before it wasi criticised on the ground that it did not make any specific declaration in itself but merely enabled the Government to do as it pleases in regard to cold storage. For my own part, I do not intend to impede unduly the passage of the Bill, but now that it is before the House I wish to emphasize the position I took on the former occasion. I say that this is of too great importance and touches too closely the well-being of the producer and consumer throughout Canada, and has too intimate a bearing upon the high cost of living to warrant its being dealt with by Order in Council instead of by legislation. This Bill is simply an abdication of its functions by Parliament, giving the Government full authority to do as it pleases under Order in Council. I think it is an altogether unwise proceeding on the part of the Government to make such a demand on Parliament; I do not think it is in the best interests of the country and I take this opportunity of saying so. I think the Bill should have been introduced at an earlier period in the session, when the whole question of cold storage could and ought to have been threshed out by the House, not with any view to partisan considerations but with a view to ascertain the experience, and knowledge, and intelligence, and necessity, of each part of the country affected by cold storage, and, therefore, necessarily affected by this legislation. I think that course would have resulted in very valuable information to the Government and to the House and would have probably brought about a more satisfactory result than will be achieved by the present Bill. The Government have seen fit to delay bringing the Bill before Parliament until this late date of the session, when it is not possible to give that full consideration to the whole question of cold storage that is desirable and necessary, if the matter is to be adequately dealt with. However, the Government have assumed the responsibility and they will have to bear it.
I frankly admit the force 6f some of the contentions of my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver). It was the intention to have referred this Bill to the
12 noon. Committee on Agriculture for the express purpose of obtaining evidence and going into the question very thoroughly. I regret that delay. It was
partly owing to the pressure of other important business that the matter was not attended to; but meanwhile it seems to me that we should pass this Bill. The questions raised in the discussion the other night I do not think the Government will be able to deal with in statutory provisions without perhaps making unfortunate mistakes; and it is our feeling that, even if the Bill, as my hon. friend states, gives too much power -to the Governor in Council to make regulations, it will have good results on the general question of cold storage throughout the country, -and meanwhile it will give us an opportunity of getting more light on the whole matter, because there is a great deal we do not yet know in regard to it. The different States are continually appointing commissions to find out where they have made mistakes. The federal authorities in the United States have not yet come to any conclusion as to a Bill; and it seems to me that, under the difficulties presented, a Bill such as this, that would give us power to do these things through the Governor in Council, would at all events have a beneficial effect; and it would be a good thing in another session, when we have that fuller light, for hon. members on both sides of the House to endeavour to arrive at some conclusion, and to embody further provisions in the Bill. In the meantime I would ask my hon. friend to let the Bill pass as it is.
I do not intend to make any further serious objection than I did the other night to the passing of this Bill. I am one of those who argued as strongly as I could against giving the Governor in Council power to make laws with regard to cold storage or any other matter that might come before Parliament. As has been very properly pointed out by the minister, perhaps the department have not got as full information as they would like to have in regard to this matter; but my objection in bringing down legislation in that form is that any department of the Government, if they are going to attempt to give us good legislation, should not bring it down until they have the fullest possible details as to the whole matter that the legislation is to cover. This legislation, however, may have some good effect, and I hope it will. Section 3 reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may make such regulations as he deems necessary or expedient, to provide for a supervision of all cold storage warehouses.
That gives the Governor in Council power to make any regulation, any law,
any rule whatever. Section 4 deals with certain specific phases of the situation. Is it the intention of the Government to grant by section 3 wider powers than are specified in section 4?
was gone over very carefully by the law officers of the Crown. I would take it that section 3 is modified by section 4, which points out the particular form the regulations may take. I do not think section 3 would be a blanket charter to provide anything; I think it would be limited by section 4.
I should think that ' adequate ' means ' sufficient.' If one stops to think what the effect of naturalization is one gets light on what should be * sufficient ' knowledge. The man is to become a British subject. It seems to us, as it seems to those in the old country, that if you are going to make a man a British subject, to give him the rights and privileges and subject him to the obligation of the status, it is but fair that you should require of him that he should understand the language in which the laws of the country are enacted. For my part I think that, in view of the purpose to be attained it is an 'adequate' knowledge of either of our official languages to be able to understand and make one's self understood in the language. It probably would be desirable that in making the regulations which under a subsequent section the Governor in Council is empowered to make, to define the word in that sense. In England they go further in their interpretation of the word ' adequate ' and require that a candidate for naturalization should be able to read, write and speak the English language. I think, as I have said, that the circumstances of this country
do not call for such a definition. Now, if Parliament is willing to leave it to us to judge what is ' adequate ' without defining it in the Act, we have the advantage of having our statute in this respect the same as that of the Parliament of Great Britain with which we are endeavouring to cooperate. And they are evidently willing to leave to us the interpretation of the word for ourselves while they interpret it for themselves. As one who will have something to do with making the regulations, that is the meaning I would attach to the word ' adequate.'
I thought I had. I said that in my view ' adequate ' knowledge of the language was sufficient knowledge to understand and make one's self understood. That does not imply the necessity of being able either to read or write it. I endeavoured to point out in what respect that definition differs from what was required in England.
Then how is it to be established that an applicant has an 'adequate' knowledge of the language? As I understand it he is not required to appear personally before the examiner who, in most provinces, will be a judge of the Supreme Court or of any district court. How will it be established that the applicant has ' adequate ' knowledge? The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) says by affidavit. But that hardly fills the bill. The applicant is not required to sign his name in English-all he is required to do is to make his mark, and as to his knowledge of the language, anybody might declare his knowledge was ' adequate '. It is virtually left to the applicant himself.