1949-10-27

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, October 27, 1949
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon, Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Thursday, the 27th October, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills. I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
this matter, but, as usual, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) is ahead of me. Yesterday I had the privilege-we are speaking on a question of privilege-of being the guest of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) at the Ottawa winter fair. I congratulate the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Aylesworth) upon having won the award he did, with cattle which are almost the equal of those to be found in Fraser Valley. I want to say, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I enjoyed the show very much. May I add that I think the Canadian government would be well advised to have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police continue to put on their musical ride throughout Canada and the United States. It is one of the finest things I have ever seen. It is a credit to Canada, and is one of our greatest tourist attractions.



OTTAWA WINTER FAIR


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time hon. members rise in the house on questions of privilege to pay tribute to those outside the house who have had important successes in various fields of Canadian activity. I rise to perform an even more pleasant task, namely, to indicate to you and to the house that one of our own parliamentary group, the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Aylesworth), has been successful this week at the Ottawa winter fair in his showing of Jersey cattle, and has won the award given to the premier Jersey exhibitor. I should like to express to him, on behalf of all members, including yourself, sir, our congratulations upon the signal success of Frontenac Jersey farms. They have won in the Jersey class more prizes than any other exhibitor at the Ottawa winter fair.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I am sure that all hon. members will feel that a most satisfactory situation exists when members of this house give such a good example to their fellow Canadians by raising the standards of our dairy herds. There are others who are doing likewise in other fields of agricultural production. This is both a good example and an encouraging aspect of our community life.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to say something on



BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY

Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 116 (from the Senate) respecting the British and Foreign Bible Society in Canada and Newfoundland. Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	By what amount was the over-all Canadian federal debt reduced during the first nine months of 1949?
2.	As of October 1, 1949, what was the total Canadian debt?


Mr. Sinclair:: The phrase "over-all debt" is not generally used in classifying the Canadian debt. However, to ensure that the hon. member secures the information he is seeking, the answer which I am now tabling gives the figures for the total liabilities of Canada and also the net debt of Canada.
1. Total liabilities
December 31, 1948	 $17,278,514,916.85
September 30, 1949	 17,027,764,399.05
$	250,750,517.80
2. Net debt
December 31, 1948	 $11,758,680,442.20
September 30, 1949	 11,495,881,920.78
$	262,798,521.42

Questions
WHEAT PRODUCERS' CERTIFICATES Mr. Diefenbaker:
1.	How many wheat producers' certificates issued in each of the years 1940 to 1948, by provinces, are outstanding?
2.	What is being done to locate the owners?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	The following shows outstanding producers' certificates as at September 30, 1949:
1940 crop
Province-Number of producers' certificates (estimate)
Manitoba, 2,500; Saskatchewan, 7,000; Alberta and British Columbia, 7,500; total,
17.000.
1941-42 crop
Manitoba, 1,700; Saskatchewan, 7,000; Alberta and British Columbia, 5,000; total, 13,700.
1943	crop
Manitoba, 5,000; Saskatchewan, 18,000; Alberta and British Columbia, 17,000; total,
40.000.
1944	crop
Manitoba, 4,500; Saskatchewan, 17,000; Alberta and British Columbia, 16,000; total
38.000.
1945	crop
Manitoba, 1,200; Saskatchewan, 3,700; Alberta and British Columbia, 3,100; total,
8.000.
1946	crop
Manitoba, 1,500; Saskatchewan, 6,000; Alberta and British Columbia, 7,500; total,
15.000.
1947	crop (old basis)
Manitoba, 2,500; Saskatchewan, 7,500; Alberta and British Columbia, 6,500; total, 16,500.
1947 crop (new basis)
Manitoba, 4,000; Saskatchewan, 15,000; Alberta and British Columbia, 11,000; total,
30.000.
1948	crop (deliveries to March 31, 1949) Manitoba, 11,000; Saskatchewan, 44,000; Alberta and British Columbia, 35,000; total,
90.000.
2.	After producers have had a reasonable time in which to surrender certificates following the announcement of a payment, the payment department endeavours in several ways to get in touch with producers who have not surrendered the producers' certificates concerned. Notices are sent out to producers who, according to the records of the board, hold certificates upon which payment has been authorized. Generally these notices bring a good response in the form of:
(a) The surrender of the certificates concerned;
IMr. Sinclair.]
(b)	Advice that the producers' certificates have been lost;
(c)	Advice that the producers certificates are now the property of an estate;
(d)	Advice that the producers concerned are located elsewhere.
In the case of certificates which have been lost, the necessary alternative forms are dispatched. The board's legal department gives prompt attention to payments on producers' certificates where estates are involved. The payment department makes the necessary alterations on its records where new addresses of producers concerned are received. Generally the notices sent out by the board have produced satisfactory results.
When the volume of outstanding producers' certificates has been reduced as far as possible by means of notices and the following up of these notices, lists are prepared of the outstanding producers' certificates and these lists are made available to elevator agents at the delivery point concerned, who are in a position to acquaint producers of the payments which are available to them.


WASHINGTON MONETARY TALKS
Mr. Siewart (Winnipeg North):: Who are the Canadian representatives on the committee or committees set up as a result of the recent Washington conference?


Mr. Claxion:: No formal committees have been set up as a consequence of the tripartite economic discussions held in Washington in September, 1949. However, there have been informal talks on customs procedures and on the sterling area's dollar expenditures on oil and petroleum. Canada has been represented at these two sets of talks by members of the staff of the Canadian embassy in Washington.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Higgins:: What is being done by the government to assist secondary industries in Newfoundland?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, this question, standing in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins), appeared on yesterday's order paper. For some reason that is not apparent, it does not appear on today's order paper. It was not answered yesterday, but the answer is available today and is as follows:
In accordance with the terms of union, the interdepartmental committee on Newfoundland secondary industries and purchasing was established in January of this year. It is comprised of representatives

from eleven federal departments and agencies, and was given the task of (a) stimulating the purchasing of federal government supplies and services from Newfoundland secondary industries; (b) providing Newfoundland industries with a clearing house to which particular problems can be directed; (c) acting in an advisory capacity to the government in dealing with problems of these industries.
An office is also being maintained in St. John's, Newfoundland, by the Department of Trade and Commerce for the purpose of giving Newfoundland businessmen information and advice. Through this office local manufacturers can directly place their inquiries with the committee in Ottawa.
Local purchasing offices of the Department of Transport and the Canadian Commercial Corporation have also been set up in St. John's for the purpose of contracting for local requirements. The Department of Public Works and the king's printer have made special arrangements for the purchase of supplies, stationery and printing. The co-operation of the C.N.R., particularly with regard to placing orders for stationery and printing in Newfoundland, has also been assured.
The United Nail and Foundry, which is unable to obtain its full requirements in nail rod from Canadian mills, is being paid an equalizing subsidy on rod purchased in the United States. Payments to date amount to $6,651.88. Dawes Nail and Hardware was asked to make a submission for similar treatment, but none was received.
Newfoundland manufacturers receive invitations from the federal government in Ottawa to tender on materials that may be required throughout Canada. It was apparent in the latter cases that some of the Newfoundland industries would be temporarily handicapped in competing with mainland manufacturers. The government, therefore, recently directed its purchasing authorities to place contracts with Newfoundland manufacturers whose tenders are within fifteen per cent of the lowest bid. This measure is to apply until March 31, 1950.
The government has been disappointed in the number of tenders submitted by Newfoundland manufacturers. It should be emphasized that small industries in Newfoundland must use their own initiative in finding a solution to their difficulties. The government is anxious to assist them in every way, and will give sympathetic hearing to specific remedies which they may put forward.
Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: 1.	How many pounds of butter were in storage in Canada as at October 1, 1949, or most recent date?
2.	How many pounds of butter belong to the government by purchase as at that date, and what was the cost per pound?
3.	What storage charges have been incurred by the government up to that date (a) in total; (b) per pound?
4.	What is present cost of government holdings in butter per pound including all charges?
5.	What commitments have been made for sale of government holdings?
6.	If any commitments, at what price per pound, and to whom?


POWDERED MILK HELD IN STORAGE
Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: 1.	How many pounds of powdered milk were in storage in Canada as at October 1, 1949, or most recent date?
2.	How many pounds of powdered milk belong to the government by purchase as at that date, and what was the cost per pound?
3.	What storage charges have been incurred by the government up to that date (a) in total; (b) per pound?
4.	What is present cost of government holdings in powdered milk per pound including all charges?
5.	What commitments have been made for sale of government holdings?
6.	If any commitments, at what price per pound, and to whom?


CHEESE HELD IN STORAGE
Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: 1.	How many pounds of cheese were in storage in Canada as at October 1, 1949, or most recent date?
2.	How many pounds of cheese belong to the government by purchase as at that date, and what was the cost per pound?
3.	What storage charges have been incurred by the government up to that date (a) in total; (b) per pound?
4.	What is present cost of government holdings in cheese per pound including all charges?
5.	What commitments have been made for sale of government holdings?
6.	If any commitments, at what price per pound, and to whom?



CANADIAN DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION


Mr. Fraser:: 1.	In what countries is Canada represented by (a) a high commissioner; (b) an ambassador; (c) a minister; (d) a charge d'affaires?
2.	Who is the incumbent in each case and what was paid to him for the year ending March 31, 1949, in (a) salary; (b) living and representation allowances; (c) travelling expenses?
3.	In what commonwealth or foreign capitals has the government purchased living accommodation for any such representative, and in each case what was the amount paid?
4.	Were alterations made to any of the above living accommodation? If so, in each case, what was the total cost of such alterations?

British North America Act INQUIRY FOR RETURN



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: I should like to ask the responsible minister about a question I put on the order paper nearly a month ago. On September 29 a question standing in my name was passed as an order for return. The return has not yet been brought down. I should like to ask the responsible minister when I may expect it.


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: have no recollection of the matter, but I shall make inquiries.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, October 20, 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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Garson.
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I intend to discuss the proposal for the amendment of the Bi'itish North America Act from the point of view of Canadians who live on the Pacific slope.
The province of British Columbia entered confederation in 1871 by an agreement between the young Dominion of Canada, then just four years old, and the crown colony of British Columbia. That agreement was contained in addresses to the queen passed by the parliament of Canada and by the legislature of the colony. Members who are interested may refer to page 77 of volume V of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927.
Some of the terms of the agreement are still of considerable interest. One had to do with the construction of a railway to the west coast of Canada. The paragraph dealing with the railway reads as follows:
The government of the dominion undertake to secure the commencement simultaneously, within two years from the date of the union, of the construction of a railway from the Pacific towards the Rocky mountains, and from such point as may be selected, east of the Rocky mountains, towards the Pacific, to connect the seaboard of British Columbia with the railway system of Canada; and further, to secure the completion of such railway within ten years from the date of the union.
The railway was not built within the ten years; as hon. members know, it was finally completed in 1885.

There is another interesting provision having to do with transportation, as follows:
The dominion will provide an efficient mail service, fortnightly, by steam communication between Victoria and San Francisco, and twice a week between Victoria and Olympia;-
Olympia is now the capital of the state of Washington.
-the vessels to be adapted for the conveyance of freight and passengers.
There was also provision for the payment of subsidies to the province of British Columbia. It is interesting to note that at that time the population of the province was estimated at 60,000, some 34,000 less than that of Prince Edward Island. It has increased twenty times, now almost 1,200,000. Provision also was made for the province to give large areas of land to the dominion, known as railway lands, the purpose being to further the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway.
There is also the following provision in the agreement respecting representation in this parliament:
British Columbia shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by three members, and by six members in the House of Commons; the representation to be increased under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867.
The colony accepted the British North America Act of that time; in other words the basis of the union was the British North America Act as it stood in 1867. Right from the start British Columbia has been the province most remote from Ottawa. I dare say half the present members of this house have never been in that province. The Prime Minister had not been there until 1948.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He had good results after he went there, though.


Howard Charles Green: He may not have such good results the next time. Largely because of its remoteness from the capital, the problems of British Columbia have always been the least understood of those of all the provinces. Of necessity, therefore, we must always be on guard against undue centralization of power in Ottawa.
In the past our rights have been protected largely in two ways. In the first place the British North America Act has been interpreted by the decisions of a court which we have regarded as impartial, and by and large those decisions have favoured the provinces. It is significant that when the question whether or not the dominion had the right to abolish appeals to the judicial committee of the privy council was argued in the courts, the government of British Columbia was represented by counsel to argue against that proposition. I repeat, the appeal

to the privy council has been one protection. Another has been the fact that the British North America Act could be amended-at least so we thought-only after consultation and the most careful deliberation.
Protection for our province is most important, and it is now being removed by doing away with appeal to the privy council and changing the method of amending the British North America Act. These changes may prove detrimental to our province. I hope that will not be so, but there is a real possibility that we may find ourselves in that position. Regardless of the party to which we in British Columbia belong, we have always believed there would be a conference between the dominion and the provinces before any request was made for amendments to the British North America Act. It is significant to note the attitude taken by the attorney general of British Columbia -who, by the way, is a supporter of the Liberal party-when the speech from the throne appeared in the press last September. I have here a dispatch which appeared in the Vancouver Sun under date of September 16, 1949, giving the reaction of Mr. Wismer to the suggestions with respect to amending Canada's constitution. The heading reads, "Wismer approves Ottawa conference." The article goes on:
Prime Minister St. Laurent's plan to have the Canadian constitution amended at home, rather than by reference to the British parliament, drew favourable comment here today from Attorney General Gordon Wismer.
Mr. Wismer made it clear that he could not as yet speak for the provincial government as a whole, since the cabinet has not considered the national government's proposal.
This is the part of the statement I wish to emphasize.
He stressed that in any plan for altering the constitution within Canada, adequate provision must be laid down for safeguarding provincial rights.
British Columbia has long been a strong fighter for provincial rights against encroachment by the federal authority.
And, he said, he would presume that even in any changes touching federal matters alone, it would be provided that the provinces should be consulted first.
Actually that was the program of the Prime Minister before the house sat, namely, that the provinces would be consulted before any attempt would be made to amend the constitution. We find that clearly set out in the letter from the Prime Minister to the provincial premiers, which appears at page 870 of Hansard. The paragraph dealing with the Prime Minister's statement to the electorate of Canada reads:
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
British North America Act a method of amending the constitution in Canada which would be satisfactory to all Canadians.
I believe that is the program that should have been followed. Had the Prime Minister done as he said he was going to do, there could have been little quarrel with his actions. But that is not what the Prime Minister is doing in the resolution now under discussion.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: And what the hon. member has cited is not all the Prime Minister said about it, either, in the letter from which the hon. member quoted.


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister may speak again in this debate, but I defy him to show me and the house anything in his letter stating that his election pledge was that he would make certain amendments without consulting the provinces. There is not one word to that effect in his letter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will satisfy the hon. member's challenge.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You go on and make your speech; the Prime Minister will make his.


Howard Charles Green: I would not try to mumble for Fraser Valley.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Don't try to speak for the Prime Minister; you are not capable of it.


Howard Charles Green: I repeat that the resolution now under debate is not the plan the Prime Minister announced to the people. He says now that eventually he will consult the provinces, but first he is going to get certain powers to amend Canada's constitution. The Prime Minister is going to ask the government of the United Kingdom to amend the British North America Act to give the dominion power to amend the constitution, except- first-as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the province. The second exception is as follows:
-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.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, as I read this resolution, this second exception is tied up with educational and language rights. I take it from the speeches made by the Prime Minister that that was not the intention, but clearly that is the way the resolution reads. If it was not intended to restrict these provincial rights to education and language, then further words should have been added to the resolution. The part of the resolution with which I am dealing reads as follows:
-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.

British North America Act
If it was intended that these should be separate exceptions, I suggest to the Prime Minister he should have inserted the words "or granted or secured" before the words "to any class of persons with respect to schools or as regards the use of the English or the French language." In any event, as I understand it, the second exception is this general one:
-rights or privileges by this or any other constitutional act granted or secured to the legislature or the government of a province . . .
The third exception concerns schools and the use of the French and the English language. Those were the exceptions contained in the resolution as it was originally presented.
As the result of an amendment moved by the C.C.F. party, the Prime Minister added two more exceptions, one being that the dominion was not asking for the power to change the provision in the constitution which calls for a session of parliament once every year or the provision which calls for an election every five years. He made a proviso to the fifth exception that, in the event of real or apprehended war, an election could be postponed beyond the five-year period unless one-third of the members objected. I do not think very careful consideration was given to this proviso, because it means that with the house constituted as it is the Liberal members could extend the life of the parliament for more than five years, and the opposition parties, even though they combined, would be helpless to prevent it.
This resolution can easily, of course, be forced through this house; and I have no doubt that it will be. It will then be accepted by an obedient Senate, and the United Kingdom government will pass the amendment in the form requested by this parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member should refer to the other place as the "obedient Senate."


Howard Charles Green: I shall substitute the word "Liberal" for the word ''obedient". The United Kingdom government will pass the amendment in the form in which it is requested by this parliament, and the dominion will then have the power it seeks in this resolution, before having consulted with the provinces.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this house, that the folly-I repeat that word-the folly of this postelection program of the Prime Minister's is clearly shown in several ways. In the first place, the main argument he submits is that he is bringing the Canadian constitution home, and that he is removing one of the

last badges of colonialism. In the Montreal press of October 14 the Prime Minister is reported as having said:
Now, he said, was the time to remove the "final badges of our former dependent condition."
This main argument advanced by the Prime Minister is nothing more or less than a spurious argument, because he is still leaving large parts of our constitution with the United Kingdom government. More is being left with the United Kingdom government than when the resolution was first presented, because the government has accepted the C.C.F. amendment. Yet, while doing this, the Prime Minister has also actually had the temerity to argue that he is taking no more power than he already possesses.
In his letter to Mr. Duplessis, which will be found at page 874 of Hansard, we find this statement:
We believe we already have the right to have such amendments made without consulting the provincial authorities,-
Actually the plan now being followed probably makes more remote than it would otherwise have been, the time when Canada will not have to go to the United Kingdom for an amendment to her constitution.
The folly of this post-election program is shown also by the fact that the provinces are being deprived of the right to be heard upon certain matters which, while exclusively federal under the British North America Act, actually concern the provinces. For instance, consider the composition of the Senate. One of the main reasons for having a Senate in our parliamentary structure was to protect provincial as well as minority rights. For example, Quebec and Ontario have equal representation in the Senate, although their populations differ. The maritime provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each have ten senators, whereas the province of British Columbia, with practically twice the population of Nova Scotia and certainly more than twice the population of New Brunswick, has only six. By the way, that is a most unfair situation.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: The composition of the Senate is a matter which vitally affects all the provinces. It may be that some members of the Senate should be appointed by provincial governments. Personally I believe some arrangement of that kind would be a good thing. The point I am emphasizing is this: By this amendment the provinces are being deprived of the right to be heard on some of these questions which, under the British North America Act, would appear to be purely federal.
The folly of the program is also shown by the attitude of the various provincial

governments, and their attitude is extremely important. We need only to look at the letters written by the premiers of the various provinces to realize that many of them are in grave doubt as to the course being followed. First there is the letter from the premier of Nova Scotia, who asked that the passing of the bill abolishing appeals to the privy council be delayed until after the conference with the provinces. Then there is the letter from the premier of Quebec, in which he raises points which are clearly worthy of the most careful consideration. There is the letter from the premier of Ontario, in which he says:
I am frankly in some doubt as to the advisability of dealing with the matter piecemeal without first attempting general agreement.
There is the letter from the premier of Manitoba, in which he says:
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.
Then there is the letter from the premier of Alberta, which I will not read, but which clearly sets out excellent reasons why the conference should have been held before any amendment to the act is put through.
As I said a few minutes ago, there was the immediate reaction of the attorney general of British Columbia; he said that certainly there should be a conference before any amendment was made. The premiers of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick do not raise the question. Apparently these three Liberal premiers are taking everything on faith. But there is a most interesting letter from the premier of Saskatchewan, which is to be found in Hansard of October 24, just last Monday, at page 1107-and I hope my C.C.F. friends will be able to square this letter from the premier of Saskatchewan with the attitude they have taken in the house on this question. Mr. Douglas writes:
I must confess to considerable curiosity as to just what your government has in mind.
Further on he says:
In our opinion the field that the dominion would occupy after the suggested amendment is indefinite at the moment, and we do not know what your government has in mind in the direction of constitutional development.
Then, in connection with the Senate, he says:
Again it may be asked whether the formula would warrant the abolition of the Senate. Such an abolition would not "affect the rights and privileges of the provinces" as corporate entities; yet some of the provinces might take grave objection to the abolition of the upper chamber.
British North America Act
And he asks the Prime Minister for further clarification of the attitude of the dominion. The reply of the Prime Minister of Canada to the premier of Saskatchewan is certainly well worthy of attention. The Prime Minister uses these words:
I agree that the phrase "affecting the rights and privileges of the provinces" is lacking in precision: this general language was used because we did not wish to attempt to determine in an arbitrary fashion the extent of the rights and privileges of the provinces, preferring to leave that for determination by the courts, in the event of any dispute, unless some agreement with respect to it is reached at the forthcoming conference.
The Prime Minister himself obviously does not know just what is meant by those words "the rights and privileges of the provinces".


Mr. Knowles:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: Not now. I will later, if I have time.
In effect, the provinces are being ridden over rough-shod. The field in which they may make submissions is being narrowed, and in order to prevent an invasion of any rights they may still have, they are being put in the position of having to fight before a dominion court, the Supreme Court of Canada. Premier Douglas clearly sets that out in his letter. He says:
May I make the general observation that the amendment as proposed in your letter would primarily vest in the dominion parliament authority to amend the constitution of Canada subject of course to the exceptions referred to. This would mean, as I understand the situation, that in the case of any amendment of the B.N.A. Act by the dominion being objected to by a province, the burden would be on the province to show that the amendment infringed the stated exceptions.
There is grave danger in treating the provinces in this way.
Finally, not one reason has been given for all this haste. The dominion has in view no actual amendments to the Canadian constitution. The Prime Minister explained that also in his letter to the premier of Saskatchewan, the final paragraph of which reads as follows:
As to your question whether this government "has any developments in mind which can properly be disclosed," I can only say that no consideration has yet been given by the government to any constitutional development or change which might be recommended to parliament under the new procedure contemplated by the address.
The Prime Minister gave no pledge to make an amendment without consultation with the provinces. He has no mandate to do so; yet he is forcing this resolution through now, although the conference is to be convened here in a matter of a few weeks to deal with a portion of this constitutional problem.
It all looks so unreasonable that one may well wonder about it. This action by the

British North America Act Prime Minister, on the face of it, makes one ask the question: Why is he going at it in this way? I believe that there is a good reason. I believe that the government is seeking this power at this session so that when the provinces meet here in January they will find, in the first place, that they have little power left, and, in the second place, that they can prevent an invasion in the expected fields only by fighting in the supreme court. I believe the government is of the view that at that time public opinion may well have been stirred up against the provincial premiers, thereby hampering them in their attempt to see that the provinces of Canada get fair treatment. I believe it is hoped, as a result, that the provinces will have to fall in line with the dominion proposals for dealing with the matters which are excepted in this resolution. The dominion government also hopes that the provinces will be softened up, to use a colloquial expression, for the negotiations concerning the renewal of the tax agreements, which negotiations must take place shortly. In other words I believe the hope of this government is that the provinces will find themselves looking right down the loaded barrels of two guns-one, increased power of the dominion, and the other, the fact that any disputes must be settled by a court set up by the dominion.
It is a clever, cunning, loaded-gun policy. It may work, but it is no way to promote harmony and unity in Canada. Earlier prime ministers have declined to go so far. I believe that this action of the present Prime Minister of Canada may well prove to be irresponsible, and I intend to vote against his plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the hon. member takes his seat, will he permit the question I sought to ask him a moment ago? Is it not so that in the letter from Premier Douglas, from which the hon. member quoted, there is this sentence:
You will understand that no complaint is being made regarding the action which your government proposes to take.


Howard Charles Green: The premier of Saskatchewan was trying to let down lightly his friends here in the house. While he does say that, I do not think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can get much comfort from the rest of the letter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is aware that that letter was written by Mr. Douglas-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: You can't get Tommy off the fence in that way.
iMr. Green.]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member not aware that Mr. Douglas' letter was written on October 15, before any statements were made by this party in the house, and that Mr. Douglas' first letter took the same position?


Gordon Graydon: Is the hon. member on the Speaker's list?


Howard Charles Green: In answer to that I would point out to the hon. member that if he reads the second letter he will see very clearly that his own premier of Saskatchewan is much concerned about what is going on, and furthermore believes that nobody can tell exactly what the dominion government has in mind. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his associates here are keen on getting more power into the hands of the dominion government so that they can bring in their nationalization and socialistic plans. They are willing to swallow anything with that objective in mind.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset let it be fully understood that in common with all other members of the Social Credit group I agree that the power and the right to amend the British North America Act ought to reside in Canada. We also maintain, however, that every precaution should be taken to ensure that in Canada there shall be an unimpaired British North America Act to amend, before any Canadian agency or agencies begin to amend Canada's constitution.
Two fine old English sayings come to mind as one looks at this measure: first, don't tear down any man's house before you provide him a better one to go into; second, don't jump from the frying pan into the fire.
As I see it, passage of this measure will unhinge the British North America Act. In passing this measure it looks as though this parliament would be setting the stage for the tearing down of the Canadian people's house -its constitution, its British North America Act-before having found an acceptable plan for the construction of a new house.
There may not appear to be any sufficient reason why the present dominion government should aim to do a thing of that sort; but let it be borne in mind that the British North America Act and the Australian constitution are two of the finest constitutions in the world. The reason why they are so admirable will become manifest as I proceed. International centralizers, therefore, desire to destroy the British North America Act and the Australian constitution. I hope we do not wait too long in Canada before we come to realize that there is a body of mischievous men in the world definitely designing to

British North America Act
establish a world centralized state, in which nations like Canada and Australia will be merely minor provinces.
We live in an age of centralized totalitarian thinking, and fascist feelings are in the air everywhere. We collide with them in this house. We collide with them every time a C.C.F. member rises to speak on almost anything.
Any matter pertaining to a nation's constitution ought to be approached with the utmost gravity. In dealing with no other subject is it more important that the speaker be absolutely objective, that he seek realistically to face facts and actualities. In participating in this debate I shall do my best to be grave, realistic and honest, setting aside all possibility of prejudice.
There are many aspects of the situation confronting us at present, each of which ought to receive the most careful, cautious and appraising consideration. Every Canadian, of whatever situation in life, ought to take solemn warning that while this matter is being dealt with in this house the whole future destiny of Canadians trembles in the balance. Especially should all provincial premiers, members of provincial legislative assemblies, all municipal officials, all service clubs, all chambers of commerce, all boards of trade, all women's institutes and other women's associations, and organizations of labour-all of these should go on the alert instantly and insistently. There are exceedingly important historical scenes in progress on the Ottawa stage today.
From the point of observation from which I now view this drama it would seem to appear that particularly the premiers of the more powerful provinces might be well advised to counsel together to determine how best to manage not to leave Premier Duplessis to bear an undue measure of the burden and the brunt of needful provincial self-assertion.
May I turn to a contemplation of certain aspects of the whole general constitutional situation as it now confronts us? Everyone who has given thought to human relationships knows that the strong forever seek to impose their will upon the weak. Men have developed democracy to restrain the strong and protect the weak.
One of the secrets of successful democracy is checks and balances. Before we give too much consideration to the passing of this measure I urge upon the members of the Liberal party, whom Canadians have placed in absolute power, that they consider carefully what could easily happen to the checks and balances in relation to Canada's constitution if a certain kind of amendment should be made to the British North America Act.
Especially are constitutional checks and balances essential where large areas and populations are concerned. Especially is it necessary to have constitutional checks and balances in Canada. Each dominion of the British empire struggled for sovereign power to enable it successfully to resist the efforts of any central government to oppress it. In the United States, the states sternly defend state rights, to enable them to force the central government to give them something like justice.
On the other hand every enlightened person also knows that successful human achievement depends upon co-operation among men. Every enlightened person knows, too, that men are prone to refuse to co-operate even when they have the opportunity so to do, and even when co-operation would be in their own best interests.
That is granted. I am fully aware of that. So were the fathers of confederation. So were the designers of the United States constitution. So were the designers of the British constitution, unwritten but fully understood. If the states of the United States have too much power, they might easily disrupt the union. If they have too little power, the union might easily disrupt them. Those who are thoroughly familiar with conditions in the United States know how tragically the central power in the union has disrupted a large area of the United States.
In Canada the central power in the union has disrupted the provinces, particularly as to their economic lives. The union is not attempting to change policies that have injured the provinces. I ask all hon. members of the Liberal party to bear that in mind, and challenge that statement if they think they can. There is no indication that the federal government is contemplating salutary changes of policies. Rather the indications so far are that the federal government is planning policies even more harmful to the provincial economy. Under existing circumstances, only greater provincial power has any chance of warding off most serious injuries with yet more serious consequences.
I know it can be argued that if you once give Ottawa absolute control over every province in Canada there will never be any breaking away by any province. I am quite agreed as to that. There has been no breaking away of the southern states from the central body in the United States. But what has happened to the southern states? What has happened to their lives? What has produced the share-croppers there? Do any hon. members want to see a lot of share-croppers in the

British North America Act various provinces of Canada? That would be a mighty easy thing to bring about in this country right now; much progress has been made in that direction already in many of the provinces.
The first question to be considered is this: Are strong provincial governments essential to a prosperous and powerful Canada? I maintain that strong provincial governments are essential to a prosperous and powerful Canada. Quebec will insist upon constitutional powers and authority to guarantee her discretion in matters of language and education. Hon. members will notice that this measure is carefully worded to disarm Quebec. The rest of the provinces presumably do not matter so long as Quebec supports the government. As long as Ontario has provincial leaders of sufficient experience and courage, she will equally insist upon the same discretionary sovereignty to safeguard language and education in Ontario, as well as property and civil rights. British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Alberta and the others ought to, and must, have similar powers of discretion to safeguard property and civil rights against the injurious incidence of federal policies, particularly federal policies as regards freight rates, tariffs, finance, land settlement and immigration, and industrial development which up to the present time has been unduly concentrated in Ontario and Quebec.
I am tempted to make a brief aside here and draw the attention of all hon. members and the people of the country to the fact that during the recent war, when there was an admirable opportunity to decentralize industry, very little decentralization took place. The impression we all got was that as soon as the war was over the government took pains to destroy what little decentralization had taken place. In other words, all the new industries were placed right here in Ontario and Quebec. From the standpoint of the other eight provinces, this was most disastrous. Anyone who is well informed on the question knows that.
What are the provinces going to do about the matter? What recourse have the mari-times and the four western provinces, other than increased constitutional guarantees of provincial discretionary power and authority? All any hon. member needs to do in order to get plenty of evidence to support what I am saying is to read the submissions made by those provinces to the Rowell-Sirois commission. I think anyone who reads those submissions will come away a sadder and wiser man. What can be thought of a federally supported and imposed freight rate structure which permits any railroad to charge $1.75 per hundredweight for moving flannelette
[Mr. Blackmore.l
blankets from eastern Canada to Vancouver, for example, and to change $4,534 per hundredweight to move them to Edmonton, a shorter haul by more than 500 miles?
Let it be borne in mind that these inequities in freight rates have to do with railways over which the central government has had and still has absolute control. Hon. members who did not hear me speak on October 24, as reported on page 1090 of Hansard, I believe would be well advised to read that speech- not because of any particular quality of its own, but because of the astonishing things that are in it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: I hear some silly laughter. Some people would laugh if they saw their mothers being killed. Inequities almost as glaring and hurtful to provincial economy can be cited in relation to federal policies in each of the important fields of tariff, finance, land settlement, immigration-think of the Japanese problem in British Columbia-and industrial development which has centralized industry in Ontario and Quebec, and incidentally centralized power there. It may be argued that if more power were concentrated in Ottawa, the federal government would clear away those inequities; but the fact is that Ottawa has absolute power over each of those aspects of national life, and yet flagrant inequities have developed right under the nose of Ottawa, and perhaps with the consent and connivance of Ottawa.
Again I ask: what possible recourse has any province, western or maritime? In this house Ontario and Quebec can outvote all the other eight provinces put together. In his speech the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made a good deal of the privilege the provinces would have of sending members to the house to protect their interests, but what chance would 106 members from eight provinces have of standing up and asserting their rights against 156 members from Ontario and Quebec? I have no feeling of unkindness toward the provinces of Ontario and Quebec; I am merely pointing out the situation which exists and which constitutes one of the facts that enter into this whole matter. I repeat that Ontario and Quebec can outvote by fifty votes all the other provinces put together.
Anyone who supposes that this fact has not had an injurious effect on the other provinces just has not learned anything yet. Unless tremendous industrial development can be stimulated in the western and maritime provinces, the population growth of those provinces will never give the eight provinces enough members in Ottawa to enable them to

demand and obtain the simple human privilege of plain and obvious economic equity.
I make that statement without fear of successful contradiction.
The conclusion is irresistible. Canada is made up of vast areas, and widely varying territories and conditions. If Canada is to become prosperous and powerful, the provincial governments must have constitutional guarantees of essential discretion.
The Prime Minister has iterated and reiterated since September 14, and he stated it before, that there was no desire or intention to impair the safeguards of provincial rights and jurisdiction. These words are extracted from the letter of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), dated September 14, 1949, to each of the provincial premiers, which is to be found at page 870 of Hansard.
The declaration of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) should be weighed and assessed in the light of several relative considerations. First of all what has been the tendency of the Liberal party as a whole in Canada in the last fourteen years? Has its tendency been (a) towards decentralization of power in Canada and in the world; (b) towards maintaining the status quo in Canada and in the world; or (c) towards centralization of power in Canada and in the world? There is no question that the Liberal party has definitely worked towards centralizing power both in the world and in Canada. That cannot possibly be questioned.
Let us first look at the matter from the point of view of Canada. May I draw the attention of hon. members to a document entitled "Proposals of the government of Canada", dated August, 1945, which was submitted to the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction. I should like to read four short extracts from page 48 and page 49 of that publication. They are:
The dominion government proposes that after the war the provincial governments should by agreement forego the imposition of personal income taxes, corporation taxes and succession duties, leaving to the dominion government the full and exclusive access to these revenue sources.
May I comment on that statement by saying that if such a policy were implemented it would mean that the financial and economic independence of every province in Canada would be utterly destroyed. Every province would completely lose discretion in any matter, except under the direction and guidance and at the will and with the consent of the central government. No check would exist in Canada as far as provincial governments were concerned. I continue to read: . . . the dominion proposes an agreement under which the provincial governments would commit themselves not to withdraw before an initial trial period of say three years.
It will clearly need to make full use of its power-
British North America Act
Meaning the dominion government.
-to impose national taxes on personal incomes, corporations and estates.
Exclusive jurisdiction over taxes on incomes, corporations and estates is also necessary in order to protect Canadian interests abroad.
There is the attitude of the Liberal government in 1945. Does it indicate any desire on the part of the government to include "the fullest safeguards of provincial rights and jurisdiction", as related to the allimportant class 13 of section 92, "property and civil rights in the provinces?" May I pause a moment to point out that although there are several important instances under section 91 where the dominion has overriding power, there is only one class in section 92 which gives the provinces any chance in the world to stand up to the dominion, and that is class 13. Just look at the attempts to invade class 13 as indicated in the four proposals I have read!
Will the Prime Minister repudiate the pronouncements at pages 48 and 49 of the documented proposals of the Dominion of Canada? Let him rise in this house and tell us whether he repudiates the statements contained in that document.
Will the Liberal party repudiate them? We have quite a number of Liberals in the house. Will they repudiate these statements? Will the Liberal machine outside the house and the visible and invisible forces that control that machine, repudiate these statements?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: It is easy to laugh it off, but it is a grave reality. Let no member of the Liberal party pretend that there are not hidden forces governing the Liberal machine.
Satisfactory answers to each of these questions ought to be forthcoming. Such answers ought to be demanded by all Canadians as a solemn and binding commitment. Until such repudiation and commitment are in our hands how can anyone rely upon the Prime Minister's declarations and his protestations of a desire to "include the fullest safeguards of provincial rights and jurisdiction"? There is an old saying that actions speak louder than words.
The document from which I have just quoted indicates the Liberal attitude four years ago. Have we any documents prior to that time? May I recall to the minds of hon. members the report of the Rowell-Sirois commission on dominion-provincial relations? The commission was appointed by a Liberal administration-and was probably told pretty well what it was expected to do! It was appointed by order in council on August 14, 1937, and submitted its report on May 3, 1940.

British North America Act The dominion-provincial conference to consider the report was called on January 14, 1941.
The documented proposals of the government of Canada of August, 1945, are founded on the gist of the financial proposals of the Rowell-Sirois commission.
Does anyone question that statement? Let me read from an article in Canadian Business of January, 1941, on the Rowell-Sirois report. The article reads:
Plan 1 provides that the provinces would cease to use the following forms of taxation, the personal income tax, corporation taxes, succession duties.
There is an asterisk beside corporation taxes referring one to a footnote which reads:
The dominion would pay annually to each province a sum equal to the tax which that province would have received had it collected from mining and oil producing companies, 10 per cent of the net income which was derived from mining, smelting and refining of ores and oils produced in the province.
It sounds surprisingly like the proposals of the dominion government to which I referred, does it not? Then the article goes on to deal with what the new grants are and reads:
Plan 1 provides that:
(a)	the provinces would surrender all existing subsidies;
(b)	the dominion would pay annually a national adjustment grant according to need, which would be irreducible, but revisable every five years on the recommendation of an independent advisory finance commission.
You can be very sure the "finance commission" would be appointed by the federal government and would consist of men who were ready to do the will of that government. I continue to read:
(c)	The dominion would provide emergency grants in dealing with abnormal conditions subject to the recommendation of the finance commission, which grants would be made for a year at a time only and reduced or suspended as soon as conditions justified it.
I should like to draw from a statement to be found further on in the same article, which I think will impress every hon. member of the house. The article sets out what the adjustment grants were for the various provinces. Prince Edward Island was to have a national adjustment grant of $750,000. Nova Scotia was to have $800,000; New Brunswick, $1,500,000; Quebec, $8 million; Manitoba, $2,100,000; Saskatchewan, 1939 basis, $1,750,000, and Ontario nothing, Alberta nothing, and British Columbia nothing. That does not sound like very good reading, does it? That is what was recommended by the Rowell-Sirois commission, and apparently with the complete consent and approval of the Liberal government.
[Mr. Blackmore.l
Did the Rowell-Sirois report advocate centralization? Here is what some of the grand old Liberals of earlier days said; I quote from an article by W. R. Motherwell, a fact-facing article, written on January 14, 1941, and appearing in the January 23 issue of the Western Producer.
Perhaps some of the younger members of this house may not remember who this man was. He was a grand old Liberal reformer from the west, premier of Saskatchewan for a good many years, Minister of Agriculture in the federal cabinet at Ottawa for a number of years, one of the finest men I ever met and one of the clearest thinkers. He was a Liberal. He was honest in stating what he believed and could give very good reasons for so believing. Listen to what he said concerning the Sirois report.
In view of this, why should we now relinquish voluntarily, some of our present sovereign provincial authority, to build up a still more dominating central power, sometimes even now, not exercised too wisely or too well.
There can be no doubt about what he thought. Further on in the article he said:
Then why, I repeat, should we now increase the further centralization of power in Ottawa (except for increasing our war effort) when they seem to have, or to take, more power than they can administer wisely and well as in the above cited cases, which should, in my humble estimation, be remedied forthwith.
Between those two statements he had listed a number of flagrant cases of mismanagement by the federal government in handling power; and no man was in a better position to know about some of those cases of mismanagement than was Hon. W. R. Motherwell.
The whole Sirois report indicates the trend towards centralization that has consistently characterized the Liberal party since at least as far back as 1937, when the Sirois commission was appointed. Many other illustrations might be given to show that the Liberal party is a party of centralization. What did the Liberal party do with Pattullo and Hepburn, the premiers of British Columbia and Ontario respectively, because they had the courage to combine with Premier Aberhart of Alberta to wreck the dominion-provincial conference in January, 1941? They were not the only premiers who were opposed to the Sirois report, as I could show by a number of quotations; but they were the men who stood out and had courage to do the thing that had to be done. What did the Liberal party do then? They put Pattullo into oblivion. Where did Hepburn go? It may be said that he retired because of ill health. Well, almost anyone would have ill health after the kind of treatment the Liberals mete out to any man who does not do just what they tell him to do.

Now we have evidence enough to warn us what to expect or suspect in any leader of the present Liberal party in Canada, not judging from what they say, but judging from what they have done.
Is the manoeuvre with which we are now faced, of making a request to the British government, merely a trick to achieve by devious means what the Liberals have failed to achieve by less devious means over the last fourteen years? The suggestion deserves serious attention. What are the possibilities, in case the people who are behind the throne of the Liberal party do mean to centralize power, as I do not doubt?
The proposed measure is more than an amendment of the British North America Act. It constitutes a revolution; it means the utter wrecking of the British North America Act. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply leaving out of consideration many important factors.
What gives permanence and stability to the British North America Act as we know it today? It is the fact that the act was passed by the British parliament. That is the hinge on which it hangs. We have had arguments back and forth as to whether the act is a pact or a statute. However you look at it, the act is given stability by the fact that it is a statute of the British parliament. Is that not so?
If the governments of the provinces met together in a constitutional convention and drafted resolutions they all accepted, and which the people of Canada accepted, you would be able to hang the British North America Act on the hinge of the decisions of that constitutional convention. But no provision has been made for calling such a convention. It is not to be done; it is not proposed. Consequently when this address is acted upon by the British parliament the hinge of the present British North America Act, the anchor or mooring, so to speak, will be swept away and the British North America Act will become a ship adrift. Let us be sure that we are fully aware of that fact. There will be no anchor for it. There will be no appeal to the privy council; that will have been abolished. There will be no appeal to the United Kingdom parliament, because that will have been abolished. There will be no constitutional convention to provide anything in Canada upon which the British North America Act can be hinged. Then can anyone tell me what will be the anchor of the British North America Act? The federal government will be in supreme control with potentially unlimited powers, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Quadra (Mr. Green). Why? Because no plan will have been prepared for a new
45781-7G
British North America Act Canadian constitution. The provinces will desire a constitution that will genuinely establish and adequately safeguard provincial rights and jurisdiction. The nation could be plunged into a state bordering upon the chaotic, for no one should imagine that after taking this step the Canadian government intends to give the provinces the sort of thing the provinces want and must have. This government will probably come before the provinces in a convention and say, "Now, boys, it is this-or else!" A state of emergency will then have come into being.
Then what? Will not the federal government invoke the peace, order and good government clause of section 91 to deal with the situation? In order to gain some idea of the sort of thing that is in the minds of some of the men who are drafting Liberal party policy I suggest that hon. members take the proposals of the government of Canada from which I read a short time ago and turn to page 10, in the latter part of the first column and the first part of the second column, where we find clearly indicated just the sort of thing that would be contemplated. I have not time to read the passage; I shall have to leave it for hon. members to read for themselves. Would not this move give the federal government plausible arguments for a policy to "displace the authority of the provinces in relation to a vast field in which the provinces would otherwise have exclusive jurisdiction?" I refer to a statement by Lord Haldane, bearing upon a certain judgment. I quote again from page 10:
The overriding powers enumerated in section 91, as well as the general words at the commencement of the section, may then become applicable to new and special aspects which they cover, of subjects assigned otherwise exclusively to the provinces.
There are very few fields of exclusive provincial jurisdiction at the present time. If the dominion government were to invoke that clause contained in section 91, no provincial rights would remain inviolate.
No sane man would ever demolish his house before he had another to replace it. The nation's house is its constitution. No sane nation would contemplate wrecking its constitution before making sure it had another to replace it. That is the solemn fact which faces us.
What is the nature of the change proposed for the British North America Act? If we read section 91, and connect up the passage preceding where this clause is to fit in with what follows, we shall see quite clearly that when I say the dominion government would be given absolute power by the adoption of this address, I am speaking with complete moderation.

British North America Act
What are "the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces"? Anyone who will read section 91 of the British North America Act will discover that it contains many responsibilities, things that cost money, things that are a lot of trouble to administer, but no power in any one of them. There is no assurance of financial means by which to discharge those responsibilities.
As I have said, only one clause, clause No. 13, gives the provinces even a vestige of effective power in asserting those rights, and that clause has to do with property and civil rights. I have indicated already that the invasion of the fields of corporation taxes, personal income taxes and succession duties, virtually destroys the effectiveness of that power. How can a province assert any control over property and civil rights when it has no authority over the taxing power? The central government could pass laws affecting bus lines or trucking companies for example in a province that would make it impossible for them to successfully compete with the railroads. There is nothing to prevent that.
Then, there are alarming considerations in clause 10 of section 92, the only one which gives the province its powers. Let me read clause 10 of section 92.
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:
(a)	Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other-
That would include bus lines.
.-or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province:
(b)	Lines of steam ships between the province and any British or foreign country;
(c)	Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
What would happen to the Alberta oil industry which has been built up with such care and tremendous expenditure on the part of the provincial government, if the federal government-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Now, I am speaking as an Albertan who knows. You just do not know "shucks" about Alberta. All you know is enough to make silly giggles.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I must remind the hon. member that he has exhausted his time and will need the unanimous consent of the house to continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Some hon. Members? Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not believe I have exhausted my time, but if you say I have, Mr. Speaker, it is all right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I am
informed by the Clerk that the hon. member's time has expired. Unless he has the unanimous consent of the house, he cannot continue.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: I have just this to say, that even under the British North America Act and clause 10 of section 92, which gives the provinces their rights, the dominion government is now empowered to exercise an overriding control in property or civil matters in any province in Canada. I believe that can refer to any kind of property you wish to name. When you consider the impact of dominion financial measures involving the dominion's power over interest, loans and banks, and when you consider the power of the dominion in respect of tariffs, you realize that any industry in any province could be utterly destroyed by measures passed here by this federal government.
If we now give that same federal government more power, what can you expect? I urge, Mr. Speaker, that all people throughout Canada, high and low, give this matter the most careful consideration and bring whatever influence they can to bear upon the Prime Minister and the government to defer this matter for at least three or four months while we think it over.


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: It is
not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to deal with this matter at any length because I woulc be compelled to go over many of the arguments advanced by other hon. members. ] would have to refer also to the great leader; of the past which has been done by previou; speakers. I rise at this moment, Mr. Speaker to register the opinion of a layman from tht cradle of confederation, my province o: Prince Edward Island, on this motion.
The question before the house is a motioi by the right hon. the Prime Minister request ing an humble address to His Majesty thi King for an amendment to the British Nortl America Act of 1867. After listening to th debate, one would be forced to conclude tha that is not all. I have listened to and real a great many of the speeches that have bee; made in the house on this constitutiona question. Some of the speakers are th ablest lawyers in Canada, but some extremel; good addresses have been made by laymer I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if an unbiase vote were taken on the arguments that hav been brought forth on this motion, the motio

would be defeated and the arguments dispersed to the four winds of oblivion. However, I do not believe it is possible to have an unbiased, nonpartisan vote.
In all the speeches that have been made in favour of this motion, I have attempted to find one democratic reason for the haste in bringing this matter forward at this session. The haste may be caused by the desire to fulfil some underground promises made during the last election. If no promises were made, then some undertaking must have been given to some of the people in this country that, if elected, there would be a complete severance of our ties with the British commonwealth of nations. Anyone is free to draw his own conclusions. After listening to the debate on this question, I have every reason for drawing my own deductions.
The motion before the house, then, concerns the securing of authority to change our constitution or, as the member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) has said, practically throwing away the British North America Act. When one considers this in conjunction with other legislation, namely the abolition of the right of appeal to the privy council, one asks the question, Why? It is simply because this government, or at least some of the members of it, have outgrown their British commonwealth pants and now wish to strut around with their thumbs in their vests, declaring to this country that we are old enough and big enough to carry on our own business. Perhaps that may be true. They have a perfect right to those thoughts. But beneath it all there is one determination and there is a submerged and real danger in it for the provinces of Canada.
The present Liberal government have been returned to power with a large majority. They have a mandate from the people; this large majority gives them that mandate. I hope that it has not awakened in their minds the unholy desire for centralized power and control at Ottawa to the detriment of the provinces, both from a political point of view and otherwise. I also hope that this determination to scrap the last vestige of a tie with the mother country will not result in the passing or the endeavour to pass this motion.
Each of us must think in terms of his own province and what it would mean. The Liberal party at the present time appear to have made up their minds to get a still stronger stranglehold on the provinces and on the affairs of each individual, as it were, so they can dictate provincially, without the possibility of a come-back from any of the provinces; because they do not intend at the present time to ask their advice with regard to changes that are to be made.
45781-76J
British North America Act
As I see it, the picture is this. We seem to be heading straight for a soviet Canada; it looks as if we want to sovietize Canada. It is not far off if we continue to bring in legislation of this kind, whereby an election need only be held at the will of the government in power which can practically control things and tell people how, when, and why they should vote. All this can be looked upon as probable, having regard to the undue haste to get this legislation through. It is not what they are really wanting at the present time. It is only that they must have power, more power and still more power, control, and centralization of everything at Ottawa.
Canada has already obtained its independence. This fact is recognized by everybody. But with this independence, is it Canada's desire to break off all connections with the British commonwealth of nations? I do not believe that the citizens of this country have that desire. There is, however, something else we should consider in connection with this matter. We must look to the future. Canada occupies a unique position, being the connecting link with Britain and with western Europe and, through Britain and western Europe, with the United States. That position must be preserved. While we may have the right to sever the link, why do it at the present time? I would ask the Prime Minister that question.
Through the administration of justice lies the hope for the future. Justice is our common bond with all nations. Prince Edward Island, the cradle of confederation, did not join the union in 1867 or, as it is sometimes called, the pact or agreement; but it matters not what you call it. There was a three-cornered pact anyhow between the provinces, the dominion as it was formed, and the mother country. We did not join in 1867 because the terms offered to us were not considered to be satisfactory. However, we could not be coerced to join because the power to deal with the matter was left to the legislature of our own province. But in 1873, after being wooed by the other provinces, and after better terms were granted, our province entered the union. When we entered it, our province knew that they would have the protection of the terms of the British North America Act in case of non-fulfilment in a large degree of the terms under which they entered confederation. Now all this will be done away with if this motion passes and if the ideas in passing it are carried into effect.
On Monday last we all listened to an address given in this chamber by the Prime Minister of India. Let us take a lesson from India. I think the example set by India ought

British* North America Act not to be overlooked. India was granted complete independence a little over a year ago and is now what might be termed a republic. Yet the right of appeal to the privy council would seem not to be done away with. If this is so, is it not a tribute to the value of the relationship that still exists?
I know that if the celebrated lawyers in this house would look up their weekly notes for the month of August, they would find a summary of an important case that India appealed to the British commonwealth of nations.
The passing of this motion in an arbitrary way, without the consent of the legislatures of the ten provinces, opens the door to the removal of many of the rights of minorities which the British North America Act seeks to guard.
At the present time Britain is experiencing hard going. This hard going is the result of her stand in the last war. She is fighting for her very existence today. A move at this time to further separate this country from Britain will no doubt be interpreted as a break in the solidarity of the British commonwealth, which will no doubt give pleasure to some places and to some individuals.
This is so great a departure from our present system that the whole question should be given a great deal of study, and time should be given for consideration. The question is not one on which all people can make a hasty decision such as we are asked to make at this time.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make any extended remarks. In closing I just wish to say through you, sir, to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that the motion will carry, as he knows, because of the rubber-stamp voting power; but with the weight of argument clearly shown by former speakers in this house and the precedents established by Canada's builders of the past and the agreement of the three parties to the contract this motion should be delayed in order that all parties to our confederation may have a voice in the matter. Then when you decide to put this motion before all parties to the contract you will know that democracy will reconfederate Canada.
Again, should this motion be adopted, giving the government the power to amend its own constitution, without consulting the provinces, one hates to anticipate what the future may evolve. I should like to suggest that should this motion carry the opposition should bring in a minority report in the form of an address to His Majesty the King so that the rights of the provinces of Canada will be given back to them and not destroyed.
[Mr. McLure.l


Hon. Edouard Rinfrel (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in approaching this subject, and in discussing it in the house, some hon. members have put on 1949 glasses when they should look at the constitution through 1867 glasses, and that hon. members are approaching this subject with what they would hope to see in the constitution rather than what is actually in it.
The other day the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) cited some of the remarks I made in a speech in Montreal. From them he gathered that there was a division in the cabinet on this matter, and that the government should proceed cautiously. From my remarks I think hon. members will see that there is no division in the cabinet on the matter. The hon. member for Broadview was referring to a speech that I made in Montreal. Curiously enough the words that he attributes to me were cited from an English newspaper of Montreal and were placed in quotation marks. On that occasion I had no written speech. I had only notes, and the remarks I gave were in French, so I do not see how people could quote me the way they did. In this speech I am reported as having said that Mr. Duplessis is fond of grandiloquent speeches. I do not remember using those exact words, but if I did not I should have.
In that speech reference was made to another speech that had been made by the premier of Quebec in which he recalled to memory what the St. Eustache patriots did in 1837 to obtain a responsible government; also another event of 1841. What I said on that occasion in reference to the patriots of 1837 was that they did fight for the recognition of responsible government, and they also asked the right, the sacred right as a matter of fact, to choose their own representatives. I added to that and said that on June 27 the people of all Canada did the same thing as the patriots of 1837, and chose the representatives they wanted to represent them in the federal house for the next four years. I said further that the people from the various provinces, and particularly from the province of Quebec, having elected Liberal members to represent them, one would not expect that these same members would be treated as strangers when they go back to their own province as we have been by the premier of Quebec.
In that same speech Mr. Duplessis said that in 1867 representatives of the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia got together to discuss the constitutional problems.
What I said was that there was no province of Quebec at that time and there was no province of Ontario. There was only one

province of Canada, and the provinces had been created by the Constitutional Act. On that occasion I cited a friend of Mr. Duplessis, Sir Thomas Chapais, who had this to say on the constitution of the provinces.
(Translation):
I quote from Thomas Chapais' "Cours d'histoire du Canada", volume 8, page 213:
. . . especially that part of confederation which affects more particularly the French-Canadian group. We owe them (the fathers of confederation) a debt of gratitude for creating-in the welter of conflicting interests and the intricacies of constitutional problems-a little homeland, the province of Quebec, so dear to us, to which they have given such vitality. Indeed, as far as what was known as Lower Canada, their main achievement is the establishment of a provincial state, of a legislature that is truly ours, where we are the guardians of our closest interests. We have thus been able to achieve an end which the French-Canadian group had struggled to attain, for a whole century, amidst innumerable perils and dangers.
Taking Sir Thomas Chapais as authority, I showed that neither the province of Quebec as such, nor the province of Ontario as such existed in 1867, and that it was only through the enactment of the British North America Act that they came into being.
(Text):
Mr. Duplessis went on to say that the provinces retained to themselves the full authority to deal with matters pertaining to the protection of their rights and privileges. As a matter of fact, as I have just said, the provinces did not exist at that time; therefore they could not have agreed, and they could not have given or retained any powers whatsoever. Mr. Duplessis said: "It was a compact." He went a little further than that. He said: "It was a notarial act." On that occasion I said: "If it was a notarial act he should produce it." As to the matter of a compact or a contract I shall come back to that in a moment. Mr. Duplessis said: "It was a compact that could not be changed without the full consent of the parties concerned." I shall also deal with that a little later.
The premier expressed fear that changes in the constitution, as advocated by the Liberals at Ottawa, might reduce provincial autonomy. I have emphasized the point, and I do so again, that in the motion before the house there is not one iota of a change in so far as rights and privileges of provinces or of minorities or of religion or what-have-you are concerned. We are endeavouring only to find a procedure whereby in Canada we shall be able to do what is done at the present time in London. We have no intention of changing by one iota the rights that are contained in the constitution at the present time. We wish
27, 1949
British North America Act only to add to the constitution machinery of procedure whereby, if at some time in the future there is any necessity to amend the British North America Act, it will be found there instead of being absent from the text.
This brings me to the other remark made by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). I am supposed to have said that "This-extending the French language to all Canada-will be done when the constitution is amended", the reference being to section 133. I did not say anything about amending section 133. I drew the attention of the population of Quebec to the fact that section 133 protected the French language in the federal government at Ottawa, in the federal courts and in the province of Quebec. There is no guarantee under section 133 for the use of the French language elsewhere than in Quebec and Ottawa. I said that it could not be claimed that Canada is a bilingual country. I said also that I would fight in the future- not at this time, because no change is contemplated in section 133-to have Canada known as a bilingual country and to have section 133 amended if necessary so that the French and English languages would be official throughout Canada.
Then a word with regard to the extension of social security benefits, which was referred to also by the hon. member for Broadview. All I said was that I did not recognize the right of the premier of Quebec to use the allowances paid by the federal government to the children of Quebec to buy schoolbooks which up to then had been furnished gratuitously by a Liberal government.
We have to go back to 1837, 1840, 1864 and 1867 to find out what the real spirit of the constitution was. Mr. Duplessis said: (Translation):
We need a strong confederation based on the spirit that inspired the confederation pact.
(Text):
I was asking what spirit had guided the fathers of confederation when they adopted their resolutions. Mr. Duplessis said that the fathers of confederation would never have consented to the subordination of the French Canadian people under a law which could be changed at any time. I am not attempting to say today what might have happened at that time if those people had had such a thought. I can only point out what in reality they have put it in the agreement and in the law. Mr. Duplessis said that it would be impossible for them to survive if the legislature disappeared. There is no intention to have the legislature disappear. On the contrary, we are seeking to create a procedure, or to have the provinces agree as to what procedure should be followed in connection with questions that concern them. That is the whole question.

British North America Act
What is the spirit and letter of the British North America Act? The preamble of the act is quite illuminating. It reads:
Whereas the provinces of Canada-
It does not read "the provinces of Quebec and Ontario"; it reads "the provinces of Canada". As Mr. Duplessis said, the Union Act of 1840 united the two provinces into one province. The preamble continues:
-Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one dominion-
I draw the attention of the house to the difference between the French and English versions of that preamble, because this is probably what has brought about the idea of a contract. The French text reads, at least as I find it in Chapais' book: (Translation):
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to enter into a contract for the purpose of forming a federal union which would unite them into one dominion.
(Text):
The English text says that there is a desire to be federally united into one dominion. After the fathers of confederation had expressed their desire the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, granted their request or, at least, the greater part of it. As I said the other day, it is just like a group of students who desired to have a holiday but which could not be enjoyed until the principal of the school said it was all right.
The constitution is divided into a number of sections. The preliminary sections are Nos. 1 to 8. The executive power of the federal government is covered by sections 9 to 16. The legislative power of the dominion is covered by sections 17 to 57. The provincial executive power is covered by sections 58 to 90. The distribution of the legislative powers as between the federal and provincial governments is dealt with in sections 91 to 95. The judicature is dealt with in sections 96 to 101. Then there are sections dealing with revenues and other miscellaneous matters. Those constitute the letter of the constitution.
In 1864 there were two divergent views about what the constitution of Canada should be. It was argued by some that there should be a legislative union, but that argument was put aside because it was felt that a country like Canada with different languages, different religions and different races could not be governed by the one government.
Others wanted omnipotent provincial legislatures, but that was also put aside. The fathers of confederation adopted a middle

course and decided on a federal union with federal and provincial governments. What was the spirit that inspired them at that time? Section 90 reads:
The following provisions of this act respecting the parliament of Canada, namely,-
I drop down a few lines:
-the disallowance of acts-
And again:
-shall extend and apply to the legislatures of the several provinces as if those provisions were here re-enacted and made applicable in terms to the respective provinces and the legislatures thereof, with the substitution of the lieutenant governor of the province for the Governor Generalet cetera. It would appear that in 1867 the fathers of confederation gave to the federal government the power of disallowance of all acts passed by the provinces. The fathers of confederation gave to the federal government a supervisory power over what was to be done by the provinces. That is incorporated in the act of 1867 and has not been changed. It shows what was the intention in the minds of the fathers of confederation. Section 91, as everybody knows, has to do with federal powers. It 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-
Therefore the residuary power is given by the fathers of confederation to the federal government. Section 91 goes on to say:
-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 . . .
A list of subjects follows. The third one is the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation. I emphasize the words, "by any mode or system of taxation". On the other hand, section 92 reads:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say-
And No. 2 reads:
Direct taxation within the province in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes.
There is some sort of overlapping power as far as direct taxation is concerned. There is no doubt in my mind that both the federal and the provincial governments have the right to tax directly. At this point I should like to cite the case of John Deere Plow v. Wharton as follows:
The form in which provisions in terms overlapping each other have been placed side by side, shews that those who passed the Confederation Act

intended to leave the working out and interpretation of these provisions to practice and to judicial decision.
That is a decision of the privy council. Proceeding with the discussion of the various powers, and having in mind what was said by the members of the privy council in the case of John Deere Plow v. Wharton, I wish to draw the attention of the house to section 96, which reads:
The governor general shall appoint the judges of the superior, district, and county courts in each province, . . .
There again the fathers of confederation decided in 1864 that the judges of all superior courts, all district courts and all county courts should be appointed by the federal government and not by the provinces. Therefore they gave the right to the federal authority to appoint those judges.
When it is pointed out that, according to the decision of the privy council, any interpretation which is not clear should be submitted to the courts, we are faced with the objection that it is advantageous for the federal government to do that because it appoints all the judges. The federal government appoints all the judges because it was sc decided by the fathers of confederation in 1867. When the argument is advanced that we should have federal judges on one side and provincial judges on the other side to decide on some point of the constitution, I say that is impossible. I say there are no such things as federal judges or provincial judges. There is no such thing as a judge with a federal mentality or a judge with a provincial mentality, and if there is any such person should not be allowed to preside in a constitutional case because he has prejudged the case, and that should not be done.
Section 101 reads:
The parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this act, from time to time, provide for the constitution, maintenance and organization of a general court of appeal for Canada . . .
That is what we have done with our supreme court. I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that, whereas in all cases of civil jurisdiction, according to article 92 the power to create civil courts has been given to the provinces, with the judges to be appointed by the federal government, in the case of the Supreme Court of Canada, the general court of appeal for Canada, the maintenance, creation and organization of the courts and the nomination of judges are matters given to the federal authority. I say again this power is according to the spirit of the fathers of confederation when they wrote the constitution.
The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) pointed out another instance which shows what the spirit of the fathers
British North America Act of confederation was. According to section 92, paragraph 10, of the British North America Act, it is sufficient for the parliament of Canada to declare that something is for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces for that matter to fall under federal jurisdiction. That again shows that the fathers of confederation wanted it to be that way. Otherwise they would not have written it the way they did.
Another clause which shows exactly the same trend in their minds is section 118 which reads:
The following sums shall be paid yearly by Canada to the several provinces for the support of their governments and legislatures . . .
According to section 118, the federal government has to pay the provinces for the support of their governments and legislatures the amounts therein enumerated. The provinces were not satisfied with the amounts set out in section 118, and on four or five occasions they asked that they be increased. There again I say that the purpose and spirit of the fathers of confederation is in the act at the present time, and has been there since 1867.
As to amendments, the fathers of confederation after making the various provisions they have made, and that I indicated a moment ago, provided for the amendment of the provincial constitution by the provinces themselves. Therefore they gave some thought at the time to the question of amendments. They did not, however, incorporate in the constitution any provisions as to what was to be the procedure to be followed in the case of amendments. We therefore have to go back to the general law that the authority which is empowered to pass a law also has the power to amend it; and I will go even further than that and say, to put it completely aside. Therefore we have to go back to the imperial parliament in London in order to bring about any amendment to the act. It has been argued that the provinces should be consulted. There again I go back to 1867, 1869 and 1870, and I look at what the fathers of confederation have done. Taking the first two amendments, one of them, if I am not mistaken, dealt with the increase of the subsidies to be paid to the provinces, a purely provincial matter. The fathers of confederation did not go to the provinces to ask for their consent. In the first two amendments the fathers of confederation did not even come before parliament to ask for assent. They acted on their own, as a government. Are we going to accuse the fathers of confederation of having acted contrary to the ideas they had themselves expressed in the constitution, because in 1869 or 1871 they did not seek the consent of the provinces?

British North America Act Are we going to accuse them of attempting to destroy the work they had done in previous years? Why therefore should we be accused today when we do exactly what the fathers of confederation did at that time? Why are we faced with an accusation of that kind, when the fathers of confederation at no time consulted the provinces in regard to any amendment?
Some of the amendments made in later years were opposed by the provinces. Now let us transpose ourselves to London, where the authority for amendment rests. It is the British parliament which has had to decide up to the present how amendments were to be effected. They have decided who had authority to suggest any amendment. One after the other they, have accepted the amendments which have been forwarded after receiving the approval of both houses of this parliament; and they have consistently refused to even consider any amendments suggested by the provincial legislatures. In three or four instances, one concerning British Columbia, two concerning Quebec and I think one having to do with Prince Edward Island, after resolutions were forwarded from this parliament representations were made by the provinces asking that the amendments should not be passed. The imperial government refused to consider those objections, and adopted the resolutions exactly as they had been suggested by this parliament.
What happened in 1943, when there was an amendment of the act which I think had to do with redistribution? On July 22 of that year Mr. Price, speaking in the parliament at Westminster, said:
I entirely endorse what the hon. gentleman has just said, that we ought not to discuss the matter, but I think we ought to ask why a sovereign parliament in one of our great dominions has to be before us at all. I really think it is an anomaly, and, though it may not be possible to get rid of it at this moment, I hope my right hon. friend may be able to give us an assurance that at some future date, as early as possible, it will be got rid of.
Then on July 26, 1943, Mr. Anthony Eden had this to say:
I think it is quite clear to the house that this bill deals with a matter which is entirely within the discretion and judgment of the Canadian legislature. In a sense, therefore, this is a purely formal bill.
Then I come to Mr. Beverley Baxter, for whom I know some of my hon. friends on the other side have great respect. He had this to say:
It should be possible to pass a resolution in both houses here and in Canada that in future any alteration or amendment to the British North America Act should be done solely by the Canadian parliament, that the Canadian parliament should itself make any alteration in the Canadian constitution,

and that this house should forgo forever any further passing of any act or measure affecting any of the dominions.
So I say that as the act stands now, with the meaning that has been given to it by the fathers of confederation, the right to amend the whole constitution rests with London, except in relation to provincial constitutions. As someone has said already, we wish to repatriate the right of amendment; but at the present time we desire to do it only with respect to that portion of the constitution dealing with the federal field. We want the provinces to get together with us, not to examine the rights and privileges of anybody, not to make a new delimitation of the powers or privileges of the federal or provincial governments, but to devise a new procedure. We want to get together and agree if possible on some procedure we can incorporate in our constitution, for our Canadian purposes, so that at some future time we may not have to ask ourselves whether or not it is necessary to get the consent of the provinces to amend our constitution. We want to know what the procedure will be for the future, and we want to discuss it with the provinces on friendly terms. We will agree to give the provinces necessary guarantees, if they want them, in regard to language, religion and education.
So I fail to see how the provinces, or the minorities in the provinces, will be protected any the less by what we are doing than if we did not do it at all. We want an agreement to protect the rights of those minorities. Is the premier of Quebec going to refuse to meet with us and discuss what further security or what other guarantees we can give with respect to provincial rights concerning education, language and religion?


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: The proposed address concerning the amendment of the constitution appears at page 828 of Hansard, but since it is rather lengthy I shall not take time to read it. However, I wish to offer some comment with respect particularly to education and taxation, and to indicate my disapproval of the procedure that has been suggested by the government. In discussing this proposal the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) referred to a statement he made last May:
A method should be worked out to amend our own constitution. It is our intention after the election to consult the provinces as to the method by which amendments to our constitution shall be made.
This government received a mandate to proceed with the question of amending the constitution, but only after consulting the provinces. With that I may be in some measure of agreement. The principle was

approved at a conference in December, 1935, and I should like to bring this to the attention of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. That conference adopted a resolution moved by Hon. L. A. Taschereau, K.C., the then premier and attorney general of the province of Quebec, which emphasized that a method for amending the constitution should be devised by representatives of the dominion and provincial governments before any steps were taken in that direction. According to correspondence between the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers, at least six of the premiers, a majority, disagreed to some extent with the procedure proposed by the government. In the closing part of his letter, the premier of Alberta stated:
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 is very important. It is the keynote of the greater part of the correspondence from the various premiers.
I should like to refer particularly, however, to the letter from Premier Campbell of Manitoba, since he is the premier of my native province. This letter is found at page 875 of Hansard and is dated October 6, 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 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.
British North America Act 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
I believe that clearly sets forth the position of the premier of Manitoba, and the same principle is embodied in the letters from the premiers of the other provinces.
Added to that, the premier made a detailed speech which he delivered in the Manitoba legislature on March 24, 194&, in which he said this was his first full speech on the subject of dominion-provincial relations since occupying his present position. He also says he will deal with the benefits which Manitoba secures from the present agreement between Ottawa and Manitoba as well as criticisms of the agreement. I quote from his speech:
During the depression period of the 1930's, several of the provinces of Canada found it to be impossible to provide for their people.
Further down on this same page, he says:
This situation existed throughout that entire period despite the fact that the government of Manitoba had imposed a level of taxation which was higher than that imposed by any other government in Canada, and despite the fact that the services provided to Manitoba people were at a level much lower than that which would be considered satisfactory under modern conditions.
I turn now to page 8 of the premier's detailed speech.
-it is significant to point out that the two plans which were submitted to the dominion-provincial conference by the province of Ontario recognized this principle explicitly by providing that payments should be made to the provinces in accordance with need.
I believe that is a rather significant statement to be embodied in the speech of the present premier of the province of Manitoba. On page 11 of his speech he states:
The government-
That is the government of Manitoba.
-definitely agrees that a conference should be held as soon as practicable, but, to our mind, the timing of the conference is fundamental, and we are consequently of the view that it should be called immediately after the next dominion election. I am, therefore, prepared to state to the house now that this government will take the initiative in asking that a conference be called as quickly as possible after the dominion election.
In the last paragraph, he says:
-it advocates a procedure for obtaining a still better tax agreement.
1200	HOUSE OF
British North America Act
The premier of Manitoba has been fairly consistent, according to this detailed speech delivered in the Manitoba legislature on March 24, 1949.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Did we not hold an election on June 27?


James Arthur Ross: That speech is in keeping with the letter he wrote in reply to the letter received from the Prime Minister of Canada.
Speaking of education in the province of Manitoba, it may be realized that approximately seventy-five per cent of the entire cost of education in that province is borne by taxation on real estate. I have been greatly concerned about that matter ever since I was associated with municipal affairs, and have continued to be concerned about it since coming to Ottawa. Under such a system, equality of education is not possible for the youth of this land. Year after year the policy of assessing land which brought in no revenue, and endeavouring to collect taxes from that land, has been followed.


Mr. Hunter:: Speak to the motion.


James Arthur Ross: Was the hon. member referring to me?


John William Gordon Hunter: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: I suppose the hon. member is not a bit concerned about education in Canada.


John William Gordon Hunter: I am concerned about the question before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Arthur Ross: I presume I am quite in order, Mr. Speaker, because this motion distinctly deals with matters between the dominion and provinces; and the municipalities, who are to large degree responsible for education, have no recourse other than through their provincial government.
I am going to give you one concrete example. A school board in Manitoba increased its budget for 1948 by fifty per cent over 1947. That increase of fifty per cent in that budget actually meant an increase of seventy-five per cent on the farm land and other real estate within that consolidated-school area. I suppose that concrete example could be repeated in many places. Not only that, but in that same school area a number of farmers, living along the river bank, on land which was among the highest in assessment, lost three entire crops as a result of floods. One can imagine the position in which it put those people.
Owing to the fact that seventy-five per cent of the cost of education in that province must be borne by real estate it is absolutely


impossible, as I have said, to have equality of education, especially when you compare that with the other provinces. I profess to know something about what has happened in Ontario in the past years. I will repeat what I have said in this house and on the hustings. I know the statement has been disputed on the hustings by people in high office; but, since some of those people are here today, they can deny it if they will. When the leader of the opposition was premier of Ontario and minister of education, the grants to school districts were greatly increased. In some of the more difficult areas these grants were increased to as much as ninety per cent. Imagine what a municipality could do for other services when it was relieved of that proportion of the cost of education? I make that comparison because I think that is something towards which we should be striving.
To me it has been an exceedingly important matter. Last fall at the municipal convention in Manitoba Mr. Morton, the municipal commissioner, pointed out the financial difficulties that many municipalities were getting themselves into. In his speech to that great convention he stated that they were then the sum of $3 million poorer in realizable assets than they were in the year 1945, and that for the immediate past year they had an operating cash deficit of many hundreds of thousands of dollars. That situation has a distinct bearing on the type of education that these people can provide for the youth of the land who happen to live within that province, and I think it is a most important matter.
Then I want to make some reference to an organization known as the Manitoba teachers' federation. Their brief has been endorsed by what is to me the greatest and the most influential organization in Canada, namely, the Canadian Legion. Nobody will dispute what that great organization did throughout the war years in assisting the government of the day in various aspects of the problems which they had before them. First of all, this federation points out:
... a new definition of education which involves the all-round development of the child and an emphasis on citizenship, make the educational perspective of 1867 and a narrow interpretation of the provisions laid down in respect to education in the B.N.A. Act untenable today.
I agree wholeheartedly with that statement and with many others in their presentation. They say:
Migration of population within our country, accelerated immigration as witnessed in the past two years, and an apparent inability on the part of provincial authorities to meet the demands of the situation, accentuate the need for the federal government to study the problem in the interests of the nation as a whole.

They go on to state:
We are faced with a national problem. To the degree that the education of Canadian boys and girls is deficient or insufficient, we reduce the prosperity of our nation and increase the vulnerability of our national security.
Further on they state:
Federal aid for education is a need bom of a shift in taxation. Meeting this need may involve fiscal control-safeguards in the spending of funds from the federal treasury-but not policy control.
They make the point extremely clear that while they must have federal aid in the matter of funds, the policy should remain with the various provinces. They state:
In any plan of federal assistance it would be understood and agreed that the expenditure of funds by the government of Canada would in no way be deemed to confer upon any minister or official of the government of Canada any right of supervision or control over any school or educational institution with respect to which any federal government funds are expended.
Their officials state:
Why should we not match the family allowances with grants to the provinces on a per pupil capita basis earmarked for education and conditional upon the province not reducing its budget for education?
I have pointed out that this suggestion had been endorsed by the Canadian Legion. They had asked for federal grants for education. I am sure nobody will dispute the standing of the Canadian Legion in this great nation of ours.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Do not bring it into politics now.


James Arthur Ross: I am not bringing it into politics. I am trying to keep this discussion on a non-political basis. I am pointing out what a controversial subject this could be as between the provinces and the dominion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And you are directly opposing the opinion of your leader.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) is a good friend of mine and he is an able man. He is capable of making his own speech on this matter, and I am sure he can do it justice.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I hope I do better than you are doing.


James Arthur Ross: I have stated, Mr. Speaker, that I am wholeheartedly in favour of federal aid for education. I have pointed out the great difficulties that now exist, from the financial point of view, in the various provinces throughout this country and the effect this fact has upon the municipalities within those provinces. My sympathy is not only with the municipal corporations in the province of Manitoba but with many municipal corporations in other provinces of Canada. Those people who find themselves in 45781-77J
British North America Act office and responsible for the administration of municipal affairs are finding the position difficult today not only with respect to education but with respect to many other matters; and in due course the provinces find it difficult to adjust matters with them as they should be adjusted. The only recourse is a conference between the various provincial governments and the dominion government.
In debate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stated:
Whether or not the granting of financial assistance by the federal government to the various provinces could be arranged in such a manner as to avoid exercising any direct or indirect control over the field of education, which is essentially within provincial jurisdiction, is a question offering greater possibilities of controversy.
I am sure we all fully realize that situation. I want to emphasize that statement made by the Prime Minister in order that those people who are seeking this assistance may realize some of the difficulties which lie ahead of them.
I am inclined to agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) this afternoon, when he pointed out that this procedure for the amendment of our constitution should be the concern of every community organization within every province throughout the Dominion of Canada. I think that the various provincial governments, whose premiers have spoken as they have, should have the wholehearted support of every chamber of commerce and of every other like organization throughout this nation. There is no reason in the world why this government could not let this matter stand in abeyance for a few mon.hs, as they have been asked to do by the majority of the premiers of the provinces of this country. No harm would come of it; on the contrary, I am sure that much good would accrue to the various municipal organizations as well as to the provinces, ultimately bringing about greater equality of education for the youth of this great nation which, by the way, is the greatest asset of any nation at this time. I shall be forced to vo e against this procedure, as it is now proposed, although I believe wholeheartedly in certain amendments to our constitution at this time.


Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to take part in this debate at this la e date; and even at this time I am buoyed up with the hope that the remarks I make may be a contribution to the general objective which we all have in mind. I intend, if I can, to strip of all complexities and so on the whole matter of difference between us, to try to find out just wherein we differ and how serious that difference may be. In doing so I shall not quote from anvone.

British North America Act
I see that you are becoming nervous, Mr. Speaker; you anticipate something. Shall I continue?


Mr. Speaker:: It is expected that the house will receive a message from the Senate.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am told the officials are waiting outside. I move the adjournment of the debate.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
An act to amend the Department of Justice Act.
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1950.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Garson.
Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose just before the dinner recess I had begun by saying that I had no intention of quoting anybody, be they great men or otherwise, but that I intended, in laymen's language, to try to find the exact difference between us as to this problem which, in my judgment, is a simple one, and can be put in words of one syllable. I said I had no intention of quoting great men. I hope I am not cynical, but in my judgment the word "great" has been used altogether too loosely.

There is no difficulty in being a so-called great man in an expanding economy or in an expanding geography as, for example, the occupation of the middle and western portions of the United States and Canada. In my time greatness has been exemplified by only three men. Two of them are dead. The direct representative of one of them honoured this chamber by his presence just the other day. The second one died in the achievement of that to which he had devoted his life, and in an endeavour in which he lost his life. The third one is still living. I trust that politics will not find in him the feet of clay which we find in most of these people to whom at one time or another we have attributed greatness. If I were asked to choose the man in the Dominion of Canada who most nearly deserves the right to that appellation I would have only one choice. He is not a statesman; he is not a soldier. I think the greatest man whom Canada has produced was that eminent doctor, Sir William Osier. I say that because we must judge people by their contribution to the world and to humanity, and for that quality of high courage in times of adversity. Therefore I think the men I have mentioned qualify.
I said to you, Mr. Speaker, that I would endeavour to find just where we differ. It is a fact that the trouble in which we now find ourselves arises because the fathers of confederation did not provide us in our constitution with a method of curing the ills which were inherent in it. People much more accustomed to research than I am, and more industrious than I am, tell me that the confederation debates are singularly silent on the subject. One can scarcely believe that was an accident. I do not think the fathers of confederation did not contemplate what would appear after the event as something of great simplicity, namely, a method of amendment. Therefore my conclusion is that perhaps with some deliberateness they omitted mention of the method of amendment in their reported debates, and thought that was one thing that they might just as well leave alone at the moment because they might get into the difficulties which are now apparent in the discussions of the problem which confronts us today.
Just what is our problem? No amendments to the constitution are contemplated at this time. In so far as I have heard or have read, no major changes are necessary. By that I mean division of authority and that kind of thing. A major amendment is necessary in connection with the very matter of amendment itself. Therefore we come down to a simple position of difference. Some of us say that it should not be done without consultation with those authorities who gave us

all of our authority. Whether that was by agreement, pact, treaty or something else, I do not care. From all the speeches to which I have listened I would say that we are very nearly unanimous in the opinion that the constitution of Canada, both dominion and provincial, should be amended by Canadians, and that we should not be put to the necessity of going through certain motions which in these modern days are nothing but motions; in other words, the elimination of the red tape, because that is all it is, in having this sort of thing done.
I am not going to criticize anyone. I am not going to say that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said one thing before the election and now does the other. I express no bad faith in any member who has spoken nor shall I, I hope, in any member who votes on this measure. Coming down to the crux of the problem, the nub-I like that word, and I am sure it is one that has been used quite often by the Prime Minister in practising his profession-we come down to one thing only. We all agree that Canadians should amend their own constitution. We are not agreed as to method. I know that the obvious reply to the things I am saying is that we have debated this matter for eighty-two years. All the major parties-I hope my friends to my left will forgive that expression-


Mr. Gillis:: Considering where it comes from we will.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am sorry, but I did not hear you; perhaps it is just as well. The two major parties, if again I may use that expression without offence, have put themselves on record more than once in favour of the broad principle. Here we are sitting in this House of Commons, some 260 odd-there may be the odd vacant chair, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot see them; from your point of view you may be able to see the odd vacant seat but I cannot see them at the moment-trying to do what? We admit that we are all in favour of the broad principle, and yet we are fighting over matters that in themselves are perhaps of little consequence, but in the sum they add up to what? They add up to one very simple thing; that is, should we consult the other interested parties now or should we move on our own now and consult them at a later date?
That is the only problem before this house at this time. I go back to where I was a moment ago. I realize that someone may say, "Well, if we have been at it for eighty-two years it is time we got some action". There is validity in that argument, but it is immediately answered by the suggestion I offer; that if we have been at it for eighty-two years, another six months is not going to
British North America Act hurt anybody, particularly when we know that immediately after the conclusion of this session the interested parties are going to meet and talk to one another. Then it may be said that because of certain things we have seen in the newspapers there is no object in calling such a conference. In my judgment that argument has no validity whatever. We all know that if we who differ carry on these controversies in the newspapers, as one is being carried on now, it does not help the situation when people get together in order to try to solve their difficulties. So the argument that there is no use doing this thing, having this conference, I discard immediately. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) is not here. I am sure he is better occupied in whatever he is doing than he would be in listening to me, but if he were here I am sure he would be the first to agree that in the history of labour relations, the history of conciliation, everyone starts out by saying, "This is rock bottom, beyond which I will not go". The fellow on the other side says exactly the same thing. But time works wonders, and in time they come together. You may introduce a conciliator or an arbitrator, but in time practically all matters are resolved to the general satisfaction of both sides, and business life goes on in the community. So I hope no one will say that just because A says this is a matter of life and death, and there he is going to stand, he necessarily means that. He is nothing more than a smart David Harum who thinks he is in a horse trade, and he is trying to convey the best possible impression to the audience before the trading really starts. In my judgment that is where we are today.
I had no intention of speaking on this matter this evening. I know everyone says that, Mr. Speaker, but in this case I mean it. I am not suggesting that I have a more exacting conscience than anyone else, but I speak in this simple way tonight after having given the matter my best thought and believing that it is my moral duty to say what I am saying, in an endeavour to preserve the idea of conciliation so that our Canadian way of life may not be subjected to jolts from which the country may suffer for a long time. Even in my time to call a man a compromiser was to insult him. Then we had the expression "the middle of the road", and we thought, "What a weakling. He will not stand by his principles, but goes down the middle of the road. He will compromise with anybody". Today to credit a man with the ability to compromise is to pay him a great compliment. That is one of the changes in the thinking of our people within the last few years. I

British North America Act agree most heartily that to call a man a compromiser is indeed not a reflection upon him but definitely a compliment.
So what is our position now? I have no intention of entering upon any legal discussion, but there is a point that has been bothering me. Once we have stepped into the field we are taking over in this bill, then whether or not we like it or whether or not we know it we are undertaking to define a statute which the privy council has been busy defining ever since 1867. It is so easy to say that we are dealing only with those matters which are not within the jurisdiction of the provinces. To me that means nothing. Perhaps that is an exaggeration, but to me it is not an exact phrase, nor is it an expression which can be accurately interpreted to this House of Commons. With the complexity of our life, business and governmental, new situations are bound to arise from time to time, so you can never put that line down on a piece of paper and say this is it. Someone may say, "Well, now we have the Supreme Court of Canada to determine that line, as in times gone by we have had the privy council." That is not enough. If by our legislation we say that the line goes here, I put it to any lawyer on the opposite side of this house: on what possible ground can the Supreme Court of Canada say the line does not go here? In the matters with which we are attempting to deal, this house is and at all times will be the highest court in the land, and the supreme court might very easily find itself incapable of rectifying something after the event.
Now, why consultation? I am not going to suggest any great scheme to the house. I am not going to say we should follow the United States system, under which two-thirds of the states must ratify any amendment. I have never been greatly interested in any amendment there with the exception of one, the amendment having to do with liquor, because I am always following amendments of that kind. You cannot put down any rule and say, "This is what we should do". That is the purpose of consultation.
Let us look at the matter from its worst aspect. I am not going to advocate anything which will give any province an advantage. Let us assume that, after this conference, the worst happens. The worst can only be that we are back where we are today. Nothing can put us back of that position. Whatever has been achieved up until now is finished business. If the conference is a complete failure, we do not lose anything but merely start from the position in which we are now. I make this statement: Anyone who says that we cannot gain something in the way of

unity or peace, is prejudging the participants in that conference in a way in which he has no right to judge them.
All of us here, certainly those of us in the legal business, have participated in arbitrations and conciliation boards. People sometimes think those boards arrive at some strange decisions. They see that two people go one way and one goes another way. They overlook the fact that in Canada many of these compromise decisions between two great factors in our industrial life are unanimous decisions. I believe the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) will agree with that. Even if two people go one way and one another, we have achieved something, because that is democracy functioning in a proper manner. Broadly speaking, the majority is entitled to rule.
I am not suggesting to a great-I have used the word "great" again and this time very respectfully-constitutional lawyer such as the Prime Minister that it is as simple as I have suggested. Even I, one of the police court variety of lawyers, know that you just cannot go to the ten provinces and say, "Vote, and we will abide by the decision of the majority." Many more considerations enter into the problem. If a meeting with the provinces is held, the worst that can happen is a disagreement. I still have enough faith in humanity and in the people who will be gathered together to believe that, although they may not complete the plan, they are bound to make some progress. At the very worst, Mr. Speaker, they will find their points of disagreement and put a circle around them, so we will all know what the position is.
Coming back to the problem we have to solve.-I am not speaking of rules or words or motions or amendments to the amendment which to me, sir, are the trivia in this whole matter-I am asking what we have to lose by consultation. Eighty-two years have gone, and if it happens to be eighty-two years and six months it will not hurt anybody. By the time you and I, sir, have achieved that age we will wonder why everyone wasted so much time talking about it. I believe there is something to be gained by such a conference. I ask the Prime Minister; if there is something to be gained, why go headlong into this business now when it is bound to make the situation worse? Some provinces will be able to say, "You did not consult us; you bulled your way through because you had the strength." I realize, sir, that is not parliamentary language, but I do think it expresses what will be in the minds of many people who are very keen about the matter of provincial rights.
Provincial rights, sir, were arranged at Quebec and Charlottetown. They came into

our act in 1867. The ordinary man in the street is not bothered much in his business by provincial rights and says, "Why should I be interested in that?" The point I make is this: what was done at that time made a federation. What we do now may improve federation. A failure to have that conference now may not destroy, but may injure the federation in this dominion of Canada which we all love so much.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The
house, I take it, is about to make its decision, and my remarks will have that fact in mind.
I have no extended remarks to make at this period of the debate.
The debate has been characterized thus far,
I think, by much learning, the product of much research in matters legal, constitutional and historical. I shall confine what I have to say at this stage of the debate to certain matters, and my remarks will not be characterized by the approach of a lawyer. In common with my colleague, the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), I am trying to think of this problem, not as a lawyer, but as a Canadian who wishes to see, above all else, harmony and unity prevail in Canada.
We have achieved complete unanimity in this debate, sir, in our desire to obtain within Canada the right to amend the constitution in whatever respect may be approved by the Canadian people. As the debate has proceeded, however, it seems to me that the different approaches to the question of the means and method have assumed a depth of cleavage which may be more apparent than real and which is, I think, to be deprecated. It is for that reason that in these few closing remarks I hope, if it lies within me, I may be able to make a conciliatory and reasonable contribution.
In the first place, there is an issue as to Canadian harmony presented by this address. We know quite well, sir, in view of the stated positions of the ten provincial premiers, that at least five of them have openly expressed disapproval of the government's proposed method of meeting the problem of finding a formula for the amendment of the constitution. What they are asking is very simple. They are asking that they be consulted. At the moment, it amounts to that. In the face of that reasonable position on the part of the provincial premiers, surely to press forward now and ignore that request is to invite disharmony and, perhaps, a major showdown in relations between the dominion and the provinces. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that ought to be avoided at any reasonable cost, especially when it appears that that could be accomplished so easily.
British North America Act
Why draw ourselves up now representing the federal authority in a sort of battle array? That is not going to achieve the desired formula for amending the constitution. If a conference is held, the people of Canada will have a full opportunity of judging as to the reasonableness of the position taken by those who participate in that conference representing the dominion and the provinces. The people will be the judges and this parliament,
I submit, will be in an infinitely better position after such a conference to proceed with its part in this enterprise of achieving within Canada the right to amend our own constitution.
The Prime Minister talks about achieving complete autonomy in respect of our relations with Great Britain. Surely these provinces have a right to express in a conference their concern, which honestly and sincerely exists, as to whether the result may not be an interference with their provincial autonomy within the spheres confided to them by the constitution. Why needlessly create national strife within the Canadian family? Surely the Canadian method is a better one than that. Surely the Canadian method is to sit down together as fellow Canadians and to talk over this issue which is of joint concern. That, sir, it seems to me is the issue in regard to national harmony.
The second issue is as to statements made by the Prime Minister preceding the general election. I am not going to labour this point because it has been referred to already. I simply take the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made on the radio on May 19, when he 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.
The Prime Minister, in the course of one interjection in this debate, has suggested that he had something additional in mind in making that statement, and that he was making an exception as to matters that he says are federal. But the fact of the matter is that he did not mention that reservation. He has referred to his mandate. Part of the mandate he has received certainly was based upon an acceptance, by at least certain portions of the electorate, of his statement that I have just quoted. I am quite sure that we who respect the Prime Minister are justified in urging upon him that he should not leave an undertaking of that kind unfulfilled; because certainly, Mr. Speaker, if words mean anything, those words mean that the provinces were to be consulted before the government addressed itself, after the election, to this question of amendment of the constitution. If there was

British North America Act a reservation in 1he mind of the Prime Minister, he did not state it; and the people of Canada, acting upon the statement that he did make, gave him a mandate in accordance with his statement, not in accordance with any reservations that were in his mind with respect to those matters that he calls federal matters.
The third issue, Mr. Speaker, is this. We who unanimously adopt the view that Canada should have within her own borders the right to amend her constitution must not be guilty of defeating that purpose; and I maintain that the procedure that the government is inviting the house to follow will defeat our purpose. Surely the purpose cannot be simply to segregate certain matters that the Prime Minister refers to as federal matters and say, if we do not go any further, at least that will be something worth while, when the very method that is being followed is one that is going to prejudice, if not doom, any attempt to bring about a comprehensive method of amending the whole constitution. It just means that, if there is not agreement at that dominion-provincial conference that is to follow this session, we shall still have to go to Westminster to obtain amendments with respect to a large area of our constitution.
If there is anything in the Prime Minister's argument-and I do not think there is anything in it-that the fact that it is necessary to go to Westminster is a relic of colonial days or days of our dependency, then what is being done here is to continue that very state of dependency. Surely the sensible objective here, Mr. Speaker, must be a comprehensive formula that will embrace all parts of the constitution; and nothing should be done at this date in seeking some lesser objective-and I am afraid in this respect in a shortsighted way-to prejudice our hope of fulfilling that larger national objective.
In this debate an answer has not yet been given from the government benches to the question why, when our constitution is an entity, an attempt should be made now to break it up or to divide it. We are not making any contribution in this measure to a definition of matters federal. A conference with the provinces would have some hope of bringing about a better definition in that field which in times past has been a field of conflict.
I wish to say one word about the amendments that are before the house. I am not going to spend much time on the position taken by the C.C.F. because we know that their policy all along has been in favour of centralization of more power here in Ottawa. But I point out here that the fact that the C.C.F. can introduce an amendment to the Prime Minister's resolution and that, after

further study, the Prime Minister can find it possible to accept the principle of the amendment, and then in his amendment to the amendment, propose to make some further changes, indicates quite clearly that this subject has not been considered as carefully as it ought to have been considered. There has been too much haste. We shall not achieve that completely adequate consideration in our approach to this important problem unless we do the obvious and reasonable thing, namely, allow this subject a place on the agenda that is to be laid before the dominion-provincial conference.
There is no safeguard in either the amendment of the C.C.F. or the Prime Minister's amendment to the amendment, because they simply leave the position as it is at the present time, on the Prime Minister's own argument, namely that at least in matters outside section 92 of the British North America Act, or those matters that relate peculiarly to the constitution of the provinces, it will continue to rest within the power of parliament-which means simply a majority of the two houses; a majority of one in this house and a majority of one in the other place-to bring about amendments at Westminster. It does not matter that you put up a two-thirds rule in this amendment, as the Prime Minister's amendment to the amendment proposes, because it will still rest, on his argument, within the power of parliament or of a simple majority thereof to ask Westminster to bring about another amendment to the constitution that can overnight wipe out the two-thirds rule that he is speaking of. The Prime Minister says that you have to leave it to the sense of responsibility of parliament not to do that. I cannot quite follow the Prime Minister in his reasoning. He is not prepared to leave there this question as to whether the life of parliament ought to be extended in view of a national emergency. He is not prepared to leave that simply to the good sense of the majority of the house. He wants to create a two-thirds rule there. At the same time he says that good sense will prevent the majority from going some other way. I cannot square these two positions that the Prime Minister takes. It seems to me that they are directly contradictory.
Sir, for the same reason, what is being done here in excepting from the scope of the proposed address matters pertaining to the rights of minorities and provincial rights with reference to education does not safeguard those rights. We need to put those rights on a solid basis of constitutional guarantee. On the Prime Minister's own argument, sir, we are simply leaving these rights

exposed to action on the part of the majority of the two houses of parliament. According to the Prime Minister's argument all Parliament has to do is to pass another address asking for a further amendment to the constitution at Westminster and it will be enacted there, because, he says, these matters such as section 133 assuring language rights are matters that lie within the competence of parliament to pass an address upon, on which Westminster without further question, without any consultation with the provinces, will amend the constitution in the form asked for by this parliament. Has not the time come when consultation should be had with the provinces seeking a comprehensive method of amending the constitution and placing those sacred rights, without which there never would have been confederation, beyond the power or beyond the reach of arbitrary action on the part of a majority in this house and a majority in the other place? The time has come, sir, when these rights should be given a further guarantee and consolidated in our constitutional fabric. In my submission, the argument of the Prime Minister has itself necessitated some further guarantee of those rights. It is not proper to leave them in the position in which the attitude taken by the government now leaves them.
Sir, can this problem not be approached on the part of all who bear governmental responsibility in Canada in the spirit of confederation, the spirit of the fathers of confederation, the spirit of give and take, of sitting down together, and freely exchanging views in the manner which characterized their deliberations? In those days had there been an attempt on one side to ride the high horse, to take the proud attitude, we would never have had confederation. Surely the great and imperative need of this time is for a renewal of the spirit of confederation. I say, Mr. Speaker, this is not the time to let our attention be diverted from questions of high import to the whole well-being of the Canadian economy by an attempt on the part of any to pursue local feuds with a particular province. Surely the subject before us is one of far too great importance to Canada.
I turn now, sir, to say just a few words in conclusion. I said I would try to be conciliatory and approach this question in a spirit of reasonableness. It is in that spirit that I do impose on the generous consideration of the house while I make these closing remarks.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I urge this house to consider the consequences which the passing of this resolution would involve. Every member
British North America Act who has spoken in this debate has stated that he advocates the right of Canada to amend the British North America Act, without having to go to Westminster for that purpose.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) proposes that we should ask the Westminster parliament to amend the constitution by conferring on the Canadian parliament the right to amend' Canada's constitution as regards matters to which he refers as federal matters without consultation with the provinces. He also contends that, after the passing of this amendment, the Canadian parliament will be able to amend the constitution as regards those same subjects without consulting the provinces. He adds that the provinces have no power with regard to those matters which he holds to be federal matters.
He maintains that it is possible, by this resolution, to divide constitutional subjects into matters that come under the jurisdiction of parliament and matters that are exclusively within the scope of the provincial legislatures.
The Progressive Conservative party claims that the government should first consult the provinces, that the British North America Act is not an ordinary statute which can be lightly amended, but legislation which it is not desirable should be amended by a simple majority of both houses-that is to say a majority of one in this house and a majority of one in the Senate-without prior consultation with the provinces.
The Prime Minister has announced his intention of conferring with the provinces in the near future. He has invited the provincial premiers to discuss with representatives of his government means of amending the constitution with regard to matters pertaining to both parliament and the provincial legislatures.
Yet, he refuses to consult the provinces with respect to this resolution before having it sanctioned by the Canadian parliament and before submitting it to Westminster.
As a Canadian, Mr. Speaker, I submit we, in Canada, must above all else seek harmony, understanding and agreement. We must strive to protect the rights of minorities and the rights we believe were guaranteed by the constitution. We must protect those minority rights today, and seek harmony, understanding and agreement. We must approach those subjects in a spirit of conciliation. I urge upon the Prime Minister to refrain from hurting the feelings of many Canadians and from thus creating disagreement and disunion in the Canadian family. Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the spirit of understanding of each and
1208	HOUSE OF
British North America Act everyone; I plead for a spirit of agreement; in short I plead, on the part of all, for the spirit of the fathers of confederation.
(Text) :


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a few minutes of the time of the house. It does seem to me that people. reading today's Hansard may be a bit surprised at what is happening in this House of Commons on this occasion. All but one of the speeches that have been given thus far today have been opposed to the motion and the amendments that are now before the house. While the arguments of those who are opposed to what is taking place have varied, in the main the contention has been that we should not take even this first step of getting the right to amend our constitution in respect of federal matters without consulting the provinces. I am fairly certain that if this debate concludes shortly and the votes are taken the subamendment and the amendment and the motion will all carry. I hope that those who read today's Hansard will not think that the arguments that have been put forward have not been considered by the rest of us. The fact of the matter is that those who are interested in this subject should read the record of the debates for the previous days in which this matter has been before us, last week in particular, and also Canadian history since 1867. It seems to me that that answers the negative argument put forward today.
The fact is, as has been said a number of times by those who favour this resolution, that out of the eleven times our constitution has been amended, eight of those amendments have dealt with matters exclusively federal and on every one of those eight occasions there was no consultation with the provinces. That was true whether it was being done by those who were close to confederation, by a parliament that included some of the fathers of confederation themselves, or whether it was done by parliaments made up of various parties down through the years.
In view of that established precedent I submit that if we were now to reverse it we would be bedevilling constitutional matters in this country for a long time to come. It has taken long enough to get to the point where we can discuss ways and means of amending our own constitution here in Canada, but if when we are seeking the power to amend our constitution with respect to federal matters we should do what has never been done before, go to the provinces to get that right, they would insist on telling us how to use that right every time we wanted to use it.


Despite all the pleas that have been made in terms of unity and harmony, despite all the plausible arguments that have been put forward, it seems to me that it is the responsibility of this parliament to pursue the course that has been proposed by the measure now before us. Offensive though it may be to my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party, I cannot help but feel that the pleas that have been made that we should go back to the provinces are designed to have the effect of creating disunity in this country at a time when what we want is unity with respect to this whole matter. For my part I deplore the sort of thing that has been going on.


Mr. Fraser:: The hon. member is entirely wrong on that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The appearances are very clear. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), like others who have spoken in this debate, threw the word "centralizers" at us in this group as though he thought it might hurt us. The fact of the matter is that it is those people who want to keep things on a completely provincial basis, it is those people who want ten separate labour codes instead of a national labour code, it is those people who want the kind of constitution that keeps taxation decentralized, it is those people who want a constitution which keeps us from having over-all national social security-those are the people who have made it possible for the big interests to centralize power in the centre of this country and exploit the Canadian people both in the have and in the have-not provinces.
If we are ever going to raise the living standard of our people, if we are ever going to have a country in which our people are Canadians from coast to coast, enjoying the rights and privileges that our people should enjoy, we shall have to get over this provincialism. We shall have to begin to think in broad Canadian terms, such as men like Mr. Cahan and Mr. Meighen-I quote them in particular because they are the high priests of my friends to my right-have tried to proclaim in this house and in the country in times past. I cannot deplore too strongly these speeches that have been made that have the appearance of creating unity but which in effect produce disunity. It seems to me that it is time we acted like grown-ups, like Canadians, and pursued the course that is proposed in the motion and in the amendments before the house at the present time.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Garson) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The question now is on the amendment as amended.

British North America Act


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker before the question is put I should like to make a short statement which will take only a minute or two. We are faced at this point with the necessity of making a difficult decision. In the first place we find ourselves opposed to the resolution moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) because we feel it is objectionable. At the same time the amendment as amended contains some desirable things. We are in favour of what is contained in the C.C.F. amendment as amended. We feel that it makes less objectionable something which we have felt to be objectionable.
Under the circumstances we feel that we should support the amendment, but on the understanding that our vote is for what is contained in the amendment, namely, entrenchment in our constitution of the things which ought to be entrenched. Our only criticism is that it does not go far enough; it does not go so far as to entrench other things like provincial rights that ought to be entrenched.
Under the circumstances, while we are going to vote for the amendment as amended we want it understood that in no way should that be interpreted to mean that we are supporting in any way the resolution as it will be amended by the amendment. There is just one other thing by way of explanation. The vote we give now will have to be interpreted as being confined to this one thing. While we would like to see the resolution defeated, we are practically certain that faced with the preponderance of Liberal support it will pass. That being the case, being practically certain that it will pass this house, our thought is that we might be able to make one stroke that will render it a little less objectionable.


Mr. Mitchell:: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). Had I voted, I would have voted, in the light

British North America Act of the observations of my hon. friends, with those whom history will regard as the sensible people here.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on the original motion as amended.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Three Rivers:
That the said proposed resolution be amended by striking out all the words after the first word "that" and substituting therefor:
"This house is of the opinion:
1.	That an humble address should be presented to His Majesty the King praying that His Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom providing for an amendment to the British North America Act, 1867, relating to the amendment of the constitution of Canada by the parliament of Canada.
2.	That as a condition precedent to the presentation of such address the scope and form of the amendment prayed for should be made the subject matter of a conference of the dominion and provincial governments and the subsequent approval of the parliament of Canada."


Arthur Leroy Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am objecting to the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) voting, as he was not in the chamber when the question was put. I base my objection on rule 67.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may rise on a point of order but it should be settled after the vote is taken. However, if the hon. member was not in the chamber when I read the resolution, he should not vote.


Mr. Jean Frangois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Before the count is announced, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 43 reads:
No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is not to introduce any new matter, and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation.

British North America Act
There are two other paragraphs, but that is the principal one. I draw your attention to the fact that the mover of the amendment spoke on the main motion on October 17, as recorded on page 847 of Hansard, and therefore his amendment should have been ruled out of order and no vote should have been taken. That is why I am not voting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I will take that into consideration later.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not speak on the main motion; I spoke on the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew).


James Arthur Ross: I was paired with the right hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment, and that goes for the last amendment too because I was interrupted.
After the taking of the vote:


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to refer first to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith). Citation 67 of Beauchesne's second edition reads:
If a member was not present in the house when the question was put by the Speaker, he cannot have his vote recorded.
I am glad the hon. member for Calgary West brought this matter to my attention because I did not see the hon. member come in after the question had been put. Hon. members will realize that it is difficult for the Speaker when he is reading a resolution to see what members come into the chamber after he starts to read the resolution. But I would point out this citation to all members and ask them to note that a member should be in the house and should hear the question read from the beginning. See Canadian Commons Hansard, 1891, page 4457. I did not give my ruling at the time because of citation 84 of Beauchesne, second edition, which reads:
The Speaker, when his attention has been called to a breach of order in the course of a division, has directed that the division should proceed, and has dealt with the matter when the division was completed.
May I refer now to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). If the hon. member had raised the point of order before the question had been put, I would have considered it, but as I had started to put the question I did not think I could then consider whether or not his point of order was properly raised. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has said that he did not speak on the original motion.
If he did not speak on the original motion, then the point of order was not properly raised.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put, there are several other aspects of this whole situation to which I should like to draw attention because in my judgment they require cautious and appraising attention. This afternoon I went into some detail in respect to certain of these aspects, but there are others I should like to deal with.
I should like to know, and I think the people generally in the country would like to know, why the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) delayed his letter to the provincial premiers until September 14. If the election had occurred on August 27 or even on July 27 there might have been good reason for the delay, but these letters went out on September 14, which was just about two weeks before the measure appeared in the Votes and Proceedings of this house. These letters were sent out during the holiday time when, as is well known, a large number of the provincial cabinet ministers would be absent. It was so late that it was impossible, except with great inconvenience, to call provincial caucuses together to discuss the matter. One would imagine that an address to the British parliament for permission to change the British North America Act was an everyday occurrence. As a matter of fact, I rather fancy, when history is written and appraised, it will be found that the proposed address is one of the most important measures ever put forward in the history of the Dominion of Canada. Possibly it will prove to be the most important, perhaps even more important than the British North America Act itself.
Under these circumstances how can one possibly justify the delay in the sending of the letter of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to the provinces? No answer has been given and no hint that would enable anyone to form a logical conclusion that might justify the action of the Prime Minister.
Here is another aspect of the matter. Why was the Prime Minister's letter of September 14 so absolutely full of inexplicit references and instances of faulty coherence that it would almost defy a commission of Philadelphia lawyers to state what the letter meant? I have not the time nor the opportunity tonight, and I do not believe it is in order, to analyse the letter the Prime Minister sent out, which was written in his office presumably by the best educated men in the Dominion of Canada. In that letter there are errors of coherence for which I believe any high school teacher would pluck a grade 12 student if he wrote an essay in that fashion on any grade 12 examination in Canada. I

British North America Act am prepared to take the letter and proceed with a complete analysis of it to show the truth of what I say, if that is desired. To say that the Prime Minister is not well enough trained in English to write a better letter is simply ridiculous. We are left entirely to the conclusion that he must have prepared the letter, full of inexplicit references and instances of faulty coherence as it is, and therefore with a lack of clarity of meaning, by design. If he did it by design then I must say that the matter is serious enough to occupy the house and the country for some days yet.
There is a third consideration. Why was the measure introduced as an address rather than as a resolution? Hon. members of the house who have been here before know quite well that any measure can be introduced as a resolution. If it is so introduced, hon. members have a chance to ask all manner of questions concerning the purpose of the resolution, the meaning of it and so forth, in committee, but inasmuch as the measure was introduced as an address we have not that opportunity and consequently cannot inform ourselves as people in the high court of parliament should inform themselves before forming a conclusion on a matter of such tremendous portent.
Again, why is the measure brought in now rather than in 1950? Various speakers in the opposition have raised that question time and again, but the Prime Minister has never condescended to attempt to give an answer. It is astonishing that we could not wait until 1950 to introduce the measure. It is a matter that requires careful study. I would say that any justice of the peace or small-town lawyer would take the first opportunity to raise that question. Surely hon. members of the house would be held responsible if they did not raise it. I contend there is no conceivably adequate reason for the speed and the promptness with which the measure has been introduced in the house.
Another consideration is that the requested amendment of the British North America Act presented to the house is not an amendment that even remotely resembles any other amendment ever asked for in Canadian history. All through the debate, Liberal and C.C.F. members have made much of the fact that other amendments have been sought in times past, and some eight of them, if I recall correctly, have been asked for without consulting the premiers of the provinces. All those eight put together are not one-tenth as important as this measure.
I said this afternoon that the measure is not an amendment but is a revolution. The measure proposes to destroy the British North America Act, according to any common-sense


interpretation of the situation. That is a matter that needs to be studied carefully. There is no precedent in Canadian history nor in the history of this parliament for the submission to the British government of such an amendment.
There is another consideration. The federal government has never seriously attempted to employ its power over currency, credit and banking to improve economic conditions in Canada. Such power was specifically given to it by section 91. It has only been used once in a while in Canadian history, and never consistently. It was turned over to the banking concerns and allowed to go at that. That is just neglect of the wonderful power that was given to the federal government under section 91 of the British North America Act. If the federal government had endeavoured to use the credit of Canada as it should have used it through wisely employing its ability to use currency and banking, then I contend that there never would have been any need for the federal government to try to invade the provincial taxation fields of personal income tax, corporation taxes and succession duties.
The whole C.C.F. position, the whole Liberal position, and probably the Conservative position-I hope not but I am afraid so-in respect to these three invasions of provincial rights of taxation has been that it is impossible for the dominion government to get the money otherwise with which to carry out the social service program that the dominion government deems advisable at the present time. Invasions of taxation fields would not be necessary if the dominion government were disposed to use the credit of Canada, because if the dominion government would use the credit of Canada it could easily make what is physically possible financially possible for all Canadians. The extent of the benefits which could be derived from that course of procedure would require hours and hours of discussion to elaborate and clarify. Consequently I shall only mention it in passing. Suffice it to say that during all the long history of Canada the federal government has consistently neglected this most valuable of all the powers given to it under section 91 of the British North America Act.
As I said a moment ago, all the social security measures proposed by the dominion government could be provided without additional taxation, debt or regimentation by the wise use of Canada's credit. All the disabilities now suffered by the provinces with regard to freight rates, tariffs, financial policy, and industrialization could be ameliorated and ultimately removed. All the hardships

occasioned Canadians by reason of the tremendous debts which we have accumulated could probably be abolished in forty years by the wise use of Canada's credit without even noticeably affecting Canadians at all.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members of the house require much more time for discussion, obtaining information, and study of this measure and its implications than we have had up to the present. So also do the provincial cabinets and legislatures, and so do the people of Canada. In order to provide the time and opportunities requisite for adequate study, I believe this measure should be considered in committee of the whole.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low):
That the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider this resolution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: If no
one else desires to speak to this motion, I must say that I have my doubts as to whether it is in order. It seems to me this is a self-contained motion, completely different from the motion now before the house; and I believe such an amendment cannot be moved. Certainly I should like to hear arguments both for and against the motion before giving a ruling.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I have it on the advice of one of the greatest authorities on the subject in Canada that this motion is entirely in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Mr. Church:: I have an amendment to move.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), has moved in amendment that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider this resolution. There is no provision in the rules for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on a resolution of this type. I refer hon. members to standing order 48 and to citation 394, Beauchesne, second edition. In my opinion this is not an amendment: see Beauchesne, third edition, citation 375. Therefore the proposed amendment is out of order, and I so rule. The question now is on the main motion.


Thomas Langton Church: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. Hodgson):
That the resolution be not adopted.
I think that is quite in order. There are precedents for it, and I propose to speak to it.


Mr. Speaker:: This proposed amendment is a direct negative of the motion, and a vote
British North America Act against the resolution as amended would have the same result. See Beauchesne, third edition, citation 341. I must therefore rule this motion out of order also. The question is on the original resolution as amended.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I think you and all hon. members will agree that the debate on this resolution has been generally on a pretty high plane and carried on in a dignified manner, as is befitting in a matter of this importance, in spite of the fact that some rather extraordinary speeches have been made today.
There are a few points about which I would like to make the position of the members of our party somewhat clearer.
This resolution has to do with the age-old question of what is the nature of our constitution and what are the rights of the federal authority and of the provincial governments. In that respect there have been, and still are, three theories, each of which has the support of a certain number of members of this house and of Canadians throughout the country. One is that the provinces must agree to all amendments, that this constitution is to be regarded as a contract, no word or comma of which may be changed without the consent of the contracting parties; and it is said in a rather loose way that the contracting parties are the provinces. The amendment moved by the official opposition makes it quite clear that when they say "the provinces" they mean the provincial governments; and that has been the implication of most of the speeches by those opposing the resolution. They have spoken of "the provinces" and in their minds the provinces mean the ten provincial premiers. According to that theory, nothing can be done without consulting these ten premiers.
As to what is meant by consulting them, that too is rather indefinite. When an attempt was made during the last session of the previous parliament to determine whether by consulting the provinces was meant securing their agreement, or in other words to reach the situation where any one of them exercised a veto, that proposition was voted down even by the most enthusiastic proponents of the theory that there should be consultation. However, in spite of the negative vote given at that time, it would seem that several of those who participated in that vote would

British North America Act still like the impression to be conveyed to many that they do mean securing the agreement of the provincial premiers.
The other theory is that parliament is entitled to ask for any kind of amendment without reference in any way whatsoever to the provincial authorities. As a matter of fact that is possibly the technically legal position, but that is not and has never been the position of the party of which I have the honour to be leader at the present time. The position of our party is, and always has been, that at confederation the sovereign powers of the Canadian nation were allocated, part of them to the central parliament and part to the provincial legislatures, with anything unprovided for in that specific allocation left within the general powers of the central parliament; and it has been the view consistently held by the Liberal party that provincial powers should be respected. The corollary of this respect for all the portions of the national sovereignty allocated to the provinces is-our party has contended-that the powers allocated to the central authority can be exercised by that central authority through the members elected by the people to represent them in the central parliament, without any control by the provinces or, I should say, by the premiers of the provincial governments. For a long time, that was the traditional view of the official opposition.
In that respect, I should like to put on record a letter which in its day was confidential but which today forms part of the history of this country and is published with the correspondence of Sir John A. Macdonald. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) said that the word "great" had been used quite loosely. There are still many of us, even on this side of the house, who do not feel it is used any too loosely when applied to Sir John A. Macdonald.
On the 14th of May, 1886, he wrote to Lieutenant Governor Richey of Nova Scotia the following letter:
Ottawa, 14th May, 1886
My dear Richey:
I see your ministers are going to dissolve.
The permission to grant or refuse a dissolution rests with you, as well as to fix the time for holding the elections. As important issues are, it is said, to go before the people, you should, I think, insist that they should not be taken by surprise and that ample time should be given them for consideration.
Your legislature's legal term of existence expires,
I take it, on the return day of the writs of election, and no election need be held until after that day.
Should your ministers found their advice for an early dissolution, on the ground that they desire an immediate expression of the will of the people as to their remaining in the confederation-you will,
I have no doubt, feel it your duty as a dominion officer, to decline to allow that subject to enter into consideration at all. The representatives of Nova rMr. St. Laurent.!
Scotia as to all questions respecting the relations between the dominion and the provinces sit in the dominion parliament and are the constitutional exponents of the wishes of the people with regard to such relations. The provincial members have their powers restricted to the subjects mentioned in the B.N.A. Act and can go no further. X write you confidentially, but if necessary you will be supported by the whole weight of the dominion government.
Yours sincerely,
John A. Macdonald
I am going to repeat that.
The provincial members-
And that would include the members of the provincial governments.
-have their powers restricted to the subjects mentioned in the B.N.A. Act and can go no further.
When we talk about the provinces in that general way, one would think that we did not mean the group of people inhabiting a certain determined territory but who are, nevertheless, Canadian citizens and are, as such, represented in the Canadian parliament. Those people have as their spokesmen, with respect to those portions of Canadian sovereignty assigned to the central authority, the members they elect to represent them and to speak for them in this house. When we hear the assertion that a letter written by a provincial premier represents the views of four million or more Canadian citizens-well, we are entitled to ask the fifty-seven Liberal members who are here from the province of Ontario if they have anything to say about it.
Forty-five years later, the attitude of those who are now the official opposition, through their spokesmen, was not so much different from that expressed by Sir John A. Macdonald in this letter to the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia. I quote the remarks of Mr. Guthrie, the Minister of Justice in the government headed by the late Viscount Bennett. Speaking in this house on the resolution moved by' Mr. Woodsworth, as reported at page 1473 of 1931 Hansard, Mr. Guthrie said:
However, I agree that the time has come when we should seriously consider this whole question of amendments to the Canadian constitution.
On the next page, 1474, he said:
My contention has always been that in all matters appertaining to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada the parliament of Canada has the right, and should have the right expressed, to make such amendments to the constitution as it shall see fit.
That was in 1931. It was a reassertion in which all the members of the Conservative party who were in the house at that time- there were more of them then than there are now-acquiesced. That is what we are proposing to do by this resolution; that and no more. We are proposing to have it expressed

that parliament has the right to make such amendments to the constitution in all matters pertaining to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada as it shall see fit.
Now, that being the extent to which we propose to go now, I am met with the charge that I am breaking two pledges, one made in this house I think in February of this year, and the second in a speech made over the radio from Moncton on May 19, 1949. Let us deal with them in chronological order. The pledge was supposed to be contained in the words cited by the leader of the opposition as set out in Hansard at page 962, and are as follows:
The procedure which I believe would be required to deal with a question of the kind would be similar to that which was followed at that time, some twelve or fourteen years ago.
What I said in May has again been cited.
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.
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.
The effort is made to interpret that language as a statement that we were abandoning the traditional policy of the Liberal party of dealing, without reference to the provinces, with those matters which by the constitution have been allocated to the central parliament. I never would have given such an undertaking because I feel some responsibility with respect to the future of this country, and I feel that it would be a grave error, at any time, to subject the exercise of the powers given by the constitution to the central authority, represented by the elected representatives of the ten Canadian provinces now, to the control of gentlemen selected to administer those portions of the Canadian sovereignty that have been allocated to the provincial legislatures.
In February of 1949, in this pledge supposed to have been given to the House of Commons, I said the procedure we would follow would be similar to the procedure that had been followed at the time of the 1935 or 1936 dominion-provincial conference. All hon. members know that the recommendation made at that time with respect to amendments with regard to purely federal matters was that they were to be made by simple act
British North America Act of this parliament, and that it was only with respect to matters that were not within the exclusive jurisdiction of this parliament that there was to be another procedure.
Some hon. members have said: But you did not make any restriction. You said you proposed to call a conference of the provinces. We do propose to call a conference of the provinces. The letter read by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and which, in his view, is so incoherent, is a declaration to the premiers of the provinces that we wish to have a conference with them to deal with those matters which are the ones usually referred to when we speak of substantial amendments to the constitution, namely, those which might effect the transfer of powers from one jurisdiction to the other. But there never was any statement made that there would be no other amendments to the Canadian constitution than those that may be of joint concern to dominion and provincial authorities until we had established a procedure for dealing with that portion of the knotty problem.
One hon. member said: Why go about it in this way? Why do it piecemeal? Perhaps the hon. member who put that question has some friends in the editorial office of the London Free Press. Here is an article from the London Free Press of October 19 which contains this statement:
The government is apparently determined to go ahead with its project of transferring to Ottawa the power to amend those parts of the constitution entirely within federal jurisdiction before calling the conference to decide the method of amending the constitution regarding matters under provincial or mixed jurisdiction.
The hon. member's friend goes on to say:
There is no doubt that this procedure is contrary to logic.
With that statement I do not agree. But he goes on to say:
But it has the advantage of reaching some definite conclusion within a predictable period. With Premier Duplessis clinging stubbornly to the compact theory of confederation, which insists that no jot or tittle of the B.N.A. Act can be changed without the consent of all the provinces, prospects for agreement at any conference are not particularly roseate.
That is why, after eighty-two years of efforts, I ventured to say there might be some Canadians who would prefer to get half a loaf at this time rather than to risk getting nothing at all.
For that I am taken to task by another great newspaper, the Montreal Gazette, which insists that the constitution is being torn into shreds, that it is being torn right down the middle, and that ultimately, when it is hung on the wall, it is going to hang in a crooked

British North America Act fashion because we are grabbing a half loaf before our guests come to the table at which we are inviting them to meet us.
I am not greatly impressed. I have been here now for some time, and I remember many occasions when there have been the loudest of assertions in this house that the aim of the government was good, that what we were proposing to do was all right, but that we were going about it in the wrong fashion. Those who were here in 1946 will remember that everyone just deplored the inequities that had been brought about under the British North America Act with regard to representation of portions of the Canadian public in this House of Commons. Everyone wanted to see that unfair situation remedied. Everyone was convinced that it was conducive to national unity to remove an injustice of that kind. But, it was said, you must not do it until you talk to the premiers; it is all right, as a matter of fact, but you are going about it in the wrong way. Well, we went about it, and it was done; and the representation of the Canadian public in this House of Commons is on a basis fair and equitable to every part of the country.
During the last session when it was suggested that we have this parliament approve the union of Newfoundland with Canada, it was said that that was a grand thing, something that everyone had been in favour of ever since the first days of confederation; it was something that was going to be a grand thing if only it could be done, but you must not do it in that way; that was the wrong way. Again it was said that the right way was to go and talk to the provinces represented by the premiers of the then nine provinces and, if you get their blessing, so much the better; but your chances of getting it did not seem to be good, and you should not endanger national harmony by disregarding the views of those dear provincial premiers who should exercise their control over the manner in which we exercise the powers allocated to this parliament by the constitution. Well, we went ahead; and I am glad to see even members of the opposition from the tenth province of Canada sitting in this House of Commons in this parliament.
Almost immediately after that there was in the house another general expression of opinion by the opposition that since the provincial governments and provincial legislatures did not see fit to take over rent control, it was a good thing to maintain rent control for a further period in the country, but that we were going about it in the wrong way. It was a splendid thing to retain control over steel and over one or two other things but we should not have all that in the same bill.

That was the wrong way to do it. It was said we wanted the thing done but we did not want it done in the way the government was proposing. Well, it was done in the way we were proposing, and an opportunity was given for the Canadian public to say whether we had been proceeding in the right way to do the right things. When I am told again on this occasion that what we are doing is the right thing, but we are doing it in the wrong way, I rather feel that there is a majority of the Canadian people who would like to see it done now, and that is the way we are proposing to do it, and I think that is the way the Canadian people will be glad to see it done.
I wish to state once again that the whole situation is and what we are proposing to do and what we are not proposing to do at the present time. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) said that it is going to be difficult to get agreement as to where the line is to be drawn between those powers allocated to the central authority and those which were allocated to the provincial authorities. I am in full agreement with him, and do not think that if we had a conference that lasted for twelve months, or if we had twelve conferences that lasted for twelve months each we would get agreement with the provincial premiers as to exactly where that line is to be drawn because, as the hon. member said, the circumstances of the times change the picture in which that line has to appear.
Our proposal is based upon the assumption that there is a line, but that it would not be fair for us to attempt arbitrarily to draw that line. We shall have it declared in general terms, that we have the power, without consulting the provinces as represented by the ten premiers, to deal with those things that are on our side of the line. If, it is felt, we attempt to do anything which anyone feels crosses the line or impinges in any way on something that is outside our jurisdiction, there will be the courts to decide whether we are right or whether we are wrong.
Some hon. gentlemen say that that is not good enough. Well, that is the best that human ingenuity has been able to devise throughout the hundreds and thousands of years that there have been disputes between human beings. The only other way is to resort to arms. Happily for us, the other way, the trial of strength, has long since been abandoned in our domestic affairs.
The moving appeals made to us today, some made before today, in the course of this debate, that we do nothing now, do not create a very profound impression upon me at this time. I was surprised at the different tone used, for instance, by the hon. member for

Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) when we were discussing the previous matter before this house, and when the doctrine of stare decisis was not only sacred but something which had to be written into the statute itself, to find him in this debate not only disregarding the doctrine of stare decisis, which is a doctrine under which a decision is applied to another like case, but disregarding the formal judgment rendered in the very matter that he was discussing, that this parliament has the right, without consulting anybody, to make the Supreme Court of Canada the court of last resort for all Canadians.
There has been not only something which could be invoked as stare decisis, but there is res judicata on that question, and that judgment was rendered after certain provinces, or I should say the representatives of the provincial governments, stated their case before the courts of justice, first of all, before the supreme court and then before that other great court which at the time was the court of last resort. In the heat of argument I think that sometimes rules of logic are forgotten if they do not happen to fit the requirements of the argument that one wishes to make.


Arthur Leroy Smith: We have another precedent on that, have we not?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There have been many precedents in this debate where the rules of logic were forgotten, and though I cited to the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) an editorial from the London Free Press I do not admit their first assertion that our procedure is devoid of logic. It seems to me that our procedure is quite logical. We say that we wish the right to deal with the Canadian constitution to be here in Canada and to be exercised by Canadians, and everyone says that that is a splendid thing. We say that there are three series of matters which may require amendment from time to time. With respect to one of them the right to deal with such amendments has been in the constitution since 1867. If that piecemeal right to make amendments to the British North America Act means tearing the act in two, well it was torn in two before it was put into the statute book, because when it was put there it was put there with the express provision that all these matters that were of purely provincial concern could be amended by the provincial legislatures without consulting anybody else.
As there are certain matters which are under the exclusive control of the provincial jurisdiction, so there are certain matters that are under the exclusive control of the federal jurisdiction, and there are others which are of joint interest to both, as would necessarily
British North America Act be the transfer of authority from this parliament to a legislature, or from one or more legislatures to this parliament. We say, well, now, before we tackle this difficult problem of getting a procedure agreed upon whereby things that are yours or things that are ours can be transferred from one to the other we shall put ourselves in the same position in which you are. We are not going now to deal with matters with which the provincial authorities have any concern. We are going to get right away for the federal parliament the position the provincial legislatures have had since 1867 with respect to these matters that are of our exclusive concern, and then we shall meet the provincial representatives and shall discuss with them the procedure to be agreed upon by us all as to how we can deal in Canada with the other matters with which they cannot deal under the present subsection 1 of section 92 and which we shall not have the right to deal with under the new subsection 1 of section 91. Until we do reach an agreement we shall still be in the position that, if amendments are required, they will have to be made by the parliament at Westminster. But, up to the present time, of all the amendments that have been made only two were of the character that would in future require a pilgrimage to London. All the others in the nine other cases are matters that Canadians would settle in their Canadian parliament for their Canadian fellow citizens.
It will be much preferable to secure agreement on the method to make the future amendments, and when we do secure that agreement we shall have to make one more pilgrimage to the parliament at Westminster to get that agreement written into the Canadian constitution. That agreement should provide the guarantees that are not there now for provincial jurisdiction, provincial rights, educational rights, language rights, for the right of members of parliament to have at least one session every twelve months, and the right of the electors to pronounce upon the individuals to be their representatives in parliament at least every five years. This resolution will not give those guarantees, but it will not give the parliament of Canada any right to touch any of those entrenched matters. If and when we can get agreement with the provinces we will have one last amendment made by the parliament at Westminster that will truly entrench those rights and provide the best possible safeguards for provincial jurisdiction, provincial autonomy, provincial rights, minority rights and the democratic right of the whole Canadian people to pass from time to time its judgment on those who exercise this sovereign authority.

British North America Act


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) a question. 1 want to say that I think he has been very fair about this resolution. The Prime Minister has been most kind in answering the questions asked by the opposition. My question-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: My question has to do with the decision of the privy council on matters of grace in 1947 which was based upon the Statute of Westminster.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Thomas Langton Church: Will the Prime Minister clarify the matter? Are we to follow such a course? We have only staged a sham battle on this side of the house against this.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Thomas Langton Church: That is all it is. We have only staged a sham battle against this resolution. I asked the Prime Minister to kindly answer my question.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I will give the best answer I can. By virtue of a bill which was adopted in this house, all appeals must now terminate in the Supreme Court of Canada and cannot go beyond that court.


Thomas Langton Church: Shades of Wallace and Dalton McCarthy and John Ross Robertson! We only staged a sham battle against it here.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was paired with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) Had I voted I would have voted for the	
motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It has been brought to	
my attention that	several hon. members,
after declaring their	vote, left the chamber

before the vote was announced. That is irregular, and I draw the fact to the attention of hon. members so that in future they will remain in the chamber after casting their vote, until the result has been announced.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we shall go into supply, taking the Department of Transport and the Department of Veterans Affairs. From eight to nine o'clock we will take
Business of the House private and public bills. Some time during the day we would like to have second reading of Bill No. 63, respecting the inspection of fish and marine plants. I understand that after second reading this bill will be referred to the standing committee on fisheries.


Howard Charles Green: What about the notice of motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe)?


Alphonse Fournier: I believe that will come up on Monday.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.20 p.m.


Friday, October 28, 1949