March 31, 1927

LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Will my hon.

friend give the source of his information so that we may know what importance to attach to it?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

I obtained my information

from the documents of the time, which I can look up again if necessary. Lord Oxford referred to it not long ago in a public statement, and I understood that it was referred to in a debate of last session on this very issue. I have a further statement, the source of which I cannot give but which I have no doubt I have seen, and my memory is usually fairly accurate. In 1924 His Majesty the King refused to grant dissolution to Premier MacDonald. Dissolution was subsequently granted but before that was done the sovereign consulted his privy councillors representing both political parties, some political opponents of Premier MacDonald and some political friends, and after that consultation the king did grant dissolution.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I think it very important that we should have the source of this last statement, because it goes very far in disclosing what took place between the king and his advisers.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

I saw it in the public press, and 1 took the opportunity of consulting one who should know, an authority on such matters, but whether or not I am at liberty to give his name I do not know. If there is any doubt about it I will withdraw the statement; I thought it was well understood that such was the case, but if the Prime Minister thinks there is any doubt as to the accuracy of that statement I will withdraw it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I think there is great doubt.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

I will leave it at that for

the moment, but my information was that dissolution was refused at one time and granted at another. One statement I do wish to make is that an examination of all the precedents, British, Dominion and colonial, arising during the last century, will disclose that no dissolution has ever been advised and granted while a motion of censure against the ministry has been pending in parliament. Dissolutions have been granted after motions of censure have been passed, but there is a great difference between the two cases. The one case involves interference with parliament in the midst of a conflict with its own ministry, and while that ministry is on trial; the other case involves merely a reference-and usually a necessary reference-to the electorate of the country for decision of an issue which stands concluded as between parliament and the ministry. The electorate is the final court of appeal, but without fear of contradiction from any precedent which has been established I say that the parliament of Canada in all cases, having tried the ministry, is entitled to pass its judgment, and that no ministry has the right to attempt to dissolve the court before which it is being tried until a verdict has been rendered upon the issue in question. No cases can be found in which the sovereign or any viceroy representing the sovereign has attempted at the request of a prime minister to destroy the very court before which he and his colleagues were compelled to appear. If we are now to have the new rule that at all times and under all circumstances the prime minister of this country is to have a dissolution upon request, we may have a dissolution to-morrow; then returning beaten the prime minister, being the sole adviser, may request another dissolution and so we may

1730 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan

have the most tyrannical, despotic and autocratic efforts made to destroy civil liberty in Canada. Therefore before the Prime Minister flatters himself that he has established a precedent, we must have further enlightenment upon what actually took place between him and Lord Byng last summer.

To proceed further, it is recommended in this report that very grave changes be made in a series of imperial acts which have applied to the Dominion of Canada ever since this Dominion was established. These imperial acts apply to almost every ramification of our civil and commercial life. In the report of this committee as embodied in the Imperial conference report, it is recommended that every imperial act, which is not in accordance with the new constitutional status alleged to have been established at the London conference, is to be modified and amended; and, if I understood him correctly, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) yesterday stated that when this is all accomplished the sole bond between this country and Great Britain and between this country and the other dominions will be our common sovereign. Is that really what it will mean when this political program is carried into full effect? There is a difference of opinion with regard to that, and I notice that Mr. Ewart raised the issue in the Ottawa Citizen of March 1, 1927. I do not cite what he said for the purpose of approving of it, but in referring to Right Hon. George P. Graham, a former colleague of the Prime Minister, Mr. Ewart said.

I wonder whether Mr. Graham, or any of his applauders, could tell what he meant. Did he mean that Canada's part should be equal to that of the United Kingdom? Or did he mean that Canada's part should be subordinate to that of the United Kingdom? If he meant that Canada's status was to be equal to that of the Lhiited Kingdom, he meant that Canada would be a sovereign, independent (same thing) state, for that, undoubtedly, is what the United Kingdom is. He meant that the only political association between the two countries would be their allegiance to the same sovereign.

I may be mistaken, and if so Hansard will not bear me out, but I understood the Minister of Justice to state that when these reforms now recommended were carried out, these dominions would simply be associated by reason of the fact that they had a common sovereign. Therefore, with respect to Mr. Graham's statement, Mr. Ewart says:

He meant, therefore, that Canada would cease to be a part of the British Empire. If then, Canada's status is to be equal to that of the United Kingdom, she will not be working out her destiny "by remaining a part of the British Empire."

Now there is a clear-cut policy. It has a considerable support in this country no doubt. There has been a propaganda carried on-cleverly and ably carried on by Mr. Ewart himself-in favour of the establishment of that status. Is that the status the Prime Minister wishes to achieve? If so, it is impossible, I think, Mr. Speaker, for him to continue long to make such speeches as he recently made at Toronto. They are irreconcilable with this theory which was announced, I think, by the Minister of Justice yesterday; or at least, I have not sufficient intelligence to discover the point of concurrence. That means that the Prime Minister of this country by giving assent on behalf of Canada at the Imperial conference to the carrying out of all these reforms, by a special committee to be appointed for that purpose, has given, or assumed to give, the support of Canada to a policy of destroying the whole fabric of the present -constitution in so far as it covers our political relations with Great Britain and our political relations with the sister dominions. And if he is permitted to assume that he has now the tacit support and approval of this parliament merely because he has laid that report upon the table of the House, then he will assume that, being the leader of the House and the Prime Minister of the country, he has right and authority to go on and carry out all these alleged reforms.

Now, how are these reforms to be carried out? There is not one of them which depends, necessarily depends, upon any resolution or any statute of the Canadian parliament; they may one and all be carried out by an imperial enactment, or by amendments to existing imperial statutes.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I want to interrupt my hon. friend in order, if possible, to avoid further interruptions. I hope he will not infer that because I am not raising any questions with respect to interpretations he is putting on the remarks of the Minister of Justice, or the linking up of remarks made by others with the names of the Minister of Justice and myself, I think he is justified in so doing. I do not wish it to be understood that because I do not interrupt him when he is doing this I agree with any of his remarks.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

I accept the statement at once, and I hope the right hon. gentleman does not assume that when he makes an elaborate statement to the House hon. gentlemen on this side approve exactly of what he does say, even though they may not express dissent.

Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I have often heard my hon. friends make remarks to the effect that I was present and heard certain statements and did not take exception to them. That is what I want to make clear.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

I do not know that I ever made a statement of that kind, but the hon. gentleman is already assuming, in reference to the most important declaration ever placed before the parliament of this country, that parliament acquiesces in it because it has not yet expressed dissent.

Now with regard to the question of the reservation and the veto of Canadian acts-* the hon. gentleman says that is obsolete as a constitutional practice. It is obsolete with respect to Dominion affairs. It is obsolete with respect to every matter concerning peace, order and good government in Canada. Edward Blake achieved that away back in the seventies, and the statement of his argument will be found, I think, in sessional paper No. 13 of 1877. Since that time there has been no effort to reserve, to disallow or to veto an act passed by the Canadian parliament. Edward Blake placed it on the strong, substantial basis that with respect to matters appertaining to the domestic affairs of Canada the crown, as represented by the Secretary of State for the, Colonies, should not intervene and should not veto, and that with respect to imperial or inter-imperial affairs, while the law wrould still remain on the statute book, it was best obviated by restraint on the part of the government of the parliament of Canada. Therefore, in the letters patent which are issued to His Excellency the Governor General, there is no direct reference, I think, to sections 54, 55 and 56, of the British North America Act, which are still in existence, at least as laws; but his instructions provide that His Excellency shall respect such laws as are or shall hereafter be in force in our said "Dominion." The instructions are that the Governor General is to carry out the laws "as are or shall hereafter be in force in our Dominion."

With reference to the disallowance or reservation of Dominion legislation, the Imperial conference report says:

On this point we propose that it should be placed on record that, apart from provisions embodied in constitutions or in specific statutes expressly providing for reservation, it is recognized that it is the right of the government of each dominion to advise the crown in all matters relating to its own affairs.

Now that specific statement is there. Sections 55, 56 and 57-if those are the particular sections-of the British North America Act still remain in force and with full legal effect,

and the conference decides that "apart from provisions embodied in constitutions or in specific statutes expressly providing for reservation," the right of the government of each dominion to advise the crown is in full force and effect. The report continues:

We are of opinion that there are points arising out of these considerations, and in the application of these general principles, which will require detailed examination, and we accordingly recommend that steps should be taken by Great Britain and the dominions to set up a committee with terms of reference on the following lines:-

To inquire into, report upon, and make recommendations concerning

(11 Existing statutory provisions requiring reservation of Dominion legislation for the assent of His Majesty or authorizing the disallowance of such legislation.

Now to show you how open this report is to diverse opinions let me call the attention of the House to the fact that in the House of Commons of Great Britain this matter of reservation and disallowance of dominion acts was referred to on November 25th, 1926, The official report is as follows:

Sir Clement Kinloch-Cook asked the Prime Minister, in view of the conclusions reached by the committee on inter-imperial relations, whether any change is contemplated in respect of the right of a governor to refuse assent to any measure passed by a dominion parliament, or to reserve any measure for the consideration of the crown.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): This

aspect of the position of the Governor General was not dealt with in the report of the committee on inter-imperial relations and I am not aware that any change is contemplated.

Sir C. Kinloch-Cook: Is there any change in the right of veto?

The Prime Minister: No change that I am

aware of.

That clearly indicates to my mind that the Prime Minister of England regards this report as dealing only with reservation and veto in connection with acts of those dominions whose statutory constitution do not contain express provisions for such reservation and veto. But that does not concern me so much as the fact that with regard to all these proposed amendments to imperial statutes, it is proposed that a committee shall be set up by Great Britain, and the dominions "to inquire into, report upon, and make recommendations" regarding the abolition, modification or amendment of those imperial statutes which affect almost every department of life in this country.

The policy which the right hon. gentleman is urging, the policy which has been adopted by the Imperial conference in view of the strong representations made chiefly, I assume, by South Africa, is that the inter-imperial

1732 COMMONS

Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan

constitution! as expressed !in imperial acts under which we live and have our being today, is to be wiped out, and what is to take its place? What provision is being made for a new arrangement or understanding or agreement between Great Britain and those dominions or between the dominions themselves with respect to the preservation and maintenance of that vast body of rights, privileges, and interests which they mutually enjoy and which we have hitherto enjoyed in Canada? That is the essential issue, and that is why I hesitate, by any tacit assent, to give to the Prime Minister and his colleague the right to proceed to secure from the Imperial parliament the abrogation of those imperial statutes which are so intimately connected with our political life to-day.

For instance, there is not only the question of reservation but the matter of providing for Dominion legislation having extra-territorial effect. I agree there are some vestiges which ought to be removed. I have not looked into the law recently, but I remember in my practice a few years ago a case in which a man residing with his wife and family in Montreal went to secure work in the United States. Having prospered, he committed the bigamous offense of attempting to marry another woman there. Then prospering still further, he brought back to Canada this second alleged wife or mistress, established her in a house on the adjoining street, and to the great disgust of the entire social community was rearing another family of children. When the lawyers were discusing the question of how he could be brought before the courts and punished for the crime of bigamy, it was ascertained that, while under the criminal law in this country we could punish a Canadian citizen for going beyond the territorial limit with the intention of committing a crime, yet if he did not proceed beyond the territorial limit with the intention of committing a crime, though he actually committed a crime abroad, our courts and our laws had no jurisdiction over him.

I remember again when it was proposed that we should have a Canadian navy, it was assumed that we could have ships of war for the protection of our commerce on the high seas. I remember pointing out to Sir Wilfrid Laurier that under existing legislative powers Canada could not enact any law governing the conduct of the officers and men of those ships when once they had proceeded beyond the three mile limit; that as regards Canadian laws the sailors might mutiny or commit other crimes beyond that limit but there was no Canadian law under which they could

be punished, and the Canadian parliament had no jurisdiction to enact such a law. The result was that an amendment was made to the imperial statute dealing with that particular matter.

I agree entirely that with regard to such ' matters as these the time has come when, for the peace, order and good government of Canada and Canadian citizens, there should be conceded to this parliament power to enact laws ancillary to the administration of public order in Canada, under which we will be enabled to punish Canadian citizens who have committed crimes abroad and subsequently returned to Canada. Those certainly are matters which should be dealt with, but how far will the Prime Minister go with his committee? Who are going to compose it? Will the opposition members of this House be represented on it when the inquiry is to be made? Is the inquiry to be a partisan study and the whole matter brought before the House, after being considered by only one section of the House? Is it to be a study made by a commission before which those interested will have an opportunity to appear and present their views? How will the commission be made up?

I have every respect for the Prime Minister as chief of the government of Canada, and I never will be found wanting in that respect when he goes abroad either to the Imperial conference in Great Britain or to any other country to represent Canada. I am prepared to stand by the Prime Minister of this country in the administration of all important interimperial and external affairs; but as the consideration for that I demand that in ail those matters he will deal frankly with parliament; that he will recognize that parliament is the constituted authority in this country; that the authority of his office is derived only from parliament, and that it is due to parliament that he should report to and secure the approval of parliament for every step which he takes in those grave matters.

The Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865 is important in this respect that, as stated by the Minister of Justice yesterday, it prevents the parliament of Canada from passing an act abolishing appeals to the Privy Council, and therefore when we sought to abolish appeals in regard to criminal cases, we found that the legislation which we passed, I think, section 1025 of the Criminal Code, was void ab initio.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is a court of appeal for the colonies only. It is true that it continues the prerogative right of British citizens of any part of the

Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan

world to appeal to the foot of the throne. It derives its original jurisdiction from the fact that British citizens going out from England to all parts of the world and establishing settlements in America, say, or in Asia, were deemed to have the right of appeal to the king in council from the arbitrary laws that might be passed by the constituted assemblies in those colonial territories. But no citizen of Great Britain has the right of appeal to the Privy Council except in certain classes of cases relating to the administration of the Church of England. Personally, and in this I am speaking for myself, and for myself alone, I regard an appeal to every one of the king's courts as an appeal to the king. I regard an appeal to any one of the king'3 courts of final resort as the equivalent of an appeal to the sovereign judicial authority in this country which was previously represented in the sovereign alone, and therefore, in regard to criminal matters, I can see no reason why appeals to the Privy Council in criminal cases should be longer admitted; but as I interpret the law, no act passed by the parliament of Canada can abrogate that right. As I said the other day, and one can simply judge from his own experience, there are certain classes of commercial cases in which the right of appeal to the Privy Council might be limited or restricted, but there are other cases in which I do not think, under the conditions which at present prevail in this country, the right of appeal should be entirely taken away.

Now what does the Prime Minister propose? He is to appoint Canadian members to a committee which is to take steps to carry out this modification of the Judicial Committee Acts, under which appeals are now made. Is that committee to report back to this parliament and secure the approval of this parliament? Not necessarily, because the Prime Minister can secure an abrogation of the Judicial Committee Acts or of any part of them by the parliament of Great Britain, in which this country has no representation whatever, and in view of the position which the Prime Minister has assumed at the Imperial conference, his ipse dixit there is supposed to represent, and is accepted by the government of Great Britain as representing, the prevalent opinion of the majority of the Canadian people and the approval of the Canadian parliament as a whole.

If we are proceeding to break down, piece by piece, the constitution which prevails with respect to inter-imperial affairs without substituting any new agreement or convention in its place, we now have a right to ascertain and to know how far the Prime Minister

intends to proceed. The better way, it seems to me, would have been for him to have bravely carried out the promise which he made to the House on December 13, and to have submitted this report to parliament and asked for its approval. That would have placed us in a position where, without any vote of want of confidence necessarily, we could have expressed our views as to the conditions under which these proposed modifications should be obtained, as to the extent to which they were advisable in the interests of Canada, and as to the reservations which we might desire to make to the carrying out completely of the recommendations contained in that report. But the right hon. gentleman has not kept his promise. He has repudiated it for certain reasons known only to himself. He had the opportunity to present those reasons to the House in his address of two hours in length; he can again speak upon the amendment which has been moved, and I think that this House ought to have placed before it, on his responsibility as Prime Minister, the procedure he intends to adopt and the extent to which he intends to go, in carrying out these recommendations contained in the Imperial conference report.

There are other matters that affect us very materially indeed. Take the matter of shipping. Every one of us knows that there is really no such thing as a Canadian ship except it be some ship that does not come under the registration for marine purposes. The ships which are built in Canada and which are owned in Canada are registered in Canada, it is true, but they are registered in a registry provided by imperial legislation, and when these Canadian ships soncalled, which are really British ships under British registry, sail from Canadian ports to the utmost parts of the world they are from the time they pass beyond our three-mile limit under the jurisdiction of the imperial act known as the Merchant Shipping Act. The Imperial conference points out that this Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, more particularly clauses 735 and 736, are not consistent with the constitutional status of the dominions and Great Britain, that is the equality of status now assumed, and they advise that a sub-committee be appointed:

To consider and report on the principles which should govern, in the general interest, the practice and legislation relating to merchant shipping in the various parts of the empire, having regard to the change in constitutional status and general relations which has occurred since existing laws were enacted.

As I said before such an inquiry will have multifarious ramifications with regard to

Imperial *Conference-Mr. Cahan

Canadian shipping and even to the coasting trade of Canada. Shipping legislation of the Canadian parliament at present may not come into operation unless and until it receives the approval of His Majesty the King of Great Britain; and moreover, any treaty rights or privileges enjoyed by the shipping of a foreign government in respect to the coasting trade of Canada, or any other dominion, is not now liable to be abrogated or restricted by any act of the Canadian parliament. This country has a very large shipping interest, and if we are to become so separated from the empire that the sole political connection shall be found in the one symbol of the same king for all the different parts of the empire, if we are to become separate and independent sovereign states, as many contend, we must proceed at once and secure the assistance and advice of the very best minds that this country can produce in a sort of constitutional convention to ascertain what shall be the basis of our maritime rights in the future, and what shall be our future relations in this respect with Great Britain and the other British dominions.

Take our admiralty courts. Our admiralty courts in Canada exercise a jurisdiction conferred by the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, and our Canadian laws establishing such courts and their procedure and practice, are still subject to the approval and confirmation of the government of Great Britain. We by our statutes provide the procedure only, and the procedure in those courts must be recognized and approved by a department of state in London before coming into effect. Now what does the right hon. gentleman propose? Does he propose to abrogate all these admiralty courts in Canada as they at present exist? Does he propose to pass new acts which shall give them their jurisdiction? Does he propose that hereafter there shall be such an extension of our extra territorial rights that we by act of the Canadian parliament, will have supervision and control of Canadian ships in whatever part of the world they may be? What will he substitute for admiralty courts in this country? What is his prevision in regard to this question? He is entering upon a tremendous task, and what is he proposing to do? Is he to do it as his own mind suggests, or is he to seek the cooperation and approval of parliament, step by step, as he proceeds? The very fact that he has refused to submit this report - to parliament, although he has promised to do so, leaves in our minds grave doubts, and leaves in the minds of a great body of intelligent people in the country grave doubts as to whither

[Mr. Cahan.J

we are proceeding. Many men are asking, "Watchman, what of the night"? and the watchman, in the person of the Prime Minister, refuses to make any response or to give any clear definition as to what he intends to do.

Take the question of equality of judicial status. We have had that question before us, and it has been discussed under the provision dealing with the abolition of rights of appeal to the Privy Council. Now judicial equality or equal status in judicial affairs can be achieved, it seems to me, only in one of two ways. If appeals are to continue to the judicial committee of the Privy Council, then we must have the right vested in parliament and government of Canada, to appoint a number of representative Canadian judges to that court, who will not be under the influence of British opinion, but where they will sit as Canadian appointees having their stipends or salaries provided by the Canadian parliament, and so represent Canada on that court. If, on the other hand, we are not to have permanent Canadian representation on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, then the question arises as to the amendment by the Imperial parliament of the statutes providing an appeal at the present time, so as to restrict those appeals to such matters as meet with the approval of the Canadian parliament. Therefore the Judicial Committee Acts should be considered also, and we should have a clear statement from the government as to what we are about to do in these matters. Take our relations with foreign countries; are we to have inequality in respect to foreign affairs? We cannot have it unless this country is prepared to take its part in the matter of imperial defence. Following the conference which the Prime Minister attended where all are alleged by him to have been in agreement, I find that Mr. Fitzgerald, Minister of External Affairs, on 15th December, in the assembly, of the Irish Free State made this report of the conclusions reached:

The conclusions of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee were intended to make clear the implications of co-equality, and to prepare the way for the gradual elimination of legal machinery and administrative practices not in conformity with that principle.

With that interpretation I presume we all agree. Then in replying to inquiries as to the position of the Irish Free State in the event of a declaration of war, Mr. Fitzgerald said:

So far as I can interpret it, it would mean on strictly theoretical constitutional lines that the king could only declare war when he had

Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan

simultaneous unanimous advice to that effect from all the governments. That would be the constitutional position.

Is that the position taken by the Prime Minister in this country, or does he accept the theory that Great Britain may declare war and that Canada may maintain peace? Does he accept the theory there propounded that in all respects the declaration of war must receive the practically unanimous approval of the governments of the various dominions? Does he assume that Great Britain no longer can declare a war which might affect the interests of Canada without the full sanction and approval of the government of Canada? What is his theory on which he intends to build up a new constitution of inter-imperial relationship as between Great Britain and the dominions? That we have a right to know, and particularly because at the Imperial conference, when all were agreed, Mr. Bruce said:

I suggest that though we have an equality of status it carries with it some responsibility to share the common burden of defence as a set-off against the great advantages we have received in recent years from our connection with the empire.

Mr. Coates said:

Could not the burden of construction of the necessary ships be borne in greater proportion by those dominions who do not consider themselves so vitally concerned in Singapore? As I understand it, the policy of developing it as a naval base is approved, and the work is to be continued at considerable cost. That being so, and on the principle that he who gives at once gives twice, it seems important that offers of assistance from the dominions and India should soon be made.

And I notice that a publicist so well known as Edward Salmon, in reviewing the work of the conference, says:

Equality of status within the empire implies equality of responsibilities also.

Mr. Balfour on December 8, 1926, referring to the matter of imperial defence as dealt with by the report of the Imperial conference, said:

I should say that so far as this country is concerned, we are bound to go to war to defend any part of this empire which is in danger. Personally, I think the duties of all other members of the empire to us are not less than our duties to them; but, as to the particular conditions under which that great duty is to be exercised, I do not believe anything is gained by inventing hard cases beforehand.

That is his statement in the House of Lords which the right hon. gentleman opposite did not quote when reading part of thait statement. This Imperial conf erence report also ratifies the resolutions passed in 1923 dealing with imperial defence. It seems to suggest that in regard to imperial defence there is to be complete 32649-1101

cooperation between Great Britain and the several self-governing dominions. What attitude does the right hon. gentleman and his government take in regard to that? Do they admit the principle? He and his colleagues sat in the Imperial conference when these discussions were being carried on. They heard the declarations of Mr. Coates and Mr. Bruce there. The Prime Minister declared at the House of Lords dinner that their opinion was unanimous with respect to all that had been done. Yet when Mr. Bruce and Mr. Coates, in passing through this country, had the courage to say here exactly what they had said at the conference and exactly what they had said in public discussions in London, I find the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) at the Toronto meeting suggesting in very emphatic terms that these gentlemen had better keep their opinions to themselves while in this country, and I remember seeing in the press another statement made by the Prime Minister somewhat to the same effect.

What does all this mean? If we are to have an Imperial conference report submitted to us, let us have the whole of it submitted, and let us understand once and for all what is the constitutional theory which will hereafter govern the relation of Great Britain and the dominions in the matter of imperial defence. Let us have some clear idea and pronouncement in regard to it. I have a strong suspicion * that whatever excuses the Prime Minister may give for not having produced the report to this House for its approval, it will be found that one of the chief reasons, although not announced, is that he and the members of his government, and the members supporting him on the government side, are not in complete accord, and that he with the skill of the equestrian, which he has often displayed, is attempting to ride two horns of a dilemma and has not the courage to come before the House with any clear enunciation of policy in regard to it.

Also, we have had the suggestion that hereafter the Governor General is not to be the medium of correspondence between this government and the British government. The Governor General represents His Majesty the King now. I do not know who takes responsibility for the Governor General. Does my right hon. friend the Prime Minister sug-geA that in all that the Governor General does at the present time, his speeches and public pronouncements, he, the Prime Minister, assumes responsibility on his behalf to the House and the country? I do not know just exactly what his relationship is to the Governor General. But one thing is clear, that when

Imperial Conference-Mr. Cahan

it was found necessary to appoint an envoy extraordinary to Washington, the Governor General was the means of communication between this government and the British government and the king. And to whom did the Governor General report in the correspondence brought down by the Prime Minister yesterday? The Governor General, acting for this country, made his communications through the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and the replies which are presumed to come from the king to this government are sent by the same British minister. Has that practice ceased, or is it to continue? By what means does the Prime Minister have access to His Excellency? He stated yesterday-and I assume it was in a jocular mood to divert my attention for a moment-that in the appointment of the Hon. Mr. Massey as envoy plenipotentiary to the United States he had seen the king. Hereafter whenever a representative of Canada is to be appointed to any foreign state, or a commissioner is to be appointed by the king at the request of the Dominion government to take part in any foreign negotiations, will the Prime Minister leave the Dominion and visit the king personally, take him apart in secret and advise him, without allowing His Majesty to consult with his British ministers in regard to the appointment? I ask the Prime Minister, despite all this talk that we have in the public press, to which his own speeches have given encouragement, is it not the fact that for the present and in the future he assumes that in all these matters the communications expressing the will and advice of the Canadian government will not pass to the king directly, "will not be given to him orally by the right hon. gentleman on his visits to England, but will pass through the British Foreign Office, where they will be under the supervision and,

. to a certain and large extent, under the control and direction of the British Foreign Office as before? Or is the contrary the case, that hereafter the British Foreign Office is to have no direction and no control over the Canadian government in these affairs, and that the High Commissioner in London-who was selected to make the Prime Minister's post mortem political statement to Mr. Baldwin as Prime Minister of Great Britain,-will first receive the advice of the Canadian government and will then seek access to the sovereign in order to transmit that advice to him?

We have, Mr. Speaker, a preposterous condition before us. We have the right hon. gentleman proceeding to London without having given one moment's consideration to

these great problems. He announced to the House that he had given no consideration to them. Even if he had, he is not in a position to give any final opinion in regard to them because he has not consulted with this House, to which he is responsible, with regard to these great constitutional changes which are now proposed. He now seeks by the tacit approval of this House, not having the courage to present a report of his own work for its approval and confirmation, to proceed to disrupt every one of these constitutional ties which bind and connect us with Great Britain and Ireland and with the dominions beyond the seas. And while he has endorsed and proposes to carry out a policy of disruption and destruction, he has not one single positive idea to present to this House as to the formation of any new convention or as to the new alignments and pdlitical connections which are absolutely necessary if the position of Canada is to be maintained in this world.

I ask then the government to accept this amendment to his motion in its entirety and thereafter to deal with us frankly. Let the Prime Minister accept the amendment; let him admit to this House that he has not now the necessary parliamentary authority; let him admit that he does not desire by any tacit consent to secure the approval, or the apparent approval, of the parliament and the people of this country to these great changes.

* In the making of these changes, whether by the Canadian parliament or by the Imperial parliament-because the Imperial parliament may carry them all out-let him now give us a solemn promise that before they or any of them are made he will come to this House and secure its necessary authority and consent. Why, when he has failed to bring down the Imperial conference's report, why when we are prepared to present our views in this short amendment, does he not accept those views with manly courage and wait until he can later present the Imperial conference report as a whole and obtain its ratification and sanction by this House with or without amendment.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to attempt to follow the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Cahan) through the ramifications of his speech. There is much in what he said, without agreeing -with it at the moment, that I submit might well be responded to by the Prime Minister. I think a very serious indictment has been levelled against the right hon. gentleman. I for one have hesitated to condemn him unheard, and so until this moment I have refrained from expressing publicly or privately the opinion which I hold following

Imp. Conference-Mr. Garland (Bow River)

the publication of certain correspondence until I heard the right hon. gentleman's position thereon. I think it is only fair that the House should hear both sides of this question, and I trust that before the debate is closed the Prime Minister will give to the House an explanation of his position in respect to it. I wish to say, however, in fairness to everybody, that I cannot follow the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George in the position he assumes of wanting to know everything categorically, specifically, dogmatically, immediately. As a matter of fact, I doubt very much whether, even if everything were specifically produced before him and every declaration dogmatically determined, the hon. gentleman would not still find himself disposed to discredit most of it.

On the question of casuistry, I do not think I am going beyond the limits of parliamentary debate when I submit to the House words that the hon. gentleman himself used some years ago, I do not intend to flatter him when I say that the speeches which he has made on Canada's political relations with the empire have always been of intense interest to me, but in none of them have I come across a passage with which I am in such complete agreement as the following. This is taken from a speech made by the hon. gentleman before the Canadian Club of Boston on the evening of Tuesday, January 30, 1912.

An. hon. MEMBER: What hon. gentleman?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

The hon.

member who has just taken his seat. He said then:

-in a measure, the natural result of the development in the minds of the Canadian people of the national idea, of the consciousness that they have become a Canadian nation, endowed with a distinctive national character, permeated with a vigorous national life, vested with national responsibilities, and withal, masters of their own national destiny.

The statement is so complete that it requires no further elaboration; I would simply submit to the House that it was made in 1912, whilst the hon. gentleman was in possession of the full faculties of a mature mind- and somebody interjects that he was not in politics, but I do not wish to use such an unfair reference. I will say that those words "withal, masters of their own national destiny" would place the hon. gentleman entirely outside of his argument of to-day.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

Not a bit; I quite agree

with them.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

The hon.

gentleman would now tie us up irrevocably

in the empire and make us obligated to the Imperial government in ways which are entirely repugnant to us. That may be casuistry; it may be a change of heart or it may be anything. The hon. gentleman has something to explain in that regard, as the Prime Minister has something to explain in connection with the matters which have been placed before him.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

I accept entirely what I

said in Boston, if I remember it correctly. I do not think I have changed at all.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

Then is it by a process of casuistry that the hon. gentleman makes consistent his remarks of this afternoon with this splendid quotation? Let me again emphasize those words:

-a Canadian nation endowed with a distinctive national character, permeated with a vigorous national life, vested with national responsibilities and, withal, masters of their own national destiny.

How under heaven can we be masters of our own national destiny if we are subject and subordinate to some imperial authority? If I have misunderstood the hon. gentleman I apologize; if I have been misunderstood I will ask the hon. gentleman to apologize.

I was delighted with the speech made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) yesterday. I think he laid down his case in as clear a manner and interpreted it in as broad a form as even I could have anticipated from a member of the government in dealing with the work of the Imperial conference. Let me remind the House of one or two sentences which he used, which I took down as he said them. He said that this constituted the final acceptance of the unity of the so-called dominions and the British throne, and liberty in all external and domestic affairs. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has endeavoured to demonstrate that this is not true. To a degree he is right, and if I were willing to follow him into the legal facts in regard to his criticism I might be compelled to agree with him entirely. But I want to say frankly, Mr. Speaker, that I am in a very pleasant frame of mind this afternoon, and do not intend to be carried away into an unnecessarily cavilling or critical attitude. I am prepared to accept in faith the utterances of both our delegates to that conference. I do not think they have done any harm; I have not seen any great evidence of it, and while they may not have done any great good let us be grateful that at least no harm has been done, and in that spirit approach this report. The Minister of Justice declared that equality of status was not a new principle,

1738 COMMONS

Imp. Conference-My. Garland (Bow River)

and gave us illustrations of that fact. I agree entirely with him as several other hon. gentlemen have agreed. Equality of status is a principle very deeply rooted in the hearts of our people, and goes back far beyond even the quotations which have been referred to in the course of this discussion. I have in my hand a book called The Union of the British Provinces, by Mr. Whelan, one of the gentlemen who was very active in the days preceding confederation. It is a strange thing and perhaps an unhappy circumstance that we have not on record a verbatim report of the speeches then made, but in two very rare documents, so rare that it is almost under bond that one secures a loan of them from the library, one may find reports of the speeches of the various delegates to the different conferences which took place before confederation. In one of them Sir John A. Macdonald, speaking at a banquet in Charlottetown, on September 1, 1864, is reported by Mr. Whelan as follows:

He had, however, every reason to believe that the result of the convention which held its sittings in Charlottetown for the past week would lead to the formation and establishment of such a federation of all the British North American provinces as would tend very materially to enhance their individual and collective prosperity, politically, commercially and socially; and also give them in their united manhood that national prowess and strength which would make them at least the fourth nation on the face of the globe.

Again at Charlottetown in September of the same year Hon. George Etienne Cartier is reported as having used these words:

They (the delegates) met to inquire whether it were possible for the provinces, from their present fragmentary and isolated materials, to form a nation or kingdom. Canada of herself-

That is Upper Canada at that time.

-could not make a nation; neither could the maritime provinces of themselves become a kingdom. It was, therefore, essentially necessary that those national fragments and resources of all the provinces should be concentrated and combined in order that they, in their trade, intelligence, and national power and prosperity, might be rated as at least the fourth nation of the worl d.

That is, not only in size and resources, but in status and as to rank and title. I am offering these references to the House because of the statement made by the Minister of Justice yesterday when he said that the work of building the nation has been achieved. Has it? I simply wish to submit these references and ask the House if that work has been completed; frankly, I do not think so. I think we have gone a long way in that direction, but before we start, blowing the trumpets or waving the flags it would be as well to see

fMr. E. J. Garland.]

what was in the minds of the fathers of confederation and what was their vision of the destiny of this country, and perhaps we will then arrive at a clearer idea as to how far or how little we have progressed since that time. In my opinion we have progressed very far, but not so far as we should have progressed under more favourable conditions.

At page 16 of the same work, in the course of another speech made by Hon. T. H. Havi-land, one of the delegates, he said that from all he could learn the provinces would ere long be one great country from the Pacific to the Atlantic. There was another conference held at Halifax, and by the way, they went in very strongly for conferences in those days, and every conference was either preceded or followed, or both, by immense banquets. Those banquets should be to us a mark upon which we should centre our appreciation, because I rather think that if it had not been for the banquets, many of the things we now know to have been said prior to confederation would not be known to us, and possibly many of the things which were said would not have been spoken were it not for these banquets. We have learned that under wine men open their hearts and tell the truth. If that be the case it makes the quotations I have been using all the stronger. We find at pages 24 and 25, reporting the banquet at Halifax the following utterance by the Hon: George

Etienne Cartier, a man of considerable renown, a man whose record is certainly that of one of the great leaders of confederation:

When we come to the territory occupied by these provinces, we see again another great element requisite for the foundation of a great state.

It was not a colony, it was not a great dominion, it was "a great state," a sovereign state these gentlemen had in view. Again at page 25 he said:

Knowing as we do in Canada, that we possess so large a personal element-that we have cleared so much of our territory as would secure to us as respectable a position as many of the European powers, rve want to be something greater yet; but that cannot be unless you unite with us.

Another authority corroborates many of these statements-Mr. J. H. Gray, who has written the Confederation of Canada. He has repeated word for word the very statements reported to have been uttered by Sir John Macdonald, then John Macdonald, George Etienne Cartier, and many of the others who took up and discussed this matter at that time. At page 44 we find Sir John Macdonald speaking at Halifax. He says:

If we can only obtain that object-

Imp. Conference-Mr. Garland (Bow River)

What object?

-a vigorous general government-we shall not be New Brunswickers, nor Nova Scotians, nor Canadians, but British Americans, under the sway of the British sovereign.

Again he says:

In discussing the question of a colonial union, we must consider what is desirable and practicable; we must consult local prejudices and aspirations. It is our desire to do so.

In the conference we have had we have been united as one man-there was no difference of feeling-no sectional prejudices or selfishness exhibited by anyone; we all approached the subject feeling its importance; feeling that in our hands were the destinies of a nation; and great would be our sin and shame if any different motives had intervened to prevent us carrying out the noble object of founding a great British monarchy, in connection with the British Empire, and under the British queen. (Cheers.)

I do not think a more emphatic pronouncement was ever made by anyone in this country in favour of an independent sovereign state under the sovereignty of the British crown. It is not necessary for me to go further. If hon. gentlemen will simply consult the speeches made before confederation, the debates that took place in the House at that time, the debates that took place at the conference in London, it becomes readily clear that the objective of John Macdonald and George Etienne Cartier-if not of others certainly of those two; they were the guiding figures; they were the men who made the submissions to the conference, and their guiding thought was the creation of a nation on this side of the Atlantic-not a subordinate nation, not a colony, not a dominion, but a sovereign nation in connection with the British Empire, united with the rest of the selfgoverning dominions under the sovereign. But beyond that they did not go. Just how far have we come? At the conference that took place in London, and indeed prior to the London conference, the objective is made very clear. At page 20 and 21 of Pope's Confederation Documents we find Mr. Macdonald moving on Thursday, 20th October, 1864:

That the executive authority -

This was just prior to going over to London.

That the executive authority or government shall be vested in the sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and be administered according to the "well understood principles of the British constitution by the sovereign personally or by representative duly authorized.

At page 39 of the same work we find a report on the resolutions adopted at the conference of delegates from the provinces of

Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and the colonies of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, held in the city of Quebec. Amongst the resolutions then adopted was the following:

The executive authority or government shall be vested in the sovereign of the -United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and be administered according to the well understood principles of the British constitution by the sovereign personally-

By the sovereign personally!

-or by the representative of the sovereign duly authorized.

It is as clear as possible that without precipitating a debate of an objectionable nature, the intention was to establish a sovereign state under the sovereign personally or a representative of the sovereign duly authorized.

We now can pass to London. In London on the 4th day of December, 1866, a conference of delegates from Canada was again held. It was held at the Westminster Palace hotel. Had I known that at the time I was in London I would have gone to see if the old place was still there. If it is still there I am sorry I missed seeing it. But at that hotel the following resolution was passed by the conference:

The executive authority or government shall be vested in the sovereign of the United Kingdom and Ireland, and be administered according to the well understood principles of the British constitution by the sovereign personally or by the representative of the sovereign duly authorized.

There was never any idea in the minds of the great guiding figures of confederation that we should be subject to the Colonial Office or any representative of the Colonial Office. If there was to be any link, any visible link, between us and the mother country it was to be the king in person, or his representative, and no one else. Now one of the resolutions consists of just one sentence but it is worth quoting as we pass on:

That Her Majesty the Queen he solicited to determine the rank and name of the federated provinces.

Sir John Macdonald knew very well what his ideas were as to the rank and also the name. He made it very clear in his speeches, but at all these conferences he refrained from disclosing them for fear of arousing the abuse and vituperation of the little Canadians who saw only subordination of our state in future. And so Sir John Macdonald most astutely refrained from inciting in any way a discussion which might precipitate violent debate. Some indication of the cleverness of that gentleman may be found in a letter which he wrote just

Imp. Conference-My. Garland

(Bow River)

prior to going to London in which he indicated that it was important that no reverberations of the attitude to be taken at the conference should be spread throughout the dominion prior to the enactment of legislation. Once the act became law then everyone would agree to it and it would be all right.

It struck me at the time I read this that it was rather typically Tory. I do not think there is any doubt about the attitude; it certainly was not democratic. There was no indication that he wanted to submit the matter for consideration to the people who might not have agreed with him. He took that attitude for the purpose of preventing reverberations that would have destroyed his objective.

_ Now in the same volume, Pope, Confederation Documents, on page 115 there is given part of the debate which took place on Thursday, 13th December, 1866, on the resolutions of the Quebec conference. I quote the following :

. Mr. MeDougall: Why assert that the sovereign is commander in chief when it is part of the constitution of England?

Mr. Macdonald: I am not prepared to admit that. The sovereign is not absolutely the commander in chief of the militia of England except by proclamation.

Mr. MeDougall: I am prepared to go to the same lengths as is constitutional in England.

Mr. Macdonald: Read it in connection with the third resolution.

Mr. Tupper: Then constitutional advice will be necessary.

Mr. Macdonald: Any powers given by statute to the sovereign must be exercised constitutionally.

Shortly after their arrival the first draft of the proposed pact was drawn up, and I would ask the House to note that Macdonald left blanks for the title of the new state. The first draft reads:

After the passing of this act-

These colonies which he had mentioned-

-shall for the purposes hereof, form and be one province or confederation, under the name of.

bene fits to the colonies and be conducive to the interests of the United Kingdom:

*n therefore enacted by the Queen's most

Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows.

And then follows the word "preliminary". Clause 2 states:

It shall be lawful for Her Majesty, at any time not later than , },y letters

patent under the great seal of the United Kingdom, to declare the union of the colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick into one colony, with such name as Her Majesty thinks fit.

It was to be a grouping of colonies, and for what object? In reading over the documents of that period it is quite clear that the only objective in the minds of those short-sighted British statesmen or the Colonial Office employees was to concentrate the colonies into one government and so more easily to control and manage the then scattered governments of the colonies in North America. Clause 3 states:

The Governor General of British North America shall, within after

receipt by him of the letters patent declaring the union, proclaim the same by publication thereof in the Government Gazette of Canada, and thereupon the union shall have full effect, and the said three colonies shall thenceforth form and be one colony.

We find that repeated in clauses 4, 5 and 7. The reference is entirely to the formation of one colony and not of a nation free and equal or anything else. We find the third draft of the third conference reported on page 159. Will hon. gentlemen please note that in the previous delegates draft, blanks had been left in the space where the title was to be, and it is fair to assume that in the interim Her Majesty was consulted. If she was consulted, then certainly she must have agreed to a title now used for the first time in the draft of the conference. Note this:

And then there is a blank. But in the second clause of the draft he repeats again the source of authority: the queen personally or her representatives. One gets some conception of the Obstacles in Macdonald's way when one reads the report of the next draft, this time the draft of the Colonial Office of the 23rd January, 1867. This is reported at page 141 of Pope's volume. Note what the Colonial Office wanted; note what was in their mind as opposed to that which was in the mind of Macdonald and the delegation:

Whereas the union of the British North American colonies for purposes of government and legislation would be attended with great

.f' Within calendar months next

after the passing of this act-

These various provinces of Canada-

-shall form and be one united dominion, under the came of the Kingdom of Canada, and thenceforth the said provinces shall constitute and be one kingdom under the name aforesaid, upon, from, and after the day so appointed as aforesaid.

Clause 7 adopted completely from Macdonald's Quebec resolution reads: .

The executive government and authority is and shall be vested in the queen.

I therefore submit that in all probability and indeed one is justified in assuming that

Imp. Conference-My. Garland (Bow River)

in all certainty Her Majesty had been consulted in the interim and had given her consent. Otherwise, after Macdonald's public statements' and after the resolutions that were carried, they would not have dared to include in this draft a title which he had already declared to be a matter for Her Majesty to decide. However, the obstacles raised in the Colonial Office were too great, and we find reported at page 212 the final bill in which Macdonald had had to admit that he had lost his great objective and had compromised. We will find out in a moment the reason why. Section 3 of the final draft reads:

It shall be lawful for the queen, to

declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed-

And so on.

-the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall form and be one dominion under the name of Canada; and on and after that day those three provinces shall form and be one dominion under that name accordingly.

The compromise had been reached. It was not to be a colony but it was not to be a sovereign state. It was not to be a kingdom. Macdonald had sought the one; the Colonial Office had sought the other. A compromise had been reached and a dominion, a subordinate, inferior title and rank had been secured. If one seeks the reason why Macdonald capitulated, one can find it in Pope's volume at page 312 on which appears a letter written by Macdonald to Lord Knutsford repeating many years afterward his chagrin, his bitter disappointment at the weakness, lack of vision on the part of the Colonial Office people. He said:

A great opportunity was lost in 1867 when the dominion was formed out of the several provinces. This remarkable event in the history of the British Empire, passed almost without notice. The new confederation had at the time of the union about the same population as the thirteen colonies when they rebelled and formed a nation imbued with the bitterest feelings of hostility towards England-feelings which by the way exist

As he said at that time:

-in as offensive a form now as they did on the day of the declaration of independence.

The declaration of all the British North American provinces that they desired as one dominion to remain a portion of the empire, showed what wide government and generous treatment would do, and should have marked an epoch in the history of England. This would probably have been the case had Lord Carnarvon, who, as colonial minister, had sat at the cradle of the new dominion, remained in office. His ill omened resignation was followed by the appointment of the late Duke of Buckingham, who had as his adviser the then Governor

General Lord Monck-both good men certainly, but quite unable, from the constitution of their minds, to rise to the occasion. The union was treated by them-

And this was simply the reflection of the general attitude of the Colonial Office.

-ns if the British North America Act were a private bill uniting two or three English parishes. Had a different course been pursued, for instance had united Canada been declared to be an auxiliary kingdom as it was in the Canadian draft of the bill, I feel sure almost that the Australian colonies would, ere this, have been applying to be placed in the same rank as the Kingdom of Canada.

Pray pardon this long discursive letter, which I have been tempted to bore you with, by the pleasant and cool breezes of the lower St. Lawrence-

And so on.

Yours faithfully,

John A. Macdonald.

But Macdonald wrote to that letter a postcript part of which was suppressed for some time by his biographer. I will read the part that was published in the first editions of his biography:

PS. On reading the above over I see that it will convey the impression that the change of title from kingdom to dominion was caused by the Duke of Buckingham. This is not so. It was made at the instance of Lord Derby, then foreign minister, who feared the first name would wound the sensibilities of the Yankees.

So we failed to become a kingdom because Lord Derby feared to hurt the sensibilities of the Yankees. It may not be too late to adjust that position. I do not think there is any danger of hurting the sensibilities of our friends to the south. After living on their border a nation, in effect, if not in fact, for sixty years, surely we have shown them that we have much in common with them not only in tongue, but in aspirations, in many of our ideals, in our religious and social customs, and so forth. Surely the time has come when we must admit to ourselves that the power on the part of the American people to understand and sympathize with our aspirations is sufficiently equal to our power to understand and sympathize with theirs, and is there any one in this House who will condemn or attempt to condemn the aspirations of the republic to the south? I for one will not, nor do I think anyone here will. Therefore, why take it upon ourselves to asume, as Lord Derby unfortunately did, that we might be hurting their sensibilities if we assumed the position to which we are entitled by the findings of this conference which are now before us?

But that quotation is not complete. In Popes volume I, 1894, the whole of it was not

1742 COMMONS

Imp. Conference-Mr. Garland (Bow River)

given, but subsequently in a letter published in the Ottawa Citizen in July, 1917, Sir Joseph Pope wrote as follows:

Origin of Name

I agree with you in characterizing as erroneous the statement publicly made to the effect that at the Quebec conference in 1864 the name "Dominion" was selected for the new confederation. The only allusion at that conference to the subject of name that I am aware of, is the 71st resolution, which says: "That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the federated provinces."

Nor is this surprising, for in 1864 the fathers were engaged in laying the foundations, not crowning the edifice.

"United provinces" was employed in 1866 merely as a temporary convenience while drafting the bill. In the margin of one of Sir John Macdonald's memoranda of the London conference there appears, written in his own hand, one under the other, probably in inverse order of his preference, the words: Province . Dependency Colony Dominion Vice Royalty Kingdom.

Apropos of the rejection of the title of "Kingdom", I may say that when I published my Memoirs of Sir John Macdonald, out of consideration for the then Governor General, who was the son of the Lord Derby criticized, I omitted a portion of Sir John's remarks. I now quote the whole sentence which he wrote as a postscript to his letter to Lord Knutsford of 18th July, 1889:

"P.S.-On reading the above over, I see that it will convey the impression that the change *of title from "Kingdom" to "Dominion" was caused by the Duke of Buckingham. This is not so. It was made at the instance of Lord Derby, then foreign minister, who feared the first name would wound the sensibilities of the Yankees. I mentioned this to Lord Beaeons-field at Hughenden in 1879, who replied: 'I was not aware of the circumstance, but it is so like Derby, a very good fellow, but one who lives in a region of perpetual funk'."

In none of the papers on this subject of confederation is there anything to indicate that it ever occurred to Sir John Macdonald that his desire to have the new confederation styled "The Kingdom of Canada" might one day be interpreted to mean a looking forward on his part to Canadian independence. He evidently considered that the term "Kingdom" does not necessarily connote independent sovereignty. The kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland might have occurred to his mind, just as, at a later period, one would naturally think of the kingdoms of Saxony, Wurtemburg. Bavaria, or, for that matter, the Empire of India.

There is another quotation, by the way, that may throw a little light on Lord Derby's capacity. It is taken from Lord Newton's book on Lord Lyon's, volume II, page 105:

There can be no possible doubt as to Lord Derby's sincerity; indeed, he was so constitutionally averse from, an adventurous foreign

policy that a year or two later, Lord Salisbury said of his colleague that he never could have brought himself to annex the Isle of Man.

That brings us down through the various stages to the final draft of the bill. May I recall to the House the fact that on the day this debate opened, on Tuesday last, we celebrated, or should have celebrated if we wanted to celebrate-I wonder if there was any reason to do so-the passing of that bill through the British House. I do not think any hon. gentleman referred to it. It is simply a matter of interest to be noted in passing, but it is nevertheless true that this bill to which I have just referred passed the British House of Commons on that day, and so we see why to-day it has been found necessary to go back to England to struggle again and again, as we have been struggling, to achieve that state which Sir John A. Macdonald himself and those associated with him in those days sought to establish at that time.

Some of the speakers who have taken part in this debate have explained the attitude of the Colonial Office at that time, and their attitude since, as well as the attitude of the officials of departments over there at the present time, sometimes in criticism, sometimes not. Of them I do not wish at the present moment to make any criticism. I wish simply to submit in passing that if there is anything I do regret about this report it is that it has not been made as clear as I would wish just exactly what status we have achieved by adding not only to the qualification of our status as given in the report, but as well the definition as to our title. Why worry? Some poor old ladies, you know, Mr. Speaker, are fearfully worried about the possible loss of the word "dominion". I can sympathize with their point of view, but I do not think they quite understand. Use makes us love many things. Why should we use the word "dominion"? Let us study the dictionaries in regard to this word. The Oxford dictionary defines "dominion" as:

1. The power or right of governing or controlling.

And it gives as an example of the use of the word this sentence from Sir T. Herbert's Travels, year 1634, page 29:

Those Moguls got the dominion of those countries.

And another example from Freeman, 1867, page 215:

Foreign dominion in any shape would soon become hateful.

Yes. The Oxford dictionary gives a second definition:

Royal Assent

2 (b). The territory owned by or subject to a king or ruler or under a particular government or control.

Example: Dominion of Canada (colloquially, the Dominion) the title under which the former colonial provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, etc., in British North America were united into one government in 1867.

That is the example given in the Oxford dictionary. Webster defines dominion as:

That which is subject to sovereignty or control.

Specific examples:

(a) the estate or domain of a feudal lord.

(b) territory governed; the tract or country considered as subject; as the dominion of a king.

Then follows this statement:

Dominion has no technical meaning as used in the names Dominion of Canada, Dominion of New Zealand, etc., but the namg is popularly taken as implying a higher political status than the term "colony".

That is all. So it is quite clear that the term "dominion" indicates or implies inferiority to sovereignty or nationhood.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
LIB

Samuel William Jacobs

Liberal

Mr. JACOBS:

In his readings did not the

lion, gentleman come across a statement to the effect that the man who first suggested the name "dominion" for Canada was Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley? I think it was he who was responsible for it; I did not know that Lord Derby was. Sir Leonard Tilley came across a passage one day in the Psalms *-my hon. friend will remember that he was a biblical scholar-reading "And He shall have dominion from sea to sea." He thought that that was a very appropriate name for this country', seeing that it was bordered by the two oceans, the Atlantic and the Pacific.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

Yes. I

hope the hon. gentleman did not get the impression that I attributed the title "dominion1, to Lord Derby, not by any means, nor can my remarks be taken as having done so. What I did suggest was that the attitude of Lord Derby and those associated with him at that time, their lack of vision, their incapacity to realize the possibilities of the new situation, were the factors that prevented the formation of a sovereign nation on this side -of the Atlantic.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
LIB

Samuel William Jacobs

Liberal

Mr. JACOBS:

But accepting the interpretation of Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley, does not my hon. friend think that it was a dignified title to give to this country?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

The hon.

member is welcome to his opinion thereon. I would welcome, without any particular criticism of the immediate title, the title to which we are entitled, and that is all.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND AMENDMENT OF MR. GUTHRIE
Permalink

March 31, 1927