1949-02-14

REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Convention of the world meteorological organization, Washington, October 11, 1947.- Mr. Pearson.
Interim report of the organization for European economic co-operation.-Mr. Pearson.
Interim report of the Fraser river diking board for the period since its inception on July 22, 1948, to January 31, 1949.-Mr. Howe.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 17, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
He said: The only change made by this bill is to insert the words "or Churchill" in the appropriate place in two sections of the act, as underlined in the bill. The effect of this change will be to permit producers in the area accessible to the port of Churchill to get the advantage of the cheaper freight rate to Churchill, wherever such cheaper rates apply.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



GAME EXPORT ACT


Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 14 (from the Senate) to amend the Game Export Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CULLERS ACT


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 15 (from the Senate) to repeal the Cullers Act.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Explain.


Mr. Abbott:: One does not explain a Senate bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT OF CHEESE AND CHEESE FACTORY


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 16 (from the Senate) to amend the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That, whereas by a memorandum of agreement entered into on the eleventh day of December, 1948. between Canada and Newfoundland, the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada were agreed to. subject to approval by the parliament of Canada and the government of Newfoundland:
And whereas the terms of union provide that they shall come into force immediately before the expiration of the thirty-first day of March, 1949, if His Majesty has theretofore given his assent to an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland confirming the same;
And whereas the terms of union have been approved by the parliament of Canada;
A humble address be presented to His Majesty the King in the following words:-
To the King's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that you may graciously be pleased to cause to be laid before the parliament of the United. Kingdom a measure containing the recitals and clauses hereinafter set forth to confirm and give effect to the terms of union agreed between Canada and Newfoundland;
An act to confirm and give effect to the terms of union agreed between Canada and Newfoundland.
Whereas by means of a referendum the people of Newfoundland have by a majority signified their wish to enter into confederation with Canada;
And whereas the agreement containing terms of union between Canada and Newfoundland set out in the schedule to this act has been duly approved by the parliament of Canada and by the government of Newfoundland;
And whereas Canada has requested and consented to the enactment of an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom to confirm and give effect to the

Newfoundland
said agreement and the Senate and House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, have submitted an address to His Majesty praying that His Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a bill to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom for that purpose;
Be it therefore enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows;
1.	The agreement containing terms of the union between Canada and Newfoundland set out in the schedule to this act is hereby confirmed and shall have the force of law notwithstanding anything in the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946.
2.	This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1949, and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946, and this act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1949,
Schedule
(Full text of terms of union)
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great honour .to have the privilege of presenting to this house the House of Commons' part of a joint address to be presented to His Majesty to confirm the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada. This is the final act in the proceedings required to be adopted by this house to bring about the union of those two countries. I am sure-and the applause which greeted me when I rose to present this resolution is confirmation of it-that all members -of this house, and the people of Canada and [DOT]of Newfoundland as well, appreciate the historic significance of this final act which we .are now about to accomplish.
The terms of the resolution which you, sir, have read indicate that, agreement having been entered into, ratification by the parliament of Canada and the government of Newfoundland shall come into effect only if His Majesty gives royal assent to a bill of the parliament of the United Kingdom confirming it before March 31, 1949. I have already indicated to the house, and I shall summarize them briefly, the reasons for resorting to this form of procedure.
It is well known in this house and by the public that there were provisions in the British North America Act of 1867 looking to the union of Newfoundland with Canada and setting out the procedure which could conveniently have been followed at that time, and in fact for many years afterwards, to bring about that union-a procedure similar to that followed to bring about the entry into confederation of Prince Edward Island and British Columbia. This indication in the terms of the British North America Act was proof that those who had participated in the conferences which preceded it felt that the ultimate destiny of the people of Newfoundland was to come together with the people of the new dominion for which the British North America Act was to be the constitution.
IMr. St. Laurent.]
When in 1946 and 1947 the proceedings were instituted which are now having their culmination at this time, the conditions were no longer such that the exact procedure provided for in the British North America Act could be followed. It would have required addresses from the houses of the Canadian parliament, addresses from the houses of the legislature of Newfoundland, and a proclamation by His Majesty on the advice of the United Kingdom privy council. There are two reasons why, after the lapse of eighty years, that procedure is no longer applicable.
First of all, the constitution of Newfoundland had been suspended in 1933, and there were no houses of the legislature of that colony. Second, on account of the developments which had been reflected in the terms of the Statute of Westminster, His Majesty no longer exercised the prerogative in respect to Canada on the advice of the United Kingdom privy council; he exercised it on the advice of his Canadian ministers.
The terms of section 146 of the British North America Act being no longer applicable, another procedure had to be resorted to. The precedent which had been set when the parliament of Canada decided to hand over the natural resources to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan seemed to be convenient, and was selected as the one to follow in this instance. This procedure requires action by the parliament at Westminster, and that action I think is appropriate, not merely because it conforms with the precedent of 1930, but also because I believe it is the proper way to dispose of matters of common concern to Canada, Newfoundland and the United Kingdom.
Since 1933, when the parliament of the United Kingdom adopted the Newfoundland act of that year, the government of the United Kingdom has been responsible for the administration of and legislation concerning Newfoundland. While under the Statute of Westminster this parliament has equal rights with the parliament of the United Kingdom to enact legislation having extraterritorial effect, it would not have been proper for this parliament, by legislation of its own, to attempt to bring within its jurisdiction territory now under the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
There is a second reason why procedure not expressly provided for in the British North America Act was resorted to. If that procedure had been followed there might have been some question as to its legal effect. I am sure that the last thing anyone in Canada or Newfoundland would desire would be any possible doubt as to the legal effect of the terms of union as agreed to and confirmed.

Under the terms of the Statute of Westminster the action of the parliament of the United Kingdom cannot be effective in respect to Canada without joint addresses by our houses of parliament, because section 4 of the Statute of Westminster expressly provides:
No act of parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act shall extend or be deemed to extend to a dominion as part of the law of that dominion unless it is expressly declared in that act that that dominion has requested and consented to the enactment thereof.
Of course no parliament sitting at Westminster would make a declaration of that kind in the preamble of a statute unless it had factual justification. The purpose of these joint addresses is to give the parliament of the United Kingdom factual justification for asserting in the preamble to the act to confirm this union that it is done at the request and with the consent of Canada.
This address will go to His Majesty as an expression, through their representatives in parliament, of the will of the people of Canada that union is desired and should take place. The terms of the address are selfexplanatory. The house has already sanctioned the principle that there should be such an address, because it has approved the terms of union, the fiftieth of which is that they shall come into effect only if royal assent is given by His Majesty, within the time specified, to an act passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom. Therefore the requirement of an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom has been approved by the house, and the terms of the Statute of Westminster make it necessary, to achieve that end, that there should be the address which is now before the house.
I think it is proper to say that the government, the members of the house, and indeed the Canadian people, are all gratified to find that the matter of the union of Newfoundland with Canada has been dealt with so thoroughly, on such a high level, and with the unanimity witnessed in our proceedings during the course of the last week. It must be a source of satisfaction to those who will soon be our new fellow citizens in this nation that it was the common view of all parties in this house, representing all sections of the Canadian people, that it would be desirable to have the people of Newfoundland become associated with us. Of course the Canadian people have never really thought of Newfoundland as another country, and the fact that they are to become associated with us is, for all older Canadians, a source of particular satisfaction. We have in French a saying which goes like this: Dis-moi qui tu hantes, et je te dirai qui tu es. I was accustomed to thinking that the English
Newfoundland
equivalent was: Birds of a feather flock together, but it is really more than that. If I might venture to translate the French saying it would go something like this: Tell me with whom you are associated, and that will tell me what you are. We of Canada are happy that those who know the people of Newfoundland will be judging us by their knowledge of the sturdy qualities of those splendid people. I hope that the people of Newfoundland will be equally satisfied to be judged by what their new Canadian fellow citizens have been able to achieve during the eighty years which have elapsed since the original confederation.
As I said on a previous occasion in this house, there were many reasons for the close association between the people of Newfoundland and those of our own country-common origin, common adherence to the true principles of democratic liberty, common respect for the dignity of the individual, common abhorrence of any totalitarian or autocratic form of government. These links, derived from our common origin, from common development of our respective social orders, were greatly strengthened by the close association between the young men and young women of our respective peoples during the two great wars, and particularly during the last war. Many of our sons and daughters served with the young men and young women of Newfoundland, some of them in Newfoundland itself, others on the high seas with units of the Royal Canadian Navy based in Newfoundland. If I may be permitted to mention something quite personal, I feel particularly close to the people of Newfoundland by reason of the fact that, during the many months of my son's service in convoy duty on the Atlantic, the units of the Royal Canadian Navy with which he was serving were based in Newfoundland. What was my own experience during those days was the experience of thousands of Canadians. It created a relationship which makes the prospect of common citizenship with those splendid people one that is very pleasant to envisage.
I shall not attempt to summarize the great history of the sturdy people of Newfoundland, wresting their sustenance from the sea, as most of our people, in the early days, had to wrest their sustenance from the forests and the fields. Although there was a difference in vocation, the difference seems only to have created a close relationship between our two peoples. There is a great poet, E. J. Pratt, whom we claim as Canadian but whom Newfoundlanders claim to be a poet of Newfoundland; hereafter, though being a Canadian poet, he will at the same time be a poet of Newfoundland. We are familiar, as they

Newfoundland
are in Newfoundland, with some of his verses. May I read a few lines of one of his poems. Speaking of Newfoundland the poet says: Here the tides flow.
And here they ebb;
Not with that dull, unsinewed tread of waters Held under bonds to move Around unpeopled shores-
Moon-driven through a timeless circuit Of invasion and retreat;
But with a lusty stroke of life.
The lusty stroke of life of the tides that ebb and flow around the island of Newfoundland is repeated in the hundreds of thousands of hearts that beat in the breasts of the people who inhabit that land. It is because we believe in that lusty stroke of life that we are so happy to have them join with us, and to have those who know them judge us by the people with whom we are to be associated. We know that we are receiving into our midst a people stalwart and sturdy, a people with that lusty stroke of life. We hope they feel that they are joining a young and vigorous nation; that by joining it and becoming a part of it they will further the progress of the nation, and that if they do so, they will be rendering a service not only to the Canadian people but also to the men and women of the whole civilized world, because in these times there cannot be too many nations of vigorous men and women truly imbued with the principles and ideals of free democracy. The strengthening of any of them is a service not only to themselves but also to all other lovers of democracy and freedom throughout the world.
Perhaps I might be permitted another personal comment. It is a matter of some satisfaction to me to see the people of that island, the ancestors of so many of whom came from another island in the north Atlantic with which my own ancestors had some connection, become Canadian citizens. I would not mention this if I did not feel that I was but one of thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, in this country who have for those two islands in the north Atlantic a great admiration and affection.
In addition, I think it is something which all hon. members will feel I am entitled to regard as a reason for great personal satisfaction that on the very morrow of the day I assumed the responsibilities of the office of Prime Minister I was able to continue the work on which my predecessor had been engaged for so long, and to bring it to a successful conclusion. I am sure it will be a matter of satisfaction not only to the members of our party on this side of the house, but to most of the Canadian people, in view of what has been going on for the last decade and more, to be assured of continuity in the undertakings initiated by the 
government which has been in office over those years.
Therefore it is with understandable pride, sir, that I move that this address to His Majesty be approved by this house, and, together with that which I hope soon will be adopted in the other place, forwarded by you and the Speaker of the other place to His Majesty as the expression of our continued and continuing confidence in the value to free men and women of British institutions.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it was very properly pointed out that when the terms of the agreement between Newfoundland and Canada were before this house last week there was striking evidence of unanimity in the desire of those who sit here as representatives of the people of Canada that the dream of the fathers of confederation should be fulfilled by the inclusion of Newfoundland within the boundaries of Canada, as they envisaged it in 1864 and in the later discussions which led to confederation. I have made it clear, and in doing so have expressed the desire of those who are associated with me, that Newfoundland should become a part of Canada on terms satisfactory to them and to Canada, and that everything should be done to avoid misunderstanding or discontent which might disturb the new relationship thus established.
I give place to no one in this house in my desire to see the fulfilment of the dream of those who laid the foundation for a great and united nation covering the whole of the northern part of this continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Without elaborating, I have indicated already certain reasons why it seems to me personally that there is a strong sentimental appeal in the thought of Newfoundland becoming a part of Canada. In every way possible-and I feel sure in this I am expressing the sentiment of those associated with me-I would hope to further the union and the spirit of unity of the people of Newfoundland and of Canada as a whole.
Last week we were called upon to deal with a very short bill which had the effect of approving the terms of agreement between Newfoundland and Canada, as settled on the one hand by the representatives of the Canadian government and on the other hand by those appointed to come here from Newfoundland to discuss the terms. Throughout the discussion it was clear that it was the principle of union that was under consideration, and so far as the principle of union was concerned there seemed to be no dissenting voice. In discussing this subject I pointed out that while there had been a great deal of criticism of the course followed in Newfoundland in arriving at the terms of the agreement, it was not for us as representatives of the people of Canada to tell the people of our

sister dominion what they should or should not do, or what they could or could not do in dealing with this subject. I pointed out that the relationship still is directly between Newfoundland and the government of the United Kingdom.
Today, however, we are dealing with the araft of a bill which is to be submitted for consideration to the parliament of the United Kingdom. Therefore the terms of that bill, the way in which it is drafted and the extent to which it conforms to our constitution are matters with which every hon. member of this house must be concerned in reaching a decision as to how he will vote on the resolution now before us.
As was appropriately said by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) following the introduction of this resolution, there is a background of common history which brings the people of Newfoundland and Canada extremely close together, not only in geographical association but in ties of blood and the intimate contacts which were the result of many joint efforts during the war. The Prime Minister said that amongst our common traditions was an abhorrence of arbitrary action. I feel that this is something we should bear in mind. It is essential that in bringing about the fulfilment of the great vision of union we should do all in our power to prevent anything from happening which will fan the flame of discontent, either in Newfoundland or in Canada. That such discontent does exist, we all know. It is extremely important, therefore, that we examine carefully the constitutional aspects of the resolution now before us.
We start with the proposition that this house has clearly indicated its desire that Newfoundland become a part of Canada. There has been full evidence of the warm sentiments of those who sit in this house, as representatives of the people of Canada, toward the people of Newfoundland, whom they are anxious to welcome as their blood brothers and sisters in this great venture of confederation. At a time, however, when democracy and all the processes of democracy are being tested as never before, it is essential that we observe strictly the principles of democracy, and that in our desire to achieve the result we have in view, we do not disregard the constitutional background of this whole federal structure. In bringing about the fufilment of this desirable result, we should not establish any principle which might weaken the constitutional structure upon which the strength of this nation must depend in the years ahead. We should not tamper lightly with our constitution, simply on the ground that the results are much worth while.
Newfoundland
Particularly is this so in the light of the fact that our basic constitution, the British North America Act, does provide a means by which Newfoundland can be brought into the confederation without any variation from the original terms which were settled in 1867. When I addressed this house on February 7 last, I used these words-and I quote from Hansard of that day, page 294:
It must, however, be remembered that in the house we are called upon only to deal with the steps which Canada will take to bring about confederation. Except for any action by the Canadian government which has not been disclosed and is, therefore, not known to the members of the house, the procedure so far as Newfoundland is concerned is one which affects the people of Newfoundland in their direct relationship with the government of the United Kingdom. We may well regret that -appropriate steps were not taken to assure that there would be no cause for any widespread feeling of bitterness or dissatisfaction, but it is not for us to tell the people of our sister dominion what course they should follow in their own dealings or in their dealings with the government of the United Kingdom.
At the time I made that statement and indicated our support of the principles we were then considering, we did not have before us the terms of the resolution which we are now discussing.
This country became a single nation by agreement of those provinces and colonies which have since entered the Dominion of Canada. They joined to settle the terms and they decided on a procedure by which the various provinces should come into confederation. As has already been indicated by the Prime Minister, the provision was perfectly clear; it is found in section 146 of the British North America Act, under the heading "Admission of other colonies". I think it might be well to read the part of that provision which refers to the procedure:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's most honourable privy council, on addresses from the houses of parliament of Canada and from the houses of the respective legislatures of the colonies, or provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, to admit those colonies or provinces or any of them into the union,-
There is a further part of the section which I need not read to illustrate the point I wish to make.
If a fully constituted legislative body had been in existence in Newfoundland, nothing more would have been required at this time than the addresses from the parliament of Canada and the legislature of Newfoundland. Upon the presentation of that joint address, no act of the parliament of the United Kingdom would have been required, because the terms of union would have become effective under the procedure simply on the advice of the privy council.

Newfoundland
In this case, a different procedure is being followed. The Prime Minister has indicated that he feels it is a more appropriate procedure in any event, and he has called attention to the principle embodied in section 4 of the Statute of Westminster, a principle which is recognized in the very wording of the resolution now before the house. At the beginning of the paragraph, at the foot of the page of the order paper which contains the form of the resolution, we read these words:
And whereas Canada has requested and consented to the enactment of an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom . . .
This wording was followed for a particular reason. Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster reads as follows:
No act of the parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act shall extend or be deemed to extend to a dominion as part of the law of that dominion, unless It is expressly declared in that act that that dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.
So far as Canada is concerned the provisions of section 4 of the Statute of Westminster have been complied with, as was pointed out by the Prime Minister, because it is stated that Canada has requested and consented to the enactment. But in section 1 of the Statute of Westminster we find a definition of the word "dominion" and the various parts of the commonwealth to which that term was to apply. Section 1 reads as follows:
In this act the expression "dominion" means any of the following dominions, that is to say, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland.
This section recognized the status of Newfoundland as a dominion, a status which was not changed by the temporary suspension of the legislative authority of Newfoundland by the act of the United Kingdom which appointed the commission of government. I doubt whether any member of this house would suggest that, if the commission of government were dissolved by a further act of the parliament of the United Kingdom, there would be any question that Newfoundland would be restored to the status of dominion which it held at the time the Statute of Westminster was enacted. If that be so, it would seem to me that Newfoundland also should have been in a position to indicate their request for and their consent to the procedure which was being adopted. But it is clear that they are not in a position to follow that course within the provisions of the Statute of Westminster. In the draft act contained in the resolution now before us we find these words:
Whereas by means of a referendum the people of Newfoundland have by a majority signified their wish to enter into confederation with Canada . . .
Those words do not comply with section 4 of the Statute of Westminster; in fact it is impossible-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to call his attention to one of the last sections of the Statute of Westminster, which provides that sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 shall not apply to Newfoundland unless adopted by a statute of Newfoundland? My information is that there never was any such statute.


George Alexander Drew: As the Prime Minister knows, there was no opportunity for Newfoundland to deal with this matter, because at that time she was in difficulties; she was dealing with the government of the United Kingdom with the thought of intervention in regard to her domestic affairs, and had been doing so for some time .before the actual passing of the act which appointed the commission of government.
As to the authority of the government of Newfoundland, we have no way of knowing now what an elected body in Newfoundland would do in regard to this matter, because there is no such body to deal with it. The situation is one which can be dealt with in various ways. Let us not be too much concerned with the strict letter of the law; let us rather be careful to recognize the feeling that is being expressed today in Newfoundland, and realize that this feeling will continue over the years unless those who express it believe they have had an opportunity to deal with the matter in the appropriate way.
Without referring to any particular part of Canada, I should like to say this. It will be recalled that vigorous contentions with respect to union were put forward in the maritime provinces after 1867, and it is not difficult to find that those arguments are still remembered. In fact they can be recalled by many people in the maritimes because of the feeling which carried forward in respect to some details of the procedure by which the union was completed at that time. In all those provinces, however, there were in existence legislative bodies to deal with the matter, and those legislative bodies faced the usual democratic tests. In so doing they had the opportunity to place before the people the reasons why they felt it was advisable that the course be followed which was put before them.
A few days ago we had certain discussions here in regard to the British North America Act and amendments thereto. The Prime Minister contended, as I recall his point of view, that it was not necessary that the provinces be consulted about matters which did not affect them, but that in cases in which they were affected, they should be consulted.
FMr. Drew.]

Hon. members will recall that following the radio address made by the Prime Minister, in which he had indicated that we should strive to provide for amendment of our own constitution without going outside of Canada for that purpose, I asked him whether it was intended to proceed with that matter during the present session, and he indicated that such was not the intention of the government. I also asked the Prime Minister if the provinces would be consulted when it was decided to proceed with that matter, and he said that they would. He has recognized the desirability of consulting the provinces about matters which affect our constitution, and the concern of the provinces about the sanctity of that constitution. In this case we have before us an amendment to the British North America Act. The draft bill, which is part of the resolution, says in section 2:
This act may be cited as the British North America Act. 1949, and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946, and this act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1949.
This being so, we are called upon to adopt a resolution which has the effect of asking the government of the United Kingdom to amend the British North America Act by a majority decision of the parliament of Canada, without consulting the provinces. The question then arises whether the provinces have any interest in this subject.
The Prime Minister himself has made it clear that he believes the procedure being followed relates to the Statute of Westminster, and he referred to section 4 as explaining the procedure being followed by the parliament of Canada. As I have already indicated, the wording of the resolution conforms with the exact wording of section 4 of the Statute of Westminster.
The Prime Minister has pointed out that Newfoundland may not have carried forward all the formalities on their side, which in my opinion does not in any way affect what they might or might not do, if within the Statute of Westminster they had the legislative authority which defined their position as a dominion. And, in so far as we are concerned, I think we should remember that the provinces were conceded a very direct interest in the Statute of Westminster and were, in fact, consulted at that time.
Since this does raise what I believe to be a very important consideration, I would refer to the report of the Senate of Canada at the session of 1939, pursuant to a resolution of the Senate to the Hon. the Speaker by the parliamentary counsel relating to the enactment of the British North America Act, 1867, any lack of consonance between its terms and judicial construction of them, and cognate matters. In the printed report of those
Newfoundland
proceedings, at page 134, is a letter from the then premier of Ontario, the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, who, in writing to the Prime Minister of Canada, put forward his views, and submitted an extensive memorandum discussing this subject, which memorandum is printed in full detail after his letter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is at page 134 of the
appendices?


George Alexander Drew: At page 134 of the appendices, yes. It is described as annex 4. The letter written by Mr. Ferguson is not a long one, although the memorandum is of some length. That letter, dated September 10,	1930,
addressed to the then Prime Minister, which I believe I should read, states:
My dear Mr. Prime Minister:
You will recall that in some discussions we have had with reference to the report of the imperial conference, and, in particular, the recommendations made in the report of 1929, I have endeavoured to make clear to you the attitude of the province of Ontario.
The conference appears to have ignored the fact that the confederation of the provinces of Canada was brought about by the action of the provinces. Our constitution is really the crystallization into law by an imperial statute of an agreement made by the provinces after full consultation and discussion. The province of Ontario holds strongly to the view that this agreement should not be altered without the consent of the parties to it.
On behalf of this province I desire to protest most vigorously against any steps being taken by the dominion government, or the imperial conference, to deal with the provincial treaty until the matter has been submitted to the provinces and they have had ample time to give the subject proper consideration.
To pursue the course indicated by the report of 1929 will not only greatly disturb the present harmonious operation of our constitution, but I fear may seriously disrupt the whole structure of our confederation.
Ontario is genuinely alarmed about the situation, and I earnestly urge upon you, representing the dominion, and through you upon the imperial conference, that this whole matter be left in abeyance until it can be dealt with in a proper manner, and to the satisfaction of the parties to the original compact.
I am enclosing to you herewith a memorandum which embodies in a brief form the story of confederation, together with the views of a number of public men who were leaders in the movement; the interpretation of the courts upon the status of the province; and the recent trend of the dominion authorities upon the question.
With the story as a background, I am sure that a perusal of the reports of the last two conferences will convince you that the provinces have ample ground for serious alarm.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) G. H. Ferguson.
Then the memorandum follows. The provinces which joined to form confederation agreed with the method set out in section 146 of the British North America Act. Later, following these submissions, the provinces were consulted in regard to the provisions of the Statute of Westminster. That being so,

Newfoundland
it seems to me a principle was accepted which should not now be lightly disregarded; because the provinces have a very great interest in the manner in which the British North America Act can be amended.
This is not a question of a test between the parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the provinces. But it is based upon the belief that our federal system provides the best constitutional structure for Canada; and that the strength of Canada can best be assured in the years ahead, and the preservation of our democratic freedom can best be assured, if the terms of that constitution cannot be varied in any important way, except by consultation with those provinces which are so greatly concerned as to the respect for the terms of the British North America Act, as to their assurance of various local rights and customs which mean a great deal, and also as to the form of procedure which has proved so successful.
It is no longer a question of dominion rights in the sense of preserving the special rights of any province. This country has grown to its great stature today because of a federal system under which those provincial governments, with an intimate knowledge of their local problems and their local resources, were able to deal with those local problems and resources in the best possible way, and were able to bring to their development the many resources which they possessed.
It has been suggested already in the discussion which has taken place that this observation might apply more particularly to those provinces in a more favourable position. I sometimes wonder if it is forgotten that there is not a single province in Canada which has not advanced greatly since confederation in its cultural development, in the use of its resources, in the amenities of its life, under the laws which were given to the provinces under their exclusive jurisdiction by the terms of the British North America Act.
There are differences in the extent of the resources of the different provinces of Canada; but it seems to me that the emphasis upon the tremendous resources of two or three provinces in Canada overlooks the great background, the great achievement and great development before our eyes in every province of Canada today.
Just look at what is happening in different parts of western Canada at this very hour, and we see how new developments may come in the most unexpected manner by the encouragement of the use of the various resources which they possess.
In any event it is within the competence of the combined governments of Canada to

bring into a common pool the whole economic power of this country for the development of every part of Canada without lessening the legitimate authority of any of the provincial governments or without weakening their ability to carry out the many great responsibilities they now have.
The provinces of Canada must all be concerned about any procedure which would lay it down as a principle that our constitution can be amended without consulting them. The line of distinction between those things which are exclusively federal and those things which are exclusively provincial is extremely difficult to draw and there is always that uncertain borderland of legislative and administrative responsibility which cannot be exactly defined. Wherever there is any doubt, misunderstanding should be avoided by bringing into consultation the governments of the provinces and making sure that they concur in the amendment proposed and in the method of dealing with a problem which is not in keeping with the original terms of the British North America Act.
It would not hold up the effective consideration of this subject by the parliament of the United Kingdom if the governments of the provinces were to be consulted now. If any of those governments feel in turn that they are called upon to consult their legislative bodies in respect of any aspect of this problem, it may be worth noting that all the provincial legislatures are now in session or will be in session within a matter of a comparatively few days. For that reason it is an unusually fortunate time to carry out a procedure which is consistent with the spirit of confederation and the way in which this constitution of ours was originally drafted.
I think the provinces of Canada should recognize the fact that if the British North America Act can be amended in this case simply by a majority decision of the parliament of Canada, then the British North America Act can be amended in any other case in the same way. It will be said: We would not think of doing that if some concern of a strictly provincial character were before us. Where in the British North America Act do you find a distinction drawn between those two cases? This is the constitution, the constitution under which Canada has become a great nation, a nation of which every one of us has the right to be extremely proud.
Amend the constitution today simply by a majority decision of the parliament of Canada, and you establish a precedent which tomorrow will lead to the amendment of the constitution, in respect to any aspect of that constitution, by some house of the future which might feel that was a desirable result. The challenge to democracy throughout the world


today is the challenge to prevent centralized power in the hands of any government. It is all very well for hon. members on the other side to have complete confidence, as some of them have.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: I notice that they applaud the reservation I made.


Mr. Rowe:: Only in the back benches.


George Alexander Drew: It is all very well for some hon. members opposite to have confidence that under no circumstances would a principle of that kind be abused, and I am quite satisfied also that it may be a comforting thing to feel that the government at the time is so omniscient that it can interpret exactly the point at which no provincial government could feel concerned. But there are provincial governments which are concerned about this procedure and they have already indicated that concern.
For that very reason it is most unwise to establish a principle which if extended into the years ahead could mean that some other government, perhaps with belief in the allpowerful government state, would be able to use this precedent as justification for their centralization of authority without the checks and balances which have preserved our democratic system so well since 1867.
To consult the provinces now will not prevent a full examination of this subject within plenty of time. This is February 14 and there are still more than six weeks before March 31. There is no reason why this course should not be followed. There is every reason why it should be followed, because of the concern which has been expressed already in Canada as well as the concern which has been expressed in Newfoundland. This is a matter of great concern to Newfoundland because Newfoundland coming into confederation wants to be assured that the constitution which its people are called upon to adopt as the constitution of Canada will in fact be respected as the basic foundation of their rights, as it is so regarded by the provinces already within Canada.
No matter how desirable it may be to hasten any procedure, this is no time to take short-cuts which have the effect of lessening respect for the constitution itself. We must do nothing here which reduces our constitution to a mere scrap of paper, lessens its validity and decreases its sanctity beyond the support from time to time of the parliament of Canada of the day.
The procedure here is to amend the British North America Act, an amendment of great concern to the provinces of Canada and to Newfoundland. For that very reason, desirable though the object may be, this course
Newfoundland
should not be adopted. There is a way in which we can proceed with full recognition of the fact that this procedure departs from the provisions of section 146 of the British North America Act and seeks to carry those out in another way.
As I have already suggested, the proper procedure is to consult the provinces now.
I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), that the motion be amended by deleting the words:
"A humble address be presented to His Majesty the King in the following words":- and substituting therefor:
"And whereas it is desirable that the government of Canada should consult with the governments of the several provinces in respect to the said matter: Now therefore be it resolved, that the government of Canada be required to consult at once the governments of the several provinces and that upon a satisfactory conclusion of such consultations 'a humble address be presented to His Majesty in the following words':-"


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, parliament has before it a resolution addressed to His Majesty the King asking for confirmation of an agreement which was unanimously adopted by this house. Perhaps I should qualify the word "unanimously" because I believe one voice, that of an Independent member of this house, was raised last week, when the motion was finally put, to call "on division". Consequently the amendment, which has just been placed before the house by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), is an extraordinary one in view of the fact that last week all parties supported the agreement that was then before the house. It is, of course, a surprising move on the part of the official opposition. I suppose that none of us were quite prepared for a reversal of the opinion expressed by them last week in the House of Commons. That is precisely what it appears to me to be.
I do not propose to enter into a long discussion on the constitutional aspects of this particular matter. I want to say, however, that under the British North America Act, section 146, which was quoted by the leader of the opposition a few moments ago, the duty of parliament is expressly laid down. If we look at that section we find these words:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's most honourable privy council, on addresses from the houses of parliament of Canada-
Our duty is to present an address to His Majesty the King expressing our desire as to what we think should be done in regard to the proposal for union. It is the duty of the government of Newfoundland to see to it that any other provisions of the British North America Act are carried out in accordance with the terms thereof. Someone has

Newfoundland
truly said that at the moment Newfoundland has not a legislature; it has a government. The legislature was set aside with the consent of Newfoundland, and a commission of government set up in 1934. Incidentally, may I add that the Statute of Westminster had then been in effect for several years, and up to that time the legislature of Newfoundland had the opportunity to say whether or not it wished to come within the provisions of that statute. The powers of the legislature, however, were placed in the hands of the parliament of Great Britain. It is for Great Britain now, as trustee of that legislature, dominion, colony, or whatever you want to call it, to decide whether or not it is in the interests of Newfoundland. I say that, so far as we in Canada are concerned, whether or not we agree with the method that was adopted in Newfoundland to bring about the agreement, our duty is to see that, in supporting the address, we are doing what is in the best interests of Canada. Because I believe that is so, I think we should proceed with the voting of the address.
In 1934, as I have already said, the status of Newfoundland was changed at the request of Newfoundland herself, but was there ever more democratic procedure than that which was followed in relation to the entry of Newfoundland into confederation? As there was no legislature, it is quite conceivable that the parliament of Great Britain, of its own volition, might have exercised all the powers conferred on the legislature, but it did not do so. The commission exercised the powers of government in Newfoundland on behalf of the United Kingdom, and called together a convention representative of many interests in the island. The convention decided there would be a plebiscite, and a plebiscite was held. Responsible government was defeated on the first vote, and on the second vote the majority of the people, whether or not the majority was small or large, voted for confederation with Canada. Consequently the parliament of Great Britain is reinforced by the voice of the people of Newfoundland expressed in a plebiscite.
There is one other point I should like to mention. I did not intend to talk about this subject this afternoon, and I am surprised that it came up. The leader of the opposition should have introduced his amendment at an earlier stage, if it was a proper thing to do. He would have saved the time spent in discussing this matter last week. The leader of the opposition has seen fit, however, to introduce another reference to the British North America Act. He now contends that Canada cannot enter into an agreement of this kind, and by the same token I imagine of almost 
any other kind, without the consent of the provinces. I do not know whether the leader of the opposition means the consent of all the provinces, or the consent of the majority of the provinces, or whether he means that, if one or two provinces oppose any such agreement, it cannot become effective. He did not say. If there were disagreement among the provinces in regard to a matter of this sort, where would it then rest? I do not profess to be a constitutional lawyer. All I profess is to be able to understand the English language, and to be able to interpret what the English language means from the point of view of an ordinary individual who speaks and reads it.
Section 91 of the British North America Act, I think, makes it very clear. It is headed "Powers of Parliament", and I take it that this House of Commons together with the other place constitutes the parliament of Canada. It reads:
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 . . .
Then follows that list, and at the end of the list these words:
And the matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this section shall not be deemed to come within the class of matters of a local or private nature comprised in the enumeration of the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.
Then we get the matters assigned exclusively to the provinces; and among those matters I cannot find that they have any part in considering and approving an agreement of the description now before us. Consequently I say this is an extraordinary constitutional view the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has introduced this afternoon, and so foreign to what I understood he believed before he came to this house. As the leader of the opposition was reported in the Globe and Mail of September 8, 1937, I find he said this:
We have strayed a long way from the path laid down by the fathers of confederation. The strong central government which the provinces sought to create is hamstrung by petty politics.
All the constitutional difficulties which now prevent the adoption of effective and urgently necessary social legislation can be overcome without waiting for amendments to the British North America Act if there is any sincere attempt at co-operation.
I am going to quote the whole thing:
The provinces created the dominion. The dominion did not create the provinces. If we are to

have strong government, capable of meeting suddenly changing conditions, the provinces must take the first step.
That is, to meet the changing conditions.
They united to form the Dominion of Canada.
And I want to draw particular attention to this:
It was their intention that there should be one strong government capable of dealing promptly with all problems of a national character.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker: is not the matter now before us a problem national in character?
It was their own wish that the provincial governments should deal with problems of a purely local nature.
Is this problem before us today of a purely local nature? I think not.
Now we have reached a position as a result of endless constitutional appeals to the privy council, where no one really knows where the ultimate authority does rest in many fields of legislation.
Then these words:
We must decide whether we are one nation or nine -whether we are Canadians or not. The constitutional revolution in Alberta is only an advanced form of the disease of exaggerated provincial independence which has been spreading throughout Canada for years.
Well, if ever I heard in this house a suggestion which seemed to me to be in line with exaggerated claims of independence, provincial independence or provincial rights, it is the claim just made by the leader of the opposition. This is a matter which must be decided by this house; and I am positive that the people of Newfoundland, even those who disagree with the manner in which this agreement was placed before this parliament, will agree that in discussing and dealing with that agreement last week this house followed all the democratic and constitutional procedures, and that today we are doing precisely the same thing in discussing the resolution now before us.
I wanted to say that, because we have an extraordinary proposal in the amendment now before us, for which I can see no sanction in the constitution of our own country.
Surely the matter now before us, the entry into confederation of Newfoundland, brings into bold relief the necessity for the provinces and the dominion coming together as men of good will, regardless of party feeling or party affiliation, to see how we can modernize our constitution and bring it more into relation with the times in which we live. We have a constitution that was written by the fathers of confederation in 1867 and which from time to time has been interpreted by the privy council. That interpretation by the privy council usually has been to detract from the powers of this parliament and place
Newfoundland
more power in the hands of the provinces. In Professor A. R. M. Lower's "Colony to Nation", I read a very interesting account of why that came about, which I think perhaps is worth mentioning. Lord Watson began the kind of judgment which reduced the central power; and Lord Watson was a law student in the office of a gentleman named Judah P. Benjamin. This Judah P. Benjamin was a secretary of the confederate states, fighting for states' rights and to undermine union in the United States. He fled the country and went to England, where he established a law practice which soon became very large. He taught the constitutional views he held, which were those of the confederate states rather than of the fathers of confederation.
Again, speaking entirely from memory, I would mention some of Lord Elgin's letters. The one to which I am going to refer I read several years ago-I was going to say many years ago-and I have not read 'it very recently, but I think it is recorded in "The Makers of Canada." If you will read that letter you will find that Lord Elgin said he was very glad indeed the fathers of confederation did not follow the American system of federation, because that system placed all the residuary powers in the hands of the local and sovereign states. Our constitution did the reverse, and he thought we had a better constitution than that which had been written in the United States. That was Lord Elgin's considered opinion.
But surely the day has come when, instead of having this sort of constitutional discussion in this house and apparently not knowing where we stand in relation to some of these important matters, we should settle some of these constitutional differences by men and women of good will representing all the legislatures and the parliament of Canada agreeing, even before going into such a conference, that the minority and cultural rights that were written into our constitution will be preserved in any constitution we adopt. Apart from that, I think we should consider ways and means of bringing our constitution up to date.
In passing, may I say that throughout the country today there is a great deal of criticism of the constitution as it affects these two houses of parliament. The finger of scorn is pointed at the other place because, for thirteen years at least, no appointments have been made to that house to represent the sixty per cent of the voting population of this country who are represented on this side of the house. This brings the other place into disrepute. As my hon. friends know, we have always urged the abolition of the Senate. Perhaps I should qualify that by

Newfoundland.
saying I know of the difficulties in abolishing the Senate, in its present form in any event, and the difficulties in reforming an institution which has far more power today than the British House of Lords, whose powers were shorn by the Parliament Act of 1911, and are about to be shorn still further in the interests of democratic procedure. We have an archaic institution which, as I say, brings this whole parliament. Commons and Senate, into disrepute.
I intended this afternoon to deal to some extent with other aspects of our constitution, but I am not going to do so. I will change what I intended to say and more or less let rest what I have already said. I feel that, at the moment, the challenge this amendment places before the house is indeed grave. It is a grave challenge to the rights of this parliament under the British North America Act. It is a grave challenge to the constitutional procedures that have hitherto been adopted in this country. If we agree that, in a matter of this description which does not touch the provinces except as component parts of this dominion, we are going to say that one province perchance may say no or the majority of the provinces perchance may say no, or two-thirds of the provinces perchance may say yes and one-third say no, then we are placing our constitutional procedure in this country in a state of chaos. For who then shall make the decision? I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to take any part in bringing about chaos in this country at a time when chaos is dangerous for freedom and democracy in many parts of the world.
I want to see our procedures properly carried out. I want to see this democratic institution operate in a democratic manner. I want to preserve it. In 1936, I remember, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition sang a different song from the one he now sings. He then said that we in this country were in grave danger, and he pointed out that there was a growing fascism in the province of Quebec. Having read that, I presumed the growing fascism in Quebec at that time was the election of Mr. Duplessis as premier of that province, with the padlock law and the kind of labour code about which we have been hearing recently. So then, Mr. Speaker, so far as I personally am concerned-I have not been able to consult my friends but I rather expect I speak for them in this regard -I shall oppose the amendment and support the resolution for the address to His Majesty.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the final stage, so far as this house is concerned, in the process of bringing into confederation the new province of Newfoundland. At this time, I

do not intend to launch upon any extended expression of ecstasy over the high qualities of the people of Newfoundland or of their country, because I have already placed on the record how this group regards the people of that country. We are very happy that Newfoundland has expressed, in the only way it had at its disposal, a desire to join with us in confederation. We want to bring them in on terms that are satisfactory and that will leave no room for unhappiness at any time in the future.
I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that, as I listened to the arguments presented by the leader of the opposition this afternoon, I was much moved because I found that those arguments were exactly the arguments that this group has been using in this house ever since we came here. If you look back through Hansard, you will find at least twenty-five different speeches, if not more, given by members of this group expressing views almost identical with those stated by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition this afternoon. Now, whatever the past sins of the leader of the opposition may be, I must say that in respect to his concern over the constitution and the rights and privileges of the provinces of this great dominion, he is now back on the right track. I will challenge anyone to look back over any statements we have made, on the hustings, in this house or anywhere else, that will give the lie to what I have just now been saying about our position.
I regarded as completely specious the arguments made by the leader of the C.C.F. party this afternoon concerning the case put by the leader of the opposition. In this house, at this time, we are not concerned over what Newfoundland does, but the provinces of Canada are certainly concerned about the kind of bedfellows they have. I do not say that in any derogatdry sense. Surely the provinces who occupy the bed should have something to say about any other bedfellows who wish to come in. The provinces of Canada already occupy the Canadian bed. We contend that those Canadian provinces, since they will be very vitally affected by anything that is done about sharing the bed, should be consulted.
I do not think this position is any grave challenge to our constitution at all, as was contended by the leader of the C.C.F. If we have been following a certain procedure over the years and that procedure has been wrong, then certainly there is no justification for continuing to follow it merely because we followed it in the past. So far as I can see, the argument presented by the leader of the C.C.F. is the typical argument that a centralizer would advance. We are not centralizers. We have always been and shall always

remain, jealous of the rights and authorities of the provinces of this great dominion. If there never has been laid down a procedure by which constitutional amendments can take place, a procedure which will preserve the rights of the provinces, then I say it is high time it was done. Perhaps this amendment provides the starting point from which such a procedure can be built.
I am not afraid to say what I would do as to the number of provinces that should consent to the bringing in of another province. If the reference mentioned in this amendemnt is placed before the provinces, I think it is reasonable to say to them that if two-thirds of the provinces express their desire to support this resolution, then the wishes of those two-thirds will be made the rule for Canada. I think that is the arrangement that is adhered to in the United States. But my opinion may not be the opinion of the provinces. Let them say. We are waiving even in this resolution one further safeguard to the constitution, and that is reference to the people themselves. That is a further safeguard that is used in the United States. I do not think it is at all unreasonable to consult with the provinces and to ask them for their support in laying down a procedure for future constitutional amendments. If two-thirds of them, or any other fraction agreed to by the provinces themselves, indicate their support of this resolution, on the terms that have been set out in the bill, I think the decision should be binding upon the whole of Canada. The precedent would then be established for governing future constitutional amendments.
I do not think there is anything further I should say at this time, except this one thing. When the leader of the C.C.F. says that it is time that we reviewed our constitution and laid down some procedure for bringing it more into line with the times in which we live, I should like to say that I have never been able to see why in the world anyone should be in a hurry when he is on the wrong road. Let us be sure that we are on the right road before we move, especially in regard to a matter that affects the rights and privileges of provinces that certainly have been given a good measure of autonomy under the British North America Act. I intend to support the amendment.


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the debate last week was remarkable for three things. One of them was the unanimity with which the members of this parliament, representing all the people of Canada, expressed their views on this subject, and the good will and the good spirit with which the debate was conducted. The second thing for which the
Newfoundland
debate was remarkable was the fact that the complex matters contained in the terms of union were thoroughly discussed, questions were raised and answered, and in the end there was still unanimity on both the substance and the form of the terms. This, I think, reflected great credit on the soundness of the position taken by the government of Canada and also on the way in which the negotiations had been conducted. The third remarkable feature was this. I believe I speak not only for hon. members on this side of the house but also for some others-


Mr. Cockeram:: The C.C.F.


Brooke Claxton: -when I say that the events of the week were remarkable for the way in which one man led the debate on this subject and achieved a performance unsurpassed in this house during my eight years in parliament. I refer to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent). He showed himself to be a great parliamentarian and a great constitutional lawyer. He showed himself to have a grasp of this subject unequalled, I believe, in any part of Canada. He showed a frankness and a fairness that must have won the admiration of my hon. friends opposite, as it won ours. In the former Prime Minister, the member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the present Prime Minister who succeeded him, we have two men whose names, in the minds and hearts of the people of Canada, should be added to those who will be recognized throughout the years as indeed the fathers of confederation.
It is a matter of some regret that the unanimity with which our deliberations were conducted last week seems to have been broken by the course followed today by the leader of the opposition. At the outset, may I say that I regard it, as did the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), as a challenge to the very concept of confederation itself, to the place of Canada as a nation, and to the rights of this parliament to deal with matters that affect all the people of Canada.
On the concept of confederation, I will not weary hon. members with numerous quotations. But I will give just those which I believe state, more authoritatively than any that can be found anywhere else, what the fathers of confederation intended when they adopted the Quebec resolutions which led to the act of confederation itself. I refer to the confederation debates, at page 27.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Of what date?


Brooke Claxton: The year 1865. I am quoting from the confederation debates, page 27,

N ewfoundland,
where Sir John A. Macdonald, then attorney general, had this to say:
... if we wish to form-using the expression which was sneered at the other evening-a great nationality, commanding the respect of the world, able to hold our own against all opponents, and to defend those institutions we prize: if we wish to have one system of government, and to establish a commercial union, with unrestricted free trade, between people of the five provinces, belonging as they do, to the same nation, obeying the same Sovereign, owning the same allegiance, and being, for the most part, of the same blood and lineage: if we wish to be able to afford to each other the means of mutual defence and support against aggression and attack- this can only be obtained by a union of some kind between the scattered and weak boundaries composing the British North American provinces.
Then he went on to describe the main provisions, terms, and intent of that union, and he said this:
Ever since the union was formed-
He was referring to the union in the United States.
-the difficulty of what is called "state rights" has existed, and this had much to do in bringing on the present unhappy war in the United States.
They commenced, in fact, at the wrong end. They declared by their constitution that each state was a sovereignty in itself, and that all the powers incident to a sovereignty belonged to each state, except those powers which, by the constitution, were conferred upon the general government and congress. Here we have adopted a different system. We have strengthened the general government. We have given the general legislature all the great subjects of legislation. We have conferred on them, not only specifically and in detail, all the powers which are incident to sovereignty, but we have expressly declared that all subjects of general interest not distinctly and exclusively conferred upon the local governments and local legislatures, shall be conferred upon the general government and the legislature. We have thus avoided that great source of weakness which has been the cause of the disruption of the United States. We have avoided all conflict of jurisdiction and authority, and if this constitution is carried out, as it will be in full detail in the imperial act to be passed if the colonies adopt the scheme, we will have in fact, as I said before, all the advantages of a legislative union under one administration, with, at the same time, the guarantees for local institutions and for local laws, which are insisted upon by so many in the provinces now . . .
And then finally at page 40:
But any honourable member on examining the lists of different subjects which are to be assigned to the general and local legislatures respectively, will see that all the great questions which affect the general interests of the confederacy as a whole, are confided to the federal parliament, while the local interests and local laws of each section are preserved intact, and entrusted to the care of the local bodies.
I submit that there is the best and most authoritative contemporary view of what the constitution of Canada was intended to mean; and that is a view which I submit should appeal to, and must be maintained by, all who want to observe the constitution.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has said that under our constitution Canada
[Mr. Claxton.j
has grown strong, and that the constitution must be maintained. I agree that under the constitution Canada has grown strong, and that the constitution must be upheld. That is our view; we have no other view. But I would like him to say exactly how Canada has grown strong under the constitution so far as the accession of the provinces is concerned, the matter with which we are dealing today. I would like him to say this: Did Canada grow strong when Manitoba was joined into confederation in 1870? Yes. And were the provinces consulted? No; they were not consulted.
I would ask him whether Canada grew strong and was strengthened when British Columbia joined confederation by order in council in 1871-and there are hon. members in the house from every part of Canada, not only from British Columbia, who know how British Columbia has grown from a colony of less than 15,000 white people. Were the provinces consulted at that time? No; they were not consulted. And I can remember, too, how Prince Edward Island entered confederation in 1873, that island province which has since been one of the greatest jewels in the crown of confederation. And the premier of that province, the province in which, through the Charlottetown conference of 1864, confederation was started, is in this House of Commons today, listening to this historic debate. I ask again: Were the provinces consulted over the entry of Prince Edward Island? Again the answer is no.
Then I ask: Did Canada become strong when the great western provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were formed in 1905? It was done by act of the imperial parliament, and by the provisions of the British North America Act, just as was the inclusion of Manitoba. It was done by a provision amending the British North America Act, in exactly the same way that is being followed on this occasion.
Were the provinces consulted? The answer is again no. The only five precedents we have are in accord with procedure we are following today. This is no thin edge that is going to break the Canadian constitution. This is extending the hand of friendship and of good neighbourliness to our sister island to the east. This is bringing about the objective which all of us have had in our hearts and in our minds for so long. This is not a work of destruction; this is not a challenge to the Canadian constitution. This is an exercise of the rights of this parliament, within its constitutional rights.
If this parliament, having the opportunity to extend to Newfoundland reasonable and fair terms of union, said, "No, we will not do it; we must refer the matter to the provinces",

I suggest that we would then be denying our right. We would not be exercising the function of the parliament of a nation such as Canada, and we ourselves would be destroying the constitution.
In this connection I should like to draw the attention of the house to some of the consequences which might follow if the amendment of the leader of the opposition were adopted. What he has suggested is that this matter should be referred to the provinces. He said, if I recall correctly, that it would not hold up the consideration of this legislation by the United Kingdom parliament if the governments of the provinces were to be consulted now. If it would not hold it up, then I suggest that consultation would not be the serious step which any consultation of provinces must be-not only a matter of form-so that they might have the opportunity of voicing their views.
Where would we be if we made that reference today? What would happen if, for example, there were any authority whatever for the views expressed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) that a two-thirds vote of the provinces should govern in the matter? That is an interesting suggestion; but there is no constitutional basis for it, I submit. And what would happen if two-thirds of the provinces, let us say seven provinces, which expressed their opinion in favour of Newfoundland entering confederation, included all the provinces except, let us say, Ontario and Quebec? There is no authority anywhere, and no precedent, for the exercise of a vote; yet if consultation means anything it must give the provinces an opportunity not only to exercise their views, but also to make their will felt in some way or another.
Such a reference to the provinces is not in accordance with precedent; it is not required by the constitution; it is not in accord with the interests and desires of the people of Canada who are represented here. Further, we must not forget that while all of us in the House of Commons respect the constitution, and regard it as containing the wisdom of the fathers of confederation, consecrated by the years and applied in practice-while that is to be respected to the full, it must not be taken that you can find from something not within the constitution anything which hamstrings the acts of this parliament as representing the nation.
The limitations on this parliament are contained in the constitution; they are written there. But outside the scope of the constitution this parliament has full sovereign power of nationhood, which it can exercise in accordance with the will of the people of Canada as they are represented in parlia-
N ewfoundland
ment. This parliament represents all the people of Canada within the sphere of matters conferred on it by the British North America Act.
The speech of the leader of the opposition faces us with this situation. We have had a debate lasting a week on the terms under which Newfoundland will enter confederation. That debate seemed to carry with it the agreement of hon. members opposite in every corner of the house. We discussed the terms, fifty of them, paragraph by paragraph, through five consecutive days. The debate achieved a high level and, subject to possibly one qualification, to which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has referred, it seemed that the terms of union received unanimous consent of this house.


Mr. Gagnon:: I said "on division".


Brooke Claxton: There was only one dissenting voice, that of the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). If there were any others, I did and do not hear them. We debated this matter for a week; we discussed all the details and the point now raised by the leader of the opposition was not raised at all. Anyone listening to the debate throughout the week would have taken the view that the leader of the opposition and the Conservative opposition, as well as all hon. members opposite, except one, were in favour of this as a great forward step in the long history of confederation. Now that this point is raised I hope that it can be disposed of so that we may get on with the work of completing the story of confederation and making Canada one great nation "from sea to sea and from the river unto the end of the earth".
This is a step that has been worked for since 1864 and before that. It has been worked for by a long line of statesmen, our forefathers. They have worked hand in hand with our brothers in Newfoundland. Now at last in consequence of the free vote of the Newfoundland people terms of union have been . negotiated which appear to appeal to this house as being fair and generous. They have been adopted by this house and are now up for consideration in the other place. Were we wasting our time last week when we adopted the terms of union? I suggest that this move comes rather suddenly and I think it will cause us to follow with the closest possible interest any further explanation.
With the delegation from Newfoundland we have worked out terms which we regard and which they regard as being fair and just for the entry of Newfoundland into confederation. It has been suggested-I was glad indeed to see that the leader of the opposition did not follow the suggestion-that we were wrong in negotiating the terms before responsible government had been restored in



S08 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Newfoundland
Newfoundland. In that connection I should like to say a word or two, because it is a point on which there has been some controversy. I should like also to express to hon. members opposite appreciation of the fair attitude they have taken.
The fact is that by the Statute of Westminster Newfoundland was given the status of a dominion and had conferred upon it the various provisions, provided the necessary steps were taken to bring her under those terms. In point of fact sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Statute of Westminster were never applied to the colony of Newfoundlahd.
George Alexander Drew: I know the minister wishes to
be correct, and I would point out that section 1 is the section which states that Newfoundland is a dominion. Section 10 relates to certain things that flow from that. Section 1 was not one of the sections included in section 10, which described it as a dominion.


Brooke Claxton: That is quite right; it was
described as a dominion. I do not challenge that; I do not say anything to the contrary. But I do say that the provisions of sections 2 to 6, inclusive, of the Statute of Westminster were never made applicable to the colony of Newfoundland because the Statute of Westminster was never adopted by the legislature of Newfoundland.
The leader of the opposition suggests that there was not time within which to do it, but I would point out that the Statute of Westminster came into effect on December 11, 1931, and the government of Newfoundland was not changed until the commencement of 1934. In the interval there was ample time for Newfoundland to have adopted the Statute of Westminster, had she wanted to do so.


George Alexander Drew: During which time the commission of inquiry was sitting.


Brooke Claxton: The facts are just as I have
stated them. In consequence the Statute of Westminster had absolutely no effect on the constitutional position of Newfoundland. I am informed that that was recognized at the time of the abdication of Edward VIII when reference was not made to Newfoundland for legislation when it was made in the case of the other self-governing dominions.
I would point out that sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Statute of Westminster are made applicable to a dominion only if that dominion has adopted the provisions of section 10, and that was never done by Newfoundland although she had two years within which to do it. Consequently I do not believe that there is anything to be said for the argument advanced by my hon. friend.
	*
The position of Newfoundland was altered in 1934 when the powers of its two houses were vested in a commission. From that time on, the powers of the legislature have been exercised by the commission. I point out that the opportunity for the return of responsible government to Newfoundland was promised by the government of the United Kingdom at such time as the affairs of Newfoundland might be in order, and subject to the will of its people. Following that an election was held for the appointment of forty-five representatives to the commission which was set up to discuss the position of Newfoundland. After discussion they decided to have a referendum on two subjects, whether they would have responsible government or a continuation of the commission form. Some seventeen out of the forty-five representatives voted also for the inclusion of a reference to the people of the subject of confederation. Consequently a referendum on the three questions was ordered by the British government, and it was expressly provided at the time that, if a majority of those voting did not vote in favour of any one of the three alternatives, there would be a second vote. A first vote was held, and there was not a majority for any one of the three. Then there was a second vote, and a majority of those voting voted in favour of entering confederation with Canada.
That was done by the action of the British government. The decision was made by the will of the people of Newfoundland. The British government needs no defence, but I submit that quite obviously they extended to the people of Newfoundland the possibility of having responsible government as well as the other two propositions. In other words, by allowing the people of Newfoundland to make their own choice the British government completely discharged its obligation to the people of Newfoundland.
As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said, however, that is not so much our concern, although if we had felt there was anything unfair about the way in which it was done, we would not have followed through with it. What we wanted to do was to respect the decision of the people of Newfoundland, and to enter into confederation with them on terms which appeared to be just and generous to both sides.
Following the decision of the majority of the people voting in the referendum, a delegation came to Ottawa under the chairmanship of a very distinguished citizen of Newfoundland, Mr. Walsh, now Sir Albert Walsh. He had been vice-chairman of the commission of government. He had not indicated where he stood. The delegation included six others appointed by the Newfoundland

government. It is quite fair to say, without any breach of confidence, that some of the delegation were in favour of joining Canada and some were not. They represented their country in all fairness. They fought hard for what they considered to be just and reasonable terms, and then all but one of them signed the agreement which we are now seeking to implement.
I should like to pay my tribute to all seven of those gentlemen for their fairness, and the tenacity with which they represented the views of their people. I believe they would also agree with us that the terms are just and reasonable. Otherwise they would not have signed. It is those terms which are now being put forward by the parliament of Canada to the parliament at Westminster for the needed ratification.
I should like to quote from the remarks of one of the Newfoundland delegation, a lawyer, one of those gold medallists of Dal-housie university to whom reference was made by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) last week. He represents many important clients in Newfoundland. I refer to the speech of Mr. John B. McEvoy, K.C., on this subject, made at the Ottawa Canadian Club last week. As he had been chairman of the convention, his remarks have particular significance, and I believe great importance, in this connection. In his speech he said:
In view of allegations repeatedly made to the contrary, I want to make it perfectly clear that neither Canada nor any Canadian participated directly, or indirectly, in the recent decision of the people of Newfoundland to seek union with Canada. On July 13, 1943, the then Prime Minister, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, O.M.. stated on the floor of the House of Commons that any idea of bringing Newfoundland into confederation must initiate "on the part of the people of Newfoundland rather than on the part of members of this house, certainly at this particular time. If the people of Newfoundland should ever decide that they wish to enter the Canadian federation and should make that decision clear beyond all possibility of misunderstanding, Canada would give most sympathetic consideration to the proposal."
Then Mr. McEvoy went on:
This position was scrupulously maintained by the government of Canada all the way throughout, until the decision was reached by the people of Newfoundland and formal request was made by the government of Newfoundland to the government of Canada to receive a delegation from Newfoundland for the purpose of negotiating the terms of union.
To those who have a faint heart, or an obstructive inclination, I would commend these words from among those with which Mr. McEvoy concluded his speech. He said:
For my own part, as a Newfoundlander who supported the cause of union, and as one who signed the terms of union, which will doubtless result in my eternal glorification, or damnation, depending upon one's point of view, it will be a proud day for
Newfoundland.
me when the union is consummated, for I have long satisfied myself that, as part of this great dominion, the Newfoundlander will then take his proper place in the sun. Union with Canada brings to Newfoundland the possibility of realizing itself and of taking its place in a great federation of free and autonomous states. It means Newfoundland's emancipation from the stranglehold of isolation. For Canadians I can only, of course, dare to hope that the entry of Newfoundland into confederation will be the occasion of pride and joy.
I am sure that is the spirit in which all of us on this side of the house would like to see the debate conducted and concluded. That is the spirit with which we would like all Canadians to greet the entry of Newfoundland, to stretch out the hand of fellowship, the hand of brotherhood to these brothers in the British commonwealth who have been our neighbours for so long, and are soon to become sons and daughters of Canada. They will soon become that, Mr. Speaker, if the resolution passes and goes forward with the support of the house-I am sure it has the support of the people of Canada and the people of Newfoundland-so that we may join together in one greater union to make an even greater Canada than we have ever known.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, no one could possibly disagree with the word picture painted by my hon. friend who has just resumed his seat as, in concluding his peroration, he declared that it would mean much to Canada and to Newfoundland to join in confederation. As he read from the confederation debates of 1865 I read from those debates when the Hon. George Brown with pride envisaged the day when Newfoundland would join and become part of the Dominion of Canada.
Last week we on this side of the house joined in support of the agreement tentatively entered into between the representatives of the Canadian government and the representatives of Newfoundland. We agreed as to the favourable position in which it would place Canada, both nationally and internationally, to be joined by Newfoundland. There is, however, no inconsistency in the unanimity of our support last week and the stand now taken by my leader in the amendment he has moved. The amendment has nothing to do with the desirability of confederation. We supported that desirability of union and we are unchanged in that view. But, sir, believing as we do in confederation, we demand that the principles of confederation as set out in the British North America Act be complied with by the parliament of this country, to the end that our constitution shall be upheld. As I listened to my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), who apparently would make shortcuts through the constitution, I was reminded that in 1925

Newfoundland
when the question of amending the constitution came before parliament in a resolution moved by the then member for York South Mr. W. F. Maclean, some who have sat with my hon. friend in cabinet made certain statements which were diametrically opposed to the view expressed by him, and which in fact fully supported the stand taken by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), that in any amendment to be made to the British North America Act the provisions of that act shall be fully complied with.
In addition there has grown up, not terms comprised within the written constitution, but precedents under which, when important changes are to be made to the constitution, the provinces must be consulted before those amendments in fact are made. My hon. friend asks, were the provinces consulted at the time Manitoba entered confederation? Were the provinces consulted when British Columbia entered confederation? Were the provinces consulted when Saskatchewan and Alberta entered confederation? I do not think they were, for the reason that those provinces entered confederation within the terms of the principles enunciated in the British North America Act.
Just for a moment, in order to bring the argument back from fantasy to fact regarding the nature of this amendment, I am going to read that amendment again:
And whereas it is desirable that the government of Canada should consult with the governments of the several provinces in respect to the said matter;
Now therefore be it resolved, that the government of Canada be required to consult at once the governments of the several provinces and that upon a satisfactory conclusion of such consultations "a humble address be presented to His Majesty in the following words":
It is not a question of what the constitution is in Newfoundland. That was made clear in the first speech of my leader, although all desire amity within this confederation. What is at issue here, I repeat, is that the government has endeavoured to get around the constitution, because it believed it could not bring about confederation within the terms of the constitution.


Brooke Claxton: May I ask just one question?


John George Diefenbaker: If my hon. friend will just wait, possibly I will answer his question a little later on. At the moment I am going to read section 146 of the British North America Act, though I have never been averse to answering questions at any time. That section reads:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's most honourable privy council, on addresses from the houses of parliament of Canada, and from the houses of the respective legislatures of the colonies or provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and British Col-

umbia, to admit those colonies or provinces, or any of them, into the union, and on address from the houses of the parliament of Canada to admit Rupert's Land and the northwestern territory, or either of them, into the union, on such terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to the provisions of this act . . .
That is the material portion. The government found itself in the position, to use the word of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), where "convenience" dictated departure from the terms of confederation. To me, sir, that was an astounding statement. Whenever the terms of confederation appear inconvenient, that would be a justification for making changes in the constitution. Surely, sir, we have not come to the position that, whenever a section of the British North America Act becomes inconvenient if carried into effect, all parliament has to do is, by a majority of parliament, to pass an address whereby the inconvenience is removed, regardless of what may be the result to the constitution.
It was not until the Prime Minister used the word "convenience" that I realized what the government is trying to do. I was not surprised because, sir, no government since confederation has ever committed the number of invasions of provincial rights, whether under the guise of emergency or defence or otherwise, that the present government has made. There is always an excuse for these invasions. Once it was an emergency; the other day it was the demands of defence; today, sir, the new excuse is the balance of convenience.
What does this address say? We have accepted the terms of the agreement; we have accepted the desirability of confederation. But we demand, sir, that parliament shall never deem it proper to amend our constitution indirectly, for convenience or otherwise, without consultation with the provinces.
I shall read the material portions of the resolution.
And whereas the agreement containing terms of union between Canada and Newfoundland set out in the schedule to this act has been duly approved by the parliament of Canada and by the government of Newfoundland;
And whereas Canada has requested and consented to the enactment of an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom to confirm and give effect to the said agreement-
That was as far as we went. We consented to the terms of the agreement. But, at the time we did so, we did not realize nor were we given to understand the method whereby the government intended to circumvent the constitution in order to carry out the terms of union.


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: This was on the order paper.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He cannot read.


John George Diefenbaker: We had no idea then whether or not the provinces had been consulted. I do not hear any guffaws from the other side at that statement.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Listen a little more closely.


John George Diefenbaker: Listening to the frivolous manner of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), one is led to believe that he regards "facetious" as synonymous with "finance".


Douglas Charles Abbott: I knew that would be a dandy.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to continue against such a group-


Mr. Blackmore:: Would the hon. member speak more loudly?


John George Diefenbaker: What are my hon. friends, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the former Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, saying?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will make my speech presently.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to hear that, because I should like to remind him of the lines:
But man, proud man,
Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assur'd.
Then, continuing to read from the resolution:
Be it therefore enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. The agreement containing terms of union between Canada and Newfoundland set out in the schedule to this act is hereby confirmed and shall have the force of law notwithstanding anything in the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946.
What does that mean? Regardless of the British North America Act the British government is being asked by this house to circumvent a principle engrafted in the constitution. We in this parliament are asked to give approval to this course.
The next section of the resolution is equally clear:
This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1949, and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946, and this act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1949.
The British North America Act contemplated that Newfoundland would join confederation only upon compliance with certain provisions of the act. A roundabout way in the mechanical and legislative process has never been deemed proper at any time in amending the constitution.
I will refer now to some of the statements made in 1925, which are indicative of the support then given by members of the cabi-
Newjoundland
net of the then Prime Minister to the whole question of the amendment of the constitution. There have been changes in the constitution in recent years. In 1946, the first breach in constitutional procedure developed in connection with an amendment concerning redistribution. The advantages achieved were taken as the excuse for circumventing the provisions of the constitution.
At that time I said, as reported on page 2235 of Hansard, and I now repeat:
. . . the test of looking not at the advantages of the present to be achieved by this short-cut method of amendment of our constitution, but rather at the grave potentialities inherent in making a precedent for amendment of our constitution by a majority of parliament. The great danger of attractive measures such as this is that of the people and the people's representatives, by reason of the very attractiveness, giving up the substance for the shadow.
In 1946 we took exactly the same stand as we now take, namely, that in the matter of amendment of our constitution, consultation with the provinces is absolutely necessary in the interests of our federation.
If I cannot convince by my own argument, or by what has been said by the hon. leader of the opposition, possibly I can convince by some of the statements made by outstanding leaders in this country in 1925. I have already referred to the question that then came before the house, a matter that must be faced in this country in the interests of our common development. That question is the amendment of our constitution to remove anachronisms while protecting the rights of each province within confederation.
One who spoke on the matter was the Hon. Mr. Lapointe, who in dealing with this matter said, at page 298 of Hansard of 1925:
First, the British North America Act itself is not only the charter of the Dominion of Canada; it is just as much the charter of the provinces of Canada. We derive our powers from the British North America Act; so do the provinces. They have no constitution other than the British North America Act; all their powers they derive from that act.
Then he goes on to say this:
Second, my hon. friend speaks of protection to minorities. That is not the only thing in the British North America Act in which the provinces are interested. They have all their powers which they have kept to themselves and which have been agreed by everybody to be their powers. Have we a right to amend the constitution without their consent, in the way, for instance, of taking away from them some of the powers which have been theirs since confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I am being fair in reading this part. Mr. Crerar, who was then a member of the government interrupted and said:
This parliament would have that power in respect of all provinces excepting the four Plat originally entered confederation.

Newfoundland
Then Mr. Lapointe said:
I do not agree with my hon. friend in that regard. The other provinces came later into a joint confederation, but they have the same status, powers and rights as the original four provinces and they should be consulted just as much as any other province if any substantial change is asked as regards the British North America Act.
I point out that Mr. Lapointe is not dealing only with the question of jurisdictional powers as between the dominion and the provinces. Then he refers to the views of Sir John Macdonald, Sir George Etienne Cartier, Hon. George Brown and other outstanding members at the time, on the subject of confederation. He also quotes Sir Wilfrid Laurier, at page 299, as follows:
In parliament here we can do as we please; we are in the majority; but are the members of this house prepared to say that if any province finds itself aggrieved by the terms of confederation, which have been accepted by all the provinces, they will ask the British parliament to alter the constitution in the way desired by that particular province? Such a course might be followed by very serious consequences.
He replies to the views of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) as to the nature of confederation in these words:
Confederation is a compact, made originally by four provinces, but adhered to by all the nine provinces who have entered it, and I submit to the judgment of this house and to the best consideration of its members, that this compact should not be lightly altered. It should be altered only for adequate cause, and after the provinces themselves have had an opportunity to pass judgment on the same.


Brooke Claxton: May I ask how this is altering any compact?


John George Diefenbaker: I did not hear the
question.


Brooke Claxton: I asked how our present action would alter any compact.


John George Diefenbaker: The arrangement made in section 146 provides for the basis of confederation, in bringing into confederation certain other named areas.
I shall not read the quotation from the remarks of Sir Robert Borden, but he held views similar to Mr. Lapointe's. Finally Mr. Lapointe uses words that I thought were particularly pertinent. He said:
Surely the British North America Act cannot be made a scrap of paper, as that treaty was made at that time.
He was referring to Belgium.
There is a way, perhaps, yes; but the only way is the friendly way, is the legal way, is the constitutional way. It is to approach the various parties to the agreement with a view to arriving at an understanding as to the changes which may be necessary and which may be agreed upon by all the parties to the pact.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I am not entering into a controversy on the question whether confederation was a pact, a treaty, a contract or a statute; but both Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe used the expression "pact" and "compact". Mr. Lapointe continues as follows:
As I have said, I do not think there could be any other way; I believe that any arbitrary action in the matter would simply defeat its own purpose and would strike at the root of our national unity. I think I cite history correctly when I say that every time there has been a dispute in Canada as regards provincial rights, those who were on the side of provincial rights were victorious in the end.


William Earl Rowe: And will be again.


John George Diefenbaker: I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that at the Liberal convention last August it was pointed out how far the present government had departed from a recognition of provincial rights. Then I go on to quote further from Mr. Lapointe:
I do not think there can be any attempt to change the mutual charter of both the dominion and the provinces by the arbitrary action of this parliament. I do not think it is possible to do it.


Mr. Marlin:: What page is that?


John George Diefenbaker: That is page 301, in the first column. To continue:
To those who want changes, and I am willing to admit that there might be the necessity for changes, I would say that the only way to get them is the constitutional way, to ask the consent of the various parties to confederation.
In that statement Mr. Lapointe went even further than did those of his predecessors who had occupied the position of Minister of Justice.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the views of outstanding Canadians who at different times were members of the cabinet of the former Prime Minister of this country. I had referred to the views of the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, and I had referred to some of the statements made at that time by Mr. Crerar, now Senator Crerar.
As reported at page 317 of Hansard for February 19, 1925, discussing the question of the constitution Mr. Crerar said:
The fact is that Canada has moved forward tremendously in the last fifty years. Those of us who have read history know the circumstances in Canada that brought about the confederation of the then existing provinces. I quite agree with the argument advanced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) yesterday that the confederation pact was in the nature of a treaty. It was the result of different provinces getting together and agreeing upon a solution that would lead them out of their difficulties. But while that was one of the reasons

behind the confederation understanding or agreement in 1867, there was also another aspiration behind it, and it was voiced, perhaps most strongly, by the great architect of confederation, Sir John A. Macdonald, for in large measure, he was the architect of confederation, even if he could not claim credit for originating the idea.
Then Senator Crerar, as he now is, went on to deal with the question of a united northern British America.
As reported at page 332 of Hansard, the then Prime Minister, the present right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr, Mackenzie King) used these words:
There is in the first place the question of the right to amend our own constitution, a question which one might describe at present as theoretical or academic, although it may come to have in the course of time some very practical bearings. There is secondly the question of the method by which this country should proceed to secure amendment of its constitution should it decide such a step to be desirable and necessary.
And then later on he said:
All of that particular phase of the question was so fully and conclusively argued by the Minister of Justice yesterday that this house, I believe, is practically unanimously of the view that if an amendment of the kind is to be sought, due regard should be had to the view thjit a compact was made at the time of confederation, and that an amendment of the importance that such an amendment certainly would have, ought only to be proposed after there had been a conference and agreement between the dominion and the provinces.
The amendment to which the then Prime Minister was referring was an amendment that would alter the basis of the amendment of our constitution, and make it possible to have it amended by parliament after consultation and in agreement with the provinces.
How important it is that the rights of confederation in so far as the provinces are concerned be respected was indicated again the other day when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) referred to the rights under section 133 of the British North America Act, and indicated that in his legal opinion, based upon his experience as a fine constitutional lawyer, those rights could be taken away by a vote of a simple majority of parliament.
That viewpoint if accepted goes a long way along the road to destroy the basis upon which-and I use the words of the former Prime Minister-the compact of confederation was founded and arrived at. If it is going to be open to a simple majority of parliament, without consultation with the provinces, to make amendments, then the rights guaranteed minorities under the British North America Act-and I am not referring to powers under section 92, but rather to those other rights in which the provinces have an interest, or in which minorities in the provinces have an interest-could be torn asunder and destroyed by the overwhelming weight of a majority in parliament.
Newfoundland
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) speaking in the house on July 5, 1943, indicated how far the British parliament would go in passing an amendment to our constitution, regardless of any provincial rights which might be involved. The hon. member, as reported at page 4345 of Hansard, said:
Let me say to him and those who believe with him that, from conversations again and again with members of the British House of Commons, some of them within the last few days, I am convinced that whenever Canada asks for an amendment of the British North America Act-which is, in effect, our constitution-no matter what amendment we may ask, the parliament of Great Britain will accede to the request and adopt the proposed amendment.
If his conclusion is correct-and that was the considered opinion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar at that time; and apparently he has not changed that opinion in the past four or five years, because he used similar terms in the debate on redistribution -then the danger of permitting of amendments to the constitution, without consultation with the provinces, is intensified. It is placed in clear relief.
The amendment is not something new. We stood for this in 1946, as we have stood for the rights of the provinces since confederation. In 1946 we pointed out the danger to constitutional rights when there was held before this House of Commons an invitation to circumvent the constitution in order to secure additional members. We pointed out that short-cuts of amendment would make a pathway which would ultimately lead to permanent highways that would be dangerous to the future of the compact of confederation. In 1946 we took a stand that followed the stand taken throughout the years by Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir George Etienne Cartier, Aylesworth, Blake, Meighen and Bennett and, above all, as taken by Mr. Lapointe who, throughout the years, pressed for the necessity of the assurance that the pact of confederation be not amended in whole or in part except after consultation with-and he went so far as to say "with the consent of"-the provinces.
In 1946, on the occasion of the debate on the matter of the address, an amendment was moved by myself which placed our views then before the Canadian people-and this amendment is almost a complete reiteration of the 1946 amendment. I urged then, as I do now, the necessity for the preservation inviolate of rights under the constitution if there is to be unity in this land. At that time I quoted the words of Edmund Burke, which were applicable then as they are now, when he said:
Our constitution is like our island, which uses and restrains its subject sea; in vain the waves roar. In

Newfoundland
that constitution, I know, and exultantly feel, both that I am free, and that I am not free dangerously to myself or to others.
Great progress has been made since confederation, as was pictured by the Minister of Defence (Mr. Claxton), but those advances were made during a period when the constitution was upheld at all costs by all parties in this country. Having the experience of power gained during the days of war when without restraint parliament allowed the federal authority, the provinces raising no objection, to infringe upon the rights of the provinces, this government is following the precedent on amendment to the constitution in 1946 and is adding precedent to precedent. Unless a stop is put to this course, it will become the unwritten law of this country that our constitution may be amended without consultation with the provinces. There is the danger.
Junius dealt with that when great debates on liberty and freedom were taking place. He dealt with many of the problems that we are faced with in connection with our constitution. He warned of the danger of bad precedents being permitted to find a place in the statute books because the danger was that if once permitted they would continue in the future. He said:
One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law. What yesterday was fact, today is doctrine.
What Junius said in those great Letters of his comes back with renewed force. Almost three years ago this parliament, over the stand taken by this opposition, permitted an amendment by voting for an address which provided for an amendment to our constitution that altered one of the main bases upon which confederation was built. We moved an amendment in these words:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words: "A humble address be presented to His Majesty the King in the following words:" and substituting therefor:
And whereas it is desirable that the government should consult with the several provinces In respect of the said matter:
Now therefore be it resolved that the government be required to consult at once the several provinces and upon satisfactory conclusion of such consultations be authorized to present an humble address to His Majesty in the following terms.
That was our amendment in 1946. My hon. friends opposite say that we have changed our viewpoint. That viewpoint we have not changed. Our stand in 1946 is our stand today. Everywhere in this land, in every province in this country, people will be able to realize and build upon this fact: So long as we are in this House of Commons, rights under the constitution will not be kicked about by a government, however convenient it may be to that government to do so.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)


Mr, Knowles:: Before the hon. member sits down, wbuld he permit me to ask a question? The hon. member has referred to the stand his party took in 1946. Will he tell the house where his party stood in 1943? If he won't, I will; they voted the other way in 1943.


Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliol (Temiscouaia):: Mr. Speaker, I am open-minded about this question of Newfoundland, but I was surprised at some of the arguments used by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). He referred to Newfoundland as being a dominion, but he knows that the British government appointed the Amulree commission whose recommendations were approved, first by the Newfoundland government and afterward by the British government who put them into force. One of the recommendations of that commission was that the legislative and executive authority be vested in the governor, who was to be advised by a commission of six members appointed by the British government. One of those commissioners, Mr. Walsh I believe, was here. Newfoundland is no longer a dominion, as the leader of the opposition knows very well.
We have had some fine dissertations about the fathers of confederation. They were great men, they were statesmen, but they are all dead. I am more interested in the living than in the dead, although I have great respect for the dead. As I say, I was openminded about Newfoundland until a few days ago when I saw a dispatch in the press. I do not think too much publicity could be given to this. It appeared in a French paper as a Reuters dispatch from London dated February 9, and I translate from the French as follows:
Viscount Jowitt, Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, stated that the decision of Canada to incorporate Newfoundland was far from being stingy.
That is my English, of course. It may not be Oxford English, but I am doing my best.
It is certain that union for a great many years to come will be a heavy burden upon the Canadian people, he stated in answer to the Tory Lord Semphill. He said that that was one reason why several people from Newfoundland were under the impression that they were being sold to Canada by the British government.
Lord Jowitt was kind enough to inform Canada of the burden that would have to be carried on our shoulders. If the leader of the British government in the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor, says that this deal will be a heavy burden for Canada, then I may not be for it. I will leave aside all hairsplitting about section 146 of the British North America Act and section 6 of the Statute of Westminster. I have already said and written that the Statute of Westminster is just bunk and changes nothing in the British North America Act. Who ever heard

of a law with any of the enacting provisions in the preamble? Moreover, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) knows very well that the Statute of Westminster is valueless, and that it changed nothing in the British North America Act. Therefore I do not know what I shall do about the motion of the leader of the opposition, because his presentation of it was too nebulous. I am against the entry of Newfoundland into confederation at the present time at least. Why should we be in such a hurry? We should take our time. We should see if Lord Jowitt was right or wrong. The Canadian people may blame all members of parliament because they accepted certain conventions blindly. In those circumstances, and owing to the fact that Lord Jowitt has revealed to the House of Lords that it is a bad bargain for Canada, I do not see how we can be bound by such a convention. There is something else that you must note also. Some of the representatives of Newfoundland who came here were the very commissioners appointed by the British government. One of the British cabinet ministers has spoken very clearly in the House of Lords, when he said that they were glad to get rid of Newfoundland. I find that insulting to Newfoundland, but it is a good thing that we know what the situation is.
Every time that all parties of the house are unanimous about something I become suspicious. During the war I was suspicious about conscription. I was suspicious about the so-called gifts we made, and I am suspicious now about this bargain. I warn you, Mr. Speaker, and I warn my hon. colleagues, to take their time. There is no reason for them to swallow Newfoundland in one gulp. Take your time and think about it. Let us wait until we see the Hansard of the House of Lords with the context of the remarks of Lord Jowitt. That is a most important thing to do. We hold a position of trust, and the people of Canada have the right to ask of each one of us, "what is the matter about Newfoundland?"
What are the boundaries between Newfoundland as it is now and Canada? Have they been surveyed? We are told Labrador is a rich country. What are the delimitations of Newfoundland at the present time? That is a question which has not been discussed at all. We have no map of Newfoundland; we only have a script. I want a map; I want to know where Canada ends now, and what will constitute Newfoundland when Newfoundland enters confederation, if she does. I have nothing more to add other than to say that I think Lord Jowitt has rendered a tremendous service to Canada by warning us against haste.
N ewfoundland


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, there has appeared recently during the debate a noticeable tendency to quote the speeches of Colonel George Drew made in 1937, when he was without experience, against the speeches of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) of 1949, after twelve years of experience, much of it gained as premier of Ontario in the administration of the affairs of that province. A man of ordinary intelligence and the honesty to face facts can learn a lot in twelve years. I judge from the way the leader of the opposition deports himself in this house that he is a man of ordinary intelligence, and that he has the honesty to face facts. Let us not be surprised then if the language which he uses today concerning dominion-provincial relations is quite different from the language which he used when he was without experience twelve years ago. Let the members of the present party in power take over the administration of one of the provinces of this dominion, and face realities as they are in Canada and as they have been during the last ten years. They will be different men entirely from the men they are now. They will have made a good many important discoveries that everyone in Canada ought to make concerning the responsibilities which rest upon the provinces, and the financial difficulties which the provinces experience in endeavouring to discharge them.
In supporting the Conservative amendment Social Crediters are not supporting the Conservatives.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: I am making my statement, and hon. members should take it as I am making it. Social Crediters are supporting the principles of provincial responsibility, decentralization of power, and genuine democracy and freedom. We began to support them before the election of 1935 which swept Premier Aberhart into power in Alberta, and those principles have been supported consistently in every public utterance of every Social Credit leader since that time. By this amendment the Conservatives have merely swung into line with the Social Credit contention throughout the years. When the present leader of the opposition made his remarks in 1937 he was opposing Alberta. I doubt very much that the present leader of the opposition, with the experience he now has, would oppose the policies that Premier Aberhart was following in 1937. He has found how necessary they were.
By its vote, parliament has declared itself to be in favour of Newfoundland's entry into the Dominion of Canada as the tenth province. The vote had no reference whatsoever to the

Newfoundland
method of changing the Canadian constitution, the British North America Act. It seems to me that there is a considerable amount of confusion in the minds of certain members of the Liberal party and the C.C.F. party in this respect. They choose to disregard a vital fact in the situation as a result of which they go astray, either deliberately or by accident.
The present B.N.A. Act is admirably workable by men of good will. That has been discovered by the Social Credit party in its administration of the province of Alberta over a period of fourteen years. Men of good will in both the federal and provincial governments can make the British North America Act of today work successfully in the interests of Canada. There is no need to bring the British North America Act up to date. It is up to date. All that is necessary is to bring the thinking of the men of our country up to date, and to bring the application of the British North America Act up to date. Let the federal parliament exercise its powers concerning currency, credit, and banking wisely and beneficently for the advantage of all Canadians. As all hon. members will recall, those powers were given specifically to the federal government in the British North America Act. Let the federal government exercise them.
I notice a stone wall of determined resistance on the part of many members of the Liberal party against any progressive consideration whatsoever of those two powers. In the B.N.A. Act the dominion government is given power over currency and coinage, over banking, the incorporation of banks and the issue of paper money. I maintain that, if those two powers are exercised wisely by the federal government, all the unhappiness that has existed as between the dominion and the provinces during the past twenty years will have no reason for recurring. Let the federal government pass enabling legislation, as the present government has been doing recently. Let the federal government render available to the provinces the financial means they require to enable them to discharge their responsibilities under the constitution, and there will be no more difficulty.
Let it be borne in mind that at the present time under the constitution of Canada the provinces are charged with responsibility in all matters pertaining to education, health, roads, housing, the support of the unfortunate such as the unemployed, invalids, the aged, the blind and other people who are more or less unable to take care of themselves. It seems to me moreover that any broad interpretation of the principle of property and civil rights must include responsibility over prices and markets within the province also. I do not see how any province can possibly take 
care of the property and civil rights of its citizens unless that province is able to control prices and markets. How can you guarantee the property and civil rights of a farmer if you have no control over the prices of the things he sells or the prices of the things he buys? That seems to me to very definitely carry the implication that the provinces should have power to control those two important factors in its life. Let the dominion government render available to the province of Nova Scotia, for example, the financial support necessary to enable that province to discharge its responsibilities in connection with property and civil rights, which I have just indicated. Then the dominion will have no further trouble with Nova Scotia or any other province, and the people of Canada will be happy and prosperous.
It will be said immediately by those who are orthodox in their financial thinking, "Well, where are we going to get the money?" That is exactly the matter I referred to when I mentioned the powers given the dominion government in respect of banking, currency and credit, and the issue of paper money. If in addition to the things I have already mentioned the federal government will give wise leadership to the provinces, which in considerable degree the present government has been doing within the last few years, a great many difficulties will be avoided. Call a dominion-provincial conference to deal with all the important matters for which the provinces and the dominion are jointly responsible. Then, after policy has been determined, let the federal government lead out, as it was set to do, and we shall have no more trouble in the dominion. All will then go well in Canada.
Listening to people, watching the way they applaud, listening to the little remarks they make on the side, we find that those in this house fall naturally into two groups. One group is the centralizers; the other group consists of the decentralizers. The centralizers seem to be afflicted with the idea that anyone who is not in this federal government or in this house has no sense and knows nothing about how to govern a province. In other words, they believe that in order to rule the people of British Columbia for instance we have to tell them what to do and see that they do it, instead of leaving it to British Columbia itself. That conception is entirely contrary to the facts. There are just as intelligent men elected to the government of British Columbia as ever came to this house; and they are close to the people and know the problems of the people. They are just as anxious to do what is right. All you need do from the standpoint of this government is provide them with the finan-

cial means to discharge their responsibilities under the British North America Act. They will do the rest. We need not try to tell them how to run their education or housing or old age pensions or health or highways. They know how to do it; and they want to do it. Just as soon as we realize that there are wise men in even the smallest hamlets of Canada, and that all we have to do is enable those wise men to rule the country, then we shall have no more trouble. But when you let the centralizers take control of everything right down for example to the acres of peas or beans or carrots a man is going to plant, then you encounter real trouble.
Recently the Canadian people passed through the exacting crisis of the war. During that time they raised a powerful army. During that time they built up an efficient wartime production machine. During that time they designed and put into operation an admirable system of price control, and other economic controls. The present government must be given credit for having done all those things, in co-operation with the provinces. In the process the members of this house and the people of the country have seen this magnificent Canadian people carry on from coast to coast with scarcely a quiver or a creak, notwithstanding the fact that on many occasions this government encroached upon provincial fields, taking over powers that were obviously powers of the provinces. The provinces gladly acceded to the request of the dominion while the crisis continued, showing that there was no desire to interfere or to insist uncooperatively on provincial rights.
The people of this country will dp that under any crisis. All that is necessary is to consult them. All that is necessary is to determine with them the objective that must be gained and the method that must be followed in order to do so, and you will find the Canadian people united. It will not matter a particle how much power a province has; it will gladly co-operate with any intelligent leading power in Ottawa.
The thing that is worrying the provinces is that, if they lose the constitutional power to determine the way their people shall be governed, then when crisis comes and they need that power they will no longer have it. During the war we did not find any sign of lack of unity, except perhaps between the two primary races in Canada, and I am not sure there was a great lack of unity there. Nor did we find any sign of any kind of "balkanization." I think one of the members of the C.C.F. party is responsible for that noble word. He will never see the balkanization of Canada as long as we remain Canadians and true to our traditions. Let the
Newfoundland
provinces have as much power as they desire; we shall find them working together as long as we give them wise leadership.
May I turn for a minute or two to the remarks made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). He said it required a change in the British North America Act to admit the provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Alberta and Saskatchewan. I know that the hon. minister was speaking-


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry, but I never said
anything of the kind.


John Horne Blackmore: I gathered that was what
the hon. minister said, and that he was using that as a reason why it was quite logical to change the British North America Act in order to bring Newfoundland into confederation.


Brooke Claxton: I know the hon. member
wants to be fair. I never said anything of the kind, nor did I intend to say anything of the kind.


John Horne Blackmore: I am sorry, but I was making notes rather hastily and I am not quite sure I got his idea. I gathered from his remarks the impression that he was trying to argue we were proposing to use the same procedure in admitting Newfoundland as was used in admitting these other provinces. Am I correct in that?
In those remarks, I do not believe the hon. member was quite up to his ordinary standard of quick and accurate thinking. You will remember that Alberta and Saskatchewan were already part of the Dominion of Canada, since they were part of the Northwest Territories. British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba were not sovereign states. They had never become sovereign dominions under the 1926 imperial conference and the declaration which followed upon that, nor under the Statute of Westminster, as Newfoundland has become. Newfoundland is a sister dominion. Consequently, the admission of Newfoundland to Canada involves certain principles which were not involved in the admission of any of the other provinces mentioned.
May I say a word or two concerning the stand of the Social Credit party on this matter? We Social Crediters favour Canadian unity, but we favour the decentralization of power, once and for all, to enable the provinces to protect their people industrially, financially and politically. We may be facing another depression in a very short time, as all hon. members know. If another depression does come and we begin to go through such trying experiences as confronted the Canadian

Newfoundland
people during the last depression, then we shall face difficulties which will require real statesmanship. Up to the present time, no federal government has shown any sign of adopting any adequate safeguards against depression.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, it will be found that another depression is the thing that is worrying the provinces. The provinces are concerned about how they will manage their affairs during a period of depression. Look at what happened to the provinces during the last depression. Even the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, with their vast amount of industrialization, became impoverished to a painful degree. The four western provinces and the three maritime provinces were reduced to the point of extreme poverty. Prices fell, but debts remained. Falling prices caused debts which were owing before the depression to almost treble, but the debts remained and the interest was still charged. Men were dispossessed from their farms and homes. All this time the dominion government sat supinely, disregarding the whole matter.
As soon as Premier Aberhart was elected in the province of Alberta and began to defend the homes of the people in that province, he encountered opposition from this federal government. It is easy to state that such a thing will not occur again. Furthermore, all during that depression adverse freight rates continued to place a most iniquitous burden on the western provinces and the maritimes. Nothing was done by the federal government to cushion the impact of those freight rates on the economic life of these provinces. Adverse tariff conditions prevailed, but again nothing was done to cushion the impact of those tariffs on the people of the provinces. If the provinces face such conditions again, they will need constitutionally guaranteed powers which have not yet been granted to them. The provinces need recognized constitutional powers so that they can act to meet depressions or other emergencies which might arise.
The provinces must have a constitutional power to resist any centralization moves of the federal government. An example of this we saw in the Sirois report, a matter which I do not propose to discuss at the present time. The Liberal government at Ottawa proposed to act on the Sirois report, which was designed to utterly destroy the financial independence of every province in this dominion. For example, Mr. Speaker, in connection with adjustment grants-hon. members will recall that the provinces were to receive these grants-Quebec was to receive $8 million a year. The rest of the provinces combined were to receive only $6 million. The province of Alberta alone is today receiv-

ing a larger adjustment grant than that every year. According to the Sirois report recommendations, Alberta was to receive nothing, British Columbia was to receive nothing, and Ontario was to receive nothing.
Now that report was seriously considered by the members of the government, many of whom are now sitting on the treasury benches in this house. That report was seriously considered by the party which now controls this country. Can you blame anyone who has the interest of this country at heart for rising in his place to oppose a set-up under which such a thing could occur? We simply must be on our guard if we are going to be worthy of the responsibilities resting upon us. In addition to that, it is important to consider the protection of property and civil rights which are also the charge of the provinces.
Let me make the stand of the Social Credit party abundantly clear. One of the most pathetic things in public life in this country, Mr. Speaker, is that a man will say one thing in this house and his political opponents will go all over the country declaring he said another. I wonder how in the world this country can be honourably governed when men resort to such base tactics? Let me state once more, specifically, the position of Social Crediters in this matter. We did support the principle of the union of Newfoundland with Canada. Anyone who says we did not is lying. We still support that principle, and we shall do so. We did support the proposed terms of the agreement, after careful consideration of all the details presented to the house. We still do. We have not changed, nor do we now change our attitude towards this most important step in the completion of Canadian federation.
In introducing the resolution which is now before the house on the motion of the Prime Minister, the government has chosen however a procedure which could be easily interpreted, as the leader of the opposition has shown, as an amendment to the British North America Act. We cannot, therefore, do less than support his amendment requesting that the provinces be consulted. If we did anything else it could be interpreted as opposition to the fundamental principle of decentralization and provincial autonomy for which we have stood throughout the years. The stand which we propose to take now, we believe to be the only safeguard to our constitution.
I think I have made quite clear the stand we are taking and the reason for our intention of voting with the Conservatives on this amendment to the proposal of the Prime Minister.


Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a speech for the first time during this session of parliament,

you will accept my usual assurance it will not take very long. It seems to me that our whole difficulty may be summarized in the simple statement that, while great men brought about the passage of the British North America Act, they made no provision in that act for a method for revising our constitution. We therefore from time to time find ourselves in the difficulty which confronts this house today. From that day to this we have been obliged to rely on decisions made in the Supreme Court of Canada and in the privy council regarding matters of jurisdiction and amendment. So may I at once say that I agree-as I have always agreed-with what was stated in the radio speech made by the Prime Minister a short time ago, that we need a meeting of some kind to endeavour to find a way to amend the British North America Act; to find a legal method, which will be without difficulty and without cavil, of amending our constitution. But that has not happened as yet. From the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) I gather that it is something which he has in mind, but he said that he had no intention of bringing that idea forward in the present session of parliament.
Some legal questions are unanswered, and this house is entitled to expect to receive answers to them from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) who, after hearing the speech made by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) the other day, has maintained a most discreet silence in this house. As a matter of fact, I have not heard him guffaw in his usual manner from that time to this.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Who? The hon. member for Souris?


Arthur Leroy Smith: The question in my mind, and upon which no one has touched, is this. Has Newfoundland a legislature, or has it not? In the broad sense of that word, I know they have no elected representatives. But I also know that, by the imperial act of 1933, I think it was, all the powers of a legislature were conferred upon the governing body. I am only a little police court lawyer. I realize that. I know nothing about constitutional matters.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, the interruption must have been intelligent. It was not from the hon. member for Springfield.


Mr. Sinnott:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here in my seat all evening, and have not spoken one word since I came in.
Newfoundland


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I agree with the hon. member for Springfield, Mr. Speaker, and go even further than he did. May I say that he has not said an intelligent word in this house since I came here four or five years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member for Calgary West may regret that remark.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Again I rise to a question of privilege.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Ignore it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I do not think-


An hon. Member:: You never did.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -that any hon. member of this house should speak to another in the manner adopted by the hon. member for Calgary West.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Consider the source whence it came.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Yes, I consider the source from which it came.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that hon. members do not interrupt the hon. member who has the floor.


An hon. Member:: He did not interrupt.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the hon. member who has the floor should address himself to the Speaker.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I accept your soft slap on the wrist, Mr. Speaker, because there is no one to whom I would pay greater attention that I would to you.


Mr. Grant:: The hon. member is obliged to.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Perhaps one of the reasons for that is that I am obliged to do so. But, nevertheless, that is the situation. I now continue. I wish the sharp-shooters in the chamber would speak out so that I could hear them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Nobody said a word.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I turn now for a moment to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who told us that my leader had reversed himself between last week and this week. That was to be anticipated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Leroy Smith: When I went to school, there were no such things as "grades"; the term used then was "books". When some one expects an interruption from the fifth book, he gets one from the second book, as exemplified by the interruption I received

Newfoundland
from the Minister of Finance just now. These people do not know any better. That is the situation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Thank you, thank you. Carry on.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) might address the chair, Mr. Speaker. I am glad the hon. gentleman thanked me, because we have been excellent friends for a long time. I disagree with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). The Minister of Finance knows the difference between facetiousness and finance. He does not know it well, but he knows it.
To continue, I do not intend to quote what anybody said in 1864, 1865, 1867 or at any other time. I shall, however, try to bring this matter down to the present with regard to just what our problem is, and what we are voting on. Before I was so kindly interrupted by the Minister of Finance-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I beg the hon. member's pardon. I have not interrupted my hon. friend tonight. I can only suggest that my hon. friend pay a little bit more attention to identifying those who may be interrupting him. I have not been one of them.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am delighted to hear that, and I apologize most humbly. Perhaps it was the hon. member for Springfield. He would like to be a minister of finance.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have been trying to read a letter, Mr. Speaker.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister of Finance's preoccupation with his letter. I hope it is from his wife and that he will get some benefit from it. But that is neither here nor there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must ask the hon. member to co-operate with the chair, to address himself to the Speaker and not to make any reference to any other hon. member, especially those who do not interrupt.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I did not hear you, Mr. Speaker, but I agree with everything you say. That is all right. We rely on the Minister of Justice to guide us humble people who know no law. We may have an idea of justice but perhaps not of law. We should like him to tell us, at some time, whether or not under the present set-up Newfoundland has a legislature. But the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has been extremely silent in this debate. He has no papers in front of him, as has the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who has been getting ready for some considerable time.


Mr. Martin:: My mind has been elsewhere.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am quite sure of that. However, let us not discuss the usual.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A very good comeback.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I come back to this and I say to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that I have no doubt he is ambitious. I have no doubt he has now been appointed to the senior team. I have no doubt he wants to be known some day as the rookie of the year-if I may use an expression used in hockey. I point out to him that he has some difficulties in front of him. He has the beneficent administrator of reconstruction and supply, and he has the man with the great smile down here, the minister for whom we have respect and who deals with foreign affairs. I think he had better get into this pretty soon and tell us-because we will all accept his views-just what the law is in this matter.
I now turn to the socialists on my left. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), the leader of that party in the house, made a speech. I knew every word he was going to say. I do not mean I could have given it phrase by phrase, but I did know he would support this measure. Why? Because their whole philosophy is the centralization of authority in a single government. Therefore that was his position. The best example we have had of that in recent years was when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) last year, with his tongue in his cheek, brought in a bill with respect to centralizing in this government the handling of coarse grains. The only provincial government supporting it was the socialist government of Saskatchewan. They came through all right; they did not even let the ball have a second bounce. They grabbed it and came right back. So that is their position. I understand it, because it has been the position of socialists from Karl Marx right down to the day of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. That is their whole position; so we can thoroughly understand them.
Perhaps you may think, Mr. Speaker, that it is a bit late; but if I may I should like to turn your mind-perhaps "invite the turning of your mind" would be a better expression- to just what the present position is. This is an amendment to the British North America Act. No one has seen fit to deny that. No one has made a single suggestion that it is anything other than that. So, as far as I am concerned, I am anxious to leave behind what people have said from 1864 until the present time. I have been advised by men who were experts in this business that anyone who is in politics would like to forget everything he

ever said. As a matter of fact, it is not a bad idea.
So we come down to this very simple proposition: What does this mean? Expediency, convenience, shortcuts-use any other words you will. It does seem to me that it is just that. Although this is the first speech I have made since the session was called-and perhaps these will be my last words in it-let me ask this: Am I right in saying-and I am sure I am-that it is an amendment to the Canadian constitution?


Mr. Garson:: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Who said no?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The Minister of Justice.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Oh, the Minister of Justice said it? I am so happy to have heard him say that. But apparently he has not read the resolution-because it is called that in the resolution. It states-
The agreement containing terms of union between Canada and Newfoundland set out in the schedule to this act is hereby confirmed and shall have the force-
What?
-of law, notwithstanding anything in the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946.
And if that is not enough for him-for this rookie in our big league-let him listen to this:
This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1949-
How in the world could there be a British North America Act, 1949, unless it amended what we have had before?
Then, let us refer to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, who said he was not a lawyer-and I am getting fed up with a lot of these fellows, who know nothing about the law, saying that they are not lawyers- and who read-


Mr. Gillis:: You are not giving us a bad exhibition, right now.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You know, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult when remarks like that are made by a close personal friend. You see, the point is this: he knows less than his leader; therefore he is a more difficult man to convince.
Section 2 says this:
This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1949, and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946, and this act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1949.
Now I will give a worse exhibition for the benefit of my good friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South-north, east or west, and never the twain shall meet; but you know whom I am talking about-an act to be passed in respect to another act which was not an
Newfoundland
amendment to the latter except where it was annulled altogether. And so I come back to this-and it is something all hon. members must consider. I opened my remarks by saying how much I agreed with the Prime Minister's radio speech-that we did need to review our constitution. I agree with that heartily. But I disagree-I heartily and thoroughly disagree-that this House of Commons by a majority vote may vary that constitution.
That is exactly what we are doing here. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Clax-ton) quoted certain people; and he is anxious to get up again, but I see he is leaving that to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). He pointed out, in certain quotations, that the provinces were definitely concerned with the amendments at that time. And so I turn again to the right hon.-no, not the right hon.-the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, who said he never knew of any reason why these short-cuts should not be adopted.
I do not care whether you use the word pact, compact, treaty or statute. One thing I will say to him is that it is an agreement, and he has never known an agreement to be varied except with the consent of the parties who signed it. That is the position I take, and the position upon which we stand.
We are told-and they will tell the people of Canada-that we have delayed getting Newfoundland into confederation-the wish, the dream if you like, of the fathers of confederation. We are told that the 31st day of March is the limit-the something or other day-when this must be done.
Now, this is an agreement between the Dominion of Canada and certain representatives from Newfoundland who signed. There is no reason in the world-and this is the very antithesis of what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said-why the signatories to the agreement cannot postpone that D-day, or. whatever day you wish to call it. So all this nonsense about hurrying and so on as of March 31 falls exactly where it belongs. It is based on the effort of this government to do in an illegal way what they could do legally if they chose to take a little time and give it a little more consideration.
This point has been raised by the Minister of National Defence particularly. He said most eloquently what has been said by thousands of people before he had chewed his third to the last lead pencil while he was listening to my leader. He has one right there now. He had better try the other side because the teeth on this side are beginning to get worn out.


Brooke Claxton: I have to chew on something.

Newfoundland


Arthur Leroy Smith: He said: If we meet with the provinces, what majority or what number shall we require? May I agree with him most heartily. At the moment we do not know. I agree with him in drawing a distinction between the federation in the United States and ours, that there the residuary powers were left with the state while here they were left with the dominion government.
The minister quoted a Mr. McEvoy, K.C., who apparently has some clients. In that he may be different from the Minister of National Defence, who I am sure has not any. Still that was the position. What Mr. McEvoy said is quite true. That is not news to the various laymen in this body. That is the distinction in our constitution. But when the minister for Rosetown-Biggar quotes sections 91 and 92-


An hon. Member:: Member.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Did I make a mistake? I called him minister but I assure you that is not wishful thinking with me. When the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar took that position I agreed that he read those sections correctly, but that has no more to do with the problem we are dealing with now than the fact that you have a bit of gum on the heel of your left shoe, as far as I can see at the present time.
We come to this position. If you can by this short-cut method introduce a province into Canada, it is logical and true that by the same method you can throw a province out of confederation. Let the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) answer that one if he can.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I never have to answer anything harder than that I shall have an easy time.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The minister has been very fortunate. He has been brought up politically with a spoon in his mouth and has never had anything to answer. However,
I think that will give him a little trouble.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The Tories will help him.


Arthur Leroy Smith: This interrupter has moved over half a dozen seats. Last year, I remember, when the press took a Gallup poll, if I can call it that, of who would be the new leader of the party, there was one vote in the hon. member's favour, and it was his vote. Perhaps he should move down to the front seat.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I had one more vote than the hon. member.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am bound to agree with the hon. member in that because
[Mr. Claxton.l
I do not think I would get any votes on that side. But he did get one so we will just leave it at that.
The point I am trying to make is this: Today we are not dealing so much with the expedition of the entry of Newfoundland into confederation as we are with the greater and broader proposition whether our constitution is not the thing within which we live, whether our constitution is not the thing that protects minorities at all times. If that can be changed by a vote of this house, to quote the words of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, "Then indeed have we chaos".


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, at least I have an excuse for rising to my feet in the fact that an hon. member has requested or challenged me to do so. I refer to the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), who has just taken his seat.
We have had a great deal of excellent oratory during this debate. This amendment is certainly not something which could be anticipated by any prudent lawyer. I enter this debate with considerable diffidence because I took no part in the negotiations and had no contact with the legal problems in that way, but I must confess that when I heard the arguments put forward this afternoon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and then got the text of the amendment to the resolution which he moved I was amazed on two grounds.
First, I was amazed that such a thesis should ever be put forward in this chamber. Then I must confess in all honesty that I was amazed at the excellence and the ingenuity of the arguments that were put forward in support of the amendment. Perhaps I should not have been amazed because on a great number of occasions I have heard my hon. friend use one peg after another as something upon which to hang the hat of centralization. I have always found him exceedingly ingenious in supporting the positions he has taken. I do not suppose there is a man in the Dominion of Canada who is better at making the best of a bad case than the leader of the opposition. I suppose it is quite appropriate that he should be the leader of the Conservative party because he will no doubt get lots of practice.
We have heard a great deal of rhetoric upon this subject, excellent in its way but exceedingly irrelevant. Of all the speeches in support of the amendment, in spite of his facetiousness, I think the one made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat was much the best. At least he got down to the real nub of the matter, which was more than was accomplished by the rhetoric uttered by

the other speakers. Their speeches were interesting, eloquent, and excellent; they were everything but relevant.
What are we talking about here? We are talking about section 146 of the British North America Act. I must apologize if I indulge in the use of platitudes to try to prove the obvious, because throughout this debate there has been a complete disregard of the obvious, of the plain, of the clear, and of the sound. Section 146 says:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's most honourable privy council, on addresses from the houses of the parliament of Canada, and from the houses of the respective legislatures of the colonies or provinces of Newfoundland-
I shall not read the others.
-to admit those colonies or provinces, or any of them, into the union, and on address from the houses of the parliament of Canada to admit Rupert's Land and the Northwestern Territory, or either of them, into the union,-
On what?
-on such terms and conditions in each case as are in the addresses expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to the provisions of this act;
Then it goes on to say:
And the provisions of any order in council in that behalf shall have effect as if they had been enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom and Ireland.
In other words, what we have here, and it is so very obvious a thing that it should not be necessary to explain it to intelligent people, is a provision whereby in British North America, which gives its name to this statute, those areas outside of the four original provinces can be brought into confederation by no more complicated a device than an imperial order in council-not any statute. As a matter of fact, two of the provinces which existed before confederation, namely Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, were brought in after confederation merely by order in council.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Certainly.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Does this section say one single word about the consent of any of the provinces already in confederation being necessary to that end? Not a syllable.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do you not
know why?


An hon. Member:: If you listen you will know.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suggest, therefore, that it is in accord with both the letter and the spirit of our constitution, and more particularly with section 146, which I have just read, that Newfoundland and these other colonies or provinces should be admitted into confederation without the consent of the provinces 29087-34J
Newfoundland
already in confederation. The whole set-up contemplates that. As I have pointed out, the practice under this section has been uniformly in accordance with that conception throughout the years.
If Newfoundland had had an assembly, and that assembly had passed an address, and that address, together with the address of this parliament had gone forward to the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom would have brought Newfoundland into confederation by order in council without any question of consent by any of the provinces. Surely that is a sensible, reasonable, and prudent provision for the fathers of confederation to have put into the act; because, starting with the four provinces of Canada, if they ultimately desired, as they obviously did from section 146, to bring into union all of the territories which were then outside of confederation, surely no statesman in his right senses would have made the enlargement of our dominion conditional upon the veto of one province, or two provinces, or half a dozen provinces.
I suggest that my hon. friends, who have put forward this ridiculous amendment to the resolution, will search in vain in the confederation debates, or in the British North America Act itself, for any foundation for their oratory or for their amendment.
What is the difficulty with which the negotiators were confronted in this particular case? It is notorious what it was. The dominion of Newfoundland, as a result of circumstances entirely beyond its control, and certainly beyond Canada's control, had got into financial difficulty, and its legislative government was superseded by another perfectly legitimate and legal government, properly established in accordance with the law. By way of replying to the question of the last speaker, may I say that I do not profess to be an expert on this matter because the whole thing came freshly to my attention with the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). No one will dispute, however, that in Newfoundland at the present time there is a legally constituted government with proper legal authority. But it is not a legislative body and therefore cannot produce the address that is necessary under section 146.
That posed a practical problem for the responsible negotiators of Canada, of Newfoundland, and of the United Kingdom. The law officers of those three governments, to whom we must give some small credit for knowing a little about the relevant law, and who have had perhaps somewhat greater opportunity of digging into it than even the hon. leader of the opposition, or the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) or the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith)-

Newfoundland


Arthur Leroy Smith: And you.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Definitely, myself most of all, because you had two or three days headstart on me. Those law officers must be given credit for some knowledge of the law, and credit for some common sense about the proper and legitimate way of achieving their objectives within the spirit of the British North America Act, almost exactly within its text, and certainly within the limits of proper democratic procedure. I apologize for going into all these matters. They are all obvious. They are notorious, and we all know about them. But if my hon. friends will fight the obvious and the notorious, then one must necessarily discuss the obvious and the notorious.
In the absence of a legislative assembly in Newfoundland that could pass an address which would have put this matter through without any question at all, they were thrown back upon what I would suggest to this assembly is a much more democratic procedure than even an address of a legislature. They went back to the fountainhead of all authority under any democratic government, the people themselves. They submitted two plebiscites, the second of which presented to the voters of that dominion a choice between responsible government on the one hand and union with Canada oh the other. May I point out that it was only by voting for responsible government that Newfoundland could put itself in the position in which it would have a legislature to pass an address to meet the objections taken by my hon. friends on the other side. That is precisely what the people of Newfoundland voted against. On the merits-going back to the fountainhead of democratic authority, the people themselves-they deliberately chose union with Canada as against that responsible government which alone would enable this matter to be resolved in the perfectly perfectionist and constitutional manner that the legal experts opposite us would recommend. The people voted in favour of union, and I suggest that it is only by a very technical attitude that it can be argued that we have here any departure in substance from either the letter or the spirit of the constitution.
The constitution does not require assent from any province. It is true the constitution requires an address. I am informed that at a very early stage of the proceedings the government of Canada made it clear that it would be glad to receive an overture from Newfoundland to come into union, but it would have no part whatever in any of the arrangements whereby Newfoundland placed itself in a position to make that overture. Therefore all of the proceedings which my 
hon. friends are criticizing are proceedings which were conducted under the auspices of the Newfoundland government and the government of the United Kingdom. To put themselves in a position to make an overture to Canada, these two governments supplied what,, under the circumstances, was the best substitute for an address that could be obtained. The resolution introducing this bill, as drafted by the legal experts of the United Kingdom, Newfoundland, and Canada, is the result. My hon. and learned friend, the hon. member for Calgary West, referred to a certain portion of the resolution reading as follows:
The agreement containing terms of union between Canada and Newfoundland set out in the schedule to this act is hereby confirmed and shall have the force of law notwithstanding anything in the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946.
Then he says that, because of those words beginning "notwithstanding", he must as a lawyer hold that this must be an amendment to the British North America Act, because any time you use those terms in an act, unless it is merely for the extension of the act, it must be an amendment. Well, I think my hon. friend has a rather short memory, or perhaps he has not had much municipal experience. Anyone who has had experience of that sort can point to countless cases where municipalities come along with, say, a money bylaw. The circumstances are such that they cannot follow the procedure outlined in the municipal act, or there may have been some carelessness and they did not obey it. When they have committed this faux pas or omission, or if they find it impossible to comply with the procedural provisions of the municipal act, the usual thing is that the municipal bylaw which otherwise would be defective is ratified. It is ratified generally in the first place by order in council confirmed later by a provincial statute; and in many cases that provincial statute is said to be an amendment to the municipal act. The statute books are full of them; but it is an amendment only in the sense of curing some procedural difficulty in that specific ad hoc case.


Arthur Leroy Smith: But this is the
British North America Act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It does not make any difference; the principle is exactly the same, and the analogy is very close. There is no use in my hon. friend shaking his head; I took the opportunity during the dinner hour to check this up with people who know better than he does or I do-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Maybe.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -and they confirm my view. If my hon. friend stops to reflect, I think he

will come to the conclusion that all the law officers who had anything to do with this matter would be in that group.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Who are they?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The law officers of the United Kingdom, Canada and Newfoundland.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You met the
law officers of the United Kingdom at the dinner recess?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, no; I did not say that.
Now, sir, it is only in this narrow, technical, police court sense that this can be said to be an amendment of the Canadian constitution.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I admit that,
and you don't.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In that sense it is true that you must state in the act that this is confirmed notwithstanding the British North America Act. What does that mean? It means notwithstanding the fact that Newfoundland, not having a legislative body, was not in a position to present an address, this is confirmed. Newfoundland did-I will not say the next best thing, but I think a better thing. It went back to the people themselves and then, with the result of the plebiscite in place of the address, it went to the three governments concerned. Under those circumstances, of course, seeing that there was a procedural deviation from the terms of the act, it was necessary to say that this shall be so notwithstanding the British North America Act. But, sir, in no substantial or honest sense whatever can it be said that this is an amendment of the Canadian constitution. The obvious test of that is to ask whether there is anything in this section which is of general application to all the provinces of Canada, and the answer must be no. So when the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) said he wanted to know whether this was an amendment of the constitution and I said the answer was no, this is my proof for the answer I gave.
It would be very interesting to speculate as to what would be the result of this perfectionism that is urged upon this house by hon. members opposite. The only way you could comply with the constitution to the last jot and tittle would be by washing out all the proceedings to date, giving back to Newfoundland responsible government, the very thing against which the people voted in the plebiscite, to the end that then they would have a legislature which could adopt an address that would comply with the section upon which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) hangs his centralization argument. What an argument!
If you did not do that you might adopt the other course that some other speaker recom-
N ewfoundland,
mended; that is, that in the present state of affairs we should obtain the assent of the provinces, which section 146 does not require at all. If you did that would you require a majority of the provinces, and what would be the nature of that majority? The leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) said he thought it might be a two-thirds majority. Suppose you had, as we did in the dominion-provincial agreements, seven provinces on one side and the two most populous on the other. Would you say that was a majority? Or would it have to be all the provinces but one? Or all but two? Or what would it be? In the meantime this agreement, which believe me has been achieved after long months of negotiation and not without some difficulty, would be placed in jeopardy. Under those circumstances I think it is not too much to say that, while hon. gentlemen opposite make a great profession about being in favour of this union with Newfoundland, if they had held the opposite view and were strongly opposed to that union they could not have adopted a more ingenious technicality or a better way of frustrating the union and stultifying the attempts to achieve it than that which they have now adopted.
For that reason, sir, and in order to enlighten the hon. member for Calgary West, who was so anxious to have me break my silence, I can say that I propose to vote against the amendment and for the motion.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there was one remark made by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) with which I am in agreement. I hope I state his point correctly; for, as I understood the hon. member, he feels that the main reason we have the kind of problem with which we are wrestling in this House of Commons today is the lack of any provision in the British North America Act for its own amendment. I agree with him. As has already been suggested by my leader, the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), this brings into bold relief the need for finding a formula for the amendment of the Canadian constitution within our own land.
I confess, however, that there are two things about the debate today that bother me. First of all, it seems strange to me that we should have all these technical and legalistic arguments about this method of securing an amendmept to the constitution, when the subject before us is one concerning which there was some mention in the original British North America Act, as pointed out by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). To that extent, namely, in view of what is in section 146, our general contention that there is no provision for amending the British North

Newfoundland	*
America Act has to be qualified. There is in fact a provision for amending our basic constitution in the matter of bringing new parts of British North America into confederation.
I am not going to rehearse the demonstration of the obvious which the Minister of Justice has just given to us. But it does seem strange to me that, in relation to this subject about which there is some mention in the British North America Act, we should have all these technical and legalistic arguments.
The other thing that has bothered me in this debate, Mr. Speaker, was brought home during the speech, both before and after the dinner recess, by my hon. friend the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). In common with other members of this house, I always listen with a great deal of interest to the speeches the hon. member makes. I enjoy the way in which he builds up his case, and the use he makes of the material upon which he draws. No man in this house studies more or shows more background in the speeches that he makes. But this evening, he did something-possibly he was unconscious of what he was doing-which amazed me. The member told this house of the position taken by his party in 1946. He stated that position correctly. He referred to the amendment that was moved in that session by himself, and he was correct in saying that that amendment was identical in form with the amendment that is now before the house. What was the issue before us at that time? The question was a request for an amendment to the British North America Act to provide for redistribution. The hon. member and his party took the view in 1946 that we should not ask for or be able to obtain an amendment of that character by a simple majority vote in this House of Commons. When the hon. member finished, I asked if he would permit me to ask a question. Perhaps I was a little too late, since it took some time for the applause for his speech to die down. At any rate, he did not answer my question. I asked him what position his party took back in 1943, but the hon. member made no reply.
May I tell the story. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to July 5, 1943. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) during the course of his remarks this evening took up a copy of Hansard for July 5, 1943, and quoted a certain passage from a speech delivered by my leader, so I take it he must know the position taken by his party as recorded in that issue of Hansard. He must have known the way in which he voted, and that the question before the house was an amendment to the British North America Act. What for? To postpone redistribution. If the

hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) will permit me to agree with him on this point rather than with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), I would say it was an amendment to the British North America Act. At the end of that address, there was the usual phrase that all the acts down to and including this one may be described as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1943. In other words, it was an amendment to the British North America Act, and it was achieved by a simple majority vote of this house.
My hon. friends to the right supported the move on that occasion. The member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), who was then leader of the official opposition, spoke on the question, but during the whole course of his speech did not raise the question of reference to the provinces. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) did not speak at all. Only one member of the Progressive Conservative party raised the question at all, and that was the member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Hazen), but he and the member for Lake Centre, the member for Peel and the whole of the Progressive Conservative group who were in the house at that time voted for the amendment. In other words, in 1943, they gave their approval to the principle of securing an amendment to the British North America Act by the simple process of a majority vote in this House of Commons.
I may say to my hon. friend the member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), who was also protesting a short time ago the consistency of the stand his group had taken, that his group took the same stand. They voted with the hon. members to my right and the majority of those opposite to support this amendment in 1943. There were few members in the house at that time who voted against that amendment. I believe there were nine, all of whom came from the province of Quebec.
When one reads the debates on these two occasions, 1943 and 1946, one cannot but notice the interest members had in the end result of the amendment that was being sought. In 1943, the amendment was to postpone redistribution, and it seemed to be to the advantage of Ontario and all provinces west. In 1946, the amendment seemed to be to the disadvantage of Ontario and the provinces west.


An hon. Member:: The war was over.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, my hon. friends are saying it was an emergency, but I do not find the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) joining in that excuse. He was not in the

house, but he could tell his fellow members about emergencies.


Mr.   Hackell@: He was resting at that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He can tell his fellow members what he thinks of the use of that word "emergency". All of us who were here on both of those occasions know the reason in the main for the parties taking the stand that they did. The interest was in the end result to be achieved.


Mr. Graydon:: The interest was in the war, and you know it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My genial and hon. friend (Mr. Graydon) knows very well-


Gordon Graydon: And so do you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that, had redistribution been put through before 1945, the result would have been a decrease in the number of seats in the province of Ontario.


Mr.   Hackell@: For the C.C.F.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, in the total number of seats allotted to the province; so he and his party were quite prepared to agree to a postponement of redistribution, even though it involved an amendment to the constitution by means of a simple majority vote in this house.
I want to say a further word, Mr. Speaker, about the remarks made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). During the course of his speech, if I heard him correctly, he said that his party has taken this position right from confederation down to the present day. He quoted back only as far as 1946, however. But some of us can remember back to 1943, when the opposite stand was taken.
May I say a further word about my hon. friends to my left-the Social Credit group- who are telling us that they do not like us to characterize their attitude as the balkanization of Canada. They say that down through the years they have been consistent in their attitude on this question. But the facts are that in 1943 the Social Credit party voted with the rest of us for an amendment to the British North America Act by the simple means of a majority vote in this House of Commons. Come 1946, and this house had before it, on the same kind of motion, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre. At that time my hon. friends in the Social Credit party voted for that amendment, which asked that redistribution be postponed until the government had had satisfactory consultations with the provinces. Then, lo and behold, after that amendment had been defeated, after they had demanded consultation with the provinces, they turned around and split with their Tory friends and voted for the motion, which
Newfoundland
helped to achieve an- amendment to the British North America Act by the simple process of a majority vote in this House of Commons.
I have already referred to the fact that there are some Liberals who are equally inconsistent; because there were a number of them in 1943 who, when redistribution was being postponed, did not like it. A number of them, including my good friend the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), voted against it. In 1946 the Liberals turned around the other way, and all of them were quite prepared to vote for redistribution by the simple process of a majority vote in the House of Commons.
I suppose I should complete the record and say what our own party did on those occasions, although I am sure that if I set out to do so someone will interject and say that I am trying to hand bouquets to ourselves. But the fact is that we voted the same way both times, and intend to do so again this time. We voted for the amendment in 1943 even though it might have been said at that time that it was to our political advantage. We took the same stand and voted for the same principle in 1946, even though at that time it might have been regarded as being to our political disadvantage.
The points that I am trying to make in all of this, Mr. Speaker, are two in number. On the one hand, it seems to me that we should try to achieve some consistency in the stands we take in this house. I have collected a few old volumes of Hansard since the hon. member for Lake Centre spoke before the dinner recess, and there was one other I should like to have found if I had had the time. It is an ancient volume in which a former leader of the Progressive Conservative party-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Which one?


Stanley Howard Knowles: -the late Lord Bennett, made a statement with regard to parties and members who say one thing at one time and something else at another. It is a classic from the lips of the late Lord Bennett, to the effect that the people of this country expect something better of their public men than that, that they expect all of us to be consistent in the stands that we take.
The other point I wish to emphasize is the one with which I started out, and on which I find myself agreeing with the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith). This whole business brings into bold relief the necessity for proceeding with the proposal made by the Prime Minister in his radio address not long ago: the necessity of finding a formula by means of which we make clear just how our

Newfoundland
constitution can be amended with due regard for such rights as must be protected. In the meantime, with this question before us, in view of the fact that the procedures followed have been those laid down, and in view of what seems to me to be the excellent case just made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), it seems to me that this house will be carrying out the constitutional provisions of 1867 by defeating the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition and passing the main motion.


Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: 'Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the house on the good temper which has been exhibited in this debate. Since I have been a member of the house I have seen the British North America Act rigged out in a coat of many colours. The last two speakers especially seem to show that they have a single view and a single heart at the present time. I refer to the Minister of Justice and the whip of the C.C.F. While the Minister of Justice wishes to abolish appeals to the privy council, which is the key to the British North America Act, a predecessor of his in office, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, who was Chief Justice of Canada, counsel for Louis Riel in Regina many years ago, and a leading member of the bar, opposed the abolition of appeals to the privy council. So did Sir Allen Aylesworth, a brilliant lawyer and former Minister of Justice.
How did the Minister of Justice ever win Marquette? He owes it to the Conservatives. I am surprised that today we have in Manitoba and British Columbia a union government. I remember the decisions of the privy council. Let me say to the Minister of Justice that he owes his election, as the hon. member for Marquette, to the Conservatives who supported him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The truth will out.


Thomas Langton Church: Today he agrees with the C.C.F. We have two individuals with a single view and a single heart on this question of the abolition of appeals to the privy council.
There was another leading Minister of Justice, Sir Allen Aylesworth, who gave a strong opinion. I have a great deal of respect for the present Minister of Justice. We have heard a great deal about him. I believe he will measure up to the hopes expressed by his supporters. But Sir Allen Aylesworth made a strong speech against the abolition of appeals to the privy council.
What put the Laurier government into office in 1896? It was the decision of the privy council. Thomas Greenway won a great victory in Manitoba on the Manitoba school question on a decision of the privy council. From 1908, on, that constituency went Conservative six or seven times.
I support the policy of my leader in connection with this bill. When the matter was referred to by the hon. member for Lake Centre in a speech on June 6, 1946, he quoted, from a debate of February 18, 1925, the opinion of Mr. Lapointe who was then Minister of Justice. It was on a motion of mine for constitutional and parliamentary reform that he made that speech. The former Minister of Justice, who was well liked in this house for his many fine qualities, said in his speech that he believed that any decisions about the British North America Act must be settled in the light of the present situation- by the men of today, said Mr. Maclean, of York South.
I have contended that we wanted the British North America Act for the living and not for the dead, and Mr. Lapointe agreed. On February 18, 1925, he said that it could be amended only at the will and at the request of the dominion parliament; but those who are just as much interested in this matter as the dominion parliament must have their say, must be consulted-meaning the provinces. It will be seen, therefore, that the authorities still differ.
I support the policy of my leader. He wants to consult the provinces, get their opinion on it at once, and then address His Majesty accordingly.
Another matter comes up, as to whether you are going to propose to change section 51, of the British North America Act, which deals with representation, giving Quebec sixty-five members, and section 21, which deals with the Senate, and sets out the respective divisions for Ontario, Quebec, and so on.
I remember away back in 1935, when the late Lord Bennett was leader of the Conservative party, the same debate went on as had been heard in 1925. Mr. Bennett, as he was then, as Prime Minister of that day, proceeded to set up a committee. I was asked to serve on it, but I did not like to do so. This was a special committee of the House of Commons which considered the whole British North America Act. That committee had before it the various heads of departments, including the late Dr. Skelton, and the then deputy minister of justice. There also appeared Professor Kennedy and Professor Scott. It was established before that committee that the first seven appeals to the privy council to amend the British North America Act were made without the consent of the provinces. Those appeals were of a great variety.
Could sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act be changed by a majority vote if privy council appeals were abolished? Could section 133, which deals with the

French language be changed in like manner? My contention has been in conformity with the view held by an earlier Minister of Justice, who contended that representation of the various provinces in the House of Commons was not a matter exclusively within federal authority.
During the debates in the house for many years past, when discussion was heard respecting appeals to the privy council, I have taken the view that as the British North America Act was a statute, and as it was the written constitution for Canada, it could not after 1931 be altered without the consent of the provinces. I held that minorities had rights under the British North America Act, the same as majorities; and I held further that, under the British North America Act, 1867, the rights of minorities were guaranteed. The provinces were to be consulted regarding those rights.
I also referred to the acquisition by the United States of the territories of Alaska and Louisiana, the latter by means of agreement and treaty with France, which vested in the United States of America the guaranty of language and religion. Then Huey Long came along as governor of that state and, while he supported the Washington administration, wanted to change the whole thing. He did so and got away with it.
If ever Canada got the right completely to amend its own constitution, then we might as well say that the British North America Act would be an act of the majority of the people, and that this parliament, at will, could change section 133 and every other section accordingly. That is a fact; and it is the view I have taken on this matter on other occasions.
May I at this point examine two other , features of this proposal, the first of which has to do with the Statute of Westminster, and the legal status of Canada under that statute. Let me refer to the basis of this whole study. In this, the second part of my address, may I make reference to the status we have acquired. If we are to understand how the Statute of Westminster affects Canada, we must first look at certain facts in connection with that statute. Let us first look at what it is. It is a rule of strict law. The British North America Act is also a rule of strict law. But Great Britain has had no strict law as her constitution; she has had an unwritten constitution-a constitution made up of usages, precedents, customs and maxims.
But in the Statute of Westminster we have a fixed statute which must be construed strictly, as Professor Wheare, of Christ Church, Oxford, says in his splendid text book
Newfoundland
which is often quoted in the British courts and in the British parliament. In 1933 Newfoundland surrendered her status as a dominion. The second part of the consideration of this matter refers to the realm of law. These are non-legal rules. They are not illegal; but the British empire was founded on them.
These unwritten rules, practices, maxims, customs, usages and conventions are described in a leading text book by Dr. Dicey. In it he points out that Great Britain has and always has had an unwritten constitution, and he states that she has depended for her constitution upon these maxims, customs and usages to which I have referred.
Now what is the difference between the first of these, namely, a fixed written statute like the British North America Act, which is construed strictly by the courts, and this second form of constitution, the rights, customs, maxims and usages of the mother country?
The Statute of Westminster is a constitution; it is strict law. It is construed strictly by the courts. Dominion status cannot be decided by the rules of strict law. The most important rules are to be found in the constitutional conventions agreed to at imperial conferences. These rules were declared at the imperial conferences of 1921, 1926 and
1930.	And up to the Statute of Westminster,
1931,	this organization of constitutional conventions in law has long been felt in the history and development of the British empire, both in their government of these communities and in their relations with each other. This is backed up by executive and legislative powers.
It was asserted that Great Britain and the British empire has an unwritten constitution. Some members in the parliaments in the United Kingdom and the dominions objected to the proposals to pass this statute, not because of the terms of the statute, but because of the fact that it was a fixed written statute.
Lord Buckmaster, at one time lord chancellor, stated, in the debate on second reading of the bill in the House of Lords, that he felt the bill had been a mistake. I said at the time that I looked upon it as one of the most mischievous statutes with which he ever had to deal-a statute which to a very large extent caused the second world war. And as I pointed out, it had led to separatism, isolationism and all that kind of thing.
I agree with what Lord Buckmaster said, when he pointed out that it was the first time an attempt had been made to put into the form of an act of parliament rules which bound the various parts of the empire, and pointed out that in his opinion it was a great mistake.	.



S30 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Newfoundland
Lord Buckmaster stated further that the men who had made that country-and he was referring to Great Britain-had brought it to its present state by an unwritten constitution. He said that Great Britain had never had a written constitution of any kind, and that the consequence was not much, despite the serious mistakes which had been made. He pointed out that, so far as possible, they should avoid putting their constitution into the unyielding form of an act of parliament, such as the Statute of Westminster.
Then the Hon. W. L. M. Hughes, formerly prime minister of Australia, gave his views, as they were expressed at the imperial conference of 1921. He said it was unnecessary to lay down in black and white a constitution for the British empire, and pointed out that the United Kingdom has a constitutional structure based upon maxims of one kind or another. There are certain countries that have written constitutions, such as France, the United States, the U.S.S.R., Sweden and Switzerland. Some of the dominions have adopted the Statute of Westminster but for certain reasons New Zealand and Australia did not adopt sections 7 to 13 until recently and Canada also varied them.
I should like to quote an authority on the Statute of Westminster, Professor K. C. Wheare, who is quoted quite often in the House of Commons. In a chapter dealing with the statute and the legal status of Canada he says:
Thus dominion status, after the passing of the Statute of Westminster, as before, though its predominant characteristic is conventional equality of status, contains legal ingredients which are different and are unequal from one dominion to another. Apart from this common ingredient of conventional equality, the recipe differs in each case to a greater or less degree.
And again:
The fundamental fact in the case of the Dominion of Canada was that it was a federation. The powers and functions of the federal and provincial parliaments and governments were demarcated and their existing distribution was guaranteed by an act of the United Kingdom parliament, the British North America Act, 1867. This act was unalterable in essentials by the federal or provincial legislatures in Canada; it was completely alterable by the United Kingdom parliament only. From 1867 to 1930 inclusive, it had been amended seven times by that parliament. No clear rules regulated the procedure by which amendments of the British North America Act, desired by the provincial or federal parliaments in Canada, should be transmitted to and executed by the United Kingdom parliament.
There was one amendment in 1871, one in 1875 and then there were amendments in 1886, 1907, 1915, 1916 and 1930. A committee was appointed in 1935 by my former leader to consider the British North America Act in the light of the changes that had been made.

Many learned men gave evidence before that committee. I quote again:
But there was not only the question whether amendments should require the request and consent of the dominion parliament as well as of the dominion government. There was the further and more important question whether amendments should require the request and consent of all or of a majority of the provincial parliaments and/or governments. The usage here was that in six out of the seven amendments, action was taken by the United Kingdom parliament as a result of requests from the dominion government or parliament without consulting or seeking the consent of the provinces generally. The amendments of 1871, 1886. and 1915 affected either all or some of the provinces and none of them was consulted. The amendment of 1930 affected certain provinces and these alone were consulted and their consent obtained. The dominion government and parliament evidently did not consider themselves bound by a convention to consult all the provinces or to obtain their consent.
In 1907 they did not consult British Columbia. As I say, various professors gave evidence before Mr. Bennett's committee and they found that some very drastic changes had been made in the whole procedure from that date. I continue:
These possible consequences were taken into consideration by the O.D.L. conference of 1929. It was realized that the question of alternative methods of amending the British North America Act was a matter for future consideration by the appropriate Canadian authorities, and that, pending some agreed change in the process, the existing system should remain unaltered by the Statute of Westminster. It was thought necessary also to make an express declaration that the passing of the statute in no way increased the area of the powers possessed by the dominion parliament in such a way as to authorize the parliament "to make laws on any matter present within the authority of the provinces, not being a matter within the authority of the dominion."
The leader of the government at that time, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, was able to secure at the imperial conference in 1931 the inclusion of the following two sections in the statute:
(1)	Nothing in this act shall be deemed to confer' any power to repeal or alter the constitution acts of the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Dominion of New Zealand, otherwise than in accordance with the law and constitutional usage and practice heretofore existing.
(2)	Nothing in this act shall be deemed to authorize the parliaments of the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia to make laws on any matter at present within the authority of the provinces of Canada or the states of Australia, as the case may be, not being a matter within the authority of the parliaments or governments of the Dominion of Canada and of the Commonwealth of Australia respectively.
I quote again:
The report of the O.D.L. conference was unanimously approved by the Canadian House of Commons in May, 1930, after some criticism by members of the Conservative party, then in opposition. At the general election of July, 1930. the Conservative party, under the leadership of Mr. R. B. Bennett, was returned to power. Before Mr. Bennett left for the

imperial conference of 1930 he received from the premier of Ontario, Mr. Howard Ferguson, also a Conservative, a memorandum in which the terms of the proposed statute were severely examined. In particular the two clauses quoted above were criticized as vague and inconclusive, and it was asserted "that no restatement of the procedure for amending the constitution of Canada can be accepted by the province of Ontario that does not fully and frankly acknowledge the right of all the provinces to be consulted and to become parties to the decision arrived."
After that Mr. Bennett called a conference here in Ottawa in 1931 between the federal and provincial governments, and I quote
again:
It appears that the provincial governments had two main demands to make. First of all they wished to have the wording of the section proposed by the conference of 1929 revised so as to make quite certain that the passing of the statute would not alter the method by which the British North America Act was amended. In the second place they wished to have the fetter imposed by the Colonial Laws Validity Act upon provincial legislation removed. In other words they wished the provisions which came to be enacted as section 2 of the statute to apply to the provincial legislatures as well as to the dominion legislature.
This 1931 conference of federal and provincial governments was not like the last conference we had which sought to implement the Sirois report and put all the debt on the two central provinces. It was not that kind of haphazard policy. They are talking now about another amendment to unload the railway debt on the two central provinces by another inquiry. This was a very wise proviso, and one which is badly needed at the present time. My late leader, Lord Bennett, had the correct idea. I continue:
Agreement upon these two questions was unanimously obtained at the conference and appropriate clauses were drawn up. These were adopted by the Senate and the House of Commons in June, 1931, and as a result of them an address from both these houses was included, in the identical form in which they were proposed, in section 7 of the statutes. The extension to the provincial legislatures of Canada of the powers granted to the legislatures of the dominion by section 2 of the statute was carried out in subsection 2 of section 7. The subsection enacted: "The provisions of section 2 of this act shall extend to laws made by any of the provinces of Canada and to the powers of the legislatures of such provinces." This is the most startling innovation inserted in the terms of the statute between the drawing up of the schedule by the imperial conference of 1930 and the enactment of the statute in 1931. The proposal had not been discussed at the conferences of 1926, 1929 and 1930. The provinces had not been represented at these conferences, any more than had the states of Australia. But it is probably not true to say that the extension of the terms of section 2 to the Canadian provinces at the last minute, so to speak, was unauthorized by the conference of 1930.
These are acts and they cannot be changed. They passed the House of Commons and they passed the Senate. Amendments were made
Newfoundland
by my late leader, and those amendments passed both houses of parliament. Let me point out to the people of the province of Quebec that, as I believe, minorities have the same rights under the British North America Act that majorities have. I believe that it would be a mistake to abolish appeals to the privy council. Under section 133 of the British North America Act the people of the province of Quebec need have no fear as long as the privy council is there. Their rights are protected. I am very much surprised at the views which have been expressed by various ministers. Since I have entered this house I have had many fine friends among members from the province of Quebec.
I admire and respect them, and I can tell them that if it were not for section 133 of the British North America Act the situation might be quite different. I can refer them to what happened in Louisiana.
Let me warn the house now, as I warned it before when this matter was up in 1925 in connection with a motion which I offered, and on which Mr. Lapointe spoke about parliamentary reform. At that time I was urging a British North America Act for the living and not for the dead. Again in 1935 a committee of the House of Commons was appointed to study the whole British North America Act, and they validated everything that I had said. I can tell the people of the province of Quebec that they will have to be careful not to lose, by abolishing the great legal protection the privy council gives them, their rights under section 133 of the British North America Act. We do not know what kind of people will be in parliament in the future. We cannot tell what is going to happen in 1950 or 1955 to the Dominion of Canada. We have had two wars, and there are threats of another world war at the present time. We cannot predict what is going to happen in the Canada of the future. If we have the British North America Act it will mean a great deal, particularly the various sections I have named. We should not allow it to be made a scrap of paper only. What kind of government are we going to have in Canada? We do not know. There has been talk about abolishing the Senate, and all that kind of thing. There was a suggestion by the C.C.F. that the Senate be located in Hull, but I can tell you that it will be a sorry day for the people of this country if in Ottawa we have only one house of parliament with a majority vote to handle the business of the nation and, at the will of any majority, turn the British North America Act into a mere scrap of paper. It will interfere with the rights of minorities, and I believe that minorities have rights just as
[Stage Direction]
Newfoundland
well as majorities. It will be a sorry day for this country if anything like that ever happens.
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, to clarify my own position I desire to say a word or two on the amendment. Before doing so, however, I should like to refer to the remarks that were made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he attempted to show that this group was somewhat inconsistent in our vote upon the measure for redistribution some years ago, and our vote upon the amendment that was moved thereto. Perhaps my hon. friend thought he had a rather sound argument. I will not deny that he had some shred of legal argument on the point, but I think if we analyse the situation as it existed then in respect to redistribution we will find that what we in this group were actually doing then was to protect the interests of the provinces.
The measure requiring certain amendments to the constitution in order that redistribution might be deferred was introduced because there had been a shift in the population, and that shift in population left some of the provinces of Canada at a disadvantage. We voted for an amendment that was worded exactly as this one is worded because we desired that the matter should be referred to the provinces for consultation. The amendment was moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). We voted that way because we thought the provinces should be consulted in the matter.
When the main motion was put, realizing that it would protect the provinces because of the shift in population, we voted for it. We see no inconsistency there whatsoever. If the main motion had been in any way detrimental to the provinces we certainly would not have voted for it. May I also suggest that the redistribution measure was not something that was as important as this matter, for the reason that there was not really a principle involved in it. It was a matter of seats in the House of Commons here; and if we had carried out redistribution at the time it would not have been fair to the provinces by reason of the fact that their citizens were living temporarily in other parts of the country.
I favour the amendment, Mr. Speaker; and in doing so I do not look upon it as constituting a motion of non-confidence in the government. I say that because the bill ratifying the agreement and admitting Newfoundland into Canada as the tenth province has been passed, and all parties in the house evidently were in favour of it. If we had been against the measure and had voted 
that it be referred to the provinces before ratifying the agreement, then such an amendment would have been a motion of nonconfidence; but we voted for the admission of Newfoundland as the tenth province and now we are saying that, since we have ratified the agreement and have given our support to the action of the government, we would like to see it referred to the provinces for consultation. To my mind, all the amendment does is to show a desire on the part of this parliament to give the provinces an opportunity of expressing themselves in respect to a people who are to become partners with them in constituting a larger Canada. It seems to me that is a reasonable attitude to take. I think we may presume the provinces are quite willing to welcome this new partner; and if that presumption is correct would it not be pleasing to the people of Newfoundland to know that the nine provinces of Canada were in accord in welcoming them into confederation? I think that would be a good thing to do. If there are any misgivings that any of the provinces are not favourable to welcoming this tenth province, then perhaps the sooner we know it the better, because it may only create complications after we are finished with the matter.
I listened with some interest to the speech this evening by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). He rather ridiculed any thought that there might be a principle of centralization opposing this amendment. I do not agree with him there. In this present day there is a constant urge the world over for the bringing in of this principle of centralization. I do not believe this is done by any casual series of happenings; there is no question in my mind but that it is done by design. There are two world philosophies. (One is that of effective democracy, which leads to the freedom of the people. The other world philosophy is one of authoritarianism, which leads to world dictatorship. That is all there is to it, to my mind; that is the only great issue in the world today, notwithstanding all the various groups affiliated with political organizations. And there is a continual urge the world over to apply this principle of centralization.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a principle in this amendment; and principles do not change. Principles are either right or wrong; and the principle of centralization is the principle of authoritarianism which in the final analysis leads to world dictatorship and world stateism. That principle is right or wrong. Some people may believe it to be right, but that is the issue, right or wrong; and the defeat of this amend-

ment would give the provinces or sections of our people reason to accuse us here of using authoritarian methods, at least in this piece of legislation.
The amendment has been proposed by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew), who leads the Conservative party in this country. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) has mentioned already that it is not a matter of voting with the Conservatives or with some other party. That might be what is in the minds of hard and fast machine politicians, but the issue is whether we are to vote for something that is right or something that is wrong. If our Conservative friends propose something we believe is right, we will vote for it. If on the other hand they propose something that is wrong, then we will most vehemently oppose it and vote against it. I know that in the past when we have voted for that which we have believed to be right and our Conservative friends have been like-minded, it has left the impression throughout the country, and certain sections of the press have tried to make it appear, that in their philosophy and beliefs the Social Crediters in reality are Conservatives politically. Well, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. As far as political parties are concerned, we desire to travel a road which is consistent with the fundamental beliefs embodied in our social credit position.
May I say this, that our C.C.F. friends, my socialist friends, sit next to me-and by reason of that I have to try to love them as best I can. They are very fine gentlemen. I do not know whether they believe all they say they believe, but they are very fine gentlemen anyway. I agree with my hon. friend the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) that, whenever there is a measure before the house, the theme of which is the centralization of power, we can depend upon the C.C.F. to support it. I am not saying that in criticism of them. In fact, I think it is a commendation because, on this measure, they will run true to form and support it.
If there is any reflection upon any party, it is a reflection on the party that now holds office in this country. It will be a reflection for this reason, that they will go throughout the country and, by word of mouth, preach decentralization, the recommendation of provincial autonomy, democracy, free enterprise, freedom and all the rest of it. Mark you, Mr. Speaker, they will go throughout the country in a few months' time preaching those things; yet by legislative action they deny what they say with their lips. During the war years we felt there might be some excuse for that, but that excuse no longer holds good. Let us remain an absolutely free people. Let us
Newfoundland
do all we can to protect the autonomy of the various provinces of this country. In referring this matter to the provinces, we are referring it to them so they can be satisfied we are not stepping over their heads and railroading something through which they themselves do not want.
I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the wording of this amendment. The wording of this amendment does not ask that the provinces agree. It does not mention anything about a right or a wrong constitutional interpretation. As I read this amendment, it simply says to the government that we, as a parliament, are asking them to consult the provinces. After they have received the views of the provinces, then we will move an address to His Majesty.
May I read the main portions of the amendment?
And whereas it is desirable that the government of Canada should consult with the governments of the several provinces in respect to the said matter-
Now, is that desirable? I do not see anything undesirable about it.
-now therefore be it resolved, that the government of Canada be required to consult at once the governments of the several provinces and that upon a satisfactory conclusion of such consultations, a humble address be presented to His Majesty-
And so forth.
I claim that that would be the proper thing to do so that no accusation could be leveled either at the government or at parliament that we are going beyond our authority or that we are refusing to consult the provinces. Surely the provinces should be entitled to express their views when another partner is to be admitted into this great Canadian corporation.
There is one other matter, Mr. Speaker, which I should like to mention. This afternoon the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), who has been one of the main speakers for the government in this debate, made a statement at which I was very much surprised. He expressed considerable alarm at this amendment having been made. I think the words he used, and I will stand correction while awaiting their appearance in Hansard, were that this was a sort of surprise move. I am sure the minister could not possibly have meant that, Mr. Speaker. The minister is an intelligent man. I have always regarded him as such. He is a very able man and a clever lawyer. Surely, he could anticipate any move that might be made in the course of one short debate. Surely, he could diagnose or, to use a favourite word of mine, prognose the situation. One would think he could anticipate any future move that might be made. He is a responsible minister of the

Newfoundland.
crown, a very responsible minister, for under his direction is the national defence of this country. In the world in which we are now living, that is an extremely important department. Surely, he is not going to say that, in his department, he does not anticipate what is going to happen in the future. One would expect he would look ahead. Surely, he must have been farsighted enough to realize the possibility of an amendment such as this being brought in at this time, whereby the matter could be referred to the provinces.
If the amendment had been made before the bill was passed, as I said before, it would have constituted a non-confidence vote. At that time, we could have been accused of holding up the measure. But we did not hold it up, we co-operated in seeing that the measure was passed. Now that it has passed, all we ask is that the sovereign rights of the provinces be preserved and that they be consulted in this matter. The amendment is a
reasonable one. Its passage will be a magnanimous gesture towards the provinces and will surely satisfy the people of Newfoundland that they can be welcomed into Canada with unanimity. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am voting for the amendment.
On motion of Mr. Raymond (Beauharnois-Laprairie) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the adjournment of the house.


Gordon Graydon: What is the order of business for tomorrow?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We will continue this debate and then take up the act to amend the statutes.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.56 p.m.

Tuesday, February 15, 1949