1937-02-01

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the house is already aware of the great loss which its membership sustained on Friday last by the death of the hon. member for Bonaventure, Hon. Charles Marcil. The adjournment of this house on Friday evening was an impressive collective tribute on the part of hon. members to the memory of one who had attended forty consecutive sessions of this parliament, and who in point of service was its oldest member. This morning the citizens

of the capital and many from other parts of the country joined with hon. members of both houses in paying a further tribute of respect to the memory of him who had become so familiar a figure in the public life of our country. The press, of all shades of political thought, have united in expressions of appreciation of Mr. Marcil's many years of public service. The tributes thus expressed have been supplemented by others from former political opponents as well as personal and political friends and by the clergy of the church of which he was so devout a member.
In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising this afternoon is primarily that of gratefully acknowledging what has already been said by way of tribute to the memory of our late fellow member, and of saying, on behalf of those who knew him best, how worthy he was of the eulogies which have been expressed. Mr. Marcil's public life in Canada is generally known to all who are here assembled. I imagine that what our own and future generations will regard as of surpassing interest in his long career is the link which it affords between a past which is rapidly receding and a future which is certain to be full of change.
The Hon. Charles Marcil came of a family nine generations of which had lived in the province of Quebec and of which ten generations extend over three centuries. He was born in Ste. Scholastique on July 1. 1S60. Like the late Hon. Peter Veniot, his deskmate for a period, to whom tribute was paid only a few days ago, he was one of the very few remaining members of this parliament who were born prior to confederation and who, from memory, could recall incidents associated with that great event. He was one of another group, somewhat larger but also much too rapidly disappearing who sat in this house with the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
With Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Marcil was privileged to enjoy a close personal as well as political friendship. There was much in the lives of Mr. Marcil and Sir Wilfrid Laurier which made the association between them natural as well as close. Both, as I have said already of Mr. Marcil, came of families that for many generations had lived in the province of Quebec. The early careers of each had its association with journalism, each came to devote his entire time to politics. Both Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Marcil were endowed by nature with real distinction in appearance which their habit of thought and manner of life, as the years went by, continued greatly to refine. Both were gifted as writers and speakers, and each spoke with equal fluency in the French or the English

The Late Hon. Charles Marcil
language. I doubt if anyone who had not heard Mr. Marcil in his prime can imagine with what freedom and grace he spoke alike in French and in English. He was, I think, at his best depicting a scene from the romantic background of our country's history, or foreshadowing the greatness of Canada's future as he conceived it would become. He was a true Canadian, with great faith in Canada and the place Canada would come to hold among the nations of the world. That faith, throughout his life, he ever sought to impress upon his fellow countrymen. He was an ardent Liberal, strong in his convictions, but always moderate and tolerant in the manner in which he spoke. Like Sir Wilfrid, he exhibited at all times those attributes of courtesy and chivalry so characteristic of the race and generation to which each belonged. It was a part of Mr. March's contribution to the parliament of our day that when he presided over the proceedings of this chamber or participated in its debates he was true not only to the Laurier tradition in his point of view but, expressed himself in the Laurier manner with grace and dignity.
An estimate of Mr. Marcil's contribution to the life and work of this parliament would require perusal of its records and debates over forty sessions. To such a degree did he enjoy the unbroken confidence of his constituents that he was elected by them to ten consecutive parliaments. With the exception of two instances, so far as I have been able to ascertain, this record has not been surpassed. I believe Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself and the late Hon. John Haggart each sat in this House of Commons through eleven parliaments.
Mr. Marcil's return on so many occasions was a well deserved record of confidence and one which reflected equal credit upon his constituents. Last night I took occasion to glance through the pages of Hansard of the previous session in order to see what Mr. Marcil had said on the last occasion on which he spoke in this chamber. It was not. surprising to discover that his last word was one of grateful acknowledgment to a minister of the crown for something the minister had been able to do which was of assistance to the constituency represented by Mr. Marcil and to adjoining constituencies. Confidence akin to that so fully given to Mr. Marcil by his constituents was also expressed in a very real way by his fellow members in this house of commons who elected him successively to the position of deputy Speaker and chairman of committees in 1905, and to that of Speaker in 1909, a recognition which was further emphasized by his appointment in 1911 as a member of the privy council of Canada. During the last four parliaments his fellow members of
the Liberal party chose him as permanent chairman of the party caucus. In the course of his long life of public service, there was much else in the way of recognition of his abilities and attainments by municipalities, representative organizations, societies, univerities and by governments in our own and other countries.
Mr. Marcil was in his 77th year. For a life so full of service, of achievement and of well merited recognition, there surely can be either for him or for us no occasion for regret that he was taken away while still a member of the House of Commons and its oldest member in point of service. We shall miss the benefit of his long experience and wise counsel in parliamentary affairs, but to have had his faculties unimpaired to the end, and to have been spared the infirmities, disappointments and decline which too often are the accompaniment of advancing years is something which of itself is in the nature of a benediction, and something we should not begrudge him who has been taken from us.
It was his to enjoy the fulfilment of the ancient promise-
"Thou shalt come to thy grave in a full age Like a shock of corn cometh in in his season."
As one whose life's endeavours were thus rewarded, his name will hold an honoured place in the history of this parliament, and his memory will continue to be cherished by all who knew him.
Mr. Speaker, this house will look to your Honour to convey to Mrs. Marcil and other members of the family an expression of its sincere and deep sympathy in their bereavement.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we are reminded by what has been said, as well as by our own observation and experience, that the hand of death is ever with us. My first expression is one of deep regret that this house has lost the knowledge and experience of one who was its dean in point of service.
With respect to the character and extent of the service rendered by our late comrade and fellow member, I can add nothing to what has been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). To have been a member of the house during ten parliaments is an almost unique experience. Indeed he was a connecting link between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; for he was elected Speaker of the house before most of us had a seat in the chamber. His life is a history of the years from 1900 to 1936.
I should like, too, to express my sincere sympathy to the right hon. the leader of the government, to his colleagues and the sup-
The Late Hon. Charles Marcil

porters of his administration, in the loss they have sustained both collectively and individually. They have lost a faithful friend, a warm supporter, a devoted follower, and a worthy exponent of the principles of Liberalism as he saw them. Faithful in the discharge of his duties, he was ever mindful of the claims of those who lived in the Gaspe peninsula. Those of us who have listened to him in the house will realize that while his convictions were strong he spoke but seldom, and expressed them in terms both moderate and persuasive.
Obviously it is not for one situated as I am to speak with any degree of authority as to the value and extent of the service he rendered to his party, and through it to the country. But I can say that on the other side of his life, that side we describe as citizenship, his example was of the first order. By precept he created for himself an influence which cannot readily be estimated. Sometimes it is difficult to appraise the value of public service. Opinions clash, criticism is keen, antagonisms are great, and regard for human frailty is not very evident. But when we come to consider the life of one who was a citizen of the community and occupied a public place, I think we are well within the mark when we say that by precept and example Mr. Marcil's life must stand as an influence to younger men not only of this day but of the generations which have come into the world during the time he lived among us. He was courteous; he was kind; he was considerate of others; he was unselfish; he was generous to a fault, and, within limits, he was most tolerant. He had that inward peace which is reflected in the outward man. His countenance indicated that quietness of mind which rises superior to all philosophic doubts or scientific dogma. He was devout, intensely so; he believed in religion as a practical living and moving force. He practised it, and the influence of his example among younger men cannot fail to have had a very marked effect among those with whom he came in contact.
These attributes were known to us all, whether he was our close personal friend, our political associate or otherwise known to us. Those of us who sometimes saw that courtly smile always received it as almost a benediction. I think I can say nothing that would more clearly indicate the impression his life has made upon mankind than the words I have just spoken. If ever there was among those whom I have known in the House of Commons and elsewhere one who seemed to me to give a fair answer to that 
age-old question, a question that concerns us all-"And what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"-it was Charles Marcil, whose passing we so greatly deplore.
Speaking for those associated with me, I trust the leader of the house will convey to the sorrowing relatives he has left behind an expression of our deep and sincere regret at the great loss they have sustained.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my personal tribute to those which the prime minister and the leader of the opposition have just paid to the memory of our late lamented fellow-member. Hon. Mr. Marcil was the only member of this parliament who was in the house in 1904, when I came heTe for the first time. I knew him previously, for he was one of the public speakers whose eloquence had thrilled my youth. His melodious voice, his phrase which seemed to flow harmoniously like a clear and beautiful stream, his imposing and dignified presence made him a favourite speaker among the people. Sir Wilfrid Laurier once told me that he knew of no Canadian who had so perfectly mastered the two official languages of this country. During thirty-three years, I sat at his side, and it is with deep emotion that I bear testimony to his having always been a devoted friend, a loyal colleague and a wise counsellor. Owing to his extreme kindness he could not have enemies. " Charlie " Marcil never hated anybody. Nothing could ever impair his equanimity and natural recti-tude._ He gave all his intellect, all his heart, all his life to his country, to his friends, and to _ the principles he held dear. Intensely religious, as it has just been pointed out, he was a model of piety, charity and devotedness. He was a great Canadian.
To Mrs. Marcil and the other members of his family, to his faithful constituents in Bona-venture, I wish particularly to tender the sympathies of the French Canadian members of this house.


Mr. R. S. WHITE (St. Antoine-West-mount):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to add my poor tribute to the dear dead colleague whose passing we to-day mourn. He was my friend and intimate, and I think it is probably true to say that at the time of his death I was his oldest living friend. It was in 1879, fifty-eight years ago, that he began his journalistic career on the staff of the Montreal Gazette, with which paper I had been associated since June, 1874. My recollection is

The Late Hon. Charles Marcil
that Mr. Marcil as a youngster-he was then only nineteen years of age-had a great flair for politics. He began life as an adherent of the Conservative party, and his earlier speeches on the public platform were delivered in the cause of that party. Not many years thereafter, from convictions the sincerity of which no man who knew Charlie Marcil will for a moment doubt, he changed his party allegiance. Throughout the rest of his life it can be said that he was a consistent and stalwart member and supporter of the Liberal cause.
His attainments were great. He was distinguished in many ways. He not only served his country in this House of Commons, but he served the city in which he lived, Montreal, first as a member of the city council and subsequently as one of the commissioners to whom the management of the city was entrusted. Summing up his character in a word, one can say of him that he was a gentleman.
The duration of his public life is almost unexampled. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) referred to two other men in public life, Mr. John Haggart and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who sat in parliament for perhaps as long a period as did Mr. Marcil. Of course the outstanding example of public service in parliament was that of Macdonald, who sat for forty-seven consecutive sessions, first in the legislature of the old province of Canada and then in this House of Commons. In a way the greatest tribute that has been or can be paid to Mr. Marcil is the fact that during the nearly thirty-seven years in which he was a member of this house he represented the same constituency, which is at once a tribute to his integrity, his character, his kindliness, and his ability. He was a most fluent speaker, as has been said, in both languages. Having had an Irish mother he probably lisped English at his mother's knee, but doubtless he would call himself, because of his ancestors through a long line, a French-Canadian, as he was in heart and spirit. He was a broad-minded man. I would not call him a partisan; I think that would be an unfair term to apply to Charlie Marcil. I would call him a moderate Liberal. He was always ready to give and take, and any opponent who may have crossed swords with him or differed from him in discussion would at least have agreed that he was fair in the maintenance of his views, and would have concluded that discussion with an esteem and respect and even an affection for Mr. Marcil.
I have said that as a young man campaigning in the good old province of Quebec he
made a reputation as an orator. I know as a matter of fact, and he was no mean judge, that the late Sir Adolphe Chapleau, regarded Mr. Marcil as one of the rising young men of Canada, an appreciation that has been fully justified.
Let me just say this in conclusion. If it can be said of any man it can be said of Charlie Marcil that-
He had kept
The whiteness of his soul, and thus men o'er him wept.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not necessary that anything more should be said, but we in this group would like to associate ourselves with the tributes of respect that have been paid and to offer our very deep sympathy to those whom our late colleague has left behind him. The distinguished bearing and finely chiselled features of Mr. Marcil marked him out, I think, in almost any company, and, further than that, they seemed to indicate a certain spiritual quality not very common. I had thought, in trying to sum up the impression Mr. Marcil had made upon us, rather of the words just uttered by the hon. member for St. Antoine-West-mount (Mr. White)-he was a gentleman; and I think I might add-and I do in all respect- a gentleman of the old school. We shall all miss him.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, judging from the manifest sincerity of the words of esteem with which previous speakers have praised the life of the late Mr. Marcil, and of the tone in which they were uttered, I deem it a privilege to join my voice with those who have already honoured him. It has been written: Blessed is he who has found his work; let him seek no greater blessedness. This man evidently had found his work, and ably he did it. During much of my life I have felt that one of the greatest blessings would be that of having the privilege of dying in harness. Mr. Marcil was blessed thus, and it can therefore be said that he has been blessed both in his living and in his dying. Our group rejoices to honour such a man.



FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, since the subject matter of this motion has been before the house previously and the names of the members of
Farm Implements Committee

the committee have been considered by all groups, I would ask leave of the house to move, without notice:
That a select special committee of the house he appointed to continue and complete an inquiry begun by the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, pursuant to a resolution of the house on March 2, 1936, into the causes underlying the high prices of farm implements, with particular reference to the advance in prices in the year 1936.
That the said select special committee shall have the power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, and to report from time to time.
That the said select special committee be authorized to engage the services of counsel, auditors, technical advisers, clerks, stenographers and investigators to aid and assist the said committee in the inquiry, and to print the evidence, proceedings and documents received by the committee.
That standing order 65 be suspended in relation thereto, and that the select special committee shall consist of twenty-five members and the following be appointed members of the said committee: Messrs. Bouchard, Brooks, Cochrane, Coldwell, Davidson, Donnelly, Fraser, Gardiner, Golding, Johnston (Lake Centre), Lacroix (Beauee), Leader, Macdonald (Brantford City), McLean (Melfort), MeNevin, Needham, Perley (Qu'Appelle), Reid, Robichaud, Senn, Stevens, Taylor (Norfolk), Thorson, Tolmie, Ward.
And furthermore, that the records, exhibits and evidence received and taken by the standing committee on agriculture and colonization during the last session of parliament be made available to the said select special committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, for reasons that I made quite clear last session I do not agree with the steps that are being taken, but it is sufficient to say that; for it is quite evident that the government desires to proceed in this way, and having sufficient numbers to enable it to do so, that is the end of it. I think an inquiry of another kind would have been very much better than an inquiry before a political committee. I think it would be very much better to have a non-party body-not partisan but non-party-judicial or otherwise, than a committee of this house, to consider a matter that will lend itself to so much acrimonious discussion. I assume it was for that reason that the government selected a judge rather than a committee of this house to investigate textile matters. I believe that that is a much sounder method, but since the government has decided to proceed with a committee, I think the motion itself is hardly ample so far as the last paragraph is concerned. It is a motion to continue an investigation that has already been partly carried out, and it is not sufficient to say that what has already been done should be made available to the committee; it should be provided that what has been taken in the way of records

shall become part of the records of the continuing committee. Simply to make it available does not enable the committee to utilize it for the purpose of predicating findings upon it. It should become part of the records of the new committee. I shall content myself with making this observation, but I cannot think that the end sought will be accomplished as effectively as it would be by the utilization of the other method. Had that been done, the inquiry might have been carried on during the recess and the results made available to parliament, which is hardly possible now so far as this session is concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my right hon. friend that the government is proceeding in this way because of an undertaking given at the conclusion of last session that this committee would be reconstituted. If my right hon. friend had raised the point then-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did. I opposed it very strongly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then, what
I was going to say will not apply. However, the reason we are proceeding is, as I have indicated, because a pledge was given to the house that the committee would be reconstituted at this time.


James Garfield Gardiner: As to the suggestion
made by the leader of the opposition, I did not catch the point, but I understand he suggested that the words be added, "and made part of the records thereof."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I merely suggested that
so that no question should arise.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. I think that would be an advantage, and I move that those words be added.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion as amended?
Motion as amended agreed to.



COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT, 1931

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 13 to amend the Copyright Amendment Act, 1931.
Mr. RINFRET:: Will the hon. member
explain?


Mr. ESLING:: By this bill it is sought to amend two sections of the Copyright Act which refer only to musical works. Hon. members will recall that the Canadian Performing Right Society exercises authority under the statute to issue licences and to collect fees in compensation for the use of

Copyright Amendment Act
music which the society claims to control. As a matter of fact it assumes control of between two and three million titles. It assumes control of almost everything that is on the air, and when, an applicant for a licence suggests to the society that it should give him a list of the titles to which it claims control, it simply replies with a statement that the society does not have to furnish such a list and that the applicant can get the information by going to the copyright office in Ottawa. This is not a very satisfactory response to an applicant in, we will say, Saskatoon or Prince Rupert or some far distant community, and the purpose of one of the amendments is to require the Canadian Performing Right Society to furnish to each applicant a list, certified to by the Secretary of State, showing that the society is in actual possesion or control of the titles to music in respect of which it attempts to collect a fee.
As to the other amendment, under the tariff just revised by the copyright appeal board the various broadcasting stations throughout the dominion will pay to the Canadian Performing Right Society the sum of $70,000, which covers fees for receiving sets known as domestic receiving sets. I assume that to mean that they are receiving sets in private homes. But there is a special licence and special fee required from stores, skating rinks, lodge halls, hotels, restaurants, cabarets and like places; this speacial fee is fixed at a minimum of five dollars, with accumulations and conditions making gradual increases to a maximum which is uncertain. These establishments contend that, in view of the fact that the broadcasting stations pay such generous licence fees to the performing right society, a second tax by way of a special radio license fee is unjust. The second amendment therefore seeks to exempt stores, skating rinks, hotels, restaurants and such small establishments from a second radio tax.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. QUELCH:: 1.	What is the freight rate on bacon, from Edmonton, Alberta, to Liverpool, England?
2.	Does the dominion government subsidize these rates? If so, to what extent?
3.	Does the dominion government subsidize the Canada Packers company? If so, to what extent?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Representative export rates on bacon (carlots) from Edmonton, Alberta, to Liverpool, England: Route-Rail to seaboard, conference steamship lines beyond. Rates-Via Halifax and Saint John, 185-0 cents per 100 lbs.; via Montreal, Navigation closed. Rates quoted are through rates for regular shipments and do not include charges for refrigerator or other occasional services.
2.	No.
3.	No.


EXPORTS OF MAPLE SUGAR
Mr. MALLETTE:: What were the exports of maple sugar for each of the years 1927 to 1936, inclusive; (a) total exports; (b) exports to United Kingdom; (c) exports to the United States?


Mr. ROGERS:: Exports of maple sugar for each of the fiscal years ended March 31, 1927 to 1936, were as follows:-
(a) Total exports	Quantity	ValueFiscal years	lb.	$1927	4,178.821	676,2371928	6,551,296	1,141,7831929	7,701,310	1,320,1611930	12,501,047	2,395,8631931	6,411,904	1.327,3491932	2,970,206	551,7641933	3,176,471	543,1531934	21295,042	370,4431935	3,176.655	475,3981936	4,022,139	649,739(b) Exports to United	Kingdom	Quantity	ValueFiscal years	lb.	$1927	22,293	4,6311928	38,229	6,8691929	28,138	5,7981930	13,212	3,0051931	33,331	7,2811932	29,284	5.9481933	25,944	4,0991934	32.928	5,0701935	30,925	5,3511936	
(c) Exports to United	30.179	4,406States	Quantity	ValueFiscal years	lb.	$1927	.. 4,141,462	667,7471928	,. 6,508,519	1,133.9421929	,. 7,663,247	1,312,1721930	.. 12.477,894	2,390,3921931	.. 6,369,187	1,317,7081932	.. 2,940.840	545,8001933	.. 3,144,600	538,10S1934	.. 2,251,563	363,8961935	.. 3.133,602	46S.4891936	.. 3,965,248	641.074
lie
Questions


OLD AGE PENSIONS
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What share does the federal government contribute to the provincial government of Quebec, under the Old Age Pensions Act?
2.	Has the federal government, under this law, granted certain sums to the Quebec provincial government?
3.	If so, what is the amount?
4.	Does the federal government appoint any investigating officers to examine the claims of those applying for Old Age Pensions in the province of Quebec?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Under agreements between the dominion government and the provincial governments drawn under authority of the Old Age Pensions Act as amended, the dominion pays 75 per cent of the net amount paid out for pensions by each province which has signed an agreement.
2.	No. An agreement with the province of Quebec was signed on August 13, 1936. Later the province of Quebec amended its legislation and these amendments will make necessary a new agreement with the province before any payments may be made by the dominion.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Officials of the dominion government will examine all papers and documents relating to the province's expenditure of the moneys granted by parliament for the payment of Old Age Pensions.
home improvement loans


Mr. CHURCH:: . . ^ * Have any loans been made to date in the city of Toronto, arranged by the federal unemployment commission through the banks under the Housing Act of 1936?
2.	If so, how many, and what is the aggregate amount of said loans?


Mr. DUNNING:: Up to December 31, 1936, there had been made in the city of Toronto, under the home improvement plan, a total of 274 loans aggregating $103,330.27.


IMPORTS OP WELSH COAL
Mr. CHURCH:: 
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	There is no record of Welsh coal imported into Canada as distinguished from other coal from the United Kingdom.
2.	No: though from time to time statements of the South Wales trade recovery and expansion committee have been noted in the press.
3.	Question of policy.
4.	There were no imports of coal from Russia during the year ended December 31, 1936.
5.	The report has not yet been received, but will be tabled following its receipt.
6.	Ten coal companies in the province of Quebec were convicted in trials following the investigation made in 1933 under the Combines Investigation Act.
7.	No. In the statement issued by the official Soviet Russian news agency on the lifting of the embargo on the importation into Canada of certain Soviet products, it was stated that "Soyuzgleexport (the AllUnion Coal Export and Import Corporation) has no intention to ship coal for consumption in the maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island."
8.	No record of shipments of Nova Scotia and other coal from the maritime provinces to the head of the lakes during the past three years.


IMPERIAL SHIPPING COMMITTEE
Mr. REID:: 1.	Was the Canadian government represented at the Imperial conference held in London in 1936, at which the matter of subsidized ships operating on the Pacific Ocean, was discussed?
2.	If so, who represented Canada at that conference?
3.	Were any conclusions reached noth regard to the maintaining of ships of British or Canadian registry and ownership, operating from British Columbia Pacific ports?
4.	Were any proposals made that Canada should join with Great Britain and the sister dominions in maintaining an all-British shipping route on the Pacific ocean?
5.	Has any report been submitted to the Canadian government by the representative?
6.	If so. when will that report be available to the members of parliament?

*i.7'.Have any representations been made by the imperial government with reference to this matter during the past twelve months?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: _ 1 and 2. No imperial conference was held in London in 1936. The Imperial Shipping Committee, acting under their general terms of reference as amended by the Imperial conference of 1930, have conducted an investigation of a fact-finding nature into certain matters specially referred to them in June, 1936, by the governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, concerning the possibilities of a passenger and cargo service between Western Canada and Australia-New Zealand. The High Commissioner for Canada in London is a member of the committee on behalf of the government of Canada and acted accordingly in this special investigation.
3, 4 and 5. The report of the Imperial Shipping Committee, as submitted by the chairman on behalf of the committee to each of the above mentioned governments, was published on December 7, 1936?# It sets forth the committee's findings of fact and views as to alternative possibilities regarding the matters specially referred to them.
6.	A copy of the report is being laid on the table.
7.	During the past year the government have been in communication with the government of the United Kingdom regarding the questions involved, but no conclusions as to policy have been reached.
The answer contains a clause stating that copies of the report will be tabled. With the permission of the house I should like to lay on the table a copy of the thirty-fifth report of the Imperial Shipping Committee.
st. axn's, ont.-postmaster Mr. LOCKHART:
1.	Was Ernest L. Snyder postmaster of St Ann's, Ontario, during 1936?
2.	If so, was he dismissed, and for what cause?
3.	Was any charge laid against him, and, if so, what was the nature of said charge; by whom was it laid, and before whpm heard?
4.	Has a postmaster been appointed in his stead, and, if so. by whom recommended?
Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex)
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes-for active political partisanship.
3.	Yes, affidavits containing charges of active political partisanship were received from Joseph Lenard, Joseph Danko, Wray Taylor, Jesse Rogers, John Burch. Charges were investigated by Commissioner J. J. Bench.
4. Yes-on	recommendation of A. E. Coombs of St. Catharines.
Questions


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	Has there been a youth employment com-nlittee appointed under the provisions of the .National Employment Commission Act, 1936?
2.	If so, who are the members of this committee, and what are their respective addresses and occupations?
3.	Lqion what dates were the different members of such committee appointed?
4.	What sums have been paid to each of the different members of this committee as travelling expenses?
5.	What sums have been paid to each of the different members as living allowances?
6.	What living allowance is now being paid to each of the different members per day, week or month or otherwise?
7.	How many reports upon measures and means m respect to the employment of youth have been made by this committee?
8.	When were such reports made?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Alan Chambers, Victoria, B.C.-merchant; J. McCuIley, Newmarket, Ont.-headmaster; R. F. Thompson, Toronto, Ont.- clergyman; A. Montpetit, Montreal, Que.- lawyer; W. C. Nickerson, Halifax, N.S.- merchant.
3.	Alan Chambers-July 4th, 1936; J. McCuIley August 11th, 1936; R. F. Thompson___
August 11th, 1936; A. Montpetit-September 1st, 1936; W. C. Nickerson-September 21st, 1936.
4.	Alan Chambers-$570.10; J. IMcCulley_
$421.35; R. F. Thompson-$384.39; A. Montpetit-$77.40; W. C. Nickerson-$55.64.
5.	Alan Chambers*-$2,985.00; J. McCuIley- $1,290.00; R. F. Thompson-$1,507.50; A. Montpetit-$585.00; W. C. Nickerson-$225.00.
6.	$15.00 per day.
7.	Five reports have been made to the National Employment Commission.
8.	August 6th, August 25th, October 9th, 1936, January 6th, 1936 (two).


MINOR WATERS OF CANADA
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	Have any waters on the Pacific coast of Canada been specified as "minor waters of Canada" since June 23, 1936?
2.	If so, what waters have been so specified?
3.	Have any persons been granted temporary master's certificates authorizing them to take charge of steamships plying on these waters?
4.	If so, what applicants?
* Approximately 23% of Mr. Chambers' expenses have been incurred on work for the National Employment Commission other than the Youth Employment Committee.

41S
Questions


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.	u
2.	(a) Alberni canal and the eastern channel of Barclay Sound as far west as Bamfield creek, (b) The whole of False creek, east of Burrard bridge, (c) The whole of Prince Rupert harbour as far south as Charles point, (d) The whole of Quatsino Sound as far west as Koprino harbour.
3.	Yes.
4.	Finnie Baker and Richard Cook.


EASTERN CANADA AIR LINES, LIMITED
Mr. PURDY:: 
Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Canadian Airways, Limited, operate an air mail service between Moncton and Charlottetown under contract with the Post Office Department.


EMPLOYMENT-BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. MacNEIL:: 1 How many men were employed as at December 31, 1936, under the agreement of November 16, 1936, with the government of British Columbia to provide supplementary work for single unemployed men?
2.	Has the number so engaged increased or decreased since December 31, 1936?
3.	What is the hourly rate of pay to men employed on the projects specified?
4.	What is the maximum period of employment to each man?	.
5 What is the length of the period during which his earnings on these projects are expected to provide maintenance?
6.	Has the Department of Labour issued any instructions concerning the right of the men to organize in their own interests?
7.	On what basis were the men selected for
employment on these projects?	.
8.	Does the Department of Labour exercise supervision over working conditions?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	602.
2.	Increased.
3,	4, 5, 7 and 8. The administration of the projects covered by the agreement including supervision is in accordance with the terms of the agreement the responsibility of the provincial authorities.
6. No.
[M'\ Green.]


TORONTO POST OFFICE-NIGHT WORK
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Are any changes in the working conditions and hours of the night shift at the Toronto post office under consideration at the present time?
2.	If so, what are they?
3.	Have any requests been received therefor?
If so. from whom?
4.	How many hours' work per each employee is performed by the night shift?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Yes. Employees have made representations in favour of returning to a 7 hour tour of duty when on night shift.
4.	Employees on night shift are required to work the regular week of 44 hours.


TORONTO BOARD OF EDUCATION-FEDERAL AID
Mr. CHURCH:: 1. Have any applications been received by the government, or any member thereof, from the Toronto Board of Education or others, for federal aid towards the cost of erecting a new annex to the Central Technical School, for teaching of aircraft work and training students for work in civil and military aviation.
2.	If so, what action, if any, has been taken!


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes; by the Department of Transport.
2.	No action taken, for reasons set forth in the correspondence.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON INDUSTRIAL TRAINING AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION
Thomas Langton Church: What is the exact text of the short findings of the federal royal commission on technical education, appointed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier s government, to the effect that technical education was exclusively a federal problem under the British North America Act?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The exact text of the findings of the royal commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education, 1913, under the chairmanship of Dr. J. W. Robertson, C.M.G., is set out in sessional paper No. 191d of the Journals of the House of Commons, 1913, but is not to the effect that technical education was _ exclusively a federal problem under the British North America Act. The commission's opinion as to control and regulation is expressed in the following extract, from page 21 of the said sessional paper:-	_ _
"The commission is of the opinion that, industrial training and technical education in order to be of greatest benefit to individuals, to industrial development, to localities, to the several provinces and to the dominion as

Questions
a whole, should be organized and maintained in accordance with the following principles:-
"1. It should be under provincial control and regulation.
"2. It should receive financial support from individuals, from local authorities, from provincial governments and from the dominion."
The commission's opinion as to federal participation in technical education is to be found in the following extract from page 26 of the same sessional paper:-
"5. The very considerable increase in the population of Canada by immigration is throwing additional burdens for elementary education upon the communities and the provinces. The enhanced public revenues due to growth by immigration goes in a large measure into the dominion exchequer. The increase of the volume of trade brings in larger amounts through the customs oifices. This would indicate that the new financial responsibility and burdens for industrial training and technical education, on a scale large enough and generous enough to be available to all the people between the ages of 14 and 18, should be sustained in large measure by funds from the Dominion government."
The commission's recommendation in regard to the extent of the financial assistance which should be rendered by the federal government to the provinces is set out on page 268 of the said sessional paper, as follows:-
" The commission recommends that the sum of 83,000,000 be provided annually for a period of ten years by the parliament of Canada and paid annually into a dominion development fund."


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-HEAD OFFICE
Thomas Langton Church: I* In what year were the head offices of the Canadian National Railways moved from loronto to Montreal and on whose recommendations and on what grounds?
2.	Has the attention of the government been called to the announcement in the press of January 22 and January 25. of Sir Edward Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, that the general manager and vicepresident's headquarters of eastern lines is to be moved to Toronto?
3.	Will the government give consideration to the re-transfer of the Canadian National Railways head offices back to Toronto?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Montreal was made the headquarters of the Canadian National Railways on the establishment of the Canadian National system in 1923, on the recommendation of the late Sir Henry Thornton. Toronto never was the headquarters of the Canadian National Railways as now constituted, the Grand Trunk
31111-27J
Railway always having been managed and operated from Montreal.
2.	Yes.
3.	The government does not act in such matters except on the advice and recommendation of the Board of Directors of the Canadian National Railways.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-FISHERY ACT LOANS
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	How many applications have been received from British Columbia for loans under the Canada Fishery Loan Act?
2.	How many have been granted?
3.	What is the aggregate of the loans so granted?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Twenty-one.
2 and 3. Three applications for $1,500, of which two amounting to $1,100 dropped by applicants subsequent to approval.


CROWN LAND AND SEIGNIORY DIVIDING LINES
Mr. POULIOT:: What are the division lines between the property of the dominion government and (1) the seigniory of Terrebois; (2) the seigniory of Riviere-du-loup; (3) the seigniory of Leparc; (4) the seigniory Villeray; (5) the seigniory of l'lsle-Verte; (6) the seigniory of Trois-Pistoles, along the St. Lawrence river.


Mr. HOWE:: Under the British North America Act, all crown lands are vested in the right of the province except the beds of such harbours as were public harbours at the time of Confederation the line between which and the ripa is the high water line.


INDIANS ON RELIEF
Jean-François Pouliot: ,0^Vhart if* the number, (1) of Indians, and oi their dependents who have received relief each year since 1929?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1 2
1930-31	
6,937	9,0881931'32	
8,011	11,1931932-	33	
11,119	16,3641933-	34	
14,314	22,4071934-	35	
14,016	23,4061935-	36*	
13,633	23,034
* Up to October, 1936.


EXCISE ACT-SEIZURE OF AUTOMOBILE
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	Hid officers by virtue of the Excise Act seize an automobile in the possession of a man named Martin, of St. Alexis de Montcalm, and was the latter prosecuted in the court at St. Jerome?

Questions
2.	If so, (a) has judgment been given by the magistrate; (b) on what date; (c) has said automobile been declared confiscated?
3.	Was said automobile sold after seizure, but before the said judgment?
4.	If so, (a) by whom; (b) to whom; (c) at what price; (d) upon what date?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) 17th September, 1934; (c) Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


IMMIGRANTS ON S.S. MONTCALM
Mr. CLARK (Rosedale):: 1.	How many emigrants embarked on the
steamship "Montcalm" at Cherbourg on September 23, 1936?	.
2.	What were their nationalities?
3.	Were they all taken through Montreal?
4.	What, if any, restrictions were placed against the disembarkation of passengers at Quebec?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Twenty-five immigrants arrived at the port of Quebec on the steamship "Montcalm" on the 30th September, 1936. There were no other emigrants on that ship destined to Canada.
2.	Hungarian 11; Italian 2; Roumanian 5; Yugoslavian 5; Czechoslovakian 2.
3.	Yes.
4.	None.


COST OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Have any requests been received by the government or any members thereof, suggesting the appointment of a royal commission to investigate the huge cost to the people of Canada of federal and provincial governments?
2.	If so, will the government take any steps in the matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The answer to the first part of the question is, yes. Representations were received from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce on December 5, 1935, for submission to the dominion provincial conference meeting December 9, 1935. The other part of the question relates to a matter of policy and it is not usual for the government to make statements on matters of policy in giving replies to questions.
Ontario's position in confederation-burden OF TAXATION


Thomas Langton Church: Will the government consider the appointment of a royal commission to make a survey and investigate Ontario's position in confederation, with a view to giving agriculture, industry, 
municipal authority and real estate in the province some relief from heavy burden of taxation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I have just said with respect to the government not replying to questions which relate to matters of policy is applicable to this question.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TIES PURCHASED IN QUEBEC
Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: 1.	What quantity of ties was purchased in the province of Quebec, in 1936, for the Canadian National Railways?
2.	To what persons or companies were contracts for the sale and delivery of such ties awarded?
3.	What quantity was awarded to each?
4.	What price was paid to each?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the type of question that deals with the management of the railways which the Canadian National Railways have consistently refused to answer.


Walter Edward Foster: Dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: 1.	How many men were employed between the 1st day of June and the 31st day of December, 1935, on the seasonal or temporary staff at the port of Churchill?
2.	What were their names and home addresses and on whose recommendation were they appointed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled herewith.


FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION
Mr. PINARD:: 1.	During the calendar year 1936, how many men, permanent and temporary, were employed by the federal district commission?
2.	What are the names of the permanent employees?
3.	What were the names of the temporary employees?
4.	Where were these employees, permanent or temporary, born?
5.	What are their respective nationalities?
6.	What salaries were paid to the permanent employees ?
7.	What wages were paid to each of the temporary workmen: (a) per diem rate; (b) how many days employed; (c) nature of the work upon which they were engaged?
8.	If any of these employees are not Canadian born, what were the dates of their entry into Canada?


CIVIL SERVANTS IN MONTREAL
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	What are the names, occupations and salaries of all officers or civil servants of the

Questions as Orders jor Returns
federal government, permanent or temporary, in Montreal, in all departments other than the post office?
2.	What are the names of such employees who are bilingual?


FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE
Mr. WILTON:: 1.	Did the government provide counsel during the last session of parliament for the agriculture committee inquiring into the price of farm implements in Canada?
2.	If so, what was the name and address of counsel so appointed?
3.	Upon what basis was the said counsel
engaged:	(a) salary per day; (b) expenses
per day?
4.	Has the said counsel been in the continuous employ of the government in connection with the said investigation since he was first appointed?
5.	What was the total amount paid to said counsel, and what amount, if any, remains to be paid?


Mr. WILTON:: 1.	Did the government provide an auditor during the last session of parliament for the Agriculture Committee inquiring into the price of farm implements in Canada?
2.	If so, what was the name and address of the auditor so appointed?
3.	Upon what basis was the said auditor
engaged:	(a) salary per day; (b) expenses
per day?
4.	Has the said auditor been in the continuous employ of the government in connection with the said investigation since he was first appointed?
5.	What was the total amount paid to said auditor, and what amount, if any, remains to be paid?


Mr. WILTON:: What has been the total expenditure to the government on the investigation into the price of farm implements by the Agriculture Committee by way of counsel fees, auditor fees, witness fees, expenses and other services?


POPULATION OF CANADA
Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	What was the population of Canada in 1871?
2.	What was the population of Canada in 1881?
3.	How many immigrants entered Canada from 1871 to 1881?
4.	What was the population of Canada in 1891?
5.	How many immigrants entered Canada from 1881 to 1891?
6.	What was the natural increase in population for the period between 1881 and 1891?
7.	What was the population of Canada in 1901?
8.	How many immigrants entered Canada from 1891 to 1901?
9.	What was the natural increase of population for the period between 1891 and 1901?
10.	What was the population of Canada in 1911?
11.	How many immigrants entered Canada from 1901 to 1911?
12.	What was the population of Canada in 1921?
13.	How many immigrants entered Canada between 1911 and 1921?
14.	What was the natural increase of population for the period from 1911 to 1921?
15.	What was the natural increase of population for the period from 1901 to 1911?
1C. What was the population of Canada in 1931?
17.	How many immigrants entered Canada from 1921 to 1931?
18.	What was the natural increase of population in Canada for the period from 1921 to 1931 ?
19.	What is the estimated population in 1937?
20.	What is the natural increase, i.e. surplus of births over deaths?
21.	What was the amount expended for immigration purposes for each of the decennial periods: 1871 to 1881, 1881 to 1891	1891 to
1901, 1901 to 1911. 1911 to 1921, 1921 to 1931; also for the period 1931 to 1937?


INCOME TAX PAID BY SASKATCHEWAN FARMERS
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1. What number of Saskatchewan farmers paid Dominion income tax in the years 1930 1931. 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, and 1936?
. 2. What was the total amount of Dominion income tax paid by above farmers?
3.	What was the total amount of Dominion income tax paid by all residents of Saskatchewan during the same period?


CENSUS RETURNS IN QUEBEC
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	In each of the federal constituencies in the province of Quebec, what were, (a) the population at the last census; (b) the number of electors registered on the last voters' lists; (c) the area of each constituency?
2.	What was the total number of votes received in the province of Quebec in the last election, (a) by the Liberal candidates; (b) by Conservative candidates; (c) other candidates?


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	In each of the following branches of the Department of National Defence, (1) administration, (2) treasury office, (3) central registry, (4) contracts branch. (5) printing and stationery, (6) naval service, (7) chief of the general staff, (8) signals, (9) historical section, (10) adjutant general, (11) medicals. (12) records, (13) quartermaster general, (14) master general of the ordnance, (15) Royal Canadian Air Force, (16) No. 1 Aircraft depot,
(17)	Royal Canadian air force station. Ottawa,
(18)	Connaught rifle range, (19) drill halls- how many, (a) officers and, (b) men, are (1) older, and, (2) younger than thirty-seven (37) years?
2.	In each of the above-mentioned branches, how many, (a) officers, (b) men, who are thirty-seven (37) years old and older, have been in the line in an actual theatre of war?
3.	Referring to the previous paragraph, how many in each branch have been stationed, (a) farther than twenty miles behind the fighting line, (b) in England?
422	COMMONS
Questions as Orders jor Returns
4.	Referring to paragraph 2, how many in each branch did not leave Canada on active service overseas?
5.	How many officers and men in each branch were born in Canada and how many were not?



SOURCES OP FEDERAL REVENUE

Jean-François Pouliot: Referring to sessional paper No. 125 of the present session, indicating the revenue from federal taxes received by the Department of Finance and the National Revenue Department (Customs, Excise and Income branches), what were the other sources of revenue to the federal government during the last five fiscal years?



EXAMINATION PREFERENCE IN ALLIED COUNTRIES TO CANADIAN SOLDIERS

Jean-François Pouliot: Referring to sessional paper No. 120 of 1937, did the Dominion government ever try to know if any allied countries of His Majesty during the great war had accorded a preference to Canadian candidates in their civil service, and, if so, when?



CLASS B AGRICULTURAL FAIRS

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many class B agricultural fairs were held in Ontario in 1936?
2.	At what places were the said fairs held?
3.	What grants, if any, were made by the
Government of Canada to each of the said fairs?	.
4.	What requirements must an agricultural fair comply with before it receives a class B recognition by the Dominion Department of Agriculture?



CIVIL SERVICE ACT

Mr. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane):: 1.	How many civil servants entered the various departments of the government under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, since 1920?
2.	What was their place of residence when they entered the service?
3.	How many are bilingual in each department?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This will stand as an order for return as to Nos. 1 and 2. As regards No. 3, I am informed that no record is kept of the information sought and the order will have to stand amended.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Mr. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane):: 1.	How many positions under the Civil Service Commission were advertised in the province of Quebec from January 1 to December 31, 1936?
2.	What are these positions, and for which did the Civil Service Commission require the candidates to be bilingual?
3.	To whom was each of such positions awarded, and what were the residence and age of each successful candidate at the time of his appointment?
[Mr. Pouliot.l
4.	How many of such positions were given to (1) great war veterans; (2) soldiers of the allied armies of His Majesty during the great war; (3) other candidates?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On Friday last the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas) asked a question of my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) as to whether the government had any intention of introducing a certain bill at this session. The Minister of Justice replied that, in the absence of the leader of the government, the question would have to stand. I may say to my hon. friend, in answer to his question, that the matter is one of policy and therefore if any action is to be taken it will be made known by the government in due course. However, I am rising at the moment more particularly to direct the attention of hon. members to the rules of the house with respect to questions. Standing order 44 reads:
(1)	Questions may be placed on the order paper seeking information from the ministers of the crown relating to public affairs; and from other members relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected w-ith the business of the house, in which such members may be concerned; but in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same. And in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.
(2)	(a) Any member who requires an oral
answer to his question may distinguish it by an asterisk.	,
(b) If a member does not distinguish his question by an asterisk, the minister to whom the question is addressed hands the answer to the Clerk of the House, who causes it to be printed in the official reports of the debates.
Standing order 45 has also to do with notices of questions and matters of that sort. I wish to point out that the rules have been framed for the convenience of members and for the saving of the time of the House of Commons. The question that was asked by the hon. member might have been put as a notice on the order paper and it would have been replied to in the regular way. If he had wished an oral reply all he would have had to do was to distinguish it by an asterisk. But to rise and ask a question orally in the house and in the absence of the minister concerned to expect another minister to answer it is simply to take up the time of the house to no good purpose. May I respectfully say that I have noticed during this session that many hon.

Business of the House-Procedure
members are falling into the habit of handing to members of the government, just prior to the time at which the house convenes, questions to which they expect ministers to make verbal replies. This procedure is all right where the matter is urgent and it is clearly in the public interest that the question should be asked at the moment, and where some interest would suffer if it were not then asked; but with that exception, I think it would be in accord with the wish of hon. members in all parts of the house that the rule with respect to giving adequate notice of questions should be followed.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: May I say a word in reply to the Prime Minister? I sent a copy of the question to the Prime Minister forty-eight hours before asking it, and on the morning of the day I asked the question the Prime Minister's secretary telephoned me and said that in view of the fact that the Prime Minister would not be in the house he had arranged with the Minister of Justice to answer it. He telephoned me this morning and said that he had misunderstood the Minister of Justice. I gave the minister sufficient notice and if I had known that he preferred that I should put the question on the order paper I would have followed that procedure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What my hon. friend has just said only proves the wisdom of the rule. If my hon. friend had sent the question to the Clerk of the House it would have appeared on the order paper and an answer would have been ready. It so happened that on Friday it was impossible for me to be here at the opening and I thought I had arranged to anticipate any matters which might come up. I raise the point, not by way of criticism of my hon. friend but merely to bring forward a course of procedure to which I think the attention of the house should be drawn with a view to saving unnecessary repetition in questions of the kind. May I at the same time say a word about some of the information and returns which are being asked for. The government has every desire to give to the house all information that is desired. But some requests are made that involve a large expenditure, an expenditure far out of proportion to any end that might be served by the information requested. I would suggest that where members have requests of the kind to make of the government they take up with the minister concerned in the first instance the possibility of securing the information, and that they consider carefully the form in which requests are worded. For example, on today's list
there is question No. 48, relating to civil servants. The question reads:
1.	How many civil servants entered the various departments of the government under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, since 1920?
2.	What wTas their place of residence when they entered the service?
3.	How many are bilingual in each department?
That means a search from one end of Canada to the other for the information which is requested. I question whether the reply, while it may be possible to have it compiled, if it is to be accurate, can be made available within several years. That kind of question does not facilitate the business of the house nor does it keep down the expenses of government. I would also direct attention to question No. 42, which it would seem is also unnecessarily detailed:
In each of the following branches of the Department of National Defence, (1) administration, (2) treasury office, (3) central registry, (4) contracts branch. (5) printing and stationery, (6) naval service, (7) chief of the general staff, (8) signals, (9) historical section, (10) adjutant general, (11) medicals, (12) records, (13) quartermaster general, (14) master general of the ordnance, (15) Royal Canadian Air Force, (16) No. 1 aircraft depot, (17) Royal Canadian Air Force station, Ottawa, (18) Connaught rifle range, (19) drill halls

how many, (a) officers and, (b) men, are (1) older, and (2) younger than thirty-seven (37) years?
Surely those are not fair questions or questions to which answers in detail should be expected. If they should be answered a little more abruptly than might be thought desirable, I hope my hon. friends will not misunderstand the reason.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if I were to close my eyes, and if the inflection of the voice were slightly changed, I would fancy that the right hon. gentleman was speaking for one who sat in that place not so long ago. I am fearful that the new members of this house have learned the habits to which the right hon. gentleman referred from reading Hansard between 1930 and 1935. I very much fear that is the real cause, because every word the right hon. gentleman has uttered with regard to expense, the time that must be occupied in obtaining the information and the uselessness of such returns when obtained, you will find in Hansard frequently between 1930 and 1935.
I have only one word to add. As leader of the opposition the right hon. gentleman sometimes remarked, when observations such as those to which we have just listened were made by the then prime minister, that after all it was not really the proper thing for the
Motions for Papers

prime minister to lecture the house about such matters; that the clerk had certain discretion as to the placing of questions on the order paper. I do commend the matter to the attention of my right hon. friend, and I suggest that when he has read again the record of 1930 to 1935, if it is necessary that he do so in order to refresh his memory, probably he will realize just why so many new members have pursued a course which is supported by so high an authority.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. FAIR:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, charges, evidence and other documents, dated from January 1, 1936, to date, in the possession of the Department of Mines and Resources or the office of the prime minister, relating to the dismissal of the following from the buffalo park at Wainwright, Alberta: H. B. Walker, D. W. Walker, John Novak, R. A. MacKay, H. B. Knox, Fred Grayson, Robert McLean, Jas. Henderson, Cliff Abernathy, Joe Beckett, and John Hardy.
Also a statement showing the dates of appointment and dismissal and reasons assigned for dismissal in each case, along with all information received which resulted in such dismissals, and the name or names of the person or persons who assumed responsibility for or furnished such information.
Also a statement showing the names of the men appointed to fill the vacancies caused by the above-mentioned dismissals and the name or names of the person or persons who recommended these appointments.



EMILE LECLAIR

Mr. LOCKHART (for Mr. Wermenlinger):: For a copy of all correspondence, recommendations, reports in connection with the dismissal of Emile Leclair from the harbour commission at Montreal in 1936 and the appointment of Joseph Simard in his stead.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION-PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT MOODY, B.C.

Charles Grant MacNeil: For a copy of all documents, letters, telegrams, memoranda and agreements relating to the negotiation for purchase and actual purchase by the Vancouver harbour commission of the property described as the Moodyville property and situated at Moody, British Columbia.



CANADA LAND AND IRRIGATION COMPANY

Mr. MITCHELL:: For a copy of: (a) all agreements between the Canada Land and Irrigation Company and the crown; (b) all orders in council relating to said company; (c) all correspondence passing, to date, between the said company, or any of its officials in Canada or elsewhere, and the dominion government.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, before the
motion is put may I say to my hon. friend that it will be impossible to supply all this information. In 1930 the resources were transferred to the province of Alberta, and in due course all the correspondence and agreements that obtained up to that time. As far as the orders in council are concerned, they can be brought down. I should think also that part of paragraph (c) of the question could not be answered fully, for the reason I stated a moment ago.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. NEILL:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, memorandum and other documents exchanged between any member or officer of the present or late government and any other person in connection with the subject of fish traps in British Columbian waters from the 1st of September, 1934, to date.


Mr. MICHAUD:: If the house adopts this resolution as it is drafted it will impose an obligation almost impossible to perform and a duty upon some of the ministers which it will be impossible to discharge. The order of the house can be complied with if it is restricted to the pfficial files of the Department of Fisheries.


Alan Webster Neill: That will be quite satisfactory. I would point out that the time referred to is very limited, in order to save expense.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Charles Grant MacNeil: For a copy of all instructions and regulations issued by the Department of Labour relative to the conditions under which single unemployed men have been engaged on the special projects authorized by the agreement between the Department of Labour and the government of the province of British Columbia, November 16, 1936.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would ask the hon. member in whose name this motion stands to withdraw it, in view of the fact that the information for which he asks has been tabled already. The agreement between the dominion government and the province of British Columbia was tabled the day following the opening of the session, and further information as to regulations is given in the answer to a question on the order paper, tabled to-day.


Walter Edward Foster: Dropped.

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Coldwell
st. Ann's, ont., postmastership


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: For a copy of all correspondence, communications, charges, evidence and reports dated during the years 1935 and 1936, in connection with the dismissal of Ernest L. Snyder as postmaster of St. Ann's, Ontario.


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the year 1935 be changed to 1932, as I am advised there is some correspondence between those dates that would be material to the matter.
Motion as amended agreed to.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, in view of the urgent necessity of effective action for the improvement of the social and economic conditions of the people of Canada, and, in view of the condition of social and other legislation passed by parliament during the tenure of office of the late government, and, in view of the forward-looking legislation recently enacted in the United States and other democratic countries, a special select standing committee of the house be set up to recommend the specific amendments to the British North America Act required to enable this dominion parliament to enact necessary and desirable legislation for the better social conditions of the Canadian people.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since the resolution was placed on the order paper when the house met in January, the subject matter of the resolution has become of more than academic interest. Of course last Tuesday's debate, initiated by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), to a great extent anticipated a discussion of the matter now before us. But since that time the judgments of the privy council with respect to social security measures of the late government have been delivered, and they create something in the nature of a national emergency in relation to the whole question of social and economic legislation. People find their wills thwarted by constitutional difficulties undreamed of when the British North America Act was passed.
To-day Canada finds herself definitely unable to enact progressive social legislation on a national scale through a national parliament, and thereby a situation of national concern and emergency is created. Apart from any argument as to the desirability or otherwise of the legislation affected by the judgments, it is imperative that in days when
democracy is being undermined ways and means shall be found at once to rectify the situation and to restore to the Canadian people their faith in our democratic institutions as instruments of reform. In my opinion this involves both a short term and a long term view. To meet the latter the resolution was originally placed upon the order paper. To meet the former it seems to me that without delay, now that the dominion jurisdiction has been denied, an interprovincial conference should be summoned to consider what measures should be taken to protect and improve standards of living. With parliament in session and the legislatures either sitting or about to sit, the situation might be met temporarily by the passage of concurrent legislation. It seems to me however that because it is both cumbersome and unsatisfactory, this should be regarded as only a temporary method of dealing with matters of the kind.
I am pleased to note that the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act has been declared valid, and I trust no attempt will be made to restrict its terms or provisions, indeed if anything is done regarding this measure, I hope its terms and provisions will be widened rather than narrowed. Of the measures disallowed several are of fundamental social and economic importance. Who will deny, for example, that uniform legislation for the regulation of hours of industry, the weekly day of rest and the setting of minimum wages, is necessary? Conditions exposed in some industries by recent investigations cry aloud for immediate legislative action.
What about unemployment insurance? If, as we are frequently told, business is on the upswing, then immediate preparation should be made for the inevitable downward plunge, the time to make that preparation is when economic conditions are said to be improving. The same consideration would apply with equal force to legislation and plans for the orderly marketing of our farmers' produce. Such legislation should have the approval of the producers. In the opinion of many people -and I can speak at least for those in western Canada-a natural products marketing act is a primary necessity. My submission is that failure to provide such measures of social security will invite widespread discontent and seriously undermine public confidence in parliamentary institutions. Hence the recent judgments of the privy council may become the source of further grave unrest, unless steps are taken by parliament and the legislatures to give effect to the demands of farmers and workers for social legislation and security
B.N.A. Act-Mr. Coldwell

measures. Whatever else may be contemplated, it seems to me an emergency inters provincial conference should be called immediately to deal with the situation which has arisen as a result of the privy council judgments.
Having said that, may I add that when I placed the resolution on the order paper I intended, first, to focus attention upon amendments to the British North America Act and, second, to discuss proposals designed to give greater social and economic security to the masses of the Canadian people. During nearly twenty years of active participation in public affairs, in common with others I have supported various suggested reforms which almost invariably in their initial presentations have been met by the argument that they could not be undertaken because of the British North America Act. I was one who perhaps regarded the argument rather more lightly than events of the past week might have warranted. This act, which is the cornerstone of our constitution. I fear has become at times a pillar behind which reactionary interests have sought to shelter and to hide. Proposals have been made recently for the appointment of a royal commission to investigate economic and other conditions in western Canada. I believe the suggestion has much to commend it. but I would point out that in view of the judgments just delivered we need, first of all, to amend or remodel the British North America Act in order to be able to make effective any recommendations of such a royal commission.
Perhaps because of my old country education and training in the rights and duties of British citizenship I find it very difficult to understand the profound reverence for written constitutions and documents which I have found in many quarters in the country in which I now live. Possibly this arises out of our susceptibility to ideas emanating from south of the Canada-United States border, where the constitution of 1776 has been regarded as almost too sacred to be criticized. I am glad to note that in the discussion which occurred in this house last Tuesday there did not seem to be a disposition to regard the British North America Act in a similar light.
Parliament is elected by the .people to carry out the will of the people as expressed from time to time. It is intolerable that men, no matter how wise and how good they may have been in their day and generation, or parliaments long since gone by, should be able to bind the hands of a new generation and of their successors. Recently we have heard much about the supremacy of parliament. Under British constitutional practice
rMr. Coldwell.]
the House of Commons in that country is, in the finanl analysis, the supreme power. If there were previously any doubts as to this, I take it that the events surrounding the abdication of King Edward VIII settled the matter once and for all. Therefore I believe an attempt should be made here, in Canada, to deal with our constitution so that it cannot be used as a drag upon the progress of the Canadian people. Morever, unless we bring it more into conformity with the requirements of our age, its inflexibility, like the rigidity of a sealed container full of air when heat is applied, will sooner or later cause an explosion. If we look over our economic and social situation at the present time we shall find many factors generating heat and making for such an explosion.
As was indicated the other afternoon, the British North America Act is a relic of the pre-industrial age. Some people have called it the ox cart age, but "pre-industrial age" I think describes it more accurately. The chaotic conditions of the dominion-provincial financial arrangements illustrate how out of date the act has become in the field of modern social and economic requirements. There can be no permanent or satisfactory adjustment in these relationships until we come to grips with the social and economic problems involved in the constitution. I venture to say that there is not a member of this parliament or a public man in Canada who has not felt at some time or other that the constitutional question has been used as a drag upon Canadian progress.
However well it suited the requirements of 1S67 it is no longer a satisfactory instrument for the completely changed conditions of 1937. The seventy years which have elapsed have seen a world more completely transformed than did the thousand years which preceded them. Let me emphasize the fact that the British North America Act constricts our activities, makes for confusion, and encourages sectionalism and general instability. Public discussion and consideration of this aspect of our constitution must accompany proposals for measures leading to greater economic and social security. That is why this resolution has been placed upon the order paper. I said a moment ago that under the British constitution the House of Commons is, in the final analysis, the supreme authority. It is time we brought our constitutional practice into conformity with that of Great Britain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Parliament, not the
House of Commons.

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Coldwell


Major James William Coldwell: The leader of the
opposition (Mr. Bennett) says, "parliament, not the House of Commons." But I was just coming to that point. In my opinion the House of Commons is, in the final analysis, the supreme authority under British parliamentary practice. For example, I can see no good reason for the continued existence of the senate, which was established ostensibly to protect provincial rights but which I believe no longer does so. If the abolition of the senate is not considered by such a committee as the one I have in mind, then the question of an elective senate might be considered. We should at least bring our parliamentary practice into conformity with the practice in Great Britain. In that country when a bill has been passed by the House of Commons and turned down by the House of Lords in two consecutive sessions, it becomes law without the consent of the upper chamber when it is passed by the House of Commons in the third consecutive session.


Mr. CAHAN:: Do you think provincial legislatures should be continued and sustained?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, I do. I think there is a place for the provincial legislatures, just as I think there is a place under the British unitary system for local self-government on the county plan although they are not analogous. However, if we are to have a parliament legislating on social and economic matters for the people of Canada, a divided authority on the same matters is a very dangerous thing and is likely to lead to dissatisfaction and unrest among the people. I am simply suggesting that this committee should consider the Parliament Act of Great Britain, as passed in 1911, and study ways and means of providing legislation of a similar sort for Canada.
It may be said: how can these amendments be made effective? I think that the fathers of confederation, who were silent on that particular matter in the legislation which created this federal parliament, clearly contemplated that any amendment to the British North America Act or the constitution of Canada would be a matter for legislation on the part of the imperial parliament. In my opinion that was distinctly a colonial idea and one which prevailed in what might be called colonial days. I believe Canada should have the right to amend her own constitution. I was reading Professor Keith's treatise on the King and the Imperial Crown. In discussing the Statute of Westminster at page
428 he indicates very clearly that Canada did not desire that particular power when the statute was under discussion. He says this:
The views of Canada were decisively in favour of retention of supreme power,-
Supreme power by the British parliament.
-for as yet Canadian constitutional change in essentials depends on British legislation.
Since then in South Africa the issue has been met by enacting the Status of Union Act of 1934, which provides that no imperial act shall extend to the union unless it is extended by a union act; and secondly by the enactment of the Royal Executive Functions and Seals Act of 1934, which provides that any instrument may be signed by the governor general by the authority of the cabinet where the king's signature for any reason cannot be obtained. Since the governor general is the nominee of the government, that clearly gives the Union of South Africa power to amend its own constitution, to proclaim its neutrality, and to decide its destiny.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It had the power to amend its constitution before.


Major James William Coldwell: Thank you. In view of the confused international situation, and in conformity with our ideas of equal commonwealth status, Canada should be endowed with at least somewhat similar powers.
I would say that such a parliamentary committee as the motion suggests, should consider, first, ways and means by which the will of the Canadian people as expressed by the House of Commons can be made supreme. Since 1867 we have travelled far, and the Statute of Westminster quite definitely lays down the principle that the self-governing dominions are co-equal partners in the free association known as the British commonwealth of nations. Canada then as a nation must have the right to deal with its own social, economic and constitutional problems. If we achieve that right the problem on which the committee should make recommendations is that of the method to be followed within the structure of confederation.
I do not suggest that there should be any interference with minority rights peculiar to our national groupings. I do suggest that the time has arrived when power to legislate upon matters not contemplated when confederation was realized should be clearly defined as between this parliament and the provincial legislatures, and since the use of legislative powers usually involves financial commitments the whole question of the fields of provincial and federal taxation should be carefully reviewed. To-day we have many
B.N.A. Act

Mr. Coldxoell

instances of serious overlapping. Moreover, we have provinces that do not levy certain forms of taxation, which consequently are used as shelters to cover those who wish to escape those particular forms of taxation. I do not think that that is desirable or good or wise.
In recent years doubts regarding the respective rights of this parliament and of the legislatures have retarded the enactment and proclamation of really necessary and worthwhile legislation. Matters not contemplated when this dominion was established have become of first-class political and social importance, and necessary reform is thus unduly delayed by needless constitutional discussions, references to courts of law and subsequent judgments, resulting in discontent and widespread unrest and disaffection.
All this needs careful investigation and clarification so that no legal doubts nor unprogressive law courts can thwart the people's will. Social legislation demanded by the people remains to-day inoperative because of constitutional and legal differences of opinion, and now definitely of judgments. Until these barriers have been removed there is difficulty in securing that uniformity of action in regard to minimum wages, orderly marketing, health services, social insurance, old age pensions, and so on.
Duplication in administration involves added costs and regrettable delays in rendering the desired service to the people of the country. Action concerning matters of national interest is prevented by the lack of parliament's power to deal with them. In such matters we can proceed only as rapidly as the most reactionary provincial government will permit. Surely this is far from being a satisfactory state of affairs, and in these days it tends to discredit our democratic institutions as instruments of progress just when it is important to strengthen public confidence in them.
As I said a moment ago, we can proceed only as rapidly as the most reactionary provincial government will allow this country to proceed. I am not saying which or if any of the provincial governments may be placed in that category at the present time, but I do submit that if that point is debatable now, there may come a time when this, that, or the other province may have a reactionary government while all the other provincial governments are progressive, and under such a situation desirable legislation of a progressive nature might be held up indefinitely. In a rapidly changing world Canada lags behind already in social and economic legislation.

This I think can be largely attributed to the constitutional doubts and difficulties which I have already indicated, and to the refuge which parliament and the legislatures have taken from time to time behind the cloak of the constitution. Yet surely both bodies today realize that the problem must be dealt with. Unrest among the people of the various parts of this dominion will continue and become intensified unless we solve the problem arising out of divided jurisdiction.
Already the financial side of confederation settlements has undergone drastic, if temporary, revision. How these revisions were undertaken is a matter of recent history. But upon what basis they were made is not at all clear to the public and the provinces, or, may I suggest, to the members of this house. I find, for example, that the subsidy payments to four provinces by the dominion have been greatly augmented to such an extent that in two cases the augmentation is only slightly less than the original subsidy, while in the other two it greatly exceeds the annual subsidy. The public accounts for the year ended March 31st last reveal that the subsidy for British Columbia was $874,561.46, which under vote 209 was augmented by a special grant of $750,000. The subsidy for Prince Edward Island, $381,931.88, was augmented by a special grant of $275,000. The subsidy for New Brunswick was $693,040.16, and it was augmented by a special grant of S900.000, while the subsidy for Nova Scotia was $653,047.60, and it was augmented by a special grant of $1,300,000. Obviously there were good reasons for making these grants, but equally obviously it is difficult for the public to understand why a distressed area such as the province of British Columbia, with a large population, received so much less than Nova Scotia, with a much smaller population. I am not at the moment criticizing the justice of these grants, but I venture to say that few members of this house could explain them, and I am using them to illustrate the point that the whole question of financial relationships between the dominion and the provinces should be carefully reviewed, because, after all, to a large degree they are based upon agreements and constitutional practices.
The financing of the various social projects should also be reviewed. For example, old age pensions have now reached the point where they are becoming nation-wide; hence they should be entirely federal and more nearly uniform. Incidentally, the clause in the old age pension act permitting the authorities to take liens on the small estates of the pensioners should be repealed. As

By.A. Act-Mr. Coldwell
long as that remains, the payments are not pensions but loans repayable at death. Many old folks endure hardship and privation rather than relinquish their right to little bits of property which represent their savings of a lifetime. At the moment Canada lags behind both Great Britain and the United States in economic and social legislation, and demands for what we call social security measures will tend to increase rather than to decrease as this fact becomes more generally known and its implications realized. Hence it seems to me that preparation should be made, not next year or the year after but now,, to meet these needs by clearly defining the powers of parliament and the legislatures, and, may I add, not only the powers but the responsibility of these various bodies. That would be one of the principal tasks of such a committee as that which the resolution asks shall be set up.
Sooner or later, too, this country will have to face the problem of debt in all its forms and phases. Last week we had an opportunity of discussing the problem of increasing purchasing power, and at that time we indicated how wealth was becoming accumulated and pointed out some things that might be done to redistribute purchasing power and remove some of our debts to those who have acquired the ownership of such obligations. I do not propose to traverse any of that ground this afternoon, but simply desire to suggest that the power to reduce debt and interest must be more clearly defined. In some provinces we have two debt adjusting authorities operating under dominion and provincial statutes respectively. Endless arguments arise as to which of the two authorities or statutes is the better, and doubts and difficulties also arise in the minds of harassed people. Yet debt adjustment must continue, and since the problem is nation-wide, national consideration should be given to it.
I intended to outline at some length what other countries or dominions were doing in relation to these problems, but time does not permit me to touch more than briefly upon their legislation. We are in many respects twenty-five years behind the motherland in such measures as unemployment insurance, housing legislation, and health benefits. British legislation along these lines first came into effect in 1912, after, it should be said, some European nations had adopted somewhat similar measures. We have now the benefit of their experience, and the bitterly condemned " dole, ' as it was called, of a quarter of a century ago has earned universal approval from all save a few
reactionary persons here and there who have not realized the needs of the changed times in which we live. True, there are dark places, very dark places, in the old land, but there would have been more of them but for her social legislation. We could well afford to give effect to unemployment insurance, to schemes of housing and health services, upon a more generous and national scale. Money thus spent would, I submit, be more wisely spent than what may be expended for armaments even at the present time. More recently the United States has travelled far along the road of social security legislation, but owing to its constitution greater difficulties than we are likely to experience have had to be met. In spite of this, under the leadership of the central authority, unemployment benefits, old age pensions, pensions for the blind, the care of dependent children, and so on, are all well on the way. Our proximity to the United States makes it inevitable that increasing pressure will be brought to bear in Canada for the enactment of similar legislation. Preparatory to meeting these demands adequately a committee such as the motion proposes could recommend to this parliament appropriate legislation to enable us to meet them on a national basis.
In our sister dominions great progress has been made lately. This is especially true in New Zealand, where under a socialist administration-headed, incidentally, by the Hon. Michael Savage, and, incidentally, a gentleman who is a devout Roman Catholic-a series of progressive measures has been enacted, among them the control of the financial system through the national ownership of the central bank; the passage of a primary products marketing act so that minimum fixed prices are guaranteed from time to time and butter and other dairy produce marketed through a single government agency; measures for the prevention of profiteering, the control of hours and wages in industry, restoration of wage and pension cuts; and legislation is foreshadowed to control investment of national savings. At the close of 1936 the minister of industries and commerce for New Zealand was able to report significant rises in all departments of economic and social activity. In spite of the fact that New Zealand has grave difficulties on account of her remote position and her relatively small population, the minister was able to say that the dominion as a whole is marching towards an era of prosperity which will be reflected in higher standards of life for the masses of the people.

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Coldwell
New Zealand has been able to go forward because no constitutional difficulties lie in her path. She is a small country, not a federal union, but a legislative union-the unitary system, as it was described here the other afternoon. We have questions which arise out of our federal union which ought to be settled at once. I would therefore suggest to this house that it approve of the government establishing a committee to inquire into the constitutional changes necessary to modernize our constitutional practice. That is what the motion asks, and I feel that members who do not necessarily agree with all the suggestions I have made in support of the resolution can nevertheless support the principle of it.
The privy council decisions made public a few days ago emphasize the importance of dealing with this matter at once. From time to time we hear in this house of what are termed subversive elements in our midst, but let me point out that if we have such subversive elements, they spring and grow from bad economic and social conditions. Repression will not stamp them out. The only way we can meet the demands for the better life, and the discontent that arises from a denial of those demands, is to enact measures in the parliament of Canada that will give to men and women an opportunity not only to work but to enjoy the natural resources of the country and the benefits of the machines and of science with which we are surrounded.
May I say that this is particularly true of the younger people in our dominion. There is discontent among them, and I believe that that discontent can be either healthy or unhealthy. They have a right to live, to enjoy the blessings of home and of marriage. They have a right to make a living. To-day they are denied those privileges. Can we wonder if there is discontent? Yet, through all these years, ever since the war, when new measures have been suggested to meet the economic and social situation that has been developing, again and again these measures have been opposed on the ground that they are not constitutional. To-day we have a demonstration of the fact that some of these much needed measures have been declared by the highest court in the empire to be unconstitutional. It is therefore of primary importance that parliament at this time consider ways and means of enabling either the dominion or the provinces to enact incontestable social legislation; but I submit that you must consider these problems on a dominion-wide scale rather than from a pro-

vincial point of view. Either the dominion, or the provinces, should have the right and the power to legislate to meet the social and economic situation that exists to-day.
I see that my time is just up, and I am going to ask the house to support this resolution and the government either to accept it or to suggest an alternative which is better. If such an alternative is suggested and appears to be better than the resolution I have proposed, I shall have a great deal of pleasure in supporting it.


Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: The other afternoon a debate of this kind took place, and at that time, with my limited knowledge of the rules of the house, I thought it was entirely out of order. But nobody seemed to call Mr. Speaker's attention to the fact, possibly owing to the prominence of the hon. members who started the debate. I think it is a good thing for the house to discuss at considerable length the British North America Act and possible amendments thereto, and as there are on the order paper no fewer than three resolutions dealing with the same subject we shall have plenty of opportunity to discuss it.
In the first place, confederation was formed for two main reasons. I have heard it said that confederation was formed in the first place on account of fear, but I do not altogether agree with that. Confederation was formed for two main reasons-the purpose of defence of the then colonies, and in order that those colonies might trade freely with one another. If the fathers of confederation had had in mind some of the things that have been done since then by this parliament, confederation would never have been formed. Some eleven or twelve years after the date of confederation there was put into effect by the then government a policy that has gone far towards wrecking confederation in this country, and it may succeed in wrecking it if it goes much further. I refer to the policy of protection, or the protective tariff. Had a protective tariff been in the minds of the fathers of confederation and been spoken of at the time, certainly some of the provinces would not have joined that confederation, especially had they been able to see into the future and visualize what would happen in this dominion.
Some two or three years ago a commission was formed in Nova Scotia to determine the effect of the protective tariff on that province, or rather evidence brought before a commission went to show that certain parts of the dominion paid to the extent of about

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
twenty-five cents out of every dollar to the protected industries of the country, receiving nothing in return. The protective tariff has developed in one particular section of Canada large industries at the expense of other sections-not in a provincial way, because where that industrial area lies the provinces as a whole are not helped by it to any great extent, but certain favoured individuals in that area are assisted. This has meant that industry in Canada has been drawn largely into one part of the country and any benefits therefrom have gone to that section to the detriment of other parts of the dominion. This has greatly affected the confederation. When one realizes that the fisherman on the Atlantic coast, who is a primary producer, must turn over from a fifth to a quarter of his fish in order to uphold protected industries in Canada; that the coal miner must turn over from a fifth to a quarter of the coal he mines in order to uphold those protected industries; that the man in the woods in Quebec who hauls in pulpwood must turn over from a fifth to a fourth of his load in order that the protected industries of Canada may prosper in one small section; that the miners of the north, the lumbermen, the farmers from one end of the country to the other must do the same thing, it is hard to say that confederation, when we have such policies carried on under it, is a good thing for Canada as a whole, and Canada will not hold together if that policy continues very long.
I heard the other day a statement, by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) I believe, that there was no danger of splitting Canada at the present time. Well, I should like to tell him and the members of this house that there never was a time in the history of Canada when there was more danger in that regard than there is right now. The people in the outlying parts of the country and the provinces farther away from that protected area are becoming sick and tired of paying through the nose and getting no return, while certain favoured people in one section are benefited. There are large sections of the country that have very few ties, or ever had, with that section. And when you find that certain portions of the country are and always will be devoted to the production of primary products and therefore under such a policy always will have to pay and receive nothing in return, the danger of trouble in this country is apparent.
The protective tariff has done another thing. We set up certain kinds of taxation for the federal government and certain kinds for the .provinces. Now that under the protective system all industry has been driven
into one small portion of the country it is very difficult for many of these provinces to procure the necessary amount of money to carry on their business. For instance, the executives of all these large industries-and I would link with them the financial houses and insurance companies, which are grouped in the same parts of the country-who draw down large salaries, are required to pay income tax only in one province. An income tax is a proper tax for the provinces, under direct taxation, but many of the provinces cannot reach the people whom they should be able to tax. These people who are gathered in one small portion of the country collect much of their revenues from every part of the dominion, but they are liable for income tax only in the province in which they live.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


John Gordon Ross: Provincially that is so. Then there is another thing. A succession duty tax is a proper tax for a province under direct taxation. If a man happens to have been successful throughout his life until, we will say, he reaches the age of fifty-five and then desires to sell his business and invest his money in this country, naturally he turns for investment to Canadian industries. If he happens to purchase stocks in the industries of Canada and dies while still owning such stocks, he can be taxed in any outside province only on the property that he owns in that province. On the stocks he has purchased, however, the succession duty tax is paid to the province in which the head office or transfer office of the industry is located. In other words the tremendous amount of money that has been invested in industries located in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec by people living in other provinces is made to pay toll, in the form of succession duty . tax, to those two provinces, while the other provinces are unable to collect that tax. We have often heard it said in this house that by far the largest portion of our taxation is collected in certain cities in eastern Canada. Of course that is so, but it is so because people in those cities are doing business with all the other parts of the country.
Everyone seems to have adopted the view that we must amend the British North America Act in certain particulars. I am not so very sure that we have to amend that act a great deal, because when the British North America Act was framed a certain field was laid out for the provinces and another field for the dominion. If many of the provinces cannot carry out the work allotted to them by the British North America Act the only
432	COMMONS
B.N.A. Act-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
reason is that they are financially unable to do so. When these provinces entered confederation in the first place they were separate, sovereign states or democracies. Under the British North America Act they are still separate, sovereign states and democracies within a certain field, and this parliament has no right to encroach upon their rights, as we have done so often in the last few years. For instance, while every mode of taxation was made available to the dominion, at that time it was not anticipated that the dominion would dip into direct taxation so deeply that it would be difficult for the provinces to collect enough revenue to enable them to carry on.
Further, Mr. Speaker, in this parliament we have passed certain legislation which has been more or less coercive in regard to the provinces. In effect we have said, "Well, the people want a certain thing. We will put at the disposal of the provincial governments so much money, and let the provinces put up the rest." As a result the moment we put an act in force in this parliament saying that this government was willing to give so much money if the province put up the remainder, the people of the province invariably forced the provincial authorities to spend that money, whether or not they wanted to do so. In this way the provinces have been obliged to make expenditures at different times which they could not afford. We passed an act here in connection with technical education. We started this thing and then, after it became a costly venture, we dumped the whole proposition over on the provinces and told them to go ahead and handle it. The same thing applies to roads. It is perfectly all right, if the government wants a trans-Canada highway, for the government to go ahead and build it. They have no right to say to the provinces that they must put up a certain amount of money in connection with such a venture. In that connection the federal government coerced the provinces into spending money that they did not want to spend, and the same thing applies in connection with old age pensions. I was in this house when that measure was passed, and we had no more right to pass an old age pension act than we had to pass a good deal of the other legislation we have enacted. Again we forced the provinces into something, whether or not they wished it. As I said a moment ago, they are sovereign states; they are democracies in their own right, and in this parliament we have no right to force a province into anything which it does not want to do, at least until we amend the British North America Act.

Prior to 1867, there had been a certain amount of taxation in the four provinces which formed the confederation. At that time a certain line of work was laid out for the provinces and another line for the dominion. If we look back to that time we find that customs and excise revenue for those parts of the dominion amounted to about $8,500,000. In order that the provinces might have sufficient money to carry on the work they were to do the dominion turned back to them about $3,000,000, or almost half the amount of money then collected through customs and excise. I do not think the provinces would be in such great trouble to-day if the dominion had continued to do that. We must revamp the distribution of revenue between the provinces and the dominion.
Some people have said that the provinces have been coming down here with their hats in their hands only to get more money from the federal parliament. We should arrange matters so that they can get more of the total revenue collected than they are at present able to get. It is a crying shame that at this time, when interest rates are so low, the provinces are placed in the position that they cannot refinance the great debts they carry. No doubt in a short time interest rates will be back to normal, and the debt the provinces carry, if they can carry it, will be a tremendous load upon their shoulders.
I do not agree with the resolution because I do not think a committee of parliament can be set up to handle the matter properly. I believe there should be plenty of discussion, and each side of the question should be set forth in debate. Sooner or later some government will endeavour to arrange matters so that the provinces will get a proper portion of the total revenue collected to enable them to carry out the business the fathers of confederation entrusted to them.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Coldwell) who introduced the resolution spoke, as he always does, with vigour, and followed a well prepared argument. I was hoping he would give some reason which would justify the creation of a committee of the kind suggested by him.
May I review what has been done in the matter in recent years. As to the usefulness and even the necessity, under present circumstances, of amendments to the British North America Act, I think we must all agree, but I fail to see where the procedure suggested by the hon. member will be useful. Indeed I am afraid it would hurt rather than help the

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
end he has in mind. In 1935, on motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) the house adopted a resolution whereby it set up a select committee consisting of Messrs. Cowan, Guthrie, Turnbull, Ernst, Gagnon, Lapointe, Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre), Ralston, and Woodsworth-
-to study and report on the best method by which the British North America Act may be amended, so that while safeguarding the existing rights of racial and religious minorities and legitimate provincial claims to autonomy, the dominion government may be given adequate power to deal effectively with urgent economic problems which are essentially national in their scope.
Although the language of the present resolution is not quite the same, I believe the meaning is absolutely the same as the one I have set out. The committee in 1935 was appointed for the very same purpose. It sat practically all session and in the course of its proceedings heard various legal experts and professors. In order to impress the house with the fact that the committee did its work in the best possible manner, may I point out only a few of the names connected with its work. They were W. S. Edwards, K.C., Deputy Minister of Justice; Doctor O. D. Skelton, Undersecretary of State for External Affairs; M. Ollivier, K.C., Joint Law Clerk of the House of Commons; Doctor W. P. M. Kennedy, Professor of Law, University of Toronto; Doctor F. R. Scott, Professor of Law, McGill University; Doctor Norman McLeod Rogers, Professor of Political Science, Queen's University, and Doctor Arthur Beauchesne, K.C., C.M.G., LL.D.. Clerk of the House of Commons.
After discussing the matter in detail the committee adopted the following resolution:
The committee recognizes the urgent necessity for prompt consideration of amendments to the British North America Act with reference to a redistribution of legislative power and to clarify the field of taxation.
In view of that, surely we do not need to set up another committee to make the same finding. The report continues:
It is further of opinion that the conference hereafter proposed should carefully consider the adoption of a recognized yet flexible method of amendment.
In view of the fact that the several provinces did not feel it advisable to give the committee the benefit of their views with respect to the method of procedure to be followed in amending the constitution, the committee is of the opinion that before any decision upon the subject matter of the resolution is finally made, that the opinions of the provinces should be obtained otherwise if at all possible and for that reason recommends that a dominion-31111-2S
provincial conference be held as early as possible in the present year to study the subject matter of the resolution. The proposed conference should have ample time in which to study every phase of the question.
In view of the above recommendation the committee expressly refrains from recommending any form of procedure for amendment so as to leave the proposed conference entirely free in its study of the question, except that the committee is definitely of the opinion that minority rights agreed upon and granted under the provisions of the British North America Act should not be interfered with.
That was the work of the committee of 1935. In accordance with its recommendation a conference with the provinces was summoned in November and December of 1935, upon which occasion a subcommittee dealt with constitutional questions. That constitutional subconference had an agenda containing the following items:
1.	Revision of the British North America Act.
2.	A.greement on future action with reference to social legislation.
After the subconference had completed its work it adopted a resolution, which was ratified by the full conference, as follows:
This conference, in the interests of the dominion and of the provinces, is of the opinion:
(a)	That amendments to the British North America Act are now and subsequently may be necessary and imperative.
(b)	That, as in the case of all the other self-governing dominions, Canada should have the power to amend the Canadian constitution provided a method of procedure therefor satisfactory to the dominion parliament and the provincial legislatures be devised.
(c)	That the Minister of Justice convene at an early date a meeting of appropriate officials of the dominion and of the provinces to prepare a draft of such method of procedure to be submitted to a subsequent conference.
(d)	That a conference be held at an early date after such draft has been prepared to consider such a method of procedure.
This committee of experts, composed of officials of the dominion and of the provinces, was called for the purpose of doing the work assigned to it by the conference. These officials, representing most of the provinces, spent part of the session of 1936 working in Ottawa with the dominion officials. A tremendous amount of work was done; drafts were prepared and agreement was reached on many important matters which had been debated previously and in connection with which some difference existed. There are still some matters upon which agreement has not been reached. I may say that the fact that general elections have taken place in certain provinces during the summer and fall -this applies particularly to one province- may be the reason why the work of this

434	COMMONS
B.N.A. Act-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
committee has not been concluded. May I suggest with all due deference to my hon. friend that the work he proposes should be done is of a delicate nature. It should be entrusted to a committee of legal experts rather than to a committee of members of the House of Commons. What can this committee do in addition to what was done in 1935? I have not heard one good reason advanced by my hon. friend in support of his resolution. He suggests that this committee would devise ways and means by which the will of the people, as represented in the House of Commons, would prevail. I believe that would be the one way to bring about greater friction with the provinces at a time when it is necessary to have agreement. We would have a committee composed of members of this house asserting that we must have this or we must have that, when in fact there are other parties who have something to say and something to do with this matter.
My hon. friend says that we have the Statute of Westminster which gives us more power and more rights. That may be so, but the provinces have exactly the same powers, the same rights and the same jurisdiction which they had prior to the passing of the Statute of Westminster. That is all reserved to them in the Statute of Westminster, and I do not think it could have gone through without those reservations. Until there has been a very great change in that respect, I cannot see how the Statute of Westminster would provide a good reason for the creation of a committee of this kind. While the Statute of Westminster may have changed the relations between the Dominion of Canada and the imperial parliament, it has not changed one iota the relations between the Dominion of Canada and the provinces of the confederation.
My hon. friend has said that this committee would define the respective powers of the dominion and the provinces. I have all the respect possible for the qualifications of the members of this proposed committee, but I am afraid that we must have more confidence in the decisions of the privy council and the Supreme Court of Canada. What could such a committee do except to read these decisions? It could not define powers and jurisdiction other than as they exist and as they have been defined by the courts. As I have stated in other circumstances, the fact of saying that we have jurisdiction does not give it. The assumption of powers which we do not have, does not give those powers to us. It will only make for greater difficulty

and not for the settlement of those questions, the settlement of which we all have so much at heart. I am afraid that instead of helping toward an agreement, this method would be more of an obstacle.
Those who sat on the committee in 1935-
I th'ink the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will agree to this-will agree with me when I say that provinces resented the fact that this committee was sitting. When the committee decided to summon the attorneys general and other officials of the provinces to present their views before it, they answered- and I think they answered properly

that they would deal as between government and government. They did not think the provinces, which were sovereign within their sphere, should be called upon to appear before a committee of the House of Commons. As I say, I think the provinces were right in making this answer.
I believe they would take the same position to-day. They would resent the fact that a committee of the House of Commons had started on the work of revising the constitution. As I have said, much more work will have to be done by way of negotiation and communication with the provinces. I think we are all in agreement as to the necessity of some amendment being made. I hope this will be done, but I repeat that it can be done only by securing the agreement of the provinces and not by asserting that we in the House of Commons can change the constitution of Canada by ourselves.
Canada is a confederation. My hon. friend referred to the greater ease of operation of unitary governments. No doubt he is right about that, but our constitutional situation is the result of conditions which prevail in Canada. Unless those powers had been left to the provinces they would never have agreed to come into confederation, and let me repeat again what I have said on a similar motion. The dominion is the child of the provinces; it is not their father. The provinces were in existence, had their powers, had their jurisdiction; they agreed to depart from a certain portion of their powers provided they were left with jurisdiction in other spheres, and they would never have come in and formed this Canada as it is if there had not been agreement at the conference which took place and which resulted in the British North America Act, a statute which was passed in England, that those provincial powers should remain within the sphere of authority of the provinces.

B.NA. Act-Mr. Pelletier
I repeat that what remains to be done is indeed very, very delicate work, and I do not see, with all deference to my hon. friend, that the committee which he suggests would in any way help the solution of the problem w'hich we want settled.


Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this motion may I at the outset lay down two rules which must be fully grasped and appreciated if the remarks that are to follow are to convey clearly and concisely the necessity of carrying out the request made in this resolution.
The first rule is this:	The vitality of national life, being dependent upon the harmony of its component parts, is capable of resisting temporal erosion in proportion to the degree in which harmony exists.
The second ride is: The deterioration of a political entity, subject to the diversity of its constituent elements, is slow or rapid in proportion to the fractional facets of its local problems.
With these thoughts in mind I had placed on the order paper a resolution which calls for the establishment of a commission to investigate the circumstances and problems of western Canada. I firmly believe that the resolution now before us is out of place, because before we can be in a position to amend the British North America Act, we must first find out what the problems demanding solution are, and this cannot be done until the problems affecting various parts of the country are studied. In my resolution I suggest a commission to investigate conditions in western Canada simply because I feel that before we attempt to amend the British North America Act, we should know what is the trouble with us. Therefore, in speaking to the resolution before us, I shall take up particularly western Canadian problems because there is a possibility that my resolution on the order paper may not be reached this session.
On March 29. 1867, the British North America Act received royal assent, and it became operative by royal proclamation on July 1, 1867. The purpose of this act, we must assume, was first of all to benefit all parts of the British North American colonies through legislation passed by the central government and designed to increase commerce. In the debates of the house in 1879, at page 429, we find Sir Leonard Tilley making the following statement:
The time has arrived. I think, when it will become our duty to decide whether the thousands of men throughout the length and breadth of this country who are unemployed, shall seek 31111-28^
employment in another country, or shall find it in this dominion; the time has arrived when we are to decide whether we will be simply hewers of wood and drawers of water; whether we will be simply agriculturists raising wheat, and lumbermen producing more lumber than we can use or Great Britain and the United States will take from us at remunerative prices; whether we will confine our attention to the fisheries and certain other small industries, and cease to be what we have been, and not rise to be what I believe we are destined to be under wise and judicious legislation, or -whether we will inaugurate a policy that will, by its provisions, say to the industries of the country, we will give you sufficient protection; we will give you a market for what you can produce; we will say that, while our neighbours build up a Chinese wall, we will impose a reasonable duty on their products coming into this country; at all events, we will maintain for our agricultural and other productions largely, the market of our own dominion.
Second, as is shown by the records of that time, on the insistence of the British Colonial Office there was an attempt to meet the policy of defence of the imperial government. With this second reason we are not for the moment greatly concerned. In any event the western provinces are now within the scope of confederation, and their entry must necessarily have been harmonious with the hope expressed by Sir Leonard Tilley.
In 1856 the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, comprising an area of 2,000,000 square miles, contained 6,691 persons in addition to the Indians. Less than 9,000 acres of land were under cultivation. Fifteen years later, in the same area the population had increased to 73.228, and ten years later to 122,400, with 279,249 acres under cultivation.
The policy of the Canadian government at that time was that expansion of settlement westward was logical and desirable, and that the agricultural possibilities of the country were too great to admit of its being reserved any longer for the fur trade. The settlement of the western Canadian plains was a clean-cut experiment in agricultural colonization. Thus we find that between 1897 and 1905, under the Hon. Clifford Sifton, the west developed at an amazing rate. Our immigration propaganda in the United States, Great Britain and Europe was most vigorous. For example, the report of immigration for 1904, part 2, at page 16, shows that no less than 2,703,646 pamphlets were sent out. These were issued not in the English language alone, but in French, German, Dutch, Norwegian and Swedish. The idea was to attract immigrants and to develop western Canada as rapidly as possible. It is plainly seen to-day in what manner this has affected the problems
B.N.A. Act-Mr. Pelletier

of the west. Settlers were encouraged to go west, but not with any particular guidance. Settlements sprung up rapidly. The inducements were great, and thousands trekked to western Canada and settled where they desired.
During the sixty years in which the Canadian northwest has been part of Canada its population has increased from 73,000 to 2,354,000, and the improved acres of land have increased from 279.000 in 1881 to 59,854,000 in 1931, out of 109,778,000 acres of occupied land. While this increase was fostered wholly by the federal government, no thought was given at the time to the problems which eventually must be faced by the provincial governments in regard to roads. Secluded areas had to be linked. Hundreds of miles of roads had to be built, and to-day a large part of the obligations of the western provinces may be traced directly to capital outlays for road construction.
It is perhaps unusual to ask a federal government to realize how it could in any measure be responsible for capital outlays made by autonomous and responsible legislative assemblies, but one must remember that the spirit of expansion and development was bred into western settlers' minds by federal immigration policies, and those settlers, of course, insisted and still insist upon more and more roads. Thus it would seem to me that out of the experiences of the past a better method of settlement could be worked out. For example, certain areas of land now sparsely settled could be considered by both provincial and federal governments as " prospective settlement districts." These districts should be permitted to be settled only under a definite settlement scheme. The area could be thoroughly surveyed and settlement permitted only at certain points agreed upon by both provincial and federal governments. The type of settlers could be chosen. Roads could be built only where necessary.
The northern portions of the western provinces all contain land, which some day will be settled. Even to-day settlers are being taken out of dried out areas and dumped somewhere in the northern bush, in places almost impossible of access. Of course these settlers want roads; they are entitled to them and the roads should be built. However, this entails hundreds of miles of roads for a small population. This expense could be lessened without suffering to anyone, always providing, however, that foresight and judgment are used.

The methods of colonization have resulted in bringing about unbearable financial difficulties to the western provinces, and if a commission is set up, this grievance can be thoroughly investigated. I feel sure that a remedy would be found.
Another source of ill feeling in western Canada is the present structure of freight rates. It is true that, owing to substantially low rates on grain, grain-growing in western Canada has been helped, but to-day the situation is not the same. In days gone by, many people settled in the west simply with the idea of attempting to make a fortune raising wheat; they were wheat miners. After making a fortune, it was their intention to return to eastern Canada to live. This is no longer the case. The people of the west have come to think of western Canada as home and as a result have become engaged to an increasing degree in producing other commodities than wheat alone.
When it is generally admitted that substantially low rates on grain had a beneficial effect, surely similar rates applied to western production would work the same way and would be beneficial in more than one respect. They would encourage mixed farming which, in the final analysis, is the best and safest method of assuring a degree of security to western farmers. Mixed farming means many things. It promotes protection of farm land by necessitating crop rotation, more extensive growth of fodder crops, such as grasses, sweet clover, etcetera. It permits certain sections of land retaining wooded areas, a protection against drought. It supplies a ready market for grain and an income of some sort.
Furthermore, the west knows that competitive factors, both on the Pacific coast and in eastern Canada, have compelled basically lower freight rates in those two sections of the country, but in the case of the prairie provinces no comparative basic change of freight rates has taken place for the last twenty-two or twenty-three years. Also eastern Canada, being older than the west, naturally has better roads. This fact has encouraged transportation by truck and bus to a degree sufficient to compel revision of railway rates in many instances.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I do not like to
interrupt an hon. member, particularly on the discussion of a motion, but I must ask hon. members to refrain from going too far. They have already discussed the question of an amendment of the British North America Act, and they have discussed also the question of specific amendments required to the

B.N.A. Act

Mr. Pelletier
British North America Act to enable parliament to enact legislation "for the better social conditions of the Canadian people." I should not like hon. members, upon this particular motion, to wander over all the field of amendments.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am mentioning these matters is that before we can intelligently discuss amendments to the British North America Act, certain problems must be pointed out and certain remedies proposed for them. It is impossible to amend the British North America Act unless we know what it is about, and I believe these matters are in line with the resolution.
I should like to quote the freight on a few items, so as to give a clear idea of what I have in mind. Let us take dry goods, for example. The distance from Montreal to Calgary is 2,324 miles. The freight for 100 pounds of dry goods in boxes is 19-04 cents per 100 pounds per 100 miles. On exactly the same dry goods in the same packages, shipped from Vancouver to Calgary, a distance of 641-5 miles, the rate per 100 pounds per 100 miles is 34-10 cents. The distance between Montreal and Winnipeg is 1,410-3 miles and the rate for dry goods in boxes per 100 pounds is S2.67J. The distance between Vancouver and Winnipeg is 1,473-02 miles, or 63 miles further than the distance between Montreal and Winnipeg, but the rate is $3.72 per 100 pounds. The cost for those extra 63 miles is S1.04i per 100 pounds.
These rates are supplied to me from an official source and were in effect on January 20 of this year. I have not attempted to compile a large set of figures, embodying various commodities, but the principle which governs freight rates in this particular instance also governs freight rates in others, and therefore, comparatively speaking, the same condition would be found to exist.
In any event, sixty per cent of the total freight revenue of the Canadian Pacific railway is derived from western Canada. These figures were quoted by President Beatty at the last meeting of the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. If for no other reason than that western Canada provides the most freight revenue, it is entitled to a hearing, and that reason alone would be sufficient. I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, touching upon all the various expressions of feeling heard in western Canada regarding freight rates. A commission would gather a wealth of material and give westerners an opportunity of "getting things off their chests."
I am also of opinion that the effect of Canada's tariff structure causes one of the most serious wrongs on western Canada. The west supplies the bulk of Canada's exports in the form of grain, cattle and lumber. Canada's industrial plant is in the east and of course industry requires some protection and obtains this protection but only at the expense of western Canada. Other nations are quick to retaliate by shutting out Canadian wheat, cattle and lumber.
The natural resources of the east, their earlier development than has been the case in the west, the water powers and the tariff have naturally concentrated manufacturing in Ontario and Quebec. Industrial development in the east has been a benefit to Canada as a whole. While one cannot disagree with the principle of the tariff, one must recognize the fundamental principle under confederation of the equal- right of all provinces; this, of course, can be worked out only under a general "give and take". In doing this and considering the tariff one must take into account the centres of manufacture in Ontario and Quebec; the long freight hauls to markets in the west; the barrier of the Rocky mountains, and the beneficial effects the west, through the construction and operation of the Panama canal, may have to trade with other countries.
Let us see what has been the outgrowth of the tariff policy in Canada. The only complete study of this matter was done by the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), and published in the report, "A Submission on Dominion-Provincial Relations and the Fiscal Disabilities of Nova Scotia within the Confederation," Province of Nova Scotia Royal Commission Economic Inquiry. In this report, on page 99, is set out the following, in part:
The enhancement of prices due to the tariff (1931)
Manitoba	 $29,185,740
Saskatchewan	 29,228.285
Alberta	 27,909,396
British Columbia	 37,737,247
Total	$124,060,668
The position of the various provinces in relation to gains and losses suffered by the tariff is set out in the following table which gives for each province separately the per capita tariff subsidies and the per capita tariff costs:
B.N.A. Act-Mr. Pelletier


René-Antoine Pelletier: When the house rose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to show that this resolution really does not cover what in my opinion is necessary in order to settle some of our difficulties as far as the constitution of Canada is concerned. Continuing, I would say that owing to the variety of interests in our dominion, in both the political and the economic spheres, these expressions of a desire for betterment have not been identical in all provinces. People in some provinces think assistance would be forthcoming if a certain thing were done. People in other provinces, facing the same problem, because of local factors believe that the difficulty can be best solved in some other manner, thus bringing about that ever present conflict between the provincial legislatures and this parliament in the exercise of their constitutional jurisdictions. Thus it is most difficult to .find any point of mutual agreement that would form a basis for a conference such as has been suggested by my hon. friend.
This was definitely proved when the Prime Minister read from the report of the 1935 committee on the British North America Act, before which Doctor Beauchesne recommended a convention to draft a new constitution. In that report, as the Prime Minister pointed out. the views of the various provinces are brought to the surface, and they indicate utter lack of mutual agreement with regard to any one suggested change. In almost every instance a desire for change was expressed, but nowhere do we find agreement as to what changes should be made. In Canada to-day we find a restlessness which is becoming alarming. Discontent, discord, lack of stability and uneasiness, prevail. No
one knows what may happen next. There is nothing solid. That is how people feel, but in my opinion we have something solid; we have our constitution.
I come back to a rule which I laid down in my opening remarks. That is, the vitality of national life, being dependent upon the harmony of its component parts, is capable of resisting temporal erosion in proportion to the degree in which harmony exists. At the moment harmony does not exist. At the moment in the west people live in the shadow of wrongs, either fancied or real. They fancy that eastern Canada does not understand them. On the other hand the people of eastern Canada feel that the west is a burden; they picture western Canadians as individuals who are forever running to the federal treasury for loans. They fancy that the east pays the bills while the west lives in irresponsible affluence. The west resents this attitude. It knows that factors beyond its control took away its purchasing power by immensely reducing its income from the growing of grain. It knows how it has suffered through drought, hot winds, grasshoppers, hail and frost. It feels its wounds, not because they hurt but because they bring no sympathy. The west is part of Canada; it is the child of the east, and now that adolescent child is abandoned to lick its salty sores and whimper alone. The guns of Europe might rumble once more. Perhaps that would be important to Canada, but of greater importance still is that slow-burning fire of distress which leads to hate smouldering in this Canadian family. The child of the east cries out; it extends its hands in earnest desire for friendly cooperation and justice. Let the east awaken and reply in kind and encourage us so that we in whom Canadians have placed their confidence may fail not. Let us, within the framework of our constitution, our solid constitution, offer that opportunity of expression which must result in dispelling distrust and bring back once more the harmony which is so essential to the survival of this nation.
Let us give the west a hearing. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, certain things that have happened in western Canada have resulted from the conditions I have mentioned to-day. It seems to me that if we attempt to remedy the situation by amending the British North America Act we must know first of all what it is we are seeking to do and how to go about securing the desired result. It seems to me that a commission or a committee of this house, empowered to look into these problems in Canada, could not

B.NA. Act-Mr. Woodsworth
possibly arrive at sound conclusions or discover the correct answers unless first it knew exactly what it was looking for. We do not need any further proof of that than what recently happened in western Canada, as far as the expression of public opinion is concerned. As I have said already, we hear all sorts of expressions of opinion, and I believe many of them originate simply through the failure of the federal government to give effect to laws which are demanded by the man in the street. We find that he must have some medium of expression, and that medium has not been provided by the federal government. So he has turned his attention to the provincial legislatures and has forced them to enact laws some of which come into conflict or are said to come into conflict with our federal laws.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I trust that the government will take into serious consideration the points I have brought out. Western Canada is an essential and a great part of Canada, and I believe that in its desire to maintain confederation, seeking cooperation and desiring assistance, it will receive that help and that cooperation which I know this parliament can give.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
associate myself with my colleague the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in urging the government to consider seriously the appointment of such a committee. I recall that I introduced a motion of this kind as far back as 1924, and again in 1931. Two years ago, in 1935, I brought forward another motion, a little different, a little more limited in scope, which was referred to a committee, to which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) referred this afternoon. My motion read:
That, in the opinion of this house, a special committee should be set up to study and report on the best method by which the British North America Act may be amended so that while safeguarding the existing rights of racial and religious minorities and legitimate provincial claims to autonomy, the dominion government may be given adequate power to deal effectively with urgent economic problems which are essentially national in scope.
In presenting that resolution I was careful to assure the house that there was no thought in my mind of interfering with any of the existing rights of the provinces, and I tried especially to safeguard the rights of racial and religious minorities.
The house received that resolution very favourably, and the committee, I think I may say, worked quite conscientiously in endeavour-

ing to find some way by which we could amend our constitution. However, the committee failed lamentably, because of a lack of cooperation with the provinces, and I believe, behind that, because of the assumption that we must have the consent of all the provinces before we could take any action. So the committee brought in finally what I must confess was a milk and water sort of report, suggesting that this whole matter should be referred to a dominion-provincial conference.
The resolution that has been placed before us to-day is somewhat different. It suggests that a parliamentary committee should study and report upon the specific amendments which might be brought in to meet the outstanding needs of our country at this time. The committee which sat two years ago dealt with the method. This time we have approached the matter in a different way, urging that the committee at least might survey the field and suggest the particular changes needed to meet the urgent problems which face us to-day. I regret that the government has not seen its way to accede to our request, and to appoint such a committee. I regret even more, however, that the Minister of Justice, who spoke for the government, has offered no alternative.
I shall not attempt again to traverse the ground so well covered by my colleague from Rosetown-Biggar, but may I venture to call to the attention of the house, a house which since 1935 is partly new, several considerations I tried to emphasize in 1935. Why should we not have an amendment to our constitution? The then Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), during the debate in the house on April 13, 1934, made this statement:
Two answers could be given to that question; one is the political answer and the other is the legal answer. The legal answer is that if this parliament-and that means both houses-adopts a resolution embodying a petition to the sovereign for the enactment of legislation by the parliament at Westminster amending the British North America Act, under the Statute of Westminster such legislation would be enacted accordingly.
I believe there can be no question that that is a fair statement of the situation. It seemed to me that this afternoon the Minister of Justice rather receded from the position which was common two years ago in this chamber. It seemed to me that he was going back to the old idea that there exists a sort of treaty between the provinces and the dominion and that we have to live up to that treaty. I hope I do not misrepresent him, but as he spoke this afternoon that was the im-

B.NA. Act-Mr. Woodsworth
pression I gathered. Again let me point out that as a matter of fact the British North America Act has actually been amended in various ways. It was once amended by the British parliament on the strength of a simple request by the Canadian government, without the proposal even coming before parliament. A great many people have the idea that the British North America Act is like the laws of the Medes and Persians, that it can never be changed. But we forget the very large number of amendments that have already been made in the act. Once a request which was made by the dominion parliament carried the formal endorsation of eight out of the nine provinces and was opposed by one province. On the other occasions the British parliament acted on the joint request of the Canadian House of Commons and the Senate. The precedents therefore suggest that the British parliament will enact any legislation to amend the British North America Act on the recommendation of the Canadian parliament.
If we are to wait until we have a dominion-provincial conference and until such conference unanimously adopts not only a method of amending the act but also the amendments which should be made, I am afraid we shall have to wait indefinitely.


Ernest Lapointe: Nobody has said that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; I say that.


Ernest Lapointe: You do?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes; I am afraid of that.


Ernest Lapointe: You do something, and then you refute it afterwards.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Probably the minister does not understand what I say. I am giving my opinion, namely that if we have to wait until we call a dominion-provincial conference and some sort of unanimous-


Ernest Lapointe: "Some
sort"?


James Shaver Woodsworth: -yes, some sort of unanimous consent, not only to the methods by which amendments may be brought forward but also as to what particular amendments should be made, we may have to wait indefinitely.
Then there is another consideration we ought to keep in mind-the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) called attention to it in an interjection to-day-that we must have the consent of the Senate. It is true that parliament consists of the House of
Commons and the Senate, but I submit we cannot forever permit the Senate to thwart the will of the commons which presumably represents the great mass of the people of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend think he can change that by creating a committee of the house?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Oh, no; we do not suggest that. The minister is expecting the committee to do a great deal more than that for which the resolution calls. In emphasizing the point to which reference was made this afternoon I should like to quote no other than the leader of the opposition. In 1915, on the occasion of the Senate declining to agree to an address for an immediate change in representation in that chamber, he denounced the Senate. At page 2338 of Hansard of that year he referred to the upper house as an "irresponsible body which thwarted the will of democracy, as expressed by this House of Commons." Perhaps that is stronger language than I might use! However, all I want to say is that if the Senate attempts to block amendments which are generally desired, we shall have to find means of dealing with the Senate. That is all I need say at the moment, but I think it should be said.
Referring to a statement by my colleague the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, the Minister of Justice stated that the Statute of Westminster did not alter the relationships between the provinces and the dominion. I think we all agree with that. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did not argue otherwise, but if I followed his argument it was this, that the parliament of Great Britain is sovereign. In Canada parliament has occupied a subordinate position. Under the Statute of Westminster Canada to-day is supposed to be as sovereign as the parliament of Great Britain. I think no one doubts that the parliament of Great Britain could alter the British North America Act, and conceivably could do so without an address from the two Canadian houses. It could make alterations in opposition to provincial representations. I do not assert that such action is likely, but I say the British North America Act is an imperial statute and can be altered by that imperial body. Since the passing of the Statute of Westminster the Canadian parliament ought to have an authority equal to that which exists in the imperial house. I believe that it was along these lines the hon. member was making his argument. If not, I take it as my own.

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Woodsworth
We cannot go on indefinitely under the arrangement that we must refer matters to some body other than our own. We have full authority here to deal with Canadian affairs. The thing that worried me this afternoon was not so much the suggestion of the minister that this matter could be dealt with better by some sort of commission-and I am getting a little tired of commissions composed largely of lawyers; I think we might very well get away from that kind of commission and have commissioners who represent a great many other interests in the dominion

and not so much that it could be dealt with by a dominion-provincial conference-that may be the best way to deal with it-but rather that the minister offers very little by way of an alternative to the existing situation. If he would give us a guarantee that the dominion-provincial conference will be called within six months and pledge his word that that conference will take action-


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) laughs.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have tried it and I know something of the difficult}'.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some of us who have followed the reports of these conferences know something of the difficulties. The trouble is that this thing has gone on year after year and decade after decade until conditions have become almost desperate. We can get no assurance whatever from the government that prompt action will be taken.


Charles Avery Dunning: How far is my hon. friend prepared to go in compromising with regard to his principles? That is always a point in connection with these conferences. I do not believe my hon. friend would compromise to any extent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope my hon. friend is correct in his estimate of me. I have tried to make that my rule. However,
I think there are principles and principles. There are certain things which have been elevated to the position of principles, which are regarded by some people as being principles, but which have not universal application. It may be said that in this connection there are two principles at stake.


Charles Avery Dunning: Judging by what the provinces say to us, there are many.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Fundamentally the principles at stake are certain rights of the provinces, certain powers known as provincial autonomy, and, on the other hand,

certain rights and powers of the dominion. It may be said that those two principles clash. That may be so, but my point is that we cannot let this situation go on forever, drift as it has done, without imperilling the whole of confederation.
Let me bring a further matter to the attention of the house. From my standpoint, the recent decisions of the judicial committee of the privy council were most unsatisfactory, if I may say so without getting into trouble with all the lawyers in this house. They are unsatisfactory from my standpoint because the privy council, sitting in England, cannot have the information and point of view that we have in Canada.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: They
agreed with the supreme court here.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is quite true. If we refused to send legal questions to the judicial committee of the privy council I think we would be a little bit more careful about the decisions given by the Supreme Court of Canada. If I might be permitted to say so, I think we would also be a little bit more careful as to the calibre of the judges we put in our supreme court. It would tend to throw greater responsibility upon our own institutions. I am not criticizing this or that or the other individual but I submit that as long as we remain in tutelage, as long as we look overseas for someone to tell us in the last analysis what must be done, we shall remain immature and all our decisions will be of a tentative nature. For one, I shall be very glad when we stand on our own two feet and recognize that we must work out our own problems right here in Canada.
I want to say one thing further in this connection. I belong to a province and I come from a section of this country which was not a party to the British North America Act. At the time that act was passed my people were all in eastern Canada and I had not been born, but as eastern Canada dealt with this matter it might be claimed that I must accept some responsibility. I come from Manitoba and I have lived most of my life in the west. We as a province, or as provinces, were not a party to the British North America Act and you could not possibly put over such an act to-day and have the west a party to it. I do not like threats, but I want to remind this house of the sporadic movements which have sprung up in the west from time to time looking in the direction of secession. These movements will spread unless action is taken in the not distant future. The west has reached a stage where it simply cannot carry on. One province has defaulted and in

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Woodsworth
all probability, unless some very special arrangements are made, it will not be very long before other western provinces default.
We find that there are certain ideals which are common to all four western provinces, but which apparently are not held by some of the provinces in the east. We want it understood that we cannot go on indefinitely suffering under certain disabilities which could be altered if we operated under another constitution. If the fathers of confederation whom we praise so highly had sense enough to get together and work out a constitution which no doubt was more or less fitted for their day, I urge that we are not worthy sons of theirs unless we in our day can get together and work out a constitution, different perhaps from the old one, which will serve the needs of our day.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What changes would the hon. member suggest?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan) asks me what changes we would suggest. That is the very thing for which we want this committee appointed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We want to hear from the hon. member.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr Coldwell) spent some considerable time outlining these changes and I do not propose to cover his speech to-night. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George can read it to-morrow in Hansard. Certain very definite changes are outlined in the resolution now before us and they deal largely with the social problems that face us.


Mr. MacINNIS:: The changes advocated last week by his leader.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My hon. friend behind me says that they are the changes advocated by the leader of the party of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. Let me read the resolution again:
-in view of the urgent necessity of effective action for the improvement of the social and economic conditions of the people of Canada-
Whether such action is needed in the community represented by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, I am not prepared to say.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Explain; social and economic conditions mean nothing definite.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They do mean
something to me. Let me read this:
-in view of the conditions of social and other legislation passed by parliament during the tenure of office of the late government-
Does that mean nothing to my hon. friend? He was a member of that government. He knows how most of that legislation has gone by the board.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Did he approve and does he approve the method adopted by the late administration in acquiring that measure of jurisdiction which formerly had always been regarded as belonging to the provinces?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know that I am required to answer whether or not I approved that legislation, especially in view of the fact that it has been thrown out by the judicial committee of the privy council as unconstitutional. But I do say that the things which were attempted by the previous government by way of certain measures to provide for unemployment insurance, the eight hour day and all the rest of it, were in my judgment highly desirable.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What of the means?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am asking that means be devised. The Minister of Labour gave evidence before the committee of a year ago and I think he is very well acquainted with certain means that might be attempted. We are not urging that this particular measure should be the only one before the house. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar suggested, if this is not satisfactory, we shall be very glad to support any other measure which might be considered more satisfactory. But we want some measure.
A few minutes ago, I referred to secession, this not by way of a threat because I have always opposed secession movements on the ground that they were an attempted political solution for some of our great economic problems. But someone should point out that some sections of our country will be driven ultimately to attempt some such solution. We cannot go on in this way very much longer. We are urging that before things become too desperate, the situation in Canada should be saved.
I read several editorials following the decision of the judicial committee of the privy council. I want to read the opening paragraph of an editorial in the Montreal Gazette of January 30, 1937:
There is ground for a great deal of satisfaction on the part of Canadian business, as well as on the part of all minorities in 'this country, in the fact that the British North America Act has survived the efforts of a dominion parliament to shoot holes through it.
That was the opening paragraph, and I think it is wonderfully revealing. All minorities should rejoice in this, it says. Now my

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Woodsworth
own position with regard to minorities has been stated again and again. It was stated in that resolution which I brought into the house two years ago. Let me read it:
That, in the opinion of this house, a special committee should be set up to study and report on the best method by which the British North America Act may be amended so that while safeguarding the existing rights of racial and religious minorities and legitimate provincial claims to autonomy, the dominion government may be given adequate power to deal effectively with urgent economic problems which are essentially national in scope.
I have every respect for, and I want this country to safeguard carefully the racial and religious rights of minorities, but on the other hand I do not believe that a minority, even a racial or religious minority, must be allowed to hold up progress in this country. I should like some time to talk on the rights of majorities.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Page Mr. Rowe.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; I am no religious fanatic, and anybody who knows me recognizes that I am no fanatic so far as language or anything of that kind is concerned, but I do say this, that the majorities in this dominion have certain rights and we must not forever be held down by the ideals of one or two or three or five particular sections of the community. In reality I am not so much concerned with racial and religious minorities as I am with some other kinds of minorities. I am thinking of financial minorities, and I am thinking of some industrialists in this country, small groups of people who for their own ends ask that progress be delayed. It is from this standpoint that I read this opening paragraph in the Gazette:
There is ground for a great deal of satisfaction on the part of Canadian business, as well as on the part of all minorities-*
The Gazette is published in Montreal, and it is perhaps a good political move to stir up a little bit of racial antagonism in that way. It may catch the people of Montreal or the people of Quebec; it may catch some here, there or yonder; I do not know. I repeat, I stand for the rights of minorities, racial or religious. But when the Gazette says that this is a matter for great satisfaction to Canadian business, I cannot but think of resolutions that have been sent to me during the fifteen years I have been in this house, as well as editorials I have read, in which Canadian business, that is organized big business, has done its best to thwart eight hour day legislation, to thwart the minimum wage legislation, to thwart old age pensions, to thwart unemployment insurance. Canadian

business has been again and again opposed to these things. On occasion they would say: We are British. When we have pointed out that in Great Britain they have social legislation of this kind, and have had it for years, " Oh well," they reply, " that is different." They back away from their patriotism then, and a cheap patriotism it is, too, when you put it up to them. For years they came to our committees and said, " We cannot do anything because we have to compete with the great republic to the south of us. They have no eight-hour day in many of the states, no unemployment insurance, no sickness insurance; so we cannot do anything at the present time in Canada." Now a large measure of social security legislation has been enacted in the United States, and yet here in Canada we have Canadian workers, in the steel plants, working, I am credibly informed, thirteen hours at night when we have vast numbers of unemployed. We cannot do anything to alter the situation because the British North America Act stands in the way. We have five thousand families unemployed in my city, and have had them for years. They are growing old in receiving relief. These people should have had unemployment insurance years ago, but when we propose it we are told: " We cannot do	anything-the	British North
America Act!" And Canadian business rejoices because the British North America Act blocks any legislation of the kind. These are the matters to which we ought to pay some attention. But the Gazette says:
There is ground for a great deal of satisfaction on the part of Canadian business, as well as on the part of all minorities in this country, in the fact that the British North America Act has survived the efforts of a dominion parliament to shoot holes through it.
Was there anything in the legislation proposed by the late government two years ago, in regard to the eight-hour day, unemployment insurance and all the rest of it, that took away the rights of minorities? Not that I know of. We all agree that these things should be done, and the British North America Act is just a herring across the trail. What we really have to face is a certain class of people in this country who will stand behind this old document seventy years of age and prevent us from progressing on to better things.
This government should be given a chance to determine its action. I did not expect any action last year, because it was the first year of a new government in power, but when we come this year and urge that some-

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Rogers
thing be done, about all that we get from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), representing the government, is simply an enumeration of a number of difficulties in the way.


Ernest Lapointe: No, no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: And he says we cannot do anything about it.


Ernest Lapointe: I never said that. I said you could not do anything by the appointment of a committee. That is not the way. I said that this must be done by communicating with the provinces and negotiating to try to come to an agreement- not your committee way.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We have been
communicating and negotiating with the provinces for years past, and now something in the way of action is demanded.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member has just said he did not expect anything last year, but he expects something this year. I do, too, but not by the appointment of a committee.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I think the least the government can do is to give us the assurance that at the very earliest date such a conference as the minister has suggested will be called, and that ways and means will be found at that conference of bringing about the desired reforms. When I said that before, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) rather laughed at it. I want to say that " where there's a will there's a way," and I am quite confident that if the Minsiter of Finance, who after all knows the west very well, or he did a few years ago-I do not know whether he has forgotten the pit from which he was digged-


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall not take second place to the hon. member in my knowledge of the west right now.


James Shaver Woodsworth: All right. If he remembers anything of the west, then I say it is possible for him and the Minister of Justice and others to work out schemes by which these practical reforms will be brought about. I am not a lawyer and I am getting tired of this talk of constitutional questions and quibbling of all kinds. What I want, and all that my friend who moved this resolution (Mr. Coldwell) wants, is to discover some means of solving the practical problems that so seriously menace the 'welfare of this country.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): I wish to speak briefly to this resolution and in support of the objections to its adoption which were expressed so clearly this afternoon by my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). The mover of the resolution in his concluding remarks made the novel and refreshing suggestion that he would be quite prepared to withdraw it if he could be convinced that there was some better way of dealing with a constitutional amendment at this time. Perhaps he is already convinced that there is a better way; at all events, I am going to take him at his word, and shall try to indicate the reasons why in my opinion this resolution is inopportune and unacceptable at this time.	.
My first objection to the resolution is this: No investigation by a special committee of this house and no resolution of this house can promote or expedite the amendment of the British North America Act. We may declare here that the dominion parliament ought to have jurisdiction over hours and wages and unemployment insurance, but this declaration would not of itself bring us any closer to the realization of that objective. The question of how the proposed amendments would be given effect would still remain unsettled.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the point.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That question, as was
pointed out by the Minister of Justice this afternoon, can be determined only by consultation and cooperation between the dominion and the provinces, and it has already been brought to the attention of this house that such consultation and such cooperation are now in progress.
The truth of the matter is-and I am quite sure it is known to most members of this house-that we do not possess in Canada at this time any recognized procedure for the amendment of our own constitution. So far as I am aware the Canadian constitution is the only federal constitution the world over which suffers from this particular infirmity. It is perhaps only of antiquarian interest to seek to determine wrhy it was that there was this great omission in the original terms of the British North America Act. There are some who suggest that the omission was simply a matter of inadvertence. There are others who contend that the omission was deliberate. I am bound to say that there is a body of evidence to support each point of view. But that particular question does not concern us now. We are confronted with this situation, that, the British North America Act does not
B.NA. Act-Mr. Rogers

of itself contain any procedure for its own amendment. Any recommendations that might be made by a select committee of this house would be nothing more than recommendations. As I suggested a moment ago, they would not of themselves advance the amendment of the British North America Act.
There are different opinions as to how we could proceed to develop a mechanism for the amendment of the British North America Act. Indeed I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) will admit that the determination of the procedure by which we shall amend the British North America Act is of more vital importance than the determination of specific amendments which may be made at any given point of time. And even if a select committee of this house were able to agree that the dominion parliament ought to have jurisdiction over hours and wages and unemployment insurance, we would still be faced with the necessity of consulting with the provinces and seeking to secure from them an agreement as to the precise measure of consultation and agreement which would be required in order to enact these amendments. Upon that question, as was said a moment ago by the hon member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), there is a divergence of opinion in this country. There are those, for example, who contend that the British North America Act, lacking as it does any specific procedure of amendment, can be amended only when all the provinces have given consent to any proposal for amendment. There are those on the contrary who have suggested that the dominion .parliament should of itself propose amendments, as has been done in times past, and that a joint address of the two houses of parliament at Ottawa should be a sufficient basis upon which the amendment to the British North America Act could be grounded. Between those two extreme views you have another view that there should be the assent of the two houses of the dominion parliament, in the form of an address, and at least some measure of approval by the various provincial legislatures. But that vexed question has yet to be determined, and in advance of its determination I do not see that any select committee of this House of Commons could serve a useful purpose at this time in proposing specific amendments to the British North America Act.
My second objection to the resolution is this:	In view of the recent decisions of the
privy council it would be more appropriate, and probably more effective, to give the provinces an opportunity to take the initiative in proposing specific constitutional

amendments at this time. In support of this contention it will be necessary to remind the house of the sequence of events which led to the far-reaching decisions of the privy council which were announced last week. Until January, 1935, it was generally assumed in this dominion that exclusive jurisdiction over hours and wages and unemployment insurance lay with the provinces. As a matter of fact I remember reading a report of a most interesting address by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) which was delivered in the month of November preceding January, 1935, in which he stated in the most vigorous terms that no lawyer doubted that the exclusive jurisdiction over these matters lay with the provincial legislatures. How was it, then, that despite the view of the courts of this country and of legal practitioners generally we find the dominion parliament assuming a jurisdiction over these matters which everyone had supposed belonged to the provinces? I do not think I misrepresent the situation when I say that this astonishing change came about as a result of a decision which was reached by the then Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Bennett). Early in September of 1934 the present leader of the opposition went to Geneva. I suggest that on his way to or from Geneva he saw a great light. As events have proved, it was a false and deceptive light, and with his wide knowledge of law and history he ought to have known that it was a false and deceptive light. But he chose to accept its guidance, and because he accepted its guidance we find ourselves in the position to-day of having a definition of provincial rights in respect to these matters which to some extent, I think, goes further than any decisions have gone in previous years.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. minister had better wait until he sees the decisions before making such an emphatic statement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I might say that before the attempt of the late administration to appropriate provincial powers under section 132 of the British North America Act, the trend of recent decisions of the privy council was toward an enlargement of the federal jurisdiction under peace, order and good government, and at least toward a more sympathetic interpretation of the trade and commerce clause as a means of enlarging the authority of the dominion parliament. It would appear now that this trend has been arrested if not reversed and that our last state is worse than our first.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is exactly the same as the first.

B.NA. Act-Mr. Rogers


Norman McLeod Rogers: With great deference to his legal knowledge, I beg to differ with my hon. friend on that point. The violence of the attack on provincial autonomy and the arbitrary method employed by the present leader of the opposition in his invasion of provincial jurisdiction had the natural result of placing the provinces on the defensive, and accentuated their determination to maintain their autonomy before the courts. As a consequence it would seem that the decisions of the privy council as announced last week have gone further in emphasizing and entrenching provincial rights than any decisions given for many years. Indeed, I think I may at least express this view, that when the decisions come to us, if they bear out the newspaper reports already published, it will be found that this country is going to be more fettered in respect to certain phases of its external relations than it has been hitherto. In other words, I believe it is possible to say that the counter-attack has been more successful than the attack. Instead of gaining ground the dominion government has lost ground; instead of enlisting the cooperation of the provinces, the method adopted has thrown a cloud of suspicion and distrust over the field of dominion-provincial relations, and instead of reconciliation there has been recrimination and at least a measure of reaction.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this attempt of the late administration to use section 132 of the British North America Act as a means of amending the constitution-for it was that-has produced some of these results I have indicated and has actually left dominion-provincial relations in a less satisfactory state than before. One fact at least has been established; it is the one cause for satisfaction which can be salvaged from this episode. We now know, if there was any uncertainty before, that exclusive jurisdiction over hours, wages and unemployment insurance lies with the provincial legislatures; all doubts upon this point have been dispelled. But I want to suggest that it has cost us something to have these doubts removed; it has cost us far more than was necessary. It would have cost a vastly greater sum if the leader of the opposition had carried out his original intention and had built up an elaborate civil service organization to administer the several statutes which now have been declared invalid by the highest court of appeal. We heard, only a few days ago of members of the Employment and Social Insurance Commission who, because of the recent decisions of the privy council, find themselves without
employment. In 1935 an order in council was passed which contemplated something in the neighbourhood of one hundred key positions under the Employment and Social Insurance Act. This did not begin to include the clerical positions which would have been established across this country had that act been put fully into effect. What it would have cost individuals and business enterprises to adjust and readjust their operations to these invalid statutes is beyond calculation.
There is an old maxim that it is well to forgive and forget. I am quite willing, as we must all be willing, to forgive; but I think, in the interests of this country, we ought not to forget this particular transaction. What has happened and what has been avoided should serve as a warning to all governments against forsaking the tried and proved foundations of constitutional usage for the shifting sands of political expediency. I shall say no more on this question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Say it over again,


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am quite sure that if the leader of the opposition has exception to take to what I have said he will find ample time for reminding me of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Norman McLeod Rogers: We are now, however, confronted with a situation which at least is fairly definite.
That brings me to the second objection I take to the resolution which is now before the house. The provinces possess the jurisdiction to deal with labour and social legislation. This jurisdiction cannot be taken from them by violence or by any declaration that can be made by this parliament. It will not, in the light of existing judicial decisions, be transferred to the dominion parliament by the process of judicial interpretation. It can be given to the dominion parliament, in whole or in part, only by an act of voluntary surrender of jurisdiction by the provincial legislatures. The initiative, in other words, now lies with the provinces themselves.
It has already been brought to the attention of the house that an effort has been made through a dominion-provincial conference to determine the procedure by which the British North America Act shall be amended in future years. This resolution, however, appears to contemplate something in addition to that, namely, the adoption of a number of specific amendments here and now as a result of which jurisdiction over social legislation might be transferred from the provincial legislatures to the dominion parliament. I have had a very brief experience of dominion-provincial conferences. I happened to be present
44S
B.NA. Act-Mr. Rogers

as a member of the secretariat at the conference of 1927, and I have attended two or three dominion-provincial conferences during the past year. I do not think it would be unfair or in any way unreasonable to suggest that sometimes these conferences have failed because they have met in an atmosphere of suspicion and excessive caution. At times there appears to be a feeling on the part of the provinces that the dominion government has some ulterior object in view whenever specific proposals are made to them. At all events we do know that dominion-provincial conferences from time to time have not been as successful as we could have wished. I agree wholly with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in that observation. But I wonder whether, in view of the recent decis-sions of the privy council, the initiative does not now belong with the provinces.
Would any useful end be served at this time by the dominion parliament concurring in the report of a select committee proposing to the provincial legislatures that they should abandon some portion of their jurisdiction over social questions? After all, any doubts which may have existed before have now been resolved; the provinces possess the jurisdiction. Would it not be more reasonable to leave it to an interprovincial conference, if you will, to go into this question of whether certain measures of social legislation can be carried out more effectively by uniform action on the part of the provincial legislatures or by action of the dominion parliament? A few days ago it was said that public opinion in this country is tending more strongly in the direction of supporting more social legislation, and also supporting the view that such legislation should be enacted by the dominion parliament. I wonder why that public opinion could not be focussed also upon provincial legislatures, so that they might of themselves, without any compulsion, without any undue pressure from the dominion government, voluntarily surrender their jurisdiction in some respects to the dominion parliament.
It would not be the first time the question of constitutional amendments has been dealt with by an interprovincial conference as distinguished from a dominion-provincial conference. As a matter of fact, the first conference which was held after confederation was a conference of that kind. It was summoned by Mr. Mercier, then premier of Quebec, acting in close cooperation with Sir Oliver Mowat, then premier of Ontario. As a result of its deliberations that conference actually did propose a number of specific amendments to the British North America Act. It is not necessary to go into the history of

those resolutions. As a matter of fact, they fell by the wayside. They were sent to the imperial parliament with the suggestion that apart entirely from the views of the dominion parliament they should be enacted as amendments to the British North America Act, but it was represented to the imperial government of the day that this conference did not speak for Canada as a whole and that the dominion government would take strong exception to any attempt on the part of the imperial parliament to enact those resolutions as amendments to the British North America Act.
My point is simply this, that there is nothing to prevent the provinces from meeting together and discussing, in the light of the recent privy council decision, what they will do and how far they are prepared to go in adopting uniform statutes to deal, let us say, with hours of labour and wages; or, if they are not so prepared, to agree among themselves that they will transfer this jurisdiction to the dominion parliament.
My third objection to the resolution before the house, Mr. Speaker, is this: The mover of the resolution seems to have assumed that substantial amendments to the British North America Act are necessary in order to obtain adequate measures of social security in this country. I doubt if that assumption is wholly justified. I share entirety his view that owing largely to the increasing hazards associated with the changing character of economic life we must go further in the direction of social security than we have gone hitherto, but I do not think it follows of necessity that the sole responsibility for erecting that structure of social security should fall upon the dominion parliament. Clearly, the main object is to realize certain of these purposes, to remove as many as possible of these hazards or to afford protection against them, but I believe it quite possible and perhaps desirable that, particularly in a country of this kind, the framework should include legislation passed by different legislative bodies. At the present time practically all provincial legislatures have passed enactments providing for mothers' allowances and for workmen's compensation. Municipalities in some provinces have cooperated with respect to mothers' allowances and old age pensions. In the case of old age pensions there is a division of financial responsibility, though the legislation itself was enacted by this parliament. Already one province has embarked upon a measure of health insurance and another province has upon its statute books an act providing for state medicine, though as yet it has not been proclaimed.

B.NA.. Act-Mr. Cahan
After all, we must recognize that within a federal constitution we do have a collection of political entities; we do have a division of obligation and of powers. I do not think it follows of necessity, therefore, that in order to achieve these social objectives we must enact far-reaching amendments to the Canadian constitution. Much requires to be done in the way of a survey of the whole field in order that each may know what it can do efficiently. I am not suggesting that the dominion parliament ought not to have some powers which it does not now possess, but as I said a moment ago I do not think it follows that substantial amendments are necessary in order to carry out the objectives the mover of the resolution has in mind.
Let me speak for one moment of the United States; the hon. member referred to the social security program in that country. That program has not been carried through by a transfer of jurisdiction from the states to congress. In the main it has been carried out as a result of financial assistance being given by congress to the states providing that particular measures of social security enacted by the states conform to standards laid down by congress.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I just ask there: Does the Minister of Labour regard that as a sound principle?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I quite agree with my hon. friend that there is an objection to a separation of the taxing and spending authorities. I have no doubt that was the objection my hon. friend had in mind when he asked that question. But it may be that under a federal constitution certain legislation of this kind may serve during a transition stage or may even operate as a substitute for a definite transfer of jurisdiction from one authority to another. Upon that question I am bound to say I have no final opinion; indeed it would be a great mistake to have a final opinion.
Apart from his suggestion that this select committee should concern itself with the proposal of specific amendments to the British North America Act touching social legislation, the hon. member who moved this resolution indicated his own belief that the committee should go much further than that and consider the financial relations between the dominion and the provinces, the reform of the Canadian senate-I think I am correct in suggesting that this also was in his mind-and in general deal with what he termed constitutional questions.
Apart from the objections to the resolution which I have just indicated, it does seem to me that to vest a committee with such wide
terms of reference would most certainly defeat the object my hon. friend has in mind. I agree with him wholly that one cannot usefully consider the transfer of jurisdiction over social questions apart from the consideration of dominion-provincial finance. But the subjects of dominion-provincial finance, of debt and of other related subjects are not of a kind to lend themselves to useful investigation in the short period which could be given them during the present session of parliament.
For these several reasons I repeat my opposition to the resolution and express the hope that the mover may see fit to withdraw it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), it seems to me that the confused remarks made by the mover of the resolution (Mr. Coldwell) have been still further confused by the address just now delivered by the minister. As a matter of fact it is not a question of the transfer of jurisdiction; that does not enter into the real picture. The British North America Act as originally drafted, interpreted and construed, was indeed a very good act. In fact I believe to this day it remains a very good act, and I doubt whether a committee of the House of Commons can be expected successfully to clarify it.
When the act was passed certain legislative authority was given to each province. Section 92 states:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,-
1.	The amendment from time to time, notwithstanding anything in this act, of the constitution of the province, except as regards the office of lieutenant governor.
2.	Direct taxation within the province in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes.
3.	The borrowing of money on the sole credit of the province.
4.	The establishment and tenure of provincial offices and the appointment and payment of provincial officers.
5.	The management and sale of the public lands belonging to the province and of the timber and wood thereon.
6 The establishment, maintenance and management of public and reformatory prisons in and for the province.
7.	The establishment, maintenance, and management of hospitals, asylums, charities, and eleemosynary institutions in and for the province, other than marine hospitals.
8.	Municipal institutions in the province.
9.	Shop, saloon, tavern, auctioneer, and other licences in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial, local or municipal purposes.

B.NA. Act-Mr. Cahan

Paragraph 10 deals at length with local works and undertakings other than those such as lines of railway crossing from one province to another. Although I should like to read it,
I shall not take time to do so. Then paragraph 11 reads:
11.	The incorporation of companies with provincial objects.	.	.	,
12.	The solemnization of marriage in the
province.			[DOT]
13.	Property and civil rights m the province.
Paragraph 14 is somewhat longer, having to do with the administration of justice in the province. Paragraph 15 deals with the imposition of punishment by fine, penalty or imprisonment. Paragraph 16 reads:
16. Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province.
From the first to the last of the discussions in the Supreme Court of Canada and in the judicial committee of the privy council without exception it has been held that all legislative powers not found in section 92 are vested in the parliament of Canada. There is no doubt about that. Hon. members may have heard of the discussions when the British North America Act was framed and those which took place during the first twenty years of confederation. I knew personally the men from the maritime provinces who had to do with the framing of the act. Time and again in private conversation and in public I have heard them state their belief as to the meaning and intent of one section of the act. Certainly paragraph 13, dealing with property and civil rights in the province, never was understood at confederation or for twenty years thereafter as including unemployment insurance, the control and regulation of industry in the province, the hours of labour, the maximum or minimum of wages of labour. Those matters were never thought to rest within paragraph 13, property and civil rights in the province. All the remaining paragraphs, with the exception of 13, are clear. There is no ambiguity. Except for the ambiguity and confusion which is found in the words " property and civil rights in the province," there would be absolutely no doubt in the mind of any student that unemployment insurance, hours of labour, wages and the regulation of industry are within the exclusive legislative control of the parliament of Canada.
I cannot give an exact date, but I believe until about 1896 I had a copy of every decision made by the judicial committee of the privy council and a copy of the shorthand report of every argument before that body concerning the British North America Act. So far as my intelligence permitted I have made a

careful study of the matter. It was not until after Sir John Macdonald came into office in 1878 and followed Edward Blake in asserting certain powers of the dominion in respect to imperial and external affairs that the judicial committee of the privy council began, with decision after decision, to give a wider interpretation and construction to "property and civil rights," and to cut down the general power vested in the parliament of Canada under section 91.
Section 91 states:
91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say-
And then follow twenty-nine paragraphs. _
I think I have read every one of the decisions of the judicial committee of the privy council which were applicable to Canada, and in recent years, certainly in the last forty, it has never exercised strictly judicial functions. The judicial committee of the privy council differs from the high court of justice in England in that its decisions indicate pronouncements of what it believes to be high political principles, as apart and distinct from strictly legal interpretations. I suggest that it is not advisable for me to follow the Minister of Labour in a discussion of the recent opinions of the judicial committee of the privy council. They themselves have suggested that their opinions in respect of these references are simply advisory and that they have no legal binding obligation upon the courts of Canada. However, if the recent cabled reports are borne out by the express terms of their opinions as they will be found finally reported in the law reports, certainly I think the criticism which I have made as to decisions of the judicial committee of the privy council in the past may still be found to apply to some of the opinions recently given.
My hon. friend quoted from an address which I gave in November, 1934, and which I still think was a pretty good address. I think I gave a fairly clear summary of the decisions given, not only by our supreme court but by the judicial committee of the privy council prior to that date. There then arose certain contentions. The legal experts of the labour section of the Geneva conference contended,

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Cahan
by a series of articles pronounced and published in international journals, that under section 132 of the British North America Act, and in view of the radio decision and the aeronautics decision which had just previously been delivered-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Were they not in 1932?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so, but what is a couple of years in a matter like that? It sometimes takes a year to study these decisions of the judicial committee of the privy council before one can form any accurate idea of their meaning or intent. They had been delivered previously and they led to public discussion in legal and other journals to the effect that the parliament of Canada was not fulfilling its duty to Geneva and to the League of Nations because it had not ratified the labour conventions dealing with hours of labour and rates of wages and had not exercised its legislative authority to put them into effect.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Did they suggest that we ought to acquire jurisdiction in that way?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They suggested we had already acquired it under and as set out in section 132. We were not thereby acquiring jurisdiction. No jurisdiction could be acquired other than the jurisdiction vested in parliament by section 132. They argued that in the opinions given in the two cases I have mentioned it was decided by the judicial committee of the privy council that that jurisdiction had been acquired.


Jean-François Pouliot: A convention which is not ratified is not a convention.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not going to discuss that with my hon. friend.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will express my views afterwards.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. member has a perfect right to discuss his views, but he has no right to make impertinent remarks.


Jean-François Pouliot: I may not be as bad as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Probably not. I know I
am always being unfair in making insolent remarks and I have no doubt my hon. friend is simply following my bad example.


Jean-François Pouliot: Not to the same degree.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend's accusation that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the government and the parliament of Canada to filch jurisdiction is not well founded and is not fairly made. If he presents 31111-29J
it as a criticism of the government of Canada under the leadership of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), then it is also a criticism of parliament itself and of a parliament in which none of the members had' the courage to register their votes against the resolutions approving these conventions or against the legislation based thereon.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend is so singular it is possible he may have. I do not remember, but I accept his statement. Therefore what was done was merely to exhaust another possible legislative power which, if held to be within the legislative competence of parliament, would enable parliament to deal with the social and economic questions which were then worrying the people of Canada. The final decisions have now been given and1 we are back to the condition of affairs which applied when I delivered my address in November, 1934, the address so highly commended by the hon. gentleman. But where are we now? By successive decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and the judicial committee of the privy council it has now been held that all questions relating to compulsory insurance, to salaries and wages and to hours of employment are vested in the province, since section 92 of the British North America Act states that legislation respecting property and civil rights in the province is vested in the province. This vast field of legislative action which is now declared by the courts to be vested in the province is exclusively covered by that section dealing with property and civil rights in the province and the last clause, number 16, which reads:
Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province.
Nobody has contended so far, at least that I have noticed, that legislative jurisdiction with regard to wages and hours of labour is vested in the province because those are matters of a merely local or private nature. They come under an interpretation of clause number 13, which was never thought of by the framers of the British North America Act. It was not discovered until some years after the. British North America Act of 1867 had been enacted that under property and civil rights the province had exclusive jurisdiction in a vast legislative field dealing with every phase of our industrial life. Now what is required, I think, is not so much to ask the provinces to forego any legislative jurisdiction which is really vested in them. All that is necessary is a clarification of one or

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Cahan
two sections of the British North America Act-one clause of section 92, and perhaps also section 91, in the recital .preceding its first clause.
How can that best be done? We know that, in the past, in no case where parliament by a joint resolution of both houses has asked for an amendment or modification of the British North America Act, has it been denied by the imperial parliament. I suggest that the government of which my hon. friend is a member have not altogether abandoned that procedure because we had an occasion last session when a joint resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons was introduced for the purpose of securing from the imperial parliament a very radical amendment of the British North America Act, far more radical than any amendment required to enable parliament to adjust our social and economic difficulties, and what I would suggest to my hon. friend is that to follow the procedure suggested by the Minister of Labour is simply to prolong the agony, as he calls it, or perhaps it was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who spoke of the problem as being agonizing. In any case the suggestion was boldly made that if something were not done we would have organized insurrection and an attempt by force of arms to disrupt this country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I must protest against anything of that kind being put in my mouth.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, I have heard this evening from some hon. gentleman that there was likely to be a complete disruption of this dominion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I said there was danger of secession.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, secession was tried in the republic to the south, and it cost a million lives; if secession were tried in this country it might cost something in proportion. Canada is not prepared for secession. No province is going into secession, and the threat of secession, by way of intimidation, is the worst possible way to try to secure conciliatory action on the part of any province or of this dominion.
To cover what is now pressing, I asked the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for a precise statement of the remedies which he had in view. It is confusing to talk in philosophic terms when one is dealing with the precise wording of a statute, and the hon. member did subsequently explain, in very simple language which we could all understand, that he had in view the legislative power of

this parliament to bring into being a system of compulsory unemployment insurance; second, the legislative power of this parliament to deal with hours of labour; and, third, the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament to deal with minimum wages. Now, if that is wihat is required, why not draft in simple (vords-I am sure the Department of Justice can do it, and I am quite confident there are other members of the legal fraternity who could do it-some simple amendment to the British North America Act, sections 91 and 92, which would authorize the parliament of Canada to exercise such legislative jurisdiction? Let us have it in concrete form. Let us have it expressed in a joint resolution of both houses.


Mr. THORSON:: Would the hon. gentleman support such a resolution?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why, certainly. I think there may be doubt as to whether this parliament is more capable of dealing competently and adequately with the question, for instance, of hours of labour and perhaps of wages, than the provincial legislatures. There is a difference of opinion about it. Arguments can be urged on both sides. There is no doubt now that any one province can legislate with regard to these matters. The contention, as I understand it, is this, that parliament should deal with wages and hours of labour in such a way that its legislation would prevail throughout the length and breadth of the whole dominion. On the other hand, there are those who suggest that the conditions complained of are not the same throughout the length and breadth of the country. I remember an argument which I listened to in my own province of Quebec, in which it was suggested that conditions were not the same in all parts of that province, and that hours of labour should be different in the northern mining country, in the lumber camps, in some of the industrial towns, and in the city of Montreal, and reasonably strong arguments were made from that point of view.
But this parliament is in favour of having uniform legislation throughout the length and breadth of Canada. At least, if I understand the expressions of opinions which were given during the last session of the late parliament, in the 1935 session, if I fully appreciate the political speeches made by the right hon. leader of the opposition of that day, and if I understand the same suggestions which have been made from the government side again this session, there is a consensus of opinion that parliament can deal more efficiently and more effectively with these matters than can

B.NA. Act-Mr. Pouliot
the several legislatures. That opinion may be due to what I have observed during my twelve years as a member of this parliament. I notice that whenever any question comes up in which the legislative competence of the dominion is pitted against the legislative jurisdiction of the province, the members of this parliament on both sides immediately assume, with a unanimity that is seldom observed, that the parliament of Canada is more intelligent, more experienced and more competent to deal with such matters than is any provincial legislature.
On the other hand I notice that in the provinces with which I have experience, especially the two larger provinces, the members of the legislature think that with regard to these matters they are closer to the people; they are closer to the soil; they know better what is needed to remedy the evils which exist. I suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that this parliament is not the only parliament of the country. There is a real difference of opinion as to whether this parliament is more competent to deal with certain social questions than are the legislatures of the provinces. But if we are resolved that parliament should do it, and that parliament should acquire the legislative competence to do it, the matter is really one of procuring simple amendments to the British North America Act as it exists at present, so as to make it clear that regulations of wages and hours of labour are not included exclusively in "property and civil rights," and so as to make it clear that the parliament of Canada has legislative competence to deal with the question of unemployment insurance.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend suggest that we should do it without first consulting with the provinces?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not suggesting that. My hon. friend knows that one weakness I have shown in this house is in contending, whether under the federal government of my hon. friends opposite or under federal governments led by the successive prime ministers under whom I have served., that to maintain peace, order and good government in this country there should be the utmost efforts at conciliation and cooperation and joint action between the federal and provincial parliaments. But this I say, that every provincial conference which I have attended or of which I have read the proceedings, failed to arrive at concrete decisions simply because its members went off into a discussion of all sorts of philosophical and hypothetical questions with regard to government. I suggest that my
hon. friend the Minister of Justice should have his department draw up two or three simple amendments-a very few words would express them-which would give parliament beyond a doubt the jurisdiction which he desires, and have those amendments submitted to this parliament, and, if he so desires, submitted to each of the provincial governments. The discussion would then be restricted to really concise and definite propositions, and we would be more likely to reach a unanimity of opinion.
I did not intend to enter upon any such discussion as this, but I was provoked to it by what I thought was the unfair criticism on the part of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), which was due not to any malicious desire on his part to be unfairly critical of the late government, but rather to the fact that his philosophic brain has not yet taken into consideration all the points in issue in this discussion.
Mr. JEAN -FRAN QOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, very seldom have I followed a debate so closely as this one. This afternoon the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was veiy interesting, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) very energetic, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) very enthusiastic; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) spoke as a business man; the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) spoke as a statesman, as did the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). And now, looking ahead of me, I see the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) to whom I have listened very attentively. He has expressed many views on this matter, both inside and outside the house, every time contradictory, and never right. It is most extraordinary that an hon. member has expressed such divergent views without once attaining the truth. It is a marvellous accomplishment. But are we serious? Yes or no?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You are not.


An hon. MEMBER:: We do not take you seriously.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is that legislation which has been referred to so often this afternoon and to-night? It is a fake, a bait, a vote-catcher announced by the big broadcast of January, 1935, made by the right hon. leader of the Toiy party (Mr. Bennett). There was nothing to it; it was only another attempt to have the Canadian people forget the way he mismanaged the business of this country during the years he was in power. The same criticism applies to all his colleagues of that
B.N.A. Act-Mr. Pouliot

time with the exception, perhaps, of the exMinister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart), who looked only after his own department and had nothing to do with that so-called social legislation. I except him.
But speaking of contradictions, we just heard the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George say that the British North America Act was a good act; yet afterwards he said that he had found ambiguity and confusion in section 92. I am not surprised that he says that an act in which ambiguity and confusion are found is a good act. I can say the same of his speeches: they are good, but they are full of confusion and ambiguity. He said-I took a very careful note of this- "I doubt whether a committee of the house could clarify it"-that is the British North America Act-"successfully." A committee composed of the laymen who are in this house could not do that. On the other hand, the hon. gentleman said, members of the legal fraternity could draft a little amendment to suit the purposes of this resolution. It cannot be done by a committee composed of members duly elected by the people of Canada, but it can be done by civil servants. This reminds me of what has been said by the leader of the Tory party about legislation. Legislation is drafted by officers of the crown. A government submits it to the house. It is passed by parliament and then it is interpreted by the judiciary. They sometimes understand nothing in it; so much the better.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George spoke about the exclusive legislative control of the Dominion of Canada. It is not exclusive on one side only; it is exclusive on both sides. It means that on the one hand the dominion government has exclusive jurisdiction and that on the other hand each of the provinces has also exclusive jurisdiction. St. Lawrence-St. George spoke of the fathers of confederation, but he must have been very young if he had those conversations with them, because most of the fathers of confederation died a long time ago. If he was old enough to have conversations with them, especially at the time Sir John Macdonald came into power in 1878 as Prime Minister of Canada-well, he must be nearly a hundred years old. I speak of St. Lawrence-St. George.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member must not refer to the hon. gentleman as "St. Lawrence-St. George;" he must say " the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George."


Jean-François Pouliot: I was not referring to the two saints but to the member for that constituency. However, I will say the hon. mem-
I Mr. Pouliot.J
ber for St. Lawrence-St. George; I have no objection to that. The exclusive legislative control of the dominion and the exclusive legislative control of the provinces constitute a most important point. What does it mean? It means, according to the British North America Act, that the dominion government can do certain things which the provinces cannot do, while on the other hand the provinces can do other things which the dominion government cannot do.
I do not want to recall any personal matters, but may I tell you, sir, that my grandfather fought confederation with Mackenzie and other members of the Liberal party-I mean Alexander Mackenzie and those who voted against confederation-because he found in it a disguised legislative union. And that is the Tory point of view, to have a Tory legislative union for confederation-in other words, centralization. The Liberal party fought for decentralization, and I keep as a family heirloom the text and translation of speeches made by the great leaders of the Liberal party in Ontario such as Alexander Mackenzie, Blake, Mowat and others who respected the principle of decentralization and regarded it as a Liberal principle. In the province of Quebec the Liberals think on that point just as the Liberals of Ontario do. We fear centralization; we fear that confederation might become a disguised legislative union; and the fathers of confederation wanted to make that clear, to make it definite, so that there should be no provincial encroachment upon federal powers and no federal encroachment upon provincial powers. That is clear and simple. How can it be interpreted differently?
It is most ridiculous that one of the leaders of the bar of Ontario, who is now chief justice of that great province, and one of the leaders of the bar of Quebec, a former president of the Canadian Bar Association, as well as other masters of the legal profession had to cross the sea in order to discuss before the privy council that so-called social legislation of 1935. Was that legislation based upon obligations arising from a treaty? No sir, and for a very good reason which I shall explain. Section 132 refers to the binding obligations arising from a treaty. It is said that parliament had not ratified these conventions; but how can a convention exist when it is not ratified? It reminds me of the astonishment of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George last year when he heard a member in the far corner of the house speak about a unilateral agreement. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George laughed at that; he thought it was nonsensical. But what did he

B.NA. Act-Mr. Pouliot
say when he argued about the binding force of a convention that had not been ratified? Is that not a unilateral convention such as he laughed at last year?
We see that the so-called social legislation which has been thrown into the waste-paper basket by the highest court, the privy council, was simply a vote-catcher. There was no treaty; there was no convention; it was only a formula drafted by the experts at Geneva, suggesting what could be done if it were desired. Did Canada sign a treaty with any other nation represented at Geneva for that so-called social legislation? No, sir; you know too well to say that. It was a matter of make believe, to make the Canadian people believe that we were bound by a treaty to pass such legislation, not in accordance with the constitution, but against the constitution. The right hon. leader of the Tory party must remember that when we were on the opposition side the member for Temiscouata told him that before declaring that he was going to amend the British North America Act, there was one thing which he should indicate, namely, what amendment or amendments he had in view. It was pointed out to him that it was a very bad thing to declare that he was going to amend the British North America Act without saying in what specific way he would do so. He had to indicate that such and such a section of the act would be amended for such and such a reason; and only these sections should be amended, not the whole act.
Personally I am not very fond of the British North America Act, and for a very good reason. I do not believe it is perfect, because it was inspired by fear, the fear of annexation. On the other hand, since it is our constitution, it must be respected to a certain extent and it must not be changed without sufficient care. Let us look at the report of the special committee on the British North America Act

a committee of this house. It is a book which I recommend to every member who has not read it or who does not belong to the committee. It contains very interesting evidence. This committee, having sat for several days, did not reach a single conclusion. No amendment was suggested and we find in the report only the answers of the representatives of each province and a resume of the evidence given by several witnesses who appeared before the committee.
I am in favour of a committee of the House of Commons to study the British North America Act, not with regard to social legislation but with regard to taxation, in
order to see how taxation should be divided, in order that each province should be at home in its field of taxation, in its sphere of action, and that the dominion government should be equally at home in its field of taxation and its sphere of action. It is not in order to create any kind of trouble between the dominion and the provinces; it is so that we may have order as between the federal government and the provinces, and that order will come when taxation is adjusted, when the provinces spend only the money they get from their own taxation and when Ottawa will not have to distribute to the provinces or municipalities money obtained by federal taxation.
I want order, and the right hon. leader of the Tory party is responsible for the disorder that exists not only in dominion but also in provincial finances, and in the municipal field as well. He has a great responsibility in that connection. He may come and say, " On my authority as a member of the bar, with a standing of many years, I tell you that we were bound by treaty in connection with that so-called legislation." That is false; there is nothing to it. To support my contention I do not have the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, but I have the most intelligent judges sitting on the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada and the members of the .privy council of England, men without prejudice, who say that so-called legislation is just bunk. To show my sincerity, sir, in the votes and proceedings to-morrow you will see notices for the introduction of six bills to repeal the acts passed by the Bennett government in connection with their so-called legislation. Those bills will bear the name of the member for Temiscouata. I am being true to my word; I said those bills, which were simply fakes, should go to the waste-paper basket.
I will add a word of comment and praise with regard to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I know he is sincere, and I give him credit for that, but I tell him -as he knows very well-that it is impossible to have a dominion enactment with regard to hours of labour and wages. The hon. member knows very well that it is impossible even for a province to pass a statute applying similar hours of labour in every part of the province and equal wages to men engaged in the same industry in various parts of the province. It must be regulated by order in council. The member who addresses you now, Mr. Speaker, drew the attention of the house a very long time ago, before any labour member spoke about the matter, to hours of labour and wages in Quebec. Why was that done?
B.NA. Act-Mr. Pouliot

It was because I could not conceive that in my native province men should receive much less than their compatriots in other provinces, and I wanted to draw the attention of the government to the matter in order that those wrongs might be redressed.
That was done, as far as the federal government could do it. For that I wish to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his colleague, the Minister of Labour of the time, the Hon. Peter Heenan. They imposed conditions with regard to minimum wages and hours of labour in regard to men engaged in work being done for the dominion government. They could not go further because of a limitation imposed by a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. They wanted to do the right thing in order to help the people; they wanted to do something that might be useful, so they went the limit and we passed the legislation which was introduced by Mr. Heenan. Following that, those who were working for the dominion government received fair wages and were not asked to work more than a certain number of hours per day, or if they did work longer they received overtime. That was fair, I think. If we do something, sir, we must do it in such a way that it will help those concerned; I am sure my hon. friend from Rosetown-Biggar will agree with me. What is the use of passing legislation which is no good and which does not help those concerned? It is all right to express the pious wish that we could do this or that, but there is a way in which it can be done. We have the Statute of Westminster, and in this connection I am sorry to disagree with my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). According to section 4 of the Statute of Westminster, the parliament of the United Kingdom is not to legislate for a dominion except by consent. This means that the dominion government must express its wish before any legislation, especially any sort of legislation amending the British North America Act, is passed by the United Kingdom. It is important to have that.
Supposing the British North America Act is studied by a committee of the House of Commons, or a joint committee of the commons and senate, in order that this small group of men, representing the government and the official and unofficial opposition, may discuss the matter and reach an understanding as to what is lacking in the British North America Act. They will find that the first matter to be adjusted will be that of taxation, and they will express their views fully in that regard. They will come to the house with legislation, and if all parties repre-

sented on the committee come to an agreement it will be very easy to have that legislation passed. Later the opinion of the provinces can be secured.
Sometimes there are things which are not done but which members of the house would like to have done. If we have not the power to pass legislation such as that mentioned by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, the ruling of the privy council means that the provinces have that right, because it must exist somewhere. If we do not have the right the provinces have it, and if the provinces have it the people of this country should be told so, in order that the people may know that if the provinces do not pass such legislation as they desire they will be remiss in their duty. Then the matter will be clear and very easy to understand. This, it seems to me, is the thing to do. I ask hon. gentlemen on all sides of the house to consider that point very seriously, so that these things may be done by the proper authority in order that they may benefit those concerned.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Mr. Speaker, until I listened to the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan), I had not intended to speak on this resolution. In my opinion the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George made a suggestion which merits the careful consideration of the house. He outlined, I believe quite accurately, the essential objectives of the British North America Act. He made specific reference to sections 91 and 92, and after reading section 92 made reference to that paragraph of section 92 which deals with property and civil rights in the province, and the last paragraph which deals with matters of a merely local or private nature in the province.
I believe it is recognized that it was in the minds of the fathers of confederation that there might be a shift of jurisdiction from the provinces to the dominion; that we were providing in our constitution for a centralized federalism; that circumstances might develop whereby matters might cease to be of a merely local or private nature in the province and become matters of national concern, and that as this change took place in the nature of the subject matter, so the courts from time to time would interpret the legislation. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George stated, I believe quite accurately, that when confederation was contemplated, it was never thought that the paragraphs of section 92 dealing with property and civil rights in the province, and matters of a local or private nature in the province would include such subjects as unemployment insurance, or the

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Thorson
wages or hours of labour. On the other hand, the decisions of the privy council have practically destroyed the effect of that portion of section 91 of the British North America Act which deals with the peace, order and good government of Canada.
What is then the situation left by the recent decisions of the privy council? The decisions mean that this parliament has no jurisdiction whatsoever to deal with unemployment insurance, no jurisdiction to deal with hours of labour, and no jurisdiction to deal with the subject of wages. I think it follows also from these decisions that parliament has no jurisdiction to regulate or control industry. The recent decisions have left all these subjects within the jurisdiction of the provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except criminal law.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes, except criminal law. Nominally the provinces now have jurisdiction to deal with these subjects. They have power to deal with unemployment insurance; they have power to deal with hours of labour, wages, conditions of employment and the regulation and control of industry. But how real is that power? If any province sought to exercise it in the manner in which many hon. members and many people throughout Canada think it ought to be exercised, what would happen? It would mean that industries would boycott the province which sought to exercise its power, and the result is that only nominally does that power now reside anywhere in Canada.
Theoretically, under the decisions of the privy council the power now rests with the provinces, but as a matter of fact, since there would be fear of driving industries out of that province which might otherwise wish to exercise proper control and regulation of industry, the power does not in actual reality exist, because no province would dare to put its full power into operation and-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Unless they all got together and passed the same statute.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes. And what probability is there of the provinces getting together? For that reason I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George merits the approval of the house; it would bring back into our constitutional scheme the original spirit of confederation. That spirit was that unless one could find within the four corners of section 92 specific jurisdiction in the hands of the provinces, then such jurisdiction automatically belonged to the dominion. If we followed the suggestion made by the hon. member for St.
Lawrence-St. George of drafting a proposed amendment to section 91 of the British North America Act-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And 92.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: -making it perfectly clear that the dominion had jurisdiction in the matter of unemployment insurance, wages, hours of labour and the control and regulation of industry generally, and then submitting an address to both houses of parliament asking that the necessary amendments be made to the British North America Act, we would then place definitely and concretely before the people of Canada a problem which from one end of the country to the other is demanding public attention. The provinces would have the opportunity of saying whether or not they approved of such an address being adopted by both houses of parliament.
Last year we set a precedent for this course of procedure. Although I did not personally approve the proposed power to be given to the provinces and was glad that the senate threw out the particular amendment then proposed, I believe that the precedent then set for proposed amendments to the British North America Act was an excellent one.
For the reasons I have briefly set forth I commend the suggestion so clearly placed before the house by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I do not
propose at this time to discuss the British North America Act. At the appropriate time I intend to discuss the judgments of the privy council. If the Minister .of Labour (Mr. Rogers) had been a little more careful in examining what my course had been, he would not have made the observations he did. It was commonly understood, I think, by most lawyers that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the provincial legislature and not the federal government had the power to enact the social legislation in question. This came about by reason of a decision or opinion of the supreme court upon certain questions submitted to it by the executive. However, with the privy council decisions on the radio case and the aeronautics case we had an entirely new conception of our powers.
Lord Sankey, the chancellor in the radio case, summarized the constitutional situation with what I think was considerable care. He made certain declarations as to the power of parliament which were far wider than any that had heretofore been made. When Lord Dunedin had to deal with the aeronautics
B.NA. Act-Mr. Bennett

case and with the treaties or conventions which were under consideration, he made a declaration as to the power of this parliament wider than anything that had heretofore been made. He declared that under peace, order and good government this parliament had jurisdiction to deal with questions which might arise out of conventions or treaties. He also placed upon section 132 of the British North America Act a construction which was far wider than had ever been placed upon it before the radio case.
In my judgment that section is a limited one. It expresses itself in terms relating to the British Empire. Had my friend the Minister of Labour been a little more anxious to know the facts rather than to endeavour to make political capital, he would have found that in this chamber while his party was still in office, I took the view, before the decisions in the radio and aeronautics cases, that we had no power to deal with these matters. The Solicitor General of that day directed my attention to section 132, and his remarks will be found in Hansard, as I hope later to indicate. After these decisions, the constitutional lawyers of this country had an entirely new conception of our powers. If hon. members have any doubt on that point, let them read the opinion of Chief Justice Duff in these very references. I think it is the consensus of opinion that his judgment is at least entitled to great consideration.


Ernest Lapointe: My friend should say, at least the opinions were divided.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were divided, but I can say this without question, that the one who had the widest experience and who was constantly in attendance at the privy council held the strong view I have indicated. We have not the text of the judgments before us and I do not intend to discuss them. There may be many additions; there may be controlling sentences and parentheses which will change entirely our conception of them. I hope so. The newspaper reports would indicate that the general trend of the judgments was to the effect. that the parliament of Canada was a very powerless institution with respect to matters affecting the welfare of Canada.
There were three points to which the Minister of Labour might have directed his attention. First, there was no concrete case before the courts. Second, the privy council have said that the opinion which they themselves have delivered has just as much value 
as the judgment of the Minister of Justice or of any law officer of the crown. Third, a judgment upon a hypothetical case is worthless. That is the position we are in. If the suggestion we made had been followed, if a real case had been taken before the courts, if the facts had been presented, then we would have had a judgment. Now we have no judgment.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Would it necessarily have
been different?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not suggest for a
moment that it would necessarily be different, but I do suggest beyond all question that it would be a judgment based upon the facts of a particular case. For instance, take the marketing act. There is in that act nothing to warrant any such construction as the newspaper reports indicate. It expresses itself in exact terms; it refers only to exports and to interprovincial business. It had attached to it, for the purpose of making it complete, the statutes of the various provinces dealing with their own domestic business. This same privy council decided, not on a hypothetical case but on a real case, that the legislature of British Columbia had certain powers, which powers it exclusively enjoyed. If one takes the two together there is no doubt as to what result one might expect.
As I pointed out, in the aeronautics case there is a continuous expression of what is contained in the radio case, and upon these this legislation was submitted to this house. Had it not been for the judgments in the aeronautics and radio cases, this legislation would not have been here. When the Minister of Labour so far forgets his position as to suggest that because someone was going to and from Geneva he conceived a certain idea, it seems to me he does not do very much justice to his own intelligence,


Norman McLeod Rogers: I read the letter sent by
the then prime minister to the provinces on the eve of his departure for Geneva.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the reason is
perfectly obvious. If the hon. gentleman had been in the house he would have known, but he was not. This is the position. We now have an opinion, but not upon a case. This opinion has no more binding effect upon parliament than has the opinion of the Minister of Justice.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is
upon the whole statutp, is it not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly, but the opinion as to its being intra or ultra vires has no more binding effect than has the opinion of

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Bennett
the law officers of the crown. Questions were asked as to the validity or invalidity-not upon a concrete case; that is the trouble. The privy council was very clear about that and expressed itself in strong terms as to the value of answers given to questions on references.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It would have a great
deal more persuasive effect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But persuasive effect and judicial effect are two different things. There is a vast difference between a judgment and a mere opinion.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: In reality there is no difference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a very great difference. Permit me to say that at least the judicial committee has said that there is a great difference. They felt that there was a great difference. One has a probative effect and the other has not. One is binding and the other is not. One is a judgment upon which execution may issue, if it be a civil matter; the other has no effect at all; it is no greater than the opinion of the law officers of the crown.
It was upon the strength of the aeronautics and radio cases that these statutes were submitted to this house. It is suggested that the provinces might be deprived of all power by a convention or treaty between a foreign power and the dominion, but I do not think one can help but remember what the privy council has so frequently said, namely, that we must not assume that parliaments and legislatures are going to pass legislation of that kind. It must be expected that they are going to be reasonably intelligent. It must not be forgotten that the representatives in parliament represent the same constituents as do the representatives in the provincial legislatures. However, perhaps I should not make any statement until I read the judgments in detail.
I am asked: What difference would it make? I put this to my hon. friend. The Lemieux act was passed by this parliament and was acted upon for a little over twenty years. A case under it then arose which went to the privy council and the decision was given that the act_ was bad. It had been bad for twenty years, but no government had submitted it to the privy council to have a declaration made. When the case arose the result was that the act was declared invalid.


Ernest Lapointe: May I ask my right hon. friend a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Ernest Lapointe: (Quebec East): If I am not mistaken, my right hon. friend has based his argument largely upon the radio and aeronautics cases. They were on reference in exactly the same way. So, if the decisions on the present references have no worth, how were the decisions so good on the radio and aeronautics cases?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point to which I was just coming. My hon. friend knows that in neither case was there the judgment of a court. Had there been a judgment in the aeronautics and radio cases the privy council could not at least have overruled its own judgment, but when it comes to expressing an opinion they can do anything they like because it is not a judgment. That is the reason why the court made it clear that we must have judgments. Everyone knows that is so. There may be some difficulty about some people understanding it, but there is no doubt it is a fact. In the United States they decline to submit questions to the courts on reference; the questions must arise out of concrete cases. In the United States in every one of the cases in which decisions of far-reaching consequence were given, the cases had a beginning in a federal court, often on a very small issue, and on the facts of the case as presented, the validity or otherwise of the statute was determined. If in this case unemployment insurance had been thus tested, I cannot think the judgment of the court would have been at least as reported in the newspapers. If the marketing act had been dealt with in accordance with the facts and the real significance of its provisions made known as they were applied by the various provinces in their domestic proceedings as compared with export and interprovincial business, I cannot conceive how the judgment could have been written as reported in the newspapers, and I say this with reserve as to the judgment being modified by other paragraphs that were not cabled. If the question of hours of labour and the question of wages, to which the hon. gentleman has referred, had been dealt with on the basis of privy council proceedings in the aeronautics and radio cases, we could not have had a conclusion of that sort. Unfortunately we have now a mass of opinions which are not judgments, and which have arisen because of the method of presenting the cases for consideration. The Lemieux Act is the outstanding and striking example of legislation of this parliament which in a concrete case was declared to be invalid but
B.N.A. Act-Mr. Bennett

which had been acted upon by general acceptance very beneficially over a period of about twenty years until the judgment of the privy council was rendered.
One step more. There was also this anomaly, that you had a government providing for the support of the validity of legislation which it had denounced as invalid when it was passed. Had a case been permitted to proceed to the courts you would not have had that anomaly. Had it gone to litigation you would not have had that anomaly. You would not have had the government of to-day that bitterly opposed and denounced the legislation endeavouring to support it in the manner in which it did in London. I had only reached London and made inquiries when I was told that never in the history of our time had any case been presented so inadequately.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not fair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the opinion which prevailed, for reasons that I shall give before I conclude.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend said otherwise last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The chief justice of the supreme court of Ontario who presented the case before the supreme court here did not present it in London.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. St. Laurent did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He presented only one case. The others were presented by another gentleman, an eminent lawyer, but constitutional lawyers are very few in Canada. The most eminent of them, by common consent, is a resident of Toronto, and the gentleman who presides over the supreme court of Ontario was another. Unfortunately you cannot acquire, in a week or two weeks or a month, a knowledge of all the decisions and of all the trends and tendencies in connection with the interpretation of the British North America Act. It is a long progressive study, and all you have to do is to read the judgments of the privy council and see the counsel who in succeeding years have presented the cases to realize how sound that statement is. It is not any reflection upon the capacity of anyone.


Ernest Lapointe: It is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reflection is upon
their lack of training in that particular class of work.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry my right hon. friend says that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I go further. I say that the Department of Justice was not heard at all on that reference. They had counsel there. Did he speak? Why not?


Ernest Lapointe: They arranged it among themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer is known to me. He would have to contradict the submission of his leader.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, sir, that is exactly the fact, if you want to know the way in which these cases were handled.


Ernest Lapointe: I think this is gossip my right hon. friend may have heard. It is not fair at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not gossip. Has my hon. friend read the arguments?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The arguments were
reported in part in the London Times. I have not seen them in detail.


Ernest Lapointe: I think my right hon. friend will be sorry for these statements.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot be sorry for them; I know them to be accurate, and what is more it is the considered opinion of those who are able to express adequate opinions. It is not the first time that has happened and it will not be the last. You cannot project a counsel, however eminent, into a constitutional case without any training in constitutional matters. That is obvious, I think, to everyone. I propose at a proper time to discuss the question of these judgments when they are available.


Ernest Lapointe: We shall all do it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We shall all do it, I hope, but it is not going to change two essential facts. One is that prior to the judgments in the aeronautics and radio cases there was no suggestion, after the decision of the supreme court, that we had any jurisdiction to deal with these matters, but in those judgments-


Charles Avery Dunning: They were not judgments, my right hon. friend said.

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Coldwell


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, opinions, I should have said. I thank the hon. gentleman, the learned counsel-


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend cannot have it both ways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No one suggests he wants it both ways. After the expression of those opinions there was an entirely modified view with respect to our power, a view which was acted upon and believed to be sound, and when we read the decision we shall know whether it is or not. I do not know how far the decision does go. That, however, is the position. But for those judgments the legislation would not have been submitted to this parliament.
But, worse still, by reason of these statutes being submitted, not as concrete cases but as hypothetical ones, we have now an expression of opinion as reported in the press that is a complete reversal of the radio and aeronautics cases, and we have the creation of sovereignties in provinces with respect to our international obligations wholly at variance with anything that has been heretofore understood. That, I think, cannot be denied by anyone. That is the reason why I believe we should discuss the matter in the light of the exact judgments themselves.
I trust that the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) will withdraw his motion for the reason I suggested the other day, namely, that we should have a conference, as was indicated by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson).
The nature of the amendments that have to be made is one issue. The willingness to make them is another. The reasons given by the hon. member for Selkirk as to the necessity for their being made seem to me to be completely unanswerable. As to the method to be employed, I think the method we have of a joint address could probably not be changed very readily in this country. As to how to arrive at the questions to be considered, I think that can be done only after careful consideration with the provincial authorities. I say this to the Minister of Justice, that we had to deal with an extremely difficult matter, the question of the preparation of a section of the Westminster act dealing with Canada, and we had a conference in this city of representatives of all the provinces. We met at ten o'clock in the morning; they went away the next day; and, as I said the other day, their initials are upon the amendment that was agreed to, upon the document which is now in the archives of this country, because we had placed before them
our idea as to what the proposals should be, and after a conference with them we were able in a very short time to arrive at a solution of our difficulties. I believe that what was said by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, coupled with what has been said by the hon. member for Selkirk, indicates a method of dealing with this situation which would not take too long a time but rather would enable speedy adjustment of our difficulties to be had.
As I have said, I shall hope that an opportunity may arise to discuss these judgments in the light of their entire text and not of a part of it.


Major James William Coldwell: I feel that to a very large extent the purpose of placing the motion on the order paper has been fulfilled, both by the discussion which occurred last Tuesday and by that which has taken place to-day. The motion was placed on the order paper entirely from a layman's point of view. I am not so much interested- and I think there are many members of the house in the same position as myself-in the constitutional and legal aspects of this particular problem as in the social and the economic situation which has to be dealt with and remedied. And I take it that although we have had decisions from the privy council, those decisions may serve an added and a good purpose in that they must focus the attention both of this parliament and of the people of Canada upon the grave condition with which we are confronted.
Perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) this afternoon misunderstood some of the remarks which I made. I said, for example, that in my opinion the will of the people as expressed by parliament must prevail. I did not say, nor did I intend to have it inferred, that the will of this parliament ought to prevail over the rights of the provinces, whatever they may be. In my opinion -and I think it is the general opinion in this house-in the event of the provinces placing in the hands of this parliament any jurisdiction which formerly belonged to them, this would be done partly of necessity and wholly of their own volition. That is fundamental.
I also referred, and the minister referred, to the Statute of Westminster. I alluded to it as evidence that the self-governing dominions were now regarded as coequal partners in the British commonwealth of nations. I did not mean to convey that in any respect I thought the Statute of Westminster gave us the right or the power to override provincial rights and provincial jurisdiction. It is true that an assumption of power by either the dominion
B.N.A. Act-Mr. Coldwell

or a province does not give that power, and I do not think this parliament should assume power which it does not have. But it seems to me that the time has arrived when greater powers must be given to someone to secure at least some measure of uniformity in social legislation in this dominion and as between the provinces. The sovereign power of the provinces was not denied by any of us this afternoon; indeed we recognized it, and my reference by way of illustration to the unitary system of legislative union in Great Britain and to the necessity there of a certain devolution or handing over of power to some local authority, such as the counties, does not mean that we should infer that the provinces have no greater status in our dominion than have the counties in England. I do not hold that view at all.
The minister told us that a committee of parliament would not suffice. I submit that if the government has an alternate proposal to place before this house, parliament and the country should be taken into the confidence of the government at an early date, because I can assure hon. members that not only in the industrial centres are such questions being asked as those to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and other members have referred, but in the rural areas, at least of western Canada, there is a great deal of misgiving and of unrest regarding the position of the marketing act, and also of the wheat board, which did not come under that act but nevertheless is, in the public mind closely allied to the question of orderly marketing.


Mr. VIEN:: Why should not each province in turn, within its own jurisdiction and territory, assume these duties?


Major James William Coldwell: I shall deal with that in a moment. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) answered that question adequately when he pointed out that, altogether apart from other difficulties, a province legislating with regard, for example, to hours of labour and wages might find itself at a grave disadvantage in comparison with provinces which were, shall I say, more backward and would not legislate along those lines. I regard the method of individual provinces legislating in social matters of that description as cumbersome and quite ineffective, and I do not believe we shall be able to find satisfactory solutions to the problems which confront us if we rely upon that particular method of procedure.
^Mr. Coldwell.]


Thomas Vien: May not conditions be very different in various sections of the country? And how could one section impose its own viewpoint in the light of its own particular interests upon other sections of the country whose interests may be very different?


Major James William Coldwell: I can quite understand the. question, and I think the answer is this. In a country as large as Canada conditions of necessity must differ in various provinces; there are diverse conditions. But I submit that it is quite possible for a government to lay down regional regulations which would meet the situation in the various regions with widely dissimilar conditions. When you speak of minimum wages and so on you need not apply those minimum wages in the same form in provinces with varying costs of living.


Thomas Vien: The same is true of hours of labour.


Major James William Coldwell: You need not apply the hours of labour to industries in precisely the same manner. For example, take agriculture. We speak industrially of an eight hour day, but in agriculture there are certain seasons of the year when the hours of labour must be longer than eight hours, and in legislation of the type to which I refer certain exceptions, certain regional difficulties can quite well be met; at least that is my opinion.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) considered the resolution inopportune and somewhat objectionable at the present time, but I would reply by stating that the resolution was quite opportune inasmuch as it was placed on the order paper without a knowledge of the fact that the privy council decisions would be down before the resolution was discussed. In my opinion it has served the purpose of bringing at least certain aspects of these decisions before the House of Commons at this time.
We are told that parliament ought to have jurisdiction only through cooperation and consultation between the dominion and the provinces. I believe, of course, that position is sound. Before I sit down, however, I should like again to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Selkirk. I took a number of notes when the Minister of Labour was speaking and I intended to reply step by step to certain of bis remarks as he made them; but the hon. member for Selkirk demolished the minister's case entirely in a comparatively few words, and I would advise the minister to study that answer to-morrow morning. The hon. member for Selkirk, in my opinion, made the position clear. If there is no power in

The late Herbert Earl Wilton
this parliament to regulate or control industry and if that power is vested in the provinces, how real is that power? There is the crux of the situation as it faces this parliament and the dominion to-day. He pointed out that industry would boycott a province which was more progressive in these matters than other provinces. In other words, the pace of progress in Canada would be regulated by the most backward and reactionary of the provinces, whichever that province at a given time might be.
It has been suggested to me that the resolution setting up this committee might result simply in a recommendation for the presentation of an address from both houses of parliament and that this recommendation might cover the situation at the moment. I am not going to withdraw the resolution, because I do not believe the government have placed before the house any indication that they have any other plan in mind. They have not told us that they are calling an interprovincial conference or even suggesting that that should be done, and therefore, in my opinion, the resolution should stand.
Motion (Mr. Coldwell) negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 2, 1937