-day.
We do not forget His former Majesty King Edward VIII, or his twenty-five years as Prince of Wales, when he visited and did much to build up and make great many parts of the empire, nor do we forget how well he carried out his duties as king until finally he relinquished his task. Let it not be forgotten that in the end it was of his own volition that he made the choice he did; it was not left for parliament to decide, nor W'as it left to any other part of the empire. It was left to the king's own heart and to his own secret thoughts to decide. And, finally, under his own hand and signature there caime that document by which he, the king, abdicated his throne;
I, Edward VIII of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, King and Emperor of India, do hereby declare my irrevocable determination to renounce the throne for myself and for my descendants and my desire that effect should be given to this instrument of abdication immediately.
In token whereof I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, in the presence of the witnesses whose signatures are subscribed.
(Signed) Edward R.I.
And who are the witnesses? His three brothers: the present Icing, the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent. I ask, Mr. Speaker, what course was open to the parliament of Great Britain and to the British commonwealth of nations but to accept that word as honestly expressing His former Majesty's irrevocable decision to abdicate? And when the legislation became law with his royal assent he passed from the scene of kingship to the dukedom of Windsor. I say, sir, that no one with a heart could fail to be touched when His former Majesty left Belvedere, when he said good-bye to his gracious mother, the former queen, to his brothers, one his successor George VI. He then got into his car and drove away to the quay and boarded the "Fury." As he looked up at the heavens and beheld the stars there scintillating, what were his thoughts as he left the shores of his native land? Let us not forget sympathy, kindness, good will, appreciation. I say, congratulations to the Prime Minister and the government, congratulations to the leader of the opposition and his followers and to every hon. gentleman who leads a party in this house and who to-night will support the bill that has been brought down by the Prime Minister to carry on that great process of unification which will declare to the world that we are a unit, that we mean to stand as a unit, and that what we stand for is liberty, justice and life under the highest and noblest form of democracy.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
European war pensions, naval, militia, and air forces after the war, $41,500,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister
would make a statement.


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: As the committee knows, this is the most important item in the estimates of the Department of Pensions. It covers the payment of pensions to those who were injured during the great war. Pensions are paid to disabled ex-members of the Canadian expeditionary force and their dependants numbering-and I am quoting the figures somewhat inaccurately-something like 253,000 people. Pensions are payable also to members of the active militia who since

Supply-Pensions-European War
August 4, 1914, have incurred disabilities, and to the dependants of those who died in military service. The item also covers the reinstatement of pensioners who have commuted their pensions. It gives gratuities to pensioners who have less than five per cent disability. It also provides for certain supplementary pensions payable to Canadian citizens, that is to say, people who were resident in Canada but who, during the war, served in the British army. It also provides certain additional pensions under certain conditions to ex-members of the Belgian, French and Italian forces. Arrangements have also been made with the Dominion of New Zealand whereby certain members of the New Zealand expeditionary force who are entitled to pension under their own law, whilst residing in Canada receive their allowances or pensions from the Canadian government, which afterwards recovers the amount from the sister dominion. It provides also for burial grants to pensioners who die having no means for the payment of their funeral expenses. And it covers payments to members of the permanent force who have been injured subsequent to August 4, 1914.
It is somewhat hazardous for a minister to make any statement of what the future will bring. I well recollect that some fifteen years ago the then Minister of Pensions stated that the peak of pensions had been reached. At that time the pension bill was something under $20,000,000. To-day I have the honour to ask the committee for $41,-
500,000.	But I have reason to believe that in so far as pensions are concerned-and I wish it to be well understood that I am speaking only of pensions, that is, payments made to those who incurred disability on service- I believe that we have about reached the peak. I may say in passing that there are other expenditures which are being and which will be made on behalf of veterans of the great war that are bound to increase as the years go by. For instance, the war veterans' allowances, which are paid to those who are assumed to have a disability but who cannot establish through the courts which have been set up by our legislation that their disability is due to the war, are now being paid to the extent of $4,200,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is another item in the estimates?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, but I want to make it plain that while I am saying that perhaps the peak of pensions as such has been or is about to be reached, the highest total annual payment made by the people of Canada to
ex-soldiers will not be reached for some years to come. As a matter of fact in war veterans' allowances alone we are asking the committee to grant this year an additional $800,000, and that will gradually mount up until war veterans' allowance payments will reach the total of something like $13,000,000 in, I think, 1957.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the minister has mentioned that, would he say how that sum is arrived at? Or he can reserve that until the item itself is up.


Charles Gavan Power: When the War Veterans'
Allowance Act was introduced certain computations were made, and so far they have proven fairly correct. If they continue to operate in the same manner, and there is no further legislation making the provisions more generous, we have reason to hope that by 1957 the total of $13,000,000 for war veterans' allowances will be about the peak.
As far as pensions are concerned, the peak was in 1931-32, when the amount actually expended was $46,795,039.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The number of pensioners has been increasing since then, but the amount expended is less?


Charles Gavan Power: The number of pensioners has increased. As a matter of fact in the past six months as compared with last year it has increased by something like 220. The number of pensioners who were actually receiving pension on September 30, 1936, was 97,865, of whom 79,467 were disability pensioners and 18,054 were dependent pensioners.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Including widows and
children.


Charles Gavan Power: And the amount paid to
September of this year was $20,776,000.
The reason for hoping that there will be some diminution is that we believe that as a result of the action of the committee set up last year the applicants who are really entitled to pension will have a greater opportunity of bringing their cases before the tribunal, whereas those who have been what might be called chronic pension chasers will have less opportunity. So that for one thing the expense of administration should decrease. As is well known to the committee, the judicial set-up has through the years become somewhat more complicated than perhaps it should be, and I say that knowing full well that I must bear my own share of the responsibility of having asked for it in this house. Let us hope that within a very short time the arrears of pension cases will be

Supply-Pensions-European War
caught up with. In fact I am informed by the chairman of the pension commission that by March 31 of this year we shall no longer have any arrears of pension cases. That, I think, will lead to considerable economy. Then, as a result of legislation passed in 1933, children born to pensioners after May 1, 1933, I think, are not longer entitled to pension. The number now going off pension is quite considerable. We find, for instance, that in February of 1937 the number who reach the age at which they will no longer be entitled to pension, that is, sixteen years, normally, is 1,029. In all, 11,475 will be cut off pension during 1937.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is included in the
20,000 dependents the hon. gentleman mentioned?


Charles Gavan Power: Exactly. During 1938 there will be 10,518 cut off; during 1939 there will be 10,189, and from then on the number goes down very rapidly. Then, of course, there is the mortality. The average age of pensioners at the present time is forty-eight years and nine months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is other than
dependents?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, disability pensioners.


Mr. PELLETIER:: What does the minister mean when he says they will be cut off after those years?


Charles Gavan Power: Under the pension legislation children of pensioners receive an allowance up to the age of sixteen normally, seventeen for girls. Under certain circumstances, if in the discretion of the tribunal it is considered reasonable they are allowed to carry on until the age of twenty-one, but there is no such thing as permanent pension for children of pensioners. Their allowance continues only until such time as they are supposed to have finished their education or until they are assumed to be able to earn a living.
The pensioners themselves are dying off at a fairly rapid rate. I would assume that at the present time there are just about as many pensioners who die off as there are new ones who come on. During the year 1935-36, for instance, there were 1,040 disability pensioners who died, and 553 main dependents. By that I do not mean children; I mean wives. That makes a total of 1,593 who no longer draw pensions on account of their decease. That figure has been rising, not very rapidly but fairly gradually, since 1028, when the figure was 1,014. In 1931-32 it rose to 1,333, and the highest figure is that I have just mentioned, 1,593.

So there is some ground for belief that we have reached the peak in pensions. I want it to be very clearly understood by the committee, however, that this does not mean to say that we have reached the peak of expenditure on behalf of returned soldiers in Canada. As they grow older, as more and more of them come on the war veterans' allowances, under the statute they must be looked after. As more and more become unable to cope with the ordinary competition of civilian life they will have to be looked after, somehow or another. Personally I have never cared to think of opening old soldiers' homes in this country. I do not think the Canadian people want them; I do not think the old soldiers themselves want them, but I am bound to say to the committee that the time will come when some measure or another will have to be taken to look after those who gave good service to the country at the front and who are unable to look after themselves otherwise.


Mr. McTVOR:: I should like to express
the appreciation of a family in Fort William. A returned man was stricken with an incurable disease and confined to the general hospital in Winnipeg. His parents, who were around eighty years of age, desired to have their son come home and spend this last days in Fort William. I got in touch with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) by mail; he got in touch with the pensions department, and in less than five days this returned man was in the McKellar hospital in Fort William. Since then he has answered the last roll call, and on behalf of his parents I would express to the Minister of Pensions and those assisting him their deep appreciation. I think this shows that this department has some heart, and I hope the department will continue to show it, so that any man who has served overseas may obtain that which will satisfy him when his body and mind are weakening.


Mr. GREEN:: May I ask the minister whether he has yet had a report from the War Veterans' Assistance Commission which was appointed last year? I ask that question for this reason. That commission has travelled across this country and has heard representations of many different kinds. I think several of these items which will come up to-night should stand over until we have had at least an interim report from that commission. The committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems which sat last year brought in a recommendation in these terms:
To ensure that the progress of the commission's activities, both in connection with its surveys and application of approved projects,

Supply-Pensions-European War
be made known to the government, your committee would also recommend that the commission be required to submit from time to time interim reports on matters arising out of the act.
The act which was passed provided, in section 12:
The minister may from time to time require the commission to submit a report on the progress of projects and other matters arising out of this act, and the commission shall, before the expiry of the term of office of the commissioners, submit a final report to the minister in such form and with such details as the minister may direct-
So far as I know as yet there has been no report, and I would ask the minister whether he has required the commission to make one. They have been sitting now for several months, and even an interim report would help this committee a great deal in dealing with these items. Surely they are not to be passed before we have had the advantage of seeing an interim report by the commission.


Charles Gavan Power: I should like to explain to my hon. friend that the item under discussion deals solely with pensioners, that is, those who have acquired a claim on the government because of disabilities incurred on service. I am not for a moment raising a point of order, but whether an interim report or a complete and final report has been received _ from the War Veterans' Assistance Commission will not in any way affect the present item. But I may say to my hon. friend, for his own information, that the commission has been from coast to coast in Canada; it has been in touch with those interested in the problems of returned soldiers in almost every large centre in the country, and it has made certain reports which I shall be prepared to table within the next day or so. But those reports will have no effect whatsoever on the question under discussion. My hon. friend will remember that really the duty of the War Veterans' Assistance Commission was to ascertain approximately the number of ex-service men throughout Canada who were unemployed and what possible means could be found to obtain employment for them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The work of that commission may, however, affect the total expenditure on returned soldiers.


Charles Gavan Power: I have no objection to saying that I am not prepared to bring down the documents to-night, but I should be able to do so within a day or so. Committees have been established in almost every city of any size in Canada. Some of the most reputable business men and others interested in returned
31 u 1-7
soldiers have agreed to act on these committees. Certain recommendations have come to us, for instance one dealing with a corps of commissionaires. The recommendation has been approved by the department and will be tabled within a day or so. Another recommendation dealing with a community centre in one section of the country has also been approved. But I think my hon. friend will agree that to say that there is any general panacea for settling unemployment among returned soldiers at the present time would be almost ridiculous. We must handle the situation as best we can in each locality, with the help of the best minds available who have agreed to help us, and that is what we are doing. I do not expect the final report of the commission for some time to come. They have been barely able to classify the reports which they have received. I may say this, that 33,000 returned soldiers filed replies to the questionnaires, which, I take it, means that there are 33,000 returned soldiers out of employment. How many of these are pensioners at the present time and receive a small allowance and relief I am unable to say, because the figures have not been placed before me. But there will be no information disclosed by that committee which will have any great effect on the vote now before us for European war pensions, because most of those who are to be dealt with by the committee will be people who obviously have no claim for pensions, and are not claiming for them. The very large proportion are persons who are asking that they be given some kind of dole or gratuity because they served in the army. So far no government in Canada has been willing to accept the principle that service alone shall entitle a person to payment or to treatment different from that accorded to any other section of the community.
Claims and representations of which I know unofficially have been made to the committee to the effect that because an ex-soldier who is in receipt of a pension gets a minimum relief of $18.75, that, therefore, an ex-imperial soldier who came into Canada in 1928 or 1929 and who is in receipt of $12 or $13 from his municipality should receive the same amount of money. If that claim is made it will possibly be placed very energetically and strenuously before parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Claiming the dominion should pay $6.75?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is the old claim.



Supply-Pensions-European War_______


Charles Gavan Power: I am giving an extreme case.
I want that understood. A large number of ex-imperial troops came to Canada after 1924. Prior to 1924 we had treated them on exactly the same basis as the Canadian soldier. A large number of them were men who commuted or sold their pensions. That is to say they are not in receipt of one dollar from their own government. However, owing to the fact that the legislation of that day provided that if they were here before 1924 they should be placed on the same basis as Canadian soldiers, we pay them the full amount of $18.75 if single men, and running up to $60 or $70 and even to $80 if they are married men, depending upon the number of children they have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Notwithstanding the fact that they have already had one pension?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, as my right hon. friend has pointed out, notwithstanding the fact that they have already received a pension from their own government, which pension they have commuted. The claim now being made upon us, which is in fact urged in hundreds of cases, is that those who came here since 1924 should be placed in exactly the same position. I do not know whether I speak for the government or not, but certainly I speak for myself when I say that I would not be prepared to recommend to this committee that we assume the obligation of any other government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Unless there is a reciprocal arrangement. We have that with New Zealand.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps this is not the time to say so, but I did make representations along those lines and I was told very frankly, perhaps too frankly, that the British government considered that they should make no distinction among their pensioners. If their pensioners in England were to be treated in such a way, there was no particular reason why they should treat their pensioners in Canada in another way. Whether this parliament or the people of Canada wish to take in everyone who has served in any army of the British Empire and immediately put him on some kind of dole or relief, making a distinction between him and the ordinary average civilian which should not exist unless he has been wounded, or unless he has some war disability, is for parliament or the people to say. If that condition arises, then the whole policy of various governments since the war will have to be revised.

As I have said, so far we have taken into consideration those who have incurred disability. We have presumed disabilities for those who were burned out. We have gone to the length of making certain payments to those who have a fairly strong claim on this small country, and I doubt very much, when all the facts are placed before it, whether parliament will be willing to adopt the principle of immediately saying that anyone who wore a uniform in any part of the British Empire-and if we take the British Empire we may as well include the allies-will immediately be placed on some special kind of dole or some special kind of pension which will distinguish him from his fellow citizens.
So far no legitimate soldiers' organization has urged anything in this connection, and I doubt very much whether for some time to come they will urge it. I repeat, however, that in spite of that something will have to be done for those who are no longer able to obtain employment. I doubt very much whether we shall do it by a system of general hand-outs, such as I have just indicated, but something certainly will have to be done. It will be the duty of this parliament to work out the problem in a manner satisfactory to the Canadian people.


Howard Charles Green: In his speech I believe the minister has clearly shown that there are many different angles to the returned soldier problem. To-night, at the beginning of a session we are asked to pass by far the biggest and most important item in the minister's estimates. Yet this is but a part of the whole picture. We have honorary local committees, composed of first class men, in different centres across Canada appointed to help the War Veterans' Assistance Commission, and I suggest that before we are asked to pass the item we should have a report from the commission. I would ask that the minister permit the item to stand until we have had an interim report. He indicated that he could get such a report in a day or two, and if that is so I suggest that we be given a few days to consider it and that the item be placed aside at this time, without all this hurry.


Charles Gavan Power: I think that within fifteen or twenty minutes I could get for the hon. member the names of the members of those committees set up in the different cities. I have not such information with me, but I believe I could get it on short notice. With the exception of the one I have mentioned requesting that money be provided to create a corps of commissionaires, and another that

Supply-Pensions and National Health
a community centre be established in a certain section of the countiy, that is about the only report we have. As yet, no general plan has been laid down by the War Veterans' Assistance Commission, and without having discussed the matter with them at length may I say I doubt whether they will have any general plans to lay before the government. In any event, the item we have before us has nothing to do with that matter. I have no objection to holding up one item in the estimates or, in fact, any two or three of them, but why block all the estimates in order to obtain a report which may or may not be valuable?


Howard Charles Green: The minister has many other items with which this report would not be concerned. He has indicated that there are several thousand small pensioners included in the list of 33,000 from whom information has been received. Surely we are entitled to have an interim report from the commission concerning these pensioners before we are asked to pass the present item.


Mr. MacNEIL:: May I remind the minister that there are many members of the committee who wish to discuss the problems now under review by the War Veterans' Assistance Commission in the light of their findings and the evidence they have surveyed. In the estimates of last year provision was made for $500,000 to finance the War Veterans' Assistance Commission and authority was given by statute for the commission to institute various projects, subject to approval by the governor general in council. No such vote appears in the estimates of this year and we are anxious to hear from the minister as to what opportunity will be given to discuss this particular problem.


Charles Gavan Power: I have some hope that there will be an item in the estimates. I am quite willing to give an undertaking to my hon. friend that ample opportunity will be afforded to the members of the committee to discuss anything concerning the department under any vote. If the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) is scared by this item of S41,000,000 and would prefer me to take up another item, I have not the slightest objection. I took up this large item in order that members of the committee who were interested in these problems would have a chance to discuss them. I may say that in so far as I am concerned no point of order will be raised even if the discussion ranges from hospital supplies to distressed seamen.
31111-7j


Howard Charles Green: Our difficulty is that we have not the information which the minister-has. I think we should have it and also have-an opportunity to digest it before we are.-asked to pass this item.


Charles Gavan Power: Do I understand that my hon. friend does not want to pass any item?


Howard Charles Green: I think items 191, 193, 198 and 200 should be allowed to stand as they are the ones with which the report of the commission will deal.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall be very glad to do that. I am willing to give an undertaking that any matter may be discussed under any item.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister knows from our conduct in the special committee last year that we are only too glad to help him out, but I think we should have the fullest possible information before these items are passed.
. Mr WILTON: In what position would an imperial veteran be who was a Canadian resident, who was drawing a small British pension and who had served with the Canadian forces in South Africa? Would he be in a special class or would he be on a par with the Canadian soldier?


Charles Gavan Power: If he came here prior to the South African war his pension would be at the Canadian rate; if he came after the war he would be treated as an imperial pensioner.


Mr. WILTON:: Is that covered by a regulation?


Charles Gavan Power: Section 47 A reads:
The pensions which are now being paid by Great Britain for disabilities or deaths which occurred during the South African war to or in respect of members of the Canadian contingents which served in that war shall hereafter be supplemented during the continuance of the residence in Canada of the recipients of such pensions by such additional pensions as will make the total of the two pensions received by them equal to the pension that would have been awarded if they had been disabled or had died in the military service of Canada during the war.


Howard Charles Green: Do I understand that the minister will file a report of the commission within the next few days?


Charles Gavan Power: Within a week.
Item stands.
Salaries-staff, $3,517,600.


Mr. LENNARD:: What does the increase of $52,600 in this vote represent?
100	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health


Charles Gavan Power: There has been a suggestion that the public health department should be somewhat enlarged and this increase will cover the necessary salaries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think this item would
require a good deal of elaboration before it is passed. I believe the minister would be the first to say that much more explanation than has yet been given would be needed to satisfy him in days not so long past.


Charles Gavan Power: I would, were I sitting where my right hon. friend is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it would be well to give us more details. These estimates came down only yesterday and hon. members who have interested themselves in this particular branch of the service have had little or no time to consider them. The minister has the details before him and perhaps he would make a statement which could be spread upon the pages of Hansard and be available to hon. members who might want to discuss these matters. During the time I was absent I took the trouble to look into the matter of estimates and the detailed reports furnished to the parliaments of Australia and New Zealand. I was amazed at the amount of detail furnished in those countries in connection with estimates. I brought the particulars away with me and they may be of interest to some hon. members to whom I shall be glad to show them. In the sense of particulars, the method of dealing with the budget is entirely different in those countries. This item involves a very large sum of money; it covers salaries of staff and surely there should be upon Hansard the particulars which I have no doubt the minister has beside him. We should know the number of people stationed at different points and the salaries they are receiving. I do not think this is an unfair thing to ask. It is what the minister himself would have asked under similar circumstances.


Charles Gavan Power: I realize the force of the
argument of my right hon. friend and I appreciate that these estimates were placed before hon. members only this morning. They have had but little time to go into them. In connection with this item, with the exception of a new field into which it is proposed to enter, the salaries are approximately the same as they have been for many years past.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are they included in the details of civil government?


Charles Gavan Power: No. I think my right hon. friend will agree with me that the nomenclature "civil government salaries" is somewhat out of date. I never knew what it meant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree with that.


Charles Gavan Power: As far as I have been able to gather from, those who are more familiar with parliamentary procedure than I am, that referred to civil government in the old days as against what I would call popular government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was vox populi against vox dei.


Charles Gavan Power: They are what I would call the common, everyday salaries that the ordinary civil servant receives. It is proposed to enlarge the sphere of the activities of the department in connection with child and maternal hygiene, and also to increase laboratory facilities. It is proposed to go into what is known as public health engineering, to increase the staff which deals vrith epidemiology 'and to make a further study of industrial hygiene. It is proposed to go in for more publicity and health education. All this may or may not mean a thing to hon. members; I know it meant very little to me a year ago. However, I had an opportunity last June or July to meet the ministers of health of the various provinces of Canada. I think six ministers were here personally, and the provinces were also represented1 by their deputy ministers. A thorough general discussion of public health in Canada took place, and as a layman I am sorry ^ to say that I found the doctors were not in very substantial agreement on any particular subject. I asked them, for instance: What would you do if I had a million dollars more granted to me than I have at the present time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They would suspect the hon. gentleman.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend must be more familiar with them than he is with me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I quite agree.


Charles Gavan Power: I am surprised at the right hon. gentleman.


Mr. DUNNING:: I am more than surprised; I am shocked.


Charles Gavan Power: In reply to my question, one said that he would like an additional grant made to his department so that he could carry on more medical work generally. Another thought it would be a great idea if we went in for a further study of cancer, and another thought a further study of heart disease should be made. Another believed that what we call in Quebec sanitary units should be further extended, and so on and so forth. So frankly I came to the conclusion

Supply-Pensions and National Health
that if we had a million dollars more, what would happen would be that each province would ask for its share, and the federal Department of Health would not be one cent's worth better off.
So, after considerable discussion with the officers of the department we agreed upon a program for enlarging our present study of child and maternal welfare. It will also give us an opportunity, not to overlap provincial work on industrial hygiene, but of doing what a great many provincial ministers of health asked us to do,, of making studies which they require. For instance, there has arisen in this country and in the republic to the south of us a great demand for a further knowledge of silicosis. So far that has been looked after entirely by the provinces, and I know that Ontario in particular has specialized in its studies of that particular disease, and has been, I understand, fairly successful. But if a certain amount further were granted it would be possible for the federal department to give what the doctors are fond of calling " leadership in health " in respect to certain industrial diseases which are common to all the provinces.
There has also been made the suggestion that there should be more publicity and health education undertaken by the department itself. I notice that my right hon. friend shakes his head.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not shaking it in negation.


Charles Gavan Power: After listening to my right hon. friend last year, when he was discussing the grants made to the different associations whose concern is in the promotion of health throughout the country, I was almost convinced that perhaps it would be better for the department to carry on a great deal of that work itself. I am not yet firmly convinced one way or the other, but I do believe that in the hands of the department, publicity and health education would be a great boon to Canada, rather than leaving that work to individual associations throughout the country whose activities are controlled largely by their own particular interpretation of the purposes for which grants were extended.
The provinces, when consulted, requested that they have available with us consultants on industrial hygiene, child and maternal welfare, epidemiology, and so on and so forth, and it is for that reason that these increases are being asked for this year.
I hope the committee will give us an opportunity of bringing back this Department of Health to the status which it was originally intended to have, that of the leading Department of Health in the Dominion of Canada.
At the present time, owing to financial circumstances, the depression and one thing and another, the Department of Health is simply, if I may speak in military terms, a skeleton corps, and if we are to do something that will be of benefit to the country as a whole I think the department should be strengthened.
The positions covered by these increases will be one chief of child and maternal hygiene, $5,000; and staff, $4,260; epidemiological, one chief, $5,000, and staff, $5,400; industria1 hygiene, one chief, $5,000, and staff, $1,800; publicity and health education, $11,980; one sanitary engineer will be added to our staff In order to explain the term " sanitary engineer," he is a person who makes tests of drinking water used on trains and boats plying between Canada and the United States to make sure that it is safe for human consumption. It is an international convention long ago entered into between the United States and Canada. There will also be an assistant chief, laboratory of hygiene; one senior bacteriologist, one senior laboratory assistant, and one laboratory assistant, making a total of $51,580.


Mr. STEWART:: I notice in the press that recently there was a conference of provincial premiers in Ottawa, and the premier of at least one province, Ontario, proposed that there should be a consolidation of the health services of the provinces with that of the dominion. He held out, and continues to hold out, the hope to the people of the province that there will be a substantial saving in the expenditure of the province and that the work will in that way be better done. I would ask the minister if any progress has been made along that line, if anything of that kind is under consideration, if any steps have been taken in the direction of the dominion Department of Health taking over in any large measure any of the health services now being performed by the provinces, and generally whether anything has been done that leads in the direction of, shall I say, dispensing with a duplication of services, or of bringing about a consolidation of services to prevent overlapping, or of effecting a decrease in expenditure on the part of the provinces in respect to public health.


Charles Gavan Power: My attention was also drawn to the observations made by the premier of one province with respect to health, but I may say that at the present time there is no duplication in health services.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He said that there was.
102	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps he knows, but after careful inquiry made in our department we have found that nowhere is there any duplication of work-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It depends upon what
you mean by work.


Charles Gavan Power: -or expenditure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is duplication of
activities.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is said to be a
duplication of services, or activities or organizations.


Charles Gavan Power: My information is that in
no way do we overlap the work that is done by the provinces in any of these matters. So far as health is concerned we are almost purely a consultant body, and that is what we should be. It should not be our duty to carry on the work, for instance, of mental hospitals for ordinary civilian mental patients, and we do not do it. Under the statutes we must look after quarantine and the sanitary services to which I referred a moment ago that is, the inspection of drinking water cn public carriers, on railways, on boats, and so on. We must look after distressed seamen We have a pure food and drugs act and a patent medicine act which it is our duty to administer, and in none of these, so far as 1 am aware, do we overlap the provincial authority.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As disease is no respecter of provincial or international boundaries, what are the activities in connection with epidemics such as smallpox or any contagious diseases? Is there any overlapping there?


Charles Gavan Power: So far as the federal department is concerned, my hon. friend will understand that we cannot very well quarantine a province. We can quarantine vessels coming from a foreign country, but it would be extremely difficult and I should not like to undertake to quarantine vessels going from Ontario to Quebec. Federally speaking, I can hardly conceive of any great sphere of activity on our part in the way of preventing epidemics, unless any epidemic became of such a nature as to be a matter of national importance and urgency and the work had to be taken over by the national government.


Mr. McCANN:: It is surprising to me, as
one who has been engaged in public health activities in this province for a period of twenty-five years, to see any display of levity with reference to the expansion of the health activities of the federal government. I remember reading a short time ago that the leader
XMr. Stewart.]
of the opposition, in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne twenty-five years ago, suggested that a federal department of health should be established in Canada. Such a department was established shortly after that time and for a few years I believe there was considerable interest in the matters to which it devoted its attention. During a succession of years following the federal department of health came to be known to the people of Canada more because of its inactivity than because of anything it had ever done. It is, therefore, a matter of congratulation to the present minister that he contemplates at this time expanding the Department of Health.
The medical profession throughout the country, and particularly those who are engaged in public health matters, look to the federal department for leadership, but they have not been getting it under either Liberal or Conservative administration throughout the last decade. It is little wonder that the ministers of health of the several provinces come to the federal government and ask for an appropriation for work to be carried on in those provinces when that work should be done by the federal government itself through its Department of Health. I wonder whether it is the policy of the minister to carry on these new activities through departments which he will inaugurate and have directly under his supervision, or whether he intends to make grants to voluntary agencies who have been more or less doing that work.
Canada owes to the voluntary agencies who have been doing public health work a great debt of gratitude. They have been doing pioneer work in public health, aided by very meagre grants from the federal department. The department of child welfare received last year, I believe, a grant of $13,000. For some reason or another that department, which was formerly carried on under a trained medical man at its head, was transferred to an agency presided over by a lay person. The work in maternal welfare and public health education has fallen down very materially, and the best evidence of that is shown right in the city of Ottawa, which has the highest infant mortality rate of any city in the dominion. Here, under the very shadow of parliament hill, where the people should be given leadership in public health education and in maternal and child welfare, there is a mortality rate which leads the whole country. That is a reflection upon the Department of Health as far as health education goes. The department and the government, it is true, have given recognition at times to men who

Supply-Pensions and National Health
have done something in the sphere of preventive medicine. We make a grant annually to Sir Frederick Banting in recognition of his discovery. Could not something be done to stimulate research in Canada along preventive medical lines? Could we not have a department of national medical research just as we have a department of scientific research? I believe that if we had such a department many of the ills to which the people of Canada are heirs would be coped with successfully, and not only would that accrue to the health of the people, but we would reap the economic benefit as we went along.
Does the committee realize that at any time in Canada there are 180,000 people on the sick list, and that the economic loss to the country is in the neighbourhood of $300,000,000 per annum? Yet what are we doing about it? So far as the federal government is concerned practically nothing is being done. Nothing is being done by the Department of Health in connection with research in cancer, in diabetes, in heart disease, all of which are leading causes of death and disability. I believe it was Disraeli who said that the health of the nation should be the prime concern of any minister, and that holds good to-day just as it did in Disraeli's time. Health is wealth; and if the Department of Health has as its first consideration, as it should have, the health of the nation, then it will extend its activities a great deal further even than is proposed under this additional set-up. I must commend the minister for at least taking a step forward in the direction of preventive medicine.


Mr. WALSH:: I should not like to detract one iota from the remarks which have just been made, but at the same time I feel that this additional item is adding an extra burden to the already over-burdened ratepayer in Canada. We have health work actively carried on in our schools and school districts. We have health work of the same nature as suggested by the minister carried on by private agencies. We have active health work, as suggested by the minister in connection with this item, carried on by the various municipalities throughout Canada. We have in each and every province of this dominion a department of health actively carrying on aggressive educational work. Over and above that we have a Department of Health in connection with the dominion government. There is a considerable degree of overlapping despite what has been said previously in this committee. There is overlapping not only as between federal and other agencies, but as between the various agencies which exist in the different provinces.
I cannot agree to the passing of this item without registering a protest, for I feel that it is in the estimates for the sole purpose of providing more, and more lucrative, positions for friends and those kindly disposed towards the present government. I do not like to make a suggestion of that kind, particularly in connection with a department presided over by so genial and congenial a minister as we have at the present time, but at the same time I should be remiss in my duty to my electors and to the taxpayers of Canada if I did not voice a sentiment that immediately arose in my mind when I saw this additional item in the estimates. I may be wrong; I may be stating a thought which does not exist in the minister's mind, but it does exist in mine. If this work were not carried on in the provinces and the various municipalities I would certainly agree to this addition. If the minister could give us some assurance that at this conference which was held with the provincial representatives they had agreed to curtail their activities and in that way lessen the burden of expense on the provinces in order to have that work done by the dominion government more effectively than it can be done by the provinces, by all means let us agree to this increase. But sufficient work has been carried on in this field. There is too much overlapping. We should do away with the overlapping and overexpenditure as a result of it, before we increase an item of this kind. I should like to have some assurance from the minister that that is in prospect, so that the taxpayers of this country will recognize that we in this parliament are not adding $52,000 to the amount of money required to be collected without some compensation, or some elimination of overlapping and resultant overexpenditure. The Canadian people are already overtaxed, and I feel that every minister should make it his purpose, if at all possible commensurate with the work required to be done, to reduce taxation, to lessen the burden thereof, so that the people of Canada will feel that the government are at any rate striving to make a step in the direction of lightening their burden during these rather distressful times.


Charles Gavan Power: I am quite willing to give my hon. friend the assurance that as far as the federal department is concerned there is no intention of undertaking any service which is now being carried on by any provincial department. And I can assure him further that my understanding with the provincial ministers of health was that they
104	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
wished the federal department to go into this field because they themselves could not afford to do so. It is a new field entirely.


William Allen Walsh: Would the minister state exactly what is that new field which is covered by this particular item of $52,000?


Charles Gavan Power: Such provinces as the
three prairie provinces, and possibly the maritimes, would like certain services made available by this government because they cannot afford to carry them on at present; I refer to such matters as child and maternal welfare, epidemiology, industrial hygiene and public health education. The larger provinces, such as Quebec and Ontario, carry on certain of these services, I think, but we shall not be establishing anything in the way of a new branch which will overlap work done by the provinces or cause any extra expenditure of money.


William Allen Walsh: According to the statement of the minister then, there will be a certain amount of overlapping in connection with Ontario and Quebec?


Charles Gavan Power: No; we shall be doing different work.


William Allen Walsh: My understanding was that the federal department was going to do work which is being done in Ontario and Quebec but not in the smaller provinces.


Charles Gavan Power: Ontario and Quebec possibly may not need these services which we are proposing to establish; they may have the facilities to carry them on themselves, and I have no doubt they have the necessary funds. But they have no objection to our carrying them on and having consultants to be of assistance to the other provinces. I hardly think it likely that Saskatchewan would feel able to go to Quebec and Ontario with the same assurance that it could go to a federal department to consult about or ask for assistance for work which can be done by that province.


William Allen Walsh: I should like to have heard from the minister a statement something like this; that as a result of this conference the provinces have agreed to discontinue work in such and such fields, and consequent upon that I am asking for an extra grant of $52,000. We have sitting in this committee at the present time the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley). No doubt he could tell us how difficult it is to collect a sufficient amount of taxes even to approach a balanced budget. And he could relate many instances of the difficulties he experienced during the past year in attempting to collect taxes to

meet our expenditures. We should try to make his work lighter, as well as bearing in mind the unfortunate taxpayers. I should like to have a definite assurance from the minister that that is the case; that the provincial authorities are actually withdrawing from a certain field and that we can thus hope for lessened expenditure in that department as far as the provincial governments are concerned. Then the taxpayers of Canada as a whole will see that their taxes are not actually being increased by this increased expenditure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to make a few observations about this matter, especially in view of the statement just made by the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann). It is quite true that some twenty-five years ago I advocated the establishment of the Department of National Health. It is equally true that I still believe it has a distinctive and responsible work to discharge.
But health is a little different from almost any other branch of governmental endeavour. Primarily we have the advantage of all the work that is done, for instance, by the Rockefeller Institute, by the great Carnegie foundations and by all the other countries in the world. That becomes available at once to the people of the Dominion of Canada, and our poverty stands in the way of our carrying on research work to anything like the degree to which that work is carried on in other countries. A moment ago the minister mentioned the expenditure of a sum of money for the purpose of further investigating a disease which arises out of the working of quartz-silicosis. Down in South Africa I had occasion to look into that for a very special reason. There they are carrying on gold mining operations at a depth of from eight thousand to ten thousand feet. Johannesburg itself is six thousand feet above sea level, and the loss of life which came about through the inroads of this disease was such that action had to be taken. Already they have devised methods by which they have entirely eliminated the risk, by dampening the faces of the working areas, so that they are no longer threatened with any disease from that cause. They, of course, compelled the great enterprises that were carrying on these operations to contribute very largely in order to attain this end.
All that information is available to us without the necessity of setting up a department. We can get it without difficulty. It is quite true, as the minister says, that there is reluctance on the part of people to apply to other governments for information, but on

Sup-ply-Pensions and National Health
the other hand there is always an avowed willingness on the part of the governments of the British Empire to communicate with one another. It will be remembered that not long ago an attempt was made to bring about a correlation of the activities of the various countries that comprise the commonwealth in order that information might be readily available to the peoples of the different countries. In this country we have no difficulty in obtaining the benefit of the tremendous amount of work that is done in the United States by the great enterprises and research bureaus to which I have referred.
Let us be fair when we talk about the federal department. Doctors have frequently said that the federal department has been a failure, but the federal Department of Health never came into being, as the minister said a moment ago, for the purpose of carrying on work in connection with mental hygiene or problems of that sort. It was rather to be a clearing house through which the information obtained in world wide activity might be made available to the various provinces to assist them in discharging their constitutional functions. If difficulties have arisen by reason of impoverishment and lack of revenue to enable the provinces to carry on this work, then another situation entirely arises which is absolutely foreign to the matter we now have under consideration.
Let us take this as a practical question; let us start with the schools. Who provides medical attention in the schools now? I wonder if it is realized that in almost every part of Canada, certainly in every province so far as I know, provision is made for medical inspection and services for the children who attend the schools. In the cities and towns that is well provided for. In the rural municipalities the situation is much more difficult, and just how to get over the difficulty is a matter that, to my knowledge, has engaged the attention of the provincial authorities in some of the remote communities for a very, very long time. But you do not suggest that the federal government should give leadership with respect to a matter of that kind. It would be idle to say that the Department of Health in Canada should take from the provincial departments of health and the municipalities control over all these matters What would be the result? A moment ago the minister referred to Ontario. I recall investigating for my own information the situation in that province in connection, for instance, with the dental clinic. There was travelling over that province a dental clinic looking after the teeth of school children.
In New Brunswick the Red Cross clinic was travelling over the province giving free dental service to those who required it. I was one of the executive officers of that organization at the time, and I was amazed at the condition of the teeth of the children as indicated by the reports which were made by that travelling clinic. The other day in New Zealand I saw twenty-five or thirty children around the age of twelve or thirteen going into a clinic in the city of Wellington for the purpose of having their teeth examined and "stopped" as they call it there, consequent upon decay. That work was being carried on under a centralized government. In that country they have a million and a half people and everything rests with the central authority. But if you say to some of the provinces-I will not name them, because I fancy they are fairly well known; I have had experience, and I speak in the light of that experience-that you are prepared to take over that work, they will tell you they do not want the federal government meddling in their purely local and domestic matters. That has been the attitude in regard to provincial rights in this dominion. Is it suggested that the federal department should undertake duties of that kind? I think the minister has already answered that question; he does not suggest it for a moment. On the contrary, as I understand him he thinks the department does not exist for that purpose at all.
We are starting with the children. You have the clinic in the school; you have the health of the child being carefully looked after. Then you go into the great realm of contagious and infectious diseases. Under our constitution the quarantining, the putting up of notices, the making of investigations- I am leaving out for the moment ships and sailors-rest entirely with the provinces. They carry on that work. Is it suggested that the federal government should undertake that class of work? I think not.
Then you go a step further; you have the great voluntary organizations to which the minister referred a moment ago, and by the movement of my head, perhaps consequent upon a long voyage, I did not intend to negative in any sense the suggestion that the minister was making; quite the contrary. We have the great voluntary organizations, such as the Victorian Order of Nurses. I fancy everyone of us -makes contributions to that order every year, and it carries on a very, very excellent work. Then you have the Red Cross hospitals in outlying sections, that are looking after the people in those areas. Then you have many of the provinces developing what are called municipal
106	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
hospitals, through unions of municipalities, which care for the people within those areas. The difficulties, of course, lie in the matter of cost. In these days of impoverishment they have not the money with which to maintain hospitals, and they are not provided with funds for the purpose of paying the dues which may accrue when their people may have to go to other hospitals.
Then you have introduced into the subject matter another factor which owes its origin to one of the great insurance companies of the world. That company conceived the idea of extending the length of human life, 'believing that by doing so through the care of their policyholders they would secure additional funds in the way of premiums for two, three, four, five, six, eight or ten years. Those additional funds would 'become available as part of their capital with which to meet claims under their policies, and they 'believed that by utilizing a portion of their moneys they would be able to find a balance on the right side if the portion was thus used foi the purpose of ensuring the health of their policyholders. That has developed to a tremendous extent. Free medical examination of .the policyholders has been provided. In the .policy of at least one company of which I know, with some fifty million policies outstanding, there is a provision which authorizes the agent of the company to visit the home, and there is a travelling nurse who from week to week goes from home to home of the policyholders for .the purpose of endeavouring to improve the health of the people.	[DOT]
Those are voluntary organizations. Add to them the great national organizations carrying on research work. The hon. member for Renfrew South says that the federal government should give a lead with respect to, let us say, cancer research. Well, Mr. Chairman, when you think of the enormous sums of money being spent annually in the British Empire in connection with research work, and the opportunities that are afforded Canadian research workers in those laboratories to give the best that is in them, the question of setting up here a laboratory for the purpose of research work in cancer is one which I think the minister would consider worthy of very careful consideration, before taking action in connection with it.


Charles Gavan Power: There is the matter of duplication.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Precisely; because it is the kind of effort the results of which are immediately made available to all. That was the reason why a British Empire cancer

research bureau was set up, the idea being that in one particular line of research the work might be carried on in New Zealand, in another it might be carried on in Canada, and in another in Australia. The centralized effort would be at some spot such as London, or some other place which might be selected for the purpose.


Charles Gavan Power: The bureau even made
grants to Saskatchewan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact the minister knows what has been done in some countries. I saw certain research workers in Dunedin, New Zealand, carrying on research work in connection with one phase of the work. I happen to know something of the work which is being done in London in correlating and coordinating these various activities. I do not think the hon. member will suggest that the Dominion of Canada should endeavour to utilize the taxpayers' money to set up a great research bureau, especially in view of the munificent-I use the word deliberately-the munificent gifts of some Canadians in connection with British Empire cancer research. I believe one citizen in the city of Montreal gave a hundred1 thousand dollars in that cause.
At the jubilee of His late Majesty we in Canada endeavoured to create a cancer research fund. The response to it was not as generous as might have been expected, but the province of Saskatchewan, where there was suffering from crop failure, subscribed small contributions extending over wide areas, and the total was large, having regard to their condition. The fund is not large at the moment; I believe it is only a few hundred thousand dollars. What is a few hundred thousand dollars in a work of that kind? It is nothing. When we think of the vast sums that are available in the Rockefeller Institute or the Carnegie foundation or in some other of the foundations, the vast sums which have been set aside and endowed for this purpose, I think we must agree that at this time it is not quite fair to suggest that the federal Department of Health is lacking in leadership simply because it does not establish a great research bureau for cancer or other research work. Having regard to these difficulties, and the willingness of our citizens to make contributions to every work, wherever it may be possible. I do not think that duty rests upon the taxpayers of Canada.
Then we come into the realm of infectious and contagious diseases. The provinces are carrying on a good work in that connection. I say to the minister that I still believe he can accomplish more good work by educa-

Supply-Pensions and National Health
tional process under the direction of the government itself than through these organizations. Much, of course, may be said for them, but it is a fact that the organizations which receive these sums of money by way of grants in aid must necessarily use a great part of the money to maintain their organizations and to pay salaries.
The extent to which the work of the department may 'be extended is one which each minister will have to settle for himself. The minister in the late government made provision whereby he would bring together a meeting of nurses and doctors, various members of hospital boards, government officials and others interested in health, to try to arrive at a point where a national policy under the control of the minister might function, if one may use that word with respect to a policy. That must be done without in any sense impinging upon the activities of the provinces. That is the problem to which the minister has given his attention. He says: I am going to have another sanitary engineer; I will pay $5,000 in salaries, and a few hundred dollars for a few clerks. That would be sound, if it were based upon the assumption that it would not be impinging upon the work carried on by the provincial authorities.
In other words the ministry of health as I conceive it, and as I have always conceived it, is primarily one for the dissemination of knowledge, and one which may assist in the work which may be carried on for the purpose of eradicating disease. In other words it must assist preventive medicine. One of the finest addresses in recent years on the question of preventive medicine was delivered by the late Lord Moulton at Leeds university. The question of preventive medicine he there discussed is one which has engaged the attention of public men during all these years. I for one will entirely support the minister in any effort he may make to assist preventive medicine, but the assistance of preventive medicine, as a policy, must be carried into effect without impinging upon the work being done by the provinces in that connection. We cannot get into the field of the work the provinces are doing; I have in mind dental work and work in connection with infectious diseases.
In the question of research we must realize the problem is one of our ability to provide facilities, having regard to the fact that knowledge acquired in one part of our world is in a very short time available in other parts. For instance, Sir Frederick Banting did not sell his discovery; he made it available, and as a result we find insulin available in all parts of the world for the purpose of accomplishing the ends for which it is used. The research work carried on by a private individual resulted in a great discovery. The Connaught laboratories in Toronto are carrying on a good work in vaccines and serums. A short time ago I visited a laboratory outside Pretoria in which the same work is being carried on on a large scale. The large amount of money that is being spent is not altogether for the relief of humans, but has some connection with the matter of food and that of veterinary services. All the knowledge obtained in Germany, in France and in Canada was lying in the laboratory I visited, available to all concerned. Having regard to the knowledge available to Canadians I do not think we can ibe blamed for not giving leadership, such as is so frequently suggested should be given by the Department of National Health. We have not embarked upon an extensive scheme of that kind. Unless the situation is entirely changed through the surrender of control by the provinces, I believe the federal department can carry on its work only as a disseminator of knowledge obtained through world effort for the purpose of coping with and preventing disease.
I was abused for my views when I was in office, and perhaps I shall be abused for what I say to-night, but I still believe the minister can utilize the machinery of government to disseminate knowledge and to bring it home to the minds of the people of Canada much more readily than by taking a sum of money and handing it over to a particular person. That is my conviction. I may be all wrong, but that is my view with respect to it, and I shall support the minister in any effort he may make in that connection.
The welfare work to which the hon. member for Renfrew South referred is entrusted to an organization under lay leadership. It is quite true that that was done by arrangement and agreement between the government and the organization which is supported by the contributions of insurance companies and other institutions. There is also the aid given by this government. So far as my observations lead me to conclude anything, that work was well done and was deserving of the confidence of the government and the people of this country.
However, do not let us believe that the Department of National Health has not done anything. That department has endeavoured to do at least three things. First, it has to do with the activities and responsibilities which rest entirely with the federal government. Second, it has endeavoured to foster such efforts on the part of the provinces as will assist them to the utmost in carrying on their
Supply-A griculture

campaign in connection with preventive medicine and enable them to oope with disease. Third, it has made efforts toward publicity *and toward making known to the people the necessity for hygiene, good air, cleanliness and all these matters that have to do with public health. I think within the financial1 limits at its disposal this department has accomplished a great deal.
In England the department of public health can deal with these matters because there is no provincial jurisdiction. They do it, but they do not impinge upon the work carried on by the cities and towns. They only lay down the broad principles upon which the work is to be carried on. Wherever you have a unitary system of government, such as there is in New Zealand and other parts of the world, it is very simple for the central power to carry on its health operations. However, where you have a federal union in which jurisdiction is not only held but exercised by provinces or states, in order to deal with these problems there must be a surrender of those powers to the central government before that government can undertake expenditures. Otherwise there would be a duplication of the work and the citizens of the country would be called upon to pay twice for the same services. I think that is axiomatic.
That is the difficulty I have always experienced in dealing with the matter. Unless the provinces have changed their minds during the last few months, they are not willing or prepared to surrender their jurisdiction to the federal power even though the federal power were willing to undertake this work in its entirety, which I do not think any federal government is anxious to do. The very nature of the work lends itself to local administration much better than it does to centralized authority in a country such as this.
I think the minister is to be commended for his efforts to accomplish the purposes he has referred to this evening. I notice the usual grants are being made this year, so the matter need not be further discussed at this moment. Apparently he has concluded that he should stick to the old custom and because of long precedent support the private enterprises which are carrying on this work. However, I think this work could be better carried on either by the provinces or by the dominion. I have not seen anything in what I have read-I have not had the opportunity to read everything-which would indicate that the provinces1 are willing to surrender their jurisdiction in order that this w'ork might be carried on by the dominion. Until that happens, the federal power must necessarily be exercised to the best of its ability. While there may be lacking that spectacular leadership to 
which reference has been made, it must be Temembered that we are but 11,000,000 people. But we are the heirs to all the knowledge that has been accumulated and is being secured by varying investigations and researches in various countries.


Charles Gavan Power: I am going to propose that this item be allowed to stand, but before doing so may I express my gratification at the great interest shown by hon. members in these estimates. May I say to my right hon. friend that it would not take very much to bring us both into agreement with everything he has said this evening, even with such observations as he has made as may be considered critical of the work of the department.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
International Institute of Agriculture, $12,000
Charles Avery Dunning: It is our desire to have two departments go into supply. As hon. members know, unless a department has gone into supply for the first time on Tuesday it is not possible to go into supply during the balance of the week. By having two departments in supply we may be able to continue with it later on in the week.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this the usual grant to the Rome institute?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: This is the usual grant to the international institute at Rome. It is the same as it was last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contributions to empire bureaux, $21,535.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This item is an illustration of the point I was endeavouring to make a moment ago. The knowledge and experience of these various organizations are made available to us. We make a small constribution for the purpose of ensuring that any results arrived at will be available for Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Advisory committee on agricultural services, $5,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is this the same amount as was voted last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will the minister explain how the $5,000 was spent last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: This vote is to finance committees which will work cooperatively with the provinces in carrying out certain investigations having to do with agriculture.

Questions


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Are any reports of the activities of this committee available? If so, where are they to be found? In the meantime could the minister give us more details of the expenditure?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are no formal reports of the investigations. Meetings were held of the national committee on barley to investigate the different types of barley that might be grown for different purposes, to encourage the spread of certain types of seed and to facilitate the marketing of barley. Those investigations are carried on with different organizations in the provinces. Discussions take place, and the information is available to those who take part in the discussions and is also made available to others, but no detailed report is made in connection with it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is all theoretical. What we would like to know is how this money was spent last year and who received it


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall get the details for the next sitting.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Dunning the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Wednesday, January 20, 1937