March 31, 1927

THE ROYAL ASSENT


A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:


LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

His Honour, the Deputy

of His Excellency the 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 having returned

Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:

An Act for the relief of Alice Victoria Mc-Gibbon.

An Act for the relief of John Jones.

An Act for the relief of Samuel Paveling.

An Act for the relief of Benjamin Rapp.

An Act for the relief of Bernard Thomas Graham.

An Act for the relief of Robert Edward Greig.

An Act for the relief of Daise Hawkey.

An Act for the relief of Olive Mary Mead.

An Act for the relief of Alice Elizabeth Blakely.

An Act for the relief of Ethel Maud Har-graft.

An Act for the relief of Frederic Yinet.

An Act for the relief of Gwendolen Mc-Lachlin.

An Act for the relief of Jessie Evis.

An Act for the relief of Max Gertler.

An Act for the relief of Florence May Hicks.

An Act for the relief of Ruth May Harrington.

An Act for the relief of Edith Maude Bull.

An Act for the relief of Joseph Bernard Hoodless.

An Act for the relief of Edward Barker.An Act for the relief of Joan Henderson.

An Act for the relief of Vina Kennedy (otherwise known as Vina Dorothy Kennedy).

An Act for the relief of Aimfe Glenholme Young.

An Act for the relief of Alberta Lutz.

An Act for the relief of George Frederick Adams.

An Act for the relief of Edward Saville.An Act for the relief of Robert Fisher.An Act for the relief of Dorothy Terry.

An Act for the relief of Lillie May Brown Nichols.

An Act for the relief of Hazel Pearle Clarke Pearey.

An Act for the relief of Edith Swartz.

An Act for the relief of James Gibb Erskine.

An Act for the relief of Ernest Johnson.

An Act for the relief of Maxime Demers.

An Act for the relief of Ethel Clementina Craig-Williams.

An Act for the relief of Ida Lula Dupuis

Murchison.

Royal Assent

An Act for the relief of Gladys Andrea Boyle.

An Act for the relief of Leslie Ellis Noble.

An Act to provide for special control by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs of certain islands in the St. La^vrenee river being part of the St. Regis Indian reservation.

An Act to incorporate The Detroit and Windsor Subway Company.

An Act to incorporate Columbia Life Assurance Company.

An Act respecting The Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway Company.

An Act respecting the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company.

An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.

An Act respecting The Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada.

An Act respecting The Department of National Revenue.

An Act respecting the Canadian National Railways, and to provide for the refunding of certain maturing financial obligations.

An Act to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915.

An Act to amend The Income War Tax Act, 1917.

An Act respecting the Ottawa Electric Company.

An Act respecting the Ottawa Gas Company.

An Act respecting La Compagnie du chemin de fer de Colonisation du Nord.

An Act respecting The Essex Terminal Railway Company.

An Act respecting The Canadian Transit Company.

An Act respecting Old Age Pensions.

An Act to repeal The War Charities Act, 1917.

An Act to amend the Indian Act.

An Act to amend The Canada Evidence Act as respects Bank Books and Records.

An Act for the relief of Amy Humphrey Lowe.

An Act for the relief of Erik Herman Delling.

An Act for the relief of Samuel Stanley McNeely.

An Act for the relief of Edna May Stevens.

An Act for the relief of Beatrice Maude Cammell.

An Act for the relief of Stanley Moorhouse.

An Act for the relief of Blanche Evelyn Parkinson.

An Act for the relief of Lillian Franklin Boddy.

An Act for the relief of Ninna Louise Bryant.

An Act for the relief of John Thomas Fray.

An Act for the relief of Cornelia Mosca Cristoforetti.

An Act for the relief of Florence Emaline Hind.

An Act for the relief of Dorothy Helen Elliott.

An Act for the relief of Myrtle Blanche Weeks.

An Act for the relief of Dorothy Olinda Tew Phillips Lawson.

An Act for the relief of Nelson Douglas Langfield.

An Act for the relief of Susanah Ivy Y. Cave.

An Act for the relief of James Arthur McNish.

An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Maud Maitland.

An Act for the relief of Agnes Seeds.

An Act for the relief of James Sharkey.

An Act for the relief of Lawrence Raymond Sinclair, otherwise known as Lawrence Reginald Sinclair.

An Act for the relief of Ruby Pearl Northam.

An Act for the relief of Leila Beecher Smith Kerman.

An Act respecting the Construction of Can-andian National Railway Lines between St. Felicien and Mistassini River and between Ilebertville and Savanne Falls, both in the Province of Quebec.

An Act respecting the Construction of a

Canadian National Railway Line between Pilkington and Niagara Junction in the Province of Ontario.

An Act respecting the Construction of a

Canadian National Railway Line between Grand Mere and East Burrills, in the Province of. Quebec.

An Act respecting the Construction of aCanadian National Railway Line between

Weyburn and Radville, in the Province of Saskatchewan.

An Act respecting the Construction of a

Canadian National Railway Line from Willow-brook North-Westerly, in the Province of Saskatchewan.

An Act respecting the Construction of aCanadian National Railway Line between

Sturgis and Peesane, in the Province of Saskatchewan.

An Act respecting the Construction of a

Canadian National Railway Line from Peesane Northerly, in the Province of Saskatchewan.

An Act respecting the Construction of a

Canadian National Railway Line from near Shellbrook Westerly, in the Province of Saskatchewan.

An Act respecting the Construction of aCanadian National Railway Line being an extension of the Turtleford South-Easterly

Branch to a point between Hafford and Richard, in the Province of Saskatchewan.

An Act respecting the Construction of aCanadian National Railway Line between

Kindersley and Glidden, in the Province of Saskatchewan.

An Act respecting the Construction of a

Canadian National Railway Line from near Spruce Lake Westerly, in the Province of Saskatchewan.

An Act respecting the Construction of a

Canadian National Railway Line from Hudson Bay Junction Southerly, in the Province of Saskatchewan.

An Act respecting the Construction of aCanadian National Railway Line from Elk Point Easterly, in the Province of Alberta.An Act respecting the Construction of a

Canadian National Railway Line between Ashmont and Bonnyville, in the Province of Alberta.

An Act respecting the Construction of a

Canadian National Railway Line between Bretona and Clover Bar, in the Province of Alberta.

An Act to amend the Canadian National Railways Act, 1919.

An Act to amend the Judges Act.

An Act to amend the Exchequer Court Act.

Imp. Conference-Mr. Edwards (Fronlermc)

An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act.

An Act respecting Dominion Electric Protection Company. _

An Act respecting the Canadian National Steamships and to provide for the establishment of West Indies Service.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink
CON

John Wesley Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington) :

Mr. Speaker, in the summary of

proceedings of the Imperial conference held last year I find two or three sentences in Tegard to the British Empire which attract my attention. At page 12 of the report I find the following:

The British Empire is not founded upon negations. It depends essentially, if not formally, on positive ideals. Free institutions are its life blood. Free cooperation is its instrument. Peace, security and progress are among its objects.

A little above that on the same page I find the following:

"Its widely scattered parts have very different characteristics, very different histories, and are at very different stages of evolution; while considered as a whole, it defies classification and bears no real resemblance to any other political organization which now exists or has ever yet been tried."

I subscribe to those statements and I think we would do well to appreciate the fact that we cannot compare the British Empire to any other empire which has ever existed; it has been established on an entirely different basis from anything else in the history of the world.

Whatever was the thought back of the holding of the first conference I think every person will agree that these talks, which started in a very small way, grew in proportion as the years went on and that the last few of those conferences held in more recent years were of very great importance. I believe the thought back of these conferences was that it would be advisable for the various parts of our widely scattered empire to send representatives to confer and talk over matters of general interest to all, and out of those conferences has grown, I believe, because of the increased knowledge of each part thereby obtained by all the parts, a stronger bond of sympathy and a more definite and better understanding.

Sir Robert Borden, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and other statesmen of this country who have at times attended imperial conferences came back very modestly, and very modestly reported to the people of Canada what had taken place. Last year the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) crossed the ocean to attend the conference. They came back from the conference telling the people of Canada that they had obtained from those tyrants overseas,-they did not use those words but they have been used by one hon. member in speaking in this House-that they had wrung from those tyrants in the mother country a new charter of liberty, and that a new Magna Charta had been obtained through their wonderful efforts. In the speech from the throne this year a reference was made to the report which would be placed before this House, and in the debate on the address a very definite statement was made by the Prime Minister that the report would be placed before parliament and that parliament would be asked to give its sanction and approval to the report. For some reason or other that promise has not been carried out. It seems to me it is becoming a habit with this government to make promises in the speech from the throne which are later disregarded. Last year in the speech from the throne definite promises were made which were not carried out and no attempt was made to carry them out. This year we have had the same thing with respect to this very important matter of the Imperial conference. I do not know who is the dictator in regard to this matter, but we do know that the government have been dictated to in regard to other matters; for instance, they were dictated to by Sir Clifford Sifton in regard to the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal. Sifton was the dictator, and Premier King was the dictatee. They were dictated to last year by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr Bourassa) in regard to a return to Alberta of its natural resources. In that case the member for Labelle was the dictator, and the Prime Minister was the dictatee. And now, notwithstanding the definite assurance of the Prime Minister that the House will be asked by resolution to approve of what had taken place at the conference, some person has dictated again, and the definite promise made is not to be carried out. In connection with this matter I would call your attention to the fact that on the 13th of December a question was put by the leader of the opposition to the Minister of Justice in regard to this report. Mr. Guthrie inquired:

Is he-

That is the Minister of Justice.

willing to take the risk of the enactment into law of the proposal in the report?

To which the Minister of Justice replied:

Surely. .

1/4t>

COMMONS

Imp. Conference-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)

Then the leader of the opposition said:

Perhaps in a few clays the minister may hear from Quebec, and the report may yet have to be amended.

Well, apparently the minister did hear from Quebec, or from some place else, because the promise that the matter would be dealt with in a definite manner by this House has been abandoned by the government.

The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) this afternoon talked learnedly about preconfederation days and as to certain matters that- took place at that time. His references were very interesting, although I may say, without being discourteous, that I fail to see just what bearing they have upon the matter before us. What was, after all, the basis of union in 1867? Subject to the special provisions affecting Ontario and Quebec, and to which they had voluntarily agreed, the provinces were to have equality of status and rights, possession of their natural resources, and complete control of their educational and other local affairs. I think I have stated the situation correctly. Having in view the very specific clauses of the British North America Act in regard to each province having control of its natural resources, I think I have stated the matter correctly in saying that they were to have autonomy or equality of status. They should have received those resources long ago.

In that connection I want to refer you to remarks made by the Prime Minister, (Mr. Mackenzie King) and also by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) at a large meeting held in Toronto in the month of February last. Referring to what he calls "the first fruits of a declaration of equality of status" the Prime Minister is reported in the press as saying:

Who is there in the British Empire to-day who is prepared openly to advocate a doctrine of inferiority or subordination?

Well, I would answer that question, in view of what has transpired, by saying that he and his government are the ones who have done that very thing in the matter of the transfer to the western provinces of their natural resources. Referring to Great Britain and the dominions, the Prime Minister used these words:

It was laid down that each was an autonomous community within the British Empire; that m any aspect of their domestic or external affairs they were in no way subordinate one to another, that all were united by a common allegiance to the crown, and that all were freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations. In these particulars, all of which relate themselves to status, there is not only similarity but equality. In other words the position and mutual relation of

Great Britain and the dominions was defined as one of equality of status.

Having regard to the action of the government in reference to the transfer to the western provinces of their natural resources may I ask your attention while I paraphrase that statement of the Prime Minister? I paraphrase it in this way: "It is laid down that

each province is an autonomous community within the Dominion; that in any aspect of their domestic affairs they are in no way subordinate one to another; that all are united by a common allegiance to our common country and all are freely associated as units of confederation. In these particulars all of which relate themselves to status there is similarity and there should be, although there is not, equality."

On the same occasion the Minister of Justice described the main achievement of the conference as being "a definite, dear and official adherence to the doctrine of equality of status," declaring that the men of his race were in the forefront of the battle for responsible government. He added:

They believe in self-government, freedom and national status within the British Empire and under the Brtish throne, and that they do not believe a condition of subordination and colonial inferiority essential to the preservation of their sacred rights.

He also said:

Autonomy means self-government in all matters. I even suggest that distinguished visitors would perhaps be better advised if they refrained from offering so much advice to the people of Canada, as to how they should deal with matters which are exclusively their own business.

May I also paraphrase that statement in reference to the attitude and action of the government regarding the transfer to the west of their natural resources? I paraphrase it in this way: "The western provinces believe

in self-government, freedom and provincial status within confederation and under the constitution, and they do not believe a condition of subordination and provincial inferiority essential to the preservation of their sacred provincial rights."

What does autonomy mean? Will any person, giving a definition of the word "autonomy", which means self-government, say that these western provinces have selfgovernment? Have we nine provinces in Canada to-day within the meaning of the word "province", as defined by the British North America Act? We have six provinces in Canada to-day, and three legislative units, -Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, which are not provinces to-day within the meaning,

Imp. Conference-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)

within the specific words of the British North America Act, and in their definition of what a province is. Talk about imperialism in this country as has been talked by some members in this House 1 We have had exercised on the floor of this House, and very recently at that, an imperialism in so far as the provinces are concerned, in depriving those provinces of their legitimate rights. The Dominion as a trustee for the property of those provinces has played the part of a political bandit, and has stolen or taken to itself what belongs rightfully to those provinces. So, when some hon. members speak about imperialism, I would ask them to estimate whether or not we have not a form of imperialism exercised by the federal parlament in its attitude to the undoubted rights of the provinces.

Some excellent speeches have been made during the course of this debate. One of the most attractive speakers in this House i3 unquestionably the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). When he speaks in parliament he always attracts attention. So does the man who is haranguing a crowd outside of a circus tent attract attention, not so much because of what he says as because of the spectacular manner in which he says it. The hon. member for Labelle made in this House one of his characteristic speeches in his characteristic manner, in his characteristically offensive manner. He sang his hymn of hate, and in doing so he ran the whole length of the scale from pianissimo to fortissimo. He reminds me of a car on a scenic railway which rushes down the incline with a roar as if to gather strength for the climb ahead, pauses at the summit, as it were for breath, and then repeats the performance. So the hon. member for Labelle, carried along on the flood tide of his own verbosity, punctuated his utterances with blasts of rodomontade and thrasonical bombast and bedecked those utterances with facial contortions and acrobatic gesticulations.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Fernand Fafard

Liberal

Mr. FAFARD:

Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, to compare an hon. member with a scenic railway?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink
CON

Alexander McKay Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

Well I will apologize to the railway. I am sure that the hon. member for Labelle will take note of the interruption of my hon. friend. I know that he and many more of the members who sit around him recognize the power that the hon. member for Labelle is on the platform, the influence that he can exert there either for their election or against it, and very often, because they are afraid of him, they pay to him obeisance which down in their hearts they do not feel.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

He is failing.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink
CON

Alexander McKay Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

Yes, he is

failing. The ravages of age are coming on . him as on others. Even the smile which for years he has cultivated so assiduously as a political asset is now only a grisly skeleton of what it was in former days. That smile has reached a point where it can no longer perform its use to him. His affected urbanity cannot conceal the bitterness which is seething within.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Fernand Fafard

Liberal

Mr. FAFARD:

What has that to do with

the Imperial conference?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink
CON

Alexander McKay Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

Probably

if my hon. friend waits a while he may find out. I am giving him at the start something that will not strain his gray matter too much.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Fernand Fafard

Liberal

Mr. FAFARD:

It is a scenic railway

speech.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink
CON

Alexander McKay Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

I told my

hon. friend I am very sure that he has already qualified himself entirely in the eyes of the hon. member for Labelle. I am sure the hon. member for Labelle will not put up any candidate against him. What I or anyone else may think of the speech of the hon. member for Labelle, one thing at least is certain. The hon. member for Labelle will always have one devout worshipper at his shrine and that is the hon. member for Labelle. It is certain that he is thoroughly dissatisfied with everything and every other person on earth. It is just as certain that he is completely satisfied with himself.

The hon. member has made spectacular pilgrimages from one end of this country to the other advertising himself as an apostle of peace, a peace founded on discord which he himself assiduously creates. He has advertised himself as an apostle of Canadian unity, a Canadian unity whose foundations rest, through the efforts of the hon. member for Labelle, on separatism. What was the object of the hon. member for Labelle in his venomous statement-because it was venomous-some time ago when he insinuated that Canadian nickel had been given to Germany for armament purposes, with the knowledge of the imminence of war?

Occasionally the hon. member for Labelle pays a tribute to British institutions, but he invariably digs into the dust heaps of antiquity for something to discredit any word of praise which might fall from his lips in regard to British institutions. He has persistently misrepresented everything British with the view of lessening respect in Canada for everything British. In regard to British institutions, in favour of which, as I say, he

1/48 COMMONS

Imp. Conference-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)

occasionally has a word to say, what was his attitude when they were in danger of extinction during the time of the war? On what did he feed those who read his articles in the press or who listened to his utterances? Did he seek to inspire patriotism to meet the crisis that we faced at that time? Am I not absolutely correct in saying that on every occasion when the empire has been menaced, the bon. member for Labelle has been found with voice and pen on the side of the enemies of the empire? When was he ever loyal to any party or any leader? His speeches and writings contain the bitterest references to Laurier that were ever uttered or written by any man in this country. When has he ever done anything to promote peace, harmony and unity in this country? Has he ever been satisfied with any party, with any leader?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

No.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink
CON

Alexander McKay Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

Has he ever been satisfied with anything or anybody except himself?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink
IND

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Independent

Mr. BOURASSA:

And the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards): I am quite satisfied with him.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink
CON

Alexander McKay Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

As I said a while ago, and the hon. gentleman is giving a demonstration of it now, his affected urbanity, that skeleton of a smile, that grisly grin cannot hide the seething tempest within. But I did not expect the hon. gentleman would come in and demonstrate my words as he is doing.

What was back of his insinuation-this gentleman who talks of Canadian national unity-that Great Britain was responsible for the war? What was back of his statement that not an English soldier would have crossed the channel on behalf of either Belgium or France except for the basest of motives? What was back of his statement that Great Britain was a stranger to international loyalty? What was back of his statement that Canadian leaders had grotesquely misrepresented the real causes of the war and the real situation as between France and England? Why did he deprecate Canada's gifts of flour and cheese and other foodstuffs during the war? Why did he refer to Canada as giving those things to very rich England, while the Belgians were starving and Canadians were going hungry? What was back of all that? What was his purpose? I repeat that the hon. gentleman on every occasion when our empire has been threatened, on every occasion when British institutions have been menaced, [DOT] has

been found giving by voice and pen such aid and comfort and encouragement as he could to the enemies of our empire.

Where was the hon. member for Labelle at the time of the war? I would like to quote to the House here tonight in his presence, a statement from a compatriot of his, in a newspaper published in the province of Quebec, a paper that he does not agree with, of course; that goes without saying, because he does not agree with anything unless he writes it himself. But listen to what La Patrie says in its issue of October 10, 1918:

It will be remembered that on the 2nd of August, 1914, during the very first days of the war, Mr. Henri Bourassa, director of Le Devoir was in Cologne. What could he be doing in Germany at that particular moment-

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink
IND

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Independent

Mr. BOURASSA:

On what date?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink
CON

Alexander McKay Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

The 2nd of

August.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink
IND

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Independent

Mr. BOURASSA:

I was in Paris that day.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink
CON

Alexander McKay Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

I guess you did not get to Paris till a little later.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE ROYAL ASSENT
Sub-subtopic:   SUSPENSION OP SITTING
Permalink

March 31, 1927