Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

That was only a chart.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

It was part

of a chart, a chart which has been carried out increasingly ever since. At the time it was recognized that there were two matters which would have to be considered carefully in connection with any social legislation. One was the financial position of the dominion and the provinces and the other the all-important question of jurisdiction as between the provinces and the dominion. The resolution passed in 1919 was expressed in the following words:

In so far as it may be practicable, having regard to Canada's financial position, an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, dependence, old age and other disability should be instituted by the federal government in conjunction with the governments of the several provinces.

When the Liberal administration came into office in 1921 we indicated our hope that while we were in office we might soon be in a position to enact some measure of social insurance. It took time to gain that end. It was a new field for a federal administration to enter. Old age pensions appeared to be the obvious place to begin. It was possible to obtain the cooperation of the provinces for such a measure more readily than for one respecting unemployment, invalidity or health insurance. An old age pensions measure was enacted by the Liberal administration in office in 1927. In 1928 the same administration, continuing in office, invited this house to consider in one of its committees the advisability of following that enactment by one respecting unemployment insurance. The matter was referred to the standing committee on industrial and international relations. That committee made

a report at the end of the session of 1928 to the effect that unemployment insurance was desirable, but the committee recognized the fact that one province could not act alone and recommended further study of the matter. The same committee met in the following year, 1929, and reported, approving the principle but noting the opinion of the Department of Justice that the jurisdiction was provincial, and a report from the Minister of Labour that the provinces had been consulted and most of them were not disposed to act. I have before me the answers given by the different provinces at that time, and they indicate quite clearly that the provinces themselves were not favourable to the enactment of an unemployment insurance measure by the federal government.

In 1933 when in opposition I made a statement to the house of Liberal principles on a number of different matters-that was not the chart; it was the occasion of the fourteen points-and one of the points was that, "As a permanent measure the Liberal party is pledged to introduce policies which will serve to provide employment by revising industry and trade, and to introduce a national system of unemployment insurance.

Then, as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has said, Mr. Bennett, who was then Prime Minister, introduced in 1935 his bill respecting unemployment insurance." Knowing the position taken by most if not all of the provinces to the effect that an unemployment insurance measure would invade their jurisdiction if enacted as a federal act, we of the opposition of the day felt it necessary to point out to -the government that they were seeking to enact, we assumed knowingly, a measure which was not within the competence of this parliament and the validity of which would be questioned immediately if an effort were made to put it into force.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

If the

Prime Minister will allow me, I omitted to say in my remarks-and he will recall that this is correct-that before Mr. Bennett introduced that legislation we had what we considered the best legal opinion in Canada, and not from one source only but from more than one.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I recall that certain legal opinion was cited but it was very strongly combated by legal opinion that we on our side regarded as even better, and as events turned out it so proved. At all events what we did suggest was not that the act should not be passed but rather that before any attempts were made to put its provisions into effect, advantage should be

Unemployment Insurance

taken of the Supreme Court Act to have the measure referred to the supreme court for an opinion which would decide beyond any question of doubt whether the proposed unemployment insurance measure, if given the force of law, would be valid and its provisions thereafter unquestioned as coming within the competence of this parliament. Hon. members no doubt are aware that there is a section in the Supreme Court Act which was enacted for the very purpose of meeting situations of the kind. The section gives the supreme court authority to determine and pronounce finally in advance so as to avoid unnecessary expense and also the inconvenience and annoyance that are occasioned by a measure being subsequently disallowed. Section 55 of the Supreme Court Act gives the court special jurisdiction with respect to references by governor in council. It reads:

Important questions of law or fact touching

(a) the interpretation of the British North America Acts, or

(b) the constitutionality or interpretation of any dominion or provincial legislation, or

(d) the powers of the parliament of Canada, or of the legislatures of the provinces, or of the respective governments thereof, whether or not the particular power in question has been or is proposed to be exercised, may be referred by the governor in council to the supreme court for hearing and consideration; and any question touching any of the matters aforesaid, so referred by the governor in council, shall be conclusively deemed to be an important question.

The opinion of the court upon any such reference, although advisory only, shall, for all purposes of appeal to his majesty in council, be treated as a final judgment of the said court between parties.

In other words, we of the opposition of the day felt that to put the act into force would necessarily involve a very large expenditure, also the making of a considerable number of important appointments. We expressed the view that before the people's money was used for the purpose of an enactment about which there was doubt as to the competence of parliament, it was advisable that that doubt should be removed altogether.

The leader of the Conservative party of the day would, however, not pay any heed to the representations which were made. The act was passed and found its place on the statutes and several appointments, if I recall aright, were made under it. The Conservative party was not returned to power at the election which immediately ensued. The present administration came into office and we immediately referred the question of the validity of the act to the supreme court for

decision. The supreme court gave its decision, which was in accordance with the view which we held at the time we opposed the measure. An appeal was then taken to the judicial committee of the privy council in England and the privy council upheld the decision of the supreme court. My hon. friend will I think agree that in seeking a final decision by the judicial committee of the privy council in the old country, we were seeking and securing the opinion of as high an authority as was possible. It was in that way that the unemployment insurance enactment of the late conservative administration fell to the ground.

We then immediately sought to bring in a measure of unemployment insurance which would be beyond question as to its validity. The difficult but most necessary part of the whole business was to get the consent of the several provinces. That has not been an easy matter. My hon. friend has referred to our having lost a good deal of time in getting an unemployment insurance act upon the statutes. I agree with him that it is unfortunate that a lot of time has been lost, but it has been lost, not at the instance of the federal government, but at the instance of the provinces which would not agree to an enactment by the federal government. While, however, we have lost time in that way, we have made an exceedingly important gain in another direction, which, in the end, may mean much saving of time, namely, to-day we are able to introduce an act which carries with it the consent of every single province of this dominion. That is a very great achievement. Up until this year we were unable to secure from all of the provinces an approval which would enable us to say: We have the provinces in complete agreement with us as to amending the British North America Act in a manner which will enable this federal government to pass an unemployment insurance measure without possible question as to its validity being raised either now or later on. I feel that that achievement of itself will in the long run be most valuable. We have avoided anything in the nature of coercion of any of the provinces. Moreover we have avoided the raising of a very critical constitutional question, namely, whether or not in amending the British North America Act it is absolutely necessary to secure the consent of all the provinces, or whether the consent of a certain number of provinces would of itself be sufficient. That question may come up but not in reference to unemployment insurance at some time later on. For the present at any rate we have escaped

Unemployment Insurance

any pitfall in that direction and we are now able to bring in a measure which has the complete support of all the provinces.

I have tabled this afternoon the correspondence which has taken place between the dominion and the provinces. It is I think of a historical character. It is as important I believe as any material that appears in the volumes of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. For that reason I suggested a little earlier to-day that it might be printed in the votes and proceedings of to-day so as to be found permanently in the records of this parliament.

I do not think I need say more. As a matter of fact, not having received the consent of all nine provinces until this year, we could not possibly before this particular session have introduced in a manner which would avoid all questions a measure for the amendment of the British North America Act. There were, if I recollect aright, three provinces, namely New Brunswick, Quebec and Alberta, which prior to the beginning of this year had not given their full approval. But each of these provinces, recognizing the national importance of this measure, and, I believe being moved to see it in a clearer light as a consequence of the problems which are inevitable at this time of war and which will arise when the war is over, have agreed to join with the federal government in giving unanimous approval to the enactment of the measure.

That enables me, I hope, to answer in part the question which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked, and which was, whether the government can give any undertaking that the measure will be put through at the present session of parliament. I believe that, inasmuch as this resolution will pass the House of Commons with the approval of hon. members on all sides, and that it is pretty certain to meet with like approval in the other house, the government at Westminster will lose no time in passing the amendment which we are requesting by resolution. How long that will take in the present circumstances no one, of course, can say. But I should be rather astonished if it is not possible, notwithstanding present conditions, for the government at Westminster to amend the British North America Act, in accordance with our wishes, within a day or two. I should think that it would not be necessary to wait to send Britain the submissions by mail, but that, the circumstances being what they are, a cable from the ministry informing the British government that both our houses

of parliament had unanimously agreed to the address and requesting that action be taken as speedily as possible, would be met with very prompt action on the part of the British government.

As soon as the British North America Act is amended in the particular required a bill will be introduced, and it is certainly our intention and desire to have the bill go through at the present session. There will have to be something wholly unforeseen at this moment to prevent that course being carried out by the government. It is certainly our present expectation as well as our present desire.

I may have omitted reference to some other matters which have been mentioned, but I believe the only one is that alluded to by my hon. friend the acting leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, who regretted that it was not possible for us to make the request to the British government somewhat larger, more all-embracing, than the one which is being made and which is confined to unemployment insurance. May I say that, if we had ventured to go beyond unemployment insurance, we would probably have met with further objections on the part of some, if not of all, of the provinces. As the correspondence will show, one of the circumstances which enabled us to get the approval of all of the provinces was the fact that we were asking for only one amendment, specifically related to unemployment insurance. I imagine the provinces have felt that they would like to wait and see just how that amendment works out before they give their consent to amendments of wider scope.

Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):

As one who in quite a number of sessions' has advocated unemployment insurance, I am going to support the resolution, and I hope that I shall be able also to support the main provisions of the bill. I appreciate the difficulty which the government has had. Having taken the stand that it was a constitutional question, they have proceeded from that point of view, after having appealed to the privy council for its decision, and are preparing to bring in a bill with the consent of all the provinces.

There are, I believe, only two other federated nations having unemployment insurance laws which have had the same problem to grapple with. In Switzerland, with its twenty-five cantons, they could not come to the same satisfactory conclusion as has now been reached in Canada, where all the provinces are in unison with regard to carrying out the plan. The result in Switzerland was that in nine of the cantons there are compulsory unemployment insurance laws; in fourteen the law is

Unemployment Insurance

non-compulsory, and two cantons have no unemployment insurance whatever. In my judgment that is not satisfactory.

While I should like to have seen in operation during the past five years the bill which was passed by the Conservative government in 1935, I am willing to concede that if the present government felt it necessary for the sake of harmony to take the course they have done, possibly a great deal has not been lost through waiting until to-day. In the United States, of course, there was the same trouble: they have forty-eight states. I have often wondered why even the present government, at the first session, in 1936, could not have followed -the United States plan. I am not saying that theirs is as good a system as the one in operation in Great Britain, but it might have been amended and reconsidered to suit our situation here. In the United States each state had the -same power as each province of Canada claims to have. That is, any unemployment law could have been enacted by each individual state. That difficulty was overcome through the enactment by the federal government of an unemployment insurance act which they believed would be satisfactory to each state, and then, to induce the states to put unemployment insurance into operation, they undertook to return to each state as a federal state tax -the taxes collected with relation to unemployment insurance.

I should like to have asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) after he spoke whether this government has looked into the United States federal system.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

Yes.

Mr. MacNICOL:

The minister nods his head. Then apparently the government discarded the United States system. There is no reason why if it was workable it could not have been in operation here during the last five years.

I intend to speak for only a moment or two, but I should like to comment on the opinion expressed by the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Blackmore), that unemployment insurance cannot be a success. It has been my pleasure to visit over quite a number of years many countries

Germany, Holland, France, Great Britain, and various states of the American union-which have unemployment insurance in operation, and my observation is that the legislation has been an unqualified success. In Great Britain it has been marvellously successful. I do not know what -they could have done without their unemployment insurance act. With the aid of the funds which they are

accumulating under their unemployment insurance law they are looking forward confidently to being able for a long period to take care of the men who will probably be thrown out of work at the conclusion of the war. Through the increase in employment in the manufacture of armaments and munitions, unemployment insurance contributions have increased to an enormous sum of money, which explains in some degree why the benefits under their present law were recently increased. To-day the British unemployment insurance act surpasses anything elsewhere and has met the fondest wishes of their working men.

I became quite a number of years ago an advocate of unemployment insurance because of my association with large numbers of working men. From time to time I saw men thrown out of work, sometimes under circumstances of peculiar hardship. I have in mind one man who was thrown out of work after thirty years, without obtaining any compensation. That was manifestly unfair. The company for -whom he worked did not feel disposed to give him a pension, and as he had had nothing to do with contributing to any unemployment insurance fund he received nothing from any such source. Others who had served twenty-nine, twenty-eight, twenty-seven, twenty-six, twenty-five years, and so on, were thrown out of employment. In one case a man worked forty-five years but because of intermittent employment he was unable to put aside anything and when he was thrown out of work he had nothing to fall back on.

I am firmly convinced that unemployment insurance is one of the finest pieces of social legislation any government can enact, and I shall be glad to support it now, even though it comes five years later than in my opinion we should have had it.

Mr. G. E. WOOD (Brant):

I am to some extent in accord with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in his appeal to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to apply for wider powers than he is asking for in connection with unemployment insurance, but after listening to the reasons given by the Prime Minister I have come to the conclusion that it would be better to adopt a programme of going slowly and making steady progress in that way than to ask for too much and risk getting nothing at all. Up to that point I am prepared to give my support to the measure and I will accept the point of view put forward.

Unemployment insurance has received a great deal of thought especially from the standpoint of our industrial centres. Speaking

Unemployment Insurance

for the people I represent, and I believe for the farmers of the dominion at large, I suggest that this is another of the measures that will add to the burden upon agriculture. We do not want to play the dog in the manger, and to say that because we are not sharing in the benefits of certain legislation we wish to deprive other citizens of those benefits. The unfortunate thing is that only a small proportion of the population of Canada will be in a position to enjoy all the privileges of this legislation.

The reason I am in harmony with the point of view of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is that I should like to see the scope of this type of legislation broadened so as to take in the farmers. I have followed with a reasonable degree of interest the social legislation of many countries, particularly where such legislation has made considerable strides, as in the United States, but unfortunately none of it makes any provision for the farmers. It seems that the farmer has to supply the food of the nation at less than cost, and in the last ten years of economic warfare he has been the real veteran. He has supplied the food of the employer in the city at less than cost and he finds himself to-day receiving a smaller portion every year of the national wealth of the country. In 1914 he received about 16 per cent of the national income. To-day he receives less than 9 per cent. It seems to me that we are putting upon society, upon the taxpayer, another burden which will increase the cost of goods to the farmer, the cost of the things he has to buy, without giving him any compensation. True, the leader of the Social Credit party emphasized that we should have a decent standard of living. Well, it has been very difficult for me to interpret the term "decent standard of living," because there are eleven million people in Canada and I have come to the conclusion that there are eleven million standards of living. One man's standard of living may be quite different from that of another.

The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) was concerned last week about the effect of the high cost of living on the labouring population in view of the war situation. I would say to the hon. member that it is not always the high cost of living that affects us; it is the cost of high living. I am inclined to think that is largely true of the city man in relation to the man on the farm. I should like to see in our social legislation some provision for a contributory national pension scheme which would take the farmer into consideration. To-day he is not only supplying the food of the nation at less than cost, but he is making a great

contribution to the education and to the social and industrial life of the country. He has mortgaged his farm to educate his sons, who have taken the industrial field and gone in for professional and academic life, using in many ways the abilities thus acquired to advance the very type of legislation that will make it more difficult for the old man to live on the farm. I should like to see the scheme of social legislation broadened so that the old man on the farm, after contributing all these years to the welfare of society, might benefit from a contributory national insurance scheme, something in which he could participate. After living all his time on the farm he would be unhappy if he moved into the city, but he could still live on the land and obtain a fair share of his living there, with a small monetary contribution in monthly payments such as many men to-day do not enjoy, although they have made their contribution to society.

When the bill comes down I intend to take the opportunity to discuss this matter further. I felt that it was my duty at this particular time to say something on behalf of a large section of the people of Canada who unfortunately, owing to the economic conditions that prevail, are struggling hard and making a considerable contribution to the national wealth of Canada without receiving anything in return. If Canada is to be a great nation we cannot afford to continue preferences to certain classes. The farmer is demanding that he come abreast in all the privileges and enjoyments of society. We should not ask from the taxpayers money to meet personal obligations. The unfortunate thing is that the man who is trying to raise his own family, live his own life, pay his honest debts, is taxed to pay old age pensions for the man who in many respects has wasted his time.

I believe that through a system of contributory insurance a man would be entitled to some of the wealth which he has created. Many are too proud to ask these privileges. I have come to the point where I am doubtful whether there is any type of non-contributory social legislation. We all contribute in some form; the unfortunate thing is the unequal distribution of the contribution we as taxpayers have been making. We are all contributors to social insurance, but unfortunately we are not all sharing in the enjoyment of it. I belong to a class representing the old pioneers of this country who, especially the farmers, were very reluctant to ask for these privileges, although they bowed their heads in assent to this advanced social legislation the privileges of which go largely to our industrial centres. Every man, I care not who he is, should make

Unemployment Insurance

some contribution in the days when he has power to do so towards his own social security. There is a saying that all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy; but while that is true it is also true that he generally has a bank account. We should all set aside a certain part of our income. The man who does not voluntarily realize the importance of thrift should be forced to assume his responsibility to himself for the days when he cannot earn his own living.

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

I have consistently and annually supported the principle of unemployment insurance since I was a member of the committee of this house which in 1922 recommended old age pensions and unemployment insurance. I want to 6ee a real system, and in view of the heavy burden which the government placed on industry yesterday it is their duty and function now to tell the employers what this scheme is. Is it compulsory; is it something the administration of which is later going to be shifted off in part on the municipalities or on the provinces? The employer yesterday was given six days to adjust income taxes with his employees. Is this bill going to be a meaningless thing or not? The government say, "as soon as possible." That is what the Liberal platform said in 1919 regarding unemployment insurance but twenty-one years afterwards it is still not in effect. It could have been put into effect by this government under the power in section 91 of the British North America Act under "public debt and property".

Following the practice of the last amendment by the parliament of the United Kingdom to the British North America Act the consent of the provinces must be given in the same form as this proposed address to-day, namely an address from each province. Another question is, how is this going to affect the present relief votes? Will it enable the government to shelter itself behind the statement that we have an act of the United Kingdom for unemployment insurance and cut these relief votes? Technical education was recognized as a federal responsibility by the commission appointed in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, yet was shunted off on the provinces and municipalities, and so was old age pensions.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) must not be too sure about getting this amendment through the British parliament in a day or two. I can tell him there are other applications to amend a constitution, one of them dealing with a very grave situation in India; and the British government had to

tell them that it will have to be postponed until after the war. They want home rule all along the line, something that may affect the war effort. South Africa and the southern part of Ireland have been considering like applications. Anyone who has the interests of the empire at heart realizes that these are very grave times for the mother country; and while I have supported this principle and support this application now, this is a very grave time to ask for this legislation if we are not going to put it into effect right away. "As soon as possible" does not mean anything. Will it be put into effect this year?

Until the enactment of the statute of Westminster there was no doubt that we had to go to the British parliament for these amendments. But this Dominion of Canada has a written constitution, that of 1867, and rules of strict law off it under the British North America Act. The southern part of Ireland was given a somewhat similar constitution, by the Irish treaty of 1921. The moment the statute of Westminster had been passed, although Mr. Lloyd George, the attorney general of England; Right Hon. F. E. Smith; Sir Austen Chamberlain and many eminent lawyers said at the time that the statute of Westminster would not change one word of the written constitution of southern Ireland, they changed every article of that constitution, including the abolition of appeals to the privy council. What will be the effect of the statute of Westminster on this application as far as Canada is concerned? No doubt that point will be raised when the matter comes up in the imperial parliament. I hope this will not lead to giving Canada the right to change its own constitution at will, as was given to one other dominion; the provinces must also consent to that.

These are very grave times for the mother of parliaments, and while I support the application, as I have always supported this principle, I do not want to see this a meaningless thing, just getting an amendment of the British North America Act and then having it stand for months and years. We are thirty-one years behind the mother country. She got this splendid social legislation in 1909; under the Liberal platform we were to get it in 1919, and here twenty-one years later we have not got it yet; there is only a proposal for enabling legislation, with no details or plan. This is going to open the door to applications from India and the two other dominions I have named at a very grave time for the empire. In view of the heavy burden put upon industry and agriculture by the government yesterday the government should tell the house and the country, employers of

Unemployment Insurance

labour and the working classes, who are most anxious to have relief from the terrible social and economic burden they are suffering to-day, what this scheme is, what the details are, what the cost will be and who pays it. If it is going to mean an additional burden added to real estate we should know and the country should know before the legislation is passed.

Mr. J. T. THORSON (Selkirk):

I shall

be only a few moments in my advocacy of this resolution. Unemployment insurance is a very important part of the programme of national reform upon which this country must embark. I wish, however, to dispute the contention that it is necessary to obtain the consent of the provinces before an application is made to amend the British North America Act. In my opinion there is no such necessity. On the other hand, it is the course of wisdom to advance as advances may be properly made, and I am sure that every hon. member is very glad that all the provinces of Canada have agreed to this measure. But I would not wish this debate to conclude with an acceptance, either direct or implied, of the doctrine that it is necessary to obtain the consent of the provinces before an application is made to amend the British North America Act. Fortunately, this is an academic question at this time.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

May I

tell my hon. friend that neither the Prime Minister nor I have said that it is necessary, but it may be desirable.

Mr. THORSON:

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has made it perfectly clear that the question does not enter into this discussion, in view of the fact that all the provinces have signified their willingness that this amendment should be requested.

There is one other matter to which I should like to make reference. It seems to me that at this stage, and in view of the development of this country as a nation, our present method of proceeding with constitutional reform is archaic. We ought to have definitely within our own hands the power of making such constitutional amendments as commend themselves to the people of Canada, without having to take the steps that are now necessary. In view of the fact, however, that we have not yet ourselves outlined the procedure for amending our constitution, apparently this is the only road open to us. I hope that this will be an incentive to us to devise ways and means of amending our constitution, so that when other constitutional reforms commend themselves to the people of Canada we may put such reforms into effect of our own motion.

These are the only two points that I wish to make. I am sure that we are all glad that this very necessary measure of national reform is about to be implemented.

Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):

Mr. Speaker, with most of the later remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Thorson) who has just taken his seat I quite heartily agree, although with his first remarks I disagree. The hon. gentleman suggested that this was one of the steps necessary to the social progress of this country. Of course we are unable to pass judgment as to the effect of this step on economic conditions in Canada until we have the actual measure before us, so that we may see in just what manner this unemployment insurance scheme is to be conducted; but if it is going to be managed in the same manner that practically all other measures are handled, we can rest quite assured, I believe, that any funds necessary for this purpose will be obtained through either increased taxation or borrowing, which in the final analysis amounts to the same thing. Consequently, while I greatly dislike to suggest it, I feel that any proposal which is going to lead to increased taxation or borrowing can be described as nothing but a redistribution of power. What we want in this country is a distribution of the wealth, which is actually and potentially great. As my leader pointed out this afternoon, that is the problem with which the government is faced. Personally I do not think it is at all necessary to obtain any amendment to the British North America Act to bring about that condition. There are at the present time plenty of facilities available which the government could use to enable the people of Canada collectively to provide for their own security.

As I have already stated, with the later remarks of the hon. member for Selkirk I heartily agree. As most hon. members know, I have been particularly interested in the constitutional aspect of our situation, and in times past have made a few addresses on this subject. As I have said before, I do not pretend to be an expert; I look at the matter merely from the point of view of a layman wishing to see conditions here of which we can be proud and which will enable us to perform our duties most effectively. As has been indicated by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Selkirk, there should be no reason why we in Canada could not amend our constitution without referring to the imperial parliament. That situation, as I see it, is just one

Unemployment Insurance

of the many anomalies still existing in relation to our constitutional position, and it is one which I am sure every one agrees should be removed at the earliest possible opportunity.

In connection with the power to amend our own constitution, and the contradiction that exists in that regard, once again I should like to refer to a few sentences appearing in the report of the imperial conference of 1926. I am sure most people who think of these matters must ask themselves this question: If we are a nation; if we are self-governing; if we have the right to determine our own affairs, why must we proceed to the imperial parliament to seek an amendment to our constitution? On the one hand we claim that we are independent, that we are free, that we are self-governing; on the other hand we resort to steps which deny what we claim to believe. The report of the inter-imperial relations committee, presented to the imperial conference of 1926, contains this reference to the units which compose the British empire:

They are autonomous communities within the British empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.

If that is the condition which obtains in the relationship of the various parts of the empire to the mother country, then I also cannot see why Canada should not have the right to amend her own constitution.

It is rather unfortunate that this matter should be raised in the house at this time. In my opinion this question of amending the British North America Act is not the only issue involved in regard to constitutional matters. I believe this raises the whole constitutional position in Canada at this time; and the situation is such that I believe we ought do something definite to remedy it and put our constitutional house in order. With the hour being so serious as it is, it is most inappropriate to precipitate anything in the way of constitutional trouble at this time. Conditions being what they are in Canada to-day, there is sufficient to cause a first-class constitutional crisis. I would be much happier if the government would see fit to refrain from dealing with constitutional matters until such time as the atmosphere is more conducive to discussing and debating a measure of that kind.

Mr. MacNICOL:

The constitutional question depends upon the British fleet.

Mr. KUHL:

The fear I have in connection with this method of amending the British North America Act, our so-called constitution, is that we shall be setting up a precedent or

more or less giving approval or sanction to constitutional conditions which obtain at the moment. Personally I do not wish to do that. As I said previously, there are in our constitutional position many anomalies which I think ought to be removed. I shall not deal at any length with these, but I should like to suggest a few of them in order to outline the problem which still confronts us constitutionally.

First is the method of amending our constitution. There certainly should be some regular and established method of amending our constitution. Next we have the anomalous position which obtains with regard to the governor general. The inter-imperial relations committee indicated in 1926 the position of the governor general since the enactment of the statute of Westminster, when it stated:

In our opinion it is an essential consequence of the equality of status existing among the members of the British commonwealth of nations that the governor general of a dominion is the representative of the crown, holding in all essential respects the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain, and that he is not the representative or agent of His Majesty's government in Great Britain or of any department of the government.

It must be quite obvious to everyone from a reading of that paragraph that since 1931 the position of the governor general has been that of personal representative of His Majesty the King. That is quite proper. Yet, on the other hand, there are sections of the British North America Act which grant the governor general authority over certain matters in Canada. Section 11 of the British North America Act gives to the governor general the power to summon, appoint and remove from time to time members of the privy council of Canada. Under section 14 he has the authority to appoint a commisioner of the Yukon territory. Under section 24 he is instructed upon how to appoint the senate. Under sections 55, 56 and 57 he is given the power of disallowance over dominion legislation. Under section 90 he is given the power of disallowance over provincial legislation. If the governor general is merely the representative of His Majesty the King; if he has no more authority over governmental affairs in Canada than has His Majesty the King in Great Britain, then no such authority as is granted by these sections should be extended to the governor general.

The power of disallowance is an anomaly which should not exist in a democratic country. It is a relie of colonialism. It certainly is not compatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.

Unemployment Insurance

Another anomaly exists in connection with our status as citizens. We claim that Canada is a nation, and yet not one of us has the privilege of stating that he is a Canadian. There is in our statutes no provision by which we can state that we are of Canadian nationality. People who have been born in Canada should have the right to claim Canadian nationality.

I omitted to refer to the senate. To have a governmental body appointed with authority over the people's elected representative is something which I think should not be tolerated in a democratic country. There certainly should be a good deal of reform with regard to the position of the senate.

Then we refer to the government as the federal government. If my understanding of the meaning of the terms " federal government " and " federal union " is correct, there must have been a time when we ratified a constitution creating a federal union and federal government in Canada. My knowledge of history does not indicate any time in the past when we ratified such a constitution. In addresses which I have delivered in the past I have indicated-

Mr. SPEAKER:

I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he is travelling far beyond the confines of this resolution.

Mr. KUHL:

I am simply enumerating several of the anomalies which exist in our constitutional position. The method of amending the British North America Act is one.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

We are dealing with this particular amendment.

Mr. KUHL:

I am simply stating that all

these anomalies should be dealt with, including the method of amending the British North America Act.

I should like to refer to one more anomaly before concluding this portion of my remarks. We have no federal district in Canada. In every other federal union there is a proper federal district which is controlled by the federal government. That should be the case in Canada. Canada is the only country in the world without a distinctive national flag. We heard a great deal about this from the former member for North Battleford, Mr. McIntosh.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I must call the hon.

gentleman to order. The resolution before the house does not deal with a national flag. I ask the hon. member again to confine himself to *the terms of the resolution as strictly as he possibly can.