1949-02-15

PRIVILEGE


Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of personal privilege. During the debate last evening I made some uncomplimentary references to the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott). This morning I do not think that they were either very funny or very clever. Of my own volition, and having regard to my sense of fair play and the dignity of debate in this house, I willingly and sincerely tender him my apology.


Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springfield):: I accept the apology of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), in the spirit in which it is given. It takes a man with a big heart to make amends to a fellow member in the way he has done by a public apology. But I hope he will be careful in the future. I hope also that the press will give the same publicity to his remarks as was given to what was reported in this morning's papers.


Mr. Speaker:: In the name of all the members of the house I think I should compliment both hon. members and thank them very much.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon City):: Yesterday I addressed a question to the Minister of Transport as follows:
What changes in express or freight rates are effective or deferred as of today?
As we did not get to the orders of the day yesterday, perhaps the minister will permit me to broaden the scope of my question and have it read:	"as of the last day or two"
rather than "as of today."


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The board of transport commissioners issued order 71,997 which suspended as of February 14 the proposed increases in express
rates on fish. Those rates cover the movement of fish from the productive areas to various parts of Canada.



BULGARIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the attention of the government been called to the arrest of several Protestant clergymen in Bulgaria by the soviet satellite Bulgarian communist government, fifteen leading Protestant clergymen having been charged with high treason, black marketing, and making what may be described as a satellite type of confession? Will any action be taken by the government in the way of protest? Will the minister also refer in his memorandum of protest to the imprisonment of several other Christian clergymen of Protestant denominations in Roumania?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question. I would say to him that the only information the government has about this development in Bulgaria is that which it has seen in the newspapers. As the hon. member knows, we have no representative in Bulgaria. Immediately on receipt of this information through the public press we took steps to secure if possible official confirmation of the report by asking friendly governments who were represented in Bulgaria to obtain information as to the validity or otherwise of those reports. We have not yet received replies to those inquiries and when we do we shall be in position to decide what action, if any, will be taken.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY INQUIRY AS TO AGREEMENTS WITH PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver South):: Press dispatches indicate that the Minister of Mines and Resources made a statement yesterday to a delegation concerning the trans-Canada highway. The dispatch seems
536	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry to indicate that the government has reached certain decisions respecting the highway. I should like to ask the minister whether any agreements have been made with the provinces and if so, will he table them in the house? Is he prepared now to make a statement about the highway?


Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it is much too early to make any worth-while statement as to the progress being made. The Department of Mines and Resources is in communication with the ministers of highways in the various provinces as to the route of the highway through their particular provinces, and the kind of road to be constructed. I think that is as far as the statement went that I made yesterday to a delegation from Sault Ste. Marie. They were speaking to me principally on the matter of the route through that part of the province of Ontario. No agreements have yet been arrived at between the federal government and any of the provinces, although negotiations are actively under way.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: 1 wish to ask a question supplementary to the one asked by the member for Vancouver South. Has any determination been made whether the route of the trans-Canada highway shall be by way of the Kicking Horse pass or the Yellowhead pass?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Where are your provincial rights now?


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the minister if it is intended to rely on the recommendations of the provinces.


James Angus MacKinnon: I would say it is.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Leihbridge):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister make a statement to the house some time soon giving an account of the progress the government has made since January 1, 1946 toward making Canada more self-sufficient? Will he deal in some detail with the progress that was made in 1948, and that is being made in 1949?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The question seems to suggest a very comprehensive study involving considerable research. I shall be glad to examine it. I think certain data bearing on the subject matter were tabled a few days


ago in a report on the administration of schedule III of the Emergency Exchange Conservation Act. I will see what can be prepared, and give my hon. friend an answer later.



PRESS REPORT WITH REFERENCE TO USE OF TELEPHONE RECORDING DEVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Cruickshank: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, arising out of a press report. The press report reads: "Report Drew applied in vain for phone recording device". As I understand it, this device was to record-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have my question here. If this device is to be used to record what she says, may I have television to see what she looks like?



QUESTION AS TO PLANK NO. 11 OF NEW LIBERAL PARTY PLATFORM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister tell the house when the government intends to implement plank No. 11 in the new Liberal party platform?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As the hon. gentleman knows very well, the policy of the government will be announced in due course.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: intended to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, but as it perhaps involves government policy I will direct it to the Prime Minister. On Thursday last I asked the Minister of Labour if the government was giving consideration to assisting employable unemployed in the city of Vancouver. On the basis of a telegram received from the Vancouver district council of the Canadian Legion, I wish to repeat that question today. The telegram states that the unemployment situation in Vancouver constitutes an emergency comparable to the floods of last summer. Will the government assure the house that it will look into the situation with a view to rendering assistance?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I should not like to assure the house that the government will look into it with

a view to assisting. The government will look into it with a view to determining whether or not the situation is one that requires assistance, and then give consideration to whatever may be found in its first investigation.


George Alexander Cruickshank: As
a supplementary question, may I ask the Prime Minister when that will be done?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am afraid I am not in a
position to forecast how long it will take. It will be done immediately, and under instructions to proceed as expeditiously as may be reasonable.


Mr. Rodney Young (Vancouver Centre):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, based on the telegram mentioned by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). In that telegram the Canadian Legion provincial command states that the number of those who have been receiving veterans grants-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to put his question.


Rodney Young: Will the minister say whether it is possible to extend the grants which have now run out, to assist veterans who are unemployed in Vancouver?



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Burlon (Humboldt):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister received representations from individuals and organizations seeking a national pension plan for incurables? Will the minister be prepared to make a statement now, or at an early day?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, I can add nothing more at this time to what I said in answer to a similar question on Friday last.



HARBOURS AND RIVERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: In view of press reports relating to the danger to the fishing fleet at Victoria Beach because of the condition of the breakinquiries of the Ministry water, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I have already sent him notice of it. Have appropriations been provided for the construction or extension of the breakwater at Victoria Beach? If work has not yet commenced on this undertaking, when will it be proceeded with?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for sending me a copy of his question. In the supplementary estimates of last year an item of $20,000 was voted for this work. Actually our engineers in Halifax are preparing plans and specifications, and we expect to have them ready some time in March. The moment they are ready, we will ask for tenders and proceed with the work.



PRICES AND TRADE BOARD


Mr. H. W. Timmins (Parkdale):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister given consideration to the effect of the decision handed down yesterday by the supreme court of Ontario in the McGinn case as to the present validity and force of the wartime prices and trade board order with respect to prices?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I have seen only newspaper reports of the decision in question. I have not yet received a report from the legal advisers of the wartime prices and trade board.



GANDER AIRPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to know under what authority the information was conveyed about two weeks ago to embassies, ministries or other official offices of those countries in which there are companies which have commercial air operations going through Gander, to the effect that they would not have commercial landing rights at Gander on and after April 1 next.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member was not able to give me notice of his question.


George Alexander Drew: I learned about it only as I came into the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not in a position to give the hon. member a reply now, but I will look into the matter and see if a reply can be given to him tomorrow or the next day.
538	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
NAILS	Mr. Timmins: From May?



INQUIRY AS TO PRODUCTION AND EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Brunelle (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice to the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the question I now propose to ask. Is the shortage of nails in Canada due to our exports? If we do export nails, I should like to know in what quantities and to what countries.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The production of nails last year from Canadian steel was 1,656,720 kegs as against 1,546,490 kegs in 1947, an increase of about 110,000 kegs. All these nails were distributed in Canada.


Mr. Fraser:: Under priorities, most of them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do you want to answer this question? It is difficult for a minister to answer a question about nails when we have a specialist in nails in the house. There was one Canadian operation which was simply a conversion process. A company was given the right to bring in United States wire to be converted into nails, and to export the product. That operation provided 59,940 kegs, part of which were exported, as follows:
kegs
Newfoundland	 238
Honduras	 690
Venezuela	   42
U.S.A	 36,040
Therefore of the roughly 60,000 kegs made from United States steel under the conversion agreement, about 20,000 kegs remained in Canada and the remainder were exported under the agreement.


Mr. Adamson:: Were they all steel nails, or were some of them aluminum nails?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Steel nails.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: If I may
ask a supplementary question, the minister has stated that the production of nails will be expedited in much the same fashion it was expedited last year. I should like to ask just when that expedited production will begin. Will it be in March, or April?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As my hon. friend knows, the production of nails in Canada is limited by the capacity of Canada to produce wire from which nails are made. Last year, during the period June to October, there was a diversion of wire from fencing into the manufacture of nails. That diversion is to be repeated this year, but it will start one month earlier and extend to the same termination date. In other words there will be an extra month during which wire ordinarily used for fencing will be diverted to the manufacture of nails.


Clarence Decatur Howe: From May 1 to October 31. FISHERIES



REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CANNING OF LOBSTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: know the Minister of Fisheries is waiting to answer this question, notice of which I sent him this morning. Is it the intention of the department to permit the canning of lobsters at any time of the year, provided that the lobsters are legally taken from any areas open to fishing?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: The hon. gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of his question. The department now has under consideration the matter of amending the regulations under the Meat and Canned Foods Act to permit the canning of lobsters which may have been legally taken at any time of the year.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. J. M. Lockhart (Lincoln):: Will the responsible minister or parliamentary assistant try to get me an answer to question No. 14 on the order paper with regard to housing in the Niagara peninsula? When it was called the other day it was allowed to stand. I am anxious to get the information.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for an address to His Majesty the King respecting the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.
(Translation):
Mr. Maxime Raymond (Beauharnois-La-prairie):: Mr. Speaker, having already
expressed my views on the constitutional aspect of this question, I would probably not have spoken a second time in this debate were it not for the attempt, on the part of some people, to create the impression that this parliament had, with only one dissenting voice, given unanimous approval to the proposed union of Newfoundland with Canada, according to the procedure followed up to now.
That is not a fact. The hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr Hamel) has

expressed a dissenting voice on the second reading of the bill. The hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) has likewise expressed his disapproval, but on the third reading of the bill. As for the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) and myself, we have made it clear, on the committee stage, that we were opposed to this union as proposed.
So that there will be no misunderstanding, I take advantage of this resolution, and of the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), to repeat my opposition.
First, as I have already shown and proven during the discussion in committee, the procedure followed by the government is a violation of the constitution. Moreover, if we approve this stand of the government we shall be party to an injustice and to the violation of an undertaking between Great Britain and Newfoundland. I for one want to disengage myself from any responsibility for it.
The leader of the opposition has moved that the different provincial governments be consulted and the union proceeded with after securing satisfactory results from such consultation.
I wish to state that I am not entirely satisfied with this amendment; yet, for want of something better, I shall vote for it. At least it embodies the principle that the provinces should not be entirely ignored in connection with amendments to the pact of 1867. I hold, however, as I did last Tuesday, that not only should the government consult the different provinces which were parties to the pact, but should obtain their consent to any amendment of the constitution. Many reasons justify our securing the consent of the provinces, especially of those which pay the cost of such union.
The Prime Minister has stated that the members elected to the federal parliament from the different provinces represent their respective provinces in such cases as this. I do not share his views, but since he holds that opinion and has the support of a majority in this house, I shall, as one of the representatives of the province of Quebec, state certain reasons for which our province would be justified in opposing that union.
In the second place, the union will entail a considerable increase in our already too heavy burdens. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has already admitted that, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) proved it in the statement he made the other day. Some economists are unanimous in the belief that we are assuming heavy liabilities. And who is going to pay in the long run? The provinces of Quebec and Ontario, in which the main sources of revenue are to be found.
Newfoundland
I wish to quote from a Reuters dispatch, published by the newspaper Le Droit on February 9 last, the following statement from Lord Jowitt:
The Canadian proposals in connection with the incorporation of Newfoundland "are not devoid of generosity" according to the Lord Chancellor. Viscount Jowitt.
It can be taken for granted that tor many years the annexation is going to be quite a heavy burden for the Canadian people, began Lord Jowitt.
We, in this country, have never sought to gain anything from Newfoundland, while Canada certainly pays a high price in her effort to put that former colony back on her feet.
Lord Jowitt states that he discussed with a great many people this matter of Newfoundland's entry into confederation and the consensus of opinion is that it was a very good thing for Great Britain, since the Canadian people seem ready to accept this "heavy responsibility."
One has but to analyse the methods used by the commission of government appointed by London to come to the conclusion that Great Britain is more anxious than anyone else to bring about this union. And Canada, ever generous towards Great Britain, has hastened to comply with the latter's wishes.
In the third place, I further object because the union compels us to increase our defence budget. According to statements which have already been made, our expenditures for national defence will be greatly increased this year. If we take into consideration the fact that Canada, with a population of only twelve and a half million people has just as much territory to protect as the United States whose population is now 150 million, we should not think of increasing our present territory. There will result increased expenditures which again will fall, to a large extent, on the Quebec taxpayer, who is already overtaxed. We would imitate the frog who tried to swell itself up to the size of an ox. We are heading for a blow-out.
In the fourth place, that union will drag us into international conflict. We shall be getting a mortgaged property on which the imperial commission has already leased bases to the United States for 99 years. Therefore, should the United States be at war with another nation, we immediately become subject to attack. The presence of those foreign air bases on our territory will involve us in war, whether we want it or not.
In the fifth place, the union will imperil Canadian unity. It will cause problems on account of the pronounced dissensions amongst the people of Newfoundland themselves and on account of their imperialist tendencies. We are contracting a marriage imposed on us by a foreign commission established in London, and this imperial commission is evidently acting in its own interest, judging from its efforts to achieve that union.

Newfoundland
Does anyone wish to increase the disunity already existing in this country?
In the sixth place, alarming things are being said or written.
We, in Quebec, wish to make Canada a united country, seeking first to further Canadian interests. We want Canadians, of whatever origin, to think as Canadians. Now here is what I read in the Winnipeg Free Press on July 28 last, concerning the entry of Newfoundland into confederation:
(Text):
On balance it might be said the island is the gainer out of union. Certainly the standard of living will be raised; services will be improved; the isolation of the island ended. As part of a larger unit. Newfoundland's flimsy economy will be strengthened. But the bargain is not all onesided. Canada also stands to gain. Her population is increased by 350,000 English-speaking stock;-
(Translation):
This denotes views that should give us food for thought.
Considering that the province of Quebec is a minority in this country, that our rights, more particularly those mentioned in section 133 of the British North America Act, are at the mercy of a majority in the house, according to the view expressed by the Prime Minister, which view is apparently shared by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) but not by myself, there is cause for concern over the protection of our rights, with the arrival of seven new members who will be subservient to their views rather than to the national interest. Furthermore, they are being allowed six senators, while Quebec, with a population at least ten times greater, will only have twenty-four; in proportion to her population, our province should have sixty. The newcomers are in an infinitely better position than the fathers of confederation. And thus, to a certain extent, we would leave in their hands the fate of our rights, guaranteed though they be by the pact of 1867. A small guarantee it is if we recall how the majority in the Manitoba provincial legislature annihilated the guarantees provided in the Act of Union of 1870, notwithstanding the provisions of sections 22 and 23 of the said act which read as follows:
(Text) :
Section 22.	(1) Nothing in any such law shall
prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law or practice in the province at the union.
(Translation):
Section 23 reads as follows:
(Text):
Section 23. Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the legislature, and both those
tMr. Raymond (Beauharnois-Laprairie).]
languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process, in or issuing from any court of Canada established under the British North America Act, 1867, or in or from all or any of the courts of the province. The acts of the legislature shall be printed and published in both those languages.
(Translation):
Now, in 1890, the Manitoba legislature violated this constitution by passing the two acts I shall mention. I have here the 1890 Manitoba statutes, and I quote from two chapters, one of which deals with the abolition of Catholic schools.
(Text):
We find in the statutes of Manitoba, 1890, chapter 14, an act to provide that the English language shall be the official language of the province of Manitoba. Section 1 reads as follows:
Any statute or law to the contrary notwithstanding. the English language only shall be used in the records and journals of the house of assembly for the province of Manitoba, and in any pleadings or process in or issuing from any court in the province of Manitoba. The acts of the legislature of the province of Manitoba need only be printed and published in the English language.
(Translation):
That dealt with the abolition of French. As for Catholic schools, chapter 38 of the same statute provides as follows:
(Text):
In cases where, before the coming into force of this act, Catholic school districts have been established as in the next preceding section mentioned, such Catholic school districts shall, upon the coming into force of this act, cease to exist . . .
(Translation):
That is how the majority makes a clean sweep of the rights guaranteed minorities by a constitutional act.
This not only gives us food for thought but shows how important it is for the people of Quebec to oppose any amendment to the 1867 agreement, as planned, without the consent of the provinces.
In closing, I point out, with regret, how unfortunate it is that the Canadian representatives mainly concerned with negotiating the terms of union should have been, at the same time, members of the privy council of Great Britain. No one can serve two masters. Great Britain's interests are not those of Canada.
I will say no more about this for the time being because I do not want to delay the vote on this resolution and on the amendment submitted.
(Text):


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: Perhaps some small addition to this debate from one sitting in the very back benches may be acceptable

to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house. I should like to say just a few words in order to give to the house some of the ideas which have come to me as I listened to what in my opinion has been a most interesting debate.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) paid a well-deserved tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for the manner in which he had piloted through this house the legislation relating to the union of Newfoundland with Canada. I will not add to the words used by the Minister of National Defence, except to say that his sentiments were shared at least by all on this side of the house.
Of the speeches in the debate on the motion and the amendment thereto, I was particularly impressed by the one made last evening by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). I thought he was most impressive in making his point with respect to the procedure by which Newfoundland chose confederation with Canada as the form of government which would be adopted by their country in the future. I thought his statement that the choice was a fundamentally democratic and free one was of the utmost importance.
I should like to summarize the procedure which was followed in order that the people of Newfoundland might make this choice- so that there may be no question in the minds of hon. members, particularly of those who sit opposite, as to its fundamental nature.
The policy of the British government with respect to the future organization of the government in Newfoundland was announced in the British House of Commons by the Prime Minister of Great Britain on December 11, 1945. That policy can be briefly summarized as follows: that the time had come when the people of Newfoundland were to be given the opportunity of deciding what form of government would be adopted in their country in the future; that this question would be decided by a national referendum in which the people of Newfoundland would be given a free choice as to the form of government they desired to adopt, and that, preceding this national referendum, a national convention of elected delegates would be called together in order to permit of orderly discussion of the various types of government which might be suggested. This policy of the British government was duly promulgated in Newfoundland, and steps were taken to carry it into effect.
Newfoundland was divided into constituencies which followed closely the old divisions of constituencies when they had their own representative assembly. Nominations were called and an election was held. As a result of that election, forty-five representatives were chosen to form the national convention. This national convention was called together in St. John's, and at its opening sessions was
Newfoundland
presided over by a justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. The task of this convention under the policy laid down by the British government was to make recommendations to the British government as to the forms of government which would be put on the ballot upon which the people of Newfoundland would vote.
The first business of the convention was to adopt and enact rules to govern its own procedure. This was done by an appointed committee which drafted a set of rules and brought them back to the convention for adoption. They were adopted unanimously. One of the rules which the convention adopted for itself by unanimous vote was that each member of the convention would have the right to make known to the British government his own personal recommendations as to the kinds of government which should go on the ballot, on the same basis as the decision of the whole convention, whether it was by a large majority or by a small one only. Therefore the convention decided for itself that each member had full rights to make recommendations on the same basis as the whole convention itself.
It may be of interest to know that 130 individuals were nominated to contest the election which was held to choose the members who would form this national convention. Of these, 128 were nominated without having declared themselves to the electorate as to the kind of government which they favoured for Newfoundland. Two alone made public their opinions as to what the best form of government for Newfoundland in the future would be. One made it known to his people that he favoured confederation, and the other that he favoured the return of responsible government. I point this out to show that 43 of the 45 men who met in this national convention went there free of any undertaking previously made to the people who sent them there as to the kind of government which they would recommend.
The convention met for many months. It worked hard and discussed every aspect of the various proposals which were put before it. Delegations were sent both to Britain and to Ottawa. Their reports were received and thoroughly discussed. When these discussions were completed the convention voted unanimously to place upon the ballot the choice of continuation of commission of government. It also voted unanimously for the inclusion on the ballot of return of responsible government. The choice of confederation with Canada was put to the convention and defeated by a vote of 29 to 16. But remember that the unanimous wish of the convention was that each individual member would

Newfoundland
have the same right to make recommendations to the British government as the convention itself, and there had been no undertaking by the British government that it would accept any or all of the recommendations of the convention, or that it would accept these recommendations to the exclusion of anything else.
Within one week after the announcement of the result of the voting in the national convention, 50,000 people of Newfoundland either had sent telegrams or had written to the governor expressing their wish and their demand that, in spite of any decision reached by the convention, the choice of confederation with Canada be given to the people of Newfoundland by its inclusion on the ballot which was to be presented to them in the referendum. In other words, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the sixteen elected members of the convention who individually and as a group recommended to the British government the inclusion of confederation with Canada on the ballot, 50,000 citizens of Newfoundland made known their wishes in like manner to the British government in an unmistakable way. As a result of all this, the British government reached its decision to have on the ballot, which was presented to the people of Newfoundland in the referendum, the three choices-return of responsible government, retention of commission of government, and confederation with Canada.
The suggestion has been made that there was some defect in this procedure; that it was not democratic; that it was not a free choice, and that in some way the people of Newfoundland were misled. I should like to quote the words used by the Prime Minister of Great Britain when he announced the British policy to the British House of Commons on December 11, 1945. He said:
The object of the procedure which His Majesty's government proposes is to enable the people of the island to come to a free and informed decision as to their future form of government.
The suggestion has been left in many minds that the choice of the people of Newfoundland was neither free nor informed. I say that that is entirely incorrect. Their choice was a free one, and it was one which they had known they were to make, from December 1945, through the whole period during which the convention sat, and right down to the referendum.
I believe many thousands of Newfoundlanders who voted against confederation will resent the suggestion that they have been imposed upon; that there was anything undemocratic or improper in the way in which they were permitted to make their choice.
IMr. Dickey.]
The people of Newfoundland will little appreciate any technicalities of interpretation of the British North America Act or problems of the Canadian constitution. Newfoundlanders who know the facts will realize that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in this house, and those who adopt his arguments, have adopted the arguments and taken over the position of those in Newfoundland who most violently oppose union of the colony of Newfoundland with Canada.
In the last few days in this house much has been said in praise of the people of Newfoundland, and of the strength of the bonds which unite that people with the people of this country. Nowhere in this dominion are these bonds stronger than they are in Nova Scotia, the province from which I come. We have a special knowledge of the people of Newfoundland. Thousands of them live among us. We have a closer community of interest with the people of Newfoundland than the people of any other portion of Canada, largely because of the basic importance to both of us of the great industry of fishing. It has also been said that to know the people of Newfoundland is to appreciate them. To know them better is to appreciate them more. We have had the privilege of knowing them best, and we appreciate them most.
Therefore it is with a particular feeling of pride that the people of Nova Scotia welcome the people of Newfoundland as full partners in this confederation. We feel that they have been given the opportunity to make a free choice, and we are not disposed to take any technical or synthetic position which will prevent the union which both Newfoundland and Canada desire.


Mr. J. G. L. Langlois (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate until I heard the speech made a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond). Since part of my address will deal with his remarks, I think it proper that I should make them in the French language.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with much interest and quite attentively to the speech which the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond) has just delivered.
Among the remarks which he saw fit to make in this debate, there was one, if my memory serves me aright, where the hon. member said:	"We Canadians from Quebec
want first of all to protect the interests of Canada." I must say that all members who come from the province of Quebec agree with the full scope of that remark of the hon. member. We also are concerned with the

interests of Canada because above all we lay claim to the title of plain Canadians. But that remark, as made by the hon. member, makes me wonder what our Quebec nationalists would have said if, for instance, we Quebec Canadians and Canadian citizens had let Newfoundland join the United States. Those same nationalists would then have cried shame. They would have described in terms which I would not dare utter in this house-because I have no use for the kind of language to which they resort-as a cowardly dereliction of duty the stand which they charge us with having failed to take.
In my opinion, Newfoundland will be not only a physical but a moral asset to this country. During my six years in the Royal Canadian Navy, it was my privilege to be associated during rather difficult times with companions from Newfoundland, so that I was then able to appreciate their patriotism and high moral qualities. That is why I say with the utmost assurance that Newfoundland's entry into confederation will be for my country, for Canada, a moral asset that will further promote Canada's development and progress. Then the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie expressed great apprehension. If I understand him correctly, he said it might be a threat to our French minority to bring into our confederation the people of Newfoundland who do not share our traditions or way of life. In this respect, I should like to inform the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie, if he does not already know it, that 31 per cent of Newfoundland's population are Roman Catholics; in other words, that 31 per cent of Newfoundlanders share the faith of our ancestors in Quebec. In that regard, I have no fear whatsoever because, as I said a while ago, since I had the privilege of associating with people from Newfoundland while serving during the war, I was in a position to appreciate the sterling qualities of these good folk.
Moreover, Newfoundland's population is made up largely of fishermen, worthy citizens whose trade is the same as that of the majority of my constituents, people whose work ever pits them against the elements, who toil and struggle for a livelihood and are used to facing issues squarely and judging on their merits. They have no time to waste on party matters of a purely local character, or on jingoism. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member also mentioned in his speech, if I understood him correctly, that the federal government was seeking to amend the Canadian constitution without consulting the provinces. He made this remark in such a general way that I believe it is my duty to take up this statement. No doubt he has forgotten that in
Newfoundland
a memorable radio address given some ten days ago, our leader, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), referring to the possible effects of the abolition of appeals to the privy council, stated that consideration should be given to the means of amending our constitution. But on the very next day, here in the house, he hastened to add, in reply to a question by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), that such an amendment to the constitution should not be carried out without the consent of the provinces. Therefore, the hon. member's remarks were not fully accurate and, no matter how he qualified them, do not concern solely, I am sure, the matter now under discussion.
Mr. Speaker, ever since the opening of this session, we have heard a whole medley of contradictory statements. In the first place the attitude of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has been most thoroughly inconsistent.
As I was saying before, I was at first unwilling to take part in this debate. This was because I believed that the leader of the opposition was sincere in objecting, on the first day of this session, to any delay in debating the speech from the throne. I was therefore unwilling to delay further that particular debate by taking part myself in this one. However we have seen how, subsequently, the leader of the opposition turned about completely and, through a series of amendments, himself contributed to delay further the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As a matter of fact, by moving the amendment to the resolution which is now before this house, he maintains the totally inconsistent attitude which he has taken since the beginning of the session. Was he not serious when he opposed a resolution put forward by the prime minister, which called for the adjournment of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne?
Is it any wonder now that we find in his statements such glaring inconsistencies as those submitted to us yesterday by some hon. members who preceded me in this debate?
The leader of the opposition has completely changed his mind. He has made a rightabout turn on the question of autonomy. He no longer talks about centralization, about a country made up of a central office with a branch in each province. But today he clamours for wider powers for a more complete autonomy in favour of the provinces, which, in his estimation, should enjoy even wider powers than those of the central government.
But I find it strange that these same provinces to which the hon. the leader of the opposition would grant so much autonomy

Newfoundland
have not even taken the trouble of officially making known their attitude on the procedure we are presently following in this house.
As a matter of fact, I personally checked up and was informed from official sources that not one of the nine premiers of the Canadian provinces has officially protested to the leader of the government against the procedure which we are following to amend the constitution, that is, regarding the amendment to the constitution we are now discussing.
While the nine premiers were clamouring against federal government persecution, not one of them felt the need of suggesting in an official letter to the leader of the government, the procedure he wished the house to follow in connection with the annexation of Newfoundland. Do these same premiers feel that the provincial autonomy of Quebec, and that of the other nine provinces, is safeguarded by the mere fact that they made contradictory statements, or that they are entrenched for the preservation of provincial rights behind their own recriminating oratory?
Such, Mr. Speaker, is the negative stand taken by the provinces of this country since 1938. No province ever took steps, or submitted to the federal government practical means of amending the constitution, either as a whole or in connection with the taxation structure. Mr. Speaker, we need only go back to the days of the Rowell-Sirois commission. The provinces were consulted by the commission on proposals made thereafter by the federal government.
This commission sat throughout the country, from Vancouver to Halifax. And now these premiers, claiming to have been wronged because they have not been consulted, have taken a stand I shall now explain. To define the stand taken by these premiers at the time I shall refer to Wilfrid Eggleston's excellent book entitled: Road to Nationhood. On pages 115 and 116 of this book Mr. Eggleston writes as follows, and I quote in English:
(Text):
In a letter to the secretary dated July 13, 1938, the Ontario premier concluded: "Under the circumstances, my colleagues and I have decided to disassociate ourselves entirely from any participation in so far as these deliberations are concerned."
Mr. Eggleston continues:
This meant, among other things, that the compilation of the public finance figures of Ontario was brought to a halt.
Premier Hepburn's decision was lauded by premier Aberhart of Alberta, who called the inquiry a "national menace" and a "piece of political futility." These reports were coupled with press statements of "alliances" between Hepburn and Duplessis. The Montreal Gazette contended that there was no longer a commission. The Globe and Mail of Toronto proposed that Right Hon. R. B. Bennett be invited to fill the chairman's place. Other editors wondered what could be salvaged from "the wreck." These circumstances are recalled here to show the atmo-

sphere in which for a part of the time at least the commission was compelled to pursue its inquiry.
(Translation):
And then, at page 107, the author writes:
(Text):
The first serious hitch in the collection of public finance statistics from the nine provinces had occurred early in March, 1938, when Premier Maurice Duplessis of Quebec absolutely declined to go on with the preparation of answers to the questionnaire which had been circulated by the commission for its comparative study of provincial finances. He cloaked his non-co-operative gesture behind the assertion that he could not rely upon the figures of earlier administrations.
(Translation):
This shows the lack of co-operation, not to say the obstruction, on the part of the provincial premiers regarding that commission. And now, the leader of the opposition contending to speak on behalf of those same premiers, asserts that the provinces should be consulted on the proposed amendment to the Canadian constitution.
Yesterday, a speaker interpreted this amendment as meaning that the leader of the opposition was thereby seeking the provinces' consent. The latter might then have to face a dilemma resulting from the following probability: What would happen should one province voice opposition, while the other eight provinces approved? Immediately after, other members of his party stated that such was not the purpose of the amendment, but that it rather aimed at stressing the need of safeguarding the right of the provinces to be consulted in circumstances of that kind. Through this amendment, which has no other meaning, we are saying to the provinces: "Very well, we shall be nice enough to seek your advice, but whatever be your answer, we shall take no heed of it."
To take refuge in such a procedure for the sole protection of our most precious rights and privileges is a strange way of protecting the autonomy of the provinces.
I said a while ago, Mr. Speaker, that so far the provinces had taken but a negative stand in the matter of autonomy, and I believe that my own remarks and those I have quoted have made clear that very important point in these discussions.
The same thing is happening here today. So far we have had but one semi-political statement from a premier who, from his vantage point of premier of the province of Quebec, claims that the province should be consulted in this case, but does not go to the trouble of sending to Ottawa his official protest or suggestions.
If the premiers of the provinces concerned are so jealous of their autonomy, if they are sincere when they claim the autonomy of the provinces is endangered by the central power,

it is time they act jointly and positively. Why do they not use the procedure followed by the fathers of confederation?
We are accused of departing from the spirit and the procedure of the discussions prior to confederation. Why then do not these premiers set us on the right road? Why do they not revive that period preliminary to the confederative pact? It would be very easy to do so.
The prime ministers would only need to hold preliminary conferences among themselves such as the Quebec or Charlottetown conferences, for example, which later resulted in joint resolutions being forwarded to the imperial government which sanctions the Canadian constitution.	[DOT]
What is there to prevent the prime ministers from following that course if they absolutely want their autonomy to be protected?
I have consulted neither the members of my party nor any member of the cabinet, but I may tell this house with a fair degree of certainty that if the prime ministers of the provinces also held preliminary conferences among themselves and, after considering the different proposals of each province, if they could reach a common agreement accepted by th2 nine provinces, I am sure that later on the leader of the central government would not object to receiving them and considering the situation with them, the basis of this interprovincial conference being the decisions taken by the above-mentioned preliminary conferences.
Here is a practical action which the premiers of the provinces have not as yet deemed fit to take since the beginning of this long debate on this matter of the Canadian constitution and its amendments.
At the time of the interprovincial conferences we witnessed a political bargaining such as had never been observed in the history of Canada. We saw the provincial premiers come here after having examined- or rather after having had the opportunity to examine-the proposals submitted by the central government, and behave as if it were a matter of making the highest bid.
Is it thus, Mr. Speaker, that we can hope to solve the ticklish problem of amending our constitution?
As the Prime Minister said in a radio speech, the logical consequence of the abolition of appeals to the privy council will be that we shall have to find the means of
Newfoundland
amending our constitution. That fact provides the provincial premiers with an opportunity to take action. It is now up to them to speak; it behooves them to do something. Let them tell us plainly and with a unanimous voice what they want. Let them tell us how they intend to protect their prerogatives, which they claim are so seriously threatened. I am sure that if the threat is as great as they represent it, the action I am suggesting to them is justified under the circumstances.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid to state that their silence will be construed as a stand of non-co-operation, a stand indicating that they wish to carry on the debate, hoping to benefit from it in future provincial elections.
I know that last summer all the sins of Israel were blamed on that lack of understanding between the provinces and Ottawa. There were cries of persecution and despoiling by the federal government. The provincial premiers have there a good alibi for their inertness, an eternal alibi for their failure to provide for social security in their own provinces and they will take no chance of losing it.
Instead of protesting, instead of repeating their autonomist statements, these premiers would be appreciated by all the Canadian people if they had the courage to take the initiative in making concrete suggestions and to tell the central government, with a unanimous voice, what they want.
The fathers of confederation, to which they seem to compare themselves today, did not fear to tell the imperial government with a unanimous voice what their wishes were as to the basis of the Canadian constitution. And I must add, for the benefit of the advocates of federal autonomy, that when the imperial government dealt with the resolutions from the Quebec and Charlottetown conferences, that same imperial government did not lose any of its autonomy for having given first the provinces or colonies the liberty of putting forth jointly and consistently their views on this important question. Likewise the central authority will not lose its autonomy by telling the provinces: "You claim that our method of proceeding is prejudicial to your privileges. Well, kindly submit us your representations, through preliminary conferences, to which, I feel sure, the central authority will be pleased and will make it a point to send the necessary experts and statisticians to supply the provinces with all information and data they may need. I believe I can say that the dominion government does not lose any of its autonomy in acting that way. Moreover, I add that this
546

Newfoundland
way of proceeding does not at all conflict with the stand taken in the past by our government with regard to this matter.
I know that some are ready to rise in their place and say yes. They say that today, but they have not always been of that opinion. Nothing in that attitude, in those suggestions, come in any way in conflict with the position taken up to now by the central administration. The dominion government thought it was taking the right course in initiating the move and absorbing the costs of research undertaken by the Rowell-Sirois commission with a view to finding a suitable basis for the settlement of our fiscal problems. The information obtained was intended for the provinces as well as for the central administration and would be made available to both parties to the negotiations. The central power having informed the provinces of its views on procedure, the provinces refused to co-operate. As a consequence, I repeat that the conference was a total failure, and I believe that I have proven my point.
Today the dominion government tells the provinces: "Very well, you contend that we were wrong in acting as we did and in taking the first steps, so go ahead and suggest a better way; tell us, in short, what you wish, and once you have made your wishes known we shall be prepared to discuss with you, on even terms, the findings of these preliminary conferences."
May I repeat that, to my mind, this suggestion reduces to a minimum the possible recurrence of the sometimes disgraceful performances which marked interprovincial conferences in the past. I submit it in all good faith to the consideration of the house and of the government I have the honour of supporting, though I am prepared to modify my views if they should be proved wrong. I say merely that I do not see how we can possibly go wrong if we follow the procedure that governed the pre-confederation conferences which led to the drafting of the federal statute. Through this legislation which set up a central administration and united the Canadian provinces, Canada became the great nation we are now proud to call our own.
I feel there should be no fear to suggest to the provincial premiers that they take a leaf out of the book of the fathers of confederation.
It is all very well for people to claim time and time again that they wish to abide by the

spirit and letter of confederation, that they insist on modeling their attitude on that of the men who drafted the confederation agreement. All this, however, would sound much more convincing to the Canadian public if, instead of only repeating that we wish to emulate these great statesmen, we gave concrete evidence that we actually intend to follow in their footsteps and that, as I said earlier, we want to further the development of this great Canadian nation which they pioneered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
(Text):


Mr. W. Garfield Case (Grey Norlh):: It
appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that a fine legal argument has taken place and we, as laymen, must seek to understand the various arguments presented by the learned gentlemen who have spoken during the past few hours. By seeking to interpret what I have learned from the arguments advanced, particularly as they relate to the amendment moved by my own leader, I feel that I might contribute something.
At the outset, may I say there is no one within the hearing of my voice more anxious to see Newfoundland admitted into confederation with Canada than I am. I hope I have an appreciation of my country and, for many long years, I have visualized the advantages we, as a nation, would enjoy if Newfoundland were admitted into confederation. I submit, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition that would in any way handicap the completion of this union. I have listened to the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), and while I would hesitate to interpret any part of the law expounded by him, I was impressed with his reference to municipal law and to municipal procedure.
I have had some experience in municipal government. I might say to the hon. gentleman that the municipalities in the province of Ontario, while governed to an extent by the statutes drafted by the department of municipal affairs, have a set of bylaws for which those municipalities are responsible. Over the years those bylaws have accumulated in number. I think it would be a tremendous task for the law officer of a municipality to search those bylaws in order to determine whether something already in effect might react against a matter being passed by the municipal council. For this reason we do

find in municipal law a wording such as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Gar son) has used: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary", or something like that.
The British North America Act is set forth in clear and understandable language. True, after listening to this debate I can understand that there is room for different interpretations. Nevertheless, the act is very well defined. Unless there were some element of doubt on the part of the administration, those words would not have been used in this address. It is because the administration knows the constitution must be amended, and is not prepared to take any chances, that the following all-embracing term is used:
-hereby confirmed and shall have the force of law notwithstanding anything in the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946.
Now, I was rather surprised at the advice offered by my hon. friend the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris). Yesterday he suggested that this address to His Majesty appeared on the order paper the day before we voted on third reading of the bill. Of course it was on the order paper, but it was not brought before the house for discussion. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that no one would rise in the house at that time to debate something which was not properly before the house. No one had an opportunity of even considering it, because the third reading of the bill was called. My hon. leader, however, alluded to the possibility of something not yet disclosed in his address on the presentation of the bill.
Let me deal particularly with the amendment for a moment. As I understand, Mr. Speaker, there is no one within this party who questions the right of this parliament to make the terms of union with the colony of Newfoundland. We have already given evidence of our approval by our agreement on the bill as it was considered clause by clause. While certain parts of the bill were drawn to the attention of the administration as matters that might be considered for amendment, no effort was made to amend those clauses. We accepted them as the basis of union. In that sense, we have said, this parliament could act.
I think the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) was wrong in seeking to read into the amendment something which was not there. By our approval of the bill we have said to this parliament, in effect, 29087-351
Newfoundland
that it is possessed of the necessary authority to make any deal which is in the national interests of this country. No one has questioned that. What we do say is that, when one comes to read the address to be presented to His Majesty the King, one finds a reference which requires an amendment to the British North America Act. Upon that, we say, the provinces should be consulted. After the conclusion of these consultations, the address would then be forwarded and dealt with accordingly. The reference the amendment seeks relates to the constitutional aspect only, not to the terms of union with Newfoundland.
I can quite understand that, if you were to refer the terms of union to the provinces, it might be a long time before you would be able to obtain approval. I believe the sentiment in Canada is overwhelmingly in favour of admitting Newfoundland into confederation. Having regard to that fact, I believe a reference to the provinces at the present time, since the provincial legislatures are in session or will be in session shortly, would receive prompt attention. Owing to the sentiment in favour of union, I feel satisfied that prompt approval would be received. Then the British North America Act could be amended and Newfoundland could be admitted into confederation.
As has been said already, we have a constitution. Either it means something or it means nothing. A great principle is indeed here involved. The position is just the same as that in which a set of rules is laid down for a hockey match or for a lacrosse match. If you disregard the rules, then you are bound to have a more or less chaotic condition, or a complete disregard for all rules. I like to look beyond the present stage. 1 do not think it requires any reference by the-Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) to the great men who negotiated the deal. I think we all have an appreciation of each other. I do not think it requires any reference to what happened in Newfoundland.. That was their responsibility and their business, not ours. The question about which we are vitally concerned is this. Have we the right to amend the British North America Act by a simple majority vote of this house, without a reference to the parties to the original agreement who indeed created confederation in the first place and played their part in the building of the Dominion of Canada?
(Translation):


Mr. Frederic Dorion (Charlevoix-Sague-nay):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with rapt attention, just now, to the speech of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois).
Of course, I could not attempt to go over all the points he covered as I should like to

Newfoundland
limit my few remarks to the matter now under discussion.
However, the hon. member for Gaspe offered a suggestion, and it would be most interesting to know whether the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the government are prepared to endorse a proposal that a meeting of provincial prime ministers be held to consider the matter now being discussed.
I imagine that before the end of this debate, the Prime Minister or members of the government will officially confirm the proposal made by the hon. member for Gaspe.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I believe a correction is in order. I hardly think my suggestion was not that now credited to me by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion).
I suggested that, following abolition of appeals to the privy council, the provinces should meet and submit their views as to what they consider the best way of amending our constitution.
My suggestion had nothing to do with the present discussion.
{Text):


Frédéric Dorion: Mr. Speaker, I do not think "the hon. member is entitled to make a new speech. If he wants to put a question to me, I am ready to answer it.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Provided the hon. member makes his speech, not mine.
(Translation):


Frédéric Dorion: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gaspe also stated that in the matter at issue, the provincial premiers should rise and make strong representations against the government's stand at this time.
That is a peculiar way in which to discuss the problem now before the house. After all, it is here, in the House of Commons, that we should decide whether or not one of the clauses of the British North America Act is to be cast aside.
It is for us in this house to decide whether we shall violate a provision of this act and, even if the provincial premiers should protest officially, I believe it is here that the matter should be discussed; it is for us to take a definite stand on whether we intend to respect the federative agreement.
I might add too that some protests have been made already, if I am not mistaken, some of them quite vigorous, especially by the premier of Quebec. The hon. member for Gaspe will note too that quite recently those representations had some repercussions in the constituency of Nicolet-Yamaska.
fMr. Dorion.]
I have heard in this debate, Mr. Speaker, a most peculiar argument. I quote:
The fact that the bill providing for union with Newfoundland was unanimously adopted by the house prevented the amendment now before us from being presented.
Well, such is not my way of considering this matter. When the bill was first presented, the question was to deal with the principle of the union with Newfoundland and to determine the terms of this union.
But today we are considering the procedure, and as a proof of this, the Prime Minister himself refers to the "procedure" when dealing with the resolution.
I quote the following, from page 494 of Hansard:
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 from the same page, in the next column:
The terms of section 146 of the British North America Act being no longer applicable, another procedure had to be resorted to.
A little further on, I quote:
There is a second reason why procedure not expressly provided for in the British North America Act was resorted to. If that procedure had not been followed there might have been some question as to its legal effect.
Therefore, the address we are now discussing and the amendment that is submitted to us have to do with the procedure to be followed for achieving the union of Newfoundland with Canada, and that procedure is all the more important since it involves a basic principle expounded in the British North America Act.
Reference has often been made to that provision of section 146 and it is there that we find the principle to be followed in such a case as this one.
Besides, if those provisions of section 146 had been followed, it is quite probable that no one would have seen fit to start the present debate, because in that case we would have remained within the limits of the constitution as established at the time of confederation. For instance, in the case of the entry of Prince Edward Island, there was no need of consulting the provinces, because the methods and the provisions of the British North America Act were then followed.
The same thing happened when British Columbia joined the confederation. Consequently, when those two provinces were annexed, it was not necessary to initiate a

debate like this one, because at that time we followed closely the provisions of the British North America Act.
But now these provisions are being cast aside.
What amazes me is that we have come to the point where not only do we consider it unnecessary to consult the provinces, but we do not even trouble ourselves to propose an amendment; the provisions of the British North America Act are simply ignored.
Since the first fight I had the occasion to put up in this house, since 1943, we have reached the point where not only is the constitution amended without any regard for the provinces, without their consent, but where a statute such as the one we have before us is passed by bluntly casting aside one of the provisions of the British North America Act. There is no question even of amending section 146.
Well, I find that extremely important and extremely dangerous for our country.
Besides, that is why I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when we see a statement such as that made by the right hon. the Prime Minister <Mr. St. Laurent) on February 8 and which appears on page 352 of Hansard, we are justified in entertaining fears. This is what the Prime Minister said on that occasion:
It must not be forgotten that the British North America Act was passed in 1867, almost eighty-two years ago, and that conditions in this country, its people, its parliament and its government are not the same today as they were then. I was surprised at the attitude expressed this afternoon by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay. Most of us from my province derive perhaps some sentimental satisfaction from the developments that have taken place and that have brought about the situation whereby the prerogative of His Majesty is now exercised on the advice of ministers responsible to his Canadian subjects, but the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay seems to be one of those who have lagged behind, and he is not willing to keep pace with the developments that time has brought about.
As if, because the British North America Act is 82 years old, we should now consider it obsolete, consider it as fit only to be thrown, for that reason, into the waste-basket.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that such views strongly jeopardize the future of our country. Thus, when this amendment came up for discussion, I considered that if the provisions of the British North America Act were to be put aside, it was imperative to consult the provin-
Newfoundland
ces because we would be following a different procedure from that provided in the act.
Why should we not consult the provinces? If one or many provinces raise any objection would it not be expedient first to consider the objection in order to deal with it before the entry of Newfoundland into the confederation? If no objection is raised, would not the entry of Newfoundland appear even more solemn? Would it not be easier then for the people of Newfoundland to become true Canadians, even if only because it would bring about that consolidation of Canadian unity we so often ask for? I feel that for these reasons we should adopt the amendment now before the house.
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, most of us who came to this chamber yesterday, except those few who were in on the secret, came to praise Newfoundland and not, we thought, to bury it in a wrangle over legality and procedure, with charges-which I do not think we need take too literally or too seriously- that we who favour union with Newfoundland, according to the procedure which the government have outlined, are thereby destroying our constitution.
I should have liked to participate in the welcome which we hoped would take place yesterday. That opportunity has disappeared, for the moment only I hope, because of the amendment which has been introduced by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I hesitate to intervene in the discussion which has been provoked by that amendment, a discussion which has been diverted into the favourite bypath of the leader of the opposition and those who sit with him. I hesitate even more because, to use the elegant language of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), I am a rookie in this chamber, though I am in pretty good company as a rookie. Not only that, but I am not even a legal rookie, Mr. Speaker. However, I do not think it is necessary to speak at any great length on the legal and constitutional aspect of this discussion because that was dealt with pretty effectively last night by hon. members who spoke on this side, more particularly the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), and by hon. members on the other side of the house.
However, I should like to reaffirm some points which have been made and to make one or two which I think are new. For

tion of the development and the meaning of the Canadian federal structure. There are two extreme views on this subject, both of which I suggest are most dangerous to our future development. There is the extreme centralist view which I hope none of us holds. That view has been embodied in words used by the leader of the opposition at another time. I think I should quote him because his words have already been put on Hansard and I think they are quite interesting and of some importance. He said in 1941:
What we need greatly is to look at government from a business viewpoint, paralleling methods that a private business with a head office and nine branches would employ to promote more efficiency.
I suggest that that embodies the extreme centralist view. The other extreme view, which I think is equally dangerous to unity and progress in this country, is the view that the federal government must not be given sufficient power to permit Canadian progress and ensure Canadian unity. If I may say so, that was the view which was expressed by certain speakers in the Social Credit group, more particularly the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). That hon. member said last night in a very interesting speech that he felt that the powers of the provinces should be increased; that they should get enough money from the federal government to carry out their responsibilities, but that those responsibilities should be increased so that they would have control and power over such things as prices and markets.
I suggest that if we develop too far in that extreme it will be most difficult indeed to maintain the federal structure which is the basis of Canadian unity. I suggest that neither extreme view commands or deserves to command the support of any number of people in this country.
I should like to leave the legal and technical question for a moment and come to what is after all the crux of the question. It is simply this: When should the provinces of Canada be consulted in connection with action taken by the federal government? When is such consultation so desirable that it is in fact, if not in law, mandatory?
Such consultation is certainly not required under section 146 of the British North America Act in providing for union with Newfoundland, nor indeed is it required under a literal interpretation of our constitution in respect to any amendment of the British North America Act.
Last night the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) said-I hope I am quoting him accurately-that 1946 was the first breach in the constitutional procedure of amending the constitution of this country because on
Newfoundland
that occasion there was no consultation with the provinces. The facts as I understand them are that since 1867 there have been ten substantive amendments to the British North America Act-1871, 1875, 1886, 1907, 1915, 1916, 1930, 1940, 1943 and 1946.
In connection with only two of those amendments were the provinces consulted, in 1907 and 1940. The 1907 amendment had to do with the alteration of provincial subsidies and the 1940 amendment was designed to transfer authority for unemployment insurance from the provinces to the dominion. Those were clearly questions which affected provincial jurisdiction and provincial rights and there should be no question in our minds that consultation on those occasions was appropriate and desirable.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister permit a question? What about 1915, when British Columbia raised objections which were considered by the British parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry, I do not know the details of the 1915 amendment, but I do recall that in 1907 the government of British Columbia expressed disagreement with the proposed amendment in London; nevertheless the amendment was proceeded with. As I say, I am afraid I am not familiar with the details of the 1915 amendment.
The hon. member for Lake Centre said last night-again I hope I am quoting him correctly-that in the matter of amendment of our constitution consultation with the provinces is absolutely necessary. If it is absolutely necessary, such action has not been taken very often. Certainly there has not been a single case in our history when such consultation took place under a Conservative government.
I think the origin of this idea of consultation is to be found in the theory of the development of our federal structure which is referred to by constitutionalists as the compact theory or the treaty theory or the contract theory. The idea is that at the beginning of the Canadian nation, in 1865 to 1867, the provinces made a contract. They made a contract with whom? Of course not with the dominion government because it did not exist, and indeed not on behalf of all the provinces because they did not exist. At that time there was not even a province of Quebec or a province of Ontario, because they had been joined as the province of Canada. It is also well to remember that in 1865 to 1867 the compact, if you like, which was drawn up at that time in the Quebec resolutions, was itself changed in London before confederation became effective and without consultation with anybody in Canada. I agree however that, whatever may be the law, or indeed whatever may be the convention, of the compact theory of our

Newfoundland
federal structure, the rights of the provinces, and minority rights, which are not always exactly the same thing-they may be wider than provincial rights-must be protected and must not be changed without the consent of those affected by them.
Whatever may have been the legal situation in the far distant past, and the actions which may have been taken arising out of that situation, I do not believe there is anyone in the house today who would challenge that principle, and very few people in the country who would desire to challenge it. But having gone so far in the acceptance of the compact theory of confederation, and I think we should go so far, I suggest that if we go beyond that point we get into very great difficulties.


Mr. Hackett:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


John Thomas Hackett: Does he consider that the resolution before us contemplates an amendment to the British North America Act?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The answer to that question is that I do not consider it means amendment of the British North America Act. My view on that point was explained last night at some length, and I thought with some effectiveness, by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). At this time I do not wish to repeat that argument. I was about to say that if you go beyond the interpretation of the compact theory in our constitution which I have given, you get into a very strange position indeed. If you insist on a narrow legal interpretation of contract as something which cannot be changed without the parties to the contract agreeing to it, you get into, for instance, the certain difficulties arising from the preamble of the British North America Act. Those difficulties were pointed out in 1942 by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in a very interesting statement which I should like to put on the record. It is taken from the Montreal Gazette of November 13, 1942, and reads as follows:
Colonel Drew cited the preamble of the British North America Act, with its stipulated consideration that "such a union would promote the interests of the British empire."
That is from the preamble of the British North America Act. The article continues:
And he made the points that every right claimed under that contract-
The contract being the British North America Act.
-is dependent and contingent upon that condition.
That is the condition of the promotion of che interests of the British empire. I am sure the leader of the opposition would be the first to say that there was nothing sinister
[Mr. Pearson.!
in that statement, and nothing beyond a normal observation on the contract theory and its possible implications. But it does show that if you take a theory and apply it literally and too deeply you will get into a very difficult constitutional position. For instance, it would mean that not one single change should be made in our constitutional structure without the consent of every province, because it would be unthinkable that the provinces should be discriminated against in this respect, and that one province should have a right which another province did not have. That in its turn would mean that a majority of the people in the smallest province would be given a right of veto over every constitutional change in the country. That would mean about 61,000 people. If that course were adopted, and that is the logical implication of the constitutional theory which has been advanced under the compact theory, it would mean we would be saddled with a constitutional strait-jacket in this country which would make any progress and development quite impossible.
Is there any possibility, however, of the application of that kind of ridiculous suggestion to the amendment which we have before us today? Could the amendment be applied in any such form as that? I do not know; I do not know exactly what the amendment means.


An hon. Member:: It does not say.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know because there are certain expressions in it which are pretty vague, and the importance of which can only be understood when they are interpreted. For instance, the operative part of the amendment reads:
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.
Therefore the first obligation under the amendment is the obligation of consultation with the provinces, an obligation which was not applied to the provinces when any other new province came into confederation, and which therefore might be considered by the people of Newfoundland not as an honour, as was suggested by a member last night, but almost as an affront. It would be subjecting them to a constitutional procedure which was not adopted in the case of any other province on its entrance into confederation.
But what is this obligation of consultation? What does it mean? Would it mean that the federal government would merely tell the provinces what we have done, and then after a decent interval go ahead and pass an address? Would it mean that we would con-

suit the provinces with a view to securing from them their observations, their comments, after an examination of the terms of union? That, of course, is what consultation normally means. That would take a good many weeks, as those of us who have had to work on this problem for the last eighteen months must realize.
After the provinces had gone into the question, and after they had made up their minds as to what should be done in the matter, then presumably they would report their view back to the federal government. Then if they had any changes to suggest to the terms of union, which have already been passed by this house, presumably they would ask that those changes be made which would mean another conference between the representatives of Newfoundland and Canada. Then after that consultation the parliament of Canada would have to decide whether there had been a satisfactory conclusion of such consultation.
What would be a satisfactory conclusion? Would we ask each province whether the result of the consultation had been satisfactory to it, or would we come back to the House of Commons and ask the House of Commons to decide whether a satisfactory conclusion to the consultation had been reached? In the latter case, would we then decide to act on a majority of one, and if we acted on a majority of one how much better off would we be than we are now?
It has been suggested in the debate that a satisfactory conclusion might be two-thirds of the provinces agreeing to the terms of union. I would ask those opposed to the procedure suggested by the government if they would accept that as satisfactory. Are they willing to accept, as a satisfactory discharge of consultation with the provinces affected, that two-thirds of the provinces agree to the course proposed; or is it desirable that every single province should agree before we have a satisfactory conclusion to the consultation?


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Duplessis' view.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It does show how difficult it
would be for any member of the House of Commons to accept an amendment of this kind couched in these terms, with all the vague difficulties and dangers which may arise out of varying and contradictory interpretations. I also suggest that the debate has shown another thing which goes further than this particular amendment, and which has been referred to by other speakers in the discussion. It has pointed up and underlined the necessity for the working out in this country of some agreed method of reforming and amending our own constitution if such an
Newfoundland
amendment is required. If this debate has done nothing else but bring that nearer I think it will have served a useful purpose. If we are not able to agree among ourselves as to how that should be done, then we shall have endless and bitter argument over this very question of consultation, and what it means. We shall be adding fuel to the fire of those who are stirring up these conflicts of province against dominion, which will not only result in controversy and bitterness but indeed might result in ending all prospects of a strong, united Canada or in fact any Canada at all. No one in this house and no one in this country wants that result.
Just before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote once again from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), who has the great virtue of putting these things in strong, pungent and effective language. On January 1, 1939, when I think there was a provincial election in the offing, he said:
I shall go to the country clearly on the stand that Ontario is Canadian, one province in a united Canada within the British empire. I advocate the strengthening of national ties and divesting the province of every conflicting authority not necessary for provincial purposes.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether I would go quite as far as that or use language quite as strong; but the idea and spirit behind that language, I suggest, are right and good. I agree, and I hope we all agree, that no greater issue confronts the Canadian people today than the reconciliation, in a federal state, of the rights of the provincial and federal governments in such a way that without weakening those provincial rights there will be in Canada that national unity without which there cannot be national strength, national freedom or national progress. Let us raise our country high above the level of its lesser citizens who would set province against dominion, race against race, class against class and creed against creed, and by doing so would debase the great destiny that faces this country of ours.


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Speaker, as one of those "lesser citizens"- guiltless of the crimes which were committed for six weeks in Nicolet-Yamaska-crimes against unity, crimes against decency-I dare raise my voice in this chamber.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Nobody over there understood what was said in Nicolet-Yamaska.


Mr. Graydon:: You're on the toboggan; that's what is the matter with you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: Order. I must ask hon. members to refrain from interrupting the hon. member who has the floor. This is a free forum and every hon.
554

Newfoundland
member should be able to present his views without interruption. I want to appeal to hon. members themselves to support the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and myself in trying to carry out the rules.


John Thomas Hackett: For the last four years, Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege to be the sole representative of my party elected from the province of Quebec.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You will have that honour for a long time.


John Thomas Hackett: However, the gods, with that bounty for which they are noted, brought me from Nicolet-Yamaska a little brother the other day, and ere long I hope he will join us on this side of the house and take his part in these debates.
I shall discuss briefly the question that is before us, or rather the questions that are raised by the government's resolution. Those questions appear to be twofold. I think everyone here desires the inclusion of Newfoundland in the Canadian confederation; I have not heard any opposition on that point. There is another point, however, which is under debate, and it is set out in the resolution in these terms:
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 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 . . .
That is the substance of the resolution. An amendment has been offered. I have not the difficulty in interpreting or understanding the clear language of the amendment that has troubled some hon. gentlemen opposite. That amendment suggests that before this resolution is passed the provinces should be consulted. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what the resolution means, because we have varying interpretations from the government. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), supported by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), contends that the resolution does not anticipate an amendment to the constitution. Well, if it does not a great many people, including the government of Great Britain, are labouring under a very serious misapprehension. I do not believe the hon. gentleman who preceded me, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will dispute the fact that the constitution was amended in 1946 by a statute of the United Kingdom, which statute was enacted upon the prayer of this chamber and the other place. Is there any doubt that the constitution of Canada was amended in 1946 when the basis of repre-[The Acting Speaker.]
sentation in this house was changed? We find in that imperial statute these words:
This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1946, and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1943, and this act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946.
I turn to the resolution, and I find that not only does it say it is an amendment to the British North America Act, but I find it is couched in identical terms. Listen to them:
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 hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) was asked if this resolution anticipated an amendment to the British North America Act. He answered quite candidly that it did not. You will find that question was put to him by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith). It is recorded at page 521 of Hansard:
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.
Then, we turn to page 525 and find that when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) addressed the house he said this:
But, sir, in no substantial or honest sense whatever can it be said that this is an amendment of the Canadian constitution.
There is the statement of the highest governmental authority that this is not an amendment to the constitution. 1 am well aware of the fact that the House of Commons is not the place in which a constitutional argument can be made with great benefit; yet I do feel this matter is of such importance it is well to have it cleared up once and for all. I submit that this is an amendment to the constitution and I submit, furthermore, that there can be no doubt about it because the act says so.
Let us go a little further. We find that article 146 of the British North America Act provides-what? It provides for the entry into confederation of two classes of territory, provinces which are self-governing, and secondly, unorganized territory within the dominion. What else do we find? We find a provision for the entry of each category in the following terms:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's most honourable privy council, on addresses from tne 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-
When the province of British Columbia joined the union, what happened? This

house and the Senate passed an address. The legislature of British Columbia passed an address, and an order in council by the British government gave sanction and effect to that understanding. The same thing happened when Prince Edward Island came into confederation; and, with a slight variation in procedure, the same thing happened when Rupert's Land was incorporated.
Here, Mr. Speaker, I now open a parenthesis. I am mildly astonished when a gentleman holding the responsible office of the last speaker, the minister of external affairs, refers in light terms to legality and legal quibbles when speaking of a thing so sacred as the constitution; of the instrument which makes secure our liberty and freedom of conscience, and which guarantees us the type of life of which we are proud and which the whole world envies. You must remember that this constitution provides a method for taking into this dominion certain areas. It prescribes certain conditions which must exist before those areas can come into confederation. It says that the colony of Newfoundland must pass an address or a resolution by its legislature before it can meet the requirements of the statute.
Let us be quite certain about this matter. This is not our statute; this is a statute of Great Britain. This is the statute enacted by the imperial parliament, the body in which the residuary powers of that island now abide, since their suspension, on the island's request, in 1930 or 1933. Who is it that says it has not the power to deal with this matter? Is it Newfoundland? Is it Canada? No. It is Great Britain that says this statute does not permit the king and his honourable privy council to ratify this agreement, be it good, bad or indifferent. The statute does not permit the ratification of this agreement between Canada and Newfoundland, because one of the conditions precedent, one of the elementary conditions, is lacking, and that is the will of the people of Newfoundland expressed through a duly elected legislature. That is the opinion of the law officers of Great Britain, Mr. Speaker, not of this House of Commons. The government of Great Britain says that under a particular statute the power is lacking to incorporate Newfoundland into the Canadian confederation by order in council. They have not got the power. Then, it is said by Great Britain, the statute must be amended. When the hon. Minister of Justice says that no amendment to the British North America Act is contemplated, he is in error. All I can say is, he cannot have read section 146 of the British North America Act. He should do penance for the
Newfoundland
omission and make excuses to the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson).
Let us go one step further. The statute has to be amended because there is not the power in the British government to act, owing to the fact that the conditions precedent have not been met. Just by chance, it happens that the statute to be amended is the Canadian constitution. For the moment, I sweep aside the Statute of Westminster and I bring the matter down to a very simple question of fact.
With all of the care and with all of the interest that any statement on legal matters from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) always provokes in me, I have read the argument advanced by him. I know he says that the people of Canada, whether they live in Prince Edward Island or in British Columbia, are represented by their duly elected members in this house. I know that he says, and I am quoting what he said in 1946 as reported at page 1936 of Hansard of that year:
. . . that there was an assembly of distinguished gentlemen representing in the conferences four colonial legislatures, legislatures which legislated by delegation of the parliament of the United Kingdom . . .
-and that there is no need to consult the provinces. I do not wish to be offensive. The Prime Minister knows that. I admire his advocacy and his subtlety; but I doubt the worth and the actuality of his argument. It is said, and I think it is admitted, that no confederation could have taken place had Quebec not been in agreement. I think that is admitted. Confederation could not have happened unless the delegation from Quebec consented to enter the pact. I will ask my right hon. friend what he thinks the verdict would have been had he stood before a jury composed of Cartier, Cauchon, Chapais, Dorion, Langevin and Tache, and a score of others, and said to them that the conditions upon which they were to enter confederation could be changed at any time that a mere majority of this house and of the Senate asked the British parliament to do it.
I apply to his argument that homely test. I do not think that many here who know the spirit of men like Dorion, and others of that valiant host that took part in those debates, will dare to assert for one instant that, had it ever been suggested to them that our constitution could be amended by the British parliament upon the request of a mere majority of these two houses, that they would have agreed to enter confederation. By applying that test, I think some doubt must be cast upon the validity of the Prime Minister's argument.
55S

Newfoundland


Mr. Claxion:: It has just been done fifteen times.


John Thomas Hackett: Has the hon. gentleman a
question to ask?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. I asked if it has not
just been done fifteen times.


John Thomas Hackett: It has been done rather frequently of late, and I will tell hon. members why. It was done in 1946 when there was no reason to do it. I was as anxious as any man sitting in this house to see full justice done to my province, which had suffered in its representation. But to achieve that purpose it was not necessary to enact an amendment to the British North America Act any more than it was necessary here had it not been for the muddle which now exists in relation to this matter.
I would go a little further. The Prime Minister has told the country, if not the house, that it is the intention of the government to devise some means whereby the constitution may be amended. The fact is that there is no statutory method of amending the constitution. The constitution, whether it be called a pact, a contract or an agreement, was the result of men getting together and coming to an understanding; and that understanding must persist until parties thereto consent to its dissolution. Otherwise, those who break it will be guilty of breach of faith. May I summon to the support of this thesis the following authority:
The constitution of a country being once settled upon some compact, tacit or expressed, there is no power existing of force to alter it without breach of the covenant or the consent of all the parties.
That statement is from Edmund Burke; it embodies a principle that is fundamental to the civil law of Quebec as well as to the common law of every other province. It is as old as good faith. A contract is binding upon the parties until they are released therefrom.
Why all these amendments to the constitution? I had been wondering about that matter until the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) had the kindness to tell us the answer the other evening, and I refer to his remarks as reported in Hansard of February 2. In substance this is what the minister said: The Rowell-Sirois report did not find favour with the provinces; we tried to get it through in 1941 and failed, but we did get it into operation as a result of the war. We all know what has been the effect upon the provinces of the Rowell-Sirois report, for that is name given by the minister to the war agreements between the dominion and the provinces. In good faith the provinces yielded up their taxing powers to the dominion and much of their autonomy for the period of the war; and

although the war is now nearly four years in the background, the provinces are still deprived of their prerogatives; their rights have not yet been returned. Knowing that the provinces will not consent to the suggestions found in the Rowell-Sirois report-and there is much that is good in it, but there is also a great deal that is not free from criticism-I am wondering whether we are making these continuous amendments to the British North America Act with a view to formulating a tradition that the British North America Act may be amended by a mere parliamentary majority for the purpose of enacting and enforcing the Rowell-Sirois report. If that be true, I would say to hon. gentlemen opposite who come from my province that they would do well to consider carefully how their vote should be cast upon this matter.
There are two matters involved here. One is the admission of Newfoundland. We are all anxious that that island, which stands as a sentinel on our eastern coast, and its hardy, laborious and God-fearing people, should take their place in confederation. The other question involved is the rape of the Canadian constitution. Much as I desire the advent of the Newfoundlanders, greatly as I would welcome them into the house, I hope that it will not be necessary, as a result, to see the constitution damaged and belittled in this popular assembly.
Some hon. gentlemen appear to be under a complete delusion as to what the situation is. This afternoon I listened to agreeable gentlemen who told us what had happened in Newfoundland. The facts are not very complicated. Newfoundland had a debt and the interest used to come due now and then. At a certain time Newfoundland asked Great Britain to take over its liabilities. It was a condition of the surrender of responsible government that Britain assumed the debts of Newfoundland, and set up a form of government which was not representative. Great Britain, by statute, set up what was called a special commission of government comprised of a governor named by Britain and six commissioners named by Britain, three of whom came from the island and three from Great Britain. The statute said that this form of government would be vested with full legislative power and executive authority. It set forth the modus operandi and enacted that it would remain in operation until Newfoundland was able to assume its financial burdens again.
The British North America Act provides no statutory method for amendment, and in this other British statute no means was provided whereby Newfoundland might regain its status as a self-governing colony. In the debates of the British House of Commons of December 11, 1945, I find that the Prime

Minister set forth what the government's intentions were in this regard. He said that a body was to be set up for this purpose:
To consider and discuss amongst themselves, as elected representatives of the Newfoundland people, the changes that have taken place in the financial and economic situation of the island since 1934, and bearing in mind the extent to which the high revenues of recent years have been due to wartime conditions, to examine the position of the country and to make recommendations to His Majesty's government as to possible forms of future government to be put before the people at a national referendum.
That was the authority for the enactment by the commission of government in Newfoundland of what we would call an order in council, which provided for the election of 45 members to constitute a convention to investigate the situation in Newfoundland and report on what form of government Newfoundland wanted. The convention went far beyond that, and after two popular votes and a majority had said that they wanted to become united with Canada, the convention, instead of reporting to Great Britain, which would then have found a proper way to carry out the intent within the terms of the statute which happens to be our British North America Act, sent delegates to Canada to enter into negotiations. For the moment I am not going to discuss the negotiations; I am not going to discuss what Newfoundland did, and I am not going to discuss the power or the authority of the Newfoundlanders to do what they did; but the result is that a situation has been created, with the co-operation and collaboration of the Canadian government, which makes it impossible to bring Newfoundland into confederation without an amendment to the British North America Act.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr.   Hackell@: Mr. Speaker, I trust I am
not unduly optimistic if I express the hope that even the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) will now assent to the fact that we are dealing with a request for an amendment to the constitution. Apparently everybody believes that we are dealing with an amendment to the constitution, except the Minister of Justice and his disciple, the minister of external affairs. I hope that after mature consideration they will be able to rally to the point of view of the British government.
There is another aspect to the question. Hon. gentlemen opposite have dealt in light terms with what they have called matters of form and technicalities. I think I mentioned before adjournment that the convention in Newfoundland had very limited powers of
Newfoundland
inquiry. Their sole duty was to inquire and report; they had no power to negotiate. Then, it may be said, that does not concern this house. But unfortunately it does concern this house because-if they had no power to negotiate and were not a legislature-the government of Great Britain had not the power under the statute to issue the necessary order in council to bring Newfoundland into confederation. If one wished to be facetious one could say that the habit of writing orders in council in this zone has become so deeply inculcated in the manners of the Canadian government that the possibility of any restriction upon that practice is difficult for hon. gentlemen to conceive.
However, it was found in Great Britain that under the statute the British government could not write an order in council admitting Newfoundland into the dominion because the statute does not give them that power. Hence the statute must be amended and the amendment of that statute, it being the British North America Act and our constitution, does affect us.
I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that the great majority of those who come from my province have preached, and I think many of them have believed, that there was something in the nature of an agreement at the time of confederation. They believed that they had entered into some kind of compact, some kind of understanding which gave them something more abiding, which conferred greater surety than does the volatile wish of a body which is under a party lash.
What are those hon. gentlemen going to say when they go back to their constituents? -because this matter will be taken into the constituencies. What are they going to say when they are asked if confederation was a compact, if it has any abiding significance? Are they going to say that they cast in their lot with those who held that Great Britain must amend the Canadian constitution at the-mere request of a party vote in the two-legislative halls of this parliament?
What are they going to answer when their electors say to them: Is it true, Mr. Member, that you stood in your place and were counted as being in favour of the proposition that the constitution can be amended merely because the parliament of Great Britain has been asked by the narrowest parliamentary majority to amend that constitution? What are they going to say when their constituents remind them that possibly at some time in the not altogether remote future the government which now holds office may pass from the scene and be replaced by another-I do not know by whom. I do know however that my party is full of understanding, and it appreciates the origin and genesis of our

Newfoundland
constitution and the spirit of our people. The people of Quebec need have no fear of it. But supposing by chance there happens in Canada what has happened in numerous countries throughout the world today; suppose that the seats of the mighty in the legislature are occupied by men who are hostile to minorities, who are hostile to Christianity, who are hostile to civilization and decency as you and I know it, Mr. Speaker?
Their electors will say: So, you made it possible, by creating a number of precedents passed by the narrowest of party majorities of those sitting in the seats of government, to deny us those things for which we have battled and stood from the day that our forefathers put their feet on Canadian soil. Hon. members can tell their electors of the very able arguments of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), but again I ask them: What will they say when they are asked v/hat would have been the verdict if that argument had been presented to a jury composed of Cartier, Cauchon, Chapais, Dorion, Langevin, Tache and others whose names elude me at the moment? I think my hon. friends opposite who find it in their hearts to support this resolution and defeat the amendment will have to answer these critical and crucial questions.
A great deal has been said about the insignificance-the word is mine and if anybody does not like it I will use another-of the provinces. The provinces have a great role to play in the life of our country. We rely upon them for a large measure of the protection which is necessary to the life of a contented people. These separate centres of political action in this country are the very basis of our confederation and of the contented and orderly life of our people.
In conclusion I therefore adjure the members of this house to consider very carefully their conduct before they make of the constitution of Canada the plaything of a very temporary and possibly vanishing governmental majority.
(Translation) :


Mr. J. A. Dion (Lake Si. John-Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in the present debate, but following the challenge of the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) I feel compelled to reply. He asked us what we would tell our constituents in the province of Quebec when questioned about the way we proceeded regarding the annexation of Newfoundland. Here is what I intend to say to them: First, that a bill regarding Newfoundland was submitted
(Mr. Hackett.]
to the house, where it was debated, and that the hon. members opposite did not deem it advisable to oppose it in the first place. However, having suddenly discovered that it entailed a constitutional matter about which they should protest vehemently, the debate having ended, they submitted a motion with the intention of stirring up a new debate. I shall also tell my electors that, according to section 146 of the British North America Act, the Canadian government had all the required authority, granted by the fathers of confederation, to accept Newfoundland and annex it as a province, having had that right since 1867. I shall also tell them that the amendment of my hon. friends opposite amounts to saying that they want consultation with the various provinces in order to ask them what Newfoundland should have done in this instance.
The hon. member for Stanstead is an eminent lawyer, since he is president of the Canadian Bar Association. Therefore, whenever a procedure is referred to him, he must, by force of habit, investigate it to find out whether it applies and is likely to give practical results. In fact, whenever a petition similar to the amendment now under consideration is submitted to a lawyer, he must move for details and particulars; he must certainly require information to find out what is involved and how the petition applies.
The hon. members who were in the house this afternoon realized that the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) proved peremptorily and rather amusingly that the amendment moved by the Progressive Conservatives had neither rhyme nor reason.
Indeed, the real purpose is not to discuss Newfoundland's union with Canada, nor to consider on its merits the constitutional aspect of the matter, but simply to keep on playing the game of political football begun a few months ago between Ottawa, Quebec and Ontario. That is the only purpose, and this is so true that the remarks of the hon. members of the opposition bear no relation to the wording of the amendment itself. As a matter of fact, the wording of the amendment refers only to "consultation" of the provinces, while the word "consent" constantly recurs in the remarks of the hon. members. Of course, it is an altogether different matter, as the hon. member for Stanstead pointed out. Indeed, when a client comes to your office for a consultation, he is given what amounts merely to an opinion, which places him under no obli-

gation of any sort. That is what is required by the amendment. On the other hand, I do know that when a partner or colleague seeks my consent, it is not the same thing at all. He is requesting a permission without which he is unable to act.
If, in your speeches, you ask for consent, why not require it in your amendment? This is not at all what this amendment calls for. You are calling for a consultation.
You should first agree on what you want. Then we could talk it over.
Now, as to the theory of the confederation agreement or that of the statute, our opponents tell us they want to put up a fence and set on one side of the fence those who favour confederation, and on the other side those who favour adherence to the statute. We are not concerned now, I think, with defending an opponent or a bitter enemy of confederation. We are merely speaking of those who favour confederation and of those who swear by the statute. The statute merely followed the agreement; the wording of the British North America Act is simply that of the confederation agreement.
Now, may I ask you one thing? If we are to abide by the principle of the confederation agreement, should we consult only the four provinces that existed at the time of the initial pact, since the others had not yet entered? Everyone knows where that would lead us. Or should we consult all the provinces? This might bring about rather amusing results. On this point, I should like to quote what was said by the member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Hamel), on June 26, 1946, during the debate on redistribution. An amendment which was almost identical to the one now under consideration was then before the house. Submitted by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), it was worded as follows:
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 . . .
It almost seems as though the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) framed his amendment in the exact terms used in 1946 by the hon. member for Lake Centre. The member for St. Maurice-Lafleche continued:
If it is accepted, the dominion government will have to enter into consultations with the provinces. This gives rise to countless difficulties that are well-nigh insoluble in the present state of our legislation. In what manner will such consultations with the
Newfoundland
provinces be carried out? Will the provincial prime ministers themselves be asked to express the desire of their respective legislatures, or will the latter be called upon, in a regular or special session, to express their views through a resolution? No one has told us and the matter has not been provided for.
Indeed, there is absolutely nothing in the constitution to this effect and the hon. members opposite have found no such provision. The hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche continues:
However, let us suppose that an appropriate method of consultation is agreed upon. The problem will then in no way be solved. For the amendment continues: "and upon satisfactory conclusion of such consultations." Who will decide whether the result is satisfactory or not, and on what basis will a decision be reached in that connection? Those are two more questions that remain unanswered. To my mind, it is obvious that the proposed redistribution will abolish certain unjustified privileges as regards representation in the House of Commons.
The hon. member was referring here to redistribution.
As I was saying, this has been shown conclusively and rather amusingly by the minister of external affairs (Mr. Pearson), and we are now told that the consent of the provinces is necessary.
This afternoon, the hon. member for Char-levoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) said that the premier of Quebec had protested in that regard.
If I am not mistaken, the premier of Quebec, Mr. Duplessis, has merely said that they had not been courteous enough to consult him. He did not claim a right, he simply wanted courtesy, and we all know to what extent Mr. Duplessis is versed in matters of courtesy.
I shall now deal with the assertion which the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond) made this afternoon about the cost which the admission of Newfoundland into the confederation is going to entail.
Of course, it will cost something, but I find it strange that the very same people who, on the occasion of the privy council's award, gave part of Labrador to Newfoundland, protested at that time because immeasurable wealth which was included within the territory of Quebec had been made part of Newfoundland's territory.
Those people are the very same who today feel that the boundless and immeasurable wealth which then existed is not worth the price they are being asked to pay.

Newfoundland


Maxime Raymond: Would the hon. member allow me to ask a question?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Surely.


Maxime Raymond: understand that the hon. member is referring to what I said this afternoon, but when he adds that people protested against the privy council's award, is he referring to a stand I would have taken or to an expression of opinion on my part?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: No, I
am not referring to him personally but I think that people of the very school of thought to which I believe the hon. member belongs have voiced that opinion.


Maxime Raymond: am responsible for my own actions, not for those of others.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Now
that I am talking about this question regarding which I have read the expression of divergent views I must say that the hon. member does not agree at all with his friends from Le Devoir, because not later than two or three days ago, I read an article by Mr. Sauriol in which he said he accepted the entry of Newfoundland into confederation, that it was a good thing for Canada, technically and geographically speaking.
That on which they disagreed was the procedure to follow. I quite understand that there can be differences of opinion on this point. It is understandable and I am not shocked at all.
Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak at length. I believe I have shown that all these points raised at the last moment are not designed to establish whether Newfoundland should be admitted into confederation, in accordance with section 146 of the British North America Act, whether we are seeking an amendment to the constitution, or whether we are violating certain parts of the act, but solely to establish, as I previously pointed out, whether we should carry on that game of political football begun quite some time ago.
As far as I am concerned, I feel we should stick to the point. It is unfortunate that all these questions raised in the house become strictly constitutional matters.
True, their constitution has its importance; it should be respected. I for one wish that we may soon have an autonomous Canadian body

empowered to amend our constitution without having to make a humiliating pilgrimage to London, as we are now compelled to do.
In that connection, I take the opportunity of congratulating the Prime Minister on the announcement he made last week over the radio. In the meantime, we cannot by ourselves amend our constitution. We have no choice, so we must act as we do, no matter how unpleasant the procedure may be to us. I hope that before long all Canadians, those from the provinces and those from the dominion-in fact they are the same persons- imbued with a true Canadian spirit will be fond of their province because it is a part of Canada. They will work towards mutual understanding between the various provinces, placing common interests above petty electoral practices, in order to have a constitution which will guarantee full and complete justice to each and every one.


Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, I feel duty bound to make a few remarks in connection with this debate.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I have no doubt whatever about the sincerity of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in his statement on the matter. He expressed his opinion frankly and directly, in his usual straightforward manner.
Unfortunately I am unable to say as much of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), especially after reading some past statements of his, as reported by the Globe and Mail of September 8, 1939. I quote:
We have strayed from the road traced by the fathers of confederation. The powerful central government that the provinces have sought to establish is shackled by petty politics. The constitutional difficulties which prevent adoption of urgently needed efficient social legislation, could be overcome without waiting for an amendment to the British North America Act.
And at Fort William, on January 26, 1939, the leader of the opposition said:
I favour the strengthening of national ties and the removal from the provinces of all powers inconsistent with those of the federal government, not required by the provincial administration.
Such was the frame of mind of the hon. member before he became leader of the opposition. Let us see what has been his change of attitude since becoming leader of the opposition. After reading carefully the amendment he submitted to the house, one readily sees that he maintains his centralizing policy, that he wishes the people of Quebec to believe

that he is opposed to centralization and favours provincial autonomy. At the same time he reserves the right to maintain his centralizing attitude-which has characterized his whole political life-should he ever assume power and become leader of our government.
He submitted the following amendment to the house. I quote: "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':"
"And upon a satisfactory conclusion of such consultations". Who will decide whether the consultations are satisfactory? No one. The resolution does not say.
He leaves himself a way out. He shows or rather tries to show the province of Quebec that he is against centralization and for autonomy, but if ever he should come to power, and be criticized for amending the constitution, he will simply reply: "I consulted the provinces and in my opinion these consultations came to-a satisfactory conclusion".
Such will be the attitude of the leader of the opposition in the future.
Had he been sincere, had he intended to stand by what he said in his speeches, the amendment he submitted would have included the words: "with the consent of the provinces". That is entirely different from the expression "satisfactory conclusion of consultations".
Instead, he tried to raise an iron curtain between himself and his future political life. This is the attitude of a man lacking in sincerity because, from the political standpoint, this amendment, for sheer hypocrisy, tops any other ever introduced in the house. Nor can I accept the contention of all the speakers who interpreted "satisfactory conclusion" as meaning "consent" of the provinces. Such was the inference made this afternoon by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). He tried to create . . .
(Text):


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman has put into my mouth words I did not utter, and I ask him to withdraw them.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.
Newfoundland
(Translation):


Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Speaker, I feel that under the circumstances . . .


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) has just complained to the chair that the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. LaCroix) has uttered certain words-


Wilfrid Lacroix: What are the words which the hon. member does not like?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member
kindly mention the words the hon. gentleman has used, and which the hon. member says he did not utter?


John Thomas Hackett: The hon. gentleman has put into my mouth-
(Translation):


Wilfrid Lacroix: What expression of mine did the hon. member find offensive?
(Text):


John Thomas Hackett: The hon. gentleman has said that I used the word "consent" in referring to the provinces.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Not that you used it.
(Translation):


Wilfrid Lacroix: Would the hon. member have any objection to speaking in French? I do not understand what he says.
(Text):


John Thomas Hackett: I am not going to be questioned.
(Translation) :


Wilfrid Lacroix: May I, in turn, direct a question to the hon. member? Since he represents a Quebec French-Canadian constituency-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Since he represents a Quebec French-Canadian constituency, could he repeat in French what he has just said in English?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) that if he did not use the word "consent", he might mention the word he did use so that the hon. member will understand what word he should use.


John Thomas Hackett: I have merely stated, Mr. Speaker, that I did not use that word with reference to the provinces. I thought the hon. gentleman would be glad to know that so that he would not be proceeding on a basis

Newfoundland
which was not founded on fact. I have drawn it to your attention. I thought the hon. gentleman would be glad to know it. (Translation):


Mr. Hartt:: You did not quote his words; you expressed an opinion.


Wilfrid Lacroix: However that may be, Mr. Speaker, I wish to give the hon. member an opportunity to show whether he is or is not in favour of the word "consenting", because I shall have the honour to move an amendment to the amendment . . .
(Text):


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Speaker, I must ask for a ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member should insist upon the word being withdrawn. If the hon. member, during the course of his remarks, said that the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) used the word "consent" when the hon. member for Stanstead did not use that word, I am sure the hon. member who has the floor will make a correction.
(Translation):


Wilfrid Lacroix: I was under the impression that the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) had used the word "consent".


John Thomas Hackett: I am not complaining at all about that.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Then the matter is settled.


John Thomas Hackett: If a false impression was given, I am not to blame. False impressions crop up everywhere.


Mr. Gagnon:: Quite true.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Besides, it squares with Progressive Conservative policies.


Mr. Lesage:: It is consistent with Progressive Conservative policies to leave people everywhere under a false impression.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: They did not give a false impression in Nicolet.


Wilfrid Lacroix: I am speaking to the Progressive Conservatives. It looks to me as if the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) belongs to that group.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: That we know.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Any group rather than that of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted, at this stage of my remarks, to move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot):
That the words "after they will have given their consent" be substituted for the words "upon a satisfactory conclusion of such consultation" in the last paragraph of the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. LaCroix moves, seconded by Mr. Pouliot:
That the words "after they will have given their consent" be substituted for the words "upon a satisfactory conclusion of such consultation" in the last paragraph of the amendment.


Mr. Low:: Could you translate it into English please?


Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Speaker, I cannot admit either . . .
(Text):


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, could we have that amendment translated into English so that we can all understand it?


Mr. Speaker:: I will have the translation made in a few moments, at which time it will be repeated to the house.
(Translation):


Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Speaker, I cannot share, either, the view expounded by the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) who holds that whenever a national issue is involved we are entitled to change the constitution without consulting the provinces.
The adoption of this view would lead us very far indeed. There is no telling what we would see if the C.C.F. party, to our great misfortune, ever came to power. This would be true especially of a minority like ours which seeks to conserve its French and Catholic traditions, on the banks of the great and beautiful river which bears the Prime Minister's name, and which considers itself, and rightly so, as the last outpost of French thought and culture on the North American continent.
I do not share the opinion of those who claim that the province of Quebec need not be consulted with regard to the annexation of Newfoundland.
The province of Quebec has too many interests in this respect to allow itself to be totally neglected. What about the borders between Labrador and Quebec, which are not yet clearly defined? That is a question of vital interest to my province, because of the great natural resources which lie in that part of the country.
We must also consider the fact that Great Britain deprived Quebec, by means of an award by the privy council, of all that part of my province which is called Labrador, which I still consider part of the province of Quebec, but this was done by England in order to confer an asset upon Newfoundland in anticipation of her future negotiations concerning union with Canada.
In view of the violent attacks of the C.C.F. party, which favours extreme centralization, and of the fact that Quebec is deeply concerned over the question of natural resources, and because of my own convictions, after the

hon. member for Temiscouata showed yesterday that it was possible to wait until such consultation had been effected and the necessary consent obtained, 1 believe it is my duty to maintain in this house the attitude I have always held: that of stoutly defending the rights of Quebec and the respecting of its prerogatives and privileges.
I must add, however, that I will not vote in favour of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition. I consider it to be lacking in sincerity and like a man who would arrange a way out so as to apply-if he should ever become leader of the government-the policy of centralization he advocated on September 8 and January 26, 1939, and which is not likely to reassure Quebec.
Therefore I state my proposal very plainly and clearly. If the Progressive Conservative party will accept my amendment to the amendment, I shall support their amendment, but if they reject my own, I submit that theirs will forever go down in parliamentary history as an act of hypocrisy.
(Text):


Mr. Ralph Maybank (Winnipeg South Centre):: I regret very much, Mr. Speaker, that I am not able to follow the remarks made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. Always, when I hear members from Quebec speaking in the tongue that is most familiar to them, I am envious. But, when I find them also conducting a quarrel with a non-French member of the house who is, himself, blessed with a knowledge of "the twa tongues" my envy is still greater. I am unable to make any examination of the remarks the hon. gentleman has made, but perhaps that is just as well because, in the limited time at my disposal, what I really desire to do is to consider the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition.
What I should like to do before this debate comes to a close is to examine what I think is a superficially clever manoeuvre by the Tory party, and just see where we would get if we followed the procedure which the hon. leader of the Tory party has offered to this house. As a matter of fact, sir, I submit to you and to the members of this house that the amendment of the Tory leader shows something very important. It shows that he and all of his supporters are either inane or insincere. That is the proposition I put to the house at the present time with reference to the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Maybank: We observe that the claque clacks quite quickly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ralph Maybank: The Tory leader has been well served by his claque and probably will
Newfoundland
continue to be served well by them. We will find members of it moving from place to place and calling out remarks.


Mr. Miller:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, or on a question of privilege, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) has been in this house a good deal longer than some of the rest of us and he knows full well that when he refers to the leader of our party, or he should know-


Mr. Bryce:: Why do you boys not go back to Manitoba where you can agree?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest to
the hon. member who has risen on a point of order or a question of privilege, that he state his point of order or question of privilege.


Calvert Charlton Miller: The hon. member has been
referring to the leader of our party as the leader of the Tory party. I maintain that, according to the custom of this house, he should be referred to as the hon. leader of the opposition.


An hon. Member:: That is a matter of
opinion.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Speaker, there have
been a great many silly emanations from the opposite side of the house, but I think perhaps that takes the cake.


An hon. Member:: Extremely clever.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ralph Maybank: I had remarked on the
proposition that this amendment which is before us shows either inanity or insincerity, and it is difficult for an impartial observer to decide which of those terms is the right one to apply. One's love for his fellow men, particularly some of those who are calling out foolishly from time to time, would naturally incline him against believing that there is so great insincerity among them as their amendment seems to disclose. But when you consider the procedure that is offered us, it is extremely difficult to believe that these gentlemen and the leader of these gentlemen can actually be so foolish as this proposal shows them to be. Well, I have to say I do not know which description applies to them; that is, whether they are foolish or insincere.
But perhaps what this amendment says should be examined in the light of the record that we have before us; and I should like, just briefly, to set forth that record. Last week all of these gentlemen were indicating, by their various speeches, that just as soon as possible-and certainly by March 31-they wanted to get the commonwealth, shall I say, of Newfoundland into the confederation known as Canada. And tonight they would claim they still propose to do just that same

Newfoundland
thing, but by the method and in the manner indicated in their amendment. Bear in mind that whatever must be done is to be done by March 31.
Take a quick glance at the record thus far. The government of the day has negotiated with representatives of Newfoundland an agreement under which Newfoundland will enter the Canadian confederation and become the tenth province. The government comes to this House of Commons and recommends that agreement. All last week we in this chamber debated the terms of union. Speeches were made by Conservatives as well as others; and without exception the right hand of Canadian brotherhood was extended to the people of Newfoundland. There was no indication last week that any of these expressions of good will were not genuine. The Tories seemed to be sincere. If they had a dagger for the agreement, they had it well hidden beneath their cloaks. Yes, it looked as if they wanted Newfoundland to come in. No person put forward any objection to the terms which were proposed and which were settled in this agreement.
All that time, it was understood by every person that every step must be completed by March 31. March 31 was actually to be the date of Newfoundland's crossing the threshold into the house of Canadian confederation. On the basis of last week's debate, not merely every person in this house but every person across Canada and every person in Newfoundland must have felt that the entry of Newfoundland into confederation, on the terms which had been worked out in the agreement, was acceptable all round; indeed, that it was warmly welcomed by all parties and by practically every member in the house. It is important that all people should know that when the debate was going on last week, each member in this chamber, and every Tory who spoke, particularly the Tory leader, knew quite well what the next stage in these proceedings was to be.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention at all of interrupting the irresponsible statements of this hon. member.


An hon. Member:: You cannot take it.


George Alexander Drew: I point out, however, that the motion to forward this act to the government of the United Kingdom-


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: What is this? Is it a point of order?


George Alexander Drew: -was not placed on the order paper until Thursday, and at that time the debate on second reading had been fully before this house.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Speaker, the statement the hon. gentleman has made is not true. You will bear in mind that I have not attacked his veracity.


Mr. Jackman:: It does not make any difference. Retract it.


Ralph Maybank: I will prove it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I rise-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


George Alexander Drew: I ask that the member withdraw that statement.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask hon. members to bear in mind that the member who has the floor should not be interrupted without his permission. If an hon. member wishes to rise to a question of privilege, it is his right to do so. But he should state what his question of privilege is.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on the formality of a question of privilege, I ask your ruling as to whether in this house it is proper for a member to say that a statement made by another member is not true.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a question of fact.


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest that the hon. member modify his expression.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a statement of fact.


Ralph Maybank: Hon. gentlemen who call out "withdraw" and who would not be satisfied with a modification of what I have said need not disturb themselves. My intentions are quite different from any diluting of anything that I have thus far said. I wish to deal-


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Withdraw.


Ralph Maybank: I wish to deal for just a moment with this question of order. There is no occasion for me to withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will not stand for the reflection which has just been made by an hon. member to my left, if I understood him correctly. He said that I am tolerating something from one side of the house that I would not from the other. I would ask hon. members to be generous enough to listen to the hon. member who has the floor. Actually some hon. members have asked me to be very severe with the hon. member who has the floor. If I had been as severe yesterday as some members suggest I should be today I would have asked many hon. members to withdraw what they had said.


Mr. Rowe:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have every respect for your ruling, and 1 think other hon. members should have respect for it as well. You have asked the hon. member to at least modify his statement. He deliberately rose in his place and said he would not dilute it.


Ralph Maybank: That is quite right. The hon. gentleman has given the statement exactly as I made it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member who has the floor will be pleased to modify the expression which he has used.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Speaker, with all respect to you, I must say that there is no occasion for modification unless I should fail to prove that which I have said; but if I should fail to prove it to the satisfaction of the hon. gentleman opposite then I would not merely modify it, I would withdraw it and apologize.


William Earl Rowe: Again I rise to a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again I ask the hon. member to modify his expression, and I hope I shall not be obliged to rise again and ask him to do so.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Speaker, I just do not know where to start to endeavour to meet your wishes.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Ralph Maybank: One thing is certain. You can see, Mr. Speaker,-	.


William Earl Rowe: It is an order from the chair.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ralph Maybank: You can see that they do not wish to give any person an opportunity even to follow up your suggestion, sir. Let us see what I said to which they object. What I said was that the statement which the hon. gentleman leading the Tory party said was not true; and I quickly said that it was not his veracity I was attacking. That is the statement I made to which objection is taken. Perhaps I had better start at the beginning and say what I said. I said, "the statement is not true." I will withdraw that statement.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Hear, hear.


Ralph Maybank: How would that be?


William Earl Rowe: That would be fine.


Ralph Maybank: Let us see whether the hon. gentlemen themselves will not say in just a moment that the statement which their leader made was not true. Let us see if that is not so. I will ask any hon. member to look up the Votes and Proceedings. If he does
Newfoundland
that he will find, in the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday and not Thursday, the motion which we are debating at the present time. Look it up for yourselves. You know, Mr. Speaker, these gentlemen might as well learn that it is always difficult to be a player and an umpire at the same time.


William Earl Rowe: You have just found that out.


Ralph Maybank: However, I will put it to them. They can be the umpires. All they have to do is to look at the papers which they have on their own desks, and they will find the motion there on Tuesday, not Thursday.
Just to reply a little further to what the leader of the opposition said, I should like to make this comment, sir, since all this pother has arisen. Even if I had been wrong, it did not constitute a point of order. He has the opportunity later on to make a speech and show that I was wrong.


An hon. Member:: Read the rules.


Ralph Maybank: He has to pop up like a jumping jack. If he does not do a great deal of jumping then some of the members around him will not imitate him and be jumping jacks, and there is nothing he wants more than a crowd of jumping jacks around him. That is why he raised the bogus point of order, and bogus points of order come naturally for him, as you realize when you see how bogus is the proposition which he has introduced in this amendment. I presume they consider it to be their duty to yell out many different kinds of expressions in support of their new peerless leader. They have had about umpteen "peerless" leaders in the last few years.
May I return quietly to the point before the house, with which I was dealing before I was so rudely and unnecessarily interrupted? I was saying that every person knew that the next step in the proceedings was an address to be passed by this parliament, directed to the British parliament, which would request the enactment of the necessary British legislation to effect Newfoundland's entry into the Canadian confederation. The actual resolution requesting that has been on the order paper since last Tuesday, as I have said. Up to last Friday the position was that the Tories were taking the position that they wanted to effect the union of Newfoundland and Canada in accordance with the terms of the agreement already mentioned, and to do it by March 31. They wanted hon. members to believe that that was their attitude. They wanted the people of Newfoundland to believe that that was their attitude. They

Newfoundland
wanted the people of Quebec, of Ontario, and of all the rest of Canada to believe that that was their attitude. They knew at that time the procedure that had to be taken to effect this union. They never gave any suggestion or any hint of wanting a different course taken. Had they done so they would naturally have been subjected immediately to criticism across the country-as they are now being subjected-of being either insincere or not aandid. But yesterday the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) moved this amendment, and it needs to be examined carefully. The operative part reads as follows:
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 .rumble address be presented to His Majesty . . .
The remainder of the resolution would read in the same way as it appears on the order paper at the present time and which was moved by the Prime Minister.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The leader of the Grits.


Mr. Gardiner:: Proud of the name.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Who wrote his speech? Who wrote the speech? He is not reading it well.


Ralph Maybank: A little while ago I had to comment about something silly that had come out of Portage la Prairie, but I think it has now been topped by the question of the hon. member for Souris.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I take it that the hon. member has just referred to me as being something silly that has come out of Portage la Prairie.


Ralph Maybank: No, I did not mean that. As soon as I make it clear to the hon. member that I did not mean him personally, the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, when I said that something silly has come from there- as soon as I tell him that I did not mean that -I am sure he will be satisfied. I would like to add that it is bound to cause a little amusement when one notices the speed with which he rose thinking that it had been applied to him, himself. My reference was to his own earlier point of order some time back.


Calvert Charlton Miller: On a question of privilege, the hon. member has no right to imply by indirection what he cannot by our rules say in straight out-and-out words. He is implying now what he cannot say by straight direction and I demand that he refrain from doing so.


Mr. Irvine:: These gentlemen are going tc spoil coalition in Manitoba.


James Arthur Ross: Page the Minister of Justice; he ruined it.
fMr. Maybank.]


Ralph Maybank: What a welcome interruption, to have helped us all to laugh at ourselves. Up until then I must admit that I was tempted to laugh a little at the hon. member for Portage la Prairie for taking umbrage at a remark which he thought was directed at him. I did not suggest that he was silly, I only said that his interruption a while back was silly, and of course that was true. He is now trying to make himself look worse, which is a rather difficult thing to do.
May I just proceed? Before the last interruption-I have just forgotten whose it was -I had read the operative part of the amendment offered by the Tories, and I stressed particularly the words, "satisfactory conclusion of such consultations." What that means is, first, that before asking the British government to pass the necessary legislation to effect the jointure of the two countries there must be consultation with the provinces. Second, in consulting them there would have to be what the amendment calls "a satisfactory conclusion." Third, if, as and when nine satisfactory conclusions have been reached at nine consultations, then and then only should there be presented by the Commons and Senate "a humble address to His Majesty" asking that the necessary legislation should be passed at Westminster. All of this would have to be done by March 31.
The amendment purports to have the provinces determine whether Newfoundland shall be taken into confederation. It must be patent to every thinking person from all that was said in the debate last week, as well as from all the other evidence, that such reference is entirely unnecessary. It is also com-petely without precedent. It must not be overlooked that the leader of the Tory party desires to introduce into our governmental system the veto of the security council of the united nations and no doubt he proposes to cast one of his Tory premier friends in the role of Joe Stalin in order to prevent anything being done. He would emulate the communists whom from time to time he affects to condemn.
I hope the people of Newfoundland appreciate just what is the attitude of the Tory party, typified not merely by its leader but by every man jack who is sitting around him. I hope the people of Canada fully appreciate the trick that is being attempted.
But even aside from his veto feature, take a look at the practical effect of this amendment. A serious reference of this question to the nine provinces could not be made unless the terms of union were still open. A reference that would be a serious one would have to be one that would give the provinces an opportunity of having some hand in the conduct of the actual negotiations. The proposed

reference can hardly be serious. The Tories say in effect: "Let us, the Canadian parliament, make a decision with reference to the terms of union, which matters are within the competence of parliament and then, having arrived at a conclusion as to what are satisfactory terms, submit the agreement, upon which we are in concurrence, to the vote, and possible veto, of the provinces. That most certainly is a travesty of confederation.
In his resolution the Tory leader says that nothing must be done until there is what he calls "a satisfactory conclusion" of the dealings, negotiations, consultations or whatever you wish to call them, with the nine provinces. He is careful not to say what he means by "a satisfactory conclusion". We cannot tell whether he means that he would be willing to let Newfoundland into confederation as a new province if three-quarters of the provinces agreed, whether he would be satisfied with a two-thirds count, or whether he would be satisfied with a mere majority. As it stands now, he commits himself to the principle of the veto. What his resolution means is that he will not allow Newfoundland to become part of Canada unless and until some of his Tory premier friends have expressed their acquiescence.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Ralph Maybank: It is not hard now to indicate which one. I suggest that it is a big price for any party to pay for the support of one individual or several individuals. It means that they are ready to play fast and loose with this serious question of bringing Newfoundland into confederation. They are willing to play fast and loose with that serious question in order to get the support of Premier Duplessis of Quebec.
The odd thing about it is that they can sit there and laugh with glee at the trick they are attempting to play.


George Alexander Drew: We are just laughing at you.


An hon. Member:: You do not see what we see.


Ralph Maybank: That is right. They do not see what I see and I do not see what they see.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not bad.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The blind leading the blind.


Ralph Maybank: I am bearing up under the terrible view in front of me. I am keeping my humour despite the horrendous vista before me.


William Earl Rowe: That is about all you have got.


Ralph Maybank: There is another thing I might say to those who made reference to that which they could see, and by inference to that which I could see. They might as well
Newfoundland
make up their minds now that they are not going to yell me down, or make noises on their desks or with their feet or in any other way, and succeed in stopping me.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We are enjoying it. We would have to pay half a dollar to see a show.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Ralph Maybank: It is a great thing when people will pay half a dollar to see themselves as a show-and a rather poor show they are making in this particular matter. People who would put forward this kind of proposition, which is patently insincere or crazy, are surely pretty irresponsible people when they can sit there and laugh about it.


An hon. Member:: We are laughing at you.


Ralph Maybank: Their position is that they are willing to give a veto to one man on this very important question in order to obtain his continued support. That is what it amounts to. You know, I am not sure but what something has been paid already. This may be the pay-off. Maurice has helped very substantially in Nicolet-Yamaska, and this is their payment, the payment to him.


William Earl Rowe: It might be your pay-off, too.


Ralph Maybank: I can say to the hon. gentleman who interrupted with that cynical remark that if I had to win by this kind of sale I never would win at all. I should like to appeal to some of those fine, decent men over there to stop this Tory business of endeavouring to buy their way into Quebec.
As I speak, something reminds me of Walter Savage Landor. who has written a few volumes of very fine stories under the title, "Imaginary Conversations". They are very interesting. I would recommend that the hon. members opposite read some of them. They would find much that would be helpful. I was playing with the idea of what Landor could do in writing another story. It could be a conversation between the premier of Ontario and the premier of Quebec. I suppose the imaginary conversation would have been something like this: "Well, now, look, Maurice, you may depend upon this. There will never be anything done of a constitutional nature without your having the last say. I can assure you of that, Maurice." The reply would be, "Well, George, remember if you do not keep that promise I can ruin you just as quickly as I can make you."
Some of these men who are pinning their faith on the same sort of thing that their party has attempted before had better remember that their good friend, Maurice, can ruin them just as quickly as he can make them, if he can "make" them at all. They had better remember that. They will always have to pay

Newfoundland
through the nose for any support they get. However, that is their business, not mine. Of course, along with Maurice they get such characters as the one mentioned by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) a few days ago, Paul Sauriol. They get the support of that sort of character, too. They make bedfellows of themselves with Monsieur Houde, the "imperialist," Camillien. Oh, yes, they get that. They get Chaloult thrown into the bargain, and a great many like him. They the great flag wavers acquire these friends. They get all these people I have mentioned as long as they give to Maurice Duplessis the power of veto on any measure of the sort we have before us tonight. Just before I conclude I wish to say this.


Some hon. Members:: Don't stop.


Some hon. Members:: Stop.


Ralph Maybank: When these gentlemen make up their minds whether or not they want me to go ahead, then I will know. They seem to be a little uncertain. By their amendment the Tories have put themselves in the position that, according to them, the resolution proposed, whereby Newfoundland will be brought into confederation, is wrong, and that the only right way is to have the amendment carried which would send the matter to all of the provinces one after the other for agreement, or veto. A good many remarks were made by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) which seem to indicate that is, indeed, the position they are taking. If that is their line, if the procedure of their amendment is what must be done, then they should vote against the motion of the government to bring Newfoundland into confederation. They should vote against it if they have the nerve to do so. I challenge the Tories now to vote against the resolution. I tell them to their faces that, in spite of all their talk, yelling and laughter, they have not got the nerve to do so. They are again trying to play both ends against the middle. They are hoping to be able to go out and say, "We did everything we could to bring Newfoundland in"; and they want to say in some places, "We did everything we could to keep Newfoundland out except on your say-so." They want to be in the position of saying both.
Under their scheme you will find them striving to get as many votes as possible in Ontario by saying, "We took the proper line for Canadian expansion to bring in this fine new province." That is what they want to say in Ontario. In some places in Quebec they want to say, "You see, we did all we could to put Maurice Duplessis in the position we wanted him to be, the arbiter of all such things as this." That is their position, and I dare them to vote against the resolution.
	.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate for one main purpose; that is, to clear up an obvious misconception which exists as to the real meaning of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). But before I do that I feel I must make reference to some remarks which have been made, mainly from the other side of the house. I think most hon. members have heard about as much as they wish to hear from or about the hon. member who has just taken his seat, but I cannot allow his remarks to go altogether unanswered, so I shall start with them though I shall not dwell on them for longer than is necessary. The hon. member made a great deal of the words "inanity" and "insincerity". From the whole tenor of his remarks it becomes obvious to hon. members, I think even on his own side, that anyone so incapable of experiencing or understanding sincerity as he would not be able to see any sincerity in a suggestion made by anyone else.
There is one thing, however, on which I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South should be congratulated. He has studied the rules with such care and diligence and to such good effect-and apparently just for this purpose

that he can come closer than any other hon. member can to unparliamentary language, procedure and behaviour without actually overstepping the bounds.
But that is the only thing upon which he is to be congratulated. Indeed, if success in this house to is be measured by the proportion of calculated insult and contumely carried in speeches, then certainly the hon. member for Winnipeg South, who has just resumed his seat, would have scored a remarkable victory.


Ralph Maybank: I want to raise a point of order, with which I believe the hon. member will agree. I am sure he would not wish to have those remarks directed to the wrong member. Mr. Mutch is the hon. member for Winnipeg South; I am the member for Winnipeg South Centre. I hope the hon. member will get that fixed up, because I should like to get it all in the right place.


William Earl Rowe: So would the other hon. member.


Ralph Maybank: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If it is necessary to ask for any correction in Hansard, I most certainly do so, but I feel quite certain that no hon.

member of this house can have any doubt as to the hon. member to whom in fact I was referring.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I propose to turn to remarks made in the course of this debate which are more worthy of serious consideration. I do so, as I said when I rose, for the purpose of correcting an obvious misconception as to the real meaning of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition. I do not intend to discuss the question whether confederation was a contract or a pact or a compact, nor do I feel qualified to make any lengthy dissertation on constitutional law. I do propose to say a few words, however, on what I believe is the point at issue in this amendment. I do so because on reflection and on studying the remarks of speakers from the government side, and indeed from the C.C.F. party, it is obvious that many of them have missed the point. I refer particularly to the speeches of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Clax-ton), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). The Minister of Justice made a great deal of what he said was the unfortunate necessity thrust upon him of having to deal with the obvious. He then proceeded to deal with the obvious. He dealt with matters which were obvious to all hon. members in the house, and he dealt with them in an exceedingly obvious manner. But unfortunately he had missed the point, so while he did deal with what was obvious and dealt with it plainly and in a straightforward fashion, his remarks were not in fact a contribution to the point at issue.
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the point at issue is this. The point of the amendment is not whether the present nine provinces should be consulted on the merit or otherwise of admitting Newfoundland into confederation. Rather it is whether they should be consulted on the very important and serious question, in which they have a direct interest, of the method and manner of amending the constitution. The question of admitting Newfoundland into confederation, whether it is desirable and whether the terms are mutually advantageous, was settled, I take it, in the discussion which took place in this house last week. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar himself pointed out, all parties then were in agreement that this was a desirable objective, and that generally speaking the terms were just and fair. But what we are discussing now is whether the procedure by means of which that objective is to be attained is something which can be supported and particularly whether it is something
Newfoundland
which should be carried out without consultation with the provinces, because the method to which the government is now resorting involves directly the question of an amendment to the constitution, and on a matter which is of direct concern to the provinces.
Last evening the Minister of Justice devoted the major portion of his remarks to the proposition, which he described as obvious, that the procedure followed here does not involve an amendment of the constitution. Incidentally, during his remarks the Minister of Justice said the leader of the opposition should be congratulated because, as he put it, he had made the best of a bad job. That remark was not altogether generous, because after reading over what the minister himself said one cannot fail to be impressed by the fact that not only did he have a very bad job to deal with but that in fact he made a rather poor job of a bad job, which was a great contrast to the speaker to whom he was referring.
I say that for this reason. The Minister of Justice, having stated it was obvious that no amendment of the constitution is involved here, then gave away his case when he pointed out-inadvertently, I presume-that in fact nothing more or less than an amendment of the constitution is the point at issue. At page 523 of Hansard for yesterday he is reported as having said:
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.
By those words he destroyed the case he was trying to make. If, as he has said, an address is necessary under section 146 of the British North America Act and if, as he has said, the government of Newfoundland has no legislative body and cannot pass an address, it becomes obvious that an amendment to section 146 of the constitution is necessary.
Then referring to the British North America Act, he said, as reported at page 524 of Hansard:
The constitution does not require assent from any province. It is true the constitution requires an address.
Those are the words of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). The Prime Minister has stated there is at the moment no machinery in existence in Newfoundland by which an address could be passed. The Minister of Justice admits that the constitution requires an address. If that be the case, then the government has to do just what it is doing, that is, ask for an amendment to the constitution so as to overcome the requirement

Newfoundland
laid down in the constitution. There is no address, therefore the constitution must be amended.
It is true that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) brushes this question aside as being a matter of little importance. He says it is only a procedural difficulty with which we are dealing. It is only a procedural weakness which is being removed. The Prime Minister referred to it as a matter of convenience. Call it what you will, Mr. Speaker, it is still an alteration of the constitution to ratify the doing in one way of something which the constitution calls for doing in another way.
What is the true position of that with which we are dealing? It is an amendment to the constitution. All these remarks which have been brought forth in such number about the lack of necessity for consulting the provinces with respect to the admission of Newfoundland into confederation become quite irrelevant. The amendment does not suggest that. When the suggestion is made in our amendment for consultation with the provinces at this stage, it is not suggested they be consulted on the merits of the question of admitting Newfoundland, but that they be consulted on the question of amending the constitution. This amendment to the constitution is made necessary by the fact, perhaps an unfortunate fact but a fact for which we are not responsible, that the procedure called for by the constitution cannot be complied with.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) made some remarks on this point this afternoon. It was obvious he had missed the point at issue. He took the position that, in the speech which was made by the leader of the opposition as well as the speech made by the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), the government was being criticized for not following the procedure of section 146. Of course, that is not the fact. The government is being criticized because it departed from the provisions contained in the constitution without consulting the provinces. The constitution is not only the constitution of this federal parliament; it is the constitution of the provinces and of the provincial legislatures.
It all comes down to a question which has been aired in this house before, and that is whether the constitution, which is the constitution of the provinces as well as of the dominion, can be amended in particulars and in a manner which is of interest to the provinces without the provinces being consulted. Referring this afternoon to this question of consultation with the provinces, the Secretary of State for External Affairs brushed it aside. He said-I think I am quoting him correctly- that it was absolutely unnecessary to consult the provinces. Bearing in mind the fact that

what we are consulting the provinces about is an amendment to the constitution, not the merits or otherwise of the admission of Newfoundland, it must be said that the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not reflect the opinion of the great men of his party in the past. It is frequently true, of course, that recent converts are carried away by their zeal, and it may be that the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) was so enthused by his recent conversion that he spoke without due reflection.
Certainly, it becomes obvious he has not studied the position taken in the past by the great leaders of his party. I should like to direct his attention to the remarks of Sir Wilfrid Laurier when dealing with this question of consultation with the provinces in the session of 1906-07. The question before the house at that time was a change in the representation in the House of Commons for the maritime provinces. Sir Wilfrid Laurier emphasized the extreme seriousness of any proposal to amend the constitution. After saying that the deviation from the principle laid down in the confederation act which was sought in the resolution then before the house was only a very slight one, he enunciated the following principle, and I am quoting from his remarks as found at page 2195 of Hansard, 1906-07:
But, though the deviation from the principle is limited, yet it involves an amendment to the constitution, and an amendment to the constitution is always a serious matter and one which should not lightly be entered upon.
So that to say that union with Newfoundland is desirable and, therefore, we should not pay any attention to the procedural difficulties or let the constitution stand in the way, is a position which we cannot accept. It is a position diametrically opposed to the position taken by past leaders of the party now in charge of the government.
This afternoon we have heard references to the very broad subject of discussion with the provinces, not concerning the merits of the change the government is seeking to make, but discussion with the provinces on the very question whether or not the constitution could be amended so as to take a procedural short-cut. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had some remarks about that on the same occasion. I should like to direct the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the further remarks which Sir Wilfrid made on that subject. At page 2199 of Hansard, 1906-7, he said:
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.

Then he made this very significant remark:
It should be altered only for adequate cause, and after the provinces themselves have had an opportunity to pass judgment on the same.
What Sir Wilfrid was saying there was, not that the provinces should necessarily be consulted as to the merits or otherwise of the proposal then before the house, but that they should be consulted as to the method and as to the necessity of altering the constitution to effect that end.
That is just the issue which is before us now. It is a question which is too greatly charged with serious consequences for the future welfare of this country for us to permit ourselves to deal with it on the basis of expediency, on the basis that it is a mere procedural matter, on the basis of convenience, or whatever word you choose to use. As was well said this afternoon by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), it is a matter of the constitution under which the development of this country has proceeded in the past; it is a matter of the constitution which guarantees or has guaranteed to us the freedom and liberty, and the opportunity for advancement and self-expression, which have made Canada and the Canadian people the country and people that they are.
Again I say that it is not enough to dismiss this question by saying that the constitution does not provide for consultation with the provinces on questions of admission of new territory into the dominion, because the position is that the constitution itself provides methods by which new territories could be added. So long as the constitutional method is followed, there is of course no necessity of consulting with the provinces. Whether we consider that the British North America Act is a pact, a treaty, a compact, or a contract, the inescapable fact is this: the original parties to confederation had in mind the possibility of the subsequent entry into confederation of new territory. They considered that matter carefully, and agreed to and laid down certain procedures which should be followed when that event should come to pass. That agreement having been entered into and having been given binding form under the British North America Act, if that procedure is followed there is then no need to consult with any of the provinces or any of the other members of confederation -and I would point out that the provinces are members of confederation. But that is not the position here. The position here is that the constitutional procedure, the procedure already agreed to by the parties to confederation, is not being followed. Surely, therefore, it is not only legally correct but it is only morally just that the parties to
Newfoundland
confederation should be consulted as to the variation of the procedure which they themselves had previously worked out.
I have referred to what is the actual point at issue here, as I see it. Last week we settled the question of the desirability or otherwise of the admission of Newfoundland into confederation. In spite of all the slighting remarks which have been leveled at the members of this side individually and as a party for what is said by our opponents to be a reversal in our stand, the fact is that we have not reversed our stand. We stand firm by our original position that it is a desirable thing that Newfoundland should be admitted into the family of the confederation of Canada. What we raise objection to is that now the very fact of that desirability, which we sincerely and in good faith agreed to, should be urged as a compulsion on us, in an effort to force us to agree to an unconstitutional method of attaining a desirable objective. If there be any insincerity in the approach to this matter, it is on the part of those on government benches when they seek to resort to methods of that kind.
Here again we see asserted the principle that the constitution can be amended in a matter of vital importance to the whole framework of confederation-the question of the admission or exclusion of new territory- without consultation with the parties to confederation, by mere majority vote in this house. We have in the past taken our stand against that proposition. Our stand is one which actually needs no justification beyond its own merits. It is in fact justified and supported by the principles laid down by past great leaders of confederation, including great leaders of the Liberal party.
We again question and again deny the principle contended for by the present Prime Minister when he was Minister of Justice in 1946 and introduced the resolution upon which was based the redistribution of that year. We deny the principle that the federal parliament has the right, by a mere majority vote, to recommend to the British government, and in some cases even to make, any changes it wishes in the constitution of this country, except with respect to sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act.
If this startling new enunciation of principle be accepted as correct-and that is what we are asked to do now-it means that there are few features of the social, political and economic life of this country which could not be changed as the result of a majority vote of the House of Commons. It is true that there are certain divisions of powers, as laid down in sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act, which would still

Newfoundland
be unalterable. But, for instance, as to all our constitutional processes, language, qualifications for representation in this house, legal and moral customs and a host of other matters, all the safeguards from which we benefit at present could be swept away. Nearly all members of this house have personal knowledge of the heights to which passions can be roused on subjects about which, rightly or wrongly, there is deep feeling. Hon. members will recall with what suddenness, on occasion, reason is supplanted by the rule of emotion and ungoverned prejudice. I am sure, therefore, that on serious reflection hon. members on the other side of the house, as well as those on this side, will find that it is regrettable-indeed, that it would be dangerous-to attempt now to use the occasion of a desirable objective in order to bring compulsion or pressure of any sort to bear upon members on any side or in any part of this house to accept a principle so much at variance with the best principles and traditions of our constitutional history.
It is not enough to say that, by taking the stand which we take here, we are standing in the way of progress, because progress is not measured only in terms of material things. As I see it, progress is measured also in terms of the extent to which men, in seeking to accomplish and in actually accomplishing desirable objectives, nevertheless retain level heads and right motives, and follow right procedures.
In conclusion, I repeat that no one in this house is more sincere or desires more fervently than we in this party to see confederation completed. But we would not be true to ourselves, to the country, or to the province which we now seek to make a member of confederation if we allowed that to come about by methods such as these, so fraught with danger and possible bad consequences to ourselves and to these very people whom we are now trying to include in what we want to see, a happy, prosperous family of confederation.


Mr. Elphege Marier (Jacques Cartier):: When the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) rose he said that he would explain the real meaning of the amendment proposed by his leader. He did not explain the amendment but instead spoke about the proceedings taken to make Newfoundland a part of our country. The hon. member said that the government ought to consult the provinces because the constitution of Canada requires it. The leader of the opposition said in his amendment:
Now therefore be it resolved, that the government of Canada be required to consult at once the govern-
[Mr. Fulton.j
ments of the several provinces and that upon a satisfactory conclusion of such consultations "a humble address be presented to His Majesty . . ."
That consultation took place many years ago. In 1864 the four provinces known as Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia met in Quebec city to discuss confederation. I hold in my hand a copy of the Quebec resolutions adopted in 1864, and on page 137 I find the following:
In the federation of the British North American provinces the system of government best adapted under existing circumstances to protect the diversified interests of the several provinces, and secure efficiency, harmony, and permanence in the working of the union,-would be a general government charged with matters of common interest to the whole country, and local governments for each of the Canadas and for the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, charged with the control of local matters in their respective sections, provision being made for the admission into the union on equitable terms of Newfoundland, the Northwest Territory, British Columbia, and Vancouver.
When these provinces met in Quebec in 1864 they agreed that Newfoundland would be admitted into confederation then or at any time on equitable terms. Therefore they were consulted and they agreed, but they went further. On page 138 of the Quebec resolutions we find the following:
The colony of Newfoundland shall be entitled to enter the proposed union, with a representation in the legislative council of four members.
They provided for the number of members that would be in the legislative council to be formed when Newfoundland became a new province of the confederation.
In paragraph 12 they provided that the members of the Newfoundland legislative council should possess properties either real or personal. On page 139 of the Quebec resolutions we find the following:
The basis of representation in the House of Commons shall be population, as determined by the official census every ten years . . .
And that Newfoundland should have eight members. Therefore they provided for the number of members which Newfoundland was to have when she joined confederation. On page 142 of the same resolutions we find the following:
Until the consolidation of the laws of Upper Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island, the judges of these provinces appointed by the general government shall be selected from their respective bars.
They went further and on page 146 they said:
Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, not having incurred debts equal to those of the other provinces, shall be entitled to receive by half-yearly payments in advance from the general government the interest at 5 per cent on the difference between the actual amount of their respective debts at the

time of the union, and the average amount of indebtedness per head of the population of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.
Therefore the different provinces agreed that Newfoundland would be permitted to join confederation, and the interested provinces were ready to admit Newfoundland.
Paragraph 72 on page 147 of the resolutions states:
The proceedings of the conference shall be authenticated by the signatures of the delegates, and submitted by each delegation to its own government, and the chairman is authorized to submit a copy to the governor general for transmission to the secretary of state for the colonies.
They were not satisfied just to approve the resolutions to admit Newfoundland into confederation at that time. They said that the resolutions so adopted by these four provinces at that time should be authenticated by their own governments and should be signed by the officers authorized to do so. These resolutions were submitted to London and were approved by the British government. In section 10 of the London resolutions you will find the following:
The colony of Newfoundland when admitted into the confederation shall be entitled to a representation in the legislative council of four members.
That was approved by the London conference and the London resolutions were adopted on December 4, 1866. Later on, these resolutions were included in paragraph 146 of the British North America Act, which said that when Newfoundland decided to join confederation it could do so by the procedure provided in section 146. It is true that this section cannot be applied exactly today because Newfoundland has no legislature at the present time. That is a question of procedure and not a question of right. I submit that when the three provinces interested at that time-because at that time Quebec and Ontario formed only one province known as the union of upper and lower Canada-agreed to form the confederation, they decided by the different articles of the resolutions which they sanctioned that Newfoundland could be added to confederation on equitable terms. The provinces were consulted and gave their consent in advance not only to the consultation as provided by the amendment of the leader of the opposition but to the fact that they would admit Newfoundland into confederation at any time. What we are discussing is only the terms and conditions provided for in the admission. As the resolution sets out, that admission must be on equitable terms to be decided on between Newfoundland and the different provinces of the country now known as the Dominion of Canada. When we say that we are amending the constitution, that we are changing the law which governs our country, we are saying something which is not true, because the provinces interested
Newfoundland
at that time in forming confederation were consulted and gave their consent to admitting Newfoundland at any time. What we are doing is not asking to amend the constitution. In my humble opinion, what we are doing is not really amending the constitution; it is just a change in the procedure determined by section 146 of the British North America Act. We are not being asked to change the British North America Act; we are just giving our assent to a decision which was arrived at in 1864 and confirmed in 1866.


Mr.   Hackeil@: Why does the British government require an amendment to the British North America Act?


Elphège Marier: They do not require an amendment to the constitution. What they ask is that this procedure be followed by the present government. It is not an amendment to the constitution; it is a matter of procedure under section 146.


Mr.   Hackall@: Why not follow the procedure?


Elphège Marier: There are no houses of parliament in Newfoundland at the present time. This is a matter of procedure.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, there have been some good speeches during this debate and I regret that there have been some that have not been so good. My purpose in rising to speak at this time is not to try to convince anyone as to how they should vote on the motion and the amendments before us; it is simply to make my own position clear as to why I cannot vote for the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and why I feel I must vote for the motion.
It is not contended by the supporters of the amendment that the terms of union are not satisfactory. I think the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) made that quite clear. It seems to me that the whole question is one of the procedure to be followed in seeking the amendment that will bring Newfoundland into confederation. I believe that the resolution moved yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) follows the procedure which has been followed in the various amendments that have been made to the British North America Act at least since I have been here.
Since I have been a member I can remember three measures that came before this house that required amendments to the British North America Act. First there was the amendment in 1940 to allow the dominion government to enact an unemployment insurance act, and then there were amendments in 1943 and 1946. In 1940, because the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act would concern the provinces, the provinces were consulted; but in 1943 and 1946 the

Newfoundland
changes were made by resolutions somewhat similar to the one we have before us.
We have been following precedent, but if this house should accept the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition we shall be creating a precedent which I maintain may prove dangerous. Before I sit down I shall give my reasons for saying that.
As I said, in this instance we are following the precedent which was set in connection with other amendments. I have in my hand the parliamentary debates of the House of Lords, volume 142, for the session 1945-46, which contains the report of the debate on the amendment of 1946 when it came before the House of Lords. I should like to quote the opinion of a gentleman who is well known to my hon. friends of the official opposition. Here is what Viscount Bennett said in regard to the method of making the change, as reported on page 698:
There has been a good deal of discussion about an amendment of the constitution being a political measure. Canada is the only one of the dominions in which a party majority can amend the constitution.
Viscount Bennett was a man of considerable learning in the law, a man of great ability and a well known Conservative. He makes it quite clear that a resolution by a majority in the houses of parliament in Canada can change the constitution. He continues:
They cannot amend it directly, but they do it indirectly, because we have agreed-
That is, the British parliament have agreed. -that we will consent to pass any legislation that they may petition to have passed by this parliament.
I submit that that is as it should be. I can hear the hullabaloo that would be raised in this house if the present government of Great Britain said that they would not pass legislation that was asked for by the houses of parliament of Canada.
That being the case, in this instance we are following the procedure that has been followed by other governments. Evidently, then, the purpose of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition is to create a new procedure, that in all matters the provinces must be consulted. We should examine the amendment very carefully, then. I think that was. done very well this afternoon by the minister of external affairs. The operative part of the amendment, which is really the part we are concerned with, reads as follows:
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":
The difficulty I find in connection with the amendment is that there is no definition of
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
the words "a satisfactory conclusion of such consultations". If the consultations are to be such as will effect what we are going to do, then that in my opinion must mean consent by the provinces. The question that we ask is: How much consent do we need; how much consent will we require; must we have the consent of all the provinces or only of some? The matter of veto was mentioned this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and although I had referred to it when making my notes this morning I shall not refer to it now. But it is indeed important. Let me show how a precedent will be created if the amendment carries. I think it was the member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) who, when supporting the amendment last night, made it mean so little that he did justice neither to himself nor to the amendment. I should like to quote a part of what he said, to be found on page 533 of Hansard, reading as follows:
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.
Surely that is an over-simplification of consultation. How does he know that we will move an address after consultation? Suppose all the provinces say, "No, we do not agree." Are we then going to proceed with this address? If we are going to proceed with the address whether the provinces say yes or no, why consult the provinces at all? It is not as simple as the member for Macleod makes it out to be. Either consulting the provinces means something or it does not mean anything. If it means something it may affect what we will do here. If it does not mean anything, if we are going to do the same thing after we have consulted the provinces, regardless of what they say, as we would have done in the first place, then we are merely spoofing the provinces.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Look at all the fun we would have consulting them.


Angus MacInnis: Yes; but I am not so sure that it would all be fun because most fun has an aftermath.


An hon. Member:: Are you speaking from experience?


Angus MacInnis: You would be surprised. In this instance, I do not know exactly what we would be consulting the provinces about in the first place, but suppose in any event they were unanimous. In my opinion that would create a precedent, and the next time that we

consulted the provinces we would be told we could not proceed unless they were unanimous. The veto would indeed be applied. My chief reason for opposing the amendment is that it creates a precedent, and we do not know where it may lead us.


An hon. Member:: It would lead to chaos.


Angus MacInnis: As someone behind me says, it would lead to chaos, because it would mean there could never be amendment of our constitution, of the British North America Act, unless all the provinces were unanimous. Is there any member of the official opposition who wants that state of affairs? Is there anyone on the other side of the house who wants that state of affairs? As a matter of fact, if we are going to carry on in that way, then parliament will lose all its significance as a national legislative body. Then again a great deal was said, particularly by my Social Credit friends, about the dangers of centralization, and the dangers of stateism, whatever that is. I imagine stateism means having things done by the state. If that is a correct definition of stateism, I do not believe there are many people in Canada who are opposed to it, because almost every group in Canada is asking the state to do something. They are not all asking the state to do the same thing, but every one of them is asking the state to do something for them.
Let us see how much is in all these warnings about the dangers of centralization. If we followed the argument of my Social Credit friends to its logical conclusion we would not have a confederation at all, because confederation in itself is centralization. We have been told again and again in this house that the fathers of confederation, and particularly the greatest of the fathers, Sir John A. Macdonald, wanted a strong central government. Do we want a strong central government, or do we want a government which, whenever it wants to do anything of a national character, must consult every province? Do we want a government that cannot act until every province says, "yes, go ahead"? Surely that makes nonsense of our pretensions of nationhood. It makes nonsense of almost everything that has been said by the official opposition and the Social Credit party during the past two days. There is always a danger that power will be abused, but the way to assure that it will not is not to create a situation where no one will have any power to do anything. The way to provide against that is to have an educated public opinion which will understand what is required and know when governments are going too far. Then the sovereign people on the one day that they are sovereign, election day, will take such action as will bring about the results they desire.
Newfoundland
I have been interested in the political affairs of Canada for some considerable time. I have watched legislation in the provinces, and I have watched legislation in the dominion parliament. I am bound to say that, as far as I can see, on the basis of the legislation that has been enacted by our provinces and the legislation that has been enacted by this parliament, the freedom of the Canadian people is just as safe in the hands of the parliament of Canada as it is in the hands of any of the provincial legislatures. Why be afraid then that a government has the power to do the things that the sovereign people of Canada want it to do?
I do not know that there is any reason why I should say any more. I think I have made it clear that in the first place the resolution before us follows a precedent that has long been established by this parliament; and that, in the second place, the amendment if it were adopted, would create a new precedent and one which, in my opinion, is dangerous because we do not know where it would lead. Where it would lead would perhaps depend upon the whim of the government of one province. Let us have faith in this Canada of ours, and faith that the men and women we elect to the parliament of Canada will do the things that are in the best interests of all the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: There is plenty of time. We have been trying to solve this problem since 1867. We should not try to finish it tonight. I am going to take about ten minutes because in the past couple of weeks, on this question of international law, the British North America Act and the rights of the provinces I as a layman have had a first-class demonstration that very few people in this house know very much about it, and that the whole matter can be twisted to suit the viewpoint of a particular person for political reasons.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) said he wanted to make his position clear, and I am rising at this time to make my position clear. When the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) spoke he indicated that as far as we were concerned this group would support the original motion, and I stand by that. But during the debate on the speech from the throne I said I was disappointed that the government had permitted the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) to set the tone of that debate, completely ignoring anything that was in the speech from the throne and saying very little about what was not in it. He decided that the issue in this house as far as he was concerned was going to be dominion-provin-
57S

Newfoundland
cial rights. Well, my assumption is that he has in mind the next election. One place in Canada where his party is very weak is the province of Quebec, where they are very strong for provincial rights. Another place they are very weak is the province of Nova Scotia, where they have no members in the legislature and very little leadership. But the premier of Nova Scotia is also very strong for provincial rights, as he indicated at the last dominion-provincial conference. So I may be excused for my assumption that the leader of the opposition has those two provinces in mind.
In addition, when we began to discuss the ' Newfoundland agreement the same theme was interjected into that discussion. Again it was dominion-provincial rights; and unfortunately the government, instead of trying to bring the house back to the real bread and butter issues of this country, fell into the trap and went along with the discussion of provincial rights. As a result we have had a straight academic discussion in this house that very few people outside the house can understand. I know letters I have received have been to this effect: "Why are you fellows wasting time up there? Prices are away up. Unemployment is increasing. There are many internal issues to which you should be devoting your time."
In my opinion we settled the question of Newfoundland. After a long debate we decided that the agreement was fair and reasonable, and this house voted unanimously that Newfoundland should come into confederation. All right. Then there was the question of giving effect to the decision we had made in connection with the agreement. That meant we had to change the statutes of Canada in order to back up the decision already made unanimously, or with one exception; one hon. member down here said no. That should have been a simple process, taking very little of the time of this house, if we meant what we said when we voted to bring Newfoundland into confederation. Instead of that, however, the very capable leader of the opposition set out to raise an issue for the next federal election that would not mean anything to the people of this country. "Keep away from our economic problems. Keep away from the problems that affect the average, everyday person in this country in connection with the things that go on his table. Let us make the issue at the next election the question of dominion-provincial relations, which does not mean anything to the people of this country, but which gives us a good opportunity to set up an issue with which we might be able to confuse them."
That is my conception of the thing as I have watched it develop. The leader of the opposition moves an amendment to the original motion, in which he says the provinces should be consulted. Well, what happens after they are consulted? As the hon. member for Vancouver East pointed out, one province has the veto, and you are finished. What happens to the decision we made to bring Newfoundland within confederation? That is out also. The people of Newfoundland have said they want to come in, and the Canadian people want to bring them in. We know that, if we bring Newfoundland into confederation and make available to them the social services that we have in this country, we will be relieving human misery; and as far as I am concerned the legality of any action is determined by the justice of the cause. I am willing to take any step, after consulting the members of this House of Commons, to relieve human misery because 1 think that is a justifiable action.
The amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition does not mean anything. It merely created the opportunity for a debate. It provided a chance to get the headlines. The leader of the opposition is fighting, but he is not firing many shots. He is careful to propose an amendment that does not mean anything after the provinces are consulted. The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), seconded by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), moved a subamendment that means something. That subamendment says the provinces not only should be consulted but that they should give their consent. I shall be watching with great attention to see how my hon. friends vote on that point.
As far as I am concerned the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), when he took part in this debate a few days ago, stated the question very clearly and fairly. The other four or five provinces he mentioned were brought in after a discussion in this House of Commons. No plebiscite was taken; the matter was determined here. We had the same British North America Act at that time. Newfoundland has been consulted; two plebiscites were taken, after all the issues and terms were made available to the people of Newfoundland. And they decided to come in. As I said when I spoke briefly on this matter a few days ago, I was amazed at the representative vote that was obtained. Those people had not cast a ballot since 1934. The great majority of them cast a ballot for the first time in those plebiscites. They were isolated, in outports, with no radio available and the propaganda coming practically from one side only. But when the people of New-

foundland sifted out the issues and used their franchise for the first time they demonstrated that they are an intelligent people who, with a half-decent break, can become a great asset to this country.
I am telling my hon. friend over here that I am going to vote against his subamendment. I am going to vote against the amendment of the leader of the opposition, because I want to get something done and not merely talk about it. We have said already we are bringing Newfoundland into confederation; we voted for it unanimously. I do not think any stop blocks should be put in the way of the legal steps necessary to back up our previous decision and amend our statutes so we can make available to the people of Newfoundland the things we have to give them.
That is my position in the matter. I am awfully sorry that in this day and age, living in the world as it is now, where there is trouble and misery, and where so often we find ourselves on shifting sands, this House of Commons has not given the people of Canada a demonstration that we are honest and truthful, and that regardless of where we sit in this house we are going to do the thing that is best for the Canadian people. I think the action taken by the government at this time is not only good for the Canadian people; it is also good for the people of Newfoundland because it will relieve human misery, and it should not be made a political football for election purposes by any section of this house.


Solon Earl Low: I desire only two or three minutes, Mr. Speaker, in which to make a statement on the subamendment of my hon. friend, the member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix). I do not desire to go into any lengthy refutation of the speeches that have just been made by my hon. friends of the C.C.F. In that regard, I will confine my remarks to the argument of my hon. friend the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), who has just spoken. Without question, it is another clear demonstration of the arguments one sees when someone tries to make the end justify the means; that is the old socialist, communist argument. It does not hold good within the boundaries of a free parliament. He may just as well carry it to its logical conclusion, as my hon. friend the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) says. On the basis of his argument we should also bring into confederation India and China because the people of those countries are certainly suffering great hardships.


Mr. Archibald:: They might be better citizens than you.
Newfoundland,


Solon Earl Low: Some more of my communist friends.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: If you are calling me a communist, you are stating what is not true.


William Irvine: Amen.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, it would be beneath my dignity to pay attention to my friend because those are exactly the tactics the communists use.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The group with which I am associated has no connection with communism. It has fought communism all through the years, and though I deprecate calling my hon. friend what he was called just now, I can understand why it was done. I feel this kind of thing should not be permitted.


Solon Earl Low: Well, Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Let us have the vote.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, we will get to the vote. I do not intend to carry this particular question any further.
I should like to say the Social Credit party has given most earnest and careful consideration to the submissions of all the learned gentlemen who have spoken in this debate. We have weighed the arguments to the best of our ability and according to our lights. We have concluded that the procedure adopted by the government in this final step does, beyond any reasonable doubt, constitute an amendment to the British North America Act. This, therefore, introduces a new and tremendously important element into what, until yesterday, was nothing more than a clearly desirable objective, namely, the bringing of Newfoundland into confederation. In our view, that objective is still a desirable objective. We think it should be consummated at the earliest possible time. But, in the process of completing confederation, we do not propose to lend our hand to an amendment to the British North America Act by a simple majority vote of this house. We believe the constitution is much too sacred to be constantly subjected to the possibility of repeated changes by such means, particularly in this day when individual and minority rights and freedoms- yes, and human life itself-are valued so cheaply and are even held in utter contempt in many places in the world.
I said last night that it is our conviction that a satisfactory procedure for constitutional amendment should be formulated at the earliest possible time. It is a matter of urgency in my opinion because, as I view what has been taking place over the past few years, particularly since the beginning of the war, I find that the government has been laying down, piece by piece, a pattern of precedents which the government evidently

Newfoundland
hopes will govern the procedure for all future attempts to change the constitution.
In our opinion, this is no safeguard to the rights and freedoms of the people. We believe that an immediate effort must be made to establish adequate safeguards. It is precisely because powerful and evil forces are at work attempting to break down our bastions and render us powerless to protect our liberties that we sound anew the warning uttered so many years ago by the apostle Paul to the Galatians when he said,
Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,-


William Irvine: Hallelujah!


Solon Earl Low: -and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
We propose to heed that warning. It is for that reason we must call a halt to the tampering with the British North America Act in the manner that has been followed so often in the past. For these reasons, we will vote for the subamendment. If that does not carry, we will vote for the amendment. Should that be defeated, we will vote against the resolution solely on the ground that it does involve an amendment to the British North America Act.


Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot (Temiscouala):: I spoke for five minutes yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and I shall speak for two or three minutes today. In the first place, it is my intention to thank the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) for having said that the subamendment of my hon. friend the member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) is something, and the amendment of the leader of the opposition is nothing. I hope I have correctly quoted the hon. member.


Clarence Gillis: That is correct.


Jean-François Pouliot: I found the speech of the leader of the opposition yesterday rather nebulous and it was for that reason I expressed no opinion as to how I would vote. Naturally, I will vote for something, and I will vote for the subamendment of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency. I will not vote for the amendment of the leader of the opposition unless he agrees to amend his own amendment by incorporating in it the subamendment of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency.
The leader of the opposition has often been accused of being inconsistent. I do not know if that is true, but I shall give him the benefit of the doubt. If he wishes to be consistent with his last speeches, however, and if the Conservative members who have spoken about provincial rights want to be

considered consistent with the speeches they have made, they have only to make a gesture which will establish their sincerity. To establish their sincerity, they have only to vote for the subamendment proposed by my hon. friend the member for Quebec-Montmorency. I am very happy to congratulate him on that subamendment.
I want to warn the leader of the opposition. From the very beginning, I have been a consistent defender of provincial rights in the house. He can read the speeches I have made against the succession duties act; what I have said about the Rowell-Sirois commission, and my denunciation of the bureaucrats who made that report. My votes have been consistent. I can compare myself favourably with anyone in the party of the hon. leader of the opposition. I will go further. I will tell the hon. leader of the opposition the real meaning of the subamendment. It is a desire to give the veto to the provinces in connection with this Newfoundland business, in the same way as San Francisco has given the veto to the major powers. If the veto is good enough for the Russians, it is good enough for the provinces. There is no reason why the provinces should not have it.
I therefore warn the leader of the opposition that when he votes for the subamendment of my hon. friend, which I was glad to support, he will vote to give a veto to the provinces. Thereby he will tell the country that his sincerity was real, that his sincerity was greater than it appeared in the first place from his amendment, and that he wants to show that he is the real defender of the rights of the provinces and, to refer to St. Paul, that he has found in this house his road to Damascus. That does not mean that the leader of the opposition is my favourite apostle, but I treat him with the same consideration as I treat any one of my colleagues; and I offer him an olive branch. That gesture shows the kindly spirit animating the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) and me. We do not desire any tribute for that act of generosity. Our idea is to save the face of the leader of the opposition so that he will not be ashamed of himself when he returns to Carleton county and when he shaves tomorrow morning.
It is therefore my great pleasure to support wholeheartedly the subamendment moved by my hon. friend. With regard to the leader of the opposition and his satellites I will use the great words of a great Englishman, "We will wait and see."
Similia similibus curantur-the same evils are cured by the same remedies. It was perhaps wrong to give the veto to the major powers at San Francisco. To apply that Latin proverb, similia similibus curantur, the only

thing to do in order to repair the evil that was done at San Francisco is to give the veto to the provinces.
1 wish to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard), who was a precursor. He was the first one to mention the union of Newfoundland with Canada. He did so years ago. He deserves a special tribute. I also want to pay a special tribute to Senator Neil McLean, who has been most interested in this matter.
That being said, let me say it is not Newfoundland that I desire in the first place to join Canada. As my hon. friends will remember, years ago I suggested in this house that as we have no tropical regions in this country, if the British empire were to be split into fragments, the fragments that should come to us were Bermuda, Nassau, Jamaica and Trinidad. Now that there is no longer any British empire-we have been told that we are in a commonwealth instead of an empire, and that O.B.E.'s and M.B.E.'s have no more meaning

I wish to belong to the empire of Canada which will, with glory, succeed the British empire. The leader of the opposition is in such a mood of Canadianism that he will be glad to see the British empire replaced by the empire of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Shaw:: I was paired with the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Fournier). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.
(Translation):


Maxime Raymond: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret). Had I voted, I would have voted for the subamendment.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand). This is the reason why I did not vote.
(Text):


Mr. Stanfield:: I was paired with the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Maxime Raymond: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
(Text):


Frederick Davis Shaw: I was paired with the hon.
member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Fournier). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I was paired with the hon.
member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: I was paired with the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion.


Major James William Coldwell: No, Mr. Speaker; the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Glengarry):: Mr. Speaker, I should not like this
debate to conclude without an opportunity of saying a few words on the all-important question of the entry of Newfoundland into confederation. I doubt if hon. members would wish to wait longer this evening. Some have already asked that there be an
Newfoundland
adjournment, and therefore I move that the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the adjournment of the house.
He said:	Tomorrow I hope we will have
unanimous consent to answer the questions on the order paper and to proceed with the notices of motion for the production of papers. Afterward we will continue with this debate and, when it is concluded, take up Bill No. 12 to amend the statutes to adapt them for application to Newfoundland.


Gordon Graydon: And after that?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, tomorrow is Wednesday; I do not think there will be anything after that.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.33 p.m.

Wednesday, February 16, 1949	PENSION FUND SOCIETIES ACT