Alumni Oration

"Canada’s National Growth Subject of Alumni Oration" Daily Gleaner (16 May 1946). (UA Case 67a, Box 2)

"Canada Grows Up."

May it please your Honour, Mr. President, Members of the Senate, Members of the Faculty, Graduates and Students of this university, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I have chosen as the subject of my address today "Canada Grows Up," and I trust that my remarks on an occasion such as this will be regarded as constructive ideas as to what I believe we as Canadians should feel regarding our country. If after you have listened to me, you do not agree with what I have said, I do at least sincerely hope that these remarks will be provocative of sound and serious thinking by all my listeners—especially the graduates of today.

Speaking before the Canadian Institute of International Affairs in Montreal, on October 12th, 1937, the late Lord Tweedsmuir said, "Canada is a sovereign nation and cannot take her attitude to the world docilely from Britain, or from anybody else. A Canadian’s first duty is not to the British Commonwealth of Nations, but to Canada and to Canada’s King and those who deny this are doing to my mind, a great disservice to the Commonwealth. If the Commonwealth, in a crisis, is to speak with one voice it will be only because the component parts have thought out for themselves their own special problems and made their contribution to the discussion so that a true common factor of policy can be reached. A sovereign people must as part of its sovereign duty, take up its own attitude to world problems. The only question is whether that attitude shall be a wise and well-informed one or a short-sighted and ill-informed one. Therefore we need knowledge—exact knowledge."

If those words had been uttered by a Canadian, he would probably have been accused by certain people of being anti-British—but let us consider for a moment who the person was who made them. It was the then Governor-General of Canada. One who without a doubt was one of the ablest representatives of the King which this country ever had. A Scotsman, a former Conservative member of the British House of Commons. A man of letters and of learning. A man known throughout the English speaking world by reason of his books as—John Buchan.

Sovereign Nation

Yes, as Lord Tweedsmuir said, Canada is a sovereign nation. Let us for the moment consider how she became one. Most sovereign nations have become such in the past by riot and bloodshed, by violence and rebellion and by throwing off the yoke of some overlord sovereignty. No nation in history has attained nationhood by the means under which we claim it. We have attained nationhood not be revolution and bloodshed but by the slow, simple process of evolution. We have been fortunate enough to be the child of a wise and judicious parent—Britain—and as such a child we have grown slowly but surely to manhood and nationhood. In this growth we have been extremely fortunate in having had able leaders—and those leaders from Sir John A. MacDonald on have been members of both the major political parties in this country. They have been far-sighted statesmen. Let us give credit where credit is due.

"Kingdom of Canada."

There is not the slightest doubt but that at the time of Confederation Sir John was most anxious that we should be called The Kingdom of Canada. In other words he desired to form some sort of auxiliary kingdom and in later life it is alleged that he deplored the lack of insight which rejected this title. In the fifth draft of the bill this country was to be described as "one united dominion under the name of the Kingdom of Canada." However, in the final draft the words "united" and "of the kingdom" were struck out with the result that Section 3 of the B.N.A. Act says inter alia "the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall form and be one Dominion under the name of Canada." Apparently the description "Kingdom of Canada" was not used at the instance of Lord Stanley, the then Foreign Secretary, who feared that it "would wound the sensibilities of the Yankees."

In the imperial House of Commons there was little opposition to and little interest in the bill to create our country. No one apparently cared very much about it. Just imagine Sir John compared its progress through the imperial parliament to that of "a private bill united two or three English parishes." No one—not even the great Gladstone—seemed to realize that the passing of the B.N.A. Act was the beginning of the birth of a nation. On the other hand in the House of Lords, Lord Carnarvon saw in the Act the possibility of the creation of a great state which perhaps some day might overshadow the mother country. The B.N.A. Act was without a doubt the result of the work—not of British statesmen—but of Canadian statesmen under the guiding genius of Sir John A. MacDonald. I am sure that he not only foresaw the possibility of our growing into a sovereign nation, but desire it—otherwise why was he so anxious that we should be called the Kingdom of Canada.

Let us see what has transpired since the days of Sir John. We are today a sovereign nation for several reasons.

Borden’s Doing.

First we have the recognized right to negotiate treaties with other sovereign powers. The Canadian statesman to whom we are really indebted for this right was the Right Honourable Sir Robert L. Borden. At the end of World War I, Sir Robert spoke very frankly and very firmly demanding the right that Canada should be a party to the Treaty of Versailles and that her representatives should sign the same on her behalf. This was in accordance with an understanding made at the Imperial Conference in 1917 where the principle had been to some extent recognized that the Dominions were autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth. The other dominions followed the lead of Sir Robert and all were made parties of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.

Our gradual evolution towards autonomy and independence is nowhere more apparent than in the history of our treaties. At the first stage Canada was not even consulted as to the negotiations of a treaty, then came the period where we were consulted although the advice of our leaders was not always taken, and finally the opinion of our country prevailed and a few years later it was Canada which decided for herself although for the sake of appearance there was still the English representatives who signed the treaty. Then one step further and the representatives of Canada signed with the British delegate then finally at Versailles in 1919 Canada’s representatives signed for Canada, and this practice has been followed ever since. In my opinion this one step by Sir Robert Borden was the greatest single contribution of any Canadian statesman to the growth of Canada as a sovereign nation. Canada has since that days signed her own treaties in her own right.

Diplomatic Representation.

The second reason I give for our sovereignty is the exchange of diplomatic representatives with other sovereign powers. This right of diplomatic representation was discussed in the Canadian parliament as early as 1882. Ten years later Sir Wilfred Laurier gave the idea his blessing, but it was not until May 10th, 1920, that the then Canadian Prime Minister, again Sir Robert Borden, announced in the Canadian House of Commons that it was the intention of the government to open a Canadian Legislation in Washington. This was but a natural consequence to his contention at the Paris peace conference that Canada had the right to diplomatic representation in foreign countries. However, it was not until 1926 that the first Canadian diplomatic representative to Washington was appointed by the then Prime Minister, the Right Honourable W.L. Mackenzie King. No doubt some in this audience can remember the criticism which was expressed in certain circles against such a step being taken—even though such a possibility had been discussed in our House of Commons as far back as 1882. Since 1926 we have exchanged ambassadors and minister with many foreign powers—but in addition we have exchanged High Commissioners with all the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. As a result today, we have as our diplomatic representatives abroad 11 Ambassadors, 3 Ministers and 6 High Commissioners, and few think there is anything wrong about it.

Statute of Westminster.

The third request that I give for our sovereignty is the Statute of Westminster which was read by the Imperial Parliament in 1931 for the purpose of ratifying certain declarations made by the delegates at the Imperial conferences of 1926 and 1930. Time will not permit me to discuss this statute in detail. Speaking in the House of Commons in 1931 the Right Honourable R.B. Bennett, the then Prime Minister of Canada, said: “The Statute of Westminster is the culmination of the long, long effort that has been made since we were a colony to become the self-governing dominion we now are.” It is sufficient today to merely mention that the Statute of Westminster provided that the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865 should not apply to any law passed by any dominion after the commencement of the act and that no law made after the commencement of the Act by the Parliament of a Dominion should be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the Law of England. It further provided that the Parliament of a Dominion had full power to make laws having extra territorial operation and that no act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of the Act should extend to a Dominion as part of a law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in the Act that that Dominion had requested and consented to the enactment thereof. However, probably one of the most interesting parts of this Act is the preamble which states inter alia "The Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." It would therefore seem constitutionally speaking that today Canada is united to Britain through the Crown, not through Britain to the Crown.

Edward’s Abdication.

A fourth reason for our sovereignty is that Canada made a separate national proclamation of the accession of King George VI, following the abdication of King Edward VIII, this was but a natural consequence of the Statute of Westminster. In the preamble to the same it is stated as follows: "…it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne or the Royal Style and titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom." Most of us here today well remember the painful circumstances under which King Edward VIII abdicated in December 1936. It is sufficient to say that at that time all the Dominions were consulted as to whether or not they would consent to the marriage of His Majesty to Mrs. Simpson or if he should marry her would it be preferable that he should abdicate the throne. Canada’s advise was given on December 8th, 1936 and was to the effect that this country desired that King Edward should retain his throne, but on the other hand, it was thought that such retention was incompatible with a marriage with Mrs. Simpson. If there was to be a choice between marriage and abdication, abdication was preferred. In January 1937, the Canadian Parliament met and ratified what had been done by the Dominion cabinet in December. A bill entitled "An Act respecting alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne" was introduced and quickly passed both Houses of Parliament. This Act merely formally expressed Canada’s assent to the Act which had been passed the month before in the Imperial Parliament entitled "His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936."

Economic Entity

A fifth reason for our sovereignty is that we are an absolutely separate economic national entity and we act as such in our relations with all other nations including those in the British Commonwealth groups. Little need be said about this. For many years we have had our own customs and tariff barriers against goods coming into this country from other countries including Britain and the other Dominions. In addition we have as a nation negotiated on our own behalf several trade treaties with other nations.

Declared War.

Another reason for our sovereignty, and I regard this as a most important one, Canada made separate and independent declarations of war against Germany, Italy and Japan. It is interesting to note that the Union of South Africa did the same. Sir Robert Borden had insisted that we be a party to the Peace Treaty of 1919. In other words we in 1919 obtained the right to make peace on our own behalf. It was therefore but a logical consequence that 20 years we should have the right to declare war on our own behalf—especially in view of the Imperial conferences which had been held in the meantime and further because of the passing of the Statute of Westminster. On the subject of peace and war Lord Stanley, then Secretary of State for the Dominions, stated in Toronto on August 25th, 1938, that Canada being a sovereign state had entire responsibility of her own and decides for herself. One of the true tests of nationhood is in my opinion the right to make peace and the right to declare war. We now have both these rights.

Arguments Against.

Arguments advanced against Canada being a sovereign nation are chiefly the following: First, there is officially no Canadian King; second, that the British North American Act may not be amended except by the British Parliament and third, that appeals in civil cases may still be taken to the Privy Council in England.

As to the first argument I do not think this need cause anyone very much thought as there is no question but that since the passing of the Statute of Westminster His Majesty the King, in so far as Canadian affairs are concerned has acted only on the advice of his Canadian ministers. Even though His Majesty is described no where as such, he is in fact the King of Canada.

BNA Amendment.

The second argument that the British North American Act can only be amended by the British parliament is probably somewhat stronger. It does seem rather extraordinary that Canada—the oldest Dominion should not have the power to amend its own constitution, whereas the Commonwealth of Australia, the Union of South Africa and the Dominion of New Zealand all have that power. On the other hand the Imperial Parliament cannot since the Statute of Westminster amend our constitution unless we have requested and consented thereto by reason of Section 4 of the same. The extraordinary thing about the fact that we have not right to amend our own constitution is that it is really an advantage to as in as much as the Imperial Parliament passes any amendment we ask for far more rapidly than the constitutions of Australia, South Africa and New Zealand can be amended by their cumbersome machinery. I am quite sure that if, as and when we in Canada want to have the right to amend our own constitution we shall be readily given that right by the Imperial Parliament especially in view of the fact that all the other members of the British Commonwealth have it.

Privy Council Appeals.

The argument that we are not a sovereign nation by reason of the fact that appeals in civil cases may still be taken to the Privy Council is of course of more than passing interest. Time will not permit me to discuss this all important question. It is sufficient to say that many arguments have been advance that such appeals should be abolished. For many years the leader in the move to abolish Privy Council appeals was the Hon. C.H. Cahan, K.C., a very distinguished constitutional layer and a former Secretary of State in the government of the Right Honourable R.B. Bennett. Since his death no one seems to have been taking the lead in this movement. Having only had the experience of a small town lawyer, and never having enjoyed the sweet luxury of clients who take cases to the Privy Council, I cannot work up much enthusiasm for the retention of such appeals. That is purely a personal view and of no consequence. To say the least, they are an expensive right for any litigant to enjoy. However, if in criminal cases our Supreme Court of Canada has final jurisdiction it only seems logical that that court should also have final jurisdiction in civil appeals. No doubt if the time ever comes that we should ask for it, it should be granted.

I feel that the seven reasons which I have given you that we are a sovereign nation are far more cogent than the three arguments I have mentioned to the effect that we are not.

Growth in Other Ways.

Canada has grown up to her full legal status as a sovereign nation. But she has grown in other ways too. We have grown in population from less than four million people in the days of Sir John MacDonald to over 12 million people today. We fought in World War I and gave the lives of over 50,000 of our young men and we fought as a nation again in World War II and gave the lives of over 36,000 of our young men. We had our own First Canadian Army. And in that last awful war we were fourth among the United Nations in war production exceeded only by the United States, Great Britain and Russia. We made during the war years supply and capital commitments of nearly 11 billion dollars. We also became during World War II the second largest exporting nation to the world outdone only by the United States of America. Our per capita exports increased from $82 in 1939 to $287 in 1944, and in that year alone we exported over $3,440,000,000 worth of goods, an increase of more than 271 per cent over 1939. We were gladly able to make to Britain during the war years, interest free loans to the extent of $700,000,000 and also an outright fit of $1,000,000,000 and a further amount under War Appropriation (Mutual Aid) Act of $2,043,100,000. Recently we have waived a further amount of $450,000,000 owing to us by Britain for her share of the cost of the Commonwealth Air Training Plan. But we have done still more than that: we have just passed a bill through our Canadian Parliament by which Canada is to make a loan to Britain of $1,250,000,000. Just think of it, this is the country which 79 years ago, when our British North American Act was being passed by the Imperial Parliament, Sir John A. MacDonald compared its progress to that of a private bill united two or three English parishes. But in that 79 years we have grown from our four small provinces to a strong and virile nation, financially sound and stable. We have grown from national infancy to adult nationhood.

Growing Up.

Every parent probably views with some degree of reluctance the fact that his or her child must grow up. But was there ever a parent who, when he or she realized the inevitable did not want that child to become a strong, healthy and successful adult. All parents have always had lofty ambitions for their children. Canada is the child of Britain and as that child we have been well brought up to use a colloquial expression, and I am sure that Mother Britain when she looks upon us must be proud of her infant of 1867 who has now reached adult nationhood. Was there ever a parent who was not proud of the success of her child? Our relations with Britain were never better than they are today. We have fought three wars at her side. From September 1939, we along with Australia, South Africa and New Zealand were with her. We gave of our blood and our toil and we shed our sweat and our tears so that she could stand alone and take it and take it again as she did in those awful years. We have too, both lent and given of our financial substance. Dare anyone say that Britain is not both a proud and appreciative parent?

Can Repeat Tweedsmuir’s Words.

If the Scotsman, Lord Tweedsmuir was able to say in 1937 that Canada was a sovereign nation, surely I as a Canadian can in this year 1946 say the same thing with impunity. If the same Lord Tweedsmuir was able to say in 1937 that a Canadian’s first duty is not to the British Commonwealth of Nations but to Canada and Canada’s King, surely I as a Canadian can say the same thing today with the same impunity. And what a Canada it is.

But let us rejoice and be proud too in our membership in the British Commonwealth of Nations and I want it clearly understood that I do rejoice and am proud of Canada as a nation and Canada as a sovereign member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Britain in bringing up her children acted far more wisely and judiciously in bringing up Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand than she did with her 13 American colonies. In 1776 she just did not want to allow those colonies to grow up and the result was disaster—but she allowed and encouraged Canada and the others to grow up with the result that today we have that wonderful association of nations known as the British Commonwealth of Nations bound together by a common allegiance to the one King, not by any written alliance or agreement, not by an compulsion or force, but by those intangible ties of affection and friendship which are far stronger than written alliances. Just because a child grows to manhood there is no reason for it to lose its affection for its present. So with our nation and its growth I like that word Commonwealth, it means that we, Britain, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand are united, together for the "common wealth" of all of us. Others may still prefer the word Empire, but I would remind them that history has proved to us that all empires in the past have only been born to grow, to live to flourish and then to die, and I want our Commonwealth to last to eternity.

National Attitude.

In closing I wish again to refer to Lord Tweedsmuir’s remarks. He told us that as a sovereign nation we must take up our own attitude towards world problems and that the only question is whether that attitude shall be a wise and well informed one or a short-sighted and ill-informed one, and that therefore, we need knowledge—exact knowledge. To me that is one of the most pungent observations ever made by our late distinguished Governor-General. We as a sovereign nation will have our problems, our duties and our responsibilities and how are we to meet them. We must have first and foremost knowledge. That is the key to the solution of all our problems. We must have exact knowledge of Canada, Canada’s peoples and of world affairs and that is how our Canadian universities are serving the State so well today. Then armed with that knowledge I hope and pray we shall have a vision and foresight similar to that of Sir John A. MacDonald in 1867. I love Canada. I have faith and confidence in Canada’s future, but we have grown up. We are a sovereign nation. Our destiny is in our own hands.