Evening star., 1935-03-10
Continued From Third Page.)


lead the forces opposed to the New
Deal; he is a New Dealer" himself
Many years ago, in England, it was
said of DisraeIi, when he introduced
electoral reforms, that he had caught
the Wings bathing and proceeded to
steal their clothes. Liberals level the
same charges at Mr.. Bennett today.
They are not alone. The Socialist
group-the Co-operative-C Common
Federation - likewise claims
credit for some of the measures. Their
chief, j. S. Wordsworth, tireleSs
worker in Parliament, former clergy
man, longshoreman and strike leader,
has urged drastic reforms for years.
Wordsworth has now joined in sup
porting the principles of the New
Deal. But he goes further; he con-
tends that the proposed measures
merely scratch the surface of capital
ism. He contends that only the abo-
Htion Of the profit system can assure
the happier life which Mr.. Bennett
seeks. With Norman Thomas, he be-
neves that capitalism and the profit
system cannot be reformed.
Only Two Choices.
Mr.. Roosevelt's leadership in the
United States is regarded as portent
of a new political alignment. Mr..
Benefits New Deal" crusade is con-
sidered in some quarters as similar
portent in Canada. The choice, it is
said, is now between reformed capi-
talism on the one hand and socialism
on the other; there is no room for a
third group. Such realignment in
Canada is not likely in the immedi-
ate future; new trends, however, will
be indicated by the approaching elec-
tions.
The problem which now faces Par
lament is not the opposition to the
New Deal; it is the constitutionality
of some of the proposed measures.
There is nothing in the British North
American act, the constitution of
Canada, to prevent the Dominion Par
lament from amending the income
tax law; there is nothing to interfere
with the creation of an economic
council; there is nothing to obstruct
the reform of company legislation, in
so far as Dominion companies are
concerned.
The constitutional difficulties, as in
the United States, arise in the matter
of social and industrial legislation. But
the cases are not entirely parallel
The Canadian constitution contains
no guarantees of personal liberties or
rights of property; no legislation can
be nullified on the alleged infringe
ment of such rights. Therein it
differs from that of the United States.
The problem in Canada arises from
the distribution of powers between the
Dominion Parliament and the pro-
vincial legislatures. This distribution
was made in 1857; it has not since
been changed.
Vast Power Assigned.
The constitution assigns "the regu-
lation of trade and commerce" to the
Dominion Parliament. it assigns
property and civil rights in the prov
ince" to the provincial legislatures. 1t
is the conflict between these two pow
ers which is principally responsible
for the present constitutional problem.
The term property and civil
rights" is wide enough to include
nearly all legislation outside of pure
criminal law, and it has been so in
terpreted by the courts. The control
of labor in industrial undertakings
has been declared to be primarily
within the competence of the pro-
vincial legislatures. This has been
understood to apply to the whole field
of social legislation, such as unenl-
ployment insurance, old-age pensions,
minimum wage laws and acts regu-
1ating hours of work. The courts
have declared unconstitutional a fed
eral act for the settlement of strikes
and lockoutS, as well as federal acts
regulating combines and prices, on
the ground that they infringed upon
property and civil rights" The Do
minion power to regulate trade and
commerce was relegated to a sub
sidiary and auxiliary function. 1t
therefore would appear that Mr.. Ben
nettS attempts to introduce uni
formity of social legislation and to
regulate industry may be shattered
on the rocks of constitutionalsm.
In order to avert constitutional diff
fculties, the government may pro-
ceed in one of three ways: (a) By
amendment of the constitution; (b)
by requiring concurrent provincial
legislation; (c) by the exercise of a
combination of Dominion legislative
powers. The first method is difficult
because the power of amendment is
not vested in the Dominion: it re-
quires an act of the British Parlia-
ment. The method of concurrent
legislation is inconvenient and un-
satisfactory. particularly where uni
formity is necessary. The third in
wolves the exercise of the following
Dominion powers:
(a) The regulation of trade and
commerce.
CD The raising of money by any
mode or system of taxation.
(c) The control of the postal
service.
Cd The criminal law.
(e) The power to perform the OBJ
legations arising under treaties.
d) The power "to make laws for
the peace, order and good government
Of Canada"
Courts May Take Hand.
It may be taken for granted that
the Dominion Parliament may enact
legislation regulating interprovincial
and international trade. In the ex-
erciSe of this power the Bennett pov-