1949-10-18

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies of correspondence I have had with premiers of the provinces with respect to amendments to the British North America Act, following the letters to them, copies of which I tabled on September 15.
(For text of correspondence, see appendix, page 870 et seq. See also page 841.)



ANSWER TO QUESTION BY MR. GREEN ON OCTOBER 14

Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) referred to the press report of a statement made in San Francisco by the Canadian ambassador to China, who was on his way to Ottawa for consultation. Mr. Davis is expected to reach Ottawa next week, after a few days in Saskatchewan. Without having had the opportunity of speaking with him, I am unable to comment on the remarks he is reported to have made. I can assure the hon. member, however, that the situation which has been developing in China has been and is under constant and careful survey by the Department of External Affairs, and that if a statement is not made before then, my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will deal with the situation when he returns from Lake Success.



QUESTION AS TO SINGAPORE CONFERENCE OF COMMONWEALTH REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to ask a question which I had intended to ask on the orders of the day, but which ties in directly with the answer just given. Over the week end it has been announced that early next month there is to be a conference in Singapore of top-ranking representatives of various commonwealth countries. I believe it includes all of them, with the exception of South Africa and
Canada. Apparently the purpose is to consider the threat of communism in the Orient, and to chart a course for future dealings with the Chinese Reds. Is Canada taking part in that conference?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I received notice in my office of the hon. member's intention to ask this question on the orders of the day. The answer is that the Canadian government has no official information concerning the proposed meeting in Singapore to which the question refers. It is my understanding that this meeting has been arranged so that the United Kingdom representatives in the Far East might discuss among themselves matters of mutual concern, and that there may be present local representatives of certain other commonwealth governments. There has been no invitation to Canada to be represented at that meeting.


Howard Charles Green: Will the government make inquiries to see whether the conference is as broad as the report discloses?-because in Canada, and particularly on the Pacific coast, we are vitally concerned in what happens in China.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; I do not think Canada will take the initiative of asking whether the conference has the scope indicated by newspaper reports. If it did have that scope, we would expect to be notified by the United Kingdom government, without the initiative being taken by us.


Howard Charles Green: And Canada would take part?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Canada will make its decision when it has had an invitation, if it gets one.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many orders in council have been issued or passed since March 1, 1949?
2.	Of these, how many have been (a) published in the Canada Gazette; (b) tabled in the house?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Stand.


Mr. Harris (Danforih):: The Prime Minister has asked that this question stand. When he is answering it, will he be good enough to make his answer broad enough to include the answer to a question on the same subject

Questions
asked by me on April 25, 1949, as reported at page 2517 of Hansard of last session. It was put to one side by the Prime Minister with the statement that he would answer in a month's time, knowing that parliament in the meantime would be dissolved.
Mr, St, Laurent: I do not recollect the incident to which the hon. member refers, but I shall look at Hansard. I should be
surprised if at the time the hon. member mentions there had been any decision whether the house would be dissolved.


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION
Mr. Larson:: 1.	What amount of money was spent prior to March 31, 1948, by P.F.R.A. in connection with investigational work on the south Saskatchewan project?
2.	What amount of money was spent from April 1, 1948, to March 31, 1949, investigating the present or other sites, prior to selection of the present site (Coteau creek) ?
3.	What money has been spent or is actually committed to be spent April 1, 1949, to September 30, 1949, to survey the south Saskatchewan project?
4.	What is the estimated amount of expenditure on the south Saskatchewan project from April 1, 1949, to March 31, 1950?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	$296,447.87.
2.	$143,212.76.
3.	$634,308.25.
4.	$1,200,000.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Church:: 1.	Will the appointment of a new president of the Canadian National Railways include a reorganization and a new board of directors?
2.	Will anything be done to reduce the number of directors to three?
3.	Will consideration be given to removing the head offices to Toronto?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	No.


FISHERIES PRICES SUPPORT BOARD
Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Has Newfoundland been given representation on the fisheries prices support board?
2.	If so, what are the names of persons appointed?


Mr. MacNaughi:: 1.	Section 42 of the Statute Law Amendment (Newfoundland) Act increases membership of the fisheries prices support board from five to six to provide for appointment of one member from Newfoundland.

2.	Up to the present, an appointment has not been made, but one is under active consideration and it is anticipated an early announcement will be made in this respect.



RADIO BROADCASTING


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many applications for private radio broadcasting licences have been made since the 1st of January, 1949?
2.	What are the names of the applicants, and what was the decision made by the C.B.C. In each case?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1. 12.
2. Applications for private commercial broadcasting stations received in the Department of Transport since January 1, 1949.
Applicant and Recommendation of the board of governors of the C.B.C.
Bergman-Moffatt, Broadcasting Company Limited, Winnipeg, Man.-That the application be granted.
Radio Temiscamingue Incorporated, Ville-Marie, Que.-That the application be granted.
Department of National Defence (Army), Brochet, Man.-That the application be granted.
Ralph T. Snelgrove, Barrie, Ont.-That the application be granted.
H. A. Corning, St. Stephen, N.B.-That the application be denied.
La Societe St. Jean Baptiste de Montreal, Que.-That the application be denied.
Radio La Sarre Incorporated, La Sarre, Que.-That the application be deferred.
Newfoundland Enterprises, St. John's, Nfld.

That the application be deferred.
La Compagnie de Radio Diffusion de Thet-ford Limitee-The Thetford Broadcasting Company Limited, Thetford Mines, Que.- Application not yet considered by board of governors of C.B.C.
Saskatoon Broadcasters Limited, Saskatoon, Sask.-Application not yet considered by board of governors of C.B.C.
Department of National Defence (Army), Yellowknife, N.W.T.-Application not yet considered by board of governors of C.B.C.
David M. Armstrong, Victoria, B.C.- Application not yet considered by board of governors of C.B.C.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Has any change taken place since April 1, 1949, in the agreement between Newfoundland and the Dominican republic?


Brooke Claxton: I assume the hon. member refers to the exchange of notes of March 16,

1940, relating to commercial arrangements. This agreement ceased to apply to Newfoundland as from April 1, 1949. The agreement provided for a concession on codfish entering the Dominican republic from Newfoundland, and this concession has been successfully re-negotiated by Canada at Annecy.



DEEP-SEA CARGO VESSELS

Mr. Green:: 1.	How many deep-sea cargo vessels built in Canada for war purposes are now under Canadian registry?
2.	Of this number, how many are not now in operation?
3.	How many merchant seamen are serving on the vessels in operation?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1. 118.
2. 18.
3.	Approximately 4,100, including masters and officers.


Mr. Green:: 1.	How many deep-sea cargo vessels are under construction in Canadian shipbuilding yards at the present time?
2.	What is to be the registered tonnage and speed of each of such vessels?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Four.
2.	Three - 3100 gross (approx, each); speed 15 knots. One-3945 gross (approx); speed 15 knots.



RAILWAY TO ALASKA

Mr. Green:: 1.	Have there been any negotiations between the government of Canada and the government of the United States concerning the construction of a railway through Canada to Alaska?
2.	Have any surveys been made or authorized by the Canadian government in connection with such a railway?


Mr. Claxion:: 1.	There have been no formal negotiations, but informal discussions took place in September and October, 1942.
2.	Yes, the Canadian government authorized the United States army engineers to make a survey in 1942.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: 1.	What portion of the first transitional grant of $6,500,000 has been paid to the province of Newfoundland up to and including the 1st day of October, 1949?
2.	What are the dates of payment?


Mr. Belzile:: 1.	Three-quarters.
2.	$1,625,000 on April 6, 1949, July 2, 1949, and October 1, 1949.
Orders for Returns



TAX AGREEMENT WITH NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: 1.	Has the government of Canada yet entered into a tax agreement with the province of Newfoundland?
2.	If so, what are the terms of the said agreement?


Mr. Belzile:: 1.	No, but an agreement is now under negotiation.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



NEWFOUNDLAND


William Joseph Browne: What was the amount of money on deposit with the government of Canada by the province of Newfoundland on (a) April 1, 1949; (b) October 1, 1949; (c) wher.e are such moneys held?


Mr. Belzile:: (a) nil; (b) nil; (c) not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


William Joseph Browne: What have been the revenues and expenditures of the operations of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in Newfoundland during the six-month period ending September 30, 1949?


PROVINCE OF QUEBEC-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Bertrand:: 1.	Does the government of the province of Quebec receive grants or other financial assistance from the federal government?
2.	What federal departments are concerned in such assistance?
3.	What does the said assistance represent for the year 1948?


FLOOD CONTROL, BRITISH COLUMBIA    PROTECTIVE AND DRAINAGE PROJECTS
Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	What has been expended by the federal government in each of the last three years, in the Fraser valley and other locations in British Columbia, on account of freshets and floods, in respect to (a) building dikes and other protective and draining works; (b) compensation for damages; (c) cost of engineering and inspection?
2.	What further expenditures have been (a) authorized; (b) recommended or contemplated?
3.	What expenditures or contributions have been made by the provincial government of British Columbia?
4.	What is the estimated total expenditure necessary to complete these projects?


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Green:: 1.	Are persons of Japanese nationality being admitted to Canada from Japan?
2.	If so, how many have been admitted to date in the year 1949?

Motions for Papers
3.	How many of this number were in Japan throughout the war with that country?
4.	How many were sent to Japan on exchange during the war?
5.	How many went to Japan after the war under the repatriation scheme of the Canadian government?


MERCHANT MARINE-VOCATIONAL TRAINING
Mr. Green:: 1.	How many applications were received from Canadian merchant navy veterans for vocational training as provided by order in council 5983 passed on or about the 29th day of December, 1948?
2.	How many veterans were accepted for such training?
3.	How many were rejected on the ground that they had served on ships of registry other than Canadian registry?
4.	How many were rejected on the ground that they had not signed a manning pool agreement?
5.	How many were rejected on the ground that they already had employment or a vocation?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.


ASSISTANCE TO GOLD MINES
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	By months, how much gold has been bought by the Canadian government, or any agency thereof, from gold mines in Canada, from January 1, 1947, to the present time?
2.	By months, how much money has been paid to gold mining companies, under the provisions of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, since January 1, 1948?
3.	By months, how much gold has been bought by the Canadian government, or any agency thereof, from the McIntyre Porcupine Mines, Limited, from January 1, 1947 to the present time?
4.	By months, how much money has been paid to the McIntyre Porcupine Mines, Limited, under the provisions of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, since January 1, 1948?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of all regulations under the act, and/or all rulings by the board administering or interpreting the act, relating to the application of the War Veterans' Allowance Act means test to liquid assets held by applicants for the war veterans' allowance?


WHITE ROCK, B.C., POST OFFICE SITE
Mr. Maclnnis:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other correspondence passing between the Minister of Public Works or any other member of the government and any other person relating to the acquiring by the government of a site for a post office at White Rock, British Columbia, between January 1, 1948 and June 30, 1949.


STATE-OPERATED LOTTERIES
Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all letters received by the Minister of Justice, dated since September 1, 1949, from the board of evangelism and social service of the United Church of Canada, and from any other national church or other organizations, with reference to the

announced intention of one of the provincial governments to establish a state-operated lottery, together with a copy of the reply of the Minister of Justice to each such letter.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-EMPLOYEES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Howard Charles Green: For a return showing the number of employees of the Department of Agriculture in the province of British Columbia, and the following information in respect of each person so employed (a) name; (bj place of employment; (c) departmental branch in which employed; (d) classification; (e) whether permanent or temporary.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That an humble address be presented to His Majesty the King in the following words:
To the King's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that you may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to be expressed as follows:
An act to amend the British North America Act, 1867, relating to the amendment of the constitution of Canada.
Whereas the Senate and Commons of Canada in parliament assembled have submitted an address to His Majesty praying that His Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom for the enactment of the provisions hereinafter set forth:
Be it therefore enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1.	Section ninety-one of the British North America Act, 1867, is amended by renumbering class 1 thereof as class 1A and by inserting therein immediately before that class the following as class 1:
"1. The amendment from time to time of the constitution of Canada, except as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces, or as regards rights or privileges by this or any other constitutional act granted or secured to the legislature or the government of a province, or to any class of persons with respect to schools or as regards the use of the English or the French language."
2. This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1949 (No. 2), and the British North America Acts, 1867-1949, and this act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 18671949 (No. 2).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that hon. members will regard this resolution as one of the most important steps in the constitutional development of Canada that has come before this parliament since confederation. Of course the very nature

British North America Act
of a federation requires that there be a constitution, largely of a written and well-defined character. That is necessary because the basis of federation is a distribution of powers between a central and several state or provincial legislative and government bodies. If the federation is to preserve its character, that distribution must not only be clear and precise, but protected in some manner from encroachment by any of the legislative bodies.
The result is necessarily a constitution that cannot in all its aspects have the complete fluidity of the constitution of a unitary state. On the other hand, the constitution must not be so rigid that it cripples the development of the nation or prevents the nation from living and growing within the framework that had been established. In one aspect the resolution before the house deals with the capacity of Canada to live and grow and adapt itself to the demands of the future, but to do so within the framework that was devised in 1867. This may be looked upon as the internal aspect of the resolution.
The second aspect of the resolution deals with the attributes of Canada as an adult sovereign state among the states of the world. Up to the present time Canada has had the unique, but perhaps not altogether proud or enviable, distinction among the nations of the world of being the only sovereign state without the power to amend its own constitution. It is a distinction for which we are not apt to be envied by other countries, and a distinction which other nations must have regarded for some time either as a denial of our sovereignty or as a mark of an inferiority complex that has prevented us from asserting our capacity to take responsibility for the complete management of our own affairs. What the present resolution seeks is that, in part at least, Canada should assume one of the normal attributes of nationhood which I believe its record, its status and the political capacity of the Canadian people obviously demand.
It will be remembered that other members of the commonwealth have for years had the power and the right to amend their constitutions. The Australian Constitution Act of 1900, in section 128, provides that a majority of both houses, plus a referendum with an over-all majority throughout the commonwealth and in a majority of the states, can bring an amendment into effect. My understanding is that this has proved to be a rigid manner of dealing with amendments which might be required from time to time.
The South Africa Act of 1909 provides, in section 152, a method of amending the South African constitution. The amendment may be made in many cases by a majority of both
houses, with certain sections requiring a joint session of the two houses and a two-thirds majority of those composing the joint session. In New Zealand, a majority of the general assembly may in most cases make amendments to the constitution. That is probably because of the fact that it is a unitary state, and that there are no other jurisdictions susceptible of being impinged upon.
In the original constitution of the Irish Free State, which provided a unitary state in 1922, article 50 dealt with the method of amendment. It required a majority of both houses, plus a majority in a popular referendum. The Indian constitution has not yet been adopted, but we may be confident that when it is, there will be provision made for its amendment from time to time.
I suppose it is not surprising that in the British North America Act no provisions for amendment were made. One reason was assigned in 1929 in the report of the London conference on the operation of dominion legislation and merchant shipping legislation. It was a conference of experts to prepare a draft for what later became the Statute of Westminster. Paragraph 63 of that report is in the following terms:
Canada alone among the dominions has at present no power to amend its constitution act without legislation by the parliament of the United Kingdom. The fact that no specific provision was made for effecting desired amendments wholly by Canadian agencies is easily understood, apart from the special conditions existing in Canada at the time, when it is recalled that the B.N.A. Act, 1867, was the first dominion federal measure and was passed over sixty years ago at an early stage of development.
I do not think it is entirely clear what is meant by the words "special conditions existing in Canada at the time", but the main statement is entirely true. The reason for the omission of an amending clause was that Canada led the parade in achieving dominion status as distinct from the old colonial status, and I think it is fair to assume that the full implications of that change were not appreciated at the time. Canada had had several constitutional statutes before, and none of them contained any provision for amendment. It was quite the normal thing to have anything of that importance dealt with by the parliament at Westminster. There were no provisions for amending the Quebec Act of 1774, the Constitutional Act of 1791, or the Union Act of 1840. I think it is fair to assume that it was thought that the British North America Act, like earlier statutes applicable to Canada, would be amended whenever necessary by the British parliament itself.
Thirty or forty years later, after the Canadian constitutional set-up provided in

British North America Act 1867 had functioned for an autonomous dominion, it was realized that in preparing constitutions for the like dominions of Australia and South Africa there should be some procedure provided for amendment from time to time. The result of that omission in the British North America Act has been that each time an amendment has been desired, Canadians have had to go to the British parliament to have the amendment enacted. It has also meant that there was no definite procedure laid down as to what had to be done in Canada to obtain an amendment by the British parliament, and as a result not only has the procedure varied, but in many instances there have been charges that an improper procedure was being followed, and that some different procedure should have been adopted. Hon. members will recall that since 1867 it has been found desirable to have amendments made to the British North America Act on eleven occasions, and there have been four different forms of procedure adopted in Canada to bring about the amendments.
The first two occasions, in 1871 and 1875, the government of the day sought the amendments without the prior approval of parliament. In 1871 parliament took exception to that procedure. Mr. Blake, a leading member of the opposition at the time, initiated a debate condemning the attitude of the government in taking the responsibility of applying for an amendment without the prior consent of parliament. The government conceded immediately the desirability of consulting parliament, and the House of Commons unanimously adopted a resolution, moved by Mr. Holton, that no change in the provisions of the British North America Act should be sought by the executive government without the previous assent of the parliament of this dominion. A few days after the unanimous adoption of that resolution by the House of Commons, the government brought down a joint address, which was adopted, and which formed the basis upon which the amendment was made by the United Kingdom parliament.
In 1875 an amendment was passed on the basis of the government's request without joint addresses having been adopted by the houses of parliament, but objection was again taken in the House of Commons, and a resolution similar to that of 1871 was introduced. The government recognized the propriety of the principle of the resolution, and after a debate the resolution was withdrawn. Since then no Canadian government has ever ventured to suggest an amendment to the constitution without the formality of addresses by the houses of parliament.
Where joint addresses have been introduced in the houses of parliament, in most

cases it has been without prior consultation and certainly without consent of the provincial legislatures or provincial governments. This was the case in seven of the eleven amendments; that of 1871; the amendment of 1886, concerning the representation of the territories in parliament; that of 1915, respecting the number of senators, and providing that thereafter no province should be entitled to fewer representatives in the Commons than it was entitled to members in the other place; that of 1916, to extend the term of the twelfth parliament for one year; that of 1943, to defer redistribution until the end of the war; that of 1946, to amend and alter the basis of representation in parliament as is now provided by section 51; and the so-called amendment of 1949, to ratify the terms of the entry of Newfoundland into the Canadian federation.
There has been one case in which an amendment was sought after consultation with certain provinces to be affected thereby. It was the amendment of 1930, to restore the natural resources to the control of the prairie provinces. That amendment was sought after consultation with the western provinces, but without consultation with the other provinces. In two cases amendments have been sought after consultation with all the provinces. The first was in 1907, when it was proposed to amend the constitution to alter the basis of provincial subsidies. All the provinces were consulted, and eight of the then nine provinces agreed. British Columbia opposed the proposal, both here and before the parliament at Westminster; but in spite of its opposition the amendment was adopted. In 1940, as hon. members will recall, there was an application to transfer to parliament jurisdiction which under the act had been allocated to the provinces-that is to say, jurisdiction with respect to unemployment insurance. That amendment was sought only after the consent of all provincial governments had been obtained. In some of the provinces the consent was given after consultation with the legislative body. In others it was given by the executive government without consulting the legislative body of the province concerned.
In one other case, steps were taken toward an amendment by means of joint addresses without provincial consultation, but the matter was not proceeded with to the point of obtaining the amendment. In 1920 a proposal was made to give extraterritorial effect to dominion legislation. Joint addresses asking for such an amendment were adopted, but after correspondence with the authorities of the colonial office the matter was not proceeded with. It was finally dealt with by the imperial conference of 1926. The decision

of the imperial conference was implemented by the Statute of Westminster, which gives extraterritorial effect to dominion legislation otherwise intra vires of the power of parliament.
To analyse the twelve cases: in nine cases the provinces were not consulted at all; in one case some provinces were consulted, those to be immediately affected by the amendment proposed; in two cases, all provinces were consulted, in one, eight of the nine agreeing and one disagreeing; in the other, the nine provinces agreeing. The result has been a continuing controversy as to the proper procedure to follow in any particular case; and in at least half the number of occasions on which amendments were sought and obtained, the procedure adopted was criticized. In 1871 and 1875, when the government of Canada asked for amendments without the approval of parliament, parliament criticized. The government admitted the validity of the criticism, and promised that careful note would be taken of it; and such careful note was taken that never since 1875 has any government ventured to resort to that procedure. In 1907 all the provinces were consulted, and British Columbia objected to the amendment because it was not satisfied with the substance of the matter proposed. In 1915 the provinces were not consulted, but Prince Edward Island objected on the ground that its representation in parliament should not be reduced at all. It was not satisfied with the provision that its representation here should never be reduced below its number of senators, but insisted that it should not be reduced at all. It was after litigation arising out of that position that a dictum of the privy council indicated that in order to bring about a reduction there did not have to be, as Prince Edward Island contended, some increase in representation since confederation in the first instance, but that there did have to be a diminution within the ten-year period, that is to say between two decennial censuses, of five per cent in the proportion of the population of the province to the population of the whole dominion, which brought about the situation dealt with by the amendment of 1946.
In 1943 the government of Quebec objected, and contended that before attempting to postpone redistribution the provinces should have been consulted. In 1946 a resolution was moved in this house to the effect that the matter under discussion should not be proceeded with until the provincial governments had been consulted. As hon. members who were here during the last parliament will remember, that point of view was again
17, 1949
British North America Act urged when it was proposed to ask the parliament at Westminster to ratify the legislation providing for the union of Newfoundland and Canada.
It was not clear what consultation meant- whether it meant merely that the matter should be brought to the notice of the provincial governments, or that they should give their consent. Hon. members will recall that there was a resolution calling for consultation, and that when an amendment was moved suggesting that the matter should not be proceeded with unless the consultation resulted in the consent of the provinces, many of those who favoured the theory of consultation voted against the amendment. I thought it might be wise to indicate objectively what the course of events has been, and then to recall that even in the days of Sir John A. Macdonald he had said that Canada is a difficult country to govern. I believe the foregoing indicates that throughout the years it has become, in some respects, even more difficult than it was in the days of Sir John. We have enough problems with which to contend without periodically having this controversy over the proper method to be adopted in Canada to bring about an amendment which is a matter of mere ratification by the parliament at Westminster.
Another consequence of the fact that there is no procedure indicated in the British North America Act for its amendment is that there is no prescribed legal protection in that act for the fundamental provisions of our constitution. I am not worried about that myself. On more than one occasion I have said that the best guarantee of the fundamental provisions of the constitution is to be found in the good sense and fairness of the Canadian people and of those they send to represent them in parliament. In a federal constitution it is usual to provide that some special rigid procedure be followed whenever any question arises as to amending any of the fundamental principles of the federation. It may have been felt that, so long as Canada was in a semi-colonial position, the fact of having to go to Westminster for an amendment provided some form of protection for those fundamental principles.
In the early days of our national life, there was no question as to the right and propriety of the British government interfering to some degree in our Canadian affairs. Canadian statutes could be disallowed, and we had no control over our external relations. Statutes of the parliament of the United Kingdom could be made to apply to Canada. In such conditions I think there could be no doubt that the British government would have felt some moral responsibility, perhaps to the extent of refusing to accede to a

British North America Act request for an amendment which might seem to disturb the fundamentals of our federation without adequate participation in that request by all the parties concerned. A request by the houses of the Canadian parliament without consultation with the provinces might perhaps have been rejected if they felt that it invaded the fundamental aspects of federal-provincial relations.
It cannot be assumed now that any such condition could exist. After the development of complete nationhood by Canada; after years of relations with the government of the United Kingdom on the basis of absolute equality, and after the long establishment of the position that neither country interferes with the affairs of the other, could anyone feel now any assurance that a request for an amendment, supported by the majority of the representatives of the Canadian people in the two houses of the federal parliament, would be rejected by London? As a matter of fact the embarrassment that is felt in that quarter over having to appear to take responsibility arises out of the fact that no one likes taking responsibility for matters over which he exercises no real control.
The United Kingdom authorities, I will not say resent, but do not like the position in which they are placed of having to rubber-stamp decisions for Canadians, made by the representatives of Canadians, and having to do it because no other procedure has been yet devised in Canada for implementing those decisions. I believe we must recognize that either Canada is a sovereign state or she is not. If the former is true, then Canada must act as an adult nation and assume her own responsibilities. If we are not prepared to assume our responsibilities, then we should revert to adolescence and ask others to serve as our guardian.
I do not think Canadians now wish the parliament of the United Kingdom to exercise any responsibility for watching over our conduct of Canadian affairs. It is our own responsibility to see that the fundamentals of the Canadian constitution are protected and preserved. How that should be done is, I think, a matter for discussion between the federal and provincial authorities. It is a matter to be settled in Canada, by Canadians and for Canadians. It should not be left as a burden on the parliament of another nation.
The unsatisfactory condition resulting from the lack of amending procedure in the British North America Act has been generally recognized for years. It has led to repeated consideration in parliament, exchanges with provincial governments, and dominion-provincial conferences. Not going back beyond 1920, one finds that Mr. King, as leader of the opposition, referred in the House of

Commons to the desirability of securing an amending procedure. The matter was debated at that time but no satisfactory procedure was suggested, and it was allowed to drop. In 1924 Mr. Woodsworth moved a resolution in that sense in the House of Commons. In 1925 Mr. W. F. Maclean moved that the parliament of Canada should be empowered to amend tine British North America Act, but not empowered to pass any amendment affecting the rights of minorities.
In 1927, there was a debate on a similar motion, and the late Mr. Lapointe led a discussion on amending procedure. He pointed out that the position was not consistent with Canada's status as a selfgoverning dominion. A proposed procedure was discussed, but no agreement was reached and the matter was dropped. Then there was an exchange of correspondence between the late Mr. Bennett and the then premier of Ontario, Mr. Ferguson, in 1930 which arose out of the proposed Statute of Westminster. In 1931, Mr. Woodsworth again moved:
That, in the opinion of this house, it is desirable that Canada should have the right to amend her own constitution, but that in proceeding to make any amendment, scrupulous care should be taken to safeguard the rights of minorities.
The matter was discussed at that time but allowed to drop after a very interesting discussion which hon. members will find in the report of the debates of the session of 1931.
In 1935 a resolution was passed by the House of Commons in the following terms:
That, in the opinion of this house, a special committee should be set up to study and report on the best method by which the British North America Act may be amended so that while safeguarding the existing rights of racial and religious minorities and legitimate provincial claims to autonomy, the dominion government may be given adequate power to deal effectively with urgent economic problems which are essentially national in scope.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: What date was that?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: January 28, 1935. A committee was set up. It heard witnesses, and on the 19th of June brought in a report making no specific recommendation as to amending procedure, but recommending that a dominion-provincial conference be held to consider the adoption of a recognized yet flexible method of amending the constitution. It further recommended that the minority rights agreed upon and guaranteed by the provisions of the British North America Act should not be interfered with.
The dominion conference was held in 1935, from December 9 to December 13. The conference appointed a subcommittee on constitutional questions to discuss the revision of the British North America Act and to try to reach agreement on future action with respect to social legislation. The subcommittee

submitted a report, and a continuing committee on constitutional questions was set up, which met on January 28, 1936, and constituted a subcommittee which worked on the matter from January 30 until February 11, 1936. This subcommittee prepared a report in which it recommended that in respect of matters concerning the central government only, amendments might be made by passing an act of parliament; that, in respect of matters concerning the central government and one or more but not all the provinces, the amendment might be made by an act of parliament and the assent of the legislative assemblies of each of the provinces affected; that, in respect of a large number of matters concerning the central authority and all the provinces, the amendment might be made by an act of parliament and the assent of the legislative assemblies in two-thirds of the provinces representing at least fifty-five per cent of the population of Canada; but that there be a certain number of "entrenched clauses" which could not be dealt with except by an act of parliament and the assent of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces.
General agreement could not be obtained and the matter was dropped. It received some discussion in 1940 when a proposal to amend the British North America Act was brought forward, and again in 1943, 1946, and 1949, but without any definite results being achieved.
In considering one of these amendments in the British House of Commons Mr. A. P. Herbert was reported as follows:
The necessity for action was clear to everyone. But the view was very general that nothing could be done.
As a matter of fact nothing has been done about that procedure for the eighty-two years which have elapsed since the proclamation of the act on July 1, 1867.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What date was that?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have not the exact reference here. I think it was in the discussion on the terms of union.


John George Diefenbaker: Redistribution.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In a national broadcast on May 19, I ventured to say:
The record of Canadians in two world wars demonstrated beyond any question our ability and our capacity to bear the responsibilities of full nationhood. But our adult nationhood is not yet fully recognized in our constitution and our laws...
A method should be worked out to amend our constitution in Canada.
That won't be easy. We do not want the Canadian constitution to be too rigid, but we do want to make sure it contains the fullest safeguards of provincial rights, of the use of the two official languages, and of those other historic rights which are the sacred trusts of our national partnership.
17, 1949
British North America Act
It is our intention, after the election, to consult the provincial governments with a view to working out a method, which will be satisfactory to all Canadians, of amending the constitution in Canada.
That was before June 27. Since then my colleagues and I have felt that we have a responsibility to accomplish as much as can be accomplished. That is why this resolution is now before this House of Commons. In a previous debate the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) said that it was the accomplishment of an electoral promise. I do not blush for that. It is. Few promises were made, but, as to those which were made, we feel that a serious attempt should be made to implement them to the full.
In suggesting a procedure with regard to amendments, we take it for granted that, in the Canadian federation, constitutional matters fall into three particular classes. There are those matters which are of concern to the provinces alone and not to the federal authorities, such as the constitutions of the provinces themselves in respect of everything that is within their control. Hon. members know that from the very inception the provinces have had the right to deal themselves -each one of them, independently of anybody else-with the amendment from time to time, notwithstanding anything in the act, of the constitution of the provinces except with regard to the office of lieutenant governor. Several provinces have made use of that provision to bring their provincial constitutions more in harmony with what the representatives of those respective provinces felt to be the conditions then prevailing. Likewise there are matters which concern the federal authorities alone and which are of no concern to the provinces. It is with respect to those matters that, upon eight of the eleven occasions on which amendments were enacted by the parliament at Westminster, that parliament had to deal. In 1907 it was a matter of the provincial subsidies, which were of concern to all the provinces. In 1940 the proposed amendment had to do with the transfer of jurisdiction in certain matters from the provincial authorities to the federal authorities. In those two cases the provinces were concerned, and though in one case one of the provinces did not agree, the amendments were made. In 1930 the amendment concerned the western provinces only. In the other cases the amendments were made on the request of the houses of the Canadian parliament, because it was felt that they were matters which dealt with subjects assigned to the jurisdiction of the federal parliament.
There are other classes of matters which are of concern to both the federal and the provincial authorities. This resolution deals

British North America Act only with matters which concern exclusively the federal authorities. It requests that there be inserted in section 91 of the British North America Act a provision similar to that which is in section 92 of that act with respect to provincial constitutions, and that it be declared that this parliament may itself, by its own responsible action, implement the decision it arrives at with respect to amendment. Heretofore the decision has been arrived at here, but the amendment has been officially made by the action of another parliament. All this resolution seeks to do is to have it declared that henceforth amendments of that kind can be made by this parliament instead of being requested by this parliament and made effective by the parliament at Westminster. Great care has been taken to avoid any possibility of infringing upon provincial jurisdiction, upon the rights of provincial legislatures or provincial governments, upon the fundamental principles dealing with schools or with the use of the two official languages of this country. Care has been taken to avoid making any declaration as to where the dividing line might strike matters which are of provincial jurisdiction, those which are of federal jurisdiction, and those which are of joint concern to federal and provincial authorities.
Under the proposal contained in this resolution the parliament of Canada will be in the same position with respect to its constitution as the legislatures have been for the last eighty-two years with respect to their provincial constitutions.
If under the pretext of making an amendment to a provincial constitution a provincial legislature had attempted to impinge upon something which was within federal jurisdiction, the courts of law would have declared its attempt unconstitutional and invalid. Likewise, if after this amendment is adopted any parliament of Canada at any time attempts to do something which a provincial government or, in fact, anybody else, says impinges upon the jurisdiction of the legislature or upon the rights or privileges guaranteed to legislatures or provincial governments, or upon any of the safeguards over school matters or the use of the official languages, the legislation can be challenged before the courts, and the courts can and will decide whether or not it is something within the jurisdiction of this parliament, something which impinges upon the jurisdiction allocated to another body, or upon the rights guaranteed to another body.
It has been felt that that was all we could attempt to do without agreement with the representatives of the ten Canadian provinces, and that we should do at once everything we had the right to do. It was felt that

we should then discuss with the provincial authorities the establishment of a proper procedure, one which would be looked upon as proper and safe by each one of them and by ourselves, to bring to Canada the remaining vestige of legislative jurisdiction by the parliament of another country over the domestic affairs of the Canadian nation.
I invite the close attention of hon. members to the terms of the suggested change in the British North America Act. They would do well to compare it with the terms of class 1 under section 92 of the act. It will be noticed at once that the resolution does not contain, as is contained in class 1 of section 92, the words, "notwithstanding anything in this act". That is because it is unnecessary. Those words are in the first portion of section 91, which reads:
It shall be lawful for the queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms in this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say-
And class 1 thereof will be:
1. The amendment from time to time of the constitution of Canada, except as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces, or as regards rights or privileges by this or any other constitutional act granted or secured to the legislature or the government of a province, or to any class of persons with respect to schools or as regards the use of the English or the French language.
As I staled on a previous occasion, when the speech from the throne had been prepared letters were dispatched to the premiers of the ten Canadian provinces, informing them of the intentions of the government-and I have tabled the replies today-to seek immediately a declaration that parliament can deal here in Canada with all those matters which do not trench upon the jurisdiction of the legislatures, or upon the rights guaranteed to the legislatures, or upon educational rights or the use of the official languages, and would immediately after the session seek a conference with them to determine a proper procedure to make all such amendments as could not be made by a provincial legislature under class 1 of section 92, or by a federal parliament under the new class 1 of section 91, and would seek to have a procedure established which for the future would determine how amendments which, from time to time, may be necessary can be effected.

I confess at once that this method of proceeding does clash with the effect sought to be given by many to the compact theory of confederation. According to them there is not a word, not a comma, in the British North America Act that is not of a contractual nature among at least the four so-called original provinces, and that nothing therein can be changed without obtaining their prior consent, unless one wishes to incur the charge of committing a breach of contract.
I have recited to the house what has been done in the past in that respect. Here we are seeking a declaration whereby only such amendments as deal with matters within the exclusive concern of the federal authorities can be made in the future, as they have been made in the past, without consulting the provinces, but that they can be made here. To that extent, but only to that extent, does this create a new situation. It does not change anything at all, except the venue where the amendments can be made. They have always been decided here, in this parliament, without recognizing the necessity or the obligation of consulting the provinces or getting their consent; and in the future, with this in the act, they will continue to be made without consulting them or getting their consent. But instead of having them decided in one place and registered in another, they will be registered^ and made effective in the place where they are decided; and they will be registered and made effective for the Canadian people by representatives of the Canadian people in a Canadian forum.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition:) Mr. Speaker, first of all may I say that the review by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) of the background of the subject matter now under discussion is most helpful in considering a subject that perhaps is not generally understood and not fully recognized by many people as having the importance it really does have for every Canadian. So far as the record itself is concerned, I think the review given by the Prime Minister can be taken as one which will be agreed upon by hon. members, but a number of the points made by the Prime Minister serve to emphasize the tremendous importance of this subject and the necessity of dealing with it on the basis of a recognition of the fact that this is not merely a question of what power or legislative authority the parliament of Canada possesses; it is also a question of future good will and harmony and understanding between the dominion and the provincial governments which collectively make up our federal system.
I do not believe there is the slightest difference of opinion anywhere in this house 45781-531
British North America Act as to the amendment of the Canadian constitution being made in Canada by Canadians for Canadians in a way that will be best for Canada at all times. That is not a subject that is in issue; it is not a subject to which the thoughts of hon. members should be devoted in the present discussion. We start by agreeing on that basic proposition. I feel sure that there is general agreement-I would imagine unanimous agreement-as to that basic approach to the problem.
I do not think there is any question of national sovereignty involved in this discussion. There has been agreement in this house for many long years that the Canadian constitution should be amended in Canada. But there has been a great deal of discussion and considerable difference of opinion as to the method by which the constitution should be amended in Canada by the parliament of Canada for Canadians.
The Prime Minister has referred to a statement that he made in May. I believe I am correctly quoting the words he used earlier when I say that he said: "A method should be worked out to amend our own constitution." The right hon. gentleman then went on to say'-and in this case I am not attempting to quote his exact words, but I believe I give the effect of them: "It is our intention after the election to consult the provinces as to the method by which amendments to our constitution shall be made."
That was the undertaking; that was the basis upon which this government received a mandate. This government received a mandate to proceed with the question of amendments to the constitution after consulting the provinces, and only after consulting the provinces. Any attempt to deal with amendment of the constitution without first consulting the provinces is in itself a repudiation of the very statement to which the Prime Minister has himself referred.
Even assuming that there could not be the slightest question about the authority of this parliament to deal with amendments to our constitution in any aspect without consulting the provinces, there are the strongest reasons why it is desirable to consult the provinces. To do so is in the interests of future harmony in Canada, in view of the statements which have been made already by some of the provincial premiers on behalf of the governments chosen by the people of those provinces.
May I quote what I think is a clear statement of the position taken by some of the provincial premiers and others who may not be in an official position. A letter was written on October 12 last to the Prime Minister of Canada by the premier of Alberta in response to a letter which the Prime Minister has

British North America Act written to the premiers of all the provinces. I quote the last two paragraphs of a letter written by Mr. E. C. Manning, as follows:
I would like to refer particularly to your observation that it is the intention of parliament at the present session to request an amendment to the British North America Act by the United Kingdom parliament which would vest in the parliament of Canada the authority to amend the constitution of Canada in relation to matters not coming within the jurisdiction of the legislatures of the provinces.
While this may appear to be a matter of concern only to the dominion government, my colleagues and I feel strongly that the amendment proposed concerns the provinces as well in that federal policies initiated under future amendments to the British North America Act, which the dominion parliament might make within its constitutional sphere, could well have far-reaching effects on the economy of the provinces. Furthermore the privy council has held that under the British North America Act all powers have been vested in either the provinces or the dominion. It is difficult, therefore, to see how a situation could arise where any amendment to the British North America Act would affect dominion powers alone without, at the same time, affecting at least to some degree the rights of the provinces. We feel it is extremely important, before any amendment is made to the British North America Act, even in the field of federal jurisdiction, that the whole question of dominion versus provincial jurisdiction be fully discussed at a joint meeting of representatives of the dominion and provincial governments. We strongly urge that this whole matter be held in abeyance pending the conference which you propose to convene at the close of the present session of parliament. It seems to us that this is the only way in which future conflict can be avoided and the unity of Canada, which we all desire, preserved and strengthened.
I believe that the premier of Alberta in those words has put forward one of the clearest and most cogent arguments in favour of withholding any action until the representatives of the dominion and the provincial governments have met so that the whole field may be explored, not only because of any question as to the constitutional authority of the Canadian parliament but so that any future misunderstandings might be avoided by the discussions which would take place in that way.
It is because of the points put forward in the letter of the premier of Alberta, which I have quoted simply because they express what I believe is the general sentiment of many who have given this subject considerable thought, that I believe the government would be well advised to defer action on the resolution, and to have a meeting with the provinces to discuss the whole subject. Then amendments to the constitution could be dealt with as one subject and not piecemeal in the way that it is now proposed.
The suggestion is too often made that there is difficulty in obtaining an effective agreement between the governments of Canada. I think it might be well if it were remem-
TMr. Drew.l
bered how wide the measure of agreement really is that has been reached by all the governments of Canada on many important problems of administration and legislative authority. I could review many of them. I think one of the best examples is the measure of agreement which was reached in regard to the education and rehabilitation of our veterans after the last war. There is an example of the kind of agreement that is being reached constantly between the dominion and provincial governments. The provincial governments handled the whole of the educational and rehabilitation programs under broad plans worked out in consultation with the dominion government. It worked with complete satisfaction not only to the governments but I am sure to practically all of the many thousands of young men and young women who availed themselves of the courses developed in that way.
A wide measure of agreement has already been reached in regard to certain aspects of forest supervision, which have not awaited the measure now before the house. I think the evidence is fairly conclusive that it is possible to reach an agreement as long as a continuing effort is made to do so. The particular matter we are dealing with is something that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has described as one of the most important subjects brought before the house for consideration since confederation. For that reason I think the possibility of agreement should be fully explored in the manner that has been suggested in the letter from which I have quoted.
The Prime Minister has referred to a number of occasions on which this subject has been discussed. The fact that it has been discussed on those occasions is the best evidence that we are not discussing a new subject. It is the best evidence that there has been agreement for years that this parliament should have the power to amend our own constitution within Canada. The fact is that there has been full power to amend the constitution. In many long years there has not been a case where any question has been raised as to representations made with regard to amendments of the British North America Act.
One question which has held back the dealing with this matter entirely by the parliament of Canada has been the failure to find a procedure. That subject was explored very carefully in 1935. I think it is well for us now to remember what took place at that time because the proceedings started under the government headed by Mr. Bennett, and

were carried forward under the government headed by Mr. Mackenzie King. Both those governments, made up of different political parties, were agreed that there should be full power to amend in Canada, and that the one question about which they were concerned was the procedure.
On February 12, 1935, a select committee was appointed to inquire into the possibility of amending our constitution, and four important conclusions were reached by that committee. I should like to refer to them, because I think they indicate what the problem appeared to be at that time, and how the matter was approached. The committee reported as follows:
The committee recognizes that there is a divergence of opinion with respect to the question of whether or not the British North America Act is a statutory recognition of a compact among the four original provinces of the dominion and as to the necessity or otherwise of provincial concurrence in amendments. Without expressing any opinion upon that question, the committee feel that in the present case and at the present time it is advisable in the interest of harmony and unity that there should be consultation with the provinces with respect to the adoption of a definite mode of amendment or the enactment of amending legislation which might seriously alter the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces and the dominion.
The committee further recognized the urgent necessity for prompt consideration of amendments to the British North America Act with reference to a redistribution of legislative power and to clarify the field of taxation. The committee further expressed the opinion that before any decision upon the subject matter is finally made the opinions of the provinces should be obtained, and recommended that a dominion-provincial conference be held to study carefully the adoption of a recognized yet flexible method of amendment. The committee definitely expressed the opinion that minority rights agreed upon and granted under the provisions of the British North America Act should not be interfered with.
These four recommendations apply just as strongly today as they did in 1935. They are recommendations made by men who believed that there should be the power to amend our own constitution in Canada without reference to an authority outside our own country, but they pointed out certain safeguards that they thought should be recognized as the best way to avoid any future misunderstandings which might undermine the effects of what they were seeking to achieve in the best interests of their country.
As a result of that recommendation a conference met in December of 1935. That conference adopted a resolution which was introduced by the then premier of Quebec,
British North America Act Hon. L. A. Taschereau, K.C., who was attending both as premier and as attorney general of his province. This was the resolution he placed before the conference, and which was adopted:
This conference, in the interests of the dominion and of the provinces, is of the opinion:
(a)	That amendments to the British North America Act are now and subsequently may be necessary and imperative.
(b)	That, as in the case of all the other selfgoverning dominions, Canada should have the power to amend the Canadian constitution provided a method of procedure therefor satisfactory to the dominion parliament and the provincial legislatures be devised.
(c)	That the Minister of Justice convene at an early date a meeting of appropriate officials of the dominion and of the provinces to prepare a draft of such method of procedure to be submitted to a subsequent conference.
(d)	That a conference be held at an early date after such draft has been prepared to consider such a method of procedure.
I would point out that this resolution, presented by Mr. Taschereau and approved by the representatives of all the provinces and of the dominion, emphasized that a method for amending the constitution-the whole constitution, not just part of it-should be devised by representatives of the dominion and provincial governments before any steps were taken to amend our basic constitution, which is the British North America Act. After all, that proposition is just as strong today as it was then. The reasons which prompted Mr. Taschereau to introduce that motion and which prompted the representatives of all the governments to approve it are reasons which I suggest to hon. members make it desirable that this motion should not be proceeded with until after the conference, which is to take place after the termination of this session, in regard to limited aspects of the constitutional problem.
It does not seem to me that a single argument has been placed before this house to indicate why this matter cannot very well stand over until that time. What is the urgency? There is no suggestion that we must assert our sovereignty, or declare that we are no longer under any limitations. We have asserted that; we have demonstrated that, and we all believe it. There is no situation now confronting this country which makes necessary or advisable such an assertion of our position to the outside world. We have full power to amend now; and we are concerned with the future of Canada, not with what any people outside Canada may think of the form of procedure. Having regard to the best interests of Canada, then, we should follow the course most likely to avoid any misunderstanding or dangerous conflict of opinion in the future. In view

British North America Act of the statements already made by some of the provincial premiers with respect to the misunderstandings that may follow this piecemeal approach to the amendment of our constitution, I believe a very dangerous step will have been taken if this resolution passes and the provincial representatives are called together only after this has become a fait accompli, after this positive and definite step has been taken. Then they will be told, "Well, now we are prepared to discuss with you what remains".
That is not the way to deal with this question. It is one constitution; but in effect this resolution would tear that constitution in two. Much has been said about asserting our complete independence of any outside jurisdiction. Well, let us assert it; but we are not doing so by this procedure. This resolution merely provides for amendments within a partial field, leaving the remainder of the constitution in such a position that until the discussions with the provinces have taken place we must still go to the same authorities. If that is the important consideration-and it is suggested that it is-then surely it is best to wait until the whole problem has been examined and then deal with it once and for all, ending the necessity of reference to any outside authority in the whole field, not just in part. Unfortunately in the face of statements already made by some of the provincial premiers the possibility of reaching agreement in the remainder of the constitutional field may not be as good as it would be if the recommendation to which I have just referred were followed and the whole matter allowed to stand until the representatives of the dominion and provincial governments could come together, discuss the whole subject and seek to find a procedure satisfactory to all.
Again reference has been made to the fact that there is a difference of opinion between those who believe in the compact theory and those who hold that this is a statute. Of course the British North America Act is a statute. That argument has been worked to the limit, and really has no validity. The British North America Act is a statute; but it is a statute which interpreted in statutory form the agreements, the compact, call them what you will, reached in Quebec by the representatives of the governments who joined to make Canada one nation. Certainly, there was a compact and there was an overall agreement. Is it possible for any hon. member of this house to conscientiously assert that this country would have become one nation unless those who made and presented their resolutions at Quebec, prior to the presentation of the opinion of that conference to Westminster, had believed that this was

a binding agreement as to certain basic principles which would be strictly observed in the future?
One might argue about the dictionary definition of the word "compact", but surely that is a compact in the ordinary understanding. We do not need to argue that further. Here is a statute which interprets the basic understanding in the minds of those who said, "It is upon this basis we are prepared to join in forming one nation in Canada." It seems that it would be highly desirable, in any way possible, to avoid any arguments that could be made that this parliament is disregarding those common understandings reached at that time. Even if hon. members of this house do not think the arguments put forward in support of the compact theory are right, even if they do not think the theory is based upon a sound interpretation of our constitutional position, it would be much better to avoid any possibility of a misunderstanding. It should be recognized that there are those who sincerely believe in the compact theory, and whose views can only be dealt with in a way that will avoid future misunderstanding if this meeting takes place before any amendment to the constitution is undertaken.
The Prime Minister has pointed out that the difficulties that have arisen in the past have been with regard to procedure. Certainly, all the difficulties have been in regard to procedure, and it is for that reason the proposed course should not be followed. The course proposed by this resolution does not provide any procedure whatever, but is worded as though there were only two fields of legislative and administrative responsibility. There are, in fact, three, as the Prime Minister pointed out. He has pointed out that there are, first of all, those things which are beyond question within the jurisdiction of the dominion government. There are those that are unquestionably within the jurisdiction of the legislatures of the provinces. Then, there are those matters in which there is a common concern and a common responsibility shared by the dominion and provincial governments.
There is something more, however. For years there has been a repeated emphasis upon the need for a review of the responsibilities of the dominion parliament and the provincial legislatures, as well as the division of taxing power, which would give to the governments responsible an independent discretion to deal with the powers that are actually conferred upon them. To an extent that is often not fully appreciated, a provincial government may have full legislative power as well as full administrative responsibility, yet if its taxing powers are limited

those responsibilities cannot be carried out because the government has not the necessary revenues to do what should be done on behalf of the people.
The main consideration prompting the appointment of a royal commission, which was presided over first by Mr. Justice Rowell and later by Mr. Sirois, was the division of that responsibility. The report of that commission was directed to the need for a definition of responsibility and a definition of the taxing powers of the governments concerned. Under such an amendment as is now proposed, the dominion government might make amendments in the field of taxation which it would be contended were entirely within their jurisdiction. From the practical point of view, such an amendment might make it impossible for the provinces to carry out some of their responsibilities, no matter how little doubt there might be that those were exclusively within provincial jurisdiction.
In the resolution before the house, reference is made to education. Perhaps there is no single matter of greater concern to every province in Canada than education. It is the basis upon which the future of our country is built. It will be of little use to the provinces to retain full control over education unless they have the revenues to do the things they feel should be done in the interests of the people of the provinces. If the dominion government exercises the taxing powers to the extent that the provinces are unable to raise their revenues for this purpose, then indirectly the dominion government becomes the overriding power which is in a position to say, not only that this is the amount of money a province will receive, but this is the manner in which the money shall be used. There is not an hon. member in this house who does not know quite well that there is a general tendency for people to say, if money is being provided by one treasury for another, then the treasury providing the money should have some say as to how that is to be spent.
Consequently, by the process of amendments relating to taxation, fields of exclusively provincial jurisdiction may be effectively invaded, and invaded in a very dangerous manner, even though that might not be the intention of any member of this government. As this government looks around and sees the large numbers of its supporters in this house and feels the confidence inspired by that representation, it would be well for them to realize that there will be many other governments in the years ahead. It should be the purpose of the parliament of Canada to make certain that the course which is followed is not one which opens up dangers in
17, 1949
British North America Act the future, no matter how confident any government of the day may be that it would not abuse those powers. Of course, the extent to which a government might not abuse those powers is a subject upon which there might be a divergence of views.
The fact remains, however, that this is something which will affect the whole future of Canada. Great caution should be exercised to see that the door is not opened to a procedure which would centralize in Ottawa effective control of matters that were intended to be under provincial jurisdiction, through the indirect method of gaining control of the purse strings of the provincial governments, which is a very real and immediate possibility unless a conference meets soon to deal with the particular problems of taxation and allocation of responsibilities.
I need not remind any hon. member jf this house that the present agreements under which a number of provinces receive payments are not agreements that resulted from conferences. They are agreements that resulted from the acceptance by those provinces of terms stated here in this House of Commons. Long before those agreements terminate it is essential that the whole problem of taxation be considered, as well as that of responsibility and jurisdiction. The time to do that is while this matter is up for consideration so that we deal not only with the constitutional matters but with the incidence of the constitutional problems which measure the practical ability of the governments to carry out what the constitution says they must do.
This present motion assumes the possibility of clearly defining that dividing. I recall that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said that, if there was any doubt about that, the courts could decide. But in many cases that may be an imaginary relief; because if the dominion government goes ahead and places before parliament amendments which would concentrate the taxing power and would remove from the provinces that measure of independent taxing authority which is an incident of their ability really to govern, they might be placed in the position in which they would be forced to accept agreements, as some provinces were, simply and only because, according to the statements of the premiers of those provinces, they did not feel they could help doing so because of the financial point of view.
By all means let us have a flexible constitution adjusted to the needs of this adult, growing nation. By all means let us have a constitution that is up-to-date in every respect. But we do not achieve that result by this piecemeal procedure or by tearing
840	HOUSE OF
British North America Act the constitution in two and saying: Let us take the power to amend in regard to this part; then having done that, let us meet the provinces to see how we can deal with the rest. We shall achieve the result which the Prime Minister has said to be the purpose of this resolution only by covering the whole field at one time.
The Prime Minister accurately and fully has reviewed the difficulties which have arisen in the past. He has referred to the fact that charges have been made that improper procedure had been followed. There is not an hon. member of this house who has been reading the press or who has read the letters that have been sent in who will not be aware that there is every possibility of further charges of improper procedure being made if this course is continued; because that is the clear indication disclosed by those letters and statements that have already been made. As the Prime Minister himself has said, the result of the absence of an understood and clearly-defined procedure has led to controversy as to methods. Nothing that is now before the house meets that situation in any way. Yet that is a situation which we should all try to meet.
Referring to the discussion earlier this year with regard to the Newfoundland agreements and the statutes, the Prime Minister said that it was not clear whether consultation means consent. After all, this is a subject on which men of good will and good judgment can best determine how they can proceed when they meet together and discuss this problem. Until they do so, no one in this house is in a position to say what measure of agreement can be reached or what procedure might be suggested.
The fact is that the conference that met in January, 1936, went a long way toward reaching unanimity as to procedure. The fact that agreement was not reached is no evidence that agreement cannot be reached, because this matter was not brought forward in a purely constitutional conference. It was again brought up in a conference in 1940 when a number of other subjects were under consideration and when the conference did not deal first with this one but with others upon which great difficulty was experienced in reaching agreement. So it has been in other cases. This matter is sufficiently important that a conference should be called for the sole purpose of dealing with it, of reaching agreement, and of reaching agreement with regard to the whole field.
There is one other point that has been mentioned on other occasions as well as today. The Prime Minister pointed out that ever since 1867 the provinces have had the power to amend their constitution, and that


what is now proposed is only giving to the parliament of Canada the right of amending, a right which the provincial legislatures have possessed for more than eighty years. But there is a vast difference in the situation. The provincial legislatures carry on their duties within the definite limitations of section 92 and other limiting sections of the British North America Act. Their power to amend their constitution is strictly limited in that way, and in effect deals only with procedural matters and details of that kind. But under the British North America Act, in addition to the specific authority that was conferred upon the parliament of Canada, all the residuary powers which had not been dealt with by the act were conferred upon that parliament. Therefore this amendment covers the whole broad field, including its effect upon provincial responsibilities and administration as well as upon the dominion field.
May I once again quote the words of the premier of Alberta in the closing part of his letter, because I believe they put in simple form something that should be in our minds now.
We strongly urge that this whole matter be held in abeyance pending the conference which you propose to convene at the close of the present session of parliament. It seems to us that this is the only way in which future conflict can be avoided and the unity of Canada, which we all desire, preserved and strengthened.
Assuming for the sake of argument that every hon. member in the house is in complete agreement with the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), I still believe that this matter should stand, in view of the fact that the wholehearted concurrence and co-operation of every provincial government and every provincial legislature is so essential to the strengthening of our domestic structure within Canada, during one of the most critical periods in our national history.
No country in the world offers to its people greater opportunities than this country offers to every Canadian today. But the full realization of our vast opportunities to a very great degree depends, in this vast country of ours, upon effective and real co-operation between the dominion and provincial governments, and the parliament of Canada and provincial legislative bodies, no matter of what political persuasion those governments may be.
We are here dealing with the future of Canada, which depends upon that kind of good will and understanding. In view of the statements which have been made, I urge every hon. member to think of the unnecessary disputes which may result if the course now proposed is actually followed, no matter hoiy right the Prime Minister may think he is in the arguments he has put forward, nor

how right hon. members supporting him may believe he is in the statements he has made.
The question of co-operation is a real, practical and fundamental principle, one which is vital to the fulfilment of the very purpose the Prime Minister has stated to be in his mind and the minds of his colleagues in offering this resolution. It is for that reason that I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That the said proposed resolution be amended by striking out all the words after the first word "that" and substituting therefor the following:
"That His Excellency the Governor General in Council be requested to convoke as soon as may be possible a constitutional convention of representatives of the dominion and provincial governments to devise a method of amending within Canada the constitution of Canada, and of safeguarding minority rights; so that such method may become the subject later of an humble address, when adopted, to His Majesty the King praying an amendment of the British North America Act, 1867, accordingly."


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in common with all hon. members I realize that this is a most important debate, and that we are discussing this afternoon an important resolution.
First of all however may I offer the suggestion to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that in view of the importance of the subject, and of the correspondence with the provincial premiers, it might be well if the letters tabled this afternoon were printed as an appendix to today's Hansard. I make this suggestion because, in following a debate of this description, references are made to communications. Unless those communications are printed in Hansard, many of the people who receive Hansard could not follow the discussions.
May I ask the Prime Minister if he would agree to my suggestion?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If there is no objection from any hon. member I should be glad to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and ask Mr. Speaker to instruct the editor of Hansard to print the letters as an appendix.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the suggestion meet with the unanimous approval of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Major James William Coldwell: The two speeches to which we have listened this afternoon have been of a very high order, one which I suggest does credit both to the subject under discussion and to the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has placed on record an historical review of our constitution, both prior to the adoption of the British North America Act, and the events which occurred subsequently. His plea is that we shall take unto ourselves in this parliament the right which 45781-54
British North America Act parliament should possess to deal with matters specifically assigned to this legislative body, and to safeguard the rights of minorities as set forth in the British North America Act. With that position we of the C.C.F. are in agreement.
I am not going to discuss the amendment, because the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) did not develop the idea which he suggests in his amendment. He did not tell us how the constituent assembly implicit in the amendment would be established, or what procedure would be followed in implementing the amendment. If for no other reason, we could not vote for it.
However, for another reason I shall not discuss it. I believe that under the rules of the house Mr. Speaker, after taking it into consideration, may consider whether or not it is in order.
We have heard a great deal this afternoon about the early days of our confederation. Not as a lawyer but rather as a student of Canadian history let me say that I have always been struck with the manner in which the fathers of confederation immediately after 1867 viewed the British North America Act. This afternoon the Prime Minister drew to the attention of the house the fact that in 1871 the government of the day, which consisted of the fathers of confederation, actually took upon itself the responsibility of requesting the parliament at Westminster to amend the British North America Act, without any reference to the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada, or any reference to the provincial legislatures.
That action was criticized on the floor of parliament. In 1875 something similar was done. When we look through the records following confederation I think it is perfectly clear-I am not dealing with subsequent interpretations of the law; I am leaving that out altogether-that obviously the fathers of confederation did not hold the view that has been expressed this afternoon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and which is sometimes expressed by some other people, that in order to amend the British North America Act the provinces must be consulted. That is what is known as the compact theory.
The leader of the opposition remarked that the provincial legislatures may amend their own constitutions. Indeed they may amend their own constitutions in every particular except that touching the appointment of the lieutenant governor. If it is argued that the provinces should be consulted if we propose to amend the constitution of Canada in matters assigned specifically to the parliament of Canada because what we propose to do may affect the welfare, the

British North America Act rights and the economies of the provinces, it seems to me that by the same token it might be argued that this parliament should have the right to be consulted if any amendment is to be made to the provincial powers or, if we care to call them that, to the provincial constitutions. However, no one argues that opinion because obviously it would be untenable. I think that we have in this parliament the right to deal with all matters assigned to us and hence should also have the right to amend the constitution in relation to them.
There was some validity to the argument of the leader of the opposition that it is unfortunate that this is being done in a piecemeal manner. I do not know the minds of members of the government in this particular, but I presume something like this is in their minds: In the past the dominion-provincial conferences dealing with dominion-provincial relations have been abortive and consequently, when this parliament takes to itself the right to amend the constitution in connection with those particulars that affect only the rights of this parliament, it is an indication to the provinces that this parliament is determined to do everything in its power to bring about a satisfactory method of amending the constitution generally. That is what I think.
In that connection the leader of the opposition spoke of the powers of taxation and expressed the fear that we might infringe upon certain rights of the provinces in regard to taxation. I am sure that this parliament has no desire of infringing upon the rights of the provinces in that field. Let me point out that under section 91, subsection 3, of the British North America Act this parliament is empowered to raise money for the country by any method it decides to use. Consequently it seems to me that the argument of the leader of the opposition in that particular falls to the ground.
However, in taking the right to amend our own constitution there are some fears that we might legitimately have in our minds. I am not going to deal with all of them, but let me say that when we have the right to amend our own constitution in the particulars involved in this resolution there will be nothing to prevent this parliament from perpetuating itself beyond five years. This parliament could amend the sections of the appropriate acts to prolong the life of parliament to seven years, to ten years or beyond.
I think we should safeguard ourselves somehow in that particular.
I say that, because the legislatures have done exactly that. A few years ago the legislature of the province of Ontario extended its life by one year, with the consent of all
[Mr. Coldwell.)
the parties in the legislature. Then it proceeded to extend its life another year. I fancy the present leader of the opposition was the leader of the opposition in the Ontario legislature at that time, and if my recollection is correct the second extension of one year was not agreed to by the opposition parties. A Liberal government of Saskatchewan, against the bitter criticism of the opposition, took unto itself in 1943 the right to extend the life of the legislature for one year beyond the five years' limitation.
I think the real power of the people is in their right to elect their parliaments and legislatures, in their right to statutory periodic elections. It seems to me that in dealing with this matter, and it should be thought of, we should see to it that when we amend our constitution we do not jeopardize a right of this description. We should safeguard ourselves in connection with important matters of that sort.
We should see to it that we provide for measures of parliamentary reform. As hon. members know, we believe that the time has come when the condition of the other place warrants its abolition, but in any event we should see to it that Canada has the right to amend it under the proper conditions and in important particulars.
The main point I want to make this afternoon-the other points in connection with this matter have been well made by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not propose to reiterate what they have said-is that I do not think under the circumstances, and in view of what has happened in recent years in dominion-provincial negotiations, that we should heed the plea for further delay. The idea has grown up in this country over a number of years, due in part to decisions of the privy council, that we should accept the view that the provinces must be consulted when we propose merely to take to ourselves the right to amend our constitution only in so far as it affects the affairs of this parliament itself. We do not accept this opinion.
If we look at the history of this country since confederation we find, for example, that we are told that at the Quebec conference agreements in the nature of a treaty were reached. My recollection is that there were seventy-two resolutions passed to guide the fathers of confederation when they went to London, but when they got to London they did not implement them. As a matter of fact, there was much discussion and finally compromises were reached. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said that there were four provinces at Quebec which gave approval to the resolutions requesting the

British North America Act
British North America Act, but there were only three. There were Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, although at the Quebec conference Canada was more or less divided into two parts, upper and lower Canada.
Let us not forget that before the British North America Act was passed Joseph Howe went to Great Britain with, I believe, one or two colleagues to make a protest to the imperial parliament, but without avail. I understand only two of the thirty-eight members elected to the Nova Scotia house after the British North America Act was passed favoured confederation. After that election Joseph Howe headed a delegation to London to protest and to ask the imperial parliament to set up a royal commission to review the whole matter of the entry of Nova Scotia into confederation. We all know what happened. The request was not granted.
I mention that because it indicates that there was no compact, no agreement. As we have seen, one of the provinces that came into confederation at the beginning bitterly opposed it subsequently and sent its ablest spokesman to London in an attempt to upset the British North America Act.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: He afterwards supported it.


Major James William Coldwell: He afterwards joined the government and supported it when he found that all protests were ineffective. I suppose as a good patriotic Canadian he decided that the best thing to do was to try to make the best of what he considered a bad job and help to make it a success. In any event he had failed to upset it. I think a very good summary of what actually happened can be found in volume II of a series of papers written some years ago and circulated widely across Canada. They were known as the Kingdom and Independence Papers. I used to get them from the very beginning. They were the work of the late John S. Ewart, K.C., of Ottawa, a man who, in the years prior to his death, which occurred in the early thirties, did a great deal to popularize the idea that Canada had become an adult nation and should take unto herself the attributes of sovereignty and nationhood, including Canadian citizenship, the abolition of appeals to the privy council, and the right to amend our Canadian constitution.
In the concluding paragraph of paper No. 5 in volume II this description of the British North America Act can be found:
A statute arranged not in Canada but in England, by delegates from Canada who although bound by the Quebec resolutions departed widely from them: by delegates from Nova Scotia who were known not to represent Nova Scotia's wishes and the proceedings purposely kept secret from the people
45781-54i
who might, by "reverberation" of it, be "stirred to its depths" in opposition, can hardly be regarded as a contract.
In support of the last statement, "kept secret from the people who might, by 'reverberation' of it, be 'stirred to its depths' in opposition", he quotes at some length a letter written to Mr. Leonard Tilley, one of the fathers of confederation, by Sir John A. Macdonald just before he left for London on the 8th of October, 1866. In his letter Sir John A. Macdonald says that great secrecy must be kept regarding the proposals and that in view of the forthcoming New Brunswick elections the least said about the proposals the better. That is the meaning of the reference of Mr. Ewart.
It seems to me it is in the best interests of parliament and of Canada that the resolution should be adopted by the house at the conclusion of the debate, and that we should not let the matter drag along interminably. I believe the people of Canada understand the situation very well. I think there was and is a good deal of resentment across Canada that the dominion-provincial conferences were not a success in other respects. As a matter of fact, I think that hon. members opposite to some extent owe some of the support they received in the election on June 27 to the fact that many people of Canada felt that way about it. Whether or not that be so, I think the time has come when wc should support a resolution of this description.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) asked why we should adopt the measure right now, and whether it mattered what people outside the country might think about it. I think it matters a good deal because anyone who has attended an international conference, and perhaps has represented Canada at one or more of those conferences, or has represented Canada unofficially at some of the unofficial conferences, as I have had the privilege of doing from time to time over the last ten or twelve years, will know that again and again a Canadian is questioned in this regard. People say to him, "You say that you are an independent sovereign nation, but what is your final court of appeal?" Then the Canadian representative says, "It is the privy council in London". Then he is asked, "What is your constitution? Have you the right to amend it?" The answer is made that we have not. We also know perfectly well that in the early years of the United Nations, as in the league of nations before that, there were nations which were inclined to question Canada's right to act as an independent nation because they would constantly say that we were merely a colony of Great Britain, and that we had to do what the foreign office of the

British North America Act United Kingdom said we had to do. The evidence they brought was our constitutional immaturity.
I think from the point of view of our external relations, from the point of view of the manner in which we appear in the eyes of the world outside our own borders, the time has come when, in so far as this house can do it, we should take the right to amend our constitution. I also think that we cannot leave the matter there. I do not think the government should allow the final amendment of our constitution in all particulars by Canadian legislatures-and I use the plural- to drag along indefinitely.
I believe every attempt should be made to tidy up the matter within the next year or so, to get a provincial conference together, and to finish the job in a proper and decent manner. I know there are tremendous difficulties in the way, but sooner or later not only the governments but perhaps-and this may be what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has in mind; I do not know-the parliament and the legislatures of the country may have to form themselves into a constituent assembly, where all parties would be represented and come to a conclusion. I do not think it would be wise to have a constitution drafted which would be predominantly a constitution of the Liberal party, or of the Conservative party, or of any other party. I believe the constitution of Canada should be one which will represent the consensus of Canadians as such, aside from their party differences and affiliations.
Mr. Speaker, we support the resolution.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: At the
outset, Mr. Speaker, I should like to record the views of the Social Credit group on this very important question of constitutional amendment. We have not spent a great deal of time trying to decide whether the British North America Act is a pact or simply a statute of the parliament at Westminster. Whatever it may be declared finally, the fact remains that sections 91 and 92 set out a division of powers as between the dominion and provincial governments which since 1867 has served to guide those governments in the things they have attempted to do. With respect to a federal constitution, we believe the broad principles upon which the legislative powers were distributed between the dominion and the provinces under the British North America Act were generally sound. Jurisdiction over those matters of national concern was reserved exclusively to the dominion, while jurisdiction over matters with respect to which decentralized autonomy was considered desirable was reserved exclusively to the provinces. However, over the
[Mr. ColdweU.l
years many difficulties have arisen between the dominion and the provinces. I should like to cite just two or three of the main reasons for this, as I see them; and I do this because they involve some of the views we hold toward the proposal of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as it is contained in the resolution now before us.
In the first place, the British North America Act is a rigid coftstitution circumscribed by a statute of the parliament of the United Kingdom. Under it the distribution of legislative powers was laid down in the light of conditions existing at the time, that is, in 1867. Conditions have changed since then in a good many respects. I feel sure, as must most hon. members of this house, that the fathers of confederation could not possibly have foreseen the changes that have taken place, nor could they have foreseen the many problems that have arisen between the senior and the provincial governments as a result of changed conditions. But the fact remains that some of our present constitutional difficulties have arisen simply because times and conditions have changed. This in itself indicates that occasions requiring amendments are bound to arise; but we believe there is little that cannot now be done in the interests of the Canadian people, under the British North America Act as it stands, through earnest co-operation between dominion and provincial authorities. In those few cases where desirable and progressive things are actually being retarded because of the super-rigidity of the constitution, we think it desirable that amendments be sought; and we are quite in agreement that those amendments should be sought in Canada, through this parliament.
The second important cause of problems that have arisen is the fact that difficulties in fields of jurisdiction and responsibility as between the dominion and provincial government are not altogether due to the allocation of specific powers under sections 91 and 92. Very often they arise from interpretations; and the interpretations that have been placed upon the distribution of powers over the years have involved a good many classes of subjects. Considerable confusion has arisen because at different times in the past dominion governments have invaded various fields of provincial jurisdiction, or fields the provinces had come to believe were theirs exclusively, of course much of it under the pressure and exigencies of war. We believe this whole situation must be clarified permanently as soon as possible.
The first step in that direction, in our judgment, need not be the amendment of the constitution but rather the negotiation of a clear and definite understanding as to

respective fields of jurisdiction and responsibility as between the dominion and provincial governments. If as a result of dominion-provincial negotiations it is established that amendments to the constitution are necessary and obviously in the interests of our people as a whole; and if it becomes necessary to allocate responsibility for and jurisdiction over such matters as have become of national interest and importance since 1867, such as radio and things of that sort, then of course we believe such amendments ought to be sought. And let me repeat that we believe those amendments should be sought within Canada, in this parliament.
A third cause of difficulty between provincial and senior governments lies in the failure, particularly here at Ottawa, the capital of Canada, to realize that authority carries with it corresponding responsibility. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, there has been too much inclination here at Ottawa to place responsibility under the constitution upon provincial governments without careful consideration of the means by which those authorities and responsibilities may be carried out. With respect to this cause of trouble between governments, and by way of illustration, let me quote a short portion of the preliminary statement by the premier of Alberta at the opening of the dominion-provincial conference on August 6, 1945. At that time Mr. Manning said:
In actual fact, while with respect to certain matters the dominion government has been given constitutional authority, the provincial governments are constitutionally responsible for the consequences of the federal government's actions. With respect to other matters for which the provinces must assume full constitutional responsibility, they are denied the means-that is the effective constitutional authority-necessary to enable them to discharge those responsibilities. Section 92 of the British North America Act gives the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights, but experience has shown that the provinces' authority in this field is largely nullified by the fact that the dominion government has exclusive jurisdiction in matters affecting interest and bankruptcy laws. This was brought out forcibly during the pre-war depression years, when under the stress of economic conditions many western Canadian farmers were unable to meet their debt obligations resulting in wholesale foreclosures at depressed land values by lending corporations. It was within the provinces' sphere of jurisdiction to safeguard the property rights of the victims of those conditions, but provincial governments frequently found themselves frustrated in taking effective action due to the fact that the dominion possessed exclusive jurisdiction over matters affecting interest and bankruptcy.
This quotation illustrates the fact that there are overlapping authorities and confused fields of jurisdiction. Furthermore, it illustrates that, in at least this one instance which I have cited, the responsibility is placed on the province but it is denied the wherewithal to make good that responsibility.
British North America Act
Now, a good many examples could be quoted to illustrate this same confusion about the allocation of authority and responsibility within the dominion. Mr. Manning cited another example which I believe should be put on the record because it is important to this whole discussion. He said:
Of particular importance is the fact that the dominion government enjoys exclusive jurisdiction over banks, banking and the issue of money, together with the regulation of trade and commerce. This gives the parliament of Canada complete jurisdiction over national monetary and economic policy, but it is the provinces that are constitutionally responsible to provide the necessary relief and other social services required by those who find themselves unemployed and destitute as a result of a restrictive monetary policy imposed or permitted by the dominion government. In short, experience has demonstrated that the provinces frequently must assume responsibilities involving substantial expenditures as a result of the consequences of national policies over which the dominion government has exclusive jurisdiction, while at the same time experience has made it equally clear that the constitutional responsibilities of the provinces frequently cannot be carried out effectively due to the fact that provincial authority in certain fields is nullified by the dominion's exclusive or equal rights in fields which infringe upon provincial autonomy. This situation is particularly acute in regard to matters involving financial policy and its effects upon the economy of the country as a whole.
The important question, sir, which faces us, in the light of these facts, is this: How can the Prime Minister and his government contend that they can safely proceed with the piecemeal alteration of the constitution? How is he going to know which is, in fact, a federal and which a provincial authority or responsibility? That is a question which has to be answered, and it is one about which there is grave concern across this whole country. In the first place, we are opposed to the piecemeal method of changing ox-altering our constitution. We hold, Mr. Speaker, that any worthy move to clarify the constitutional position of the federal and provincial governments must be a part of a much broader effort that will embrace the entire field of constitutional authority.
All of these things emphasize our contention that this resolution should not be passed by this house now. There are two main reasons why this group has adopted that position and I should like to refer to them briefly. I am puzzled, Mr. Speaker, about the resolution as a result of a Canadian Press dispatch which was dated Montreal, October 14. It appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of that date under the large headline:
Will meet provinces when session ends. To discuss amendment of B.N.A. Act.
The dispatch states that the Prime Minister said on October 13, at a meeting in Montreal, that a dominion-provincial conference will be called at the end of the present session

British North America Act to ask agreement on a satisfactory procedure for amending the Canadian constitution in Canada.
If this dispatch is correct, sir, the Prime Minister said, while speaking to the main conference and banquet of the Young Liberals Association:
If we can reach a satisfactory agreement, we will then ask the United Kingdom parliament to amend the British North America Act of 1867 ... to give to federal authorities the same power to amend the constitution of Canada which the provincial authorities already enjoy to amend the constitutions of the provinces.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. member will permit, I should like to say at once that that dispatch is incorrect. If the hon. member reads the editorial in the Citizen, he will note that the editor of that paper realized from the tone of the dispatch that it could not be correct.


Solon Earl Low: I am glad to have the Prime Minister's statement at this point because, Mr. Speaker, there were grave questions in my mind, and the minds of many other Canadians, about his good faith. I do not like to doubt him. I think the Prime Minister should be above that at all times. I am glad he did make that assertion to correct the impression that had gone abroad.
The fact remains, sir, that whatever was said, the last part of his statement is repeated in the letter to the premier of Quebec, namely, that the proposed amendment will- -give to the federal authorities the same power to amend the constitution of Canada which the provincial authorities already enjoy to amend the constitutions of the provinces.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to pass this resolution would not put the dominion on an even footing with the provinces at all. It has not escaped the Prime Minister's thinking, I am sure, nor the thinking of any hon. member, that the powers of the provincial legislatures, even in the matter of amending their own constitution, are seriously circumscribed by the overriding authority of the dominion government to disallow any provincial legislation. That is a handicap from which the federal government does not suffer. I say to you, sir, that the Prime Minister's argument is invalid.
In moving the adoption of the resolution today, the Prime Minister indicated that he did not intend to await the outcome of the dominion-provincial conference which has been announced. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that is a poor way of starting to gain and hold the confidence of the provinces of Canada in the good faith of the federal government. Surely, the Prime Minister must realize that, when it comes to the very serious and
important matter of changing the fundamental law of the federation of provinces, he must seek and get the full co-operation, good will and confidence of all the governments and people of Cananda. Without those, no satisfactory procedure could possibly be worked out as he has suggested for the amendment of the constitution, even in matters that do not affect the exclusive powers of the federal government. If there is not that confidence and good will, it could not be worked out from now until doomsday. I am quite sure all of us are aware of that.
Good will must be exhibited on all sides, but it takes an effort to get it and to hold it. If the provinces and the people do not have confidence in the justice and fairness of the federal government, I do not know what good a dominion-provincial conference could do.
Under those circumstances why did the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) not have the dominion-provincial conference first, and then at the next session of parliament bring this resolution before the House of Commons? Surely a matter of a few months is not going to make any appreciable difference. There is not that much rush. If there is, why have we not been told why? I am convinced there is nothing that is rushing. Could the explanation of this particular question that I have asked be found in that article that Mr. Sandwell sent around to all of us, which was published in Toronto Saturday Night of September 27 last, and in which he said:
The announcement of the government's policy has achieved already one of its main purposes, which was unquestionably that of clearing up the confusion left in the public mind, especially in Quebec, by the Prime Minister's declaration that parliament has the power to abolish the French language if it decided to do so. The country has now been assured, if it needed the assurance, that parliament has no intention of abolishing the French language and is perfectly willing to turn over that power to some authority more carefully constituted for the purpose.
I say that may be the explanation, although I do not know. But if it is, then the purpose has already been served, and the minds of the people have already been set at rest on that point, and we need not proceed to pass the resolution.
There is another cause for some bewilderment over the way in which the government is proceeding in this whole matter. Only a few days ago this house passed legislation authorizing the government to set up the Supreme Court of Canada as the final and conclusive court of appeal in all cases, constitutional and otherwise, coming from the Canadian courts. It will take months if not years of most painstaking work to organize our supreme court and to establish it on a basis that will make it possible for it to deal

effectively with constitutional matters especially; I am not now referring to civil and criminal appeals.
I am sure that it has not escaped the Prime Minister's thinking that there is a most important psychological consideration involved if the Supreme Court of Canada is to achieve and to hold the confidence of Canadian citizens in its ability to deal objectively and justly with constitutional references. That, to my mind, is a most important consideration. Let us not forget that the supreme court will be a creature of the dominion government, that its members will be appointed by the governor general in council, and that the powers and duties of this court can be increased or decreased by a simple majority vote of this house at any time that the government sees fit to bring in proposals for doing so. It is our belief that the resolution should not be passed until the Supreme Court of Canada has had time and opportunity to establish itself in the confidence of the people of this country.
I have only a word or two further to say, Mr. Speaker, and then I shall close. Other questions that are in our minds at this moment are these:	Why is the government
seeking this power? Are there important things that are essential to be done in the interests of the Canadian people and that cannot be done without amending the British North America Act? If so, let us have a statement of them. What are they? We are, of course, denied the privilege of asking these questions and dozens of others that would occur to us, and which it is necessary to ask in order to obtain the information, because the resolution must be discussed with you, sir, in the chair. If it could be discussed in the committee of the whole, we could then ask the questions that are in our minds and could elicit all the information that it is possible to get. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we in this house should get all possible information with regard to what is behind this resolution, or what is activating the government in moving it at this time. Furthermore, every implication in it should be laid bare to the Canadian people. That is our contention.
Perhaps the Prime Minister would be constrained to answer some of these questions. It being nearly six o'clock, I have not time to ask them all, but one or two occur to me at the moment. One is this. Is this resolution the government's way around the stalemate or impasse which arose as a result of the breakdown of the last dominion-provincial conference? Another one is this. What would be the attitude of the Prime Minister and his government, if, having attempted to
British North America Act lay down a definite procedure for a constitutional amendment, the majority of the provinces state that they are definitely opposed to an amendment suggested by the federal government? Would the government of Canada proceed to put through the amendment anyhow? Those are questions that are in the minds of the Canadian people and they have far-reaching implications that the people ought to understand. Another question is this. Is this resolution indicative of the general trend? Is it a first step towards a complete repeal of the British North America Act and the substitution for it of another constitution? Although some hon. members may laugh at what I am about to say, I say it in all seriousness. There are many people in this country who are thinking in that way.


An hon. Member:: How many?


Solon Earl Low: A great many more than the hon. member who has interjected has any idea of; I will guarantee that. This is a matter which ought to be clarified; the people's minds ought to be set at rest on the issue.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, with regard to procedure I would say this. We believe- indeed we have already put ourselves on record to this effect-that at the earliest possible time a dominion-provincial conference should be called, at which conference a procedure should be laid down for amending the British North America Act in Canada. The procedure decided upon must, of course, be satisfactory to both the dominion and the provinces. There must also be a real effort to clarify permanently the whole matter of responsibilities as well as authorities and powers under sections 91 and 92. We feel that this resolution is a matter of grave concern to so many people across this country that it should not be passed at this time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of the resolution before the house is one of admittedly fundamental importance. In many respects it goes to the root of the whole structure of our nation. It touches on matters vital to national unity; and whether we remain here a short time or a long time I venture the prediction that nothing of more far-reaching importance will be dealt with, in the experience of any member.
It is, therefore, I believe, particularly regrettable that a matter of such vast

British North America Act importance should be dealt with under a procedure which permits of only one debate. Think of it, sir! In even the most ordinary and commonplace bills we have three readings, together with consideration in detail in committee of the whole. In this instance, on the other hand, we are dealing with a matter which goes to the root of confederation, and yet we deal with it only as a resolution. There will be no consideration in committee; there will be no review in detail in committee; and it will be before the house for only one debate.
That is serious enough from the point of view of the opportunity needed by hon. members thoroughly to sift through the significance of the proposals; but, if I may say so, it is more serious for the country at large, because we know that in a matter such as this it is only as the debate proceeds in the house and the various points of view are put forward by hon. members that the true significance begins to permeate the electorate, through the medium of the press and other avenues of information.
We know that when a measure in the form of a bill goes through the various stages in the house there is an opportunity for the public to form an appreciation of the significance of the measure under debate, and to bring public opinion to bear upon the subject matter before the house. We see that happening every day. It is because of the necessity of informing the public, as well as to avoid unduly precipitate action in the house, that provision is made in our procedure for consideration stage by stage.
Yet here today we have just one opportunity of reviewing this subject in debate. When the vote is taken on the resolution, that will end the matter in the house. Whether the debate continues long enough to give the people of Canada an opportunity to appreciate the full significance of the proposal remains to be seen. But I wish to express my view that it is most regrettable that the procedure of the house permits a matter of such far-reaching importance as this one to be disposed of in a relatively summary fashion.
In view of the ringingly clear statement made by my leader this afternoon I do not think it is strictly necessary to say what I am about to say. However, I do wish to put myself clearly on record as stating that the time has long since passed when Canada should have the right to amend her own constitution within her own borders, both from the point of view of recognizing her own status and autonomy and of relieving the parliament of the United Kingdom of what

on some occasions has been a source of embarrassment. It was so in 1943, when the address presented by our parliament at that time was opposed by at least one provincial legislature.
It should not be possible now, with Canada a grown-up nation, to have a situation continue where embarrassment may be caused to the parliament of the United Kingdom in that fashion, and where we put ourselves in the position of having to go outside Canada to obtain amendments.
But, sir, to say that we ought to have in Canada complete power to amend our constitution as we see fit is a very different thing from saying that this parliament ought to have unlimited power to make amendments to the constitution. I think it is fair to say that in a good deal of the discussion of this subject in times past there has been a regrettable tendency to confound amendments made by Canada with amendments made by parliament, or at the instance of parliament.
I wish to say definitely that in subscribing to the principle that Canada ought to have within her own shores the power to amend her constitution in any way she sees fit, I do not mean at all that parliament should have untrammelled power to bring about amendments by itself. The question before us is or should be one of finding a formula for an amending procedure. With that should be linked the question of what method we should pursue at this time in relation to the legislatures and governments of the provinces in seeking that necessary formula.
I make it clear here and now that so far as I am concerned I do not think the method proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the method inherent in the resolution before the house today, is a satisfactory formula or even a helpful beginning toward seeking a satisfactory amending formula.
Something was said this afternoon about the need for amendments. Sir, there are many amendments needed in our constitution. I believe we would find ourselves on common ground if we were to say in the first place that Canada ought to have the right to amend her constitution and, in the second place, that amendments are necessary. We are not here engaged in merely academic discussion. It has been a matter of wonder to me for a long time why we allow sections 55, 56 and 57 to continue in the British North America Act. They may be a dead letter, but they remain. These are the sections under which power is reserved to the reigning sovereign in council to disallow measures of parliament. They confer on the British government the right of reservation of legislation and the right of disallowance. It is a

fact that the power of disallowance has not been exercised since 1873, and that the reservation of legislation for the sovereign's approval under these sections did not long continue after that date. It seems to me that is one striking example of an amendment long overdue to remove a dead letter.
The Prime Minister maintained this afternoon that his government possessed a mandate to put this resolution into effect, and suggested that in the view of the government it was the first step it should take, even in advance of consultation with the provinces in relation to other matters arising out of the constitution.
I heard the statement made in the house by the Prime Minister about a year ago on this subject. I followed press reports of his speeches during the campaign, with some care, and I do say that unquestionably the government has a mandate, as I think every member in the house, regardless of party, must have a mandate from his electorate to seek for Canada the power to amend her own constitution. But I submit to you, sir, that the Prime Minister has yet to show the House of Commons where he has a mandate from the people of Canada to proceed by the method laid down in the resolution now under debate. Certainly it was not indicated in the speech he made to the house this afternoon.
Where is the mandate to select one field, a field the line of demarcation of which is not as clear to many people as it appears to be to the Prime Minister, and to say that without consultation with the provinces we are going right ahead with this subject in a manner which I think will prejudice the wider enterprise of seeking a comprehensive amending formula for the Canadian constitution in all its aspects?
Undoubtedly if the fathers of confederation did wrestle with this question of amending procedure, they had some difficulty with it. It is not free from difficulty yet. In his correspondence with the premiers of the provinces the Prime Minister referred to it as being a subject of great difficulty. Nevertheless, we should no longer continue to be the one dominion lacking this power.
But in my submission the formula by which a comprehensive amending procedure is to be achieved in Canada must be one that is acceptable to the provinces. It is the height of folly to proceed to carve up this subject. We are only inviting the defeat of any hope of effecting that comprehensive approach to the problem of devising an amending procedure which is long overdue.
So far as the government is concerned, the Prime Minister this afternoon tolled the death
British North America Act knell of the compact theory of confederation. If those who follow him in this house follow him in his speech, then the Liberal party has today tolled the death knell of the compact theory. There are some things about the compact theory about which I should like to remind Liberal members in this house.
Whether or not that theory is precisely recognized by the courts in interpreting the British North America Act, it is an incontestable historical fact.
I should like to refer to the letter of October 5, 1949, from the premier of Quebec to the Prime Minister. In that letter reference is made to the statement made by Lord Carnarvon when the British North America bill was introduced by him into the Westminster parliament. Lord Carnarvon said:
The Quebec resolutions, with some slight changes, form the basis of a measure that I have now the honour to submit to parliament. To those resolutions, all the British provinces in North America were, as I have said, consenting parties, and the measure founded upon them must be accepted as a treaty of union.
When the bill was introduced in the British House of Commons by Mr. Adderley he said:
If again, federation has in this case specially been a matter of most delicate treaty and compact between the provinces ... it is clearly necessary that there should be a third party ab extra to give sanction to the treaty made between them.
That was the view of the government which introduced in the Westminster parliament eighty-three years ago the bill that later became the British North America Act.
But the evidence does not end there. It was the view of the Liberal party in its best days in this country that the British North America Act, certainly the scheme of confederation which found its legislative embodiment in the British North America Act, was a compact. I should like to refer to the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as reported on page 2199 of Hansard of January 28, 1907, when he said:
Confederation is a compact-
I ask Liberal members of this house who heard the remarks of the Prime Minister today when he completely repudiated the compact theory to put alongside his words those of Laurier, in 1907, who said, "Confederation is a compact." I quote from page 2199 again:
Confederation is a compact made originally by four provinces, but adhered to by all the nine provinces who have entered it, and I submit to the judgment of this house and to the best consideration of its members, that this compact should not be lightly altered. It should be altered only for adequate cause, and after the provinces themselves have had an opportunity to pass judgment on the same.
8S0

British North America Act
The view expounded this afternoon in this house by the Prime Minister and the view expounded by Laurier in that passage are as different as day is from night.
That view did not end with Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Speaking in this house in 1924, the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe said this, as reported on page 520 of Hansard of 1924:
Now this treaty cannot be changed, it has been the contention of many constitutional authorities, and I think it is only fair that no change should be accepted, without the consent of all those who were parties to it. It is a sacred treaty just as is any other treaty; it is no scrap of paper.
A treaty-that was the view of Lapointe: it was not to be changed apart from consultation with those who were parties to the treaty. Put that statement alongside the doctrine expounded in this house this afternoon by the Prime Minister and you will find that they can never be reconciled until kingdom come.
Then speaking in 1925, as reported on page 301 of Hansard, Mr. Lapointe said this:
I do not think there can be any attempt to change the mutual charter of both the dominion and the provinces by the arbitrary action of this parliament. I do not think it is possible to do it. To those who want changes, and I am willing to admit that there might be the necessity for changes, I would say that the only way to get them is the constitutional way, to ask the consent of the various parties to confederation.
That is all that the amendment that has been submitted to the house by my leader asks, that there shall be consultation with the provinces. Surely it is a reasonable request. That was certainly the view of the Liberal party until these later days.
I turn now to a very commendable speech made in this house on June 20, 1946, by the late Hon. P. J. A. Cardin. If I remember rightly this was the last speech made in this house by Mr. Cardin. It was a great and eloquent speech made by a man who had given long years of sincere public service in this house. Out of his long experience he made some significant observations upon a similar measure that was then under debate in the house, that an humble address be presented to His Majesty the King seeking an amendment of the British North America Act for the purpose of altering the basis of redistribution and membership in the house under section 51 of the British North America Act. Mr. Cardin was referring to the doctrine expounded in that debate by the present Prime Minister, then Minister of Justice, that except in connection with the subjects enumerated in sections 92, 93, 94 and 95, parliament had the right to obtain an amendment of the British North America Act without consulting the provinces. When the hon.

member for Calgary West asked if that doctrine applied to section 133 of the act, when he asked if parliament had the right to obtain from Westminster an amendment to the British North America Act in reference to section 133, the Prime Minister, then the Minister of Justice, answered, "Yes, legally, I say it can". The Prime Minister expounded the doctrine that parliament, without consulting the provinces, has the legal power to secure amendments to the British North America Act at Westminster which could have as their purpose the abolition of any language rights under section 133. Following that statement, referring to the doctrine expounded by the present Prime Minister, Mr. Cardin is reported at page 2667 of Hansard as follows:
And what is the consequence? We have heard the Minister of Justice say in reply to the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) that the federal parliament would have the authority to make representations to the imperial parliament to amend the constitution by wiping out section 133 of the British North America Act which protects the French language in this country, and that without consulting the provinces. That is one consequence of the theory which has been expounded by the Minister of Justice in this house, contrary to the views expressed by his distinguished predecessor, the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, and all public men in Canada since 1867.
In all the discussions which took place in regard to amending the constitution it has always been contended by all parties that we could never touch the privileges of any province, of any race or any religion, without giving them the opportunity of being consulted and of expressing in detail their views on the proposition.
At page 2671 Mr. Cardin concluded his remarks with these words:
The amendment asks for consultation with the provinces and the obtaining of at least their advice before proceeding with the resolution. I am in accord with that view, and in that stand I remain in the family of the old Liberals among whom I have been brought up in my political life. I stand with Blake; I stand with Laurier; I stand with Lapointe, and on that constitutional issue I also agree with leaders of the Conservative party in the past. No, I am not alone. I am at present preaching the gospel they all have preached, the gospel I myself have been advocating in my province and in Canada as a whole for the last thirty-five years.
That was a great speech by a great Canadian, and I put it to every Liberal member of the house: Do you stand today with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the government in the doctrine that has been expounded by him today, or do you stand with Blake, with Laurier and with Lapointe? You cannot stand with the Prime Minister today and stand with Blake, Laurier, Lapointe and Cardin. When the amendment and the resolution come to a vote the Liberal members today will make their choice because they cannot vote for both. They will make their choice with respect to the doctrine of

the present Prime Minister. They will have the opportunity of standing with him or the opportunity of standing with Blake, Laurier, Lapointe and Cardin.


Mr. Ferrie:: On a point of order, are we discussing the amendment? The new members of the house would like to know whether we are discussing the amendment or the resolution. I have listened for half an hour and it seems to me that nothing has been said about the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The amendment is before the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is perfectly clear that the resolution constitutes a repudiation of the position taken by the great Liberal leaders of times gone by, and the Liberal party in its best days, on this subject of the constitution. Why should there not be consultation with the provinces? Would it not be the simplest thing in the world to enlarge the scope of the proposed dominion-provincial conference to include matters so obviously proper to be discussed there as those before the house today? Our provincial premiers, doing their duty, in reply to the invitation of the Prime Minister to attend the conference at the end of the present session, a conference that will have half an agenda in relation to amendments of the constitution, have taken advantage of the opportunity to state quite clearly the positions of their provinces.
This afternoon the leader of my party read the very telling observations of the premier of Alberta in relation to the proposed procedure. The premier asked that before any action is taken of the kind that parliament is being asked to take today there should be consultation between the dominion and the provinces, and that the conference which is to take place at the conclusion of this session between the dominion and the provinces ought to be enlarged to include this matter with others to be submitted to that conference. That is a very simple request by the premier of the province of Alberta, and he is not alone in making that request.
The premier of the province of Quebec has written two letters on the subject and I quote short passages from them. On Octo ber 5 he said, in concluding a letter to the Prime Minister:
Once more I draw your attention to the fact that the Canadian constitution did not result from hasty decisions, nor was it the realization of a singie political party or of a single government. We renew our request, Mr. Prime Minister, that you agree to postpone all legislation concerning the federative pact and call together initially the interested parties to study together in a spirit of co-operation the vital problems involved in an amendment to the British North America Act.
British North America Act
Surely that is a reasonable request, but it is one that the government is in too great haste to consider. Again the premier of the province of Quebec said this in a letter to the Prime Minister on September 21:
In our opinion the Canadian constitution is a pact which cannot be amended in a unilateral fashion. We believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and it is appropriate that the provinces should be consulted beforehand rather than be left in the presence of an accomplished fact. We therefore ask, Mr. Prime Minister, that you delay all legislation relating to the federated pact and call together, in the first place, the interested parties-*
Again he makes the same request that the provinces be called together so that they may work out this subject of amendment with the dominion in a spirit of co-operation.
The present premier of the province of Quebec is not the first premier of that province who has taken the same position as to the nature of confederation and the necessity of consulting the provinces before undertaking amendments. Mercier took it. Mr. Godbout, when he was premier of the province of Quebec, on June 22, 1943, wrote to the then prime minister of Canada. His letter concerns an amendment, proposed at that time, to the British North America Act for the purpose of postponing the decennial redistribution of seats in the house. This letter was quoted by Mr. Cardin in the same speech to which I have referred. It reads: Dear Mr. King:
I regret to hear that you consider delaying the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons according to the 1941 census. This decennial readjustment is an essential part of the compact between the provinces out of which arose the Canadian confederation, and therefore the British North America Act cannot properly be amended, in this respect, without the assent of the provinces.
Could anything be plainer? Will hon. members from the province of Quebec choose to follow the view expounded by Mr. Godbout in 1943 or the contrary view expounded by the Prime Minister in this house today?
Then I turn to the letter of the premier of Ontario of October 7 in which he says:
I am frankly in some doubt as to the advisability of dealing with the matter piecemeal-
That is the matter of the procedure for amending the constitution.
-without first attempting general agreement. Obviously, matters which are purely a federal concern will have to be delineated from time to time by the courts. My consideration of the matter leads me to believe that abolition of appeals to the privy council may affect this very important side of matters more than is generally realized.
Then the premier of the province of Manitoba says in his letter of October 6:
The government of Manitoba feels that there might be differences of opinion as to whether a proposed amendment to the constitution related only

British North America Act to federal matters or affected provincial interests, rights, or jurisdiction. Before agreeing to any specific proposal, therefore, our government will examine carefully the manner in which the provincial position is to be protected.
It is only natural that one should turn also to the letter from the Liberal premier of the province of Nova Scotia. In his letter of September 27 to the Prime Minister he said this:
I observe that the Minister of Justice has introduced a bill for the abolition of appeals to the privy council. It seems to me that the abolition of appeals to the privy council might well form the subject of study by such a general conference as is envisaged in your letter. I beg to suggest, therefore, that final consideration of the bill now before the House of Commons be deferred until the conference suggested in your letter will be held. There is, I believe, considerable support for the view that the abolition of appeals to the privy council is in effect an amendment of the constitution and that, therefore, it is a question which should be the subject of discussion at the dominion-provincial conference which you suggest.
There you have the very reasonable and sensible point of view put forward by the premier of the province of Nova Scotia that when a question involves an amendment of the constitution the provinces ought to be consulted. Again the Liberal members of the house will have the opportunity of choosing between the point of view of the Liberal premier of Nova Scotia and the view expounded in this house today by the Prime Minister.
Before I leave this subject of the pact and the desirability, indeed the necessity, of consulting the provinces if we are to have due regard for the essence of confederation, let me make this final observation. We are a parliament. We are not sitting as a court construing the terms of the British North America Act, an imperial statute. The courts cannot look behind the terms of the statute. They cannot look back at the Quebec resolutions; they cannot look back at the language used by those who introduced in the British houses of parliament the bill which in due course became the British North America Act. The courts are not permitted to go back of the language of the legislation they are engaged in construing. But we are not a court; we are a parliament. We are here making laws; and I say to this House of Commons that we have neither the legal nor the constitutional nor the moral right to shut our eyes to what preceded and led up to confederation. Yet in effect that is what we are being asked to do today.
We speak of precedent. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has given us a review of previous amendments, and he has claimed the benefit of precedent for the course the government is pursuing here. Among those he quoted I say there were some pretty bad
[Mr. Fleming.)
precedents; but at best or at most-perhaps I should say at worst-he had precedent for a particular amendment. But this present resolution goes far beyond any amendment to the British North America Act hitherto obtained at the request of parliament. This is infinitely more far-reaching. This is something that goes to the basis of the amending procedure; and there is no precedent for this. In my submission a far better precedent would be the report of a committee of this house which studied this question in 1935 and made its report and recommendations in these terms, which appear at page 143 of its proceedings:
The committee recognizes the urgent necessity for prompt consideration of amendments to the British North America Act with reference to a redistribution of legislative power and to clarify the field of taxation.
It is further of opinion that the conference hereafter proposed should carefully consider the adoption of a recognized yet flexible method of amendment.
In view of the fact that the several provinces did not feel it advisable to give the committee the benefit of their views with respect to the method of procedure to be followed in amending the constitution, the committee is of the opinion that before any decision upon the subject matter of the resolution is finally made, the opinions of the provinces should be obtained otherwise, if at all possible, and for that reason recommends that a dominion-provincial conference be held as early as possible in the present year to study the subject matter of the resolution. The proposed conference should have ample time in which to study every phase of the question.
In view of the above recommendation the committee expressly refrains from recommending any form of procedure for amendment so as to leave the proposed conference entirely free in its study of the question, except that the committee is definitely of the opinion that minority rights agreed upon and granted under the provisions of the British North America Act should not be interfered with.
Within the realm which the Prime Minister says is quite clear, but which many of us do not find characterized by such clarity-that is, the federal sphere-we are being asked to put our constitution on the same basis as an ordinary statute of this house, capable of amendment in the same way as any other piece of legislation ever adopted by this parliament. Every federal constitution that I know anything about has drawn a clear line of distinction between ordinary legislative processes in the particular legislature that has been created, and methods of changing the constitution. The constitution is fundamental; it is the organic document from which legislatures-and I am speaking of federal constitutions in general-derive their existence. This proposal and the proposed amendment to the B.N.A. Act, if it were enacted at Westminster, would put our constitution, in matters which the Prime Minister says come under federal jurisdiction, in exactly the same position as any other statute

of parliament. In other words, in relation to what the Prime Minister says are federal matters, the British North America Act could be changed here in precisely the same way as any other law of parliament.
I do not think that is the way to approach amendments to the constitution. A clear line of distinction should be drawn between ordinary legislation and changes in the constitution because, as I have said, the constitution is fundamental, and is the organic document from which this parliament derives its existence.
My time is passing, but I wish to make one more comment before I conclude. In most federal constitutions, certainly in the case of the United States, the senate was designed to be representative of the states. It was designed to be the protector of states' rights. It may be that our Senate is not the complete counterpart of the United States senate in that respect; nevertheless, in some respects our Senate was intended to be the protector of the rights of the provinces. But with all respect to the other house I say that as it comes closer and closer to being a one-party chamber, then by its very composition it is going to be more and more precluded from discharging that duty of protecting the rights of the provinces.
The resolution seeks to make an interesting exception of language and school rights, the reason for v/hich I think you will find in the doctrine propounded by the Prime Minister in this house on June 18, 1946. That is a doctrine which has done much mischief; namely, that the rights of minorities in respect of language could be abrogated by amendment without consulting the provinces. An exception is to be made here; but let every hon. member of this house realize the position in which minority rights under section 133 of the British North America Act are left by this resolution. To hear the Prime Minister speak one would think that somehow these rights are being given additional guarantees. They are not. Parliament is creating one more precedent, a more far-reaching precedent than has ever been created in times past for automatically obtaining at Westminster amendments to the British North America Act simply on the request of both houses of parliament, by an address adopted by a majority of perhaps only one in each house. Remember that the parliament at Westminster is not divesting itself of the right to make further amendments to the constitution. It could not, because it is an imperial statute. The rights of minorities continue to have all the validity they now have under section 133 of the act-no more, no less-but if parliament passes this resolution parliament will have created another
British North America Act precedent for obtaining amendments to the British North America Act, including section 133, without consultation with the provinces. The rights of minorities under section 133 after this resolution is adopted, if it should be adopted, will not stand any higher, under the doctrine expounded by the Prime Minister, than the forbearance of a majority of one in each house.
That is no position in which to leave minority rights in this country. Those rights are sacred and fundamental. There would have been no confederation had those guarantees under section 133 not been given, and I say it is the duty of this house to seek a comprehensive method of amendment of the constitution which will embrace all features of the act, so there may be within Canada complete autonomy and complete power of amendment, and which will really preserve and safeguard the rights of minorities and will not leave them at the mercy of a majority of one in this house and in the Senate.


Mr. Speaker:: This afternoon there was mention made of the fact that the amendment might not be in order. During the dinner recess, I read the amendment carefully and I have some doubt as to whether or not it is in order. It occurred to me that some hon. members might like to express their views with regard to whether or not the amendment is within the rules. If so, I would be glad to hear them now.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of expressing some views on the question of whether or not the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition is in order. Since no attack has as yet been made on the point of order, one is compelled to deal with it by anticipating what might be said. In this connection, I think it is fair to point out that, although the matter was referred to in passing by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), it did not appear that the hon. gentleman was entirely satisfied the amendment was out of order. As I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, he advanced no grounds for its being out of order and did not take the position that it was, in fact, out of order.
It seems to me there might be three grounds only upon which the amendment could be declared to be not within the rules. The first one would be that it is not relevant to the main motion. In this connection, may I refer Your Honour to Beauchesne, third edition, page 136, where citation 338 reads as follows:
The object of an amendment may be to effect such an alteration in a question as will obtain the support of those who, without such alteration, must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon,

British North America Act or to present to the house an alternative proposition either wholly or partially opposed to the original question. This may be effected by moving to omit all the words of the question after the first word, "That", and to substitute in their place other words of a different import. In that case the debate that follows is not restricted to the amendment, but includes the motives of the amendment and of the motion, both matters being under the consideration of the house as alternative propositions.
At this point, perhaps I should direct Your Honour's attention to the fact that this amendment does do exactly what is contemplated in that citation from Beauchesne, namely, to suggest an alternative proposition wholly or partially opposed to the original question. It does so by moving to strike out all the words after the first word "that" and to substitute other words.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, one is always conscious of the difficulty of complying with the various rules of the house in moving an amendment, particularly to a resolution. In speaking in support of the proposition that this amendment is in order, and in asking Your Honour to rule accordingly, I can say with absolute certainty that a most scrupulous attempt has been made to see that the amendment does, in fact, comply with the rules because it is our desire to have a discussion on the merits of the situation.
The citation which I have read from Beauchesne is a citation based on May, the great British authority, and it is supported by the ruling of a Canadian Speaker referred to by Beauchesne at page 595. This question of relevancy had been raised and Mr. Speaker Lemieux, on June 6, 1923, quoted and applied that ruling in May. Dealing further with the question of relevancy, there seems to be a certain amount of contradiction between the various citations. It is for that reason that I say a most scrupulous effort has been made to draft an amendment which will be in order.
It seemed to us that the amendment had to do two things. First, it had to deal, in part at any rate, with the subject matter of the main motion. Second, it had to deal with or suggest a new or further proposition which, in effect, adds something to or is different from the main motion. If Your Honour will look at page 137 of Beauchesne, you will see what he advances as the law on the relevance of amendments. It reads as follows:
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject-matter with the original motion, they are admissible,-
I would point out to Your Honour that this amendment is on the same subject matter as the main motion. The main motion deals with the question of enacting in Canada a means of amending our own constitution. The amendment deals with the same matter

because it suggests that following the convening of a constitutional convention to devise a method of amending the constitution in Canada, then such method should be made the subject of an humble address. It can be seen, therefore, that the amendment deals with the same matter as that which is before the house in the main motion, but it suggests an alternative and entirely different procedure from that which is outlined in the motion. I submit, therefore, it is in order on these two grounds, which it is admittedly difficult to reconcile, that it may suggest a difference in principle and yet must be relevant to the subject matter of the main motion.
Further, if Your Honour will look at the various rulings of Canadian Speakers cited in Beauchesne where amendments have been ruled out of order on the ground that they are not relevant, I believe it will be seen that in every case in which the amendment was ruled out of order it did nothing more than deal with an entirely different subject. For instance, on page 580 of Beauchesne's third edition, there is a reference to a speaker's ruling in which an amendment was ruled out of order on the ground that it was not relevant. The operative part of the ruling is as follows:
The motion before the house deals with one specific question, the scale of payments to be made by Canada to the various provinces. The amendment proposes to deal with the representation of several provinces. It seems to me that is an entirely different question, and it is not relevant.
As I have pointed out, our amendment does deal with the subject matter of amending the constitution. It does not deal with an entirely different proposition and, therefore, I submit it does not fall within the scope of those previous rulings in which amendments have been ruled out of order on the ground that they were not relevant.
We come then to the second possible ground of objection, that it introduces new matter. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is dealt with in the citation to which I have already referred and which is to the effect that a member may move an amendment asserting a different proposition or advancing a different principle. It seems to me it would be quite impossible to comply with the strict interpretation of the rules when it is said the amendment must not introduce new matter and, at the same time, you are faced with a citation that an amendment may assert a different proposition. I am not one to suggest that the rules of the house should be disregarded or that they are merely an inconvenience to be overridden. I say the rules are for the purpose of regulating and guiding discussion. Nevertheless, I do suggest that

there is such an apparent conflict between the two citations that Your Honour should exercise some discretion in interpreting the amendment. This amendment does, in fact, assert a different principle to be followed in achieving constitutional amendments; nevertheless, it does deal with the question of amending the constitution. I submit it is not out of order on the straight ground that it introduces new matter.
The third ground upon which objection might be raised is that it involves an expenditure of money. That is the old stand-by to which we always look when trying to have amendments ruled out of order.
In this connection I refer Your Honour to the fact that it does not directly involve the expenditure of money. If adopted, it constitutes a request to His Excellency the Governor in Council that a certain course be followed. It does not say that a constitutional convention must be or should be convened the day after tomorrow. It asks that His Excellency the Governor in Council be requested to convene a constitutional convention. So far as it can be made to do so, it merely asserts the principle that this is a proper way to go about solving this problem.
I am not going to take the time of the house or of Your Honour to deal with all the various conflicting rules on what is a money bill and what is not. I think it is sufficient if I remind you that the actual interpretation of what is a money bill is a strict interpretation and that if one applies that interpretation with a reasonable attitude toward amendments which are introduced into the house, it will be seen that this amendment clearly does not fall within that rule.
May I finally refer to a number of previous similar amendments which have been found to be in order; or perhaps I should say that by inference they were found to be in order because they have not been ruled out of order. I refer to the amendment introduced in 1946, when the British North America Act was being amended to change the basis of distribution of seats in the house. On that occasion the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) moved an amendment to the resolution then being discussed. His amendment is to be found at page 2235 of Hansard of June 6 of that year. The hon. member moved an amendment in these words:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words: "A humble address be presented to His Majesty the King in the following words:" and substituting therefor:-
And whereas it is desirable that the government should consult with the several provinces in respect of the said matter.
British North America Act
Now therefore be it resolved that the government be required to consult at once the several provinces and upon satisfactory conclusion of such consultations . . .
To proceed with the redistribution. That amendment was not ruled out of order, although it was defeated in the house on a vote on the merits of the amendment itself. Similarly, in the spring of this year, at the last session of the last parliament when the agreement with Newfoundland was being discussed, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) moved an amendment in much the same words. The amendment, to be found at page 501, was as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words:
"A humble address be presented to His Majesty the King in the following words":-
and substituting therefor:
"And whereas it is desirable that the government of Canada should consult with the governments of the several provinces in respect to the said matter;
Now therefore be it resolved, that the government of Canada be required to consult at once the governments of the several provinces and that upon a satisfactory conclusion of such consultations . . .
And so on. On two occasions therefore you have amendments in much the same form as this one, with this exception. The wording of those amendments required consultation at once so that they are even stronger directions for the holding of a dominion-provincial conference than is this one. Those amendments having been found to be in order, although they required the holding of a conference and therefore, by inference, if that rule applied, would require the expenditure of money, I submit that this amendment, which is not nearly so direct in its requirements but merely suggests that His Excellency be requested to convene a conference, is also clearly in order on the precedents established by those two earlier amendments.
There is one final point in connection with this rule regarding expenditure of money. I would refer Your Honour to the principle set out in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, in dealing with bills, not resolutions. At page 170, citation 444, you will find the following:
Private members may introduce resolutions that do not directly involve the expenditure of public money and have no operative effect but simply express an abstract opinion on a matter which may necessitate a future grant.
Here we have an expression of opinion that the proper procedure would be for His Excellency to be requested to convene a dominion-provincial conference, an abstract expression of principle which might possibly at some future time require a grant. But according to the citation I have read, it is within the power of a private member to move such a resolution.

British North America Act
For these various reasons I submit that this amendment is in order. I am sorry to have been so lengthy in my explanation but I offer this excuse. As I said at the outset, it is difficult to draft amendments to resolutions such as this which will be within the rules. This amendment has been as carefully drafted as we could do it, in order to comply with all the somewhat conflicting citations to be found. That is my excuse for the length of time I have taken on this submission that the amendment is within the rules of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to the point of order?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: I am now prepared to give a ruling. First of all, I wish to thank the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) for the care he has taken to explain why he thinks that the motion is in order. He has cleared up for me several points on which I had some doubt. There is, however, one point which he has not cleared up and that is whether or not the amendment amounts to a motion for which notice must be given. He did not satisfy me with regard to that. I am not stating that he entirely satisfied me with regard to the other doubts which I had in my mind, especially the question as to whether this motion would require the government to make an expenditure and was not merely setting forth an abstract principle. It will not be necessary, however, for me to make a ruling on that point.
I would point out to hon. members that citation 355 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, makes it clear that an amendment must not raise a question which can only be considered as a distinct motion after notice. The principal motion before the house asks that an address be presented to His Majesty the King praying for a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom in amendment of section 91 of the British North America Acts, 1867-1949. The amendment, on the other hand, envisages the convocation of a constitutional convention to devise a method of amending the constitution of Canada. In my view the amendment is so different, in substance and effect, from the main motion as to require its introduction as a distinct motion after notice. I would refer hon. members to Canadian Commons Journals, 1929, pages 109-111.
It is not necessary for me to consider the other points which the hon. member has mentioned. My view is that this motion is so different in substance and effect from the

main motion as to require its introduction as a distinct motion after notice. I must accordingly rule the amendment out of order.


Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: I have listened carefully, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon and evening to the views expressed by the various hon. members on matters connected with this resolution. I must confess that the more I have listened, the graver the matter contained in the resolution appears to me to be. The statute contemplated by the resolution may have far-reaching effects. This being so, I cannot see the need for the unseemly haste in the passage of the legislation.
Why is it that this legislation must be hurried? Is Canada losing face among the nations of the world? Is Canada not regarded any more as a sovereign power? What is to be gained or what is to be lost by this hurry? I heard one hon. member say today that it was to make Canada sovereign in all respects. But surely Canada has been a sovereign power since 1931. I believe that since the passage of the Statute of Westminster we can regard Canada as being a sovereign power.
In fact, I need only refer hon. members to what I believe can be called an official government publication. This is the British North America Acts and Selected Statutes, published on January 1 of this year by the King's Printer. It states in a headnote that all this material has been brought together, collected and annotated by Dr. Maurice Ollivier, K.C., F.R.S.C., joint law clerk of the House of Commons. At page 25 it states:
It may be stated that responsible government was established in 1848, just as it may be said that Canada became a sovereign country in 1931.
Surely we must be all agreed, and the government must agree-or its booklet would not be published in this fashion-that Canada is a sovereign power, and has been since 1931. What is the reason then? Do we want to be regarded as a sovereign power, when we already are one?
I listened carefully to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) today upon which occasion I believe he said that this resolution was an implementation of an election promise. I read the letter addressed to the premiers of the different provinces, as it appears at page 25 of Hansard, and this is what I read-and I would presume this is the promise made by the Prime Minister prior to the election:
Before the recent election I stated on several occasions that it was the view of the government that a method should be worked out to amend our constitution in Canada, and that any such method should include the fullest safeguards of provincial rights and jurisdiction, and of the use of the two official languages and of those other rights which are the sacred trust of our national partnership.

Then he goes on in the same letter, the next paragraph, to say:
I stated also that it was the intention of the government, after the election, to consult the provincial governments with a view to working out a method of amending the constitution in Canada, which would be satisfactory to all Canadians.
Unless I am completely astray in my reasoning in this matter-and I could very well be-it would appear to me that the only interpretation which could be placed upon that paragraph is that the Prime Minister prior to the election made an announcement that, if he came into power as head of the government, legislation would be introduced to this effect, and that the provinces would first be consulted before such legislation was introduced. No other interpretation could be placed upon that particular paragraph.
I submit to hon. members that they should read it and decide for themselves what conclusion they are forced to. There is no other way it can be read. I have been listening to various interpretations of acts and agreements in respect to confederation, and what they mean. The conclusion I came to was by reverting to what might be described as the Newfoundland agreement, passed in 1948. The heading of this agreement between Canada and Newfoundland, and dated December 11, 1948, is "Memorandum of agreement entered into on the 11th day of December, 1948, between Canada and Newfoundland." This is called a memorandum of agreement. In other words, there was an agreement between Newfoundland and Canada, and I assume there must be similar agreements between Canada and the other provinces.
The agreement with Newfoundland was implemented by statute. But it is an agreement between peoples; and if any part of that agreement is to be altered, then I submit both parties must first be consulted. As I see it, that is only fair and just. But again I may be wrong.
I would refer once more to this 1949 edition from the King's Printer, where it states at page 27:
There has been a certain amount of discussion as to whether the B.N.A. Act was a pact or not. This discussion has taken place amongst writers on constitutional law and the subject has been perhaps more frequently mentioned in political speeches. Strictly speaking it is impossible to say that the B.N.A. Act is a pact since it is an act of the imperial parliament which is supreme. On the other hand this statute cannot, in this day and age, be amended without the consent of Canada and, furthermore, it is based upon an understanding which had taken place between the different colonies. We might recall here that these resolutions constituted a compromise, a sort of pact or understanding, and we might add that our constitution is a re-edition of this understanding with very few changes.
British North America Act
And this from a government publication of 1949! It would appear therefore that the compiler of this particular book did have in his mind the thought that confederation between each of the colonies, including the last one, the present province of Newfoundland, was a pact or an agreement. As such, any alteration of that agreement would have to be made by agreement between the parties.
I have gone over some of the legislation passed, not by this parliament but by preceding ones, and I find that on prior occasions the British North America Act has been amended without consultation with the provinces. But, may I ask, do two wrongs make a right? In 1940 when an amendment of a minor nature compared with the present one was required, namely the amendment necessary for the introduction of a bill to bring about unemployment insurance, why was consent first asked and obtained from each of the provinces before the bill was introduced? If that was done in 1940, why should not the provinces be consulted in connection with this important matter and their consent obtained? I should like to refer to the letter written by the premier of Newfoundland in reply to the letter by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) of September 14. In his letter dated October 4 Premier Smallwood acknowledges the letter from the Prime Minister and makes this rather significant comment:
-you wrote me on September 14 with regard to finding a suitable new procedure for amending the British North America Act.
He goes on:
I have brought the matter to the attention of the government of Newfoundland, and they share fully my view that we, for our part, agree with you and your government that a new procedure should be found. We will be happy to co-operate with you in the endeavour. We will be ready at any time after prorogation of parliament to meet with you at Ottawa.
I hold no brief for the premier of Newfoundland who heads the Liberal government, but it would appear from his letter that he was agreeing to the consideration of a new method whereby the British North America Act could be amended. If the premier of Newfoundland thinks in that way, as would appear from his letter, surely he should be informed of what Ihe real situation is before this legislation is passed. He is only one premier. There may be others.
Speaking only as one member from Newfoundland I must protest at the indecent haste in which this legislation is being put through. I see no need for the hurry and rush. We have been here a month and bills of the greatest importance to Newfoundland
8S8	HOUSE OF COMMONS
British North America Act
have gone through. This is a most important measure and I see no reason why we cannot have a little less hurry.
I think of Canada as a two-wheeled cart, one wheel being the federal government and the other wheel being made up of the ten provinces. That cart will run along quite well as long as the two wheels are of the same circumference, but it is now proposed to alter one wheel without altering the other and I think that will make for a very lop-sided cart. The only way we can keep this Canada of ours on the level is to make alterations to both wheels at the same time. It seems so sensible to me that I cannot imagine any one quibbling about the idea.
I know there are other hon. members who wish to speak so I shall sum up briefly. There is no need for haste. The premiers are meeting in a short time, as I understand the Prime Minister has received the consent of all to meet. We do not want to make a botched job of this most important matter. In conclusion I can only repeat the words used by the Prime Minister in his letter to the premiers, that a method should be worked out of amending the constitution which would be satisfactory to all Canadians. That is what we want to work out, a method that will be satisfactory to all Canadians, and that is not going to be done by adopting the procedure contemplated by this resolution.
Mr. Jean Fran$ois Pouliol (Temiscouaia):
Mr. Speaker, this is a most difficult question. I have listened with interest and an open mind to all the speeches that have been made this afternoon and evening. I think every hon. member who spoke did his best to speak on a high plane, and the subject matter before the house certainly deserves that treatment. I appreciate what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said, that we should have no inferiority complex when thinking of other nations of the world. I think every one agrees with him. When the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) was speaking-we are all glad to see him back in the house, in his usual good form-he said that there is no suggestion that we must assert our sovereignty or declare that we are no longer under any limitation; that we have asserted that and have demonstrated that. We all believe it, said he.	*
I do not believe that Canada is a sovereign nation at the present time. A number of years ago Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that Canada was a nation in the commonwealth. That was a fine phrase, but it meant nothing. A nation may be a group of people having the same language or following the same customs, but Sir Wilfrid did not mean that Canada

was a sovereign nation in the commonwealth. At that time the only sovereign nation was Great Britain; all the other nations of the commonwealth were subservient to Great Britain. I have great admiration for Sir Wilfrid. It would have meant differently if he had said that Canada was a sovereign nation in the commonwealth, but he could not say that and he was honest enough not to say something that was not true.
Let us see if we have become a sovereign nation. Some hon. members are under that impression, but I do not think we are for the very good reason referred to by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). The disallowance provisions that were put in the British North America Act still exist. In 1931 there was passed an act called the Statute of Westminster, although there are thousands of other statutes of Westminster. Section 7 of that statute reads:
Nothing in this act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 193D, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.
That means that nothing has been changed by that enactment to the provisions of our constitution providing for disallowance of Canadian legislation by the British parliament. All hon. members are familiar with the British North America Act, and therefore it is not necessary for me to read to them the provisions concerning the disallowance of Canadian enactments. They are easily found. They are sections 56 and 57, and also section 90, which is quite interesting with regard to the disallowance of provincial enactments.
That is not all; there is more to it. Some Englishmen who have discussed our constitution have come to the conclusion that Canada is the only country in the world that cannot amend her constitution. It is right and it is not right. The constitutions of the other dominions have been double-barrelled constitutions. On one hand the British government gave to the other dominions the power to amend their constitutions, and on the other hand reserved to itself the right to disallow that legislation. What progress could any dominion make in amending its constitution if all or any of the enactments passed by the legislature of that dominion could be disallowed by the British government? It makes no sense, and it seems so unbelievable that I shall have to give my authorities.
Let us look at the old dominion of New Zealand. The act concerning New Zealand was passed in 1852 and is 15-16 Victoria, chapter 72. Bills were sanctioned in the

first place by so-called superintendents who were elected by the people who had the right to vote and elect members in New Zealand. The superintendents of each province were elected by persons duly qualified in each of the said provinces to elect members for the provincial councils.
Section 28 of that statute says that the superintendent must send copies of bills assented to by him to the governor. Listen to the words of section 29, which reads:
It shall be lawful for the governor at any time within three months after such bill shall have been received by him to declare by proclamation his disallowance of such bill, and such disallowance shall make void and annul the same from and after the day of the date of such proclamation, or any subsequent day to be named therein.
Let us look at the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. It was passed by the imperial parliament in the year 1900 and is 63-64 Victoria, chapter 12. I quote from section 128:
This constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner-
It is pretty long but I will quote a whole paragraph to show what kind of right to amend the constitution has been given to the commonwealth of Australia by the imperial parliament. It reads:
And if in a majority of the states a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the governor general for the queen's assent.
Let us revert to section 58, royal assent to bills. It reads:
When a proposed law passed by both houses of the parliament is presented to the governor general for the queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this constitution, that he assents in the queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the queen's pleasure.
It is the same legislation that we have in the British North America Act, and the above was probably copied from the British North America Act. I quote again from the second paragraph of section 58 as follows:
The governor general may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the houses may deal with the recommendation.
Let us now take section 59, which deals with disallowance by the queen. It reads:
The queen may disallow any law within one year from the governor general's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the governor general by speech or message to each of the houses of the parliament, or by proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.
The power the commonwealth of Australia has to amend its constitution does not amount to much.
British North America Act
Let us look at the South Africa Act, an imperial statute of 1909. It is 9 Edward VII, chapter 9, part X, amendment of act, section 152. It reads:
Parliament may by law repeal or alter any of the provisions of this act: Provided that no provision thereof, for the operation of which a definite period of time is prescribed, shall during such period be repealed or altered: And provided further that no repeal or alteration of the provisions contained in this section, or in sections thirty-three and thirty-four (until the number of members of the House of Assembly has reached the limit therein prescribed, or until a period of ten years has elapsed after the establishment of the union, whichever is the longer period), or in sections thirty-five and one hundred and thirty-seven, shall be valid unless the bill embodying such repeal or alteration shall be passed by both houses of parliament sitting together, and at the third reading be agreed to by not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of both houses. A bill so passed at such joint sitting shall be taken to have been duly passed by both houses of parliament.
That would be all right, but now I refer to the disallowance provisions which are dealt with in section 65 of the same bill:
The king may disallow any law within one year after it has been assented to by the governor general, and such disallowance, on being made known by the governor general by speech or message to each of the houses of parliament, or by proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.
How can South Africa claim the right to amend her own constitution when every piece of legislation passed by the parliament of that country is subject to disallowance by the imperial parliament, just as it is in the case of Australia?


William Joseph Browne: If the hon. member will permit a question, how often were any laws passed by South Africa or Australia disallowed by the king?


Mr. Poulioi:: If my hon. friend will permit me to proceed I shall answer his question to his satisfaction. I say it is impossible for any of those dominions to claim sovereignty as long as the disallowance provisions remain in their constitutions. The hon. gentleman who just asked a question may tell me that those provisions are spent, to use judicial language; that they are not used any longer. Let me ask him a question which he may answer when he speaks. If those provisions are considered deadwood by the British parliament how did it happen that, when the Statute of Westminster was passed in 1931, section 7 stated very clearly and beyond doubt that nothing was changed in the British North America Act, meaning that the disallowance provisions in our constitution still exist?
This afternoon we had an assertion of sovereignty by the leader of the opDosition

British North America Act (Mr. Drew). I congratulate him on his statement, though it was not accurate. It was what Mr. Mackenzie King would have called good will; but it is not accurate for the reasons I have mentioned. How can we Canadians say that we are a sovereign nation as long as all our enactments are subject to disallowance by the imperial parliament? That is something I cannot understand. If we want to discuss constitutional matters in the right way, let us be earnest, let us not exaggerate our importance, and let us take things as they are. I admit that Canada is a great country, but Canada cannot be at the same time a great and a small country. We have a great deal of work to do to see to it that we have a constitution that fits Canada, one that is fair to the dominion parliament as well as to the provincial legislatures. At the time the scheme of confederation was discussed in the legislature of Canada my grandfather voted against it, because he saw in it some kind of legislative union. I am all for having the rights of the provinces respected; but when we realize that the imperial parliament passes all the legislation requested by the Canadian parliament for the amendment of our constitution, my first impression is that to go to London for such an amendment is just red tape. I do not see that it is anything else. What kind of protection is there if the British parliament is ready to approve and rubber stamp all that is requested by the Canadian parliament? Let us give Canadians an opportunity to discuss and decide their own business.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Were not the statutes setting up constitutions for Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in the exact language that was asked for by the governing bodies in those colonies or dominions, whatever they were at that time? In other words, following up your second argument that the British parliament is a rubber stamp in these matters, is it not a fact that the constitutions they got were exactly what they asked for, with all these powers of disallowance which you have just mentioned?


Jean-François Pouliot: I agree with what my hon. friend has just said; but all those people were colonial-minded, they walked on stilts, stepping high. They claim they are autonomous, but they are not. This is like the opening chorus of "Tannhauser".


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member is very clear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I mentioned a piece of music to bring harmony between us. My hon. friend knows very well-


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am not disagreeing with you. Don't pick on me.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, the hon. member knows I have great admiration for him. I mean it, and he deserves it from every one of his colleagues. Those people asked for a certain type of constitution. They got one. Was it what they asked for or was it something else? I am not in a position to say. All I know is what I find on the statute books. Nevertheless, there is a tremendous disparity between what they claim to be, what they boast of being, and what they really are. It is for this reason that I am ready to support my leader to the limit in his suggestion that we find a means of amending our own constitution without asking the imperial parliament to do it. I will do so with a still greater measure of satisfaction if it is the intention of the government to consult the provinces of Canada before passing any amendment to our constitution. I shall go so far as to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to consult the provinces before making any changes in the constitution. If the Prime Minister will answer that question in due course, it will relieve the minds of most of the members.
I remember that last year, when the question of union with Newfoundland was before the house, the leader of the opposition was satisfied with consultation with the provinces. He did not insist on having consent. On that question I went even farther than he did. This discussion is friendly. No harsh words have been said. The members are interested in a satisfactory settlement of a question which has been the subject of many discussions in the past. There have been some so-called changes in the constitution, but they amount to very little. The Canadian people, in common with the Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans, have boasted of what they did not have. In past years we did not have autonomy because there was an inferiority complex with regard to everything that was not Canadian. We suffered from it.
Today, we are in a new era; an era of sincerity and truth. How many times have we been told that some progress was made constitutionally by the enactment of the Statute of Westminster which repealed the Colonial Laws Validity Act. It was a step, but the disallowance provisions remained on the statute books and could be used. When? No one knows when. There was a possibility that any future government of the United Kingdom could take advantage of those provisions and disallow enactments passed by this parliament. As I mentioned the other day, when His Majesty came to Canada on the eve of the last war and gave the royal assent to some bills under the roof

of our Canadian Senate, all those bills could have been disallowed within two years by virtue of the provisions that have been left in our constitution. Is it not absurd? The British government would have had the right to disallow enactments sanctioned by our sovereign. It cannot work.
This afternoon mention was made of the fact that in 1871 the provinces were not consulted. This might have been due to the fact that, at that time, there was a dual representation and those who were sitting in Ottawa also sat in the provincial legislatures. It is a very good thing that the dual representation was abolished. I understand, sir, this government wants parliament to have the right to amend our constitution without changing anything in it for the time being. Then, a meeting of the representatives of the ten provinces of Canada would be held to discuss the whole matter. Who could have any objection to that? Amendment to the constitution, subject to consultation with the provinces, is something that has been done only twice since confederation, and once not all the provinces were consulted, as was stated this afternoon.
The government does not want to infringe on the rights of the provinces. It merely wants to establish the sovereignty of Canada. The leader of the opposition agrees with that position, as does the leader of the C.C.F. group; and I am sure my hon. friend the leader of the Social Credit party shares that view concerning the sovereignty of Canada. At any rate, from what he said this afternoon, I understood that to be so. We are all agreed on that point. Now, let us accomplish it in the best manner possible. Some constructive suggestions have been put forward by the members who have spoken. Some other members have expressed opinions without offering suggestions. Do you not think, sir, that the simplest way of amending our constitution is to make it our own and to abolish the disallowance provisions? Owing to the fact that the Colonial Laws Validity Act is a thing of the past, only the disallowance provisions remain. The various countries of the commonwealth have made progress, and I presume that the imperial parliament would not now dare to apply the disallowance provisions to a constitution made by Canada or by any other country of the commonwealth. It is an exceedingly delicate matter. We do not know about the future. We are here now to decide this most important matter and to discuss it, leaving aside all petty political considerations. We are here to do a good job in the interests of the Canadian people who elect us and who also elect the members of the legislatures. We must be fair to the Canadian people.
British North America Act
I believe in the separation of powers. I believe in the respective exclusive jurisdictions of Ottawa and of the provinces; but I believe that if we are to do something worthwhile as to the sovereignty of Canada, this is the time to do it. Before we go further by making amendments to the British North America Act the provinces should be consulted. I am sure that the representatives of the provinces will offer constructive suggestions so that the whole thing may be done in complete harmony without affecting the rights and privileges of minorities and of provinces.
I congratulate the government on taking up with the imperial parliament a matter of such great importance. I wish the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) good luck in his dealings with the imperial parliament and with the provinces. I am sure that the provinces will co-operate in adjusting matters so that the constitution will not be amended in the future as often as it has been amended in the past.


Mr. J. S. Sinnoll (Springfield):: Coming as I do, Mr. Speaker, from a western riding and believing as I do in my leader, I think I would be remiss in my duty if I did not say a few words tonight. Coming from possibly one of the most cosmopolitan ridings in Canada, I think I can say that my constituents view with great interest this resolution which is before the house. While we have today heard some hon. members of the opposition express their views on this matter, nevertheless they are not the views of my leader or those of the Liberal government. In view of the fact that my leader, before coming to this house, was regarded as one of the best constitutional lawyers in Canada, I do not think we on the Liberal side have anything to fear with regard to this resolution. We have had a long speech from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew); we have also had quite a lesson from the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and also from the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins). But nevertheless, this is a repetition of "kitty bar the door" tactics, as you might say, used in connection with the bill that was brought in to bring Newfoundland into confederation last session.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Where do you belong in the club?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: If you will follow Time magazine, you can go back and get a college education. If this measure were to be considered in the same way as was the bill to bring in Newfoundland, it would be a long time before we could put this amendment through and call Canada a sovereign nation. I am sorry to say that many Conservatives

British North America Act were born to look backwards; but Liberals were born to look forward. With these few words, I want to express to my leader the appreciation and gratitude of my constituents for this forward-looking legislation.
Mr. J. W. Nose worthy (York South): As
one who has given some years to the study of Canadian history, and as a teacher of Canadian history, I have been intensely interested in the discussions that have taken place here this afternoon and evening. I want to make it clear that I am not speaking as a lawyer but rather as one who has followed Canadian history and our constitution. We all seem to be agreed, Mr. Speaker, upon the need for a revision of our constitution. Every group in this house appears to be agreed on the theory that the constitution should be revised within Canada by the Canadian parliament and without appeal to any outside power. Our difference of opinion arises in the matter of how that revision should be done. As I understand the resolution which is before us, it proposes that, in those fields over which the federal parliament has jurisdiction by virtue of the British North America Act, this parliament should take unto itself the right to amend the constitution without any consultation with the provinces. Those who oppose the resolution appear to oppose it on two grounds, the first of which is that it is a piecemeal job. They appear to object to the constitution being amended by what they call a piecemeal procedure. In the second place, they say that it should not be done without first having consultation with the provinces. The point I should like to call to the attention of the house is one which has already been emphasized by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and by others, and it is this. While many quotations can be given from the speeches of our political leaders, quotations which appear to support the theory that no amendment should be made to our constitution without reference to the provinces, throughout the years the actual practice of those same political leaders has been to amend the constitution, where federal matters only were concerned, without that consultation.
The Prime Minister gave us a resume of the various amendments which have been made to the constitution. I should like to quote from this booklet sent out by the King's Printer in 1949, British North America Acts and Selected Statutes. In this we find the comments of Dr. O. D. Skelton, the then under-secretary of state for external affairs, to the special committee of the House of Commons on the British North America Act
in 1935. He comments on each amendment made to the British North America Act from 1871 to 1935.
Concerning the amendment of 1871, an act the object of which was to settle doubt as to the competence of the Canadian parliament to establish new provinces out of the western territories, and to give them constitutions and representation in the federal parliament, he says:
The procedure was that the act was passed by the United Kingdom parliament at the request merely of the Canadian government. There was no consent of or consultation with the provinces in 1871.
Then he states concerning the amendment of 1875, the object of which was to settle doubts as to the power of parliament under section 18 of the British North America Act:
The procedure again was that this act was passed by the United Kingdom parliament, merely at the request of the Canadian government. ... a resolution demanding parliamentary rather than executive action was introduced but withdrawn.
Concerning the amendment of 1886, the object of which was to empower parliament to provide for representation of territories in the Senate and House of Commons, he said:
The provinces were not consulted, and did not ask to be consulted, though if the British North America Act was a treaty, modification in the representation in parliament, changing the balance of sectional power, might have been contended to require the consent of the existing provinces.
Then in 1907, after twenty years, there came the fourth amendment. This one is of particular importance, its object being to provide an increase in and a definite settlement of federal subsidies to the provinces. On this amendment there was consultation. He states:
The procedure in this case was that the act was passed by the United Kingdom parliament in accordance with an address from the Senate and House of Commons based on a series of resolutions passed by a provincial conference in 1887.
Concerning an amendment of 1915, to increase the number of senators and alter the main senatorial divisions, the provinces were not consulted, and only one-Prince Edward Island-made representations before the House of Commons committee. Its representations were not accepted.
In respect of the amendment of 1916, the object of which was to lengthen the term of the existing parliament for one year, he states:
The procedure was on an address by both houses. The provinces were not consulted and, as far as I can recall, they were not referred to in the debate.
Concerning the amendment of 1930, which was to ratify an agreement by Canada with the four western provinces, there was consultation.
[Mr. Sinnott.l

Respecting the amendment of 1940, to include unemployment insurance among the classes of subjects enumerated in section 91, again there was consultation.
In respect of the amendment of 1943, to provide for readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons of Canada, again there was no consultation.
Concerning the amendment of 1946 there was no consultation, although an amendment was made in the House of Commons and negatived by a vote of 108 to 42, the main motion being carried by a vote of 107 to 22.
My point is that notwithstanding all that has been said through the years by political leaders in this parliament, in actual practice from 1871 to 1946 it has been the custom of this parliament to make representations to the United Kingdom for amendments to the British North America Act in those matters concerning the federal parliament alone. Only in those instances where quite obviously the interests of the provinces were clearly implicated, as in 1907, 1930 and 1940, were the provinces consulted.
The question in my mind is why at this stage, after having followed that practice from 1871 to 1946, and after having acknowledged the right of the federal parliament to amend the British North America Act in matters affecting the federal parliament alone, we should accept the principle that the provinces must be consulted before parliament can amend the British North America Act in this respect.
I am sure hon. members will recall that in the past occasions have arisen concerning which amendments to the constitution were necessary, and under circumstances that would have rendered it exceedingly difficult to have secured either consultation with or the consent of the provinces. It is not unreasonable to suppose that in our future history many such occasions will arise again.
I would hesitate to accept as a precedent at this time a procedure which would tie us to the practice of having to consult the provinces before even in an emergency any amendment could be made to the British North America Act on matters coming clearly within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. Hon. members who have spoken seem to imply that those who are elected to the provincial legislatures have a greater source of wisdom or are much more interested in their provinces than are those elected to the federal parliament. It would seem to me that hon. members elected to this parliament are as interested in the welfare of their own provinces as are members elected to the provincial legislatures.
17, 1949
British North America Act
I doubt if members elected to this house would take steps that would deprive the provinces from which they come of any rights any more than would a member elected to a provincial legislature.
It has been argued that this is a piecemeal job but I suggest that every amendment that has been made to the British North America Act since 1867 has been a piecemeal job. I fail to see how we could possibly amend the British North America Act for all time. Any action that we took, any procedure that we followed, or any amendment that this parliament might make to the British North America Act would of necessity be in the nature of a piecemeal job. In the light of this reasoning I shall support the main motion.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, when one looks around the chamber and sees the large attendance of Liberal members-


An hon. Member:: And Conservatives.


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: Are there any Conservatives here?


William Joseph Browne: -he cannot help but realize the importance of this debate and how highly it is regarded by them. Newfoundland has been a member of this great confederation of provinces for only a short time. When we came here as members from, that province we were ignorant of the procedure and customs prevailing in this great legislature. We were presented with large volumes of rules stating how the house should be conducted. We are now thrown into a constitutional disputation of the most fundamental character.
Hon. members will be interested to know that during the campaign for confederation in Newfoundland those who now constitute the Liberal party in that province advocated union with the great British country of Canada. Does it not seem strange to see how self-conscious two distinguished speakers on the other side of the house were this evening about being considered British? They indicated that the silken ties which still bind this country to the United Kingdom are still too tight around the necks of the Canadian people.
I do not think there is any doubt about the desirability of Canada having the power to amend its constitution. I do not suppose that that has been in dispute for at least thirty years and I doubt if anyone has stated publicly that Canada should not have that power. The question before the house, and it is an important one, is how that is going to be done. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
British North America Act Pouliot) seemed to interpret the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) somewhat differently from what I would imagine he would interpret it himself. He said that when his leader got this power from parliament he would consult the provinces before introducing any amendment.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


William Joseph Browne: That is what the hon. member for Temiscouata said and it is for him to deny it if he wishes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does the hon. member object to it?


William Joseph Browne: I think before I have finished the hon. member will agree with me to a greater degree than he does at the present time. There is no question in this house or in this country as to where the sovereignty of this country now lies. The hon. member for Temiscouata put forth a number of theories tonight that were as unrelated as anything possibly could be to this matter.
He took the trouble of making considerable research into the constitutions of Australia, South Africa and other dominions, and he read pertinent sections from those constitutions showing how they were bound in certain matters. I interjected to ask the hon. member if he could give an example of the disallowance by the king or queen of any law passed by those countries, but he evaded my question and I do not think he remembered to answer it before he sat down.


An hon. Member:: He skated around it.


William Joseph Browne: I have only one reason for speaking tonight. I am not as familiar as hon. members from the other provinces with the great constitutional questions that have been discussed here. I would not venture to offer an opinion on such a complicated matter if it were not for the fact that since 1933 or 1934 we have had to give some attention in Newfoundland to the development of constitutional procedure in the British commonwealth.
The hon. member for Temiscouata is too astute a student of constitutional history not to know that the power of disallowance as affecting Canada has not been exercised since 1873. He should not need to be told that. A law that has not been enforced in 76 years cannot be said to be impinging or reflecting upon the constitution or sovereignty of Canada. I doubt if he can state an occasion when the powers of disallowance were exercised by the royal sovereign in regard to Canada, South Africa or Australia.
Lord Balfour more than anyone else was responsible for the development of the theory of sovereignty, the equal status of the various

dominions, and the Statute of Westminster. I have read all his speeches I could find on these subjects. He stated, 1 think in 1926, that as far back as 1914 he had given it as his opinion that the dominions had equal status in the commonwealth with the United Kingdom. There was no doubt at all about it after the Statute of Westminster. Surely hon. members do not need to be reminded of what is said in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster and how it acknowledges the sovereignty of the different dominions. In case some hon. members have not read it, perhaps I should quote it now. It reads: "Whereas the delegates to His Majesty's governments in the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland, at imperial conferences holden at Westminster in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and twenty-six and nineteen hundred and thirty did concur in making the declarations and resolutions set forth in the reports of the said conferences:
And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this act that, inasmuch as the crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British commonwealth of nations,-
The free association, Mr. Speaker.
-and as they are united by a common allegiance to the crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne or the royal style and titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the parliaments of all the dominions as of the parliament of the United Kingdom:
And whereas it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said dominions as part of the law of that dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that dominion:
And whereas it is necessary for the ratifying, confirming and establishing of certain of the said declarations and resolutions of the said conferences that a law be made and enacted in due form by authority of the parliament of the United Kingdom: And whereas the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland have severally requested and consented to the submission of a measure to the parliament of the United Kingdom for making such provision with regard to the matters aforesaid as is hereafter in this act contained:
Now, therefore, be it enacted ... as follows:
1. In this act the expression "dominion" means any of the following dominions, that is to say, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland.
The purpose of the Statute of Westminster was to acknowledge the equal status that had been decided in 1926 and which had, as Lord Balfour said, been recognized by the British government as far back as 1914.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question?


William Joseph Browne: Surely.


Jean-François Pouliot: As an experienced lawyer, a member of the bar and the bench, will the hon. member tell the house since when the enforcing part of any enactment is in the preamble, as it is in the case of the Statute of Westminster?


William Joseph Browne: I am afraid I do not understand your question.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sorry that the judge does not.


William Joseph Browne: I am sorry; I am not quite sure what you mean.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask it again.


William Joseph Browne: All right.


Jean-François Pouliot: In any statute there is always a part called the enforcing part of the legislation. The hon. member knows that. All I ask him is since when the preamble, which is only explanatory and has no enforcing effect, is the enforcing part of any legislation.


William Joseph Browne: If I understand the hon. member correctly, he says that the preamble is not the enforcing part of a statute. I think as a lawyer he will recognize that in the consideration of any statute the preamble has to be taken into consideration. In a court of law the British government could hardly raise the point that it did not mean what it said in the preamble.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was not written by lawyers but by two Fabians, Beatrice and Sidney Webb.


William Joseph Browne: If the hon. member will have a little patience with me, as I did with him, I think I will satisfy him that he has no need to worry about where the sovereignty of Canada lies. What has happened since 1931? Where is the dominion called the Irish Free State now? Is it a member of the British commonwealth of nations now? Where did it get the power to secede from the British commonwealth of nations. It is not as far away as Canada is. No Atlantic ocean lies between the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom. Did the government of the United Kingdom make any effort to stop the secession of the Irish Free States and the setting up of a republic? If this country in its wisdom should decide tomorrow to set up a republic of Canada would the government of the United Kingdom intervene? Did the government of the United Kingdom intervene in the case of Burma, in the case of India, in the case of Ceylon?
Surely these questions, Mr. Speaker, admit of only one answer, that the Statute of Westminster meant what it said, that the countries 45781-55
British North America Act named in that statute were sovereign, independent and equal in status with the United Kingdom. There is no question about that, and I am surprised that the hon. member should feel so great an inferiority complex as to tliink that Canada does not possess a right equal to those countries which have seceded from the commonwealth.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in his very matter of fact statement this afternoon, took up at least half of the time of his speech in stating what everybody admits, that Canada should have full power to amend her constitution. He very fairly went on to point out that power was given to other countries like Australia and South Africa, but he said in Australia it did not seem to work very well. Why has it not worked very well? Because the constitution seemed to be rather rigid; the government seemed to be hedged around with impediments. On reflection will hon. members not agree that there was some deliberation on the part of those who prepared those constitutions? When you are dealing with a constitution you are dealing with something fundamental. You are building a solid foundation upon which the edifice of state is to be erected. Are you going to make some impermanent structure when you are laying the foundation? There is the analogy of this great temple in which we are tonight. How solidly it has been built. Should the constitution of Canada be built on a less solid foundation than the building in which we deliberate?
The governments of Canada and South Africa were hedged around with powers. It almost looks as if the laws that were passed were not to give power to make amendments but to prevent amendments. When you look at that great republic to the south of us, our great ally, the United States of America, the greatest country in the world bar none, what do we find? Can they amend their constitution overnight? Can they, by a simple majority in one house or in the other, amend their constitution from time to time? No, Mr. Speaker! In the 173 years or more since that great country became a republic how often have they amended their constitution? How difficult it is to amend the constitution of the United States is seen by the number of amendments, which is not more than twenty-one. Why? Because it is a most dangerous thing to give to any government so great a power, so vast a power over its subjects.
I honour the Prime Minister as much as his followers. He has, as I have said before, a great reputation for probity and integrity, but how long will we have a man like him

British North America Act as the head of the government? Who knows but that tomorrow some scapegrace from amongst the Liberal party may take over?


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Which one?


William Joseph Browne: 
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, a good deal has already been said about this subject today, but there are certain aspects of what is being done which I do not think have been clearly brought to the attention of the house and the country. I refer not so much to the immediate consequences of the passing of this resolution, if we were to pass it, as_ to the long-range view of what the situation will be if the principle of this resolution were adopted. If that principle is adopted, a well-conceived, deliberately executed plan to alter not only the method of amending the constitution but the very nature of the constitution itself will be brought to consummation. It is that position which I think it is important for the house and the country to realize before taking this next step which we are being asked to take in the resolution being discussed tonight.
I notice that the Prime Minister regards himself as so fully acquainted with what is being done that he apparently feels the matter does not warrant his presence in the house. It is nearly eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, so the debate will continue tomorrow and the Prime Minister will have an opportunity of saying then whether or not the consequences which I am going to suggest will flow from this resolution, and which are not the consequences he has so far indicated will be the result of the resolution, will in fact be the result of the adoption of it. He will have the opportunity of saying whether or not the situation will make for those difficulties and conflicts in Canada in the future, to which the right hon. gentleman has deliberately and conveniently avoided referring in the explanation which he gave this afternoon.
By a process which we have seen developing over the past two or three years, by steps which I shall outline in the course of my remarks, we see a development taking place

British North America Act which, if the principle of this resolution is adopted, will result in the control of the constitution being delivered into the hands of this federal parliament. Apart altogether from any question of whether the constitution is a compact, a treaty or a statute, apart altogether from the rights or wrongs of that discussion, in the past the greater volume of opinion has held that the constitution embodies an arrangement arrived at in good faith between the parties to confederation, and that this arrangement was not to be changed unilaterally, nor to be changed in important respects without proper consultation and a measure of agreement arrived at in good faith between those parties or their successors.
I do not take the view that the constitution should never be changed; nor do I take the view that consent is necessary for every particular change that it may be desired to make. I certainly subscribe to the view that the constitution should be a living, growing thing. I would not go so far as to say, however, that it should be made easy to change it. The hon. member who last spoke pointed out that the constitution is a broad base upon which the state is erected. If the state, and the rights of the people who make up that state, are to have any secure foundation, then the constitution itself must rest upon a secure foundation. This whole concept of the constitution is very different from that approach which says-and this is the position taken by the right hon. gentleman and it is a position which is the consummation of each of those steps of which this resolution is the final one-that the constitution can be changed by a majority vote of the Canadian parliament. That position makes the constitution a creature of the Canadian parliament, which certainly could never be said to have been the intention of the fathers of confederation when the constitution was designed; it has never been the intention or the position of any political constitutional authority in Canada. By that I mean any person having to exercise the responsibility of government.
So far as my study goes, I believe I may say it was never the position of any government until that principle was enunciated by the right hon. Prime Minister in 1946 when he was minister of justice. I believe it is important for us to trace the course which is now being followed as it has developed step by step over the past few years. I start with the statement made by the Prime Minister in 1946 when he was minister of justice to the effect that section 133 of the British North America Act could be amended by a simple majority vote of this parliament. 1 have to say that the right hon. gentleman

is entitled to all respect for the consistency with which he has maintained that position. There is no doubt that is his view. He stated it in this house and he repeated it in his comments earlier this session. The fact that it is his view, and has been his view consistently, does not necessarily make it right. It certainly does not alter the fact that it is a view diametrically opposed to the views of those who thought that, whether the constitution be a compact, treaty or statute, there were certain inalienable, fundamental features of that constitution which could not be changed by a unilateral act of one partner to the confederation. That was, therefore, the first departure from previously accepted principles.
Then we go on to the next step, which is to be found in the statement made when the redistribution act was passed in 1946 when a position was taken to the effect that the dominion parliament has the right to say which matters are matters affecting the provinces and which are matters affecting only the dominion. Surely, Mr. Speaker, anyone taking a reasonable view of the position of our provinces would be entitled to assume that a matter of great concern to them is their representation in this House of Commons. Can anything much more directly affect the provinces?
Let us look at what is an obvious example. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) is in his seat tonight. Would he not think that it was a matter affecting the rights of his province of Manitoba if it were to be said that his province's representation should be cut from its present number down to ten, without any justification on the basis of its population? Would he not think that a matter affecting the rights of his province? Would not every province placed in that position think so? But that is the logical conclusion from the position taken by the present government when the redistribution act was being passed, when it was said that in the matter of representation in the House of Commons the number of members from each province is a matter for the federal parliament alone and is in no sense a matter for provincial concern; and that therefore changes in the basis oi representation, amendments to the British North America Act governing the verj system of representation, can be made in spite of the previously accepted position, and were in fact made initially, by the simple actior of a majority in the Canadian parliament.
If that is the position, namely, that change in its representation in this house is not < matter for provincial concern or one on whicl a province is entitled to be consulted, wha more vital matter could be found? If then is no room for consultation on the matter o

representation, nor any room for provincial rights in that matter, it does not take much of an extension of that principle before we arrive at the position that the federal parliament has the right to say what changes will be made with respect to any matter, simply because it says that the provinces are not concerned, that provincial rights are not involved and that it is a matter of concern only to the federal parliament.
Then we come to the departure from the provisions of the British North America Act in the matter of the admission of Newfoundland into confederation. I am not going to revive that debate, except to say this. The one and only point at issue at that time was that Newfoundland was brought into confederation by a method which constituted a complete and radical departure from the method laid down in the British North America Act; and that departure again, in a matter affecting a future province of Canada, was effected by unilateral procedure without any form of consultation with the provinces. Perhaps no one of these things, taken by itself, would seem to be a cause for great alarm; but it is the constant accumulation of steps, the unfolding of the process step by step towards the assumption of control and ownership by this parliament of our constitution, a process which we see resulting in the position being established that the constitution is the exclusive property of the Canadian parliament, which gives concern to those who see these steps being taken.
Then the next step was the position taken that the abolition of appeals to the privy council was a matter of exclusive concern to the federal parliament or a matter on which the federal parliament alone had the right to act, without consultation with the provinces, although the provinces under the
17, 1949	869
British North America Act British North America Act had the right to appeal to the privy council. It is a fact that by that single unilateral act of this House of Commons the provinces have been deprived of a right which was formerly theirs, namely, the right of appeal to the privy council.


Mr. Blackmore:: One of their most precious rights.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) has just said, many of the provinces regarded it as one of their most precious rights. A highly disturbing feature of this process to those who see it unfolding is that it is largely true to say that, as these steps have succeeded each other with ever-increasing rapidity, in each case it has been a little easier to take that step, and that it has aroused a little less interest and a little less controversy in the house and throughout the country.
On motion of Mr. Fulton the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we will continue this debate. If it is concluded, we will take up second reading of Bill No. 12, to establish the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation and then second reading of Bill No. 62, respecting forest conservation. If those matters are disposed of we will move to go into supply, call one new department, and proceed with the estimates of the departments of Agriculture and Veterans Affairs.


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


[Stage Direction]
Office of the Prime Minister
Ottawa, September 14, 1949.
My dear Premier:
For some time the government has been giving consideration to devising a satisfactory means of removing the necessity, on every occasion on which an amendment to the British North America Act is required, of going through the form of having the amendment made by the parliament of the United Kingdom. It does not accord with the status of Canada as a fully autonomous nation that we should be obliged to have recourse to the parliament of another country, however close our association with that country, to determine our own affairs. Moreover, it has been made increasingly clear to the government that the parliament of the United Kingdom has no desire to perpetuate the existing anomalous situation any longer than is absolutely necessary.
Before the recent election I stated on several occasions that it was the view of the government that a method should be worked out to amend our constitution in Canada, and that any such method should include the fullest safeguards of provincial rights and jurisdiction, and of the use of the two official languages and of those other rights which are the sacred trust of our national partnership.
I stated also that it was the intention of the government, after the election, to consult the provincial governments with a view to working out a method of amending the constitution in Canada, which would be satisfactory to all Canadians.
My colleagues and I recognize that the working out of a satisfactory method of making all kinds of amendments will not be easy, and the government has accordingly decided to submit to our parliament, at the forthcoming session, an address requesting an amendment of the British North America Act by the United Kingdom parliament which would vest in the parliament of Canada the authority to amend the constitution of Canada but only in relation to matters not coming within the jurisdiction of the legislatures of the provinces, nor affecting the rights and privileges of the provinces, or existing constitutional rights and privileges with respect to education and to the use of the English and French languages.
Such an amendment would give the Canadian parliament the same jurisdiction over the purely federal aspects of our constitution that the provincial legislatures already possess over the provincial constitutions, while giving both to provincial rights and jurisdiction and to the historic rights of minorities an express assurance of legal protection which we feel they should have.
We recognize that amendments may be required from time to time in the national interest of those provisions of the constitution which concern both federal and provincial authorities, and that it would be desirable to devise a generally satisfactory method of making such amendments in Canada whenever they may be required.
The federal government would appreciate the opportunity of consulting with the governments of all the provinces on this matter in the manner most convenient to the provincial governments, at an
early date after the conclusion of the forthcoming session of parliament. If the provincial governments should desire, meanwhile, to have a preparatory conference of constitutional experts, we would be ready to have federal officials participate.
Our aim is to reach agreement, as soon as possible, on a method of amendment which will relieve the United Kingdom parliament of an embarrassing obligation, and establish within Canada full and final responsibility for all our national affairs.
To this end we are inviting the co-operation of your government and the governments of all the other provinces of Canada.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent

[Stage Direction]
Province of Newfoundland Office of the Premier
St. John's,
October 4, 1949
Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, M.P., P.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. St. Laurent,
I hope you will overlook the delay which has occurred since you wrote me on September 14, with regard to finding a suitable new procedure for amending the British North America Act.
I was in Ottawa when you wrote, and your letter was here when I got back. I have brought the matter to the attention of the government of Newfoundland, and they share fully my view that we, for our part, agree with you and your government that a new procedure should be found. We will be happy to co-operate with you in the endeavour. We will be ready at any time after prorogation of parliament to meet with you at Ottawa.
Awaiting your further advice, and with all good wishes,
Very sincerely yours,
J. R. Smallwood,
Premier
Office of the Prime Minister Canada
Ottawa, October 6, 1949 Honourable J. R. Smallwood, M.L.A.,
Premier of Newfoundland,
St. John's, Newfoundland.
My dear Premier:
X wish to acknowledge your letter of the 4th instant regarding the proposed consultation with the provincial governments with regard to the procedure for amending the constitution.
I thank you for the assurance of the readiness of the government of Newfoundland to co-operate in the endeavour to establish a new procedure, and I shall advise you in due course of our proposals respecting a conference for the purpose.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent

The Premier Halifax
September 27, 1949
My dear Prime Minister,
Let me acknowledge, and thank you for, your letter of September 14 in which you deal with the question of devising a method of amending the British North America Act in Canada.
I note that the federal government would be appreciative of an opportunity of consulting with the governments of all the provinces on this matter at some convenient date after the conclusion of the current session of parliament. The government of Nova Scotia will be glad to have a representative or representatives at any conference to be called for consideration of this important matter. I doubt that a preparatory conference of constitutional experts should be held before a general conference between representatives of the dominion and the provinces.
I observe that the Minister of Justice has introduced a bill for the abolition of appeals to the privy council. It seems to me that the abolition of appeals to the privy council might well form the subject of study by such a general conference as is envisaged in your letter. I beg to suggest, therefore, that final consideration of the bill now before the House of Commons be deferred until the conference suggested in your letter will be held. There is, I believe, considerable support for the view that the abolition of appeals to the privy council is in effect an amendment of the constitution and that, therefore, it is a question which should be the subject of discussion at the dominion-provincial conference which you suggest.
Yours sincerely,
Angus L. Macdonald The Right Honourable Louis S. St. Laurent, P.C., Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
Office of the Prime Minister
Ottawa,
October 3, 1949
Honourable Angus L. Macdonald, P.C., M.L.A., Premier of Nova Scotia,
Halifax, N.S.
My dear Premier:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of September 27, regarding the proposed consultation with the provincial governments with regard to the procedure for amending the constitution.
I thank you for the assurance of the readiness of the government of Nova Scotia to participate in a conference for this purpose, and I shall advise you in due course of our proposals in that connection. I have duly noted your observations regarding a preparatory conference of experts and will place them before my colleagues when I have been advised of the attitude of all the provincial governments.
I have discussed with my colleagues the suggestion contained in your letter that final consideration of the bill to abolish appeals to the privy council be deferred until after the proposed conference between the federal and provincial governments. We feel, however, that, since the judgment of the privy council indicated clearly and unequivocally that the federal parliament possesses exclusive jurisdiction to legislate respecting a final court of appeal for Canada, it would not be an appropriate subject for consultation with the provincial governments, but that parliament should, without further delay, discharge the responsibility placed upon it by the constitution.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
Appendix Premier's Office Prince Edward Island
September 26, 1949
The Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. St. Laurent,
With reference to your letter of September 14, I shall be pleased to attend a conference to discuss amendments to the constitution if and when it is held.
Yours very truly,
J. Walter Jones
The Premier Fredericton
September 16, 1949
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I am this day in receipt of your letter of September fourteenth which has reference to a method of procedure for amending the constitution without resort to the parliament of the United Kingdom.
While I have had no opportunity to discuss the matter with them I am sure that my colleagues would concur with me in a willingness to attend a conference between the dominion and the provinces to discuss this important matter.
Furthermore, if preliminary studies are generally considered desirable, I am sure you can count on this province being represented at any such preparatory conference.
Yours sincerely,
John B. McNair
Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent Prime Minister of Canada Ottawa, Canada
Office of the Prime Minister Canada
Ottawa,
September 26, 1949 Honourable John B. McNair, M.L.A.,
Premier of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, N.B.
My dear Premier:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of the 16th instant regarding the proposed consultation with the provincial governments with regard to the procedure for amending the constitution.
I thank you for the assurance of the readiness of the government of New Brunswick to participate in a conference for this purpose, and I shall advise you in due course of our proposals in that connection. As to a preparatory conference of experts, the government is awaiting word as to the attitude of all the provincial governments before deciding whether it would be helpful for us to take any initiative in arranging such a meeting.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
Office of the Prime Minister Province of Quebec
Quebec, September 19, 1949
Right Honourable Louis S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.
Mr. Prime  Minister@: On Friday, September 16, your letter of the 14th instant, concerning amendments that you mention regarding the British North America Act, was delivered to my office.

Appendix
I shall submit the contents of your letter as soon as possible to my colleagues in the executive council, and I shall write you again on this subject.
Please accept my best wishes.
M. L. Duplessis
Office of the Prime Minister Province of Quebec
Quebec, 21 September 1949
Right Honourable Louis S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.


Mr. Prime  Minister@: The members of the executive council of the province have today considered the letter which contains the very important constitutional changes that you mention. This was the first cabinet meeting since your letter was delivered to my office last Friday.
It is, I believe, not necessary to reiterate that the present government of Quebec is in favour of Canadian autonomy, but that it also firmly respects the autonomy of the provinces, particularly that 3f Quebec.
Provincial authorities in Quebec are always ready to participate in a Canadian intergovernmental conference seeking to study beforehand and apply subsequently the most appropriate and most just methods to give effect to the rights, prerogatives and liberties of the central authority, as well as the provincial authorities.
You write that your colleagues and yourself recognize that it will not be easy to find a satisfactory and general method of amending the constitution.
Evidently the many problems with which we would be confronted in amending our constitution require study and an appropriate delay, and also the co-operation of all the interested parties, that is to say, the governments of the provinces and of the country.
The Canadian constitution is not the work of an hour, nor is it the realization of hasty decision nor the realization of a single political party or single government. It seems to me that each and every one of us can profit by the example given to us by the fathers of confederation, who let the project ripen, and obtained, before deciding anything, the opinion and approbation of the administrations as well as of the statesmen of the time belonging to different parties, different races and different religions.
The government of Quebec, in accord with the highest constitutional and political authorities, without distinction as to race or party, is of the opinion that the British North America Act is a pact concluded between the four pioneer provinces, Lower and Upper Canada (Quebec and Ontario), New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia.
We share also the opinion expressed by the Hon. Honore Mercier, former premier of the province of Quebec, who declared, as did many other Canadian statesmen: "The existence of the provinces preceded that of the dominion; it is from them that it received its powers. They are sovereign within the limits of their attributions, and any interference with this sovereignty is a violation of the federal pact."
From this it follows that it is necessary that amendments which are to be proposed to the Canadian constitution should be submitted initially for the consideration and approbation of the provinces which gave birth to the central authority.
You declare in your letter that your government has decided to submit to the federal parliament at the present session an address praying the parliament of the United Kingdom to confer upon the
parliament of Canada the right to amend the constitution of Canada, but only in relation to matters not coming within the jurisdiction of the legislatures of the provinces, nor affecting the constitutional rights and privileges of the provinces, nor the existing rights and privileges in the matter of education or relating to the use of the French and English languages.
Do you not think that it would be arbitrary on the part of the federal government to decide ex parte and of its own authority which are federal rights and which are the rights of the provinces? It seems clear to us that it does not belong to one of the parties to a multilateral contract to declare itself the supreme arbitrator in the interpretation of this contract and to assume of its sole authority rights which profoundly concern the other contracting parties.
Do you not think that such an attitude would be incompatible with Canadian unity, well understood, detrimental to desirable Canadian co-operation and contrary to the true interests of the country?
In our opinion the Canadian constitution is a pact which cannot be amended in a unilateral fashion. We believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and it is appropriate that the provinces should be consulted beforehand rather than be left in the presence of an accomplished fact.
We therefore ask, Mr. Prime Minister, that you delay all legislation relating to the federated pact and call together, in the first place, the interested parties, in order that they may study together, in a spirit of co-operation, the vital problems which are connected with all amendments to the British North America Act.
Please accept my good wishes.
M. L. Duplessis
Office of the Prime Minister Canada
Ottawa, September 28, 1949
The Honourable Maurice Duplessis, M.L.A., Premier of Quebec,
Parliament Buildings,
Quebec, Que.
My dear Premier:
I duly received your letter of the 21st September, in which you set out the attitude of your government respecting the constitutional proposals referred to in my letter of September 14.
I am pleased that you have said that the provincial authorities of Quebec are ready to participate at any time in a conference between the various Canadian governments with the object of examining and applying the right and proper methods of giving effect to the rights, prerogatives and liberties of the central authority and the provincial authorities.
I note also that you reiterate the opinion that the British North America Act is a compact entered into by the four original provinces. Without at this time entering into any debate regarding this opinion or the consequences which flow from it, I would simply recall that historically the federal authorities have always proceeded, when there was a question of making amendments to this act which touched exclusively on something within federal jurisdiction, by taking it for granted that those sections at least of the act do not have the character of a contract, but are rather statutory provisions capable of being amended by the legislative authority which enacted them.
In the present circumstances we do not ask anyone else to renounce a contrary opinion, but we believe we should proceed in the same fashion as has been done in the past. We believe that there is a line of demarcation (and that it makes

very little difference whether this demarcation was by contract or by statute as long as it is respected) between what is exclusively in the federal domain, what is exclusively in the provincial domain, and what is of concern both to the federal and provincial authorities.
I stated in the House of Commons the other day that it was my personal opinion that it would be arbitrary for us to attempt to decide ourselves in a definitive way what was on one side and what was on the other side of this line of demarcation, and that I believed it was desirable, when transferring from the parliament of Westminster to the parliament of Canada the right to make amendments respecting matters which were exclusively of federal interest, that we should use language which would leave to the courts in case of dispute the task of determining the line of demarcation.
We do not ask you to renounce the opinion that you express in your letter, but we do not believe that you will expect us to renounce the one which has been constantly followed in practice in securing the different amendments which have been made to the British North America Act between 1871 and 1949.
I believe that what we suggest offers a practical means of achieving something without either of us on one side or the other having to acquiesce in an opinion that he does not feel he should admit.
The provinces have always had the right of amending their constitution except as respects the office of lieutenant governor. As for the federal authorities, every time they have considered it advisable to amend the provisions which concern them exclusively-and that has seemed advisable about ten times since 1867-they have had to have the amendment made by the parliament of Westminster.
When we have secured for the federal parliament the right to make these amendments instead of having only the right to have them made at Westminster at the request of our two houses of parliament, the problem will remain of providing for amendments, if any should ever be necessary, to the provisions which are not subject to amendment either by the federal parliament alone or by the provincial legislatures alone.
What we wish to examine with the provincial governments is what would be the right and proper procedure in this respect, and we wish at the same time to make provision in the constitution for express guarantees for the autonomy of the provinces, both with respect to their jurisdiction and to their rights and privileges, as well as for the rights and privileges with respect to education and the use of the French and English languages.
It is our hope that, subject to any reservations you may consider proper, your government will take part in such a conference.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
Office of the Premier Province of Quebec
Quebec, October 5, 1949
Right Honourable Louis S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.


Mr. Prime  Minister@: At the first meeting of council, held today, I submitted your letter of the 28th of September regarding constitutional changes which you have recommended, for the consideration of my colleagues.
You write: "I would simply recall that historically the federal authorities have always proceeded, when there was a question of making amendments to this act which touched exclusively
Appendix
on something within federal jurisdiction, by taking it for granted that those sections at least of the act do not have the character of a contract, but are rather statutory provisions capable of being amended by the legislative authority which enacted them".
Permit me respectfully to recall to you that your interpretation does not correspond with that of the fathers of the federative pact in the parliament of Westminster in 1867. Lord Carnarvon in the House of Lords, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Adderley in the House of Commons, have said as follows:
Lord Carnarvon: "The Quebec resolutions, with some slight changes, form the basis of a measure that I have now the honour to submit to parliament. To those resolutions all the British provinces in North America were, as I have said, consenting parties, and the measure founded upon them must be accepted as a treaty of union."
Mr Adderley: "If, again, federation has in this case specially been a matter of most delicate treaty and compact between the provinces ... it is clearly necessary that there should be a third party ab extra to give sanction to the treaty made between them."
It seems evident to us that Lord Carnarvon and Mr. Adderley were fully aware of what they were discussing, that they were acting in good faith, and that they did not wish to mislead those who were interested, by statements which were not correct.
In addition, our Canadian statesmen of different political allegiances and different races have also expressed on several occasions the opinion that the act of confederation is a pact or a treaty.
We are persuaded that if the province of Quebec had believed that the federative act represented simply a piece of legislation always susceptible of being amended at the sole wish of the federal authorities, it would not have given its consent.
It seems clear to us that at the moment of confederation the statesmen of the time had in mind and sought confirmation of a pact or treaty. Further, there are several privy council judgments to the effect that not a law but a pact is involved.
If, as you have written, and once more we respect your opinion without sharing it, the Canadian constitution is a law which does not offer guarantees of permanence and stability as such, because it is subject to all modifications, how would a new law, also subject to amendments, offer greater guarantees?
Do you not believe that the many vital problems involved in an amendment of the Canadian constitution are of such magnitude that it is fitting that they be studied and given mature consideration, before proposing them, and even more before adopting them?
You invoke federal precedents for the proposed method of amending the constitution. Do you not believe that bad precedents ought not to be multiplied?-and moreover, none of the precedents to which you have referred has the importance nor is so far-reaching as what you now propose. We must not forget that very important amendments to the Canadian constitution, though not as important as those which you propose, have been made despite the opposition of the province of Quebec. In our opinion the more numerous the bad precedents are, the more necessary it is to put an end to them and to cease multiplying them.
I repeat that the present government of Quebec is in favour of the autonomy of Canada, but that it also holds firmly to respect for the autonomy of the provinces and of Quebec in particular.
I should like to renew the assurances that the provincial authorities in Quebec are always ready to take part in a Canadian intergovernmental conference whose aim would be to study beforehand and apply subsequently the most appropriate and

Appendix
just methods to give effect to the rights, prerogatives, and liberties of the central authority as well as of the provincial authorities.
Once more I draw your attention to the fact that the Canadian constitution did not result from hasty decisions, nor was it the realization of a single political party or of a single government.
We renew our request, Mr. Prime Minister, that you agree to postpone all legislation concerning the federative pact and call together initially the interested parties to study together in a spirit of co-operation the vital problems involved in an amendment to the British North America Act.
Yours sincerely,
M. L. Duplessis
Office of the Prime Minister
Ottawa, October 13, 1949
The Honourable Maurice Duplessis, M.L.A.
Premier of Quebec,
Parliament Buildings,
Quebec, Que.
My dear Premier:
I duly received your letter of the 5th instant with further reference to the constitutional changes proposed by the federal government, and I submitted it to my colleagues yesterday.
In your letter we were surprised to read the following paragraph:
"If, as you have written, and once more we respect your opinion without sharing it, the Canadian constitution is a law which does not offer guarantees of permanence and stability as such, because it is subject to all modifications, how would a new law, also subject to amendments, offer greater guarantees?"
That is not the position of the federal government at all. We do not claim, and have never claimed, that the federal authorities have any such sweeping right in respect to amendments to the constitution.
What we do claim, and what we propose to secure at the present time, is a practical method of having made in Canada, by the federal parliament alone, not "all amendments" to the constitution, but only amendments relating to provisions of the constitution which are the exclusive concern of the federal authorities.
We believe we already have the right to have such amendments made without consulting the provincial authorities, just as the provincial legislatures have the right, without consulting the federal authorities, to make themselves, any amendments they consider desirable of those provisions which concern them exclusively.
In order to secure a declaration that such amendments can be made by the federal parliament instead of having them made by the parliament at Westminster, we propose to use the procedure used in securing amendments in the past.
The amendments already made within the federal sphere have had beneficial results, notably those of 1943 and 1946, which assured to the population of Quebec a more equitable representation in the federal parliament.
In your opinion this procedure and these precedents are unsound. To that opinion we can only reply that "we respect your opinion without sharing it," and that, as in the past, there is no obligation to ask for your consent or your acquiescence.
We now believe that a change of venue for future amendments is desirable. We believe that, rather than have them made by a parliament representing the citizens of the United Kingdom, future amendments to our constitution should, depending upon the subject matter of the amendment, either be made by parliament alone or parliament and the legislatures, which represent the citizens of Canada.
There is no doubt about our power to have this change of venue made without consulting the provincial authorities and without their acquiescence, "except as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces, or as regards rights or privileges by this or any other constitutional act granted or secured to the legislature or the government of a province, or to any class of persons with respect to schools or as regards the use of the English or the French language."
We claim we also have the right to have this change of venue made, without the consent or acquiescence of the provincial authorities. We cannot therefore accede to your request to postpone all action until there has been an understanding with the provincial authorities.
Once this first step has been taken, the federal authorities will be in the same position as the provincial authorities. If, under the pretence of making an amendment to the provincial constitution, a legislature encroaches on matters coming under federal jurisdiction, the courts would declare such an amendment ultra vires. The same rule will apply to federal legislation: to be valid, it will have to avoid encroaching on matters assigned exclusively to the provincial legislatures, or on rights or privileges granted or secured to the legislature or government of a province or to any class of persons with respect to schools, or as regards the use of the English or French language. If ever there should be legal disputes as to the validity of such federal legislation, the courts would be called on to decide them.
But there will remain, as I stated in my letter of the 28th of September, the problem "of providing for amendments, if any should ever be necessary, to the provisions which are not subject to amendment either by the federal parliament alone or by the provincial legislatures alone".
So long as the federal and provincial authorities have not agreed upon a right and proper procedure in this respect, all such amendments will remain within the jurisdiction of the parliament in London, instead of here in Canada.
There will also remain the problem of embodying in the constitution express legal safeguards of the rights of the provinces and of minorities which are not there now. All these things can be done, and we believe they should be done, and, when we of the federal government have accomplished all that we believe we can have done by ourselves, I shall renew the invitation to you to confer with us and representatives of the other provincial governments in order to devise means of completing the task of having transferred to the Canadian authorities what remains of the jurisdiction of the parliament in London over Canada's domestic affairs.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
Office of the Prime Minister and President of the Council
Toronto, Ontario, October 7, 1949.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I have your letter of the 14th September relative to the amendment of our constitution. I shall be glad to attend the conference which you refer to, and which it is proposed to hold shortly after the present session of parliament.
I agree with your observation that the working out of a satisfactory method of making all kinds of amendments to the constitution will not be easy. I can assure you that we are prepared to give all proposals the utmost consideration. I am frankly in some doubt as to the advisability of dealing

with the matter piecemeal without first attempting general agreement. Obviously, matters which are purely a federal concern will have to be delineated from time to time by the courts. My consideration of the matter leads me to believe that abolition of appeals to the privy council may affect this very important side of matters more than is generally realized. Following my conversation with you the other day, Mr. Garson wrote to me and I expressed some of my doubt in the matter in a letter under yesterday's date.
I make these observations because of the difficulties which were inherent in this whole matter. As stated, I shall attend the conference and, if it should appear desirable to have a preparatory conference of constitutional experts, we shall be prepared to participate.
Very sincerely yours,
Leslie M. Frost
The Right Honourable
Louis S. St. Laurent, K.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
Office of the Prime Minister
Ottawa, October 13, 1949.
The Honourable Leslie M. Frost, M.L.A.,
Premier of Ontario,
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto, Ontario.
My dear Premier:
I have just this afternoon received your letter of the 7th instant, replying to mine of the 14th of September, relative to the amendment of our constitution.
As I am obliged to leave Ottawa in a few minutes and will be absent for two or three days, I am sending this acknowledgment at once and confining myself to expressing appreciation of your expression of the willingness of the Ontario government to participate in a conference to consider a suitable method of amending the constitution in Canada.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
Province of Manitoba
Office of the Premier Winnipeg
October 6, 1949
The Right Honourable Louis S. St. Laurent, K.C., Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
My dear Prime Minister:
I am in receipt of your letter of September 14, 1949.
The government of Manitoba would be pleased to discuss with the federal government and the governments of the several provinces the questions mentioned by you at any time and place that is mutually convenient.
Your letter indicates that your government has already decided to ask the United Kingdom parliament to amend the British North America Act so that the parliament of Canada would have authority to amend the constitution of Canada, but only in relation to matters not coming within the jurisdiction of the legislatures of the provinces nor affecting the rights and privileges with respect to education and to the use of the English and French languages. The government of Manitoba feels that there might be differences of opinion as to whether a proposed amendment to the constitution related only to federal matters or affected provincial interests, rights, or jurisdiction. Before agreeing to
45781-56^
Appendix
any specific proposal, therefore, our government will examine carefully the manner in which the provincial position is to be protected.
The main purpose of the conference, as I understand it, would be to try to evolve a method of making, within Canada, amendments to those provisions of the constitution which concern both federal and provincial governments. The government of Manitoba realizes that a conference such as this will be dealing with difficult and complex constitutional problems, and that progress towards a solution of them can be made by representatives of Canada and the provinces meeting together. Our government is therefore of the opinion that a preliminary conference, comprising constitutional experts, though not necessarily limited to them, would be useful in clarifying many of the issues involved. We would consequently welcome the calling of such a preparatory conference and will be glad to participate in it.
I assume that the Manitoba government will be furnished with an agenda for either the preparatory conference or a dominion-provincial conference in sufficient time to afford us an opportunity of discussing items on the agenda and to enable our representatives to make full preparations.
Yours sincerely,
Douglas Campbell
Office of the Prime Minister
Ottawa,
October 12, 1949
Honourable Douglas Campbell, M.L.A.,
Premier of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
My dear Premier:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of the 6th instant regarding the proposed consultation with the provincial governments with regard to the procedure for amending the constitution.
I thank you for the assurance of the readiness of the government of Manitoba to participate in a conference for this purpose, and I shall advise you in due course of our proposals in that connection. As to a preparatory conference of experts, the government is awaiting word as to the attitude of all the provincial governments before deciding whether it would be helpful for us to take any initiative in arranging such a meeting.
As for the amendment we have already decided to ask the United Kingdom parliament to enact, I have pleasure in enclosing a copy of the motion which is already on the order paper of the House of Commons. Since it relates only to that part of the constitution which is of exclusive concern to the federal authorities, and leaves to the courts the responsibility for deciding any disputes as to the limits of our jurisdiction, it was our view that it would not be appropriate to consult the provincial authorities or to ask them to share our responsibility for a proposal which relates exclusively to matters within federal jurisdiction.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
Premier's Office
Regina, September 20th, 1949.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
Thank you for your letter of September 14 advising me that at the forthcoming session you propose to take steps to secure an amendment to the British North America Act vesting the parliament of Canada with the authority to amend the

Appendix
constitution of Canada in relation to matters not coming within the jurisdiction of the provinces nor affecting minority rights.
The government of Saskatchewan has always held that Canada should have the right to amend its own constitution, and consequently we welcome the news that steps are being taken to this end in so far as purely federal matters are concerned. I would take it that this will be done in conjunction with the abolition of appeals to the judicial committee of the privy council; for it would seem anomalous to vest the Canadian parliament with the authority to amend its constitution and leave with a judicial body of the United Kingdom power to hand down decisions affecting the interpretation of Canadian law. If such a step is taken, may I respectfully suggest that some measures should be adopted to make the Canadian supreme court more representative than it is at present, in order that those who find it necessary to appeal decisions of the lower courts may feel more confident than they are at present that these matters are being approached from the broadest possible viewpoint.
With reference to your suggestion that the federal and provincial governments consult at an early date regarding amendments which may be required to deal with those provisions of the constitution which affect federal and provincial authorities and minority rights, I wish to assure you that the government of Saskatchewan will gladly co-operate with your government and the governments of the other provinces in seeking to find a satisfactory solution to this problem. We recognize that proper safeguards will be necessary in order to prevent any unwarranted infringement upon provincial or minority rights, but at the same time we are convinced that the power to amend these provisions of our constitution should lie solely with the people of Canada through their elected dominion and provincial representatives. We are equally certain that if this problem is tackled in a spirit of co-operation and good will, a modus operandi can be worked out which will be acceptable to the great majority of Canadian citizens.
Will you please advise us when such a conference is likely to be held, and if it is your intention to invite the provincial governments to send constitutional experts to a preparatory conference for the purpose of laying a basis for our discussions.
Assuring you of our willingness to co-operate in this matter, and awaiting any further particulars regarding the proposed conference, I remain, Yours sincerely,
T. C. Douglas
Office of the Prime Minister
Ottawa, September 26, 1949.
Honourable T. C. Douglas, M.L.A.,
Premier of Saskatchewan,
Regina, Saskatchewan.
My dear Premier:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of the 20th instant regarding the proposed consultation with the provincial governments with regard to the procedure for amending the constitution.
I thank you for the assurance of the readiness of the government of Saskatchewan to participate in a conference for this purpose, and I shall advise you in due course of our proposals in that connection.
As to a preparatory conference of experts, the government is awaiting word as to the attitude of all the provincial governments before deciding whether it would be helpful for us to take any initiative in arranging such a meeting.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
Office of the Premier Alberta
Edmonton, October 12, 1949
Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister;
My colleagues and I have carefully considered your letter of September 14, in which you invite the co-operation of the Alberta government in measures designed to alter the present procedure in the matter of amendments to the British North America Act.
The government of Alberta will be pleased to be represented at a conference between the dominion and the provinces for a full discussion of this important subject. Your suggestion that such a conference be held following the present session of parliament is satisfactory to us.
In view of the important legal aspects of the matter, we favour your further suggestion that a preliminary meeting of constitutional experts representing the various governments be held prior to the main conference.
I would like to refer particularly to your observation that it is the intention of parliament at the present session to request an amendment to the British North America Act by the United Kingdom parliament which would vest in the parliament of Canada the authority to amend the constitution of Canada in relation to matters not coming within the jurisdiction of the legislatures of the provinces.
While this may appear to be a matter of concern only to the dominion government, my colleagues and I feel strongly that the amendment proposed concerns the provinces as well, in that federal policies initiated under future amendments to the B.N.A. Act, which the dominion government might make within its constitutional sphere, could well have far-reaching effects on the economy of the provinces. Furthermore, the privy council has held that under the B.N.A. Act all powers have been vested in either the provinces or the dominion. It is difficult, therefore, to see how a situation could arise where any amendment to the B.N.A. Act would affect dominion powers alone, without at the same time affecting at least to some degree the rights of the provinces. We feel it is extremely important, before any amendment is made to the British North America Act, even in the field of federal jurisdiction, that the whole question of dominion versus provincial jurisdiction be fully discussed at a joint meeting of representatives of the dominion and provincial governments. We strongly urge that this whole matter be held in abeyance pending the conference which you propose to convene at the close of the present session of parliament. It seems to us that this is the only way in which future conflict can be avoided and the unity of Canada, which we all desire, preserved and strengthened.
Yours very truly,
Ernest C. Manning,
Premier
Office of the Prime Minister
Ottawa, October 17, 1949
Honourable E. C. Manning, M.L.A.,
Premier of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta.
My dear Premier;
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 12 regarding the proposed consultations with the provincial governments in connection with the procedure for amending the constitution.

I have pleasure in enclosing a copy of the motion which is on the order paper of the House of Commons embodying the address asking the United Kingdom parliament to empower the parliament of Canada to amend our constitution in relation to matters not coming within the jurisdiction of the legislatures of the provinces, or in relation to provincial or minority rights. As you will see from the motion, the proposed amendment is not intended to affect provincial jurisdiction or the rights or prerogatives of provincial legislatures or governments, but relates only to that part of the constitution which is of exclusive concern to the federal authorities, and leaves to the courts the responsibility for deciding any disputes as to the limits of our jurisdiction.
In other words, the action proposed immediately will merely give to the federal authorities the same power to amend the constitution of Canada which the provincial authorities already enjoy under section 92 of the British North America Act to amend the constitutions of the provinces.
It is accordingly our view that it would not be appropriate to consult the provincial authorities or to ask them to share our responsibility for a proposal which relates exclusively to matters within federal jurisdiction.
All that is really involved is a change of venue for future amendments relating to provisions of the constitution which are the exclusive concern of the federal authorities. Since we are convinced we have the right to have this change of venue made without the consent or acquiescence of the provincial authorities, we feel we cannot accede to your request that the whole matter be held in abeyance pending the conference proposed after the close of the present session of parliament.
Once this initial step has been taken, there will remain the problem of providing for amendments, if any should ever be necessary, to the provisions which are not subject to amendment either by the federal parliament alone or by the provincial legislatures alone.
So long as the federal and provincial authorities have not agreed upon a right and proper procedure in this respect, all such amendments will remain within the jurisdiction of the parliament in London instead of here in Canada.
There will also remain the problem of embodying in the constitution express legal safeguards of the rights of the provinces and of minorities which are not there now. All these things can be done, and we believe they should be done, and, when we of the federal government have accomplished all that we believe we can have done by ourselves, I shall renew the invitation to you to confer with us and representatives of the other provincial governments in order to devise means of completing the task of having transferred to the Canadian authorities what remains of the jurisdiction of the parliament in London over Canada's domestic affairs. In this connection my colleagues and I are gratified by your assurance that the government of Alberta will be pleased to be represented at such a conference.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
Appendix
Office of the Premier Province of British Columbia
Victoria,
September 28, 1949
The Right Honourable Louis S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
My dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I have for acknowledgment your letter of September 14, which arrived during my absence on a trip through the northern part of the province. I note your desire to have a conference of representatives of your government and the provincial governments to discuss the possibility of amending the British North America Act.
I may say that the government of the province of British Columbia is willing to participate in a conference to discuss constitutional matters at a time to be designated by your government.
We feel that the question of a preparatory conference of constitutional experts should be held in abeyance until such time as the conference suggested has been held and an opportunity given to the provincial governments to study in detail the changes which may be considered desirable.
With kindest personal regards,
Yours faithfully,
Byron I. Johnson
Premier
Office of the Prime Minister Ottawa,
October 1, 1949
Honourable Byron I. Johnson, M.L.A.,
Premier of British Columbia,
Victoria, B.C.
My dear Premier:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of September 28 regarding the proposed consultation with the provincial governments with regard to the procedure for amending the constitution.
I thank you for the assurance of the readiness of the government of British Columbia to participate in a conference for this purpose, and I shall advise you in due course of our proposals in that connection.
I have duly noted your observations regarding a preparatory conference of experts, and will place them before my colleagues when I have been advised of the attitude of all the provincial governments.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent

Tuesday, October 18, 1949 HOUSE OF COMMONS



WELCOME TO MEMBER FOR COCHRANE ON HIS RETURN TO THE HOUSE AFTER ILLNESS

Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am very thankful for the opportunity to welcome back to this chamber the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette). There are few hon. members who have given better service or who are held in greater respect than he is. I pay my tribute to him. He is not an Irishman, but he is the next thing to it. I believe it would be in keeping with His way of thinking if I expressed to Him who brings all things to pass in the right way our gratitude for bringing the hon. member safely back to the service of the house.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Francis Higgins: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, of which I have given notice. In view of the serious unemployment situation in Newfoundland, as outlined yesterday by the premier of that province, what action, if any, does the federal government propose to take in the matter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Up to the present time the government has received no official communication from the government of Newfoundland concerning the matter referred to in the hon. member's question. I should like, however, to call attention to the fact that the supplementary estimates for services in Newfoundland, which have been before the house and of which certain portions have been voted in a preliminary way, contain an item of $750,000 for public buildings, and another item of $575,000 for dredging, of which $200,000 is allocated to manual day labour. There is another item of $1 million for harbours and rivers generally. Serious attention has been given recently to expediting the work for which these moneys have been provided, and it is hoped that it will take up some portion of the unemployment which has developed in Newfoundland.



STORAGE OF BULLION BY MINING INTERESTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's reply to a question I asked on May 22, 1947, made on June 10, 1947, as reported at pages 3319 and 3968 respectively of Hansard, what action has he taken or does he propose to take to prevent profiteering by McIntyre Porcupine or other gold mines on alleged accumulations of gold and gold concentrates withheld for some time awaiting devaluation?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of his question. Perhaps I should first repeat what I actually did say. The gist of my remarks is to be found on page 3969 of Hansard of June 10, 1947. After referring to the fact that if gold were required to be transferred to the Bank of Canada, it would, under the present law, be required to be transferred at the old standard price of $20.67 per fine ounce, I went on to say:
This would be probably too drastic a penalty to impose in a case of the kind we are considering- too drastic, that is to say. unless the country's need for the gold was immediate and urgent. On the other hand, after serious consideration I have not been able to think of any amendments to these provisions of the Bank of Canada Act which I would be prepared to recommend at this time, because I can see that there may be cases arising in future where it might be appropriate to apply the present provisions of that act. With this in mind, I am not proposing any action on this matter at the present time. I am content to defer action for the time being because any gold that is stored by mining companies will be in a few hands; we will know where it is and approximately what it amounts to. We can therefore take it into account as in some measure a substitute for a part of our official reserves and, finally, if the need should arise, we will be in a position to have it transferred to the Bank of Canada under the legislative authority I have mentioned.
That was my statement at that time. The fact is that in our opinion such need did not arise, and we did not feel it necessary to have the gold to which reference is made transferred to the Bank of Canada under the provision of the Bank of Canada Act to which I have referred.
Perhaps I might add what must be reasonably clear to everyone, that if a gold mine has held gold for the last two or three or more years, in expectation of a rise in the

Inquiries of the Ministry price of gold, the transaction could not have been very profitable to the company, having in mind the loss of interest or other earning power on funds tied up in an unproductive manner, and the storage and other charges necessarily incurred during this long period.


John Lambert Gibson: What percentage of the excess profit would be obtained in the form of income tax?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I suppose between thirty-five per cent and forty per cent of any profit made from appreciation in the price of gold would be paid in tax either to the dominion or to the province.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: I should like to ask the government a question. Is any action being taken to aid Great Britain in her dollar troubles, (a) by private Canadian industrialists, or (b) by the government of Canada?
I regret I did not have time to give the minister notice of my question.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The government of Canada of course has taken extraordinary measures to help Great Britain in her dollar difficulties. Loans in excess of a billion dollars have already been made, and a loan is currently being made at the rate of $10 million a month. So far as private industry is concerned, industry in Canada has joined with industry in the United Kingdom to set up a board to assist in the sale of British goods in Canada. I believe an announcement of the personnel of the board was made yesterday by Mr. Duncan, the chairman of the Canadian section of the board. I am meeting with the Canadian board this evening to discuss plans with them. I think that reasonable steps are being taken, so far as Canada is concerned, to assist in correcting the unbalance between dollars and sterling, and I can assure the hon. member that both the government and industry will continue to interest themselves in the problem.



DEVALUATION OF CANADIAN DOLLAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the plight of Canadian teachers doing exchange teaching in the United States, owing 

to the effect of devaluation on their Canadian salaries, been drawn to his attention? Will he see if anything can be done to relieve their situation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has not been drawn to my attention up to the present time. I have no doubt it will be after the question the hon. member has asked today.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, a copy of which I have sent him. Can the minister state whether he will comply with the request of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan that an investigation be made under the Combines Investigation Act into the recent price increases on crude oil, gasoline and fuel oil?


Hon. Siuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The attitude of the government towards the request of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan is being set out in a letter from myself to the attorney general bearing today's date. As a matter of courtesy and fairness to the attorney general, I do not think I should publish the letter before he receives it, but I shall be glad to have it tabled tomorrow.


Donald MacInnis: Does the government contemplate amendment of the Combines Investigation Act at the present session? If so, when will the amendments be introduced?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer is yes, in the fairly near future.



SALES TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received representations asking for the removal of the sales tax on ice cream? Will he make a statement in the matter?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have received a considerable number during the last few days, and I suppose there were several hundred both before and after the budget presentation last March.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, October 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for an address to His Majesty the King praying that a measure be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to amend the British North America Act, 1867, relating to the amendment of the constitution of Canada.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last night I was in process of outlining a series of steps which have been taken, and are still being taken, the result of which will be, if this resolution passes, that the parliament of Canada will have exclusive control over the Canadian constitution. Among those steps I had outlined the first three or four, starting with the statement of the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), made in the house in 1946, that, contrary to the generally accepted view of the constitution, the language rights guaranteed under section 133 of the British North America Act could in fact be changed by a simple majority vote of parliament. Carrying on from there, the next stage was the redistribution act, when the position was taken that the federal parliament has the absolute right to say what matters are or are not matters of provincial concern, and that because it was said the representation of a province in this house was a matter for the federal parliament, then however strong might be the views of the provinces in the matter, it was within the competence of this parliament to pass an act changing the basis of redistribution-contrary to the views formerly held with respect to the constitution.
Then there was the further position taken in the course of the debate on the admission of Newfoundland to confederation-the method followed there being a departure from the agreed terms outlined in the British North America Act-that a departure from the procedure set out in that act could be made by the federal parliament without any measure of consultation with or consent by the provinces as to the propriety or necessity of making that departure.
Then at this session we had the abolition of appeals to the privy council, the effect of which was, amongst other things, to deprive the provinces of what had been their right since confederation, their right of appeal to the privy council. That right was taken away from them without consultation or any attempt to obtain their consent. I think that is an important matter to bear in mind
British North America Act in view of the correspondence which has been received, and which was tabled yesterday, from some of the provincial premiers.
These were the steps which I had outlined when the house rose last night. I would like to outline three more steps which have been taken or are now being taken to complete the process of gathering into the hands of this parliament exclusive control over our constitution.
First, in the discussion of the question of the abolition of appeals to the privy council no heed was paid to the suggestion-indeed, the request-that when the supreme court was made the court of final jurisdiction some constitutional protection should be given the composition of that court, so that it might be made a part of our constitution, as it were, and that its composition might be changed only by means of a constitutional amendment. At the present time the Supreme Court of Canada is the exclusive creation of this parliament, and its composition can be changed by a simple act of parliament. As I shall have occasion to point out in a few moments, among the letters from provincial premiers in reference to the conference it is proposed to hold in the near future are several in which they request that the composition of the supreme court be taken into consideration before the final abolition of appeals to the privy council.
The next step I wish to mention is the one now before us in this resolution. I think it is important for us to have clearly in mind, in order to appreciate fully the consequences of the steps already taken and of this step, that if this proposal is adopted-and the government is putting the resolution forward for consideration and adoption-the dominion parliament is asserting in its final form the principle that it can amend the constitution without consultation with the provinces, and is taking that position in spite of the protests of five of the provinces which have expressed their views by letter. I should like to refer in detail to some of the letters which have been written. I think I should remark that if the Prime Minister had desired to prevent the public from being fully informed as to the views held by the various provincial governments, or if he had desired to prevent the full and informed discussion which should take place on this matter, he could not have served that purpose better than by the course he followed, in refraining from tabling this correspondence until yesterday, the very day this resolution came up for discussion in the house. That, I think, is remarkable, when one sees the lengths to which some of the provincial premiers have gone in the correspondence in expressing

British North America Act their views as to the propriety of this procedure, and in requesting that this resolution be withheld pending the convening of the conference it is proposed to hold following this session.
I have here a letter from the premier of Nova Scotia, dated September 27, three weeks before this resolution came up for discussion -and, incidentally, before the debate on the bill to abolish appeals to the privy council was concluded. The passage from Mr. Macdonald's letter which is of interest is as follows:
I observe that the Minister of Justice has introduced a bill for the abolition of appeals to the privy council. It seems to me that the abolition of appeals to the privy council might well form the subject of study by such a general conference as is envisaged in your letter. I beg to suggest, therefore, that final consideration of the bill now before the House of Commons be deferred until the conference suggested in your letter will be held. There is, I believe, considerable support for the view that the abolition of appeals to the privy council is in effect an amendment of the constitution and that, therefore, it is a question which should be the subject of discussion at the dominion-provincial conference which you suggest.
Two things emerge from that letter. The first is that the premier of Nova Scotia-and one or two other premiers held the same view-asked that the measure abolishing appeals to the privy council be deferred pending the conference. The second, and more important in the light of the present debate, is the view expressed in this letter that since it amounts to a constitutional amendment, it should be withheld pending that conference. Implicit in that view is the feeling that, before any positive steps are taken to amend our constitution, the provinces should be consulted, particularly before steps are taken to provide that the federal parliament, by its own simple majority, can amend our constitution without consultation with the provinces, in order that satisfactory assurances may be obtained that, in any such amendments, provincial rights will not be infringed upon.


Mr. Carroll:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not a great deal of time left, but I will answer one question.


William F. Carroll: Is it not a fact that the privy council, the highest court of appeal, has already decided that this parliament can do away with appeals to the privy council?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That matter is not in dispute.


William F. Carroll: Then how can it be a question of changing the constitution?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That question was fully discussed in the course of the debate on the other bill, and if I were to refer to the details of that discussion probably I would be ruled

out of order. I may content myself with saying that the view that it would be in effect a change in the constitution likely to have an influence on provincial rights in the future was put forward in that debate. The premier of the hon. member's own province held the same view, and wished that the matter might be deferred until the whole question of the basis of constitutional amendments and related matters might be discussed at a dominion-provincial conference.
The letter from the premier of Quebec has been referred to already and has been published in full in the press; therefore I need not read extracts from it. However, he is another provincial premier who holds very strongly the view that before the question of constitutional amendment is decided there should be a conference with the provinces. The premier of Ontario also expressed his views as to the propriety of the procedure being followed, that is to say the propriety of deciding that the parliament of Canada can amend the constitution now and in future without previously discussing with the provinces the method to be followed, and at least trying to work out some safeguard which would allay the doubts and fears of the provinces that the method now being adopted may result in their constitutional rights being infringed upon. Under date of October 7 the premier of Ontario wrote as follows:
I am frankly in some doubt as to the advisability of dealing with the matter piecemeal without first attempting general agreement. Obviously, matters which are purely a federal concern will have to be delineated from time to time by the courts. My consideration of the matter leads me to believe that abolition of appeals to the privy council may affect this very important side of matters more than is generally realized.
The premier of Manitoba expressed himself in somewhat similar language. On October 6 Mr. Campbell wrote as follows:
Your letter indicates that your government has already decided to ask the United Kingdom parliament to amend the British North America Act so that the parliament of Canada would have authority to amend the constitution of Canada, but only in relation to matters not coming within the jurisdiction of the legislatures of the provinces nor affecting the rights and privileges with respect to education and to the use of the English and French languages. The government of Manitoba feels that there might be differences of opinion as to whether a proposed amendment to the constitution related only to federal matters or affected provincial interests, rights, or jurisdiction. Before agreeing to any specific proposal, therefore, our government will examine carefully the manner in which the provincial position is to be protected.
The letter from the premier of Saskatchewan, dated September 20, 1949, contains the following passage:
If such a step is taken, may I respectfully suggest that some measures should be adopted to make the Canadian supreme court more representative than

it is at present, in order that those who find it necessary to appeal decisions of the lower courts may feel more confident than they are at present that these matters are being approached from the broadest possible viewpoint.
Finally there is a letter from the premier of Alberta, from which lengthy extracts have already been quoted by the leader of the opposition, making it quite clear that the premier of Alberta holds the view that it is impossible for any one parliament to say what is a matter exclusively for its jurisdiction and what is a matter exclusively for the jurisdiction of other parliaments without giving some offence to the position and rights of those other parliaments. He therefore requests that this matter of working out a procedure of amending our constitution in Canada be left to be determined at the dominion-provincial conference which is to be called in the near future.
These are letters from five of the ten provinces, half the members of confederation, and representing well over half the population of Canada. They are written in terms which cast doubt upon the propriety of proceeding by unilateral action of this parliament to take into our own hands the power of amending the constitution in accordance with our views of what are federal rights and what may be provincial rights.
If only for the purpose, Mr. Speaker, of preserving unity; if only for the purpose of creating and preserving those conditions which would give some hope of success in trying to reach agreement at the dominion-provincial conference, I would have thought the government would have been willing for a few months to hold up the resolution now before us and to hold up these other matters which there will be five years to deal with, instead of completely overriding the expressed wishes of five provincial premiers and proceeding in the first month of this session with these important constitutional changes.
The final step to which I shall refer is again inherent in the resolution before us. It is the assertion, to which practical effect would be given by the passage of the resolution, that this parliament can decide what matters are federal and what matters are provincial. I know the Prime Minister said yesterday that no such thought is in his mind, that the decision on federal and provincial jurisdiction would be left to the courts. It is inherent in this resolution, Mr. Speaker, because it asks that power be given to this parliament to do what? To make amendments from time to time to the constitution of Canada, "except as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures . . ." If these words mean anything, they can only mean that this parlia-
British North America Act ment will have to decide what matters are assigned exclusively to the legislatures. Having decided that, it will be said that all the rest of the matters are assigned to the federal parliament.
If we are qualified to make the first decision, we are certainly qualified and have to be qualified to make the second. If those words mean anything; if that definition of the power which it is sought to give to the federal parliament means anything, it means we are to be given that right and must exercise it. Then, having made our decision on what matters are federal, we are to be empowered to enact legislation concerning those matters by a simple majority vote of this parliament; that is the situation. We are being asked to do just that. This is the final step in a series of steps, culminating in the delivery of the constitution of Canada, tied and bound, to the sole and exclusive custody of this federal parliament. It is a position entirely unwarranted by and entirely inconsistent with the spirit in which confederation was achieved. It is inconsistent with any possible hope that some measure of general agreement may subsequently be achieved at the dominion-provincial conference, because the premiers of the provinces are being asked to attend a conference to talk about an amendment to the constitution, and at the same time are faced with a fait accompli. The federal government can then say: We have all the power we need to amend the constitution; it does not matter whether or not you agree here; we have that power and we are in a position to exercise it if we so desire. That is the position in which the provincial premiers will be when they come to the conference. Nothing could be better calculated to promote disunity and to ensure that disagreement will be the result of that conference.
Let us examine the position. I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not in his place, because I wanted to ask him if he would be kind enough, in the course of this debate, to say whether or not I am right in this proposition I am about to put forward.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We will assume you are wrong.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The other day one of the other ministers had the same feeling, that he was a mind-reader. I am glad to find the Prime Minister numbers that amongst his accomplishments also, but perhaps since other hon. gentlemen may not be endowed with the gift of clairvoyance, the Prime Minister would be kind enough to make his answer later in the course of the debate, or the Minister of Justice might do it for him, so that we may all have the benefit of his great learning and his power to penetrate into the
884	HOUSE OF
British North America Act recesses of other people's minds. I would say he must be proceeding on that basis on this question of constitutional amendment.
The position is this. We now have it asserted that the federal parliament can amend the constitution without consultation with the provinces. The Supreme Court of Canada has been made the court of last resort in all cases arising in Canada. Parliament is now taking the right to amend our constitution in Canada. Based upon the result of those three steps, it will be only necessary for the federal government to insert in the preamble of any statute which it wishes to enact that whereas under section 91 of the British North America Act exclusive legislative power with regard to this matter was vested in the federal parliament, and whereas it is desirable to enact legislation dealing with the subject of the statute, therefore be it enacted, et cetera. By virtue of the declaration in the preamble that it is a matter assigned to the federal parliament, no matter what constitutional conflicts may have taken place previously with regard to the matter, the federal government takes power to legislate and thereby, in effect, amends the constitution with respect to provincial rights.
The hon. gentleman may say: But we have the Supreme Court of Canada; if any of the provinces object, let them appeal to the court. It is also a fact that the Supreme Court of Canada is the creation of the federal parliament. There is nothing in the constitution of that court to prevent the federal government from adding two, three, or half a dozen judges if it so desires. Let us suppose that a provincial government, in the course of a constitutional dispute, is faced with the necessity of submitting its case to the supreme court. It is faced with a court to which any number of judges may be added by the federal government, and the court itself will be faced with an act of the federal parliament declaring that "whereas legislative authority in this sphere has been assigned to the federal parliament under section 91, this parliament enacts as follows". The practical conclusion of the series of steps of which this is the final one is that the constitution becomes the property of this parliament of Canada, and the whole basis upon which confederation was previously founded has been altered by the unilateral act of this government and this parliament without so much as consultation with or the consent of any one of the parties to confederation.
The final point I want to make deals with the question whether or not the government has a mandate to enact this particular piece of legislation. Referring to this matter yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he and his government had a mandate to put


through this resolution. I put it forward unequivocably and definitely, Mr. Speaker, that in my view he has no mandate to put through the resolution which is now on the order paper and which will have the effect I have been describing, namely, of giving to the Canadian parliament the exclusive right to amend our constitution not only in particular but in general. If we look through the statements made by the right hon. gentleman during the course of the election campaign, we can find none to the effect that he was going to take that power. It is true that we find a number of statements to the effect that he would seek, in consultation with the provinces, to work out a method of amending at home the Canadian constitution. Yesterday when the right hon. gentleman read his own radio speech, he read the words in which he stated that proposition. I have just about finished, Mr. Speaker, but I want to emphasize this point. In his radio speech the right hon. gentleman said:
It is our intention, after the election, to consult the provincial governments with a view to working out a method, which will be satisfactory to all Canadians, of amending the constitution in Canada.
In my submission, sir, that is the only mandate that the right hon. gentleman received; but in the resolution that we are now being asked to pass he is exceeding his mandate in an entirely unwarranted and unjustifiable manner.


Mr. Roch Pinard (Chambly-Rouville):: As
this is the first time that I have risen to speak in this chamber since the opening of this session, Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity of joining with the others who have already congratulated you upon your appointment to the high office you now occupy. We are all proud of the manner in which you are discharging the difficult duty of presiding over our deliberations.
In rising to participate in this debate, I feel that not many other opportunities will be given to us of discussing a problem of the importance of the one with which we are concerned in the present resolution. I think the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) was right when, in the course of his speech delivered on the address, he referred to this first session of the twenty-first parliament as a constitutional session. Nobody will deny the fact that when the government of a country wishes to legislate in matters that directly or indirectly affect its constitution, it chooses then to legislate on matters of great importance not only to the present generation of its people but to future generations as well.
The resolution now under discussion will allow the realization of a constant wish of the Canadian people, and of what the hon. member

for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage), when he spoke on the address, described as a dream of his younger days. When constitutional measures have to receive our approval they must in the first place stand the test of time, and before we are called upon to consider them, they must also receive the sanction of the people.
In our democratic country no important measure of this kind should be dealt with by the elected representatives of the people before it has been submitted to the people of Canada and they have been given an opportunity of accepting it. Contrary to what has been said by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), the leader of the government, when speaking on the subject in every province during the recent election campaign, clearly asked the people of Canada for a mandate on this question. Therefore the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had a clear mandate from the people before introducing the resolution which is now before the house. As a result of the decision of the leader of the government to get that mandate before introducing his resolution, we say today that it is with the consent of the overwhelming majority of the Canadian people, and with the approval of the overwhelming majority of the members of this house who are behind the leader of the government, that he is introducing this measure in the House of Commons.
I think that the Canadian public, which so well expressed its confidence in the Prime Minister and his party during the last election campaign, will be pleased with the attitude of our Prime Minister, who chooses to define, as he did in clear-cut statements, his attitude in public and national affairs instead of indulging in political manoeuvres. That is why we feel that it is with the complete support of the Canadian people that we are now trying to make this progress toward the complete independence of our country.
I approve, with joy and pride, the resolution which has been introduced; and I think I have the right today to say that I approved the spirit of it in the past, not only in this chamber but wherever an occasion was offered to me to express my views on constitutional matters. For example, in 1946, during the course of the debate on redistribution which has been referred to in the present debate, I had occasion in this house to give my opinion on some of our deficiencies with respect to our constitution. At that time, as reported on page 2248 of Hansard of 1946, I ventured to say:
Before concluding, I should like to say a few words with reference to the obligation resting upon us to have recourse to the imperial parliament in order to secure the remedy proposed by the terms of the resolution before us.
British North America Act
As I said before, it was a resolution on redistribution. I continue:
Every time the occasion arose we proudly proclaimed our complete independence within the commonwealth of British nations. We wish to believe, and we have a right to insist, since our country is now of adult age, that the Statute of Westminster be not a dead letter and was not adopted in vain. The most serious obstacle to the proclamation and the recognition of our sovereignty and of our complete autonomy lies in the fact that we do not yet possess our own constitution. Our constitution is embodied in an imperial statute; it does not even constitute a Canadian statute. That is why we must on every occasion undertake, perforce, that pilgrimage to London to ask others to decide upon our own destinies. So long as this anomaly has not disappeared from our national life, we shall not have the light to claim that Canada is a sovereign country.
It may be noted, Mr. Speaker, that my suggestion at the time was that we should have our own Canadian constitution embodied in our own legislation. In other words, I went so far as to claim that we should ask the imperial parliament to repeal the British North America Act so as to allow Canada to enact its own constitution as part of its own legislation and not part of the legislation of any other country, whatever may be the bonds and ties we have with that particular country. But I also think that Canada should not go too far and too fast in the conquest of its constitutional liberties if it does not wish to jeopardize by hasty measures its internal security as well as its relations with other countries, especially those with which we enjoy common economic and political interests.
The ultimate goal must not be endangered by measures of that kind, because the means that we would employ would not have been accompanied by the necessary precautions. Our constitution is indivisible. That has been said in this debate by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and it has been said before. I share the view of the leader of the opposition on that score, but I also think that when the Prime Minister expressed a desire to have a dominion-provincial conference to deal with these matters it was believed that that conference would give us the opportunity to make some progress in trying to give to our country complete independence one of these days by putting us in a position to have our own Canadian constitution. I think that is the meaning that one can take from the letter that was addressed by the Prime Minister to the premiers of the provinces.
Whether our constitution as it exists today is called a pact or whether it is called a statute, one thing is certain, namely, that we cannot cast aside the fact that there has to be, and there is actually, a division of powers

British North America Act between the original provinces and the central government. This division is clear with regard to certain powers that are plainly defined in the act, on which there can be no confusion. Section 91 defines the powers of the central government. In view of that clause in the British North America Act, which has been referred to as the residuary clause, we can say that the powers of the central government are exhaustive as they are set out in that act. On the other hand, the powers of the provinces are defined in section 92. This may look simple, but it is much more complicated than it appears on the surface. It is more complicated because there are powers which have been conferred not only on the central government but on the provincial governments as well. In different matters there is concurrent jurisdiction. For this reason it is difficult to define exactly what is the power vested in the central government and what is the power that belongs to the provincial legislatures. I do not know whether that was done voluntarily by those who consulted with each other to have the British North America Act enacted.
I say that it might have been voluntary, but we cannot be convinced of that, because if we read with care the Quebec resolutions, and the opinions that were expressed at the time, and if we try to analyse correctly the speeches that were made by the consulting authorities, we cannot come to the conclusion that this concurrent jurisdiction was then decided upon and agreed upon.
In the wording of the text, Mr. Speaker, there is conflict; but it must be borne in mind that the conflict is much more serious than that. It is much more serious because the act itself is not complete and could not be complete at the time. There were domains that could not have been explored at the time; and for this reason the British North America Act-although we cannot say that it is a mere draft-is silent on many subjects. In spite of the residuary clause to which I have made reference and which seems to favour the central power, with the advancing years bringing progress and development in Canada, new powers were created, and those powers were to be allocated either to the provincial legislatures or to the central government.
Who was to be the master and the judge in deciding upon these things? Who was to decide whether a certain power should be given to the provinces or to the central government? Who was to say, for instance, whether a power existed already and was already comprised in the definition of the act, or whether it was a totally new power or privilege? Who was to say that the power
[Mr. Pinard.f

was not only derivative, or, as it is called, ancillary to powers already existing by virtue of the sections to which I referred, namely, sections 91 and 92, as well as other sections of the British North America Act concerning the powers and privileges of the central government and of the provinces? I submit that is where the real confusion began.
In spite of the fact that the best jurists began to explore and experiment in that field of interpretation, there is today a good deal of confusion in the segregation of powers as between the provinces and the dominion. There were, and there still are today, many classes of opinion, and it is not enough to say that there are those who favour a greater centralization, and, on the other hand, those who are in favour, and only in favour, of provincial rights. There were other interests from outside of Canada-there were also interests inside of Canada-which, of course, brought about interpretations of the powers vested by the British North America Act either in the provinces or in the central government. As a result our courts and the privy council have had to hear a large number of cases, either concerned with private litigation or in the way of references from the central or provincial governments, in order to try to determine the boundary between the jurisdiction of the provinces and the central government. In spite of the fact that the judgments that have been rendered by those courts did not satisfy all interests, I think it can be said that a considerable job was done. The job was to try to establish the course to be followed by private interests as well as by the different governments in connection with matters affecting constitutional rights.
As the Prime Minister said last month when he answered the Leader of the Opposition, since the earliest days of confederation, judicial process has been one of the methods of deciding conflicts that have arisen from the division of powers as between the provinces and the central power. I submit that that is a normal procedure and undoubtedly it will continue. We shall still have to rely upon our courts to find out whether a certain matter is within the jurisdiction of the central government or of the provincial legislatures. That is the case not only in Canada but also in the neighbouring country to the south and in all other countries where there is a division of power between administrative groups.
For these reasons neither the provincial legislatures nor minority groups should have reason to fear that this legislation will endanger their rights or privileges. All one has to do is to read the resolution as drafted and one will conclude that both minority and

provincial rights are being protected. There is to be a clear distinction made between provincial and minority rights and those of the central government. Paragraph 1 of the resolution reads:
The amendment from time to time of the constitution of Canada, except as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces-
Is that not a clear undertaking on the part of the government that in no case will there be an attempt made to amend the constitution in connection with matters that come within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments? The paragraph goes on to read:
-or as regards rights or privileges by this or any other constitutional act granted or secured to the legislature or the government of a province, or to any class of persons with respect to schools or as regards the use of the English or the French language.
In these words I find a clear decision on the part of the federal government not to interfere in matters affecting minority groups or the provincial governments. I submit that the purpose of this resolution is not to determine the boundary between provincial and dominion jurisdiction, nor is it intended to segregate the powers vested in the dominion or in the provinces; the purpose of the resolution is to make the central government master in its own house, as the provincial governments are now in theirs under the provisions of the British North America Act. The central government is simply asking for the same powers as have been conferred by the British North America Act on the legislatures of the provinces.
When a provincial government decides to change the number of representatives in the legislative assembly, by virtue of section 92 it does not have to have recourse either to the central government or to the imperial parliament. As has been done by the government of Ontario and the government of Quebec, this change is carried out of their own volition. But when the central government desires to increase the number of representatives in this chamber because of an increase in the population, we had to have the permission of the imperial parliament. It is to eliminate anomalies of this kind that the resolution is now before us.
I think a conference with the provinces would be most helpful in trying to determine the way in which to amend the constitution when we are concerned with matters affecting the provincial and dominion governments. I do not share the fear that has been expressed in certain quarters that the purpose of such a conference would be to determine what are the federal government's powers and what are the powers of the provincial governments. The purpose of the conference would
British North America Act be to study the question in order to clear up this matter which for many years has caused confusion in the minds of the people at large.
The adoption of this resolution will be a step toward the recognition by others and the confirmation by us of our complete autonomy and independence. For this reason I hope all provinces will be represented at the conference. We are informed that they have all indicated their intention to attend, although in the letter from the premier of Quebec I cannot find an indication of a formal decision by that government to do so. I hope that the government of Quebec will share in the common task, not only in words but in acts, in order to try to achieve for Canada a more complete autonomy. The premier of Quebec has often proclaimed himself as the defender of the provincial legislatures. I am not saying that he has no reason for thus proclaiming himself, although there have been times when we have had difficulty in trying to find the measure of his sincerity. But if the premier is the defender of the provincial legislatures, as he contends he is, I hope he will not become an enemy of the autonomy of Canada. I hope the premier of Quebec will not become an obstacle in this march forward by Canada toward complete autonomy and independence. Let us hope that this conference will bring about the result that we expect. By the adoption of this resolution we will have made a great advance toward complete independence for our country.
I want to conclude by reading a few sentences from an article which appeared under the pen of Mr. J. A. Hume in the issue of Saturday Night of the 23rd of August. The excerpt reads:
It will not be an easy task to work out these problems, but an adjustment of the constitution to changed conditions is necessary. No longer should Canada accept this strait-jacket which cramps her progress along the pathway toward adult nationhood.
I should also like to quote from the remarks of a former member of the house, made in a debate on a constitutional problem in 1935. He said:
Let us remember that the written constitution of Canada should be the servant and not the master of the people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion now before the house. There is one deficiency in it to which attention has already been called during the course of the debate, and concerning which I shall offer an amendment. When I reach the point at which I wish to move that amendment I shall take a moment or two to express to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the hope that he
888	HOUSE OF
British North America Act will see fit to accept it in the spirit in which it is offered, and the hope that it may be passed by the house.
At the outset I should like to say a few words about the main argument advanced by the members of the Progressive Conservative and Social Credit groups against the passing of the resolution. Hon. members of the house who are opposed to the resolution have made it quite clear that they are not opposed to Canada having within her own borders the power to amend her own constitution. Their objection-and it has been stated quite clearly-is simply that they do not like to proceed with even a part of this important job without consulting the provinces. The only part of the task that is now before us relates to finding a way of amending the constitution with respect to matters that are exclusively federal. It is against doing that without consulting the provinces that the opponents of the measure have been speaking.
I take it it is recognized by all groups in the house that it is the part of wisdom and good statesmanship to consult the provinces, whether or not we are legally required to do so, so far as dominion-provincial or exclusively provincial matters are concerned. The opponents of the resolution want the principle of consultation to be applied, not only to finding a way of dealing with things that are dominion-provincial or exclusively provincial, but also to the finding of a way to amend the constitution with respect to things that are solely federal.
In the course of a debate that has taken as long as this, naturally a good many things have been said that some of us feel do not carry much weight; but I think it should be said in all fairness that a number of members, including the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), have stated fairly well the argument behind their point. I felt that perhaps the high point of the speech made by the leader of the opposition yesterday came when he talked in terms of doing our best to achieve and maintain all possible good will between the federal government and the various provincial governments. In my view that argument has to be considered and has to be met head on.
In reply to it I feel, despite the plausibility of the argument about consulting the provinces-before we take even the first step-so as to have their good will, that it would be a very dangerous precedent for us to adopt at the present time. Let me put it this way. We have amended our constitution a number of times since 1867, but there is something pivotal about this occasion. We are not just


amending the constitution in some one respect; we are amending the constitution with respect to the means of amending it. Whatever course is followed now will be a precedent that will be studied in years to come as we study today the things the fathers of confederation did prior to 1867.
Thus far the precedents are fairly clear. It is pretty hard to gainsay the argument advanced yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he pointed out that, out of eleven occasions on which the British North America Act had been amended thus far, in only three of those cases was consultation had with the provinces. In one case it was with only the four provinces that were affected, and in the other two cases it was with all of the then existing provinces. Therefore I suggest that if on this occasion we were to decide to consult the provinces we would be breaking the main trend of the precedents of the last eighty-two years, and we would be establishing a new precedent which, as I have already said, would be dangerous. Why do I say that? I say it because it really is quite clear what would happen if we consulted the provinces: it would convey the idea that we would be getting from them the right to amend the constitution as to federal matters. The very first time we sought to use that power the provinces would say: We gave you that power; consult us as to how you are going to use it.
I submit further that even the courts would have to pay same attention to the procedure followed in adopting the new class 1 of section 91. It seemed to me last night, when the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) was speaking, that he emphasized the first point I have just made. I think I am paraphrasing him faithfully when I say that he said he was prepared to go the whole way with his leader provided his leader would give him the assurance that there would not be any further amendments of the British North America Act without consulting the provinces. I feel that is exactly what would happen. If we were to consult the provinces about the first step we would have them saying afterwards: You got the right from us; consult us before you use that right to make any further changes in the British North America Act.
There is no doubt that in a country as large and as far-flung as Canada it is extremely important that certain rights and privileges in local areas should be recognized. I think it is that fact, rather than theory, that has led to the desirability of the federal structure. But surely the main aim of Canada should be to further the purpose of the fathers of confederation to fuse this far-flung land into

one great nation. I think it is highly important at this pivotal stage in our constitutional history that we make it clear that we are acting as a nation and not as a group of ten separate units. I believe it has been read before, possibly in the course of this debate, but I should like to put on the record again a paragraph from a speech made by the Hon. C. H. Cahan before the Canadian Club of Toronto, on September 15, 1937. As hon. members are aware, Mr. Cahan was secretary of state in the last Conservative government, and this is what he had to say:
As a young man I knew personally, and I might also say intimately, several of the leading statesmen then living, who had been engaged in promoting and drafting the British North America Act. I knew their views as publicly and privately expressed, and I am confident that, as founders of the Canadian confederation and framers of that act, they undoubtedly believed that they were establishing on the northern half of this continent a new Canadian nation. With that end in view, they sought to reserve to the national parliament such extensive legislative powers as would prove adequate to meet all national responsibilities which might thereafter, from time to time, arise, and thus avoid those deplorable conditions which had then so recently resulted in civil war in the neighbouring republic.
I point out to hon. gentlemen to my right that this excellent statement of the aims of the fathers of confederation, this fine statement of something which is in the hearts and minds of all Canadians, was made by the secretary of state of the Conservative government under the late Viscount Bennett. So it seems to me that when hon. members ask what is the urgency of the resolution now before us, the answer should be not that there is haste in the matter of time, this week rather than next week or next month, but rather that the priority should be clear, and that we should deal with matters which are exclusively federal before we hold the dominion-provincial conference, and we should thus make it clear that we do not need to go to the separate provinces as the source of a power which was given by the British North America Act to Canada as one great nation.
Then may I also call as a witness in this story another outstanding Conservative figure in this country, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. I am referring now to remarks he made when this matter of amending the constitution was under discussion in 1925. At that time a motion was before the house dealing with the desirability of Canada securing power to amend the constitution. I am reading this quotation from "Constitutional Issues in Canada, 1900-1931" by Robert MacGregor Dawson. The speeches of several members, delivered on February 18 and 19, 1925, are put together; and they appear in Hansard for
British North America Act that year at pages 297 to 300 and 335 to 337. Mr. Meighen's speech was one of those quoted, and I quote from it as follows:
In the first place, I do not think it would be a matter of convenience that the whole of the provinces of Canada should in every case consent. If we are going to put those obstacles in front of our course, we are going to add to the difficulties, if any did exist, that we have had in the past.
Now listen to these words by Mr. Meighen:
We have amended the British North America Act many times upon address of this house without speaking to the provinces at all. Why? Because the amendments we asked for did not affect in any way minority rights, did not affect in the remotest way provincial rights, were amendments in which the provinces or minorities were not concerned at all. It would be cumbersome indeed in such cases to be compelled to pass first from province to province and obtain universal approval.
I would submit that the words used by Mr. Meighen on that occasion apply exactly to what we are doing at the present time. The amendment we now seek does not affect in any way minority rights, does not affect in the remotest way provincial rights, and it is an amendment in which the provinces or minorities are not concerned at all. For that reason it seems to me we clearly have the right to pass this amendment; and, as I have been trying to indicate, I feel that we should do it in this way rather than make the mistake of reversing the trend of the last eighty-two years, which has been pretty clear, namely, that in federal matters the federal parliament has the authority and does not have to go to the provinces for consent to exercise that authority. Perhaps I have said it too often already, but I repeat that if now we went to them to ask for that authority we would be establishing a precedent that would bedevil constitutional matters for years to come.
In connection v/ith this whole matter I like very much the approach taken by Dr. Maurice Ollivier in his oft-quoted book, "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty". I refer particularly to the chapters headed "Statute or Contract" and "History of Amendments" and "Methods of Amendment," but I am going to quote specifically a few paragraphs. First I refer to pages 348 and 349, where Dr. Ollivier is dealing with the question whether the British North America Act is a contract or a statute, and also with the basic question whether the federal parliament has the right on its own to ask for amendments, without consulting the provinces. Here is what he says at page 348:
A confederation is a union of independent and sovereign states, bound together by a contract or treaty imposing the observance of certain conditions depending on the unanimous consent of the contracting parties who remain free to secede from the union. The states forming part of a confederation retain their political independence and are, from the point of view of internal ional law, recognized

British North America Act as sovereign states. The best example of such a confederation is the confederation of the Rhine created by Napoleon in 1805.
It is easy to see, then, why Canada is not a confederation. In effect the provinces have been fused or federated so as to form a juridical state enjoying all the privileges and rights appertaining to a sovereign and autonomous nation.
Then a little later, developing another argument, Dr. Ollivier quotes the late Norman Rogers, who at the time was a professor. I am now referring to pages 349 and 350:
It is evident that difficulties arise the moment we attempt to identify the parties to the alleged treaty or agreement of confederation. Is the dominion a party? It did not exist prior to the passing of the British North America Act. Are Ontario and Quebec parties to the agreement? They were not distinct provinces during the confederation negotiations, although it is true that Upper and Lower Canada were accorded a separate status at the Quebec and London conferences. Are Prince Edward Island and British Columbia parties to the contract? They made no agreement with the other provinces but only with the dominion. Are Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan to be regarded as parties to the agreement? They were created by acts of the dominion parliament.
"The crown did not authorize the delegates at the Quebec conference to conclude a binding agreement among themselves. All that was sanctioned by the dispatch to Lord Mulgrave was a conference on the subject of a union of the provinces of British North America."
Now I go to another quotation on pages 351 and 352, which arises from the argument Dr. Ollivier has been putting forward:
The preamble of the British North America Act furnishes proof that it does not proceed from a pact. It commences thus: "Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united," and not "considering that the provinces have concluded a treaty, a convention," or even "drawn up a project of convention with a view to federal union."
From these two propositions-
That is, the fact that the provinces are not sovereign states, as is the case in a confederation, and the fact that it is difficult to pick out the parties to the alleged pact.
-showing that we are not a confederation and that our constitution is not a contract, the third naturally follows, that, except in the very special cases which I will cite later-
That is, in matters having to do with provincial jurisdiction.
-the consent of all the provinces to an amendment to the constitution is not required.
The author goes on to quote many people on that phase of the matter, until finally he reaches the exciting part of his chapter beginning at page 359. At that point he is recounting the statements of witnesses who appeared before the special committee which dealt with this matter in 1935, and the witness being considered at the moment was Professor Kennedy of the university of Toronto.

I quote again from Dr. Ollivier's book at page 359:
Mr. Kennedy goes much further and says: "I do not think there is the slightest necessity in law for the parliament of Canada to consult the provinces in the process. It may be very good politics, but politics is not the law."
The committee had reached consideration of matters of provincial concern. The next paragraph in that book reads as follows:
It is unnecessary to add that this last declaration by the learned professor caused a sensation in the committee as may be realized from the discussion which immediately followed and which is here reproduced without change:
"Mr. Cowan:	Parliament could not do anything
with the powers which come under section 92.
"The Witness:	I think the parliament of Canada
can present any address to the parliament of the United Kingdom.
"Hon. Mr. Lapointe:	You would not advise this
parliament to do so.
"The Witness: I do not think it would be a very wise thing.
So, Dr. Ollivier develops the argument that there is no question but that the federal parliament has the right, on its own initiative, to request Westminster to amend the British North America Act with respect to any matter. It is made clear, however, that everyone recognizes it is the part of wisdom or the part of good politics, which means the part of good statesmanship, that when you come to matters that are of provincial concern you consult the provinces before such changes are made. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that should be our approach to the problem at this pivotal point in Canadian constitutional history. We should do what this resolution calls for, so far as clearly and exclusively federal matters are concerned, without consulting the provinces, so that we may avoid the pitfall of having the provinces say the federal government derives its powers to do so from the provinces. That position would bedevil us from this time forward. As wise statesmen, however, we should consult the provinces with regard to matters that are dominion-provincial or exclusively provincial before any change is made in the constitution in respect to matters of that kind.
In passing, I should like to answer one or two of the arguments that have been advanced. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) said, as recorded at page 848 of Hansard, that no one was opposed to this country having the right to amend its own constitution, but he was opposed to unlimited power being reposed in this parliament. I am sure that when the hon. member reflects on the significance of this statement he will realize it was a bit far-fetched. The motion does not ask for unlimited power to be given to this parliament. The power is precisely limited by the terms of the motion that is

British North America Act
now before us. The member for Eglinton went on to say that the line of demarcation between matters that are federal and matters that are provincial is not clear. It seemed to me that the Prime Minister had already answered that argument. He said the terms of this new section were deliberately left without too specific a definition, so they would not interfere with the other lines that are already drawn in the British North America Act. This means that the courts will protect the federal and provincial parliaments from encroaching upon each other.
Yesterday the leader of the opposition said he did not like what we were doing because it did not provide a procedure. As a matter of fact, what we are doing is following the procedure that has been followed through the years. We are seeking an amendment of the British North America Act in the same way it has always been secured, by an address to His Majesty the King. This amendment deals exclusively with federal matters, and it is being sought in the manner in which amendments dealing with exclusively federal matters have always been attained, namely, through an address to His Majesty by the federal parliament without consulting the provinces. The leader of the opposition also said that, if this amendment were passed, the federal government might amend the constitution in such a way as to interfere with the taxing powers of the provinces. Section 91, subsection 3, says that the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation is within the federal power. This government, therefore, already has unlimited power in that field, so that the possibility of a future amendment making it wider is out of the question.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is another facet to this question about which we should be thinking, and that is the doublebarrelled interest Canadian people have in this question. There is no doubt in my mind that there is interest in it of a sentimental nature. I use that word "sentimental" in its best sense. Canadians do look forward to the day when, as a nation within the British commonwealth, we will nevertheless have all the marks of national sovereignty. On that sentimental basis, I do believe Canadians want us to get on with this job of bringing the control of our constitution to our own country.
But the people of Canada are interested in this question of amending the British North America Act for reasons other than sentiment. They are interested for substantial reasons as well. I believe all hon. members will agree with me that in recent years many requests for legislative changes, particularly
in the social security field, have been met with the reply that this or that cannot be done until the British North America Act has been amended. We are told that a proper contributory social security scheme cannot be put into effect until Canada can amend the British North America Act. It is because of these statements of a substantial nature that Canadians are keenly interested in securing amendment of the British North America Act. I want to say to the Prime Minister that unless the government speeds up a bit and does not act so much like the turtle to which the Liberal party has been compared in an interesting editorial in the current issue of Maclean's magazine, Canadians will not thank the Liberal party very much. Unless this government follows these constitutional amendments with an early use of the power to amend our own constitution to solve the social security problem, Canadians will not be grateful to the Liberal party for having taken these merely sentimental steps.
At times, when I have listened to the debate and heard the Liberals waxing eloquent about the steps that are being taken, and have heard the members of the Conservative party get all worked up about it, I have said to myself, "What are you quarrelling about?" The real issue is the next step. The real issue is the use of the power to amend the British North America Act so that this parliament will have the right to initiate over-all social security legislation as well as other things that the Canadian people want and have been promised time after time.
At the outset of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I indicated it was my intention to move an amendment. I shall do so in a moment or two, but before I do I should like to say that during the course of this debate my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), referred to the desirability and the necessity of entrenching the clause that has to do with the limiting of the life of a parliament. As a matter of fact, if the leader of the opposition had not moved an amendment which was so worded that no subamendment could be moved, my leader would have moved yesterday the amendment I am going to present to the house now. I believe everyone will agree-I am sure the Prime Minister will agree-that of equal importance with the necessity of entrenching minority rights, such as the use of the English and French languages, is the necessity of entrenching the right of all the people of Canada to be assured that a parliament will never run more than five years. Furthermore, the people should be assured that there will be a session every year.

British North America Act
At the moment, those two matters are guaranteed by specific sections in the British North America Act. For example, the section which deals with the matter to which I referred latterly, section 20, reads as follows:
There shall be a session of the parliament of Canada once at least in every year, so that twelve months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the parliament in one session and its first sitting in the next session.
Section 50 is the one that deals with the limitation upon the life of a parliament or, more specifically, upon the life of a House of Commons. Section 50 of the British North America Act reads as follows:
Every House of Commons shall continue for five years from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the house (subject to be sooner dissolved by the governor general), and no longer.
I submit, and urge as strongly as I can, that those two clauses should be entrenched beyond any possibility of amendment. I feel sure that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will agree that that should be done. They deal with the most sacred relationships between the government and parliament, and between parliament and the people. Those are matters that are exclusively federal. If they were left amendable by this parliament, they could be changed at any time by a majority vote; and to make such a change would be breaking faith with the people of the country. This is not just a theoretical or hypothetical question. As my leader pointed out yesterday, it has been done twice by provincial governments, exercising the same unlimited power that they have under their constitutions. The two examples were the provincial government of Ontario and the provincial government of Saskatchewan, both of which during the war years presented to their legislatures the necessary motion to extend the life of those legislatures. My leader reminds me that in both instances they were Liberal governments.
This matter can be taken care of easily by the insertion of a few words in the clause which is in the motion of the Prime Minister that is now before the house. The clause as he has worded it, and as I understand it, is fairly clear in what it seeks to do. It says- and with him I am in agreement one hundred per cent-that we should have the right to amend things that are exclusively federal but that we should entrench certain matters which obviously we should not have the right to amend. In the Prime Minister's wording of the resolution he has named two sets of things or, shall I say, three things that obviously we should not have the right to amend: powers assigned to the legislatures, matters relating to education, and matters relating to the use of the English and the French language. I submit that in the same

category as those things which obviously we should not have the power to amend goes this question of there having to be a session of parliament at least once each year and there having to be an election at least once in every five years. In fact, I regard these guarantees as two of democracy's most important bulwarks. Therefore I offer an amendment to take care of this matter, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). I move as follows:
That the resolution be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the word "language," in the fourth last line thereof, the following words:
"or as regards the requirement of section twenty of this act that there shall be a session of the parliament of Canada at least once each year, or as regards the requirement of section fifty of this act that no House of Commons shall continue for more than five years."


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How does the hon. member propose to prevent parliament, by a majority of one, from in future passing a simple address asking the Westminster parliament to amend section 20, to which he refers?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There again we have the argument which we have been through a good many times. You must rely at some point on the good sense, the wisdom and the good statesmanship of the people who are sent here. We now have the power, by a simple majority vote, to pass an address to His Majesty to make any change. But there are some things that we simply would not change. Part of my argument today was, by referring to Dr. Ollivier's book, to show how the authorities have dealt with this matter; they have taken the position that we have the power, but that there are some things which, though legal, it is not the part of wisdom or statesmanship to do, and which are simply not done. My contention is that putting this in the same category in which we put minority rights is the best legal protection we can give it; and by giving it that kind of protection and by making it as difficult to change as possible, we make it even more the part of wisdom and good statesmanship not to touch it.
Before I go further, just so that it will not be too far apart on the record, I should like to read the entire section as it would read with my amendment put into it. If my amendment carries, as I hope it will, the new section 1 of section 91 of the British North America Act will then read as follows:
1. The amendment from time to time of the constitution of Canada, except as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this act

assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces, or as regards rights or privileges by this or any other constitutional act granted or secured to the legislature or the government of a province, or to any class of persons with respect to schools or as regards the use of the English or the French language, or as regards the requirement of section twenty of this act that there shall be a session of the parliament of Canada at least once each year, or as regards the requirement of section fifty of this act that no House of Commons shall continue for more than five years.
I deeply appreciate the attention the Prime Minister has given to the whole of this debate, and particularly the attention he has given to my remarks this afternoon. I hope that he will consider this amendment favourably. If I may say so in public, one thing about the Prime Minister that has appealed to us is the fact that on several occasions he has shown himself to be big enough to accept suggestions that came from the opposite side of the house. That is good statesmanship and good politics too. We get enough of the other attitude, of course; that is, of suggestions being thrown out simply because they come from the other party. I am sure the Prime Minister feels as I have indicated about this matter. He knows how significant is this date in Canadian history. He realizes that this amendment touches an important point. I am sure he will agree with me that it ought to be entrenched as much as the other points in his motion, and I hope that he will agree to its being done.
If he would like to have this wording looked at by the law officers of the crown, and have the amendment slightly reworded in some respects so that it will meet any points the legal experts might raise, I should be glad to agree to any change in its wording. In other words, I am appealing to the Prime Minister to look upon this proposal in the spirit in which it is offered, and to agree with me that some way should be found in which this house can afford this desirable protection to two matters fundamental to our Canadian democracy.
(Translation):


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution is to allow our country to amend its constitution without having to apply to a foreign parliament.
Unquestionably, this step has long been looked upon with favour by the country at large. It is hardly logical that a country like ours, whose part in world affairs is so important, should still have to go through a process so out of keeping with its status as a great democratic state.
It should be remembered, however, that the constitution of a country is the very basis of its nationhood; it is the document from which all statutes spring, not only those
British North America Act of the federal and provincial authorities but all laws applicable to the citizens of the country. In short, our constitution is the foundation of the Canadian nation. Therefore, parliament should be very cautious in bringing about any changes, especially as far as the allocation of amending powers to the various parties is concerned. In 1867, our country's population numbered only three and a half million inhabitants, of various races, creeds and cultures. If it has now developed into a strong and united country it is largely due to the foresight and political astuteness of the fathers of confederation.
It is only natural that a young country like ours, so rich in resources, should have developed beyond the expectations of these great statesmen. The time has now come to seek the power to amend the constitution ourselves, with a view to rendering it less rigid and more adequate.
All those who wish to see Canada take her proper place in the world as an autonomous and sovereign state are delighted to have this opportunity of providing the country with a new constitution, or rather of making it possible for Canada to amend her constitution with a view to rendering it more adequate and more practical.
The very fact, however, that we are a confederation makes it imperative that we should act with the utmost caution. To my mind, such caution is lacking in the procedure by which the government suggests to bring about this historic change.
As a matter of fact, a school of thought has always maintained, both here and abroad, that the British North America Act is a pact and not only a piece of legislation enacted by the parliament at Westminster. It is therefore contended that our constitution can be amended only after consultation with the contracting parties, that is to say with the various Canadian provinces.
The view that the B.N.A. Act is a compact or agreement between the provinces was expressed by the mover of the act in the House of Lords, Lord Carnarvon. He stated, in effect:
(Text):
The Quebec resolutions, with some slight changes, form the basis of a measure that I have now the honour to submit to parliament. To those resolutions all the British provinces in North America were, as I have said, consenting parties, and the measure founded upon them must be accepted as a treaty of union.
(Translation):
And Mr. Adderley, colonial secretary, stated in the House of Commons:
(Text):
If again, federation has in this case specially been a matter of most delicate treaty and compact be-

British North America Act
tween the provinces ... it is clearly necessary that there should be a third party ab extra to give sanction to the treaty made between them.
(Translation):
This opinion held by English statesmen at the time of confederation was reiterated not only by Conservative leaders in this country but even by the Liberal party's French-Cana-dian luminaries, the predecessors of the right hon. Prime Minister, such as the hon. Honors Mercier, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, the hon. P. J. A. Cardin and others.
The Hon. Honore Mercier stated:
There were provinces before there was a dominion and it is from them that the latter derived its powers. They are sovereign within the limits of their jurisdiction and any infringement upon this sovereignty is a violation of the federal pact.
In 1906, Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated the following:
Confederation is a compact made originally by four provinces, but adhered to by all the nine provinces who have entered it, and I submit to the judgment of this house and to the best consideration of its members, that this compact should not be lightly altered. It should be altered only for adequate cause, and after the provinces themselves have had an opportunity to pass judgment on the same.
And the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe stated in 1937:
The British North America Act is the result of long and difficult dealings and finally of a compromise to which the provinces have adhered through their official and qualified representatives. Therefore, it is a legal agreement in due form and freely ratified. It then follows that the "qualified authority" to bring changes to our national constitution are the provinces whose good will has made the alliance possible and whose unanimous good will is indispensable to any amendment which may be decided.
I am surprised that the Prime Minister should break that Liberal tradition and I am also astonished that the French-Canadian members who support the government should disown the theories expounded by their great leaders. However, even though the government does not admit the theory that a pact was made, I cannot understand why it is unwilling to consult the provinces before a resolution of such paramount importance is passed.
Besides, the Prime Minister knows that the people of his province desire such a consultation. He has admitted himself having made, during the last election campaign, the following promise:
It is our Intention, after the election, to consult the provincial governments with a view to working out a method, which will be satisfactory to all Canadians, of amending the constitution in Canada.
I do not know what caused him to change his mind in so short a time! It is claimed

that there is no point in consulting the provinces because the last dominion-provincial conferences came to naught. However, the government did call such a conference at the end of this session. It must be admitted that, under the circumstances, the government's position is not logical, to say the least.
The government claims that in taking this step it is not jeopardizing minority rights nor the educational provisions of the British North America Act.
Nevertheless, it again sets as a precedent that our constitution can be amended simply by a joint address of both houses to the imperial parliament without consultation with the provinces.
It is true that the resolution which is now before us contains a clause whereby the government indicates its intention to refrain from amending section 133 at this time. However, the government is setting a precedent, thus greatly endangering the rights of minorities.
As I said, the government is upholding a theory diametrically opposed to that expounded by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, the Hon. L. A. Tas-chereau, and all champions of traditional Liberalism in Quebec.
This theory is contrary to the very principles of confederation. I doubt very much indeed that the representatives of the province of Quebec would have agreed to confederation had they not obtained a formal guarantee that the provisions of section 133 would not be thrust aside in such a summary fashion. One of the greatest difficulties in interpreting the British North America Act lies in the very interpretation of the various responsibilities of federal and provincial governments. There is the stumbling block of the whole system. The act of 1867 defines of course certain powers as falling within the federal jurisdiction, and certain others within the provincial jurisdiction. But there are several taxation fields to which the provinces as well as the federal authority claim certain rights.
If, up to now, federal-provincial relations have been strained and have brought about so much controversy, it is because matters of joint concern were involved.
I doubt whether the government's way of proceeding in that connection will ever solve the problem. The central administration should not be the one to decide what matters come within its jurisdiction. The provincial authorities may have different opinions on the subject and it is only through consultation with them that we can examine the various opinions put forth and reach an agreement that will be in the interest of the country as

a whole. The government's action constitutes another step towards centralization which endangers national unity.
Canada is a confederation. Our people are satisfied with that mode of administration.
I sincerely believe it is the duty of the federal parliament to strengthen the constitution and not weaken it. I feel that, in acting as they do, with this resolution, the government are undermining the very foundations of confederation.
I therefore deem it my duty to vote against the motion.


Mr. Jean Lesage (Monlmagny-L'Islei):: Will
the hon. member for Three Rivers permit a question?


Léon Balcer: Certainly.


Jean Lesage: In his speech, the hon. member stated that the fathers of confederation considered the British North America Act as a pact that could not be altered without the unanimous assent of the contracting parties. How does he explain that twice, in 1871 and 1875, the fathers of confederation, without consulting the provinces, sought and obtained from London amendments to the constitution in matters pertaining solely to the dominion government?


Léon Balcer: The fathers of confederation happened to be the representatives of the provinces as they existed at the time union was effected. That is why I believe that they represented the provinces, and if they altered the constitution, at that time they amended confederation.
There is no doubt but that the fathers of confederation may have changed their minds before reaching a final draft, but I believe that when they met they did so as representatives of the provinces and came together as such.


Jean Lesage: Does the hon. member hold that in 1871 Sir George Etienne Cartier, as a member of the House of Commons, represented the province of Quebec more than I represent it now?


Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak for the first time in this house, you will allow me to congratulate you on your appointment to the office you now hold. From what I have seen in the past few weeks I am sure traditions of justice and fairness will continue to flourish in this house.
(Text):
I rise at this time because I feel it is my duty to state the reasons why I am going to vote for the resolution. I am going to vote for the resolution for three reasons which I shall try to explain to the house. According to the debate and discussion that have taken place so far it would appear that the feeling
British North America Act of hon. members is unanimous as far as the principle of the resolution is concerned. The main difference seems to be as to the procedure which has been suggested by this government to carry out the terms of the resolution.
I have listened to the speeches of hon. members of the opposition during this debate and have come to the conclusion that no concrete suggestions have been offered in connection with this resolution apart from the suggestion that there should be consultation with the provinces. Well, the government has consulted the provinces on this matter, and I would even go farther and say that they have consulted the people of the provinces. That was the main issue during the last election, and I know in my own riding it was the main issue.
The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) has stated that the premiers of the provinces should be consulted, but let me tell the hon. member that in my own riding the representative of the premier of Quebec, who claims to be the champion of minority rights, fought against me. Since I attended school,
I have followed the discussions that have taken place in connection with this and similar matters. I have here a book containing the proceedings of the dominion-provincial conference of 1945. It has been said over and over again that it is most important that the premiers should be consulted on this matter, but I should like to quote to the house an excerpt from this report of the proceedings of that dominion-provincial conference. I should like to refer to the reason given by the premier of Quebec for leaving or breaking up, if I may use my own words, that conference. I quote:
The Prime Minister of Quebec, for reasons already stated many times at this meeting-
At this point I ask the hon. member for Three Rivers to pay attention.
-owing to the pressure of business, has been obliged to leave for his office in Quebec City.
Is the constitution that important as to permit a premier to give up by sidetracking the issue?
The constitution is the thing which permits me to sit in the house, it is the thing that permitted me to be elected as the representative of my constituents, but that was considered to be not as important as certain provincial problems. I am not completely convinced of the sincerity of those words.
Let us go a step further and consider the question of minority rights. Right in the body of this resolution the minority groups are given a guarantee which they did not have before. We have heard many technical arguments put forth in an effort to convince
896	HOUSE OF
British North America Act us that the constitution should be looked upon as a treaty or pact between the provinces. That may be so. Other views have also been expressed that it might be a statute or a law. Let us assume that twenty-five or fifty years from now the Liberal party is not in power and somebody else comes along and takes the attitude that our constitution is a statute. In the body of the resolution there is a further guarantee of minority rights to that contained in the British North America Act. Feeling my responsibility as a member of this house, and having been elected by the people, I must say that the mandate I have received tells me to support the resolution within the scope of what it means.
I have a further important reason for voting for the resolution, which also has its origin in the people. I receive many letters every day from people asking me about certain projects and the power of the federal government or the provincial government to do certain things in different fields. In the house the other day there was a discussion about whether irrigation in Saskatchewan was a provincial or federal responsibility. After eighty-two years I believe that the people of Canada are most anxious that we should take an inventory and try to proceed along definite lines in order to further the progress of the country. One hears many discussions in public places which do not seem to have any end. The matter of the welfare of the people is discussed and whether the passing of legislation is handicapped in any way by the lack of clarity as to the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments. Day after day and year after year we keep looking into the past to find out who is going to enact welfare legislation, and the people of the country suffer in the meantime because of discussions that do not lead us anywhere.
I believe some members raised a question about the urgency displayed in bringing this matter to an end. The reason for doing so springs right from the needs of the people. On June 27 the people gave the government a green light to proceed. They expressed their confidence in the government and are prepared to leave the means to it provided minority rights are guaranteed. In the resolution, consideration has been given as far as minority rights are concerned, a distinction is made between provincial and federal matters, and matters which may not belong wholly to provincial or to federal jurisdiction. Therefore I am justified, by the mandate I received on the 27th of June, in voting for the resolution.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I did not think I would be called on until eight o'clock, but I wish to say something about the resolution moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) yesterday. The two old parties put me in mind of two old soldiers. They never die. The two old parties are being reconstructed and re-created in Canada today. Those who have gone before would not know them, if we are to believe what has been said in the past.
I wish to refer to a few matters which have come up in connection with the resolution. I have not had any opportunity to prepare. I had to attend the funeral in Toronto yesterday of a former mayor of that city, Mr. C. Alfred Maguire, and I did not arrive in Ottawa until midnight last night. Yesterday was the first day that I have been absent during this session, but he was my vice-chairman and I had to pay tribute to him and was glad to do so.
As to the resolution, I wish to say that I regret very much that the government has brought this question before the house and the country at the present time. As I said the other day, these matters are largely secondary. It is true that the resolution has been moved, and as far as the amendment is concerned I think it changes the resolution very little. The amendment only amends a minor part of the resolution, and the resolution and the amendment might be taken together so that members will not be speaking three or four times, lengthening the business of the house accordingly. In my view the amendment does not touch the matter at all. It simply provides for the submission to the house a little later on of some of the principles of the resolution. I regret very much that the house and the country have been troubled with amendments to the British North America Act at the present time.
As you know, the atomic bomb has been in the minds and hearts of the people of Canada a great deal lately. There are many other matters that are vastly more important than the resolution. You merely have to read together the resolution of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the other matters which have been proposed in the house and which were put before the country during the last election. For that reason I may say I am very much surprised at the electors of Canada. We are supposed to be the high court of parliament, and the resolution seems to ignore one of the cardinal principles of our constitution, namely, that the courts are subservient to the legislatures. That is one of the cardinal principles of the British constitution.

As much of the common law of England as was applicable to our circumstances was introduced into Canada by the Constitutional Act, 1791, at the time that act was passed. There are many matters which have been introduced into the debate on this measure. The other day the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) placed what I considered a totally irrelevant construction on the speeches which have been made so far regarding appeals to the privy council. He referred to the Canadian navy and all that kind of thing. He forgot that in 1938, before the second war, I pointed out in the house that on the Pacific, to which he was referring, we had an unprotected coast line from Puget sound to the southern Queen Charlotte islands, and had no defence there at all. He brought in the Canadian navy and the Canadian army and what they had done in the war, but I fail to see what that has to do with appeals to the privy council. It is far from it, and I think his reference was very much out of place.
I should like to say to him now that what has provided protection for our unprotected Pacific coast line from time immemorial, in the days of Louis XIV, Philip of Spain, the days of Napoleon, and twice in our generation, is the British fleet. Where would we have been in the Pacific but for the protection of the British fleet, and also in the Atlantic and everywhere else?
Coming to the resolution and the amendment, they must be taken together, though the amendment deals with only a very small part of the question. However, I am sure the house does not want two or three debates, but that we want to come to grips with this whole question. Is this the time for us to proceed in the method and manner indicated, or is it not? The hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) the other evening was referring to the method and manner of this procedure when he asked for amendments to this act. As my friend the premier of Quebec has said, there is no doubt at all that the contract was made. How did this resolution come about? It is founded on the Statute of Westminster, to which I was referring the other day and which has done nothing but disrupt the empire. It is a mischievous statute, which has wrecked our empire. It brought about the situation in India and in South Africa, and has divided our own country. I am a great admirer of the people of Quebec, and have been ever since I entered this house. When I was mayor of Toronto I received the commander of the French army, the Marshal of France, at the city hall, and paid tribute to the 65,000 soldiers from our city who had gone to France and Flanders 45781-57
British North America Act in the first war to aid the French people. I referred to the awful privations, the suffering, the trials and tribulations of the glorious French nation, which would live throughout history as an example of the most sublime patriotism.
My leader has taken a very fair stand in regard to this whole question. We had the Statute of Westminster. Then we had a royal commission appointed to consider amendments to the British North America Act, commonly known as the Rowell-Sirois commission. Its final report was very unfair to the two central provinces. If any changes are made in the British North America Act I am afraid it will be a bad thing. I am sorry that such matters as public health and education were not made matters of concurrent jurisdiction at the time of confederation, along with agriculture and other things. That was one of the mistakes made at that time. They do not have these provincial legislatures in Great Britain, where they have forty-seven million people. There they operate with local governments in charge of the municipalities, and it was a mistake in Canada to have two municipal systems, one within the other, created by section 92 of the British North America Act.
The members of this cabinet seem very much divided on this question. I regret that it has been brought forward at the present time because, as I say, it is only secondary. What is the reason for the rush to put this over now, in such a haphazard manner, without consulting the provinces, without consulting the bar association, and without giving anyone a chance to look into it? Apparently this house is supposed to adopt this resolution in the twinkling of an eye. I fail to see the reason for all the hurry. I believe the people should vote on it. Why should they not be given a chance to express an opinion on these changes? Many of the younger members have come up from the municipalities, where in many cases you cannot spend any money without a vote of the people. Here we are going to work and destroying the whole basis of confederation. It is by this resolution being made a political football, and you can call it nothing else. It is being kicked back and forth before the people of the provinces, and I believe the government was ill-advised in its attempt to rush this thing through in this way. As I have often said, the two old parties in this house are like old soldiers; they never die. In fact nowadays they are being re-created, with the hallelujah chorus; but the party opposite are forsaking the beliefs of their founders, and forgetting all about their former ideals, political and economic. Mr. Fielding and Sir
898	HOUSE OF
British North America Act Wilfrid Laurier would not approve of this. They were in favour of preferential trade in 1897 which, as I said the other day, has been hung on the sour apple tree like John Brown's body. My hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) said that was a good place for it. Well, that would be a good place to hang some of the principles he has been espousing in the Montreal district. It seems to me the Liberal party has a different policy and platform for each city and province.	.
We on this side of the house have followed the same principles ever since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald. This resolution is founded upon provincialism and other things than strict legal principles. In my opinion it is political. Here is what Sir John A. Macdonald said in 1844, one hundred and five years ago:
I, therefore, need scarcely state my firm belief that the prosperity of Canada depends upon its permanent connections with the mother country-[DOT]
He was the founder of this party, and just before confederation formed the Liberal Conservative party. He went on to say:
-and that X shall resist to the utmost any attempt, from whatever quarter it may come, which may tend to weaken that union.
Forty-seven years afterwards, speaking in the same city in February, 1891, in his last campaign- he was again elected-Sir John re-affirmed the same doctrine of our close relationship with the mother country. He said:
"For a century and a half this country has grown and flourished under the protecting aegis of the British crown. Under the broad folds of the union jack, we enjoy the most ample liberty, we govern ourselves as we please, and at the same time we participate in the advantages which flow with association of the mightiest empire the world has ever seen. As for myself, my course is clear. A British subject I was born and a British subject I will die."
In the course of half a century, Sir John never failed to make the stand of Canada known, in its relation to the rest of the empire.
This resolution is founded upon status, sovereignty and autonomy. During the course of the debate we have heard the word *"colonialism". This new word has been introduced by the hon. Minister of Justice. Shortly, he will be the right honourable. Now, what is the answer to the hon. gentleman opposite? The answer is simply that a million men went overseas in the first war. They did not go over there under their own status to fight; nor were they worried about autonomy or sovereignty. They did not even consider whether they were being called "colonials". Those men went to fight for an ideal. One million went from the dominions and 130,000 of them fell on the field of battle. They are buried in Flanders. Sixty-five thousand from Toronto went to fight in France, and many are buried there. Those men went to fight for an ideal, the


greatest ideal free people ever had. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition was one of them. He was wounded. There were many good Liberals and good Conservatives among those men. Many men went from the province of Quebec and they were good soldiers. I know something about them and I saw the work they did.
Those men were all satisfied with the status of Canada, and its autonomy and sovereignty. They were not called "colonials" because they were not colonials. They were representing the dominions. The same thing happened in the second war, only the number of men was increased fivefold.
The cabinet seems to be divided on this question. There are some in favour of one policy and some in favour of another. One has to link many things together into this resolution to see why this thing has happened, and why it is being rushed in the House of Commons. This measure received very little consideration in the other place where a lot of this work seems to start. I believe the government is badly advised in moving this resolution forward, because it is only a secondary matter. One has to link up a lot of other things. There is a motion to be introduced between eight and nine o'clock tonight to replace the word "Dominion" by "Canada", and another concerning the office of the governor general. There are also motions concerning the flag and the national anthem. Those men who went overseas in the first and second wars thought the flag was good enough for them. The Union Jack covered the bodies of many of the soldiers from our city who were buried in Flanders and in France.
I wish to speak for only a few minutes about this matter. I am opposed to the whole policy of the government. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is true that the first ten or eleven amendments made to the British North America Act were largely federal amendments. They were technical descriptions of many kinds and were not opposed by the provinces. Do not forget, though, that we had to wait until the Statute of Westminster was passed-this empirewrecking statute, as I call it. I have with me a textbook, Wheare on the Statute of Westminster. This decision of the privy council was based on this statute. In my opinion, the privy council is not a court at all, but is a judicial committee of one of the houses of parliament of the United Kingdom. The only reason it meets in London is that that is the centre of the empire and is the place most convenient to the representatives of the dominions and the colonies.

London is the centre of the world. There is no reason why the privy council should not meet in the other dominions as well.
During the course of the last four parliaments I opposed and moved a six months hoist to private bills introduced by members of the C.C.F. which were related to this matter. There is a division of opinion on this matter amongst the members of the cabinet. The Postmaster General made a speech which is reported in the Montreal Star of September 20. I read this paper when I have an opportunity, but I have not had much chance to read even the Toronto papers recently. The Postmaster General was at a banquet and he attacked the premier of Quebec for his empty speeches.
The other day the premier of Quebec, Hon. Mr. Duplessis, made a speech in which he challenged the federal government on this matter. He was opening a bridge at St. Eustache and, in the course of his speech, he insisted on the province being consulted. The only way in which the parliament of the United Kingdom can be asked to pass a statute to amend the British North America Act is by an address of both houses of parliament. In this textbook to which I have referred, it is said that some of the provinces made a contract at the time of confederation. There is no doubt about that at all; there was a contract. There would be no confederation at all, there would be no British North America Act at all, had it not been for that contract which was broad enough to bring together the sectional interests of representatives who were four thousand miles apart. I say that when there is a division in the cabinet on this matter, the government should proceed cautiously.
At the opening of the bridge, the premier of Quebec and Mr. Sauve made speeches. The press report of that event reads as follows:
In his speech, Premier Duplessis recalled the memory of the St. Eustache patriots who, in 1837, fought to obtain responsible government, also events of 1841, when Quebec and Ontario were united, only to fail to come to reach accord on major national questions. In 1867, he said, representatives of the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, had agreed on a confedera-tive pact, handing over to a central government powers to deal with national problems, but retaining unto themselves the full authority to deal with matters pertaining to the protection of their rights and privileges. It was a pact, a contract, not a statute as suggested by Prime Minister St. Laurent, a pact that could not be changed without the full consent of the parties concerned, signatories to the pact.
Now that is correct; there is no doubt about that. Here is the Liberal party in this twentieth century, and what are they going to do? They are going to prevent a British 45781-57i
British North America Act subject from making an appeal to the foot of the throne, or what we call making an appeal of grace.
My friend the Postmaster General made a speech the other day and I shall read the newspaper report of that speech:
The minister then attacked the speech made by Premier Maurice Duplessis of Quebec last Saturday at the Richelieu Club convention here. The premier had expressed fear that changes in the constitution as advocated by the Liberals at Ottawa, might reduce provincial autonomy and the rights and privileges of the French-Canadian people of Quebec.
"Mr. Duplessis is fond of grandiloquent speeches which may sound agreeable to the ear but are empty of meaning when examined by an impartial observer," said Mr. Rinfret. "He likes to talk about provincial autonomy and the right of the people of Quebec to govern themselves without interference from Ottawa centralizers. He often pretends that the racial and religious traditions of French Canadians are endangered by the Liberal policies as applied at Ottawa. This is really taking too much advantage of the good faith of the Quebec people.
Mr. Duplessis claims that nothing should be done by the Ottawa government to reduce the rights of the province to the full employment of its revenue derived from taxation," the minister continued.
That is right today too because in Ontario-objection has been raised to the division of the school taxes between the two schools-It will be remembered that a different system was illegally foisted on Saskatchewan and on the prairie provinces accordingly. The article continues:
"In fact, previous Quebec governments had to administer the province on a revenue of $50 million while the Duplessis administration finds means to collect $200 million in taxes. In addition, it obtains millions of dollars for education and social welfare from Ottawa" . . .
Mr. Rinfret said that articles 91 and 92 of the constitution delimit the respective taxation powers of the central government and the provinces. They also determine the over-all taxation powers of the dominion government whenever these powers are not specified. The constitution, too, makes it clear that Ottawa can impose direct taxes. Mr. Duplessis knows that perfectly well. But whenever he is faced with reality, his only answer and argument is "autonomy."
He belittles Duplessis. The article continues:
The minister scoffed at the Duplessis argument that the rights and privileges in respect of the Roman Catholic traditions and the French language in Quebec were endangered by the Ottawa plan-
And so they are, because as I say, the privy council had been the protector of minorities. They protected minorities by giving fair decisions. Do not forget that majorities have rights as well as minorities; and that is where he is wrong. The article continues:
"Mr. Duplessis seems to think," he remarked, "that the French Canadians elected by the people to represent them at Ottawa cease to be good French Canadians or sound religious men. This would be preposterous if it were not so clearly ridiculous. The Quebec representatives in the Senate and the House of Commons have no lessons to learn from Mr..
900	HOUSE OF
British North America Act
Duplessis in that respect. They are just as zealous for the preservation of the Catholic and French traditions of the French-speaking element of Canada as is the Quebec premier. A proof of that is their desire to see the rights of the French language e stended to all Canada,"

Mark those words, "all Canada".
-"instead of being restricted by article 133 of the constitution to Quebec and Ottawa. This will be done when the constitution is amended."
There were 878,000 French Canadians in the other provinces of Canada who would welcome additional rights for their native language. All other measures contained in the speech from the throne, Mr. Rinfret said, were designed to extend the national rights of all Canadians, thus furthering national unity so desirable for the welfare of the Canadian people.
In a parting shot at Premier Duplessis, Mr. Rinfret said that while the Liberal governments at Ottawa were adopting or extending social welfare benefits, the National Union government in this province was destroying the good effects of school legislation adopted when the Godbout government was in power, including free text books, and was thus imposing an additional burden on Quebec families. He suggested that the premier be less generous with empty speeches and more generous in his treatment of the Quebec people.
I have a few minutes more until six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to conclude my remarks before then. I do not believe in this way of doing business in the twentieth century because you have to include all these other subjects. There is one up for discussion at eight o'clock tonight. There are those other things to be read into the statute. They have to be read into this resolution. There is no doubt about that. I have read the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He reads it into the statute but he amends only a minor clause. You have got to take them together in order to understand it. I regret that this resolution has been brought forward at this time when we are faced with other more important questions, and when we as an empire stand at the parting of the ways. Look at what Russia is doing today. She knows all about the atomic bomb. She has it now. May I say to the hon. gentlemen who come from British Columbia that, at the instance of the United States, Russia was invited to come into the Pacific ten days before Japan fell. Mr. Churchill denied that he ever consented to it.
In the Pacific today we have no protection whatever. I was referring to it as our back door. Everybody knows that a burglar does not go to the front door. He goes to the back door. That is what I call the Pacific. We should have some protection. We have lost the protection of the British fleet. As I say, a burglar does not go to the front door. He usually goes to the back door and finds out whether the people are out, as hon. members know. As I say, I see no reason for bringing


these questions forward at the present time. It causes division in the country. It leads nowhere. We all know about being colonials. The biggest colonials I know of in the house are the Little Englanders, the little people who do not know where their protection came from for four centuries, in the days of Philip of Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon, and twice in our generation. Where would we in Quebec and Ontario be but for that? The enemy were up the St. Lawrence. They came right up as far as Riviere du Loup. I saw the cove in which the submarine had been. A secret session of this house was held accordingly. Are these not more important matters than the one with which we are dealing? As a humble member of the House of Commons in all sincerity I ask: Is this what we call twentieth century Liberalism or not? If it is,
I think twentieth century Liberalism is going back one hundred years, because the resolution goes back that far. It destroys preferential trade for ever. I remember what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) said the other day, and I made some remarks accordingly. It destroys all that, and that is what saved the dominion in the thirties. The Liberal party started it in 1897, through Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding. It was never finally carried out until the Ottawa agreements made a great success of it. Otherwise you would have had unemployment ten times worse than in the United States. For all the defence we get in this country we are depending on the United States today, if we are attacked on the Pacific or at any other place. We have been surrendering too much political, military, economic and financial responsibility. Now by this resolution we surrender judicial supremacy. To whom? To the people of the United States. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) said the other night, we are getting into this bill the principle of the judicial system of the United States. We have been warned of the great dangers that confront this country at the present time. I referred to this matter the other day, and to what we owe to nationalism, to the mother country, the flag, the anthem and all that kind of thing. These things have got to be read into the resolution. If you ask me, it is weakening and destroying the very basis on which this country joined confederation. I referred to the two old political parties being like two old soldiers; they never die. But they are changing the basis established by the founders of confederation. I referred to the principles of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Fielding and others. Is that Liberalism today? No. You have not the Liberalism of the past. The Liberalism of the past believed in these doctrines, political, economic and financial. They

believed in a real future for the country. You are going back on all those principles. True, it was not carried out in the thirties, but the authors of it were the gentlemen on the Liberal benches.
I do not doubt the sincerity of my hon. friends to the left. I do not question it at all. I have always been one of the hon. members who believed that anybody could have an opinion in this House of Commons. In 1923 I described the House of Commons as a large club where every hon. member could express his opinion freely, impartially and fairly as long as he had the floor. I have never denied the right to my opponents to have whatever opinions they wished for themselves. I do not think it could ever be charged against me that I showed a lack of ordinary Christian charity toward my political opponents. I have a great admiration for the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I have always had it. I knew him before he became a member of this house. At that time he was a leading member of the bar and one of the leading public men of Quebec. He used to visit our city as a member of the bar association. While I realize that, I believe that he is now raising secondary questions that could be left over, including all these that are wrapped up in it. He is causing a division in his own party on the subject from coast to coast. All these questions should be left for a better day until we know whether we are secure or not from the enemy which is now at the gates. He is going to be at the gates very shortly if he is not there already. We have to consider the questions in the manner which has been indicated. When hon. members look at the questions more fully they will find out that what I say is correct.
I should like to quote one or two paragraphs from what the Dean of Chichester said about the mind of man at the present time, because I believe there are greater issues than this for the government to deal with, namely, to be sure that we have security for all our citizens. This is what the dean said:
Why do wars happen? It is sometimes thought that it is the possession of armaments, or of large armaments, that is the ultimate cause of war. It used to be said that it was the armament makers- "the merchants of death"-who brought war about for their private profit. So people have proposed to eliminate war by reduction of armaments, or by complete disarmament. It is urged that all armaments-if armaments there be-should be under the control of the state and manufactured in state factories. But this is to confound symptoms with causes.
It is not armaments that make wars, but the people who have control of the armaments. Wars are not caused by things but by the mind of man. The United States, Great Britain, France, Holland,
British North America Act
Belgium, and Norway had greatly reduced their armaments after the first world war. Denmark had practically abolished armaments altogether. This did not save any of these countries. There was another country, populous and powerful, that was bending all its energies to the preparation for war, which was greatly encouraged in its preparations by the weakness of the peace-loving countries and their obvious unwillingness and unreadiness for war.
The truth is that wars in modern times are caused by the emergence of a group of determined men who are able to rouse and mobilize within their nation a passionate desire to expand and dominate. They aim at indoctrinating their people with a conviction of superiority, an imposing idea that they are destined to rule the world, because of their great strength and particularly because they alone possess the true political philosophy for which the whole of mankind is waiting. The kindling idea, universal in its scope, and simple in its expression, plus the sense of destiny, are essential to the war machine. Men and women need a great cause, or what appears to be a great cause, if they are to be keyed up to endure the vast sacrifices that war, and preparation for war, demands.
The dean gives this picture of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where they are making the atomic bomb. He says they are making it a peaceful scene but it is the manufacturing plant which was the birthplace of the atomic bomb which is going to destroy the world. This is his concluding paragraph:
Fortunately the west can confront Russia with overwhelming strength in industry, munitions and manpower, and has established a lead in atomic research which will be immensely difficult for the Kremlin to overtake. It is our duty to do all in our power to preserve that lead.
Yet, assuming that a balance of power in our favour is maintained, the question remains, "Is this sufficient to enable the world to settle down? Is it conceivable that there can really be a secure and contented world while Russia holds half Europe in thrall? Can genuine peace be established while Europe is half slave and half free? Again, is not more than Europe involved? If Asia, besides China and including India, Burma and the East Indies, come under the Russian grip can there be world recovery?" These are questions for the second stage of the conflict in which we are all at present engaged. When retreat is forced on Russia somewhere, the scene may brighten everywhere.
The main point to remember about the atomic bomb is that its use may depend on the gradual restoration of a more civilized world. Humanity may have to face the question-which is the less unendurable, a vast physical destruction, or the surrender of the whole of mankind to a diabolical tyranny such as the world has never seen?
This shows the importance of other matters. Are we secure, or are we not? All these matters which we have been discussing today are purely secondary. This is a political bill. It is not an economic or a legal bill. For that reason I wish to protest against it. If this is Liberalism of the twentieth century I should like to know, because they are upsetting the basic doctrines of the founders of the Liberal party, which was a great party.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Private Bills-Divorce


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, October 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Winkler for the second reading of the following bills:
Bill No. 15, for the relief of John Henniker Torrance.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of Edith Harriet Black Hambly.
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Margaret Reid O'Connell.
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Alton Charles Bray.
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Kathleen Gertrude Macartney Dorken.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Louise de Forest MacAlpine.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Jessie Fraser Blaiklock Stewart.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Alice Lafond Burnham.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Muriel Annie Elizabeth Hicks Kurtzman.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Robert Walsham Herring.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Leta Helen Butler Waller.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Violet Blodwyn Young Murdoch.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Joseph Tannenbaum.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Isabel Christine MacLean Robinson.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Marie Annette Vallieres Handheld.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Nicholas Kouri.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Viateur Fortier.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Lois Elizabeth Rolph.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Madeleine Dunn Landry.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Arthur Joseph D'Avignon.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Jessie Gwendolyn Paul Giroux.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Celia Maria Gabrielle de Costa Baxter.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Dorothy Amelia Beattie Harrison.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Rosaline Laham Anber.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Anna Starzyn-ski Sztafirny.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Marjorie Claire Dickison LeMieux.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Dorothy Ruth Brown Bailey.

Bill No. 42, for the relief of Lome Bradbury Ashton.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Harry James Seaban.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Julia Seram Odenick.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Myrtle Elizabeth Howat Brammall.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Francis Gilmer Tempest Dawson.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Imelda Poirier Tremblay.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Joseph Charles Paul Emile Chales.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Robert Mason Watson.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Catherine Alexandra Mackenzie Mitchell.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Irene Filion Primeau.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Mary Jean Strachan Taylor.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Edna Kate Folley Dickenson.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Gerald Geoffrey Racine.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Yvonne Marshall Balfry Corbin.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Colleen Ethel Thornhill Clark.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Leith Albert Anderson Baldwin.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Marie Jeanne Martin.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Irene Emily Katerelos Stones.
William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, on Friday evening we were debating a motion for the second reading of certain divorce bills. Many hon. members stated at that time that they were unfamiliar with the subject being discussed and therefore were not in position to pass an opinion. Feeling somewhat guilty in that respect I took the trouble on Saturday morning to go to the Senate clerk who was in charge of the petitions and the evidence in connection with these divorce bills and I saw the different petitions and the evidence that had been presented.
For the benefit of hon. members who are not familiar with the procedure perhaps I may be pardoned if I take a moment or two to outline it. First a petition must be made to the Senate by the person who feels himself or herself wronged. Then service is made upon the defendant or the respondent who may enter a defence if he so wishes. Then the case is called to be heard by the Senate and while the respondent has the right to appear, generally he does not. Counsel may be engaged by either side and a few members

of the Senate sit as a court to hear the evidence offered by the petitioner praying that he or she be granted a divorce.
After the Senate court has heard the evidence it is sent over to this house where it is examined by the appropriate clerk and hon. members may inspect the evidence if they wish. I may say that the evidence is much the same in all cases and is not very elevating to those who may wish to read it. Then a bill is presented here and we are asked to decide upon it.
During the course of my remarks on Friday evening I gave it as my opinion that we should not be trying to make divorce easier. As I said, there has been a tendency in all countries, especially since the first world war, in that direction. That tendency had been in evidence for a long time before that because of the materialistic trend of the age. But it has been growing ever since the first world war.
I remember over twenty-five years ago hearing the late G. K. Chesterton, the famous English writer, speak during a debate on divorce at the Oxford Union. This was some years before he joined the Catholic church but even at that time he held the Catholic view on marriage and divorce. At that time he said that if divorce went on as it was the university of Oxford would soon have to give new degrees or the degrees they were giving would not mean the same thing as they had in the past. He said that if things went on a B.A. would come to mean "bachelor again" and an M.A. would mean "married again".
The frequency of divorce in England has increased greatly during the last 25 years, and the full Christian view of the indissolubility and the sacramental nature of marriage is not held as firmly as it was before. I think hon. members who have taken part in this debate are on sound ground when they object to parliament hearing these divorce cases. It is simply carrying out the theory, with which I cannot agree, that this is the high court of parliament and that parliament can do anything except change a man into a woman or a woman into a man. If parliament cannot do that then it has been trying to do the next best thing. It has been trying to declare that a husband is no longer a husband and a wife is no longer a wife. Personally I would not want to support any bill granting a divorce because I believe that "what God has joined together, no man shall put asunder."
When the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) was speaking I think he indicated that he did not realize the technical nature of the subject he was dealing with. He said that in the province of Quebec there
Private Bills-Divorce
was a way of dissolving a marriage; that it was not called a divorce but rather an annulment. He said that in any event there was a separation and the result was the same. I think I know what my hon. friend was trying to say.
Since no hon. member from Quebec rose to contradict him I feel that his statement should be contradicted for the purposes of the record. The teaching of the Catholic church in Quebec is the same as the teaching of the Catholic church in any country. When the hon. member said that in Quebec there was a way of dissolving a marriage, he was completely wrong. There is no way of dissolving a marriage. Once a marriage, always a marriage. He said that it was not called a divorce, but an annulment. Here it is necessary to make a careful distinction. The word "divorce" in popular parlance means to separate permanently; it is derived from the Latin word "divortium" which means to separate. However, in the English language it now is understood to mean a dissolution of marriage.
Annulment presupposes that there has been no marriage. All that the ecclesiastical court decides is that there never was a marriage. Many causes may exist to warrant the declaration that there has never been a marriage. As in the case of ordinary contracts, the court may say that there has never been a contract. I shall not enumerate all the causes that might induce an ecclesiastical court to say that there has never been a marriage, but I might cite an extreme case. If a man married his grandmother it could be held that that was not a marriage because it would have been forbidden in the first place.
"In any event", the hon. member said, "there had been a separation and the result was the same." There are several errors in that one sentence. The hon. member said that there was a separation. If he meant to say that in divorce there is a separation, he did not say enough. What we understand by divorce is a complete dissolution where the parties are allowed by parliament, or by the civil courts in the provinces other than Quebec and Newfoundland, to go their own way and to go through another form of marriage if they wish.
If the hon. member meant that by annulment there is a separation and the result is the same as in divorce, then he was completely wrong. A separation permits the parties to come together again when the bad feelings that may have existed between them have subsided. They may again take up their matrimonial duties and live as man and wife. In annulment according to Catholic teaching, the parties are perfectly free to marry, but in divorce, they may not marry

Private Bills-Divorce
again. It will be seen that this subject has many technical difficulties, and, as hon. members have indicated, it is probably the most unsuitable subject for parliament to deal with. Most hon. members have not the time or inclination to study the facts, and I feel sure there are many members who do not feel any disposition to deal with this subject at all. I felt that I should make these observations. As far as I am concerned I propose to vote against the bill.


William F. Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to prolong this debate. The other evening certain statements were made regarding the right of parliament to grant divorces. Like all Canadians I am against income tax, like most Canadians I am against sin and like most Roman Catholics I am against divorce. In the province of Nova Scotia we have a divorce law which we took over from England, together with other laws, at the time that the English, the Scots and the Irish came to our province. We had to adopt all the common law and statute law that was good for the circumstances of our province at that time. Among the laws that we took over was the divorce law. For years in the province of Nova Scotia there was one judge assigned to hearing divorce cases, and he could hear divorce cases only in the city of Halifax. It became more or less of a farce for those who had to inhabit the courthouse, which is the place where the judges of the court of appeal and the judges of the supreme court reside.
A few years ago a couple of us went to the government of Nova Scotia and then to certain of the law officers of Canada. We asked for a change in the method of hearing divorces. Today we have in the province of Nova Scotia a law enacted three years ago, I believe, whereby divorces are tried on circuit, and every judge must hear and determine divorce cases if they come before him. It was said at the time that greater opportunities would be afforded to those who wanted to procure divorces if they could get them in their own circuits. I took the ground at that time-and the bases of the ground have been fulfilled so far as I am concerned -that when people who were getting divorces on certain grounds came to the court at Halifax very few spectators were allowed and the people from their immediate neighbourhoods would not know that they were such scoundrels. I refer to collusion and that kind of thing.
The result is that today in the province of Nova Scotia there are less divorces proportionately than there were previously, and they are also published today. I had to try

divorce cases. I took it as a responsibility. I think that the parliament of Canada is a judiciary so far as the hearing of divorces is concerned. Every person who sits in the house and votes on a divorce bill is acting as a judge. He is acting as a judge because he is giving a decision on a purely legal matter but he is giving a decision on evidence that is not heard before this house. It is the same situation when a judge hears a case, and after hearing certain evidence finds that it is necessary to send out a commission to take the evidence of persons who are unable to come to court, who may be in foreign countries, or something of that kind.
It is true that one cannot say that a witness whose evidence is heard on commission is either a liar or a truthful man, but a judge can make certain inferences. That is the position members of the House of Commons are in at the present time. The evidence is heard in the Senate. I understand it is heard and adjudged by lawyers who know the value of evidence and the causes for divorce. I suppose it is all right to use the word "Senate" in this case, Mr. Speaker, because this is a different question. We are really discussing a bill that comes from the Senate. I know the rule about using the expression, "the other place", but in discussing this particular bill hon. members might have some idea that I was referring to something else if I said "the other place".
That is the situation as I understand it. I spoke a moment ago about taking over the law on divorce from England in the province of Nova Scotia, and I presume Ontario was in the same category.


An hon. Member:: Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.


William F. Carroll: There are well established laws regarding the causes for divorce. In our province there are two, adultery and mental or physical cruelty. I think perhaps the same is true here.


Mr. Croll:: No cruelty.


William F. Carroll: No cruelty. I know, however, what the law is in that regard in the province of Nova Scotia. The great difficulty in the present set-up, in the way of parliament granting divorces, is that, as I believe, the Senate often does not make sufficient investigation of these cases so far as collusion is concerned. I sat in the house from 1911 to 1921. I took a keen interest in the matter of divorce, and as a matter of fact in all private bills. On two occasions I was instrumental, along with others who supported my argument, in refusing to assent to divorce bills that came from the Senate. In one case there was not sufficient evidence, and in the

other there was clear evidence of collusion. Because they were acting as representatives of the people and as judges in passing these laws, hon. members should take the time, and sufficient interest, in these bills to see that no bill passes the house unless there is ample evidence to lay a foundation for divorce.
I am making this statement because of certain things that were said the other night on these bills, and perhaps certain things that have been said tonight. I am a firm adherent to the laws on marriage of the Roman Catholic church so far as they have been promulgated generally up to the present time, and I hope for all time to come, but I do not think that justifies me in voting against a divorce bill when it comes to this house because I am a Roman Catholic or because I adhere strictly to the laws of that church on the question of divorce.
We are all against murder; we are all against all kinds of immorality, if you want to put it that way. But if the house should take the attitude that we are not supposed to legislate on murder or any other kind of immorality, then we would be placing ourselves in a most precarious position as legislators and as judges. I have looked at the evidence in most of these cases. Even if I had not, I know how these matters are carried on in the other place, the other good place. I have been following divorces in parliament over the years, not only during the time 1 was here. I have closely followed the procedure by which this parliament deals with divorces and passes these bills, and I feel quite sure that it is a rare thing for any bill to come to this house from the other place without an abundance of evidence, which would be amply sufficient for these people to get divorces if they went to the courts of the country.
I am making this explanation, Mr. Speaker, because there may be people in this house, as there are people outside it, who think that because a man follows the doctrine of marriage as promulgated through the ages by the Roman Catholic church he is in conscience bound to vote against divorces. As hon. members know, I occupied a position on the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, and I did not think I would be fulfilling the obligations of my oath if I did not decide divorce cases; for one of the reasons I was appointed was to take the responsibility for deciding any case that might be brought before me, divorce or otherwise. And I consider myself in exactly the same position tonight as when I held a responsible position in the judiciary of Nova Scotia.
The suggestion has been advanced that the province of Quebec should establish its own <*5781-58
Private Bills-Divorce
divorce courts. That is a matter for the legislature of Quebec. No person within or without this house has the right to say that Quebec should establish its own divorce courts.


Mr. Gagnon:: We do not want divorce courts in Quebec.


William F. Carroll: I know that, but suggestions have been advanced in this house ever since it has had to deal with divorces that as a matter of faith Quebec should establish its own divorce courts. I say that is their business, not ours. I remember reading some time ago that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), when Minister of Justice, went exhaustively into the matter of divorce in the province of Quebec, in an endeavour to find some method of removing divorces from the parliament of Canada. That seems very difficult to do. Personally I should like to see divorce divorced from this parliament, but the question is how to deal with people in Quebec who want divorces to which under our laws they are entitled.
I am sorry to have taken up so much time, Mr. Speaker. It was more as a personal matter, in order to explain my position, that I rose this evening.


Mr. A. C. Stewart (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has covered a great deal of the ground I intended to cover, and I compliment him upon the honesty of his remarks to this house. However, in view of the statements that have been made by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), I feel that a number of new members of this house may not be as familiar as they should be with these petitions to the Senate, and I propose to cover that matter briefly.
I regret that the hon. member for Nanaimo is not in his seat, though I presume he will be here later. In his remarks on this subject the hon. member said, at page 799 of Hansard:
I feel humiliated that I should have sat here during the whole of the last parliament of Canada and on various occasions have seen twenty, thirty, forty or fifty bills asking for the relief of various individuals presented before this House of Commons. I wondered why these bills were presented to the House of Commons. I did not have the wisdom nor the courage to stand up on my feet and to ask why it is necessary that this type of bill should be passed through the House of Commons without any questions being asked. . . .
I may be to blame. It may be that I should have examined more carefully the bills which had been passed in the other place.
The hon. member is a man of mature age, and admits having sat in this house for four years before this session. He had a galaxy of brilliant lawyers sitting on his side of the house, including our friend whom I may call "Buttercup", who would have been quite prepared to advise the hon. member on the

Private Bills-Divorce
law of divorce. In the army we would have called that very poor staff work, to say the least. In any event it seems to me the procedure here is quite clear. Any member of this house may attend when these bills are going through the Senate. As a matter of fact I understand that a member of the Conservative party in the Senate is in charge of that committee. The evidence is given under oath. The remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo disturbed some of the younger members from Saskatchewan who are not familiar with the practice in this house. Not only may they go there, but I understand that members of the Senate will permit them to ask any question they wish, or to put such questions through a member of the committee. Some of the members of that Senate committee are skilled lawyers, who cross-examine the witnesses. They are put through the same type of crossexamination they would probably face in court. In addition to that, when these bills come to this house they are sent to the committee on private bills, together with a copy of the evidence taken under oath. In that committee hon. members have the right to re-cross-examine the witnesses if they wish, or to question any bill relating to divorce that may come before this house. So the fault lies with the hon. member for Nanaimo if he was disturbed and perturbed as a result of not being familiar with the procedure of this house, or following the facetious remarks of the hon. member for Yorkton.
As far as the law of divorce is concerned, we in the west always proceeded by petition until certain cases were decided by the courts of appeal of Alberta and Manitoba. Those cases were Board v. Board and Walker v. Walker, the citations for which I have before me, in which it was found that the provincial courts had jurisdiction in divorce matters. In Ontario, which perhaps sets a precedent for this house, they passed a divorce act in 1930 which was passed in turn by the federal government, under which the law of England concerning the dissolution and annulment of marriage, as that law existed on the 15th day of July, 1870, in so far as it could be made to apply in the province of Ontario was declared to be in force in that province. In Nova Scotia the law of divorce is different from that of the western provinces or Ontario. In Nova Scotia, under a statute of that province, a divorce may be obtained not only on the ground of adultery but on the ground of cruelty. So the laws concerning divorce are not uniform in our provinces.
Some question was raised about Newfoundland. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) has spoken twice on this matter but has not yet given us the law of Newfoundland with respect to divorce. Up

to the time Newfoundland joined confederation, they had no law of divorce. In the consolidated statutes of Newfoundland, page 53, section 17, there is the following:
Our said governor is not to assent in our name to any bill of any of the classes hereinafter specified, that is to say:
1. Any bill for divorce of persons joined together in holy matrimony.
In the white book that has been filed in this house relating to Newfoundland, being the report and documents relating to the negotiations for the union of Newfoundland with Canada, the memorandum of agreement entered into on December 11, 1948, between Canada and Newfoundland, contains in clause 7 the following:
The constitution of Newfoundland as it existed immediately prior to the sixteenth day of February, 1934, is revived at the date of union and shall, subject to these terms and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946, continue as the constitution of the province of Newfoundland from and after the date of union, until altered under the authority of the said acts.
Clause 9 of that memorandum reads as follows:
The constitution of the executive authority of Newfoundland as it existed immediately prior to the sixteenth day of February, 1934, shall, subject to these terms and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946, continue as the constitution of the executive authority of the province of Newfoundland from and after the date of union, until altered under the authority of the said acts.
Clause 18, subsection 1, contains a further provision bringing in the British North America Act. I believe the whole effect of the statute of Newfoundland is that the people of Newfoundland can now do the same as the people of the province of Quebec, namely, petition the Senate for a divorce. As a matter of fact, one petition has already been received and filed. The required sixty days will expire on the 13th of November. It is a petition for divorce from the province of Newfoundland, but out of deference to the petitioning parties I shall not do as the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) did, and mention the names of the petitioners.
In so far as the whole matter is concerned, I am not going to enter into a discussion of the pros and cons of divorce. Those of us who practise law, and there are many in this house, know something about this matter. I agree with many of the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I seldom agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), and did not wholly agree with the statements he made about divorce. After all, people are human. I believe the average practising lawyer who has handled divorce cases found that, during the last war when the boys were overseas for five years and away from their families, roughly seventy per cent of the

divorces that went through the legal offices of the dominion were in connection with service people. It was an unfortunate circumstance, but it was there.
Many of us know of families whose lives have been unbearable because the parents cannot agree. The effect on the children has to be considered when the parents are disputing all the time or carrying on in an immoral manner with other people. That is not conducive to a happy family life. I agree with the previous speaker, who served as a judge. When I hear members say in this house that they cannot vote for a divorce bill, I wonder about the position of the judges of our high courts in those provinces of the dominion in which divorces are granted. Many of those judges are Roman Catholics, and some are Anglicans. I have talked with them and I know they do not feel any happier than the hon. members here about granting divorces. In view of the law of this land as it existed when the British North America Act was put into effect, however, they feel that they have to carry out their duty as citizens of this country. All of us, whether we are Protestants or Roman Catholics, have the greatest respect for the religion of the other party. I do not think there is any member from Saskatchewan on the Liberal side of this house who is going to suggest that the province of Quebec or the province of Newfoundland should establish their own divorce courts. That is a matter for the people of those provinces to decide in the future.
In this country, the only machinery provided for the people of those provinces to obtain a divorce is the machinery provided in the act of union, namely, the British North America Act, which gives to the parliament of Canada sole jurisdiction in the matter of matrimonial causes. It is our duty as members of this house to carry out the provisions of that section. In view of those circumstances, I believe more or less a tempest in a teapot has been raised for the poor chairman of that committee. I understand this matter has been raised continually in this house, but the divorces have been granted, regardless of what party was in power. This is the only procedure by which those parties can get a divorce. We do not want a political football made out of a matter of divorce or religion, so I do not believe any government is going to take it upon its shoulders to change these provisions. If the private members of this house are sincere they may arrive at some different method. Personally, I do not know what that method is and I do not attempt to suggest it.
In view of the discussion that has taken place and in view of the fact there are a
Private Bills-Divorce
number of new members in this house whom the remarks of the member for Nanaimo might have upset, I thought it was my duty to make this explanation.


Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll), I noted that he was careful to underline the fact that he was speaking as a private member. I am speaking also as a private member. This is not a matter for politics. In view of the exalted position which the hon. member, before he entered this house, held as a member of the judiciary of the province of Nova Scotia, in view of the position he holds as a member of this house, and in view of the fact he has declared he is a Roman Catholic, but is nevertheless going to vote in favour of these divorce bills, I think it is my duty also as a Roman Catholic and a member from the province of Quebec, which is opposed to divorce, to make this statement. I am opposed to divorce, not only because my religion is opposed to it, but because it is the scourge of our modern society. I believe the less divorce we have the better.
I should like to point out to the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, who has preceded me in this debate, that he said that in voting on these bills he was acting in the same capacity as he acted when he was a judge in the province of Nova Scotia. I would beg leave, Mr. Speaker, to point out there is a great difference between the judicial and the legal process. Acting as a judge, the hon. member had to apply the laws as they were. When he took his oath of office he pledged himself to apply those laws. As a legislator, he does not have to pass laws to which he is opposed in his conscience. I should like to underline that point.
I should like to take issue with the comparison the member made when he talked about murder. It was his idea that if we decided in this house not to legislate about murder, because we are opposed to murder, we would find ourselves in a very difficult situation. May I point out that when we legislate concerning murder we legislate against murder in order to repress it or punish those who commit murder. When we legislate in favour of divorce bills, or when we vote in favour of divorce bills, we are not voting against divorce but are aiding and abetting divorce. For those reasons, I shall vote against these bills.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the committee on private bills for a great many years. This system of granting divorces was considered then and is all wrong. I may say that, in my opinion,

Private Bills-Divorce
the state should look after the wives and children who are affected by desertion. Divorce follows every great war. Away back in 1801, the same problem was faced by the Addington administration. So did the two Pitts. They had to face the same thing. It is one of the consequences of war. In the church to which I belong, as a humble member-and that is the Church of England-the belief is this: those whom God has joined together, let no man put asunder. That was the principle of the conference in England for a great many years. Recently a committee appointed by the houses of parliament has been considering this whole problem. It is presided over by the Right Hon. and Right Rev. William Charles Wand, Bishop of London, who succeeded Bishop Winnington-Ingram. Over there, because of the way the country has been devastated by war, and for other reasons, the desire seems to be to extend the principle of divorce to include a great many things that were not considered before as grounds for it; one of these is desertion, and there are seven or eight other matters connected with it. I was glad to hear some of the members here tonight speak on this matter, including the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, who has just recently entered this house again. He is a learned man, formerly the Hon. Mr. Justice Carroll. I welcome the hon. member and congratulate him on his address tonight. He was formerly a member of the house and did a great deal of valuable work in connection with the national fuel supply. May I also congratulate the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart), who is a bencher of the law society from Regina. It is a wonder to me that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is not one of the benchers because I look upon him as one of the best lawyers in the prairies.
Let me say this one thing further. In my humble opinion the state should do something to look after the wives and the children. Every state has people of this type. After every war it has these people and they are a direct charge on the municipality. I know that because I was head of a municipality. I know that they become a charge on the municipality not only for school purposes but for housing and many other matters like that. I believe that the time is coming when we should have some other system adopted by parliament for this work. When I was on that committee I noticed that we knew nothing about the bills. There is a principle of Roman law to the effect that marriage is a contract. The common law of England has been largely copied from Roman law. That has been the principle which has been

adopted in this country also. It seems to me that we should provide a better system accordingly.
In connection with this matter I want to point out that there is in existence a registration system. While I admit that it cannot be so in the province of Quebec, there is a registration system operated by the provinces. For what? For deaths and marriages. They have a register with the town or village clerk to that effect. In a great many of the provinces that law regarding these matters might prevail also; but in Quebec I admit that there is a different principle involved. No one wants to change their law. Far from it. I would never try to change their law because I believe that the majority of the people are entitled to have their say themselves.
In conclusion, may I say that I think we should have a conference of the two houses of parliament, because it has been largely the prerogative of the Senate to hear and examine witnesses and all that sort of thing. I do not believe in the system. In the United States, after many wars, divorce is becoming a canker in almost every state. As I say, it follows largely as a result of wars. There is a registration system for deaths and marriages in existence in some of the provinces. I do not see why that system cannot be adopted. No doubt a different system would be required in the great province of Quebec. The archbishop who was investigating this question is travelling in the United States at the present time. He succeeded Bishop Winnington-Ingram, the great bishop of London, England. He is visiting the United States at the present moment and is going into all these questions. He recognizes that the divorce laws should be extended to include desertion, and I think there are five or six other matters connected with it, where the children and wives are left as a charge on the state.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Moved by Mr. Winkler,
seconded by Mr. Applewhaite, that these bills be now referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.
Some hon. members having risen in their places:


Thomas Langton Church: There are enough members for a division.


Mr. McCann:: It is too late.


Mr. Speaker:: I put the motion and it was carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. LaCroix:: We want a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house wish to have me put the motion?


Mr. Weir:: No. It is carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I declared the motion carried and hon. members did not rise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is not the principle. This is referring it to the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Probably hon. members did not hear what I said. I put the motion on second reading, which approved the principle of the bills, and the motion carried.


William Gilbert Weir: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I put the motion that the bills be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. [DOT]


William Gilbert Weir: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: And that motion carried.


William Gilbert Weir: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: We are now on the next order of business.


William Gilbert Weir: That is right.



REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA ACT


Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 14, respecting the revised statutes of Canada.
He said: This bill, Mr. Speaker, is to amend subsection 1 of section 5 of the act respecting the revised statutes of Canada which was adopted during the session of 1947-48. The amendment provides for the addition of the following words:
-and whenever in the said statutes or acts, or amendments thereto, the expression "Dominion of Canada" is used, there shall be substituted therefor the expression "Canada," or "Canadian" or "federal," respectively, or such other adequate word as the context requires.
The reason for this amendment is to be found in the fact that, since Canada has ceased to be a dominion and has become a
Revised Statutes of Canada Act sovereign state, the word "dominion" as applied to Canada has entirely lost its original meaning. The word "dominion" is a very old one, Mr. Speaker. A statute of Henry VIII, dating back to 1512, refers to "the-dominion honours". In 1688 a new commission in Britain was issued to Governor-Sir Edmond Andros including within "the dominion of New England both New York and the Jerseys." The word "dominion" was then plainly synonymous with colony, plantation and possession. It certainly cannot be said that New York at that time was not in the constitutional position of a colony, yet it was called a dominion.
In Webster's international dictionary we find that the word "dominion" is defined as:
That which is subject to sovereignty or control. Territory governed, or over which authority is exercised.
In Funk and Wagnalls dictionary we find the word "dominion" defined as:
Obedience, servitude, slavery, subjection, subjugation, submission.
I hold in my hand the Winston dictionary published in Toronto as late as 1945 and I find that the word "dominion" is defined asr
A territory or country with a high degree of local' authority, but subject to the control of another government; as the Dominion of Canada.
In the British North America Act, section 3, it is stated:
The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall form and be one dominion under the name of Canada.
Section 5 enacts that not the Dominion of Canada but Canada shall be divided into four provinces, namely, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. In section 4 appears the following: the name "Canada" and not "Dominion of Canada". It also says:
The name "Canada" shall be taken to mean "Canada," as constituted under this act.
The generic term "government of Canada"' is to be found in sections 11, 12, 13, 16, 116,. 118, 132, 142 and 145. The expression "parliament of Canada" not "parliament of the dominion of Canada" is to be found in sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 35, 40, 41, 47, 51, 52,. 58, 90, 92, 94, 95, 100, 101, 105, 120, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 141 and 146.
Section 22 refers to chapter I of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada. The great seal' of Canada is mentioned in sections 34, 35, and 38. House of Commons of Canada is; referred to in sections 87, 101 and 128. Therefore I contend that the official name of our country is not and never has been "Dominion of Canada" as is generally believed but "Canada" only. The word "dominion" was used only for the purpose of stating the constitutional position. It was recognized!
910	HOUSE OF
British North America Act in 1867 that the new constitution did not constitute Canada a sovereign state. It was to remain in the position of a colony with a certain degree of self-government and of dependence. It was then merely a matter of deciding what term should be used to describe that position and the term "dominion" was selected.
Our Conservative friends are silent tonight, but there were bursts of protest-


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member had better be careful what he says about us or we may say something about him.


Bona Arsenault: I do not care what you say about me. I have a lot more to say about you than you have to say about me. Various whispers and clamours of "No, no, never" came from the Conservative side when this bijl was introduced into the house and given first reading on October 6 last.
May I recall to hon. members, and more especially to the Conservative members of this house, that at the time of confederation Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier, certainly by far two of the most outstanding Conservative leaders Canada has ever produced, shared these views. I quote from page 38 of the book "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty" by Maurice Ollivier:
Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier were of the opinion:
1.	That the name of the federation be that of Kingdom of Canada.
2.	That the federation should have the rank of kingdom.


Some hon. Members:: Nine o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
On motion of Mr. Arsenault the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for public and private bills having expired, the house will resume the business which was before it at six o'clock.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for an address to His Majesty the King praying that a measure be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to amend the British North America Act, 1867, relating to the amendment of the constitution of Canada.
Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse):: We
must recognize that Canada has gone a long way toward full political maturity when the leaders of all the parties in this chamber agree on the advisability of the country having full
'Mr. Arsenault.]

control over its constitution. For the government party, the Liberal party, it is the logical sequence to its long stand on the question of full national autonomy. It is the ultimate of a long series of steps taken gradually to ensure or to manifest our complete sovereignty. It is one of the last milestones on our way from colonialism to nationhood. For the Conservatives, as I have no doubt their leader has been authorized to speak for his party, it is a new step that deserves due notice. It is, if not an entire reversal of attitude, at least an evolution in its approach to matters of an emancipative nature as far as our constitutional position is concerned. We are of course faced with an attempt to delay a measure long overdue but the objections are founded on a different basis than heretofore, and the principles invoked for the advisability of delaying this measure are not openly based on the traditional Conservative ground of imperial solidarity or fear of dissolution of commonwealth ties.
As to the C.C.F. party, its leader has been consistent with himself and with the views usually expressed by his supporters on that question. I must recognize that they have usually expressed the desire, which they seem to share with the Liberal party, of supporting all constitutional measures tending to bring about our complete emancipation and to eradicate anything which might permit some people to ignore or disregard our status as a sovereign nation. Therefore, sir, this debate, which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has heralded himself as one of the most significant since confederation, marks what I would like to consider as the dawn of a new era in Canadian politics, when all Canadians, no matter to which party they belong, have at last agreed on the necessity of thinking and acting first as Canadians and not in relation to their country's position in the commonwealth.
For too long Canada has been an orphan, so to speak, in the minds of many of its citizens. They have been at fault for diverse but regrettable reasons for too long a period. There were many Canadians whose ancestors came from the British isles who put the empire or Great Britain ahead of Canada in their hearts. For much too long a time also there have been many Canadians of French descent who have considered that their country ended at the limits of the province of Quebec. It has taken many years of patient preaching by nationally-minded Canadians of both racial groups to do away with that trend of thought. Today I think those who hold that obsolete and un-Canadian way of thinking are in the minority in both groups.

This resolution provides a way by which Canada may amend such parts of the British North America Act as concern those matters that come within federal jurisdiction. It does away with the possibility of anyone in this house tampering with the language and school rights already granted by the act of 1867. Its only effect is to put us in regard to our constitution in the same position as the provinces already are with regard to their constitutions, no more, no less.
I cannot see what danger there can be in this for the provinces and why they should be consulted except through their elected representatives in this house. This afternoon my colleague, the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage), asked a question of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) who had just completed his speech. The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet asked if it was not a fact that the first amendment to the constitution, which was made without consultation with the provinces, had been suggested by members of the then government who were the fathers of confederation. The hon. gentleman replied that that was so, but that because they were the fathers of confederation they represented directly the provinces. The fact is that they were acting as members of the Canadian parliament, just as we are. The present government is consulting the provinces through their elected representatives in this chamber.
I am of the opinion that we should go much farther than this resolution provides, that we should find ways by which Canada could enact a truly national constitution. Much has been said and agreed about the necessity of amending the constitution; little has been said about the necessity of proclaiming a truly Canadian constitution. I shall have more to say about this later on. I think the time has come to take the first step toward proclaiming a Canadian constitution, but I also think it will take time to accomplish that. In the meantime it is advisable that we should take the steps we are taking during the present session and set up a court of last appeal and assume the right already possessed by the provinces of amending the constitution in connection with such matters as are of our exclusive jurisdiction.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) rightly pointed out that, of the eleven amendments which had been made to the British North America Act, nine had to do only with federal matters and were made without any consultation with the provinces. The new procedure being proposed by the government would simply confirm what has been done in the past. It will provide a way of doing this which is more consistent with our national dignity.
British North America Act
As I said, it may take some time before Canadians may be able to agree on the terms of a constitution and in this regard I should like to refer to an article in a newspaper which I think all hon. members have seen. The headline reads:
We will never yield on B.N.A. Act-Duplessis
If before any discussions have been had, if before any meeting has been officially convened, one of the parties to that meeting declares that he will not do anything, that he will not co-operate or collaborate, what results can we expect from the conference? How long will it be before Canadians can agree on a constitution? But it is interesting to read, not only the headline, but what is reported to have been said by the premier of Quebec. If I may be permitted to say so, this is nothing but an appeal to parochialism and prejudice. This statement distorts the facts because nothing of what is mentioned here has ever taken place nor have the bogeymen that are brought forward in this declaration ever existed. The article goes on to say:
"This is not a matter between Duplessis and St. Laurent," the premier said. "It is a matter of life and death. This is the time to express our opinions."
"It is not a question of separatism or fanaticism, it is simply a question of patriotism, well understood," the Quebec premier said.
In spite of what he said I cannot find one argument by the premier of Quebec to show what he is afraid of. He just goes on to talk of the revolt of 1837, and I read from the report:
He told delegates that their ancestors had lived for years in a "state of semi-slavery, having nothing to say about their government, and the public moneys spent."
We have long passed that stage. There is no danger of anyone in any party or in any part of Canada wanting to put Quebec in that position. It is simply an effort to make a bogeyman out of nothing. It is simply an appeal to prejudice. The report continues:
He said they fought to obtain the right to elect representatives, and described the 1837 rebellion, which led, "after many efforts," to the Act of Union in 1840, which united Ontario and Quebec into one province.
No one wants to bring about that condition again. There is no one in this country who is uttering a word against the liberties or the rights of Quebec. They are not even mentioned. On the contrary, special effort is made in the resolution to exclude any rights which have been granted to the provinces. The resolution reads:
The amendment from time to time of the constitution of Canada, except as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces-
There is no mention at all in the resolution of anything that would have any effect on

British North America Act provincial rights. This is simply taking a step in the right direction which, as I said a moment ago, I hope will be followed by the proclamation of a truly national constitution. There is nothing in this resolution that menaces the liberties or autonomy of the province of Quebec. According to this report the premier went on to say:
"The authors of confederation decided upon a government based on the rights of the pioneer provinces . . . They decided on many autonomous governments instead of a central government which would have assimilated the (provincial) legislatures."
No one wants to assimilate the legislatures. The fact is that we are protecting their rights by this resolution. The only judgment that we can form on such a declaration is that it is a political appeal for political reasons to try to get the people of Quebec to find in Mr. Duplessis the defender of their rights. The province of Quebec knows now that it has at the head of the country and at the head of the Liberal party a man who will respect the rights of Quebec as much as those of all other provinces of Canada. We have had enough of such appeals to prejudice in this country. How can we expect harmony to come out of the next constitutional convention, the next dominion-provincial conference, when a man comes forward before he knows anything about what will be proposed at that conference and says: We will not do anything; we are in danger. It is just a plain farce for political reasons.
In the past the Liberal party, Mr. Speaker, has stood strongly in this house as well as in the provincial legislatures as the defender of provincial autonomy, long before Duplessis or people of his kind ever existed. But the Liberal party also stands as the defender of national autonomy, sovereignty and unity in Canada.
In introducing the measure the government's first consideration evidently is to do away with the necessity of going to another country for the amendment of provisions that concern only the federal powers. If the provinces had to come to Ottawa or to Westminster for amendments affecting their own prerogatives they would be the first to object to it and to claim their right of disposing themselves of their own privileges and prerogatives. Therefore there is no basic danger to any provincial rights in the present measure.
The strongest objection is that the government is proceeding piecemeal with its reform of our constitutional machinery, and that is quite so. I can see no cause for alarm in this but a determined effort to effect, when the moment is ripe and when public opinion favours it, the necessary changes that will affirm further our full autonomy and our
[Mr. Pieard.J

national sovereignty, instead of waiting for the pleasure of a man like Duplessis to agree to the necessary measures. It is all very well to say that because Westminster will accept any change we ask for it is sufficient proof of our autonomy. Yet it is anomalous to have to put in motion this cumbersome machinery each time we want to act in our own right within the realm of our federal powers, and when the provinces can exercise their own prerogatives freely and alter the use or disposal of their rights within the powers given to them by the confederation act.
This afternoon the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), in a very eloquent speech, mentioned many Canadian statesmen and quoted at one time the Hon. Mr. Mercier, a former premier of the province of Quebec, who had stated that the existence of the provinces preceded that of the dominion, and that it was from the provinces that the powers of the federal government were derived. He said that they are sovereign in the limits of their attributions. We do not deny that. It is our contention that the provinces are sovereign within the limits of their powers. Elies sont souveraines dans les limites de leurs attributions. That is what we contend also. We do not want to alter any of those powers without a conference.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said that a conference will be called, and it must be for the purpose-although I am not in on the secret-of elucidation on the necessary changes that may affect some rights that are borderline rights or that are provincial rights. In this resolution, however, where we are dealing with our own prerogatives, nothing is proposed that would force the government to appeal to the provinces. None of the authorities that my friend quoted this afternoon apply to the present situation. We are not affecting provincial rights nor any of their prerogatives in any way. We do not want to alter or diminish any of their rights. By voting for the resolution we do not contradict in any way the views of previous leaders which applied to material changes in the rights of the provinces. That is what they meant.
I do not believe that the present Prime Minister, any more than any other hon. member, would want to infringe on the rights of the provinces without their consent or without a normal agreement having been arrived at. We do not endanger in any way the rights given to the provinces under section 133 of the British North America Act, as my friend suggested. On the contrary we certify them; we specify that we shall not have the right to make changes affecting schools and languages.

As to the fields where both sides may consider that they have rights, they can do as has been done in the United States or in any other confederation. They can go to the courts of justice to have them judged, and I think it is quite unfair to say that because the supreme coiirt judges are appointed by the central government they will be biased. It is an insult to our judiciary and to the minds of our legal men. As I said in a previous debate, these people do not stand as arbiters. They are judges and they will judge the law as well as, and probably much better than, members of the privy council, and as well as the Supreme Court of the United States does for United States laws.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said at one time that no question of sovereignty was involved. Nevertheless he is too good a lawyer not to be conversant with international law, and he later recognized that the necessity of going to another country for amendments is a reminder of our colonial era that no self-respecting nation ought to endure any longer. He differed in his opinion on the question of when it should be done, who should be consulted, and in what way, but it is hopeful for the future to see that he agreed on the necessity of doing away with that procedure.
To my mind the present measure, and that which abolished appeals to the privy council, were long overdue affirmations of our national sovereignty, but they can be considered as the last moves we can take before we launch a truly national campaign for complete constitutional emancipation by way of a Canadian constitution proclaimed in Canada.
I am perfectly in accord on this question with the proposal that the leader of the opposition made at one time that a national constituent assembly be summoned, although I thought it was perhaps a way of delaying action. I am in accord that it should be the ultimate aim, but from what I showed the house a moment ago it would take a long time to come. I think we all should have as our aim that Canada should have its own constitution.
I should like to quote what I said on the matter on the 11th of June, 1946, in the debate on the redistribution bill. I stated:
Canada has outgrown her outmoded, colonial style constitution, and it is time lor her to assert her national will and to take her place among those nations of the world which have elaborated constitutional monuments as their basic law. Canada owes it to herself to nominate a constituent assembly and to draft a new constitution.
I think we can all agree on that when we see so many parties agreeing on the necessity of amending our constitution. There is only
British North America Act one step to go to realize that we should have a constitution that would not be the act of a foreign country.
The basis for a new constitution might well be, and probably should be, the British North America Act, but it need not be a full repetition of it nor a rehash, if I may say so, of its contents. When I say it should be the basis I mean that the religious, language and school rights granted by the British North America Act should not be tampered with and should not be diminished in any way or form. I mean that the division of power as between the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures should not be altered without agreement; but it would be useless to go to all that trouble if we were to repeat verbatim, of the British North America Act, what was suitable in 1867 but what may not be considered advisable in 1950. Yesterday the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) pointed to many clauses that would not be consistent with our status of today. If I am not mistaken he mentioned sections 55, 56 and 57, and quite aptly. There may be many others which we call spent clauses, that are of no further use and which should not be continued. Furthermore there are many conventions, precedents and grants of privileges by the former so-called mother country that have become part of our constitutional heritage and which, where applicable, might well be included in the new instrument. Referring to Ollivier on "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty", at page 44 the author says:
We generally look upon our constitution as being a written constitution because it is to be found in the British North America Act, but here again this statement is only partly true, for it is correct to say that our constitution is also partly unwritten as it "includes all the great landmarks of British and Canadian history as well as generally recognized conventions and usages."
Speaking in 1946-and this may please the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker)-I said:
... I personally would include in the constitution not only the provisions of the British North America Act but such an act as was suggested some time ago by the hon. member for Lake Centre, namely, a bill of rights, which should be part of our constitution.
Since that time the United Nations have drawn up such a bill of rights, much of which could be included in our constitution. Many of the countries emancipated after the first great war have such provisions in their constitutions. I have several before me, and it seems strange that I should pick up the constitution of Turkey, in which country many democratic rights may not be fully respected; but that constitution provides:
All Turks are equal before the law and are, without exception, obliged to respect it . . .
Natural rights of Turks include: inviolability of person, liberty of conscience, of thought, of speech,

British North America Act
of publication, of travel, of contract, of work, of possession, the liberty of association and assembly, and to form commercial societies.
That is just one of many such constitutions; and I think that would be an advisable thing for us to consider when a national convention meets. The full sovereignty of the country should be proclaimed, and the democratic character of our form of government should be emphasized. When we think that there is nothing in the terms of the British North America Act to outline even the responsible form of the government that is ours, it is clear that such a declaration should be included in the constitution, because much was left unsaid in 1867.
Referring to the British North America Act we find a description of the executive council; then in section 48 it is provided that questions arising in the house shall be decided by a majority. These are the only references to confirm the fact that we have rule by majority and that we have a democratic form of government; nothing is stated directly. Britain's constitution cannot be found in one instrument, and it is thus called unwritten. But it has its source in many historical documents such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and innumerable precedents and laws that have sanctioned the evolution of constitutional customs. I doubt whether for a federal state like Canada it would suffice to re-edit the British North America Act and rest upon British customs and precedents.
We are a mature nation. It may be that economically, as some maintain, our part of the continent might have fared better had we become united with the thirteen states that formed the nation to the south in 1774. But our destiny has unfolded otherwise. We have evolved through a slow process into a separate and independent unit, no matter what may be the views of many as to what would have been our fate had we cut the ties with Britain when the other colonies did. That is useless speculation and wishful thinking. Now we must all play our part in the continuing evolution of our institutions toward full manifestation of our undeniable rights as a sovereign nation. We are a mature people, and our constitution should be the mirror of our enlightened conception of a young, modern and energetic state. The childish contentment at having grown out of our former constitutional shackles should not express itself in the copying of institutions which may have suited another country in other years. There is no immutable form of constitution, any more than there is an 
immutable form of government. As John Hawgood says in his book "Modern Constitutions since 1787":
. . . while certain individual constitutions might seem particularly admirable, no one type of ideal state could suit all conditions of people and all environments.
It would be folly to tie ourselves to a too rigid constitution; yet it would not suit our federal form of government to have a vague system of precedents and customs and conventions in a constitution loosely knit around a symposium of the principles of the British North America Act. It might not suit us either geographically or ethnically.
We need a really well defined constitution which will recognize our position in the world of today and will contain provision for amendment according to the needs of tomorrow, while safeguarding the sacred rights which are one of the bases of our unity in diversity. Several hon. members have quoted the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. I should like to put on record a statement he made in a lecture delivered in Montreal on January 16, 1932:
A constitutive agency, whatever it may be, agreed to unanimously by the citizens of a state, ought not to prevent the future modification of the regime which it established. Sovereignty is inalienable and imprescriptible, and one generation has not the metaphysical right to bind definitely the future generations and to remove from them the competence which they themselves have used. It cannot determine beforehand and in an absolute manner the kinds of political and social realities of the future. The reforms ought to be made difficult but not impossible. Their realization ought to be subject to forms, procedures and to delays, but when a constitutional reform is demanded by the political or social situation of a country, and desired by a great majority of its citizens, prohibitions enacted twenty years, fifty years or a hundred years before should not constitute an obstacle. They will then be either violated or turned around.
That is a statement by a gentleman who has been quoted frequently during this debate. It is strange how our friends make heroes and gods of our great men after they are dead, but do not recognize them when they are alive.
The modern constitutions owe much to the development of thought since the publication of Montesquieu's l'Esprit des Lois and the great words of the French encyclopaedists whose preachings have opened the way for recognition of the equality of men, of their rights and for the reshaping of constitutional institutions throughout the world. It is true that most modern constitutions, up to the new constitution given to Italy by Mussolini in 1920, have taken their inspiration from the French constitution of 1793.
There is one thing we are prone to overlook, however, and that is that if it is true that the United States is one of the young

countries with regard to its period of existence, it is equally true that its constitution is one of the oldest of the democratic constitutions in the world. The constitution of the United States has also had a considerable influence on constitutional development throughout the world. It might not be inadvisable, therefore, to have a close look at it without intending to be any more servile in that direction than we ought to be in exactly copying the British customs.
The Prime Minister has let us know, Mr. Speaker, that a dominion-provincial conference will take place following this session. I wonder if this would not be the time to devise a means of forming a constituent assembly and to arrive at an agreement on the formation of a drafting committee charged with the task of formulating a truly Canadian constitution. I believe from what we hear of the feeling in certain quarters, no attempt should be made to discuss the details of the constitution or its amendments at that dominion-provincial conference. Instead of that, there should be a general discussion of the aims and purposes of a constituent assembly, the ways to compose it and the methods by which it might work. I think perhaps the drafting committee ought to be limited to, let us say, sixty members and made up of an equal number for both the dominion and the provinces. I agree with the leader of the C.C.F. party in his opinion that the committee should be composed of the different parties so that the various trends of thought in the country could be represented. Such a committee could study the problem and hear from the different constitutional authorities as to the things which should be included in the constitution.
This committee should, in turn, submit an agenda to the provinces and have those provinces submit a proposed draft constitution. After a period of about three months for the provinces to consider the matter, a meeting should be held to work out compromises on certain sections in the various draft proposals. After a final draft has been arrived at, it might be sent to the provinces for their consideration. They might be given, let us say, two months to consider that. After this committee had explored the whole situation, the convention itself might be summoned and the question studied there on its merits.
Any question arising on something in the draft should be settled only in a manner which meets with the approval of two-thirds of the delegates. My idea of the constituent assembly is that it would be a very large body of people and would 'nclude all the members of the federal par1 lament, as well as an equal number from f fl the provinces.
British North America Act Care would be taken to provide representation for the various trends of opinion based on the last election. If a province normally has ninety-eight seats and should send only seventy-seven people, it should not select seventy-seven from one party but a fair representation from all parties.
After this convention has carefully considered the situation, it might arrive at an agreement. The meetings of the committee should be in camera. There should be no publicity so we would avoid having the committee used as a platform for political purposes. Real work could be accomplished in such a committee before a constituent assembly is summoned- Worth-while suggestions could be studied by such a body and then submitted to an assembly of Canadian statesmen. This is just an idea of mine, but I believe it might be worth exploring.
The methods of amending that constitution would also of necessity be more elaborate than those which we find in most countries. I have not enough time to go into the details, but most modern states provide for a limited number of people to vote in one house before the constitution can be changed. It may need a two-thirds vote or a three-fifths vote.
In Canada today each of the provinces has the right to amend its constitution. I should think that in the new constitution there should be a provision to the effect that even in those legislatures, a two-thirds vote would be necessary before a change could be made. The same provision should be made applicable to changes with regard to the powers of the federal parliament. A two-thirds vote of the members of this house should be necessary. These rights the provinces already have and the federal parliament will have after this resolution is passed.
There would remain for consideration the minority rights, and I would think they could easily be safeguarded by making it necessary before any change is made in such matters to have it approved by two-thirds of the members in the federal house and by two-thirds of the members in the legislature of all of the provinces. I do not think we should fear any danger if such a provision were enacted. In any form of Canadian constitution, Mr. Speaker, provincial autonomy should not be violated, but the structure of our constitution should not be such as to weaken the nation as a whole. Canada cannot safely develop into separate units fighting against each other over the taxpayers' necessary contributions. The best methods should be devised whereby all governments, federal and provincial, may operate efficiently with a minimum burden on the citizens.
Complications can originate only in the minds of fearful people and also in the minds
916	HOUSE OF
British North America Act of political Machiavellis such as we now have at the head of the provincial government of Quebec.
The jurisdictional clauses of the constitution cannot extend to more than two classes of legislative authority, the federal and provincial. The latter already have the right to amend their constitutions. Once the measure now before us is passed, the federal parliament will have a right to amend the constitution in connection with matters falling within its jurisdiction. There would remain only those minority rights I mentioned a moment ago, school or religious rights. As I have explained, those could be safeguarded the same way. Only when we have achieved such a constitutional structure with clear-cut provisions for amending it, can we hope to take this problem out of the field of political speculation and political squabbling.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention the amendment that was proposed by the C.C.F. group. I do not think there is any danger that this government or any other government might want to extend its life; yet this amendment deserves consideration. I would think twice before I would vote against it. The amendment states that-
... as regards the requirement of section twenty of this act that there shall be a session of the parliament of Canada at least once each year, or as regards the requirement of section fifty of this act that no House of Commons shall continue for more than five years.
I believe that is a sound parliamentary principle. Whether or not I vote for this amendment, I believe our future constitution should definitely and clearly settle that question. I consider that amendment a valuable contribution to the debate.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I firmly believe the measure now before us is in the national interest. It violates in no sense the spirit of confederation, nor does it endanger the rights of the provinces or minorities. What more can be demanded, Mr. Speaker, until such time as we are in position to proclaim a truly national constitution, which I hope may be given to this country at the instigation of the present Prime Minister.


Mr. Raymond Bruneau (Prescott):: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we in this house, the representatives of the people, are fortunate to be able to rise today and participate in a debate of such scope and importance on an act to amend the British North America Act, 1867, relating to the amendment of the constitution of Canada.
At the election held last June we were given a mandate by the people of our country; and it is a known fact today that all


Canadians were aware of the intention of our Liberal government at the next, the twenty-first, parliament to propose a bill enabling us to amend our own constitution. On June 27 the same people of Canada gave those who advocated such a measure an overwhelming majority, thereby sanctioning the program that we have now decided to implement.
I will say here in this house that the people of my constituency-like those of a large number of other constituencies who have sent members here on the Liberal ticket -who have accepted my platform, which is the Liberal platform, have given me a majority vote well aware of our intention regarding this amendment. I am here today by the will of my people because I am a supporter of the present Liberal government of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent); and it is my duty to support this bill proposed yesterday by our Prime Minister.
Two world wars and an intense participation in world affairs have placed Canada among the leading countries of the world. Yet our country, which we like to call "Land of hope and glory, mother of the free", is not yet free to amend its own constitution. Until that objective is achieved, it is impossible to call it a sovereign country. It is true that when a child learns to walk it needs a helping hand and a good deal of coaching. But I believe that we have now passed that stage and that we are ready to walk. Yet we still are obliged to rely on the government of another country for a solution to our legal problems.
To those who advocate protection of minority rights I wish to say that I, as a French-speaking Canadian, belong to that minority and that I certainly have no fear as regards the rights and privileges of the people of my race. I have great confidence in the decisions of our own supreme court; I am sure that those rights and privileges are in good hands and that they will be well protected whenever we shall have recourse to this legislative body.
Since the creation of the supreme court in 1875, no unfortunate decision has yet been attributed to that federal court of justice; and let me say here that this body will be in a better position than a body in another country to understand our needs and to render the best possible solution. Other countries of the commonwealth have tried the experiment, and I have yet to learn that one of them regrets having taken such steps. Since 1900 Australia has been master of its own decisions. South Africa followed the example in 1909, and New Zealand has already taken a step in that direction.

Evolution is unavoidable. We have progressed in the art of governing ourselves since the British North America Act of 1867, which followed the Quebec Act of 1774, the Constitutional Act of 1791 and the Act of Union of 1841. We have now in 1949 to decide, by the present bill, to give our own supreme court power to amend our constitution. Let it be understood, sir, that such amendments will pertain solely to questions of a federal scope; and you may rest assured that the people of Canada will never tolerate our meddling in the affairs of the provinces. We ask from the parliament of Westminster this right, and nothing else.
Some hon. members will hold that it would be preferable to consult the provinces before going into such an enterprise. I am at a loss to see anything wrong in this attitude of ours which is, first, to secure the right to amend our constitution and then to consult the provinces as to the ways and means of doing so. Why not start with the first thing first, and with one question at a time? We have tried to do otherwise before, and the result has been a lamentable failure.
No hon. member in this house is against the idea of first establishing our sovereignty, which right we have certainly acquired through our participation in world conflicts and in our co-operation in the settlement of world affairs. When we have taken that step, we can consult the provinces on the next logical problem to be solved, namely, the amendments to the constitution which are in the best interest of the ten provincial governments. A man of outstanding sagacity has set forth the axiom of the art of governing with a precision that has never erred. Junius, the great legislator, said:	"Eternal vigilance
is the price of liberty." And with Sir Wilfrid Laurier I will add:
The cabinet form of government lends itself marvellously to this necessary vigilance. On one side of the house you have those who govern and on the other side, those who watch.
As we shall most likely always work under the cabinet form of government, I will say, sir, that there will always be two sides; one to administer and to amend, and the other to watch; both sides, as a whole government, endeavouring to give to the country the best possible administration. One good way to achieve this aim is to secure this right to amend our constitution.
(Translation):


Mr. Henri Courtemanche (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, although I approved the principle of amending the constitution mentioned during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I must, in fairness to myself and to the principles advocated, oppose the resolution as it now stands. No
British North America Act one denies that the constitution must be amended since it does not fully comply with our needs; however, as I support the theory that the constitution is a pact, a treaty, a convention rather than mere legislation I cannot admit that the present government has the right to decide arbitrarily and of its own accord what rights come under dominion jurisdiction on the one hand, and provincial jurisdiction on the other.
The whole country is wondering why the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) feels impelled to take the place of all the great jurists in order to impose his own personal views. I am not loath to state, in the wake of the premier of Quebec-even though my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) starts at the very sound of this name-that:
We are convinced that if the province of Quebec had considered the B.N.A. Act merely as a statute, subject at all times to amendments at the federal authorities' pleasure, it would not have agreed to it. It seems obvious to us that, at confederation, the statesmen of that time had in mind and sought to confirm a compact or treaty. Moreover, there are several judgments of the privy council to the effect that it is not a statute, but a pact.
I suggest it would be a calamity to do away with the proper safeguards provided by the fathers of confederation, which made it possible for Canada to grow and prosper, notwithstanding certain periodic depressions.
The Prime Minister's haste is understandable. He feels he has to hurry. He is no longer forty and wishes his name to be remembered by posterity. But let him beware. The proverb applies to him as well as to others, "Time does not respect what is done without it." What did the fathers of confederation think of their work? Let us refer to Sir John A. Macdonald who said:
The government presents the proposal as a whole and will use all its influence to have it adopted without change and for a very simple reason. This proposal has not been prepared by the government of Canada or that of Nova Scotia, but is a treaty between the various colonies, all its clauses were thoroughly discussed and it was adopted through mutual concessions. . . . Those resolutions are like a treaty and if they are not adopted in their entirety, the whole process will have to be started all over again.
Sir George Etienne Cartier stated the following:
The Canadians, said the British ministers, come to us with a constitution already written out and which is the result of a friendly understanding among themselves and of a ripe discussion of their interests and their needs. They are the better judges of what suits them best; let us not change what they have made. Let us approve their confederation. . . . Yes, it was in that spirit that England considered our request. We needed her approval and she gave it unhesitatingly, without any desire to interfere in our achievement.
The Hon. Ernest Lapointe, a former minister of justice and the predecessor of our present Prime Minister, was more concerned
918	HOUSE OF
British North America Act and careful with provincial autonomy. I wish to read what he had to say about confederation in 1937.	1 am sorry to repeat
some of the arguments which were mentioned this afternoon or yesterday, but allow me, for the needs of this discussion, to quote them again. The Hon. Ernest Lapointe said:
The British North America Act is the result of protracted and difficult negotiations, and finally of a compromise to which the provinces have agreed through their recognized official representatives. Consequently there has been a legal agreement in proper form, ratified in full freedom. It follows that the authorities empowered to bring about amendments to our national constitution-
These are the very words used by Mr. Lapointe.
-are the provinces whose goodwill has made possible the union and whose unanimous goodwill is indispensable to any amendment which it may be decided to bring about.
The imperial parliament was not bound to sanction that agreement, but once it had consented to do so, it could no longer make unilateral changes in its terms without thereby infringing upon the juridical and moral rights of the parties to that agreement, no more than the dominion government, whenever Canada is empowered to amend its own constitution, will be able to make unilateral changes in that part of the constitution which unquestionably applies to provincial legislatures.
The Prime Minister says he will consult with the provinces before amending anything, but why does he not consult with them before submitting his resolution in order to determine what is and what is not within the purview of the federal government? Why should he seek to settle that much debated question by himself? Far from being a failure of his legislation, the withdrawal of this resolution as introduced would increase the Prime Minister's stature in the eyes of his people and his action would prove that he is anxious to meet the requirements of all contracting parties. Within their own sphere, the provinces enjoy powers of autonomous government just as much as Canada's parliament. In that case Canada's parliament cannot take upon itself to change the act granting the provinces the powers they enjoy. Ernest Lapointe once said: "The British North America Act is the charter not only of the Dominion of Canada, but of the Canadian provinces as well".
We derive our powers from the British North America Act. So do the provinces. They have no constitution other than the

British North America Act. Would it be fair to assume the right to amend this act which is as much the constitution of the provinces as it is that of Canada? Are we justified in amending the constitution without their consent in such a manner that the provinces will be deprived of the rights they have owned since confederation? By virtue of the very provisions of the act of 1867, this parliament cannot, and should not, without consent from the provinces, seek the authority to amend the constitution which is theirs as well as that of Canada.
The resolution, as it stands, would be opposed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the great Liberal chieftain, whose name so readily comes up at each federal election in the province of Quebec to convince the electors that we are still adhering to the policy expounded by that great statesman. After what certain hon. members have said during this debate, let us hear what Laurier had to say on the subject in 1907, and I quote:
Confederation is a compact, made originally by four provinces but adhered to by all the nine provinces . . .
And today by all ten.
. . . which joined the union. I submit to the hon. members of this house that this pact must not be amended lightly. It should not be tampered with save in cases of real necessity, and only after the provinces have had an opportunity to make their views known.
Here is what Sir Robert Borden said at about the same time:
True, the provinces are already represented at Ottawa, but as we are asked to amend a federal pact, it is only fair that each province be consulted and that its decision be based on the full right it enjoys as a separate entity.
The amendments required in the light of experience gained in past years can be effected only by legal and constitutional means. No arbitrary procedure can be followed; these changes cannot be brought about solely at the request and by the will of the dominion parliament. Other parties as directly concerned in this issue as the central administration must also have their say in the matter; it is necessary to consult with them and to secure their approval.
I suggest that this parliament take the legal and constitutional means at hand. This is also the friendly solution. Let all the contracting parties be called in consultation so that they may agree on the amendments required and give them their approval. I do not know of any other procedure.

British North America Act
If with the support of a submissive parliamentary majority the provinces are put in a strait-jacket, history and the electorate will hold the Liberal administration responsible. (Text):


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I shall not intervene in this debate at any great length because it has been going on for some time and most of the ideas that could be developed have been developed. However, I should like to say a few words about the so-called compact or contract theory of confederation. As luck would have it, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche), who just preceded me, stated certain opinions on this subject with which I beg to differ.
The hon. member said that our constitution is a pact or contract, but I submit that it is not. I intend to develop my argument by showing that it could not be a contract or a pact because a contract must take place between existing parties who have the legal capacity to contract, and there must be some understanding. That is elementary in law and I intend to develop those three points briefly.
Before I do so I should like to say to the hon. member for Labelle that he is greatly mistaken when he says that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has taken it upon himself to impose his views on the subject of confederation upon those of the majority of well known jurists. Anyone who has studied the question must know that this matter has been debated back and forth for many years. There are two schools of thought. One school holds that confederation is a statute while the other school holds-this is the school of thought followed by the hon. member-that it is a contract. Nearly all the constitutional authorities now accept the theory that it is not a pact, that it is not a contract, but that it is a true statute.
I should like to refer to another argument advanced by the hon. member for Labelle. He says that the present government of Canada wishes to take away from the provinces the legitimate safeguards that were written into confederation by the fathers of confederation. Rather than taking away legitimate safeguards the government proposes to give to the minorities of this country, to give to the use of the French language and to give to the educational rights in this country, safeguards which have not existed under the constitution up to the present moment.
The hon. member for Labelle also said that the constitution of Canada as embodied in the British North America Act is based entirely on the resolutions passed at Quebec. He quoted Sir John Macdonald as having
said that those resolutions had to be adopted in their entirety. Any student of constitutional law or of the history of our country knows that, far from being based on the resolutions of Quebec, the British North America Act actually embodied less than half of those resolutions while it embodied a good deal of additional material inserted in it by the British parliament at the time it was passed. In substance it is a statute of the British parliament and is not, as has been stated many times, based entirely upon the resolutions passed by the colonies before confederation became a fact.
For confederation to be a pact it would have to be a pact between existing contracting parties. At the time the British North America Act was passed the Dominion of Canada did not exist; it came into existence only as a result of the legislation passed at that time. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec did not exist; at that time they were united under the Act of Union. While Prince Edward Island existed at that time it did not enter confederation until some time later under an agreement. British Columbia came in afterward under an agreement. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta were created by the dominion parliament. None of those provinces existed at that time. The Dominion of Canada, with which they are supposed to have contracted, did not exist either.
My second point is that they did not have the legal capacity to contract. The colonies that existed at that time were not part of the dominion and did not have the legal capacity to make treaties with one another to form a federal state. It was not done in that way. It was done by an address to the British parliament which was the only legislative body that had the power to create the Dominion of Canada. That was done by a statute of the British parliament and not by any pact or understanding. As I have said, the parties to that so-called pact did not exist and, in the second place, they did not have the capacity to contract.
My third point is that in fact there was no agreement which became the basis of confederation. It is easy to establish this by going back into constitutional history and looking at the so-called Quebec resolutions. If you examine those and the British North America Act which was passed subsequently you will see that there was no such agreement. The supposed agreement upon which those who advocate the compact theory rely was never incorporated into the British North America Act. Things were deleted and other things were added. It was not at all the same thing, not at all the same understanding.
S20	HOUSE OF
British North America Act
In 1935 a committee of this house was created to consider whether confederation was a pact or contract. Some of the greatest constitutional authorities in Canada gave evidence before that committee, including Dr. Beauchesne, who was clerk of this house for so long. I am sure hon. members of this house have the greatest admiration for his learning and knowledge of constitutional law. All the constitutional authorities who gave evidence at that time before the committee were of the opinion that the British North America Act was in truth a statute and was not in any sense a pact or contract. It has been said that certain of our political leaders and writers have said that it is a pact and have used the word "pact" or the word "contract" when talking about confederation. I say, with all respect for those who have used those expressions, that they were not speaking from a strictly legal point of view. In this house we are a legislative body. Our purpose is to legislate and we are commonly known as legislators. Therefore I submit we must look at these matters from a legal point of view.
I have pointed out that the constitution of Canada, from a legal point of view, is not based on a pact or a contract. If these people used the word "pact" or the word "contract" they did so for sentimental or political reasons, or possibly as a figure of speech in order to make a comparison. It may be said that although it is not a legal contract there was a moral understanding between the two great races that constituted Canada at that time, but that is as far as we can go. We may say that there was a gentleman's agreement, a sort of pacte d'honneur, as one would say in French, between the French and English speaking races at that time with respect to one another's rights and privileges. That is as far as we can go. We cannot say that it is in truth a pact or contract.
My conclusion is that, as the constitution is neither a pact nor a contract, our opponents, who base their arguments for safeguarding the rights of minorities, the right to use the French language, and educational rights on the theory that it is a pact or contract, are basing their arguments on very slippery ground, to put it mildly, on very dangerous ground. They are building on sand because they are basing their arguments on sentimental or political grounds but not on a sound legal basis. I say that after the legislation that the government is introducing has been introduced, after our constitution has been amended, and after the resolution has been implemented, then the rights pertaining to education, the use of the French language, and the protection of minorities in general
i


will be on a sound legal basis, and that those who are interested in protecting those rights will be in a better position than they are now.
I do not wish to take the time of the house any longer. As I said, the debate has already been prolonged, but those are the reasons that I wish to give for voting in favour of the resolution.
(Translation):


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take up only a few minutes of the time of this house in order humbly to set out my views on the point at issue.
The question is to know if henceforth this country may amend its own constitution, without first obtaining permission from a foreign power. I hope that this phrase, foreign power, will not be taken in a disparaging sense.
It would seem that all here are agreed that Canada should have this power.
But the point on which our opinion is not that of several members of this house is, no doubt, the manner in which this change must be effected.
I think I may, indeed must, expose at this juncture an old theory, even though it might appear somewhat contradictory to several hon. members, whose authority I respect since most of them, being lawyers, are admittedly superior to myself. The soundness of this theory has been contested, it seems, by many.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion in this matter. I shall have the fullest respect for any who oppose my views, and I only ask for the same fairness in return, so long as I deal with this matter with due frankness and dignity. Even though the idea may seem antiquated, I shall try to prove to this house that the confederative act is a contract, and one that cannot be amended without the unanimous consent of the contracting parties.
Every member of this house is aware of the events which brought about in this country the discussions, meetings and negotiations which led to the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences. At that time two groups in Canada controlled all political and economic life: Upper Canada, inhabited mainly by Canadians of British origin, and Lower Canada, inhabited almost exclusively by Canadians of French origin.
Needless to add, these two groups displayed a rivalry which was exceedingly harmful to their normal individual development and to the harmony which should exist between citizens of the same country.

For a time it was thought that the Act of Union in Canada, passed in 1841, would have solved the problem. Unfortunately it was not to be so, and it was only through the great ability and vast energy of a Canadian, Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine, that a possibly irreparable deterioration of the situation was averted.
Fortunately the leaders of the two groups, both French and English, understanding that everybody's interest was at stake, decided to attempt the impossible in order to arrive at an understanding.
The discussions began. The great majority of the English leaders were in favour of a legislative union. On the other hand, the French ones held out for a confederative union. Concessions were made on both sides, but the province of Quebec was nevertheless allowed certain privileges which it was unwilling to sacrifice at any price and which it had indicated as essential conditions of its entry into confederation. After study, discussions, concessions from both sides, an agreement was finally arrived at and consent freely and mutually given to a formula. It is that agreement that we call a compact.
Who, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, is better qualified to give the exact name to the act they brought about than the very authors of this agreement? Can it be thought for a single moment that these gifted and well meaning men, the pick of the two races concerned, did not know the nature of the act which they brought about? Well, what name did they give it? All agreed to call it a contract, a treaty. I have collected several quotations, but shall not read them to the house.


Bona Arsenault: Would the hon. member allow me to ask a question? If, as he contends, the Brtish North America Act is a contract, would he please tell me whether the Quebec resolutions, which constituted this alleged contract, are textually included in the British .North America Act?


Raoul Poulin: The resolutions are not included exactly word for word, but I do not believe that there are any changes important enough to alter the very nature of the resolutions then agreed to.
I should like to quote only Sir John A. Macdonald, as reported in the parliamentary debates on confederation in 1865, pages 16 and 17:
. . . this proposal (confederation) has not been prepared by the government of Canada or that of
British North America Act Nova Scotia, but is a treaty between the various colonies', all its clauses were discussed . . . those resolutions are like a treaty . . . (page 32) this proposal may be considered to be a treaty agreed to between the various provinces.
And that treaty or contract, who made it operative? Having come to an agreement, the parties concerned did exactly what our people do after they have made an agreement. They go to a notary asking him to draw up an official act recognizing the validity of the agreement, sealing it and telling the contracting parties that they are bound for the future, that they cannot change what has been decided upon, unless they come back and ask, by mutual and unanimous consent, that another agreement be drawn up.


Bona Arsenault: Will the hon. member
permit me another question?


Raoul Poulin: I am sorry, but I have already discarded some quotations-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: The
member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) knows very well that he cannot ask his question without the hon. member's consent.


Raoul Poulin: I believe I have been condescending in permitting one question and if another were granted, it would take too much of my time.
Under the circumstances, the notary-it was the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe who coined that expression-was the imperial parliament. The notary had long side-whiskers, rather narrow glasses, but was very broadminded and compliant. He did not object to the provisions of the contract but very obligingly helped the parties to draw their terms in legal form.


Bona Arsenault: Was the province of
Quebec really a signatory of the British North America Act?


Raoul Poulin: The years went by. The parties to the treaty got used, more or less, to the yoke they had submitted to, of their own free will.
In 1907, a matter was brought up which reopened the discussion on the nature of the political constitution of Canada. A provision was being introduced to increase federal grants to the provinces.
What were the views expressed by the statesmen of that time? I shall give only two quotations from many that have been gathered.

British North America Act
In the Debates of 1906-1907, page 2199, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said during a discussion on legislation providing for an increase in the grants to the provinces:
Confederation is a compact, made originally by four provinces, but adhered to by all the nine provinces which joined the union.
And on the same page, Sir Robert Borden is reported as saying:
I agree with what has been said by the right hon. gentlemen regarding the undesirability of lightly amending the terms of our constitution-although of course all the provinces are represented here. But inasmuch as it is a federal compact which we are asked to vary . . .
Then more recently, in 1925, a full debate took place in this house on a resolution quite similar to the one before us now.
Let us review briefly what was said then by our statesmen, by our great party leaders who, after all, were as able as we are to appreciate events which were closer to them by some twenty-five years.
I wish to quote from page 332 of the Hansard of February 19, 1925, where the Right Hon. Mackenzie King stated the following:
Due regard should be had to the view that a compact was made at the time of confederation, and that an amendment of the importance that such an amendment certainly would have, ought only to be proposed after there had been a conference and agreement between the dominion and the provinces.
According to page 335 of Hansard of February 19,	1925, the Right Hon. Arthur
Meighen said:
Undoubtedly, the pact of confederation is a contract and there are rights involved therein not represented by the parliament of Canada . . . The speech of the Minister of Justice determines, I think, without power of dispute, that there should never be suggestion of amendment affecting other parties to the contract save after conference and consent of those other parties.
I shall now quote the opinion of the hon. Senator Thomas Vien, who must enjoy much consideration since he has been so well rewarded. Here is what he had to say on February 19, 1925, as recorded on page 310 of Hansard for that year:
I fully agree with the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that a pact which was entered into at a conference where all the component parts of what was then Canada were represented should not be lightly dealt with or amended, without a conference where the opinions of the representatives of all those provinces which now form part of the Dominion could be collected and fully considered.
And further on:
Our country is one of the contracting parties and no one can have the contract altered, except with the unanimous consent of the contracting parties.
[Mr. Poulin.1
And at page 313:
As in the case of a contract between private individuals, you cannot change the British North America Act without first convening a conference similar to that as a result of which the act originally came into being.
And the Hon. Ernest Lapointe expressed himself as follows, as reported in Hansard of February 18, 1925. I quote from page 298:
Now, has it (the Canadian constitution) been considered as a treaty? I heard it suggested some time ago that this idea at confederation of a treaty is an antiquated idea. Maybe it is. But, Mr. Speaker, truth does not cease to be truth when it gets old; an old truth is always true. You cannot prevent facts from being facts whether you like them or not.
Mr. Lapointe went on to say:
The British North America Act says itself that the Parliament of Great Britain merely enacted, put into a statute, the wish of the people of the provinces of Canada.
On that occasion, in 1925, there was scarcely an hon. member who did not agree in the house that confederation was a treaty.
And now, Mr. Speaker, all those opinions are worthless. We must forget all that. What was true yesterday no longer holds today. Everything has changed, everything has altered. Yet there are things that remain unchanged.
What has happened during the past twenty-five years to give a different aspect to historical facts?
Faced with the pressing needs of the second world war, we doubtless acquired the habit of compromising in a way we should never have countenanced in different circumstances.
It may be claimed that the theory of a constitutional compact has often been disregarded and, on such occasions, no objection was raised by the very people who are now protesting. In this respect, those whose duty it is to watch over the interests of the provinces are perhaps blameworthy, but the argument cannot justify anyone in perpetuating the evil done and still less in setting it up as a system.
I have the deepest respect for the Prime Minister. I think very highly of his personality and of the great office he fills with such distinction. On September 23,	1949, as
reported at page 196 of Hansard of the same date, he stated the following in the house:
The leader of the opposition says that whenever there has to be any kind of amendment whatsoever to any part of the constitution there should be consultation with the provinces. That is an opinion that is very frequently voiced, but it is one which we cannot accept. It would imply that the British North America Act is a contract . . .
With that theory we are in diametric disagreement.

And yet, on February 18, 1925, another great Canadian, Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, also a Quebec representative, made the following statement in the house, as reported in Hansard:
If the British North America Act is the charter of the provinces as well as the charter of the dominion, I ask again, how can we alter it without communicating with the provinces? . . . Would it be fair to take upon ourselves the right of amending this legislation which is the constitution of the provinces as well as our own?
On page 301:
They cannot be made arbitrarily; they cannot be made only at will and at the request of the dominion parliament; but those who are just as much interested as the dominion parliament in this matter must have their say, must be consulted and must give their assent.
And further on, on [DOT]the same page:
To those who want changes I would say that the only way to get them is the constitutional way to ask the consent of the various parties to confederation.
Mr. Speaker, since so many Canadians of sound judgment, so many experienced statesmen have always considered confederation to be a contract, let us at least give the contracting parties the opportunity to meet, to discuss, to try to agree in order that, unanimously, a new statute or a revised statute be introduced, in which, undoubtedly, the parties concerned will again have to accept some sacrifices, just as they did in 1867. It has been said that after this act was passed by the house, the provinces would be consulted and that, if a "satisfactory agreement" could be reached, an address would be presented to the parliament at Westminster.
It would be important to know, before this discussion ends, just what is meant by "satisfactory agreement".
Is it an agreement adopted unanimously by the provinces, such as that of 1867? If not, words and not powers will, in the future, form the bones of contention.
By satisfactory agreement do we mean exaggerated, even vexatious concessions, which the provinces will be practically compelled to accept, because, when faced with a fait accompli, they will be afraid to lose everything?
When referring to a fait accompli, I am obviously referring to the present act which will have been accepted by parliament and in which it will be nowhere specified that the unanimous consent of the provinces, or even of one of them, is required to amend our constitution.
I cannot believe for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that the prime motive of the movers of this resolution has been to have this legislation passed so that they might afterwards use it as a sword of Damocles at the provincial conference.
British North America Act
However, if such had been their objective,
I believe they could congratulate themselves on having very well succeeded.
On the other hand, I know quite well that the cause which the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) and I, along with many others in this house are upholding is a forlorn cause. In view of the huge majority the government has in this house, I do not make the mistake of thinking that our views will be accepted but when someone has decided to engage in a fight known to be hopeless, it is generally because he has also decided to hold fast to ideals which to him are sacred and immutable.
Granting this, Mr. Speaker, I now appeal to the Prime Minister's sincerity and good will, and I trust I shall not be deceived.
Far be it from me to think that the government and its leader want to sacrifice some of the inalienable rights which are granted to one or more groups, one or more provinces, in our beloved Canada. I believe we more likely differ on the procedure to follow in order to better ensure those rights.
Well, as the government will have the best of it, being in a position to make full use of the procedure it considers the most effective and which we deem dangerous, I would at least ask it to be careful, not to move too fast, mindful of the fact that the fathers of confederation took years and years to reconcile their minds towards an agreement.
I humbly suggest to the government, when the house has passed this legislation, to be very obliging, conciliating and patient with the representatives of the provinces who I understand are to be called to a conference. The government should give as much latitude as possible to the provinces, bearing in mind that the first Canadian constitution was drafted by the provinces, a historical fact that can never be gainsaid.
Mr. Speaker, I am not obstinate, I am not stubborn and if I could be useful to the government in its very difficult endeavour, I would offer my humble co-operation; but that, I know, is not necessary.
Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that the individuals pass away rapidly, that generations follow as quickly and that the task we are undertaking today for their sake will be appreciated according to the earnestness with which we settle down to it.
However, since I cannot approve of the procedure followed by the government, I shall have to vote against the resolution.
(Text) :


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is all to the good that long and careful consideration should be given by
924	HOUSE OF
British North America Act this house to the address that has been moved by the Prime Minister. It will only be through discussion and deliberation on the part of parliament that the nature of the procedure being requested by the government, and the arguments both for and against the adoption of that procedure, will be fully understood.
I feel that one course that should be adopted in connection with the consideration of this address-if it indeed be a fact that what we are doing on this occasion will constitute a landmark in our constitutional set-up in this country or a milestone that we will look back upon over the years-is that the matter should be brought before a committee of the whole house. Such a move would enable the members of this house to secure information regarding the reasons leading up to the adoption of this plan, and the departure from the pledged word of the Prime Minister as given during the election campaign.
Even at this late hour in the discussion, I should like the Prime Minister to consider whether it would not be fitting and proper to have this matter discussed by a committee of the house so that we may obtain full information relative to the address as well as the answer to various questions, which will not be answered unless the house moves into committee. I am sure that hon. members in all parts of the house have waited for the answers to many questions that arise in their minds.
This debate has been conducted as one would expect a debate of its kind to be conducted in a deliberative assembly under a democracy. The address of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was a historical symposium and a record of the steps taken to effect amendments since confederation, while the speeches of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), the leader of the C.C.F., and the leader of the Social Credit group indicated that, as we all do, they approach the consideration of this problem with the consciousness and pride of Canadians. That attitude is,
I think, worthy of all those who have contributed to the debate.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that you found it necessary under the rules of debate to declare that the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition could not be discussed by parliament nor be considered an amendment to the main address. In my opinion it deals with a matter that deserves to be voted upon by parliament. The constitution of our country is not the monopoly of the government of this day, with its overwhelming majority in both houses of parliament. It belongs to every one of us. The amendment moved by the leader of the opposition would have permitted a discussion by members of this house and a vote on the question


whether or not there should be set up in this country a constitutional convention of representatives of the dominion and provincial governments to devise a method of amending within Canada the constitution of Canada, and of safeguarding minority rights so that such method might become the subject later of a humble address-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I ruled the amendment out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


An hon. Member:: You cannot read it.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt if the hon. member can now discuss it as an amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not in any way
suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it had not been ruled out of order. I was suggesting however that, if it had been in order within the rules, this parliament would have had an opportunity of voting on a matter that is of preeminent interest to the people of this country as a whole. I made it clear at the beginning that there was no suggestion that you could have done otherwise than you did, having regard to the rule you invoked. I take it that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard), with his close relationship to the previous minister of justice and his senior position in this house, must have been speaking for his party when he spoke of the necessity of the convening of such a national constitutional convention with a view to arriving at the means of amending our constitution. That statement was indeed interesting. By this procedure we are today laying the foundation in part for future amendments of this constitution.
We believe that the Prime Minister should have carried out the undertaking he gave when he spoke on the radio on May 19 last. At that time there was no circumscription which would in any way allow him to proceed in the manner in which he has proceeded in moving an address that provides only for parliament having the power to amend those things that are peculiarly within the federal jurisdiction.
I shall read his promise. If he and his party received a mandate, that mandate was with regard to something about which there never was any dispute, namely, that there is indeed need of amending the constitution in order to meet changed and changing conditions. No political party in this country, in the last fifteen years, has at any time enunciated a policy that denied the necessity for amendments to the British North America Act, subject of course to the protection of the rights of minorities, school rights and the like. But subject to those things, it has been agreed

that a means must be established of amending the constitution. I ask the Prime Minister, when he speaks, to answer one question. Where in this country did he say:	If my
party is returned to power, we will amend the constitution in a dual way; we will secure for parliament immediately the right to amend the federal portions of the constitution and then a little later on we will convene an assembly of dominion and provincial representatives with a view to arriving at a method of amending the constitution in its entirety. Here is the promise:
We Liberals also believe that a method should be worked out to amend our constitution in Canada.
That won't be easy.
We do not want the Canadian constitution to be too rigid, but we do want to make sure it contains the fullest safeguards of provincial rights, of the use of the two official languages, and of those other historic rights which are the sacred trust of our national partnership.
And this is the undertaking:
It is our intention, after the election, to consult the provincial governments with a view to working out a method, which will be satisfactory to all Canadians, of amending the constitution in Canada.
That, Mr. Speaker, was the undertaking given by the Prime Minister.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Does the hon. member suggest that he is so naive as to have believed that that was an undertaking by the party of which I was the leader to renounce the right that has been exercised for the last eighty-two years in this house, to have amended without consultation with the provinces those parts of the constitution that do not affect the jurisdiction of the provinces?


John George Diefenbaker: The people of Canada must have been naive. The words of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) are incapable of any other interpretation, naivete or anything else to the contrary. The undertaking was given as well at Moncton. I could quote his exact words. He said that the government would seek provincial government co-operation in drafting ways and means of amending our constitution in Canada. He did not say that we would amend it piecemeal. He said "our constitution", not a part of our constitution, not a portion designated by the Prime Minister and those associated with him, but our constitution, which meant, and could only be understood to mean, the constitution of Canada without division. Some of us would like to know when the change came about and the reason for it.
There is no question whatsoever that there is almost unanimous opinion in this country
British North America Act as to the need of amendment. There has never been any question about that over the years. In 1925 the then prime minister of this country spoke of the need of amendment. The then minister of justice, Mr. Lapointe, spoke of the need of amendment. At that time Mr. Meighen spoke of the need of amendment. All of these men also stated the grave and difficult problems that would face any government that endeavoured to secure a general principle upon which amendment could be based.
There is no question that there is agreement in parliament and throughout the country as to the necessity of the protection of constitutional rights inherent in the constitution. There is no question that we wish to bring our constitution up to date in order to meet those changed and changing conditions which have occurred since 1867. May I go back beyond that and quote the words of Lord Brougham which indicate that he had a perception of the need of constitutional reform. He used these words:
Constitutions must grow if they are to be of any value: they have roots, they ripen, they endure. Those that are fashioned resemble painted sticks planted in the ground-they strike no root, bear no fruit, swiftly decay and ere long perish.
There is no argument about the necessity of amendment, but I think that, not in a party sense, not in a political sense but in a national sense, each of us in this parliament and in the country should do what the fathers of confederation did. They joined together. Many of them were personal enemies but they joined together for the purpose of achieving confederation. I feel that through a national constitutional convention we would be able to secure that measure of agreement, that measure of unanimity based on our pride as Canadians that would achieve a permanent and complete amendment of our constitution.
Before I go on I wish to refer to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). What a strange amendment it is! He believes that parliament should have the right to make the necessary amendments to the constitution in so far as the federal authority is concerned. In effect he says: "Give us that power". At the same time through this amendment he asks the British parliament to diminish the power of this parliament to do that which he says is so necessary to take a step in the direction of an amendment of our constitution. What a position this parliament will be in, going to Westminster and saying that we demand the power to amend our own constitution within the federal ambit of authority, then adding four lines at the end declaring that we do not want the power in so far as
926	HOUSE OF
British North America Act section 20 of the British North America Act is concerned. We want to ensure that the parliament of Canada will never deny a session every year and an election every five years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member not agree?


John George Diefenbaker: I agree with the necessity of such things being embodied in our constitution by precedent, but I do not agree that if we go to Westminster and ask for power we should at the same time say that we are afraid to trust ourselves in the years to come. As a matter of fact, by that amendment my hon. friend indicates that while he asks for that much he is afraid that if too much power is exercised by this parliament democracy is indeed in danger by reason of the amendment that he says he supports.


Donald MacInnis: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will he say that the same condition applies to the English and French languages?


John George Diefenbaker: I must answer that question. I shall come to the question of compact, to which the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) referred. He said that there is no compact. In 1925 the then prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, called it a compact. In 1925 in the same debate Mr. Meighen referred to it as a compact. As far as constitutional rights are concerned, we in this party have always taken the stand that they are inviolable and are part and parcel of the basis upon which confederation was built.
On motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Wednesday is private
members' day.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 19, 1949