1919-07-01

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. iSir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) laid on the table of the House the report of the commission appointed to inquire into industrial relations in Canada, together with the minority report.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN laid on the table of the House the third report of the War Purchasing Commission covering the period from April 1, 1918 to March 31, 1919.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma) moved:: That the recommendations contained in the second report of the tSpecial Committee appointed for the purpose of inquiring forthwith as to the prices charged throughout Canada for foodstuffs, clothing, fuel, and other neces-

saries of life, etc., presented to the House on Thursday, the 26th day of June, be concurred in. (See Hansard 26th June for this report.)
He said: In moving for the concurrence of the House in this report, I wish to say just a word in regard to the manner in which the report itself was brought in and to the conditions under which it was prepared. In that connection I may say that in reality itr may be looked upon as a minority report, for the reason that the principle involved in the recommendations was only carried by the casting vote of the Chairman of the committee. I may say, further, that subsequent to the passing of the resolution under these circumstances, the validity of the chairman exercising the right of that casting vote was questioned. However, whether the report comes before the House as a minority or as a majority report, those who support the recommendations feel so strongly the desirability of having something done along those lines during this session of Parliament, that they would have been perfectly willing to present the recommendations as a minority report.
Passing to the recommendations contained in the report, the first question that arises is: Is there any necessity for such a tribunal as the recommendations refer to? And that involves two additional questions: First, can such a tribunal as is suggested be of such service to the internal trade o'f this country that it will be to the general advantage of all our people? And, second, have we at present any machinery that can be used for Ithe purposes outlined in the recommendations, and which would avoid the necessity of creating a new tribunal or some additional machinery?
In answer to the first question, I would say without hesitation that there can be no question but that something is required in connection with carrying on the internal trade of the country to satisfy all of the people that they are getting even-handed justice. In the first place, the internal trade of this or any other country is the most important trade that we have, and it cames more closely into the lives of all our people than anything we can possibly have in the nature of external trade. To illustrate that, I will cite just one case, because I want to be exceedingly brief. The question of distribution of foodstuffs, clothing, and all the great variety of commodities that enter into the necessities of life, is of the utmost importance, and we naturally ask what is the best channel through which these commodities can pass from the producer or the manufacturer to

the ultimate consumer. It would be a simple matter to find any number of men who would be ready to tell you at once that our present system is inadequate, that it is cumbersome, that it is too expensive; but it would be an exceedingly difficult matter to find one man who would point to a method or practice that would result in an improvement. But my conviction is that a group of experts, working under the authority of such a tribunal as we have suggested, would very readily get to the bottom of the whole question and point out defects where there are defects, and also point out methods that the people themselves could put into effect to remedy any of these defects and bring about very much more stable and better conditions. It will be conceded that there is nothing so much in the minds of our people as the conviction that profiteering is having a marked effect in enhancing the already abnormal cost of living. For the purpose of this discussion, I shall not express my personal opinion whether these convictions are well founded or not, but the fact that they do exist and that, without question, they are at the bottom of a great deal of the unrest which prevails throughout the country imposes on the Government and on Parliament the immediate responsibility of removing them as far as possible; and my judgment is that nothing will so adequately tend to remove these convictions, to remove from the minds of the people the feeling that they are being unjustly dealt with, as to place at the disposal of the public an independent tribunal to whom all men in all walks of life can appeal whenever and wherever they feel that injustice is being done in a commercial way. The committee that has been inquiring into these subjects has received petitions from all classes of people from all over Canada-consumers, co-operative associations, retail merchants, wholesalers and manufacturers-asking that just such a body as we have recommended be set up in order that all matters pertaining to internal trade may be inquired into and in order that the people may feel that they are getting a square deal.
I would like to cite two specific instances -they might be multiplied to any extent that any one wished to go-in order to emphasize my point. Within the past two or three months there have been two or three sharp rises in the prices of boots and shoes. As far as we have been able to determine, these rises have been due directly to the very great advance in the cost of leather, and this, again, has been brought about by

the fact that a very large part of the available domestic supply has been bought up for export. The balance still remaining has, therefore, been so far enhanced in price that still further advances in the cost of boots and shoes are bound to come unless something is done to bring about a reduction of the cost of leather. Again I say that I am not going to enter into any discussion of the question whether these advances are just or unjust; but if we had such a tribunal as is recommended here, that question could be immediately inquired into, and the public would be in a position to know, without delay, whether or not they were being fleeced. If it was found that they were being fleeced, a remedy could be applied.


Mr. MARGIL:: By whom would the remedy be applied, by the Government, or by the tribunal?


George Brecken Nicholson: By the tribunal. The recommendation is that the tribunal shall be independent; at least, that is our understanding of it.
Mr.W. F. MACLEAN: Would that tribunal have power to enforce its own laws, and would it have the machinery to enforce them?


George Brecken Nicholson: That is, without question, involved in the recommendation. The tribunal must be independent and must have within itself the power to make regulations.


Mr. MURPHY:: But how about enforcing them?


George Brecken Nicholson: I will give another instance. Evidence was brought to the attention of the committee showing that a woollen product the cost of the manufacture of which in 1914 was $4,374 a dozen was sold to the consumer at $9 a dozen, or 75 cents for each article.


Mr. MORPHY:: What kind of wool; where was it from?


George Brecken Nicholson: Canadian wool. The production cost of that article in 1919 was $10.50 a dozen, but the consumer is paying for the article $30 a dozen, or $2.50 for each article, a direct increase of 100 per cent in the spread between the cost of production and the cost to the consumer. These cases might be cited indefinitely, but I have just pointed to two in order to emphasize the point I wish to make; that there is a real necessity for some machinery which will provide that abuses of this kind may be immediately investigated.
I think I speak the mind of most of the men who have been working with me for nearly four weeks on the committee when I say that it took us a very short time to come to the definite conclusion that something else besides a Parliamentary inquiry is necessary. We might keep on forever disclosing these things, but unless something is placed in the hands of some one that will make action possible, these inquiries will do more harm than good, because they simply disclose the condition and create unrest without making any effort to supply a remedy. I cannot conceive oi anything that would be very much worse.
The whole matter is now before the House to be dealt with as the House deems best. My own judgment is that we could do nothing better before the session comes to a close, in an effort to allay the unrest that is sapping the very foundations of our national life, than to make the people feel that there is at their disposal a tribunal of some kind that has the power to act, and will do so. There is no question that the personnel of such a tribunal will determine its value, but our experience with the Railway Board has been of such a nature that we might with a great deal of confidence look forward to the accomplishing of much good in this country by such a board as we have suggested.


Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at first to a point of order. The report of the committee was voted under very peculiar circumstances. As a matter of fact, the report was voted down by six members of the committee as against five in its favour.
I want to make at first, the declaration that we have the utmost confidence in the integrity and the well-meaning of the Chairman of the committee. He did not mean to do anything which was against the rules; he even took the trouble to inquire from the clerk of the committee what the rule was on the point in question. But his information on the point of order which was raised by members of the committee was bad. He took it for granted that the Chairman of the committee had the right to vote, and had also the right to cast a further vote in the case of there being an equality of vote. I need not deal very extensively with that point. It is well known that the rules of the House in this regard apply to all committees, except, as is provided by Rule 105, in respect of committees on private Bills. The Chairman, therefore, of any committee other than a committee on private Bills has no more right to vote than

the Speaker himself has in the House. But in this case the Chairman of the Committee first voted in favour of the report, and then cast another vote, which made the count seven to six, whereas the actual and legal vote was six to five against the adoption of the report. I submit, therefore, that the report which purports to be the report of the Committee on the Cost of Living is not the report of that committee; and that it should be sent back for further consideration.
But there is something further to be said in this connection. Not only is the report illegal and not only should it be disregarded by the House and sent back to the committee for further consideration, but it is inconsistent in its wording. It says:
Tour committee have been engaged continuously from the &th day of June last to the present date in obtaining all information possible from witnesses and all available sources, but have not yet reached a point in the investigation that would warrant them in submitting final conclusions.
The committee put it clearly that, although they have been engaged from the 5th day of June in hearing evidence, they have not .been able to consider the matter sufficiently to reach final conclusions, and yet the earnestness of the chairman and the minority to put their own conclusions in the shape of a report is such that they insist upon it, and press it through.
To my mind it is premature and will be illusory.
It is premature because we have not studied the matter sufficiently to reach final conclusions, and the machinery suggested to the House will mean an additional and useless expenditure of $200,000 or $300,000 a year.
It is true that there is a great deal of unrest and discontent in the country on account of the huge profits which manufacturers and traders have reaped from the poor labourer, workingman and consumer as a whole. But it is also true that, during the last two or three years, the public at large in Canada are fed with the shields and doors of escape provided by the innumerable Orders in Council and by the no less innumerable commissions created by the present Government. The creation of a new commission will not do away with the cause of the trouble or of the unrest; we must find some adequate remedy, and, to my mind, the proposed commission will not provide it. A few facts will illuminate us in this respect.
There is such .a thing as a Commission on the High Cost of Living already in existence. Doctor McFall was the first

witness heard before the committee, and gave a lengthy evidence on that point. He succeeded Mr. O'Connor who had been appointed by the Government under the Labour Department, just for the purpose of inquiring into the causes influencing the cost of living. Mr. O'Connor, after a full investigation, reached conclusions in 1917, or some two years ago. He laid before the Government a report suggesting the institution of a tribunal or board which should be called the Federal Trade Board or the Federal Trade Commission. If the creation of such a Federal Trade 'Commission was a wise step to take towards reducing the cost of living, why did not the Government act on the report of Mr. O'Connor in 1917? The Government, however, found Mr. O'Connor too inquisitive; his report if adopted would cause trouble to the profiteers; it was not acted upon. Nothing was done except the dismissal of Mr. O'Connor.
The Commission on the Cost of Living continued to exist under the Minister of Labour. Many suggestions were made by the present commissioner, Dr. McFall; none of them was taken into account, and none was made the subject of any legislation brought to this House by the Government. As late as September, 1918, Dr. McFall found out that undue profits were taken by bakers and traders in bread in the city of Halifax. After full investigation he came to a Conclusion in February, 1919, and he at once reported to the Minister of Labour, recommending that legal prosecution be commenced at once. The minister had his report from February to the month of May, but no action was taken. The Minister of Justice has had that report, since May, but he did not move either.


George Brecken Nicholson: Is the hon. member aware of the evidence that was given before the Cost of Living Committee by the Deputy Minister of Justice with regard to the matter?


Thomas Vien: Joseph FlaveJle. Others have also been rewarded by the Government. There is Mackenzie King.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh.


Thomas Vien: That is a slip of the tongne which happens frequently even with members of the Government. I ask that Hansard correct that error. Of course I meant to say Mackenzie and Mann. And the Bank of Commerce have also reaped quite a harvest of governmental rewards. Another man was also interested in cold storages, and one high up in official circles, and perhaps was he often paralyzed when it was time to act against cold storages, because of his associations. Who is this man? Mr. Shank, the secretary-treasurer of the Manitoba Cold Storage Company, took the trouble to give us the complete list of all the shareholders of that company, and among them we find Mr. Rod. Mackenzie, son of Sir William Mackenzie. We find Sir John Murray's estate; we find a man named Black, connected with the Ogilvie Flour Mills; and we find also Mr. Andrews, manager of the coal mine at Brule Lake, Alberta. But there is another name more prominent in Canadian politics -last, but not the least, we find the name of the Right Honourable Prime Minister of Canada for an investment of nine thousand five hundred dollars. This is a trifling amount to the Prime Minister, and I will not go so far as to say that his interest in this cold storage induced him purposely to adopt certain policies, but it is only human to be influenced by association, and it is only human to want to please friends with whom we are connected in a business enterprise. It is superhuman to do otherwise. I do not believe that a man in public life, much less in the Cabinet, who has to shape the policy of the country, should have any interest in concerns that influence the cost of living.
In view of all that, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the House has only one thing to do and that is to refuse to entertain the report of the committee on the cost of living. The House should return it to the committee for further consideration and, if it dees,
I have no doubt that the committee will come to some other conclusion, which will produce better results than the suggestion now offered to the House. It is not necessary to create special machinery to have action taken before the courts of justice. We have courts of high jurisdiction all over the country. Why should not the Government introduce prosecutions in these courts when
IMr. Vien.l
such things are brought to their attention as have been disclosed before this committee, and a long time prior to its selection. If there have been unfair practices against the law of the country which have had the effect of enhancing the cost of living, it seems to me that it was the duty of the Government to bring the offenders before the courts. Such practices have been going, and are going on. The proposed commission will cost $200,000 or $300,000 to the country, but it will hinder the prosecution of the offenders, and fail to produce the desired effect. Therefore, I recommend that the report be sent back to the committee for further consideration.


Mr. M. CLARK:: May I put a question to my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Vien). Did the committee make any investigation as to the operation of a measure that was introduced by Mr. Mackenzie King in the last years of the Laurier Government giving power to inquire into the operation of combines?


Thomas Vien: I do not believe such a thing was done and I do not believe that there has been time for it as yet. The committee was appointed a late day in the session and has been working practically day and night from the 5th of June. They have examined mainly witnesses who were connected with trading in foodstuffs or the manufacture of the necessities of life and up to now they have not been able to go fully into the matter which the hon. gentleman has suggested.


Mr.  W. F. MAOLEAN@: I'would like to ask the hon. gentleman if under the existing law any prosecution has been undertaken against those responsible -for the things which this committee reports upon?


Thomas Vien: My suggestion to the committee would have been to recommend immediate prosecutions. The Combines Act must provide some machinery for it.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: It does not and there is the trouble.


Thomas Vien: If it does not, the remedy is not the creation of a hew board but the amendment of the law, or the enactment of such a law as will make it illegal to try out such unfair practices as have been disclosed before the committee.


Charles Marcil: I think the point of order should be settled before the discussion takes place.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I did not understand that an immediate decision was called for in view of the fact that the hon. member for

L-otbiniere (Mr. Vien) continues to discuss the motion, but I have no hesitation in giving a decision. The point of order as to the proceedings in the committee should be raised in the committee. The House is only seized of the proceedings of the committee from the report that it gets fr6m the committee. There is no reference in the report whatever to any question having been raised in committee and therefore my ruling is that it is not competent for this House to go back of the report which is in its possession. The report of the committee is regular on its face and I therefore rule that the point of order is not well taken and that we are governed by the report of the committee as it appears before us.
iMr. VIEN: May I draw attention to the fact that the Chairman of the committee in making his report stated that it was carried by his casting vote, which puts the fact before the House that in coming to a decision the Chairman of the committee had to vote twice for the report?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: The hon. member must be aware that that is not a point of order to be decided here. It might be a good ground, if he desires to do so, for moving that the report be referred back, but obviously, I submit-


Thomas Vien: That is what I propose.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not a point of order here. It hardly needs any argument to convince any of us of the soundness of that view.


Thomas Vien: The conclusion of my remarks was that the report be referred back.


Robert Laird Borden: Therefore, there is no point of order.


Mr. NESBITT:: The facts as stated by the hon. member who has just taken his seat as to the vote in the committee are correct, but I may say that we agreed in the committee that the chairman had two votes. Therefore, in so far as I am able to judge, I will say that the report was in order and absolutely fair. While a discussion arose in the committee as to the chairman having two votes, the bulk of the committee agreed that he had. I would like to point out also that in the committee there was no discussion from a party standpoint. Therefore, I am sorry that the 'hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has introduced party, to a considerable extent, in his argument. His reflections upon the Government and the whole tenor of his remarks in discussing the question this morning have largely tended to throw the onus of responsibility on the
Government. I am glad to say that in the committee there was no such thing as a vote from a party standpoint . Three Unionists and three members of the Opposition voted against the resolution. I would like to make my position perfectly plain this morning. I am not opposed, or was not opposed, to a board of commerce if it is properly constituted. But I am opposed, and have been for the last few years, to the many commissions that have been appointed.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Hear, hear.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I know of one or two instances where the commission so appointed did not benefit the country, or benefit anybody, in anything like the proportion of the cost involved to the country by reason of the work of that commission; that is my judgment, although I may be wrong in the view. I know also where a committee asked for the appointment of a commission and recommended that men of outstanding ability, regardless of cost, should be chosen as members of it. Nevertheless, that commission has not given satisfaction to the country since its appointment, although its membership embraces some estimable gentlemen. It is for that reason I speak as I do, not because I do not think a board of commerce might accomplish a great deal of good in investigating commercial questions, especially where a prejudice exists which, in my judgment, is absolutely unfounded, against some corporations; and if a commission did not do any other good it would serve a useful purpose by educating the public as to the exact conditions that surround the cost of living.
Before I forget it, I would like to touch for a moment on what the hon. gentleman has said with respect to the leader of the Government having stock in a certain cold storage company in Winnipeg. Has it come to the point that our public men cannot invest money in any enterprise in this country without being subjected to the suspicion that they are profiteers? If it has, then I hope every respectable man in this country will retire from public life, and let the Government run itself, if such a course is possible. Because if every man who happens to have a little money to invest is debarred from investing it in any industry in Canada, where is he going to get a field for his investments? For everything tends to influence to a certain extent the cost of living, no matter what the nature of his investment may be. Now it was not proved before the committee that there was

anything in the charge that the cold storage corporation in which the Prime Minister has some money invested, was a profiteer; nothing of that character was proved at all. It is a public cold storage where everybody can store their goods, if they so desire, at a certain fixed price, and at a very low price, too, so far as was explained to the committee. Any member of this House, no matter where he resides, could send his eggs, or his butter, or iiis meat, or anything else that he desires, to this cold storage and store it there at a certain fixed price; but no evidence was adduced before the committee to show that there was any unnecessary profit or anything but a reasonable profit, made by the cold storage company in question for the storage of such goods. Therefore, no ground exists for criticism or blame of the Prime Minister, because of his small investment in this particular cold storage plant. A few years ago-doubtless the system is in force to-day-the Government gave a sort of bonus, it engaged in the policy of lending a certain amount of money at a very low rate of interest, for the purpose of encouraging people in Canada to start cold storage plants. That is all I wish to say on that subject.
I would like to point out further that in my judgment there is a very false impression in Canada with respect to large corporations. So far as the investigation before the special committee went to show, it is the large rather than the small corporation that produces more cheaply the goods which enter into consumption among the people, because the former with its splendid organization and its intensive way oi doing business, carries on operations at a very small profit on its turn-
12 noon. over. Whether the profit will be very large on its capital stock or not depends very largely on the amount of that capital stock. If the capital stock is small, the profit on it by reason of the turn-over may he large; if the capital stock is very large the profit will be that much smaller in proportion. But my contention is that the point to ascertain is the amount of toll taken on the turn-over as the goods pass from the original producer through the hands of the corporation or the individual. That is to say, if a man, when the goods pass from the original producer takes a toll of twelve cents, that would represent twelve cents added to the cost of the goods, and he may have made a large profit on his turn-over. Another man, when the goods passes through his hands, may have
	.
added fifty cents to the cost of original production which would represent a large profit on his turn-over, and a small profit on his capital. The whole question, whether it is a corporation or a man that is involved, is as to the amount of toll taken on the goods which pass through the corporation's or person's hands. Let me give an illustration of what I mean. It was clearly proved before the special committee that the packer-that is the concern which is condemned from end to end of this land at the present moment, although I think as the result of a prejudice-got a very small profit on his turn-over but a large profit on his capital, because the latter was very small in comparison with the former. Take, for example, the Harris abattoir. They proved that they could supply beef cheaper to the butcher than he could go out and buy beeff for in competition with them; they realized one-quarter of one per cent on their turryrver, or twenty-five cents on the hundred, and still they made a large profit on their capital; they had a turnover of something like $38,000,000 on a capital of about $1,500,000. That will illustrate exactly the point I am trying to make. Take the Grain Growers' Corporation, a marvellously well-conduetedi and systematically managed organization. Well, that organization did not put their money into a good deal of the business they turned over. That business was on consignment, and they did not actually invest their money in it. They had a turnover of $102,000,000 in 1917, if I remember correctly, and they made a profit of -44, less than one-half of one per cent. Still, it was a good profit on their capital and was due to the business being so capably managed. Then take the Harris abattoir. They made a profit of -25, or one-quarter of one per cent, as against a profit by the Canadian Grain Growers' Association of -44, or a little less than one-half per cent. Nevertheless, the Harris abattoir are condemned as profiteers when they are not. It is the same way with the celebrated Davis Company. My hon. friend has thrown out a slur against Sir Joseph Flavelle, and we have heard an awful lot of the same kind of talk in this House. Mr. O'Connor's report in regard to that concern shows that if it had not been for the enormous turn-over of forty-five or forty-eight million dollars, with the very small profit on their turn-over, they would not have realized any return on their capital. But Sir Joseph Flavelle's company, the Davis Company, showed us most clearly that with their chain of retail stores they

only made a profit of two and a half per cent on their turn-over, and everybody who is familiar with those stores knows that they sell their meats just as cheaply, if not more so, than the local butcher. Now that company cannot be blamed for the profit they made. It was owing ito their expert organization, and their intensive business methods, that they were able to make a profit on their turn-over of two <and a half per cent, although that undoubtedly is a large profit on their capitalization. But if they had wiped out one-half per cent on the whole of the company's business, it would not have taken much to convert their profit into a loss, and a corporation that does business on so close a margin deserves a lot of credit, in my judgment, for producing goods at the lowest possible cost to the consumer. And that was what we were there to investigate.
A great deal of notice was given in the newspapers to Mr. Paton, who made 72 per cent on his capital. But it must be borne in mind that that man had been in business for forty-eight years, I think, for fifteen of which he never paid a cent to his shareholders. He had accumulated a reserve of $644,000, and in speaking of the profit on the capital of $600,000, no credit was given to him for that reserve, which was nothing else but capital-accumulated out of his profits, quite true, but at the same time accumulated because of careful management and by not paying dividends to his shareholders, which he might quite proparly have distributed. Now, as a matter of fact, he made a profit on his turn-over of 12 per cent in 1916, of 11 per cent in 1917, and of 13 per cent in 1918. In other words, goods that cost him $1 in 1916 he turned out to the public at $1.12; goods that cost him $1 in 1917*he turned out to the public at $1.11; and goods that cost him $1 in 1918 he turned out to the public at $1.13. I freely own that owing to the amount of business he was doing he was extracting too much profit. He could have safely done business at a less profit. At the same time it must be borne in mind that he was doing business on a very reasonable profit had he only a small turn-over, but his turn-over was very large during these years, owing to the fact that he was making cloth for the countries that were at war, and was: running night and day on one particular grade of cloth, which enabled him to make a much larger profit than he could have done had he been obliged to change his machine every few hours, as would be the case in the ordinary
course of business. I am not pretending to defend anything that may be an overprofit, but I am saying that in my judgment regard should not be had to the amount of profit made on the capital, but to the amount of toll taken by the individual or the corporation between the time of the production of the goods until they eventually reached the retailer.
We found that in a place like Ottawa when it comes t-o the retailer-and I would like to emphasize this-that on account of his enormous expense for rent, taxes and one thing and another, he has to have a very wide spread between his purchase price and 'his sale price, and I think in many instances he is taking a toll from the consumer that is absolutely unnecessary. There are so many people anxious to jump into the retail trade that in one block you will have four or five stores doing the same 'kind of business, and because their turn-over is small and their expenses are heavy they have to charge too much to the consumer to get a profit. That is one of the things we found. I am only speaking of my own view in these matters.
Now, as to a Board of Commerce. If I was sure that the Government would appoint men of outstanding ability, men who thoroughly understood the necessities of business in this country, I would be in favour of such a board; but I would rather discuss that when the Bill for its appointment comes before the House, because I would like to know what powers it is proposed to give such a board. The Federal Trade Commission are given an investigatory power. My experience has been that if a commercial question is investigated and the facts published fairly, that their publication alone will right anything wrong. How would you give a Board of Commerce the right to fix prices? You might give it that right as between the producer and the consumer, but you could not possibly give it that right as to the producer alone, because the cost of production varies every day. Take the cost of production from the farm. If a man can raise forty bushels of wheat to the acre instead of only ten bushels, the cost of production will be very different, and unless you can get the powers above to tell you what crop is going to be given the farmers, I do not see how you are going to regulate the cost of wheat, nor the cost of other grains, which cost depends absolutely on production. We can estimate easily enough what it would cost to produce wheat if the average crop was twenty-

. five, twenty or fifteen bushels to the acre, but we cannot tell what it is going to be.
Now, as to manufactures, there is no board of commerce that can set the price at which a manufacturer shall sell his goods from week to week. It is absolutely impossible to do justice in that regard, because it depends on the cost of labour, and the cost of raw material. How is any board of commerce going to set the cost of raw material? It may be bought in Canada, but it may be bought in all parts of the world. We all know that in large manufacturing industries they import goods from every part of the world where they can get them the cheapest. Therefore you have got to stop regulating when you come to the producer either of the manufactured article or of the foodstuffs of the country. So that I would not be in favour of a board of commerce that had the right of regulation. I am not opposed to a board of commerce constituted of the right type of men who would investigate all questions where there was dissatisfaction and where there was a tendency to what is called combination. There is a vast difference between a combination and a large organization as the result of a merger. A combination is a unity between different corporations of the same kind to fix the price of goods.
Mr. MARiCI'L: Did the committee discover any evidence of combines existing in Canada to-day?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: None whatever.
Mr. MARCI'L: Did the committee find any evidence of hoarding of the commodities of life in any cold storage plant in Canada?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: None whatever. -


Charles Marcil: Charges have been made that eggs and butter have been stored for months, and that this has helped to enhance and keep up the prices.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The member for Neepawa (Mr. Davis) directs my attention to the fact that one case was brought before the committee on an occasion when I was absent. I said there were no cases, because I do not remember any. As a general rule, however, we found no hoarding, and no sign of a combine on prices, in a retail, wholesale, or manufacturing way. I repeat that the question whether or not I support the proposal to be brought down by the Government depends upon what powers are given to a Board of Commerce. I am a great believer in publicity; I believe that in the United States any benefit the

people obtained in this regard was through investigation, and, consequently, through the making public of anything that was wrong.


Mr. J. ROBB (Chateauguay-Huntingdon):: Mr. Speaker, now that this report, which is a minority report, is declared: to be in order, the question that is really before the House is the apparent decision of the Government to appoint another commission. But I wish to point out that the conditions of which we are complaining are conditions which have been created under commissions; we have had commissions and control boards throughout the country until the people are tired of them.
It was pointed out to the Parliament of that day when the Federal Food Control Board was appointed that food control would not only be a failure; but would be a heavy tax upon the people. I have before me the report of the debate on the occasion of the presentation to the House of the first report of the Food Board, when it was represented to us that the cost to the country of the operations of this Board would not be more than $150,000 a year. We on this side contended that the cost would run up to over $400,000 a year, and as a matter of fact the figures given by the Food Board itself show that the cost to the country was something over $500,000 a year, or, to be more exact, $491,968 for a period of eleven months. Who bears that expense, Mr. Speaker? The people of the country. The Food Board issued licenses to dealers throughout the country-to the baker, the butcher, and the grocer, and the baker, the butcher, and the grocer passed along to the people the cost of those licenses, with 100 per cent profit. So that it is the people, after all, who bear this enormous expense. Price-fixing has been a failure in Canada; France discovered early in the game that it was a failure. Tn my judgment, the real remedy is competition. After all, the good old rule that competition is the life of trade still holds good.


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: In giving the cost of the Food Board, did the hon. gentleman deduct the fees collected by the board in respect of these licenses?


James Alexander Robb: That is exactly the point 1 am making; it is the people who are paying for this. The fees collected amount to $366,261. Who paid those fees? As I pointed out in opening, they were paid by the consumer, with 100 per cent profit added; the payment of these fees was only an excuse for the dealers throughout the country to pass them along to the consumer with a

profit. Not only was this the case, but competition was destroyed. Many people went out of business; they said: We are not going to bother with all these regulations; and the fellows who were doing business and paying fees to the Food Board were jacking up prices to the people.
There is nothing in the report of this committee to show what percentage of these enormous profits were made out of the people of Canada. It is quite possible that a large percentage of these profits were made out of foreigners, and I submit that it is not going to hurt this country if Canada makes profits out of foreigners. If the industries of Canada make big profits, no matter how big, out of foreigners and foreign trade, this country is not injured. The more profits the industries of this country can make, the better it is for the country and the better for the Finance Minister, who taxes the surplus profits.
I wish to point out to the Prime Minister and to the Chairman of this committee that we now have in the legislation of this country, under section 12 of the Customs Tariff of 1907, all the power that is required to deal with combines that are unduly restraining trade. Section 12 is as follows:
Whenever, from or as a result of a judgment of the Supreme Court or Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any superior court, or circuit, district or county court in Canada it appears to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that with regard to any article of commerce there exists any conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement of any kind among manufacturers of such articles or dealers therein to unduly promote the advantage of the manufacturers or dealers at the expense of the consumers, the Governor in Council may admit the article free of duty, or so reduce the duty thereon as to give the public the benefit of reasonable competition in the article, if it appears to the Governor in Council that such disadvantage to the consumer is facilitated by the duties of customs imposed on a like article.
The Government, therefore, have all the *legislative authority that (they require. During all the years that this tariff was administered by the Liberal administration, there was no complaint of the high cost of living. There was a complaint of the high cost of paper at one time, and the Finance Minister of that day, the present-member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding), called these gentlemen in and said: "If you do not- bring your prices down to a reasonable basis, I will take advantage of this clause"; and they climbed down, because they knew that a Government was in power that meant business. Instead of appointing more commissions that will impose additional burdens upon
274	'
the people, that will hamper trade and reduce competition, I suggest that the Government get down to business and take advantage of the clause in the tariff which enables them to control these trusts and combines. It does not make any difference what the cost of living is in Canada, so long as it is no higher than it is in neighbouring countries; that is the real issue. If we sell our goods at home at prices no higher than those at which we sell them abroad, there is no reasonable cause for complaint. If the western farmer sells his wheat in Canada at the same price as that which he obtains overseas, nobody has any fault to find; and so it should be with all the trade of the country. If the Government are of the opinion that there are combines which are unduly advancing the prices of the necessaries of life, they have a remedy in the customs tariff.	'


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Robb) says that a former Minister of Finance called in the paper manufacturers, and said to them: "If you do not reduce your prices, we will reduce the tariff on paper." Apparently that course was effective at that time. Does the hon. gentleman say that under present conditions with regard to the price of paper, the Government could have brought relief by interfering with the duty on paper?


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend believe that paper should be sold in Canada at a cheaper rate than it can be sold at in the United States?


William Findlay Maclean: No, but my hon. friend said that a former Minister of Finance took, in regard to the matter, certain action which apparently was effective at that time. I asked my hon. friend if he claimed that similar action by this Government would have remedied the situation that has existed in Canada during the past four years.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I must remind hon. gentlemen that the House is not in committee and that this question is not in order.


Mr. FRANCIS HENRY KEEFER (Port Arthur and Kenora):: Mr. Speaker, as reference has been made particularly to the Food Board, I feel it my duty to say something in this debate, because I was connected with the work of that board. The hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) claims that too much money was taken out of the people by the Food Board, and he



also voices his complaint as against the institution of a Food Board, that it would cost money. The inference is that no matter what was done, it would be all wrong. As a matter of fact, the Food Board paid its own expenses for the entire time it was in operation, and in addition, it handed in to the treasury of Canada $39,000 at the and of its operations. It is these misleading *statements at this time of unrest that, perhaps unintentionally, are causing a great deal of additional unrest, and what the country wants is correct information disseminated. For instance, the hon. member for Lotbinifere (Mr. Vien) gave the impression to this House, and thereby to the whole country, that the Prime Minister was a profiteer because he had some money invested in a cold storage plant. I understand from what the hon. member for Oxford North (Mr. Nesbitt) said that it developed in the committee perfectly clearly that that company was dealing only in cold storage warehousing, and that it was not buying nor selling the products. If so, is it fair for an hon. member to endeavour to create such an impression? Is it not the policy of this House to-day to advocate the building oi these cold storage warehouses throughout the country and to assist the municipalities if they will build them? And because a man, in the meantime, prior to that being done, has been forwarding that movement, is it not rather unfair to make an innuendo in the House about the matter?
But I pass on. * What we ought to endeavour to do is to get at the causes of these high prices and to try to remedy them. The Prime Minister, since his return, has very ably pointed out the effect of a large number of men being taken from production and put into destructive work such as war. We all know that, practically at any ordinary time during the year, the world has never more than sixty days' supplies ahead, and if you take away from productive work a large number of men, you naturally decrease the production, and we very soon have the demand exceeding the supply. But to my mind, arising out of and in addition to that, the great cause of our difficulty to-day and what we ought to endeavour to remedy if we possibly can is the competitive buying of the world in our markets. The Hon. W. J. Hanna was appointed some two years ago as food controller, and the hon. member for Lot-binifere (Mr. Vien) must have forgotten that when he stated that nothing was done and when he asked:	Why was not something done two years ago? Mr. Hanna was

appointed, and a new organization created to endeavour to grapple with that problem and in my opinion it did exceedingly well. The cry against Mr. Hanna in all parts of the country at that time was: Why do you not fix prices? Fortunately he was not stampeded; he knew too well from his business knowledge that price fixation is the greatest fallacy and he steered clear of it. The only price fixation we have in this country was first the price of wheat fixed by the Wheat Export Company, not by the Food (Board, at $2.20 a bushel, and second, arising out of that, the price of bran and shorts was fixed, f.o.b., Fort William. But what was done by the Food Board after it got its hand on the throttle was to fix the spread, and the spread of the wholesaler and that of the dealers were fixed, and that so far as the domestic market is concerned, was a wise policy to pursue, you cannot go in for price fixation; the matter of buying and selling is as old as the hills and if you attempt to fix prices, you get into difficulties because price takes the place of the old barter and exchange, you must fix price of everything, you must fix the price of labour and that means compulsory labour. But you can regulate the spread.
When the Food Controller was appointed, his primary object was to see that as pauch food as possible was sent overseas, and his secondary object was to control and regulate the trade of the country within its boundaries.
That the Food Board has fairly well succeeded in the primary object of getting food exported to our Allies appears from the 13th page of its report, which shows that the value of the exports of foodstuffs in 1914-15 was $187,000,000, whereas the value in 191718 was $710,000,000, or about four times as much. Therefore, the primary object was fulfilled. Then it grappled with the secondary object, namely, the regulations. The first thing it had to do was to get at the cause of the jumping up of prices in Canada, and it was quickly realized that this was due to the competitive bidding and buying of the Allies. Finally the Allied Purchasing Committee was created and it took control of the allied buying, with result that you did not have Italy competing against France for cheese and France competing against England for condensed milk, but all bought through the one Allied Purchasing Committee. With that there was enacted the hoarding order, which prevented unnecessary hoarding in the country. Returns were made with the result that any

unnecessary surplus stocks in the country were ordered to be sold, and there was only one source outside of the country to buy and they, the Allied Purchasing Commission, had a tacit arrangement with the Food Board that they would not offer a higher price than the local prices. The result was that in that way prices were somewhat controlled. Then came the armistice, with the result that that arrangement ceased, and to-day we have in addition all the neutral countries of the world in the markets here, starved heretofore, paying any price to get what they want, and prices are rising, and in my judgment we shall have prices rising further yet; especially when peace comes, when we shall have the enemy countries coming into the market and also competing for our goods, It seems to me that apart from the regulation of the spread or profit, not the turnover, we cannot regulate this question of food prices until some definite arrangement is worked out by which international buying and competition is under control.
When that is done probably the prices will steady themselves and in time the production will catch up to the demand and prices come back somewhat to normal. It is our duty as members of this House to endeavour to grapple with the true cause in this matter and apply the remedy. There are several causes for this rise in price, among them the increased amount of circulation in the country which is double now what it was before. There was a pile of goods as against a pile of money and the dollar had its purchasing value, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Brome in the Budget debate; and as he frankly admitted the circulation reasonably had, to be increased through the necessities of the war. We then had double the pile of money to spend on the former pile of goods and th'e dollar consequently had half its purchasing value. At the present time, we should not make misleading statements to the country.
We are going through a very crucial period in Canada, a period to my mind equally as crucial as that which menaced us at the time of the German forward movement early in 1918. There is unrest all over Canada as well as throughout the whole world, and it is the duty of every one of us to try as far as possible to allay the trouble here by being at least careful to see that any information we give to the country is accurate and reliable. We members are going home to our constituencies and we should make it a point to take with
274}
us such facts as will enable us to discuss properly and intelligently the real cause of these high prices. Is it the tariff? The Food Board report issued under the hand of the hon. ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) shows that in September of last year, when the Food Board practically ceased business, the prices of staple commodities in Canada were ten per cent lower than they were, in the United States. I need not take up the time of the House enlarging on this point. As the hon. member for Oxford has shown, the prices are lower here, and the tariff is therefore not a factor, at the present time at all events. Profiteering is not a factor either. The profits that men are making to-day in this country are due to the large volume oi business done overseas, the spread or extent to which they are profiting out of the-consumers in the country is no greater than it used to be. If, however, we find that on any particular article there is too-much spread, then the commission or any body which it is contemplated to appoint can deal with the matter. I would say just a word or two on the question of commissions.
It has been very fashionable in the last year or two to slam, in every possible way, every commission. A rose will be absolutely the same no matter how you designate it. We have commissions that are not slammed, such as the Railway Commission. But the doctrine that is generally preached is that commissions are irresponsible bodies not under the control of this House. There are two answers to that: First, they are under the control of this House, being always under some minister. The food controller, for instance, was under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture. In the next place, we went through a time of stress when the /Civil (Service had three to four times the volume of business to do and they were simply worked to death, and men came in like the Hon. Mr. Hanna to give to the country without remuneration the best services they could until they found they could stand it no longer and resigned. It is rather ungrateful that no recognition is taken of that class of service. In my judgment, no man, through the critical time that this country experienced, rendered greater service than the Hon. Mr. Hanna, who was grappling with a difficult problem, an untried matter, and had the courage to stick to it, ignoring popular abuse and refusing to be stampeded. If any one will take the trouble to read the report issued by the board, he must come to the conclusion, if he'is reasonable, that

the work of the commission has been, well worthy of commendation instead of abuse. I do not know what the policy is as regards this particular Act which is coming forward, but if we desire to regulate prices and control them we must do two things. We will have to control the international buying and keep control of the exportation for a year or so until times right themselves. During the Food Board days it was found necessary to control all exports going out of the country so that they could, not reach the neutrals. The result was that the Allied Commission could buy freely, but no one else could export, the object being that *exports should be kept from going to enemy *countries. Some principle such as that could be worked out in this matter of regulating food for the next two years. The export business should be conducted by permit so as not to have too much going out with resultant shortage and famine prices. We must bear in mind, however, that there are starving countries to-day competing in our markets for our products, both food and manufactured goods, and we cannot interfere with that in such a way as to shut ourselves in and take the ground that none of our products will go out. We must pay our debts, and a good way to do it is to export our goods, agricultural and manufactured, and at the same time endeavour to regulate international demand . and thus control somewhat the rising prices at this critical period. .


Mr. McKENZIE:: We are faced with a proposition in regard to procedure to which I wish to refer. It is very well to say that you, Sir, or any other court must recognize a document as being regular if it is regular on its face. But when it is brought to the notice of a court by competent evidence that although ,a document which appears on its face to he regular is in reality irregular, the court will no longer regard that document as being worthy of credence. Suppose a man goes into court with a deed of a piece of land appearing on the face of it to be perfectly regular, purporting to be signed by the vendor, properly witnessed, duly sworn to and recorded. The court in the first instance will presume that it is a regular document; but the moment it is proven to the satisfaction of the court that the vendor did not sign the document at all, of course it is no longer valid and will fall to the ground.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. Do I understand that the hen. gentleman is calling into question the decision of the Chair?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No. I am dealing with the question of procedure. We are establishing a precedent, that the minority of a committee can report to this House and that we have no remedy.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My decision was in exact conformity with the well established practice which has heretofore obtained in this House and in the British House of Commons, and in conformity with the exact letter and spirit of the rules. The procedure is well recognized, but in any event, if any question is to be raised, this can only be done by way of appeal at the time the decision is rendered. It is competent for this House to refer back to a Committee for its consideration a report with or without instructions. It would then be competent for the Committee to deal with that question and make a report to the House to determine as to the validity of any given proceeding, exception to which had been taken in the Committee and a report thereon presented to the House. But as the report now before us is complete in form and regular, it is not competent for the House to call into question the regularity of the proceedings of the Committee.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have an authority on the question. It is the rule of the Lords that in Committee the Chairman votes like any other peer, and if the members be equal on division the question is negatived. That is the rule. It is the rule of the English Commons, that the Chairman of a select committee can only vote when there is an equality of voices. The practice of the English House prevails in the Senate and Commons of Canada.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member, I
think, misapprehended the point altogether.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No, I did not.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My decision had no reference whatever to the legality of the proceedings in the committee; it was simply that it was not competent to raise that question in the House under the circumstances.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps the Speaker can direct us how it can be raised, but there is an irregularity before this House and are we to be bound by that irregularity and is there to be no remedy? If I were in the Supreme Court I would have a remedy at once because if an irregular document were offered and objection raised it could not be acted upon; otherwise, it could not be a properly constituted court.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would point out to the hon. member that it is competent for this House to refer the report back to the committee.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understood that there was a motion to that effect made. However, if it is competent for me to do so I shall move that the report be not confirmed but that it be referred back to the committee for further consideration. I may not have another opportunity of saying that I do not approve of creating any further machinery to deal witlh these matters. Already we have eighteen or twenty departments of government. We have the Departments of Trade and Commerce, Justice, and Labour that come closely to this subject matter and if another official or two is necessary to be appointed to any of these departments to enable them to deal with this question, I would be in favour of such appointment. But I am not in favour of creating a new, raw, court that knows nothing whatever about these matters to start experimenting for the next five or six years at enormous expense to the country. Surely we have in the Department of Trade and Commerce, which has existed for the last fifteen years enough experience that can be utilized for the purpose of carrying out anything that is necessary to be done to relieve the situation. Surely we have in the Department of Labour, which is at least twelve or fifteen years old, sufficient experience, supplemented by an expert or two, to carry out its duty. If the Combines Act, or any other Act, either criminal or civil, which should be brought into play to punish the profiteer is not sufficient at the present time, let us legislate and make it sufficient to enable the department to punish the man who is unduly profiteering in carrying on his business in this country.


William Findlay Maclean: Who would enforce that?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would certainly enforce the law, and enforce it to the limit, against any person who is unduly profiteering and sucking the lifeblood out of the poor people of this country. I would do that without any hesitation whatever. 1 think it should have been done long ago, and if the chairman of this committee (Mr. Nicholson), in his speech this morning has truly represented to this House the evidence that has been brought before the committee, it should certainly have been done long ago. It is pointed out to us by the Government as a matter of pride that they have taken
part of these undue profits. They say: We have done something; we have caught this thief as he was running away, and we have taken some of the loot from him. Did they return it to the poor man from whom it was taken? No, they kept it, put it in their own pockets, and _this country is profiting by that money. The millionaires are profiting by the undue profit that they have taken out of the pocket of the poor man who has to earn his living at the face of the coal mine, or in the lumber camps, or in the other labouring centres. Is it an answer to the man who cannot get beef, or meat or flour, or bread for his children, to say: True, the profiteer has made $80,000,000 or $100,000,000 out of you, but when he was running away with it we caught him and we took some of it from him. If a man has $20 stolen out of his house or out of his pocket and the policeman says: I caught that man with the $20, I took $5 out of the $20 from him, and he went away with the $15, and I am going to keep $5 myself, is that any remedy for the man who loses his $20?


Francis Henry Keefer: Would it be a remedy ii the money was returned to the purchaser as was done by the Food Board in several cases?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We know nothing about any private knowledge that any private member may have. We have been questioning the Government, and the only answer we get is that they have taken some of the profits. I submit that that is not a remedy at all, and that it is simply in line with the illustration that I have given of a man whose money is stolen and some officer prides himself on having taken some of the money from the thief and on having kept it himself rather than return it to the owner. The only suggestion of a policy which we have received from the Government is that they should take some of the profits. What the people of this country want is not that a portion of these extraordinary profits should be taken, but that if possible things should be so regulated that goods are sold at a reasonable price so that the ordinary individual can manage to get enough food to eat and enough clothing to wear for himself and his children during this critical period through which we are passing.
There are many things that might be said upon this subject but there is just one that I want to point out. We have this report from the Nicholson committee, as I choose

to call it. We have another report from the Industrial Relations Commission. Both of them happened to come to us this morning. There has been no opportunity of knowing very much about what is in either of them. They may be dealing with the same thing or they may be dealing with different things; they are certainly dealing with the same subject. I would suggest that when the report that we are dealing with now in the House is sent back to the committee,	report	of this	IndustrialRelations Commission should be sent back also and let them try to extract from both a concurrence of opinion and see what is to be done. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is most anomalous that we should have	two	reports	dealing	practicallywith	the	same	subject.	We havean idea of what is in one of these reports but as to the other we know absolutely nothing about it. It is a document which	does	not come before	the House
under a formal motion and the rank and file know nothing about it. I think it is very desirable that there should be no conflict of opinion as between these two reports, that something should be done to reconcile them if reconciliation is necessary and that the report finally submitted to this House should embody the concurrence of opinion as presented by both. There will be no power on the part of the committee to vary the report of the Industrial Relations Commission hut there may be something in that report that will modify the report of the committee. I do not think there should be two reports one of them possibly saying one thing and the other saying the exact contrary and both advising the same Government.
It is none of my business, Mr. Speaker, but I think it would be advisable that the Government should have the combined wisdom of these two bodies in one report, ii that could possibly he accomplished. In order to proceed regularly I therefore move:
That this report he not now concurred in, hut that it he sent back to the committee for further consideration.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the committee whose report is now under consideration. Unfortunately, however, I was not able to give as close attention 
to its meetings as I desired, owing to various causes, and particularly owing to my desire to be present at the sessions of the House, which for some time have been held morning, afternoon and night. It is my desire to pay all due resipect and deference to the conclusions reached by the gentlemen who were able to give more regular attention to the matter than I myself was able to give to it. I know that the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson.) and the vicechairman the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and three or four other members in particular, whom I might designate, have given very patient attendance day by day to the work of the committee, and I know they all approached the question with a sincere desire to have a thorough and effective investigation.
I think the report of tihe committee is regularly before the House; but I think the information that has been given concerning the circumstances under which the report was prepared is abundantly sufficient to justify the motion that that report should be referred back for further consideration. It may be that the House and the Government ara prepared to take up the contemplated legislation, irrespective of any committee report. If that be the case, then what I am about to say, perhaps, is not to the point. But this I may fairly say, that if it is in contemplation to bring forward legislation to be fortified by this committee's report, then surely we ought to have a report of a more valuable character than that which has been presented to us. When I say a report of a more valuable character, I mean a stronger report. A report brought in to the House by a majority at a small meeting, irrespective of the fact that it was by the casting vote of the chairman, certainly is hardly a sufficient ground upon which to undertake grave and important legislation. I therefore think that the argument in favour of referring the matter back to the committee is strong and conclusive and I shall vote for the motion to that effect.
Let me frankly say, however, that in doing so I have no anticipation that if the matter is referred back, the committee will be able to accomplish anything important during the present session. The difficulty is that the job which the committee undertook was too big. It would have been a big job if it had been begun in the earlier stages of the session; but begun at a later stage, when the session was pretty well advanced, it

was beyond possibility that the committee could make any very effective investigation. The scope assigned to the committee was too broad, the questions were too big, the time given for inquiry was too short to justify the expectation that much could be done. I myself formed at an early stage of the meetings of the committee the impression that all we could hope to accomplish at the present stage would be in the way of publicity, and in that respect I think much good has already been done, and I have no doubt that in the further meetings hon. gentlemen contemplate holding any further publicity will serve a good purpose in that respect; but beyond that I have no expectation that anything effective can be done now.
It appears to me, Sir, that the legislation which the committee are advising, and -which it is assumed the Government will take up, is too broad and too important to be put through this House at the present session. I know the argument that is used: Something must be done. That is the whole story. There is a deep feeling of discontent owing to the high cost of living, and the universal cry is: Something must be done. My observation is that in nine cases out of ten the man who demands that something should be done has not the faintest ccn-cept'on of what that something is. And that is the case before us now. I frankly say that it is not easy to determine what- is the something that Parliament at this stage migh do to meet the difficulty.
It seems to me that the Bill which is proposed and recommended in general terms by this committee must of necessity be one of the most important measures of the session. I do not know of any tribunal the creation of which is likely to give us more difficulty than the one which is contemplated in this report. There is more difficulty in defining the powers and authority of a tribunal such as is proposed than there would be in defining the jurisdiction of a new supreme court. There are a thousand difficulties in the way. It is a very, very difficult question to determine, and I am satisfied that if we were to get it through even this House, it is a physical impossibility that in the few days that are left to us now that a Bill of this character can be carried through the two Houses of the legislature. Feeling, therefore, that that is ' not likely to be accomplished, I frankly say that I think the wiser course would be for the Government to let the matter stand for the present and take more time for further consideration, in order to endeavour
to frame a Bill and bring it before us at a time which will give us a better opportunity for considering it. It seems to me that any effort we make now will of necessity be' a hurried effort, and that we will not reach a thoroughly satisfactory conclusion.
Holding these views, Sir, I shall vote to refer the matter back to the Committee, and I shall do so because I believe that we can accomplish nothing very satisfactory during the present session. I quite appreciate the widespread desire that something shall be done. In passing a measure such as is proposed now in a hurried way there will be the appearance of doing something, and possibly for a few days there may seem to be a concession to that demand on the part of public opinion, but a little later I am persuaded the conclusion will be reached that nothing has been done of an effective character. The Committee do not contemplate, I understand, to recommend the regulation of prices. I am not an advocate for the fixing of prices, but I know that in the public mind any measure which falls short of fixing prices will be disappointing, and that is one respect in which .1 think the legislation will fail to accomplish the purpose it has in view.
I am not saying this by way of criticism of what has occurred, but there is a feeling that we have too many commissions and committees and tribunals dealing with these things, and I am afraid public opinion will not view with favour the creation in a hurried way of another tribunal which will land us into enormous expense and in all probability will fail to accomplish the purpose we have in view.


Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON (Springfield):: I dislike to project myself into the debate at this time, but I shall only keep the House a moment or two. I always listen with great pleasure to the remarks of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens because they are generally wise and thoughtful, but in this case I believe his recommendations favouring delay would be absolutely fatal. I spent eight or ten days in the West quite recently, and I was so impressed with the universal feeling of indignation there against profiteering that I took the liberty of wiring.the Government that something ought to be done at once to either correct the evil or make a vigorous effort to do so. As a matter of fact the country is aflame with anger over profiteering, and the revelations before the special committee on the High Cost of Liv-

ing have only served to accentuate that anger. People see reports in the press that profiteering exists anywhere from ten and twenty-five per cent up to three hundred per cent, and the result has had an intensely irritating effect upon the people, and if we were to adjourn without making some honest effort to control and correct the situation, I 'believe that a great mistake would be made.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the position the Government took at the outset, that competition and supply and demand, as my hon. friend from Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Eobb) remarked this morning, and the tariff might regulate the situation. But it is my deliberate judgment, based upon what I saw myself, and what I heard on all hands that that will not do. We might adjourn and do nothing, but if we did so I believe we would probably cause very much greater unrest-indeed, it would be accentuated to the degree possibly of revolution. Behind the great strike in Winnipeg there was undoubtedly an element that wanted to set up' a Soviet Government, and it was surprising to me what a great number of the people sympathized with the idea of such a change, not only in Winnipeg, but in other parts of Canada. To a great extent that sentiment was due to the fact that the people are dissatisfied, they believe that the rich are growing richer, and that the poor are growing poorer. They see dividends paid on millions and millions of watered stock, they see interlocking combinations and high finance, and they have a pretty shrewd idea, that something is radically wrong; and unless their representatives undertake to correct that evil, I would not like to be accountable for the consequences.
After all, the duty rests on the Govern

ment-the Opposition will not be blamed- and I believe this Government is bound either to attempt to regulate this malignant state of affairs or to demonstrate that it cannot be regulated. I know and sympathize entirely with the view of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens about the enormous number of commissions that have been appointed from time to time, and the indifferent results obtained from some of them, and I want to say to the Government at once that if the Board of Commerce, which it is proposed to appoint to deal with the present issue which approaches a crisis, is to be in character and composition anything like many of the commissions that have been appointed in the past, it will be just as well to "can"
[Mr. Richardson. 1
the project right now. Unless we have the right kind of men to participate in this very important wbrk it would be better that no Board of Commerce should be appointed. I think in order to make such a board effective, the consumers ought to have the opportunity of nominating a representative *-and I would say that we ought to avoid the appointment of lawyers.. We have too many lawyers on these boards, they tangle up the situation with a mass of legal verbiage and the people get no results. Let us have no lawyers on these commissions.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Order. Order.


Robert Lorne Richardson: My hon. friend from Maisonneuve says "order." Of course, there are very many who would like to see a man such as Mr. O'Connor to look after the legal end of things; but let us have some business men, and let us have one or two men who have suffered in connection with this high cost pf living and profiteering. We may not be able to control prices-I scarcely think we can-but we ought to be able to limit profits, and, if the Criminal Code is amended, let us punish all those who attempt to profit unduly. I have given a great deal of consideration to this question, and I believe it to be the absolute duty of the Government at the present time to make an earnest, an honest and a persistent effort to deal effectively with this question of undue profits and profiteers, high finance, watered stock, etc. [DOT]
We should have a virile commission that would go into this business of watered stock. During the last year we undertook to control the price of paper, and do you know7, Mr. Speaker, that the value of the stocks of the pulp and paper companies has increased by nine to ten million dollars within one year because of the high prices of paper that have prevailed in spite of the apparent attempt to control and limit the prices. We have certainly not been successful in effectively controlling paper prices. The people are holding the Government absolutely responsible at this time for the conditions prevailing; nine-tenths of the people, if not ninety-nine hundredths of them believe that upon this question of controlling the profiteers this Parlaiment and this Government are fiddling while Rome burns. The indignation is intense throughout the country; the situation has to be dealt with, or it will become even more serious than, it is at the present time.


Michael Clark: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, in respect to what my hon. friend from the West (Mr. JULY 1, 1919
Richardson) has advanced, that I had not considered myself at liberty to engage in that line of discussion, because, as the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) have pointed out, what is really before us is the reception of this report. I should like to say further in regard to what my hon. friend has advanced, that whether we receive the report or refer it back to the committee does not necessarily have the slightest bearing upon the action of the Government in regard to the very alarming state of affairs which my hon. friend has described. If that be the state of affairs in Western Canada and my hon. friend gave the information at his disposal to the Government by telegram before he delivered the very alarming speech to which we have just listened, the Government have a very obvious duty apart altogether from this report, and that is to proceed to take some steps to deal with the serious situation on their own responsibility. I take it, therefore, that we may approach the only matter that is really before the House at this time without feeling that any action we take has any bearing whatsoever upon the Government's proposed legislation-for I suppose we are right in assuming that the Government purposes legislating after we have dealt with this report in one way or another. I shall reserve anything I have to say, if I have anything to say at all, with regard to the unrest and the cost of living and the other questions which will naturally arise on that legislation, until the legislation itself is before the House.
I have been thoroughly at one with what has fallen from my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) and the leader of the Opposition in regard to this report. I should not question for a moment the Speaker's ruling this morning, even if I thought the ruling was not right; but I was thoroughly satisfied that the ruling was right and that, technically, and abstractly, the report is properly before us. But we cannot shut our eyes to the fact of how it is before us. Two members of this House announced to the whole House that the report was a report of a minority of the committee and so far as I know, they were not contradicted. So that what we are asked to do is to receive a report of a minority, to receive the report of a committee which was carried in point of fact and in reality by a minority of that committee. My mind is so constituted that I cannot subscribe to that course of action and I shall vote against the reception of the report and for its being referred back to
the committee for further consideration-I should do so on that ground alone. Of course, it is perfectly obvious that the report is the result of an S.O.S. call from the Government-no doubt can enter any one's mind about that fact-and if the majority wants to adopt a minority report as the report of a whole committee, as they probably will, of course the report will be adopted and we shall judge the legislation based upon it when it comes before us.
The proceeding of appointing the committee which has reported, was an exceedingly hurried proceeding, undertaken in the last weeks of the session, or what were expected to be the last weeks of the session; and the presentation of the report is, if possible, a more hurried proceeding than the appointment of the committee and the sittings of the committee-I say this upon the evidence which we have had here this morning.
I addressed, Mr. Speaker, to my hon. friend on your left (Mr. Vien) a question as to what the committee had done in regard to investigating the machinery which already exists under the law for the very purpose for which legislation, I understand, is now to be introduced-the investigation of combines. I cannot agree with the member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) when he said this morning that there were some complaints as to the conditions of society or as to the high cost of living at the time that legislation was undertaken, because that legislation was undertaken on account of the tremendous outcry there was in this country at that time about combines. That legislation was meant to meet a public outcry; it was brought in for that purpose. However, I am not concerned with that now; what I am concerned with is that a member of the committee informs us that the subject which would appear to me. most vital to their consideration and deliberation they were unable to handle because they had not time. That is to say; the work of the committee in drawing this report was so hurried that, on. their own evidence, they could not draw up a proper report; they could not draw up a report based upon as 'thorough an examination as the majority of the members of that committee would like to have made. My hon. friend assents to my proposition. On these grounds I could not respect my intellect if I reported for the reception of this report. For what is it that it recommends to us? It recommends to us fresh machinery to deal with certain evils in the body politic, although the committee have not had time to examine into the

effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the machinery that already exists. I hold that under those circumstances we are compelled by an inexorable logic to come to the conclusion that their recommendation as to fresh machinery has been arrived at in an equally hurried manner and is not worthy of being entertained by this House, much respect as I have for every member of the committee who made the representation to us individually. It is not, strictly speaking, a report of the committee at all; the work is done in absolute haste. With regard to any legislation that the Government may bring before us, I shall meet it upon its merits.
I repeat, however, that the Government is in no way debarred from or affected in bringing in that legislation by what this House does in. regard to this report. For these reasons I shall have no hesitation in voting for the amendment of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) that the report be referred back to the committee.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I come from a constituency where there is a very large population and where there is great unrest, and the people have a grievance in connection with the high cost of living, and they look to the Government for some kind of remedy. They look not only for regulation of prices, but for a further investigation into the abuses that are alleged to have occurred throughout the country. Therefore, I agree with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that it is now up to the Government to introduce legislation first of all providing for the regulation of prices, and second, for a further investigation into the question. It is absolutely necessary in this period of reconstruction that we have lower prices. The first thing that is mentioned in each of these strikes that are taking place in different parts of Canada is the high cost of living, and owing to this wages are being jumped up all the time. Men cannot take care of themselves and their families unless wages are increased or the Government regulates the prices. I am in favour of regulation of prices by the Government, and in the appointment, if necessary, of a court or commission of some kind for that purpose.
I want, however, to point out to the Government that if they appoint a commission, they must go further and make that practically a federal court with all the paraphernalia for the enforcement of federal laws. After fifty years of federal rule in 
this country, the net result of my observations is this: That we have not the necessary machinery to enforce federal law. We ought to have federal courts in this country, and we ought to adopt the same scheme as has been adopted in the United States after all their experiments in federal government. That is, not only must we have federal laws dealing with these questions and a federal court to try them in, but we must impose on the Attorney General or, as we call him in this country, the Minister of Justice, the duty of enforcing these laws. Reference has been	made	to the law
against combines, which law we have had on our Statute Book for a long while, and the Minister of Justice has, on occasions, intervened and attempted prosecutions against combines, hut such action has not been effectively taken, and we ought, therefore, to have on our statute book the same law as they have in the United States, as the result of which they are making substantial progress in the regulation of certain evils that exist in that country. Every law that is passed in the United States contains this clause:
And it shall be the duty of the Attorney General of the United States to enforce this law.
For this purpose a certain sum is provided annually and placed at his disposal for the employment of attorneys, special agents and anything he needs for the purpose of investigating these matters and enforcing the law. Apart from the Exchequer Court, we have no Federal Court in this country. The Exchequer Court could be given jurisdiction to enforce laws of this character, but we must also put in the Criminal Code clauses making it an offence against the Code to profiteer unjustly or to charge exorbitant prices. That may take time, and I grant what has been said in that regard, but it is time we began to do something. The people expect something to be done; something has not been done hitherto, and many things could* be done. The Government cannot escape their responsibility. Even if this legislation does go through, it is possible for the Government to send for representatives of various industries and simply to tell them, as representatives of industries have been told in England:	If you do not reduce your
prices in certain directions, we shall have to interfere. It is true, as has been pointed out, that you might be able to interfere in some respects in connection with the tariff, but I would go further and insert in the Criminal Code clauses defining some

of these offences, such as undue profits and exorbitant prices, which ought to come within the Criminal Code. If we can put two or three of these clauses in the Criminal Code at this session and impose on the Minister of Justice the duty of enforcing the law and have prosecuting attorneys just as there are in the provinces, I believe we shall get substantial results. Some years ago I called the attention of the then Government to the comtoipes that were growing up in this country against the law., I said, " Why do you not enforce the law and prosecute these men?" The answer I got was:	" Go to Mr. Foy," meaning by that
the Attorney General of Ontario. The Attorney General of Canada, that is, the Minister of Justice, is the man who ought to enforce the law.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: No.


William Findlay Maclean: That is the real issue in this country. If you want to get enforcement of federal law you must do it by your Federal Attorney General, and there must be at least one attorney in each province. Then if these charges are made, if the people feel that they are being unduly taxed and that the high cost of living is something unbearable, as it is to-day to thousands and thousands of people in Canada, you will get some results. It is absurd to follow the practice of the past in regard to combines, namely, to leave the matter to the private prosecutor to enforce a federal law, and no result has so far been attained in this country as against these combines. It is time that these combines were brought under regulation and that the capital of companies was under the jurisdiction of this Parliament. If the plan I have suggested is adopted we can pass an Act at this session which may be effective; it may not cover everything, but it may cover some of these things, and I believe that a substantial reduction of prices will be brought about. There is also the other point, namely, that the Government have the power to summon representatives of various industries to meet them and talk the matter over, and the Government should say to them: You must afford relief of some kind. It is surprising what was done in 'Great Britain in this respect since the beginning of the war by the British Government's sending for representatives of certain industries and telling them: These things are not right; there are over-charges in coal and overcharges in food. The British Government regulated the prices, and that regulation has been effective.
Prices have been reduced because the Government intervened, and they can be reduced in future by defining in the law what is unfair to the public in the matter of prices. I trust that the Government will take effective action in this connection. They are starting in at the tail end of the session, but they have a great amount of information at their disposal not only from this committee but from other sources as well, not to mention the information that Mr. O'Connor -had been able to gather. In view of all these sources of information, we ought to toe able to do something, and the country expects this Parliament to take such action this session as will relieve the distress throughout the country and help to alleviate the unrest attendant on all the strikes. Just consider the condition of the country in connection with these strikes. There was a street railway strike in Winnipeg that lasted four weeks and from which the people suffered a great deal. It was more or less based on the high cost of living. It shifted to Toronto and prevailed there for some ten days, and here in Ottawa now we are experiencing the same kind of strike. Men want more pay all over the country because of the excessive charges which are made for the necessaries of life, and it is the duty of the Government and of Parliament at this time to devise some remedy. It may be late, but "it is never too l-ate to mend," and I think we should do something now. Above all let the Government insert in the Criminal Code a law dealing with this situation. After all, it is the Criminal Code on which I -rely with any confidence, and two or three clauses in that Code defining just what is a profiteer and wh-at are unjust profits would- have an appreciable result. The Criminal Code could define what was illegal in handling the foodstuffs, whether on the part of producers 'or of middlemen, and if the Government have any proposal to make in regard to legislation the people are anxious to be apprised of it and will endorse any measure that will tend to a really satisfactory solution of the problem which faces us to-day.


Arthur Meighen: It is unfortunate that we are bound to have two debates on this subject. For the reason that we were anxious to bring the session to a close this debate has been allowed to be taken up by some six or seven speakers without any one having risen to state the Government's position in regard to the matter. However, in view of certain recommendations


Thomas Vien: How does my hon. friend reconcile that statement with the statement made before the committee that the price of bread was eleven to twelve cents a pound,

and that Dr. McFall, the Commissioner on the Cost of Living, had absolutely pointed out to him that the cost of bread should hot exceed eleven cents a pound, instead of twelve as charged in Halifax?


Arthur Meighen: I was not at the committee, but hon. members around me tell me that the hon. gentleman does not seem to know the difference between a one-pound loaf and a two-pound loaf. Dr. McFall was. talking about a two-pound loaf. However, I am basing my statement on the official publication, the publication issued by the late Minister of Agriculture, who had control of the Food Board. These figures are gathered not from a single source, but from sources as wide as is this country, indicating the situation throughout the whole Dominion. The same publication shows some other facts which further illuminate the question. It shows that on the 15th September, 1918, under the food control, out of a list of the most prominent twenty-two articles of diet, commencing with bread and ending with prunes, there were seventeen the ruling prices of which were lower in sixty cities in Canada than in forty cities in the United States. The ruling prices with regard to five only were higher in the Dominion than in the United States, and those five articles were coffee, sugar, prunes, lard and potatoes, which were virtually the same. Where the cost of bread was $1,170 average fifteen pounds in sixty cities in Canada, it was $1,485 in forty cities in the United States. From all these things we may take a number of lessons, and in particular the very first lesson to be drawn is that something of value can be done by regulation if the board is properly empowered.
What confronts this House? We may adopt the report of this committee or we may reject it. If we reject it what are we going to do? If the lesson of this board is not to be made use of the only alternative to accepting the report is to go home and do nothing. Has the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) any better alternative than that? Has the hon. the leader of the Opposition any better alternative? The hon. the leader of the Opposition did suggest that instead of clothing an independent commission of the status of the Railway Commission, say, with continuing power, we might authorize some officer of the department to do the work. That was the only suggestion he made in preference to the recommendation of this committee which sat for many days and gave ceasef Mr. Vien-1	.
less zeal to the consideration of this question. Who is the officer of this department, who is the officer now in the Government employ, who has the ability, who has the standing, who has the rank, who has the reputation throughout this Dominion of Canada to fitly occupy the position and fitly discharge its duties? I do not know who he is. But if my hon. friend insists, there is no reason why he should not be appointed under the Bill. The resolution, if followed by a Bill, will constitute a tribunal with power to make regulations as contemplated by the resolution and it will be a continuing tribunal with effective powers.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not say that the officer was in the department. What I did say was that we had plenty of departments to look after its business and that if extra officers were necessary to be put into the department, go on and employ them.


Arthur Meighen: That is exactly what
the resolution contemplates. It will naturally have to be put under a department and the resolution says that it shall be clothed with powers effectually to do its work.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But the Government is bringing in a statute to constitute a new court altogether.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly it is new, because the powers are new. But what difference would there be if we simply select three or four men, equipped with the powers that are constituted in this Bill, and add them to the officials in the department? What is the difference between that and the resolution itself? No difference whatever.


Michael Clark: Does not my hon. friend contend he could not clothe them with these powers without the recommendation of this committee?


Arthur Meighen: Of course, but we could not very consistently do so if we voted down the resolution. We could not in one breath reject this resolution by referring it back and in the next breath pass a Bill based upon the very same resolution. What would it mean if we referred the resolution back? It would mean that the House is not satisfied with it. Very well, if we are no.t satisfied with the resolution let us say so.


Michael Clark: On the contrary, in my case it is because I contend the resolution is not really the finding of the committee, and I reserve to myself the right

to judge of the proposed legislation on its merits when it comes before the House.


Arthur Meighen: The Speaker has given his judgment that the finding of the committee must be considered. Why, then, does the hon. member refrain from considering the resolution oh its merits irrespective wholly of who voted for it in the committee? We have either to act or we have not to act. If we are going to act, are we, or are we not, going to act along the lines of this resolution? The House is in favour of either the first course or of the second; that is the question before us.


Michael Clark: I am sorry to interrupt, but may I point out that if the Government had acted on its own initiative we should have been considering the legislation itself instead of discussing this resolution.


Arthur Meighen: That would have been a very good course, but the. debate has proceeded along these lines up to the time the hon. gentleman spoke and he, in my judgment, misinformed the House as to the principles upon which it should act at this stage. I invite the House to the consideration of the resolution itself and say whether it is, or is not, on right lines. That is the question before the House now, and that is what I think we should decide. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Vien) makes the statement that this resolution is premature, immature, and all the rest of it, and argues that the committee did not have time to consider the matter. Well, the committee began its sittings early in June and sat until very recently and its finding was brought into the House on the 26th June. The committee sat almost day and night, and carried on the inquiry more assiduously, I think, than any committee that was ever appointed by' Parliament, But the hon. gentleman says "The report is wholly immature, it is premature, I do not think the House should act upon it," and then told us in the next sentence that we should have acted on this resolution two years ago.. He said that two years ago an idea of this sort was recommended by Mr. O'Connor and if there is anything in it we should have acted then. Nevertheless, although in his opinion we should have acted two years ago, he claims that the present committee has reached the conclusion too quickly. If the hon. gentleman could not make up his mind in respect to a report brought in on the 26th of June, and he has
had five days since to ponder over the matter and if he is still not able to reach a conclusion after having given five days extra for consideration, what is the use of giving him six, or seven, or eight days? He has already had time to think over the report and suggest any alternative. Has he now any alternative to offer?


Thomas Vien: This Government had two years to reflect, and it did not take any action.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Arthur Meighen: If two years is a long time, why does the hon. member suggest further delay? If we refer this report back to the committee, does it not mean further delay? Does not the refusal to deal with the report now mean the acceptance of the laissez faire suggestion of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) ? We must act or we must not act. If hon. gentlemen say: "Do not act, do nothing, the whole thing is impossible and we cannot solve it, let it go," all right, then reject the resolution. If they say, "Do something," then they either have to accept the resolution or tell the (House what better course is open.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.
Mr. MoKENZIE:	Will the minister
answer a question I desire to put to him, and it may settle this matter? If the minister will say that the procedure before the committee, as reported by the Chairman of the committee this morning, was regular, if he will say that the procedure is such as this House can follow and adopt, I will withdraw my amendment.


Arthur Meighen: I say the report is regularly before this House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is not my question.


Arthur Meighen: That is the question.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is not my question.


Arthur Meighen: I am not here to decide what was regularly before the committee. The committee had the right to decide the matter and if it did not decide properly it should have been brought to the attention of the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is simply a question as to whether we shall follow the customary procedure in this House, or not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


George Brecken Nicholson: The technical arguments addressed to the House in regard to this resolution make it necessary-


Mr. CAHILL:: Mr. Speaker, if I am in order, I would ask a question of the minister. I wanted to put it before he sat down and rose for that purpose when the hon. member (Mr. G. B. Nicholson) stood up to reply.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I understood the hon. minister had concluded his speech, but if there is no objection the question may be submitted.


Frank S. Cahill: My question has reference to the profits of packers. I have a recollection of reading in the press that some of the packers stated their profits amounted to something like forty or forty-eight per cent. I want to know how that 4 p.m. coincides with the terms of the profits that we laid down under last year's legislation should be exacted by the packers? If by that legislation the packers were allowed only eleven per cent ' of profits, and they have'actually collected forty or forty-eight per cent, has the difference been taken from them?


Arthur Meighen: I can tell the hon. gentleman that if any packer has made ary such percentage of profits, or anything like it, over eleven per cent since the Order in Council was passed, then the difference has been collected from him, or will be collected -he can rely upon that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Frank S. Cahill: This question is one of very great importance, and hon. members who are in such haste now to get through with the session would be well advised to take their time. I do not think the country will lose anything if those hon. gentlemen will take their time and deal with this question intelligently. If they so far have done nothing else during the session it is- about time they dealt with this matter, because it undoubtedly is one of the biggest Questions before the country to-day. There is no doubt the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) is absolutely right when he talks about the unrest in Canada. I can point to the cause of the existing unrest, Mr. Speaker, it is attributable to the gentlemen sitting to your right. It is due to the failure on the part of the Government to take action. The feeling of unrest is by reason of the country entertaining the view that the Government has taken absolutely no action with regard to the profiteers. For example, when I asked

a moment ago whether these profiteers, these packing companies, have paid into the treasury the excess in profits which they have taken from the country, the Government is unwilling or unable to answer the question; and hon. gentlemen supporting the Government shout "carried." They are anxious to get home, when it is our business to sit here and legislate for the people. If the country is in such a state of unrest, and every hon. gentleman knows that it is, it is not our business to hurry up and run home, but to sit here and legislate in order to try and satisfy the people and bring about peace and ordeT. It is not our business to fuss around here like a lot of children, but to sdt here and deal with the legislation submitted., whether it is good, bad, or indifferent. There must he a number of causes responsible for bringing about the * present unrest, and if the cost of living in Canada is higher than it should be, legislation should be adopted to bring it down and for that, of course, the Government is responsible. If the boosting of prices to the consumer goes- on in this country, the Gov ernment is responsible for it. I saw a statement in the press, the other day which was credited to the Minister of Finance, although I can hardly believe it. He is reported to have made the statement that inflated currency had nothing to do with the high cost of living. Is that true when we are lending money to foreign countries that are buying our products at thirty per cent less than we pay for those products ourselves? Is that true, when you take into consideration the discount granted to those countries on the bonds of this country and the fact that we are paying thirty-eight per cent more for meat and flour than foreigners are paying for the very same goods exported from this country?
Their bonds are worth seventy-two cents on the dollar and we are taking them at par. The people understand these things, even if the Government do not. There is no doubt that there is great unrest in the country. I want to tell my hon. friends opposite that when a strike breaks out because the people are not getting enough wages to live on and see the big interests pocketing inordinate profits, that it is not the business of the Government to get out their machine guns and see their powder is dry before negotiating; they should negotiate and see what is at the bottom of the trouble. And what that trouble is the Government is being told every day in this House-it is the high cost of living. If this committee has found a solution for the

high cost of living, I think every hon. member will support it, but we have considerable doubts about that. The 'Government appointed a cost of living commissioner last year and the year before, and when the commissioner attempted to bring the profiteers to book, what did the Government do? They had'him dismissed immediately and appointed another commissioner in his place. That other commissioner we have never heard from since. If this commission is- to be a whitewashing commission, if it is simply for the purpose of defending the Government, of course, the people do not want to support it. We do not want to tax the people another $200,000 a year for an unnecessary commission that will do nothing.
My hon. friends on your right, Mr. Speaker, talk of the people paying. They say that the Food Board collected from the people all that it cost the country. Of course, they did. That is exactly what the people are objecting to-paying exorbitant taxes to make jobs for the friends of the Government. My hon. friend the Acting Minister of Justice says that all they collect is a saving to the people, that it goes into the treasury and saves the people in taxes. Why, on that principle the more you tax the people the richer they are. It is the most absurd argument that I have ever heard, and it has been used by hon. members opposite this year and it was also used by them -last year. Other hon. members get up and defend the profiteers. They say that the profits they make would not be very much if distributed among the people. But the profit one man makes, Mr. Speaker, is a guide for others, and before this Cost of Living -Committee we have noticed from day to day that evidence has been brought out of profits from fifty to two hundred per cent being made. Values are relative, and that means that the cost of living is always climbing. The shoe1 merchant who makes sixty per cent is making that profit out of the labouring men ah over the country.
What the people are up in arms about is that the Government is not taking any action to remedy that state of things-and I may tell the Government quite frankly that the people have absolutely no confidence that they will take any action-at least, I have never met any person who has confidence that this Government will curb the profiteers. If the Government are honest and anxious to do what the people want them to do, they have a simple remedy at hand. If they will pass an Order in Council abolishing the War Times Elections Act.
and go to the country on an honest franchise we shall see returned to this House representatives of the people and not representatives of the big interests-a much needed change that will satisfy the people.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would direct the attention of the House to the fact that if the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) exercises his right to reply the debate will be closed.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will only occupy the time of the House two minutes. I want to refer to the objections raised as to the manner in which this resolution was passed. I stated at the outset that a resolution was put before the committee dealing with the principle involved in these recommendations, and that that resolution was carried by the casting vote of the Chairman, But in so far as the regularity of the report is concerned, as it is before the House, a second resolution was put, after the whole committee-those who had voted against the principle and those who had voted for it-had sat down around the tqfcle for an hour and a half and worked out the details of these recommendations. That resolution was moved by Mr. Stevens and seconded by Mr. Douglas, that the recommendations- as finally contained in the second report of the committee be presented to the House on Thursday, the 26th day of June, and was carried on division without any objection whatever.
I wish to refer to another point-the insinuation of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. -Clark) that this report is the result of something done by the Government to induce the committee to take action. I regret that the hon. member should have made that statement, for the reason that it has caused me to lose a very great deal of the regard that I have always had for the hon. member, and the only foundation there can be for any such insinuation is in the diseased imagination of those who are making it. No member of the Government ever approached me, or, as far -as I am able to learn, any other member of the committee in regard to what we should do. When the committee was appointed the Finance Minister, in speaking to me in regard to it, said-: " My desire is that your investigation shall be as wide open as you can make it. Get all the facts you possibly can and present your findings to the House just as you arrive at them." And that is exactly what we did.


Mr. PROULX:: I was paired with the member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) ; had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MANIION:: I was paired with the member ifor Provencher (Mr. Molloy); had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. PEDLOW:: I was paired with the member for Dundas (Mr. Casselman); had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. POWER:: I was paired with the member for South Waterloo (Mr. Scott); had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Main motion for the adoption of the report (Mr. G. B. Nicholson) agreed to.



SENATE BILL.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 174, respecting The Canadian Niagara Bridge Company.-Mr. T. J. Stewart.	.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Marine (Hon. C. C. Ballantyne) to an incident which took place on Sunday last. The Maritime express, with passengers from Canada and United States, including several elderly ladies, left Montreal at the usual hour, 9.25 a.m. When passengers for Murray Bay reached Riviere Ouelle Junction at 5.45 p.m., they found, much to their dismay, that the ferry between Riviere Ouelle and Murray Bay was not running, and several ladies and children were obliged to spend the night at Riviere Ouelle Junction, where there is no hotel; and several of them had to take another train and. return to Quebec. This is a very serious state of affairs, and I aim sure my hon. friend will see to it that whether on Sunday or any other day, when the regular train is advertised to carry passengers as far as Murray Bay, the ferry is available to carry these passengers across the river. The Quebec and Saguenay railway service is not yet completely organized; the road is run by the contractors.
*


Mr. J. D. REID:: They are running regular first-class trains now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is not such a matter as ought in any case to be brought up in the Orders of the Day. I have allowed considerable latitude in view of the fact that we are approaching the end of the session; but there will be ample opportunity for the hon. member to bring this matter up on the Estimates.



SHIPPING FOR ST. LAWRENCE COAL TRADE.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert Laird Borden: 

$100,000,000 GENERAL PURPOSE LOAN.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 164, to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the- public service, was read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Council) moved the third reading of Bill No. 158, to provide pensions to or
[Stage Direction]
in- respect of members of the* Canadian Naval, Military and Air Forces.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I move:
That Bill No. 158 he not now read a third time, but ibe referred back to the Committee of the Whole for the purpose Of striking out subsection 3 of section 33, and all other sections having reference to said section 33.


Mr. BRISTOL:: I		was paired with the
hon. member for Essex North (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Robert James Manion: I was' paired with the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy),. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 130, to amend an Act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society.-Sir Robert Borden.
Robert Laird Borden: The addition to the Act, as passed by this House, reads:
In time of Peace to carry on and assist in work for the improvement of health, the prevention of disease and the mitigation of suffering throughout the world.

The Senate has added the words "or war" after the word "peace": " In time of peace or war to carry 6n," etc.
Amendment concurred in.



PORT OF ST. JOHN.

[Stage Direction]
BIBL, to create board of harbour

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 175, relating to the harbour of St. John, in the province of New Brunswick; Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 3-limits of harbour:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are those old limits, or are we taking in new ground ?


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: We are taking in a small portion of new ground at Courtenay bay. The city boundary lines do not take in the whole of Courtenay bay, and this Bill is extending the boundary lines so as to take it in.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How much money has the Government spent on Courtenay bay in development up to now?


Mr. CARVELL:: I could not say offhand- somewhere around $4,000,000, but that is only an estimate. The city of St. John is not selling that portion of Courtenay bay which is not under the Government. The Government is taking that in the harbour limits, and it will be administered by the Board of Harbour Commissioners in order that all wharves and shipping facilities in the city may be under one board.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Who owns the land around what is known as Courtenay bay? Is it Crown property?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A portion of it is in the territory of St. John and the other portion is in the parish of "Simonds. The land is all owned by private individuals except the foreshore which is within the limits of the harbour, under the control of the Federal Parliament. Any land which the company took, for instance, for the location of the dry dock which is now under construction, haS been purchased from the various property owners; and any land they may require in the future will also be purchased. The part occupied by the harbour is really altogether within the city limits. The line runs approximately through the centre of what is called the Bay. The wharves, docks, and things of that kind are on the western side, and the dry dock is on the eastern side or in the parish of Simonds.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When will the work be completed?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have very good reason to believe the dry dock will be completed in a year and a half and be ready for operation.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: Will the dry dock be under control of the Harbour Commission?	-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it is private property. The company that owns the dock bought the fee of the land from the riparian owners-and are putting up the construction purely as private property.
On section 5-appointments:


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the Government so' far considered any of the appointments?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Government have not considered who the three commissioners will be, but it is the intention to select well known prominent business men. I hope very shortly to see such men appointed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Who are in charge of the harbour? Is it not now conducted under some special supervision?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It is being controlled by the city of St. John and will ibe until a formal deed is passed transferring the property to His Majesty.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The city of St. John must have a commission. The city as a whole cannot look after the business. Is there a Board of Management now?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The city of St. John have what is known as the Commissioner of Docks, Harbours and Ferries and also a harbour master looking after the port of St. John at the present time. Before the city of St. John will be able to say whether they accept or reject the Government offer a referendum will have to be taken, but from what I can learn I do not think there is any doubt about the city being willing to accept the offer the Government is now making of $2,000,000.


William Stevens Fielding: Where is provision
made for the payment of the commission?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Later on in the
Bill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will this commissioner who is now in charge of the harbour under the direction of the city council likely be one of the commissioners?
4338


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am sorry that I am not able to give a definite answer. We will have to consider that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The city of St. John is managed by a commission instead of the ordinary municipal council and one of the commissioners, who is really a member of the city council, has, as a part of his duties, to look after the harbour. There is a harbour master who carries out his instructions.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-officers:
Rodolphe Lemieux: All subject to a referendum?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When is it going to take place?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Right away, t


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
* On section 10-expropriation:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there a railway such as we have in Montreal?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No, they have no transportation organization for the movement of freight cars such as we have in Montreal.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-elevator and wharfs of His Majesty to be controlled by corporation:
Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the present
oapacity of the elevator?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: One million bushels.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-by-laws:
Mr. McMASTER:: Are the by-laws similar to those of the port of Montreal?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes, identical.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-power to levy rates:
William Stevens Fielding: Section 15 says:
The corporation may levy such rates as are fixed by by-law.
We all know what that means, but it is a matter of drafting-rates on what?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It means levying wharfage dues on all imports and exports and side wharfages.


William Stevens Fielding: Is it defined?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 18-rates to be collected by collector of customs:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Rates on shipping?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my hon. friend will turn to subsection f.of section 14 he will see that the corporation have power to make by-laws regulating-
The imposition and collection of rates and tolls on vessels entering, using and leaving the said harbour and their cargoes, and on goods landed or shipped in the said harbour, and penalties for the infringement of any of the provisions of this Act or any by-law made thereunder.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But the rates are not levied by the collector of customs; they are levied by the commission.	*


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: They formerly were collected by the collector of customs at the port of Montreal,, the shipping people having to deliver their ship's manifest to the customs. That policy has been' changed and the ship's manifests are now delivered direct to the harbour commissioners for the port of Montreal. I think that the harbour commissioners for the port of St. John will follow the system which is now in vogue at the port of Montreal. We are simply putting this into the Bill 'in case they desire to follow a system that formerly prevailed at Montreal.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will these rates be subject to supervision by the Governor in Council or by the department?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19-borrowing money for improvements, etc.:
Rodolphe Lemieux: To what extent are they enabled to borrow?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I cannot say what the future needs of the port of St. John may require in the way of borrowed money. That will be for the harbour commissioners, when they are appointed, to determine, subject, of course, to the approval of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and subject as well to the approval of the Governor in Council. Any borrowings they make will be similar to the borrowings at the ports of Montreal and Quebec. The debentures will be issued and the interest will be paid on such loans.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I see that the debentures must be in denominations of at least $100. Is that wise? We have, within the last few years, changed the Companies' Act in

order to allow companies to issue debentures for less than $100. It is possible that Government bonds may become more popular as a means of investing the savings of the people of moderate means, and it may be wise to have a denomination of less than $100.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: These debentures will not be offered to the public. They will be redeemed by the harbour commissioners of St. John as far as I can judge, and if they are unable to do so the Government will have to redeem them.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 20-debentures chargeable on revenues, etc.:
Rodolphe Lemieux: What was the revenue of the port of St. John , last year?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The revenue for 1918 was $159,442, and the estimated revenue under the commission is placed at $225,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that sufficient to meet the interest on the bonds?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 30-repeal of chapter fifty-cne of the statutes of 1882:
William Stevens Fielding: Where is provision
made, I presume it is to be found somewhere, for the payment of these commissioners? There appears to be none in the Bill.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It has always been the custom to determine the remuneration to be paid to the various harbour commissioners by Order in Council. That is a matter I have not as yet discussed with my colleagues, but I purpose doing so shortly. The remuneration contemplated will not be as large as that enjoyed by the commissioners for the port of Montreal because I do not consider the duties at the port of St. John will be as arduous as they are in the former case.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not faking any exception to the Bill, but simply wondering whether any machinery had been provided for paying the commissioners.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That is to be found in subsection 4 of section 5:
The chairman and the other commissioners may he paid out of the revenues of the harbour, such remuneration as the Governor in Council determines.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



BRITISH NATIONALITY, NATURALIZATION, AND ALIENS CONSOLIDATION ACT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 138, to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to British nationality, naturalization, and aliens, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was last before the Committee, all the clauses and the title had been adopted with the exception of clause 8, the last paragraph of which, with an amendment proposed by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), had been allowed to stand. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon member for North Waterloo proposed to add to subsection (b) of clause 8, as sub-paragraph 4, the following words:
(4) is the subject of a country which, at the passing of this Act, was at war with His Majesty, provided that such subject was permanently resident in Canada on the fourth day of August in the year one thousand nine hundred and nine.
Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment?


Mr. EULER:: I had hoped that the Solicitor General would have had something to say with regard to the amendment before I spoke. When he stated the other evening, after I had submitted the amendment, that it did not appear unreasonable, I had hoped it would be allowed to carry. I do not know what the intention of the Government is with regard to it, although I admit that as an ordinary thing an amendment proposed by a member of the Opposition is not usually received with a great deal of favour. I would say, however, that if it is intended to vote down the amendment, the members of the Committee should realize the gravity of the injustice that in my opinion will be done to certain people living in Canada. The clause in question in its present form will have this effect: That certain men of enemy alien birth, who have lived in this country for a great many years-notwithstanding the fact that they have thought themselves in many instances to be British subjects, and have conducted themselves as such, and notwithstanding the fact, as I said the other day, that some of them had relatives fighting in the Canadian army -would be debarred from becoming naturalized as British subjects for an additional period of ten years. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have not at present in this country too

many good citizens. Furthermore, some weeks ago we passed a new immigration law, which, in my opinion, was just a little too stringent in some respects; and I believe that if this Bill is passed in its present form it will make for a certain amount of unrest among some of the people of Canada consequent upon a feeling of injustice as a result of rendering it impossible for those men to secure that naturalization to which I think they are entitled. Moreover, I believe that if this sort of thing continues- unless the Government has some remedy to offer-a great many responsible and reliable persons, men who are practically citizens of this country and want to do their duty as citizens, will leave Canada, and we can ill afford their loss. A great deal has already been said here with respect to the alien enemy, and I am not going to discuss now the man who technically comes within that class. But it is desirable that men who are at present aliens should become Canadian citizens and good British subjects. We have a great deal of work to do in Canada, we need to develop our resources, and I see no means of meeting the heavy obligation which we have to carry as a result of the war unless that proposition is recognized. Now, although I have no desire to delay the work of the House at this period of the session, I would again lay the salient facts of the situation before the Committee, and more particularly as they affect the constituency of North Waterloo, which I have the honour to represent. It is well known that in the county of Waterloo there are a great many people of either German extraction or German birth, many of whom have lived there for thirty, forty, fifty or sixty years; and I know of one case, coming very closely home to myself, where that residence has extended to seventy-five years.
Most of these people became naturalized in the ordinary course, but hundreds of them are not naturalized to-day for various reasons. First of all, in the years before the war naturalization was not considered of quite so much importance as it is today, and, as was stated in the Order in Council, questions of naturalization were not scrutinized so carefully as they have been since the war began. A good many of these people came to this country as children, they have since grown up to manhood, and many of them were under the impression that their fathers became naturalized under the law shortly after they came to Canada. Their fathers are dead, and many of these men, who are now 	,
thirty or forty or fifty years old, have no means of proving that their fathers were naturalized. Some of those fathers came to Canada even before Confederation, but their sons can show no proof of naturalization. Those men have held public office; they have considered themselves Canadian citizens; all their interests have been incorporated in those of Canada; they have no connection with an enemy alien country now, they really, never had, and many came from Germany before there was any great degree of militarism in that country. On the other hand, a good many of them came to Canada not only because of the opportunities which they thought they would find in this new country, but because they desired to escape from that very militarism.
I think I should refer to one other thing which makes it, perhaps to some extent, Excusable that these men did not take out naturalization papers. I know that possibly some hon. members on the opposite side of the House will say:	If those men
did not think enough of Canada to take out naturalization papers, they should not complain now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: Hon. members say hear, hear; but I would point out to them that among both political parties in the county of Waterloo-as I am sure was also the case in many other sections of Canada where men of German or Austrian nationality had settled-there was a sort of compact that no man when he came to give his vote should be challenged on the score of nationality. You will say that that was wrong; and so it was; but I must again remind the committee that at that time not so much importance was attached to naturalization as has been the case since the war. The result was that these men, not well informed on matters of naturalization-which we now understand a great deal better-were quite content to go on as they were. Their names were always placed on the voters' lists, and they assumed because of that that they were British subjects, and they always voted. That is perhaps merely an excuse, but the fact remains, that those men, having lived in Canada a long time-considering themselves in every way British subjects, and acting in accordance with that belief, are now debarred under this clause from actually receiving naturalization papers.
The Government prior to the last election-I may call it the Borden Govern-

ment-realized that there was some justice in the claim of these,.men to become naturalized, and, as I- said the other day, after a statement had been .made in the House by the right bon. the Prime Minister, the then Government passed an Order in Council under which these men could become naturalized if they could show before a judge that they were worthy of British citizenship. That was in 1917, actually during the war. As a result, some ninety or more [DOT] men in my constituency made application in due form before a judge, the judge passed upon their applications, approved of them, and they were forwarded to the Secretary of State, but absolutely no action of any kind was taken upon them. I might add that it caused me a great deal of surprise yesterday to hear the hon. Secretary of State say that that Order in Council was repealed not so very long ago. I say that because I was in communication with him from time to time with regard to these very men. He assured me again and again that he would bring the matter before the Government, and I believe that that was done, and from time to .time the Government declined to take any action to complete the naturalization, for the reason that the feeling was very strong against anything of that kind being done and they did not think the time was opportune to take action. But I had no intimation whatever that the Order in Council had been repealed, and I had no reason to believe that it would be repealed, and it seems to me that under the circumstances some information might have been given to me in regard to it.
The Solicitor General stated the other evening that he thought the amendment I proposed was not unreasonable, and I am given to understand that the Government is inclined to be sympathetic towards these men, and feels that something should be done. If that is the case I fail to comprehend why this Order in Council was repealed, under which justice could have been done to these men without any interference whatever with the Act which it is now proposed to put on the statute book. If this Bill is passed, as I suppose it will be, T think that the Government in all justice to these men should at least consider naturalizing them, for they in good faith applied for naturalization following action by this Government itself in their behalf. They went to considerable trouble and expense to establish that they were in good faith British subjects in thought and in deed, and they feel, and I think they feel rightly, that the whole thing should be consummated by their being granted naturalization certificates. As it is they are men without a country. They are not German citizens; they have no connection with that land now, and they do not wish to have. They are located in Canada, all their interests are here, and it seems to me that the Government should make naturalization easy for them rather than difficult. I was quite interested yesterday to hear the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) make the statement that naturalization should be given within a year-in fac, that he would force naturalization; I think that was the statement he made. I do not know that I would be prepared to go so far as that, but I do believe that it would be in the interests of the country to give naturalization to men who, upon investigation, have been shown to be worthy of naturalization, instead of making them serve a still longer time. I think we may very well draw a lesson from the action and attitude of the United States in that regard. There men, instead of being disfranchised and prevented from exercising the duties of citizenship, were given every opportunity to become naturalized, and then, and quite fairly, the Government could expect them to carry out the duties incident to citizenship. That seems to me to be much the wiser course.
The only reason that has been advanced, so far as I know, why the amendment which I have submitted should not be adopted is that it would bring our Naturalization Act into conflict with the British Naturalization law, and that the British Government would not accept as evidence of Imperial citizenship any certificate issued under >an Act amended by the clause which I have proposed.
With all due regard, to that statement, I find it difficult to believe that the British Government would decline to recognize a naturalization certificate issued by this Government if this Government had satisfied itself, as would be its duty, that the persons so naturalized were fit subjects for naturalization. Surely the British Government must realize that conditions in Canada are different from what they are in England. After all, why should not Canada legislate for herself? Nobody proposes that the Canadian Parliament, which is an autonomous Parliament-and we are told that we are a nation-should interfere with British legislation, with British naturalization, so far as Britain herself is concerned; and it seems to me that in this matter Canada should be, autonomous; Canada should not do an injustice to any class of
4.342

the people for the sake of agreeing in every respect with the demands of British law. I repeat that we should legislate for ourselves and see that no injustice is done to people who in fact belong to our own country.
I am supported in this belief by the action of the Imperial War Conference, which was mentioned here yesterday. I do not know how often that conference met or what were its final decisions, but I hold in my hand what professes to be a verbatim report of a meeting held in the summer of 1918, as published in the Evening Telegram of Toronto, on March 31, 1919. At that conference, which was attended by representatives from Canada, in the person of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell); from Newfoundland, from India, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, the following resolution was adopted:
This conference is iof the opinion that legislation should be passed throughout the Empire restricting for a period after the war, sp far as in the circumstances of each country may be possible, the naturalization of citizens of present enemy countries and also the acquisition by them of any form of political rights or of land or of mining privileges.
That resolution was carried, but only after a very considerable discussion. I am going to quote some of the things that were said; they bear directly upon this discussion. Sir George Cave, who, I think, was the representative of the British Colonial Office-


Robert Laird Borden: He was the Secretary for Home Affairs.


William Daum Euler: there that consideration should be had for the varying conditions in the overseas Dominions with regard to their Naturalization Acts.


Mr. ROWELL:: Would my hon. friend permit me to reply just on that one point? When that discussion came up at the Imperial Conference, we understood that the Home Secretary intended inserting that clause to which he referred, limiting the rights of naturalization, in the section relating solely to Great Britain, but apparently, as I understand from the Solicitor General, he inserted it in the part which relates to the whole Empire, and that creates the difficulty at the present time. Undoubtedly the attitude of the Canadian representatives was, as my hon. friend has intimated in the extracts he has read.


William Daum Euler: Would I be right in stating that the Bill as it stands now is not really in harmony with the feelings of the Prime Minister and the President-of the Council with regard to these matters? May I ask if, feeling as they do-and I must assume that what I have read here is correct with regard to their attitude-there is any intention on the part of the Government to take any action that will relieve the situation as I have outlined it with regard to these men?


Robert Laird Borden: I entirely adhere to the view which. I expressed at the conference, but the question at the present time is in respect of legislation which is designed to have its effect, through common action of the Empire's parliaments, not only throughout Canada, but throughout the whole Empire. If we should accede to the hon. gentleman's amendment, I do not know what the effect would be on all certificates of naturalization which might be hereafter granted in this country. It would establish a distinct divergence from the Imperial Act. Hon. gentlemen who have studied this question at all know that the purpose of the resolution at the Imperial Conference of 1911 was to secure such uniformity of legislation that certificates of naturalization granted in one part of the Empire would be effective throughout the whole Empire. For that reason the measure which was the outcome of the conference resolution was submitted to every Dominion of the Empire. It was adopted by Canada. We had a great deal of negotiation and discussion both oral and by cable with regard to some of its provisions before we reached a common conclusion. Eventu-

ally, the Act was passed in 1914 by the United Kingdom and in the same year by Canada, and along precisely the same lines. In 1918, the British Government, doubtless under the stress of a very powerful and even vehement public opinion, introduced certain amendments.
As the President of the Privy Council pointed out, we did not understand during the Imperial Conference last summer that the particular proposal upon which I spoke was to be included in that part of the British Act which related to the whole Empire and1 which should be the foundation of common legislation throughout the Empire; and so I expressed myself as I did. I think it will be necessary to pass the Act in its present form, but I assure my hon. friend that I will make representations to the British Government with respect to the matter with a view to having such modifications made in the Imperial Act as will permit of reasonable modification in our own.
Amendment negatived.	.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Considered in Committee-Third Readings.
Bill No. 155 (from the Senate) respecting the Canadian Western Railway Company. -Mr. Bonnell.
'Bill No. 157 (from the Senate) for the relief of Gertrude Slater.-Mr. Pedlow.
Bill No. 156 (from the Senate) for the relief of William Elmer Roome.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 170 (from the Senate) for the relief of Burton Mattin.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 172 (from the senate) for the relief of Margaret Flora Burrows.-Mr. Wallace.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. J. Stewart moved the second reading of Bill No. 174 respecting the Canadian Niagara Bridge Company.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. T. J. STEWART:: I would ask that, the House go into Committee of the Whole upon this Bill without reference to the Railway Committee I understood that a motion 'was made to-day that the rule be suspended so that it might be disposed of in Committee of the Whole to-night. We cannot get a meeting of the Railway Committee, and this is a very important matter.
A Bill introduced by myself went through a year ago, incorporating the Canadian Niagara Bridge Company and authorizing it to construct a bridge across the Niagara river two miles north of Bridgeburg. The company is composed of the Canadians Pacific Railway Company, the Michigan Central Railway Company, the New York Central Railway Company and the Toronto. Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company. In the Act provision was made for the construction of a branch line leaving the Michigan Central at a point between Welland and Bridgeburg and extending for a distance of six miles to the proposed new bridge. They are now proceeding with the bridge, but it has transpired that they cannot get connection with the bridge in a distance of six miles owing to the fact that the Michigan Central Railway Company are using for switching purposes property which this branch line would intersect. It has therefore been found neces-saray to construct this connecting branch line from Welland to the new bridge and this involves the building of twelve miles of railway, instead of six miles as was originally intended. The purpose of the Bill is to empower the company to construct a connecting line twelve miles in length. That is the only alteration in the Act.


Mr. HAROLD:: The Bill was read the first time this morning and the rule was suspended in order to give it its second reading to-day.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Bill was read the first time this morning at the opening of the House. A motion was made to suspend rules 96 and 115 in connection with this Bill. Under this motion it was placed on the Order Paper for second reading this evening. It has been read a second time and by unanimous consent it may be submitted to the Committee of the Whole House.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House toi resolve Itself into committee on Bill No. 174 to incorporate the Canadian Niagara Bridge company.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.


James Alexander Robb: (Chateauguay-Huntingdon): Does the Minister of Railways consent to this legislation?


John Dowsley Reid: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the minister explain the object of this legislation?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The object of the Bill,
as I explained on the first reading, is to enable the Civil Service Commission to appoint to permanent positions in the Civil Service persons who were taken on temporarily at Winnipeg, Calgary, and Saskatoon, and in the railway mail service, to replace employees who retired from the postal service in the month of May last. The members of the House will recall that on the 15th May the employees of the Winnipeg post office, with few exceptions, went out on a sympathetic strike that was then called in the city of Winnipeg. On, I think, the morning of the 24th of May, a notice was published in the public press of Winnipeg, notifying the employees then on strike that unless they returned to their work before noon on Monday 26th May, their places would be permanently filled. I am instructed that personal notices were also sent out by the postmaster at Winnipeg to all the employees to the same effect. I might say that before this date, in order that the. public service might be maintained and the carriage of His Majesty's mails continued, the postmaster at Winnipeg had been authorized by the Postmaster General to secure the necessary employees to carry on the work. He pointed out that it was difficult, if not impossible, to obtain these temporary employees, unless he was

in a position to guarantee them permanent employment. They were largely returned soldiers, and they were only willing to take the positions, under the conditions which then prevailed, if they could be assured that their appointment would, be permanent. The postmaster at Winnipeg communicated this information to the Postmaster General, and for the reasons already stated the Postmaster General assured the postmaster of Winnipeg that he might promise permanent employment to the persons in question, subject, of course, to Parliament's sanctioning such action. This Bill therefore is to enable the Civil Service Commission to appoint to permanent positions the men who were taken on under those conditions in the city of Winnipeg.
Then, in the city of Calgary, about the same date-that is, some time between the 15th and 24th of the month-information came to the Postmaster General that there was danger of the employees in the Calgary post office going out on a sympathetic strike with the postal employees at Winnipeg. Accordingly he sent the following telegram:
Regret to learn everything points to sympathetic strike with Winnipeg on part of postal workers. Government considers such action wholly unwarranted and in violation of the plain duty of postal employees. The Prompt handling of His Majesty's mails and the maintenance of the public postal service at this time is the first obligation of every employee under the Post Office Department. For such employees to seek to embarrass or prevent the prompt handling of His Majesty's mails by a sympathetic strike is entirely incompatible with loyal service to the country and all postal "employees joining in a sympathetic strike will be deemed to have resigned their positions in His Majesty's service and their places will be promptly filled. All loyal employees will be supported and protected by the Government. Make known to employees and keep department promptly informed.
I am advised by the Postmaster General that that telegram was communicated to the employees of the Calgary post office, and they were urged to remain at their post and not to go out on strike in sympathy with the general strike in Winnipeg. Notwithstanding that, however, they chose to go out, and the Post Office Department, acting upon that telegram, took the ground that they had resigned their positions in the public service, and the postmaster at Calgary was authorized to fill their places. He did so, and I understand seventy per cent or more of the new employees are returned soldiers.
I need not go into the somewhat similar conditions which prevailed at Saskatoon. At that city the postal employees went out without having received the same specific 
warning as the employees at Calgary, and they were given a certain time within which to return. I understand that in Saskatoon a very large number did return. Further, the railway mail clerks in Winnipeg went out on a sympathetic strike, but all returned within the time limit. Certain of the railway mail clerks at Saskatoon also went out on a sympathetic strike. Several returned wit'hin the time specified, but a few did not.
The Bill now before the House covers appointments in Winnipeg, , Calgary, and Saskatoon and in the Railway Mail Service, and it authorizes the Civil Service Commission, on the recommendation of the Deputy Postmaster General, to appoint to the permanent staff:
(a)	any employee who was temporarily taken on to the staff and employed In the Post Office or in the Railway Mail Service at any one of the cities of Winnipeg, Saskatoon or Calgary to replace employees who ceased to perform their duties in the said offices or in the said service in May, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, and
(b)	any temporary employee in any one of the said Post Offices or in the Railway Mail Service at the said cities who did not absent themselves from duty in the, said Post Offices or in the said Service, in the month of May, or who were absent from their duties in the said month but returned thereto within the time limited for so doing.
Then the Bill provides:
No age limit shall apply in the case of any such appointment, and it shall not be necessary for any person so appointed to pass or to have passed any Civil Service Examination, provided such person is certified by the Postmaster of the city where the person is to be employed or by the Superintendent of the Railway Mail Service, as the case may be, to be competent and fit to do work for which he is required.
I sav without hesitation, Mr. Chairman, that we should not depart from the principles of the Civil Service Act and authorize appointments by statute, as we are now doing, except under circumstances of the most urgent character. And it was only the urgency of the situation, and the importance of keeping the mail service in operation, that justified the Postmaster General authorizing the postmasters, of these cities to take on^these employees, with the assurance .that their appointments would be made permanent on the conditions mentioned in the Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that when the postmasters of Winnipeg, Calgary and Saskatoon found that they had no one to sort and deliver letters, and so on, they opened their respective offices to these volunteers. By this legislation you are going

to make those men permanent employees. I have no objection to that. I think it is wise that men who offered their services when the Government was in need of them, and when it was dangerous for them to render assistance, should certainly be appointed permanently. But how will they be classified? For instance, a man may have been appointed temporarily as a sorter or a letter carrier who would be fit for a higher position in the service, and, consequently, would command a higher salary. It would not be fair for such a man in this rush to be assigned to a position inferior to that which his abilities would enable him to fill. Therefore I would like to be enlightened on that point by my hon. friend.
The next point I wish to call to his attention is this. The members of the Committee no doubt have received to-day a circular letter signed, I think, by Mr. Tulley, of Ottawa, secretary of the Civil Service Federation. In that letter he makes an appeal to the Prime Minister on behalf of the men who went on strike. I, for one, do not wish to give an opinion on this matter, but I would like to know if the reasons on which this appeal is based are found sufficiently weighty by the right hon. gentleman to favourably consider the case of those men. It is stated-and it would have appealed to me very forcibly if I had been Postmaster General-that many a poor wife will suffer from the fact that the father and husband was, so to speak, forced to strike. I wish to remind the House that I do not adopt this plea as my own; I am simply repeating offhand what is stated in the letter. It is represented that many of those men, indeed the majority of them, would not have left their duties if they had not been under threat of reprisals on the part of a large, body of strikers. Now the strike is at an end, "Order reigns in Varsovie," as was said of old-peace is established in Winnipeg, and an appeal is made to the right hon. gentleman (Sir Robert Borden) to consider favourably the case of these unfortunate letter-carriers and sorters. I would like to know if he intends to take any action on that appeal.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Chairman, I have a very deep sympathy indeed for the position in which these men find themselves.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My right hon. friend received that letter?


Robert Laird Borden: I have received the letter, and I have seen the representatives of the postal employees of the West.
I have given the best consideration I could to their case and have given them an answer. If one yielded to his sympathy, naturally, he would be inclined to say that these men, although misled, might be given another opportunity. But I ask the Committee to recall the circumstances which confronted this country when these men went out on sympathetic strike.
I have already stated the facts in this House, and I need not repeat them. The situation was, perhaps, somewhat more serious than most hon. gentlemen in this House are inclined to believe or able to realize. I am thoroughly confident that if the Government had not taken the position which it did at the outset, the postal service would have been absolutely demoralized not only in the cities which have been mentioned, but also in other western cities, and perhaps in eastern cities as well. The condition in which these men find themselves is absolutely of their own choice. They went out on strike in Winnipeg without any notice to the Government. I am not concerned at the moment with the precise reasons which induced them to take that course, but I have understood from their representatives that it was through their having joined, without the consent of the Government, some organization in February last, the behest of which they felt themselves bound to obey rather than the lawful commands of the Government of this country. The Government of Canada and ' the people of Canada are not responsible for the course which they took in joining ax; organization of that kind. Nevertheless, even when they did go out on sympathetic strike in Winnipeg, they were not dismissed; they were given nearly three days within which to return to their duty and were distinctly notified that if they did return to their duty they would be reinstated in the place in the service which they had previously held.- About seventy of them,
I think, did Teturn; the others felt themselves constrained to obey the commands of the organization which they had joined in this way. That was an absolutely deliberate choice on their own part.
So far as Calgary and Saskatoon are concerned, the conditions were very much the same. At Calgary, distinct notice was given to the postal employees that if they saw fit to abandon their public duty and obey the command of the organization which they had joined-in all these cases for the purposes of a sympathetic strike and not in respect of any grievances of their own-then they might regard themselves as permanently retired from the postal ser-

vice. I venture to think, after the most careful consultation with pry colleagues and after the best consideration which I have been able to give the case Of these men, that it is absolutely impossible for the Government to recede from that attitude, which I have announced over and over again in this House. I am sorry that I am forced to that conclusion, but the public interest does force me to it and to no other.
I might say that conditions within the past year were becoming somewhat acute from time to time in the Civil Service in Ottawa itself. Although I was absent from the country for ten months immediately preceding my return on the 25th of May last, I did hear murm-urihgs and suggestions that there were going to be strikes here in the Civil Service at Ottawa. I think it is high time that men invested with public duties as civil servants of Canada at Ottawa or elsewhere should learn that that is not the way in which their grievances are to be remedied.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If at a given moment during that very serious strike it became dangerous for public officials to remain at their posts-if, say, they were threatened- that might be a consideration which would weigh in their favour. I do not say that that was the case, but it is alleged in the appeal which has been made to the right hon. gentleman that those unfortunate postal employees were forced to join the strike. I myself do not know the facts of the case, but I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether that allegation has been investigated so that the reply of the Government to this appeal may not lose some of its weight through the fact that these employees acted under duress.


Robert Laird Borden: Seventy men in Winnipeg did return to their duty, and were protected in the performance of that duty. Besides that, a number of men, referred to in this Bill, entered the public service and have performed the duties which were abandoned by the employees who went on strike; they also were protected in the performance of their duty. I cannot, therefore, bring myself to believe that any idea of duress or of danger actuated any of these employees.


Michael Clark: The statement we have heard from my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) has been ' useful in that it has cleared up one or two possible misapprehensions. I recognize, as I am sure every

member of this House does, that the Government had a condition of very great difficulty to deal with and that it was their clear duty to carry on the public service of the country. We are all agreed up to that point. No one, at any rate, can charge the Government with want of courage in the attitude they are taking; they are clearly seeking not for popularity, hut for the public good as they see it. I gladly concede that and claim it for the Government. I was interested to hear the Prime Minister say 'that the fact that the union which the men had joined involved the acceptance by the men of the principle of the sympathetic strike was without the knowledge of the Government, because it was tolerably clear in my mind that if the men had joined a union- which contained a clause permitting them to ad-opt the sympathetic strike, that would have been- the time for the -Government to interfere. But when we hear from my right- hon. friend that the Government did not know that that plank was in the platform of the postmen's union-, then very clearly the Government are absolved from all blame, except, perhaps, that some captious critics would say they ought to have known.
With regard to the present attitude of the men, the Prime Minister does not need to assure the House that he is personally sympathetic with the individual men affected; I am sure that every one in this country will accept that statement. Every one will also be alive to the fact that it would be impossible to make room for the men and take them back, without displacing men who have stepped in to serve the country in what my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) has called its time of difficulty.
But there is a broader, view of this question which appeals to my mind-. The Winnipeg strike is over; I hope all that trouble is over. But he is a sanguine citizen of Canada who does not anticipate very considerable labour troubles in the next two years. I very much fear that post-war conditions will be aggravated at some period in that time and probably in an increasing degree during that time. I see no reason, in the present condition of parties- in this country, why this Government should not be in power for that time, and I should say that a wise government, looking ahead, would base their action towards those men not entirely nor chiefly on the ground oi what is coming to the men, but on the ground of what their action would likely be in enabling them to deal with the difficult times through which the country is

passing. From my study of human nature, I think the Government would be in a stronger position if they did not take a stonewall attitude towards those men. If there were vacancies they could be filled by those men. If the service could be helped by the return of a certain number of men, then I do not think it would be a sign of weakness, -but a sign of foresightedness and moral courage to recede from a position which was taken'in the midst of a strike, to the extent of filling any of those vacancies in a fair way from the men who acted upon this plank in their platform, as they themselves tell us, in the belief that that plank was known to be in their platform by the Government whom they ,were serving. I do not need to say any more upon the subject to make my position perfectly clear. Firmness and courage are great qualities in this world, but in the government of peoples in difficult times, I am perfectly certain, the qualities of firmness and courage will carry us further if they are associated with qualities of a different character. It has been said that the greatness of human character is in a due admixture of firmness and gentleness. Every one of us who has had to do with young people or in the government of others, even in a small degree, knows how much it is necessary to mix these qualities in handling our fellow men over whom we have a species of surveillance and employership.
(Mr. MEIGHEN: I cannot permit the recommendation of the hon. member from Red Deer (Mr. iM. Clark) to pass without a word as to the application of the principles of firmness and courage, tempered, as he says, with the opposite qualities, in respect of the present circumstances. In the first place, it is difficult for my simple mind to understand how firmness and courage can very well be tempered with weakness and vacillation; but I am quite aware that firmness and fairness walk well together, and must ever be associated if Government or any other system of human affairs is to be properly conducted. But I am not able to understand how any principle of fairness is to be served by the adoption of the course that my hon. friend recommends in this instance. He tells us that the postal employees in Winnipeg belonged to some organization, and that they claimed that the principles of that organization compelled them to abandon the service of the State in response to the command of outside constituted officers aliei to the Government and to organized public 276
thought, and that their being bound in that organization, was something known to the Government. 1 think that the hon. member for Red Deer might take it for granted that no Government, fit to remain outside of solitary confinement, would be likely to acquiesce in the terms of a union which bound servants of the State to break, at the command of heads of that union, their oath of office and their clear and manifest duty of service to the State that paid them.
(Mr. M. CLARK: I hope my hon. friend appreciates the fact that I accepted, without any reservation, the statement of 'the Prime Minister that that was so.


Arthur Meighen: I will then proceed on the assumption that any obligations repugnant to their oath of office and clear duty these men entered into, were wholly unknown to the Government. In the light of that established and admitted truth, what is the duty in the circumstances? In Winnipeg, >by reason of the action of the postal employees, we found a city of 250,000 people denied the services to which they were entitled, for which they had paid, without which they were not able to carry on their ordinary avocations, and in the absence of which, indeed, all commercial business was paralyzed, and the whole city was placed at the mercy of a dictatorship with which these postal employees were allied. What was to be done? Relying on the allegiance of these men, on their fidelity to their oath and their manifest duty, an organization had been built up, and the heads of that organization advised us that, without at least a fair proportion'of the trained men, it would be a long and difficult task for them to build up a new personnel that would enable them to carry on the business; that anything approaching a totally new personnel in a post office organization would require days, weeks and even months before they could render any service to the State. Obviously, the only way in which the services of the State could be rehabilitated was by taking some step which would have the effect throughout the Dominion not only of asserting once and for all the authority of constituted Government, but of bringing back for the time being such a proportion of those trained men as would enable them, associated with new employees, to carry on. Some such step as that was the only one that would meet the menacing circumstances that confronted us. What was to be done? The only course possible that would bring results was to say to all and sundry who were concerned



that, unless they returned to the posts which they should never have deserted- which they deserted without any cause appertaining to themselves whatever, which they deserted after notice and after admission by themselves that they i had no grievance-those posts would be occupied by others who would be engaged on a permanent basis, and they would be once and for all dismissed from the public service. Nothing but a strong step could possibly have had any chance of success. Anything in the nature of a weak step or of compromise had no chance of success whatever. Is there any hon. gentleman who will controvert that statement? Therefore, this step was taken. A notice was sent to the house of every person who was employed in the postal service, that unless he came back before twelve o'clock on the 26th, he could not hope thereafter to be employed.
Every means was taken to insure that that notice reached them twenty-four hours or thereabouts before the time for return was fixed, and they were told, once for all, that unless they did return by that date and resume their duties, they could not hope thereafter to be employed. The Provincial Government took exactly the same step and made the same pronouncement in regard to their telephone service. What happened in the meantime?-and this is an important circumstance to be remembered. During the forenoon of the twenty-sixth of December the heads of this movement, which in Winnipeg aspired to the erection of a Soviet Government in that city as a demonstration to the rest of Canada, established themselves on the streets of Winnipeg in the rear of the posit office and at the corners of the streets in the neighbourhood and proclaimed to the men who sought to return and do their duty, as they know they should, that the Government of this country was not sincere and would not carry out its pledged word. They said: The Government is trying to get you back, but it does not mean what it says when it tells you that you will not be re-employed. Mr. Evens, of unhappy memory, Mr. Winning, Mr. Pickup, and others of that ilk, stationed themselves at strategic points in the neighbourhood and preached the certainty of vacillation on the part of the Government of Canada, in the hope thereby to encourage men to defy the law and authority [DOT]and refrain from returning to duty. Now, what is the request made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), and the,hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux)?

It simply is to vindicate the prophecies of Ivens, Winning and Pickup, and make it clear that this Government was indeed only bluffing and did not mean what it said. Fairness, firmness and strength, tempered with opposite qualities, said the hon. member. Yes, if that course is to be pursued and the preaching of Mr. Pickup and Mr. Ivens is to be vindicated by the action of Parliament, and if their prediction that the Government, merely bluffing, would not act, is to be fulfilled, what is going to result? No matter what troubles we may have in this Dominion, no matter who may desert his post, though hundreds, yea thousands, may leave the service of the State and paralyze the whole public business of the country, the preachers of that doctrine will be- able to say, with all authority, to those who fail to realize their responsibility: "The Government is only bluffing. They bluffed in May, 1919, and they are bluffing still and will not keep their word." If that- should come to pass the word of the Government would be entirely disregarded. It is not that there is no sympathy with the men who were made the dupes of those orators. There is sympathy for them. As I witnessed man after man pressing forward to listen to the harangues of the Red leaders that morning, I knew that the time would come when men with wives and families would be appealing to the authorities and to the Government, on grounds of sympathy, to be reinstated. But I knew at the same time that reinstatement would mean the prostitution of the word of this Government and would discount and destroy the word of any Government in days to come, and that though it would be difficult to deny those men something in the way of charitable consideration, there was a greater purpose to be served, namely, the preserving of the foundation of law and order in Canada and the vindication of the fact that when Government makes a pronouncement it means it and intends to stick to it, come what may. The question now is as to whether we will uphold our word or recede, whether there is anything in the nature of firmness and consistency in the attitude of the Government, oi whether it is to be lightly receded from and, in effect, reversed, on the plea of generosity-but really out of timidity and vaccil-lation.	,


Mr. H. A. MACKIE:: At the time the Winnipeg postal men and the postal men ' in Calgary went out on strike, were they aware of the usurpation of civil authority

by the soviet element on the strike committee?


Arthur Meighen: It was manifest on the streets and in the shop windows of the city from end to end. The assertion of soviet authority was evident everywhere, and those men must have known it, if there was any possible way of bringing it to their minds.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We are dealing with a very important question. Far be it from me, as a member of this House, to take any. attitude that would be subversive of the principles of sound administration and proper governmental discipline in this or, indeed, in any other country. But governments, like individuals, should seek to set good examples, and if the government of a country in dealing with its subjects fails to set good examples, it rather tends to weaken the authority not only of the government itself but of all its officials. I was preached at last night from every quarter of the Government side of the House, because I found fault with what I regarded as a recognition of the breaking of a very solemn and holy command which is binding upon us all. I was defending a high moral principle underlying the very foundation of the family life of the country, and was saying that the sanctity of the marriage tie should not be violated. Almost every one on the Government side flew at me and declaimed that it was greater to be merciful, generous and broad; that this attitude was far greater than abiding by the laws of God and the commandments which were handed down to us from Moses and the Prophets. It appears that mercy is to be shown only to such characters as we were dealing with last night-'persons who violate every law and principle of good morals in this country. Such characters are to be taken up tenderly and handled with care by the Government and Parliament, and all their sins are to be washed away. They are to be regarded as faultless and whiter than snow. But when we come to deal with erring man, he is to be wiped off the face of the earth. We have the commandment of God, on the one hand, and the commandment of the Minister of the Interior on the other. We can afford with impunity to disobey the command of God, but we are damned at once if we disobey the commands of the Minister of the Interior. I would like to know how often my good friend the minister heard from the citadels, the ramparts and the walls of Zion, the glad tidings of
276i
salvation offered to him to return as a repentant sinner. Has he come back yet? What would he think if he were condemned because he did not come back after the very first sermon he heard? We must not forget that when we are dealing with men who are wrought up as strikers are, we are dealing with humanity in its very worst frame. Under such circumstances we are dealing with humanity in a temper that renders it least prepared for any compromise or sane conclusions. The great jurist Blackstone told us, as is found in his Commentaries, that when we construe law or deal with men we must understand at once that we are not dealing with machines but with humanity, and that we must construe our laws and shape our conduct in the light of that knowledge. I said at the outset that governments were bound to set good examples. What would the Government say if any company in Winnipeg; after the strike was over, said to all their employees:	We have- given you
offers to come back; we have, been coaxing you to come back for the last month; you refused to come; you refused to receive our offers and proposals to you; you did the best you could; now you cannot hold out any longer, not one of you will put his nose inside of any work of ours; you can go elsewhere, and that is the end of it. The Government would not tolerate that sort of thing. The Government would say to any employer of that kind: You must deal fairly with the men; you will have to take them back; you will have to recognize the conditions of this country; they must be observed and we shall see to it that such laws shall be made as will compel you to treat fairly with these men. That is the position that we would expect any Government to take. But what would that employer say to my Tight hon. friend the Prime Minister to-day if they should expect him to consent to any conditions of that kind? He would say, "Ah, yoii are talking that way now but what did you do? You took a few servants in the post office who refused to dc exactly what you wanted them to do and, because they did not do what you wanted them to do, you wiped them out of existence and would not take one man back; yet you come to us and tell us that we must forget everything while you forget nothing." That is the position in which the Government finds itself to-day. It is a hard thing for a proud Government to come down from its pedestal and admit that it must behave like an ordinary employer, but after all the members of the Government are just ordinary human beings-perhaps a little more

than ordinary, but they are just men. We hope they are men, and if they are they must come down from their pedestal and say to these post office employees:	You
behaved badly, you should not have gone out on strike, you should have stayed at your posts; but now this thing is all over, we hope better judgment will guide you in the future, we will give you one more chance ; go back to your work, and see that you do not commit such grave mistakes again. That is the course which the Government should have taken.
In the great city of Winnipeg we heard of those thousand men on a committee who were relieving the distressed conditions in which the city found itself. Now that the strike is over the gentlemen who were serving on that committee cleaning up the streets and working in the post office have gone back to their own occupations. There is not one of them, in so far as we know, who has said to the authorities in Winnipeg that they must make their positions permanent, or who has asked that they discharge these regular employees and give them their places. It was understood that the men who were on strike were to be taken back. It is all very well to be firm. The Government find it easy to be firm when they are dealing with a few strikers in the post office service. They were not quite so firm when, in the last two years, they were dealing with the profiteers of this country. Thpre was no great firmness displayed on that occasion. My hon. friend the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen) was quite willing to turn a corner in connection with this situation and get out of the way. He was not very brave in facing these wealthy profiteers who are the masters of the situation and masters of the Government.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. gentleman referring to this afternoon's vote?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That remark about this afternoon's vote may bring a laugh, but if any body thinks I gave any wrong vote this afternoon he is highly welcome to think so. I cannot appreciate the laugh. All the hon. the Minister of the Interior has td do is to stand up and smile, and there are a lot of people who will dance to his music. I venture to think that there is not one person here who knows what he meant by " this afternoon's vote." We will pass that over. He blames the post office employees for entering into an association for the purpose of bargaining; but, he has bargained

with splendid effect when certain gentlemen will laugh and dance to his music. I say that the Government found it easy to be firm with these few poor, helpless men who were entirely under their control; they were not so firm in other places where they ought to have been firm. I can say to the Prime Minister that it is not yet too late to recast this hard-and-fast rule which he seems to have laid down for himself. I do not think it is his rule. I think it is the rule of the hon. gentleman with the big stick, who went to Winnipeg, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), determined to have his way, and who was prepared from the beginning to wade right through Winnipeg or anything else that stood in his way in order to maintain his will and crush everything that stood in his path. He prides himself on being the author of very drastic legislation in this country, and he now prides himself on having crushed these few poor fellows under his control in the Post Office Department. He can boast of another achievement in having persuaded the Prime Minister to stand behind him in the position which he has taken. I shall not detain the House one moment longer than to remind the House that yesterday we were talking of the woman who was trying to pass herself off as a man's wife when she was not his wife. Some hon. gentlemen were willing to call her his wife and to give her the privileges of a wife and to cast no stones in that direction; but here we find that they have reserved their fusilade of ammunition for a group of poor civil servants in the post office who happened to take one wrong step.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the privilege of saying a word in regard to this matter for the reason that there is a phase of this whole subject that it would seem to me .the House and the country have not been seized of,' notwithstanding all that has been said and written in regard to the Winnipeg strike. In the first place let me say that there was no such thing as a strike in the accepted sense of the term in Winnipeg. There was an organized, carefully planned and carefully worked out effort on the part of a group of exceedingly clever men to destroy everything in the shape of constituted authority in this country, and to destroy what they professed to uphold-organized labour itself. We have heard a good deal in regard to the fact that the postal authorities joined these organizations the constitution of which contained a clause per-

mitting them to take part in a sympathetic strike. It has not been my privilege to read the constitution of the organization to which the postal employees belonged.
But I want to say this, as one who knows something of organized labour: That a sympathetic strike in itself is a direct contradiction of the principle that the strike in Winnipeg was supposed to be called to uphold, namely, the right of collective bargaining. There can be no such thing as collective bargaining, there can be no organization founded on the principle of collective bargaining, that recognizes a sympathetic strike. Collective bargaining must stand or fall on the inviolability of a contract and there can be no such thing as the inviolability of a contract where a sympathetic strike is recognized. So that any plea that is put forward on behalf of the postal employees that they belonged to a legitimate body of organized labour that had within itself the germ or genesis of a sympathetic strike falls to the ground at once.
But I want to pass on to another phase of the question, and to refer particularly to what the leader of the Opposition has said as to the attitude that a private company would take with regard to its employees, under circumstances similar to that in which the Government finds itself with respect to these postal employees. Now, what has taken place in the city of Winnipeg in connection with regularly constituted bodies of organized labour? The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engineers and the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen will be recognized, I think, as fairly well established bodies of organized labour. It became known to these organizations very early in the so-called Winnipeg strike that an effort was being made to bring local pressure to bear on the membership of these two local organizations in Western Canada to draw them into a sympathetic strike, and their leaders immediately went to Western Canada in order to see that the members of the organizations should fulfil their contracts and abide by the constitutions of the organizations to which they belonged. Notwithstanding their efforts, what occurred? I do not know how many postal authorities there were, but 500 men in the train service in Western Canada violated their contracts, refused to be guided by the leaders of the organizations to which they belonged, and went out on strike. What happened? Was there any sympathy shown for these men that has been pleaded for to-night in connection with the postal employees? Did the railway companies that these men were
employed by take them back in a body, or did the organizations to which they belonged recognize the right of these men to violate their contracts at will and violate the obligations that they were under to their organizations? Not for one moment. Every single one of the 500 men were expelled from these organi-ations and their leaders themselves undertook to say " We will replace every man who violates his contract." That is the position, Sir, that those men are in to-day.
Having gone that far, however, I wish to say something as regard to what I believe took place with regard to these 500 men, and in that connection there is a thought that the Government might take into consideration in considering the case of the postal employees. There has been, ever since I have known anything about organized labour on the North American continent, what is known as a black list, a list on which the name of a man goes when he is put in a position where he cannot be recognized as fit to be given employment by one of the recognized railway organizations, and by the large employers of labour under whom that very class worked. But the 500 men to whom I refer will not, in my judgment, be placed on any such black list. It will be recognized that local pressure possibly carried them off their feet. They will be punished for having done what they did, by losing their membership in their organizations and their positions with the companies by whom they were employed, but they will he permitted, one by one, as opportunity may arise, to reenter the service as new men. I want to say that in my judgment the Government has absolutely vindicated the position that it took in connection with the Winnipeg strike and in particular relation to the postal employees; and I say further, as a member of a body of organized labour- and I believe that all right-minded members of organized labour from one end of the country to the other will bear me out in doing so-that organized labour was, and is, behind the Government in the position it took in Winnipeg. But, having vindicated that position absolutely and clearly, the Government will not be necessarily receding from that position if it treats these men not as persons on the black list but as men who may re-enter the service as new men starting one by one from the bottom up should occasion arise, and that is as far as any man can legitimately ask the Government to go. I would say to the Government, it will be well advised to simply treat the group of men who were misled

in the situation in which they find them

selves in Winnipeg, as though they had never been in the postal service at all, as new men coming forward and making application for a position without anything in the nature of a black list being held against them.


Mr. T. M. M. TWEEDIE:: I desire to say a few words with regard to this subject which affects the city of Calgary, a portion of which I represent. At the time the postal clerks saw fit to leave their work in that city, out of 208 employees in the office, 207 did not report for duty on the next day or following days, and the result of their walk-out was a very serious matter to the city of Calgary, to Western Canada, and to the Dominion as a whole. I believe they were badly led, and were ill-advised, in their action. At the time the strike vote was taken, 128 men voted to go out and 42 voted to remain at >
their posts, and some others were away on'their vacation. Upon the occasion of my visiting the city of Calgary in connection with this matter, and since my return here, I was requested by various organizations to intercede for the reinstatement of: those men in their former positions. And here let me, say, with respect to the remarks of the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) I regret that when he is discussing what is a fair and square issue he does not come out on a very definite line and say exactly what his position is. The reinstatement of those men resolved itself into two questions: First, shall they be reinstated in accordance with the request of their officials-that is, shall every man be returned to his pqsitxon and receive his former rank and seniority? When I was in the city of Calgary and when I accompanied the delegation that waited upon the Government, I made my position very clear on that point-I will not advocate the reinstatement of those men in their former position because of the fact that many persons have been enlisted into the service of the post office in the city of Calgary to take 'the places of the strikers, and it would necessitate the discharge or displacement of those men and throwing them out on the street if those who had wilfully violated their duty to their country were reinstated. The men who have been appointed to fill the positions of the strikers are entitled to as much and even more consideration at the hands of the Government, than those men who were misled and deceived, and who deliberately walked out and closed up the post office in Calgary. But, while they cannot be reinstated in their former posi-LMr. Nicholson.^
tions, I have taken the stand with the Prime Minister, the Acting Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Labour, that there are many good and faithful servants in the Calgary post office who were misled.
They have been taught a lesson, and they could be returned to their positions in the post office, where they would render splendid and faithful service to the country, and it would be a betterment for the service. I think it is only fair to some of those men that they should be allowed to make their application for re-engagement and take the consequence of the lesson which they have learned. I cannot agree with the Acting Minister of Justice that this would be regarded as a policy of vacillation. Those men would make their applications as new men;.they would not be reinstated at the dictates of any organization which caused them to violate their oath of office with the Government; they would be given exactly the same positions and the same standing that would be given to any other applicants. I trust that in .*the near future the Government will again take this matter under consideration and give to many of those men an opportunity to apply for employment in the Civil Service.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I would ask to speak for a double purpose, Mr. Chairman: First, to refute some things that have been said by the leader of the Opposition, and, second, to deal with my friend from East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). When my friend from Algoma says that collective bargaining knows no such things as a sympathetic strike, it is apparent that he has not followed the labour question to any great extent. Collective bargaining has been recognized as long as individual bargaining: and the sympathetic strike has also been recognized as long as striking has been recognized, as a weapon for labour to secure something that it could not otherwise secure. The only distinction I wish to make in this respfect is that the sympathetic strike has been condemned where the motive underlying it has been absolutely wrong. Kecently I read a book published in England in which it was stated that during this war peeresses and factory girls worked together in the munition factories, and ordinary labourers and peers fought together in the trenches; but now that the war is over we are asking the common people to go back to the degrading employments which they were engaged in before the war after having worked and fought to save their country and the Empire. The

writer advises: You must deal with labour more generously than you have in the past. I wonder whether this Government has not been remiss in its duty to the extent of not advising the capitalistic class that they must be more generous to the labour element, because in that way they will not only be helping the labouring class as a whole but they will be helping themselves.


An hon. MEMBER:: -Carried.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Well, there are some gentlemen in this House, Mr. Chairman, whose wisdom and intelligence is only capable of the expression "Carried;" they never did say anything else, and they cannot say anything else. Now, so far as the leader of the Opposition is concerned, I was one of those who advocated mercy last night, and I am advocating mercy now. Like my friend from Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) I wish it were possible for the Government to reconsider the stand that it has taken, but like my friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) last night, I may be at liberty to distinguish a little bit, although my philosophy may not be any more logical than. his. The leader of the Opposition said that we extended mercy last night, but that we are extending no mercy this evening. But although last night the leader of the Opposition and his followers held it a sin against women who were destroying our social life, to-night they will not hold it a sin against the men who attempted to destroy our national life. Let me point out another fact. Most of the employees recognize the relation of employer and employee so far as they and the Dominion Government are concerned, with this difference, that the relation is as to the whole of the Dominion and not as between individual employer and his employees alone. -So that the obligation upon the employee is greater in that respect. If it were not a fact that an attempt was made to usurp civil authority and to disrupt our national life, I would be prepared to say that the Government should be very lenient indeed in considering the case of the postal men. That is why I put the question to the Acting Minister of Justice, in order to satisfy myself that these men must have had notice, and I may say that if the movement which was set on foot had succeeded to any great extent the leader of the Opposition would not have had the opportunity to show mercy to anybody, and a Soviet Government might be sitting in this House to-day. Of course, the leader of the Opposition and my friends opposite may say that a Soviet Government would
be a good deal better than the one in office at the present time.


An hon. MEMBER:: We do not go that far.	[DOT]


Henry Arthur Mackie: 
[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Acting Minister of Justice) Bill No. 160, to amend the Criminal Code, was read the second time and' the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-unlawful associations:
Arthur Meighen: This section is taken
practically word for word from the resolution concurred in by the House with regard to sedition. There will be one slight change; 1 purpose moving that the words " two justices of the peace " be changed to read " justice of the peace " in the second
4.356

line of subsection 6. I have been waited upon by certain members of the executive of the Police Association, and am convinced that if two justices of the peace are going to be necessary in every case, the proper working of this clause will be impracticable.


Mr. JACOBS:: A stipendiary magistrate
has the power of two justices of the peace. Natutrally, he is a different sort of judicial officer from a justice of the peace.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but there are no stipendiary magistrates except at rather important points.


Samuel William Jacobs: They go on circuit.


Arthur Meighen: Oh no.


Samuel William Jacobs: They do in Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: They certainly do not
go on any circuit in our province.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I can quite see the
convenience of the change proposed by the minister, but I would hesitate to confide to one justice of the pe&ce, having regard to the way these officers are named in certain parts of the country, the extremely important and inquisitorial powers which are given under this section. I have heard, for instance, of men being appointed justices of the peace who were retired butchers and retired men of other walks of life which, though eminently respectable, did not tend to any knowledge of the law. It seems to me that the minister proposes to put rather strong powers in the hands of one justice of the peace.


Arthur Meighen: The Criminal Code
gives to justices of the peace in many cases powers of an equally important and far-reaching character. The power of arrest is vested in one justice of the peace. It is true they are not always lawyers or judges; they may be retired butchers or any other persons whom the provincial government considers to have common sense. Not very much harm has been done through rash action on the part of justices of the peace; where such a thing does occur, it is easily corrected. If the Act is to be efficient it is better to have one justice of the peace do this, because a man might have to travel thirty miles; it might even be out of the question to obtain justices of the peace.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I assume that the offences recognized and dealt with under this Act are all indictable offences and that they will be dealt with along the lines of procedure laid out for such offences?


Arthur Meighen: That is right.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the Act provides that a charge made under this Act shall be laid before the proper tribunal, I am not very much alarmed, because I have confidence in our courts. But I do not think that such a serious crime should be dealt with by an ordinary magistrate who cannot be expected to understand the real seriousness of the offence that he is trying. As to one magistrate having the power to issue a warrant, arrest a man, put him through his preliminary examination and send him up to the Supreme Court, it would seem to be as well to have one magistrate do that as two. But subsection 6 of this section seems to be somewhat different from the Code. According to the present criminal law, if information is laid against a man and he is arrested for any crime, and if there is reason to believe that certain evidence in the way of books or letters is available or obtainable, then the magistrate has the power to issue a search warrant, to impound such books and letters, and to take them into the custody of the court.
But that is always done after the man is arrested and in custody. I observe here that power is given, before anybody is arrested, to go in and seize such books. That is different from the ordinary procedure, and I should like the minister to consider the matter. When it is supposed that a crime has been committed by somebody and that there are some letters and books and other stuff that may prove the guilt, the stuff is taken with the person, but I have never heard of the stuff being taken first and the man afterward.


Arthur Meighen: The usual procedure is that the information must be laid and sworn to, and after the information is laid charging the offence, then the search warrant issues, and that is the procedure here. The information must be laid charging the offence; it must charge some person with the offence, and that being done, the search warrant may issue if the application is sufficient to cover it. I do not see any variance from the prevailing principle of the Code. I move to amend clause 1 by striking out the words " two justices," in line 29 and in line 49 on page 2 of the Bill and replacing the said words by the word " justice."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-carrying concealed weapons without a permit an offence-
Arthur Meighen: At the present time no one may carry a concealed weapon upon his person without a permit from a constable or other police authority, but it has been held in the courts that if a man carries it in his grip, for example, he is not carrying it on his person, and in that way the Act has been circumvented. This makes it an offence to carry it at all. Furthermore, it makes it an offence for a person to keep a concealed weapon in his home except upon license. The great difficulty that the police are confronted with to-day is the really alarming prevalence of revolvers and other weapons held by people in their homes ready for action at any time and conveyed from one to another without any control whatever being exercisable by the civil authorities. The police have waited upon the Department of Justice in this regard, and the Dominion police have strongly recommended that a system of license be established so that a man may get a license from any police authority in his neighbourhood, and tfiat license shall be good within the sphere of jurisdiction of that police authority. Otherwise, these weapons shall not be carried. My last words apply to aliens only; they do not apply to British subjects. The effect is that no one can carry a concealed weapon on his person or in a grip, or carry it about at all concealed, except with a license. That has been the law of the land, but it has been evaded by men putting weapons in their grips instead of on their persons. But an alien will not hereafter be able to have a revolver, firearms and so forth unless he gets a license. He must first procure a license, and that license shall be good within the area of the jurisdiction of the party giving the license. For instance, if be a provincial constable, the license shall be good within the jurisdiction of that constable, that is, within the province. If it is a city authority, that license will be good in that city. For example, in Montreal, these Weapons are sold, and they are conveyed from there to all parts of the country, and dangerous men have been found with these weapons in their possession-one, two, three and even four weapons, which, doubtless, would have been used had it not been for the surprise with which the men were taken. The police authorities brought very many such cases to my notice, and they say that the trouble can be controlled only by extending the license system to the home, where aliens are concerned. These men are not British subjects; they are very often alien enemies; they are sometimes not; but it is
no hardship on their part, if their reputation is good, to say to them: You must get a license from the police authorities of your neighbourhood before you are allowed to keep these weapons in your homes.


Samuel William Jacobs: If the law is a good one, why should it not apply to British subjects as well as to aliens? Why make a distinction between aliens and people who are not aliens? Personally I do not like to see on our statute books anything which makes a distinction between an alien and a British subject.


Arthur Meighen: The statute books are full of such distinctions.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why should that be the
case?


Arthur Meighen: Have you not the alien
vote?


Samuel William Jacobs: That is for the purpose of keeping the Government in power. I can understand the reason for that. But a British subject can do as much damage with a revolver as an alien, and personally I do not consider that every British subject you see is a paragon of excellence and every alien a dangerous character. The minister seems to go on the assumption of the Englishman who says:
" 'E's a stranger; let's 'eave 'arf a brick at 'im." The very fact that a man does not happen to have been born under the British flag does not of itself make that man a desperate character. If this law is to be put on the statute book, it should apply to all classes of citizens, aliens and British subjects.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: During the last two
years, almost all serious crimes of violence, murder and the like, committed in Ontario, have been committed by aliens.


Samuel William Jacobs: By aliens on aliens.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not say that; I say by aliens. I suppose I am safe in saying that nearly every city of 10,000 people and upwards in Ontario in the last- twelve months, through its municipal council and board of trade, has petitioned the Government to pass this clause of the Bill in respect of aliens.


Samuel William Jacobs: The aliens did not ask
for it; I suppose the British subjects did.


Hugh Guthrie: I am talking about the municipal authorities. The population of our penitentiaries and prisons is almost *5 per cent alien. I will give the figures in the jail at Guelph, the city in which I live.

On the 22nd of April of this year, it was commented on by the Chief Justice of Ontario that we had 13 prisoners in jail, all aliens, and no British subjects.


Samuel William Jacobs: Where do you keep your British subjects?


Hugh Guthrie: I am trying to treat the matter seriously, and I am giving some strong facts regarding the question, and it is for these reasons that I have thought it necessary to insert a new clause so as to control the use of firearms and other dangerous weapons by aliens.


Mr. BUREAU:: Subclause 1 of clause 2
says:
(1) Paragraph (a) of subsection one of section one hundred and eighteen of the Criminal Code, chapter one hundred and forty-six of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1906, as enacted toy chapter thirteen of the statutes of 1913 is amended by inserting after the word " person " in the first line thereof the words " or is carrying concealed."
It is very difficult to understand what that means.


Arthur Meighen: The clause as amended will provide that every one will be guilty of an offence who has upon his >
person, " Of is carrying " a pistol, etc. At a recent assize at Yorkton, Saskatchewan, there was a list of seventeen offences all of a major character, ranging from murder, through many cases of manslaughter, indecent assault, rape, etc., and only one of the offenders was other than alien.


Samuel William Jacobs: What percentage of the
population there are British citizens?


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend from
Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) would be able to say, but I would be surprised if the British citizens were not in the majority.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understood that was a colony of Doukhobors.


Arthur Meighen: There was no Doukhobors in this list.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I oppose the idea that there should be one law for the alien and one law for the British subject. Of course, it is apparent that on questions of voting or office-holding there must be a difference, but .in regard to police ^matters and the keeping of the peace I think it is unwise to lay down a double rule. I quite sympathize with the proposal to compel all those who have lethal weapons to obtain a permit. It may be true that our alien population has been more free in the use of these weapons than people of British blood or British citizenship, and I think the habit 
of carrying weapons on the person or concealing them in the home should be restrained in all classes. It has been the glory of [British countries wherever the British flag floats that underneath its folds all those who conduct themselves peacefully are treated in the same manner, and I would ask the minister to make the obligation to obtain a permit apply not only to aliens but to all subjects. On the whole, the practice of carrying and concealing weapons is to be deprecated. It is far better for people who are afraid of being burglarized, as the newspapers say, to rely on the police force for protection rather than to attempt their own protection by the use of pistols, which are a source of danger to children. I seriously submit to ti,e minister the undesirability of having dual regulations applying to aliens and British subjects.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman knew what those who have to do with law and order know, he would not have very much hesitation about enacting this legislation. To compel every one to obtain a permit would be a very burdensome matter, indeed. It is burdensome enough to compel all aliens to have a permit, and I do not want to tax the administration of justice more than is necessary. The information at hand is enough to convince any one that it is high time we saw to it that weapons were not being concealed, not by tens or scores, or even hundreds, but by thousands, upon thousands of people in this country, nearly all aliens, only a very small percentage of them being British subjects. The hon. gentleman thinks it is unBritish to distinguish between aliens and British people, but it is not so. There is scarcely a line of our statutes that does not make the distinction. Under our Dominion Lands Act-enacted, I think, by hon. gentlemen opposite-aliens -cannot take Dominion lands. Aliens- cannot get a patent. They are subject to deportation, while British subjects are not-and the distinction is made all down the line.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I thought that a law was promoted the other day in the House providing that British subjects should be deported if they were undesirable.


Arthur Meighen: There is a certain class of British subjects to whom we have extended the law heretofore applicable to aliens

those bom outside- of Canada. We have, under the stress of exceptional circumstances, seen fit to enact that law. But throughout the statutes the distinction be-

tween aliens and British subjects has been drawn, and it is juist as much British as it is a matter of common sense. This measure is founded on necessity and is dictated in view of circumstances that exist.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I was at pains to state in my remarks that I had no objection to the safeguarding of the public interests by forcing aliens to obtain permits to have weapons in their houses.. I said I was sympathetic as regards that, and the minister inferred that I was not, and therefore I think his argument was unfair in that respect.. I say that it is a mistaken policy and one contrary to British traditions to have a certain set of police regulations for aliens and another set for citizens. We should not have these deferentiations except where necessary. Of course they are necessary in the case of voting and in the taking up of land. But they are surely not necessary in regard to the observing of order and good government in the country.


Arthur Meighen: That is the question.
* Mr. McMASTEB: The only objection the minister can have to my suggestion is that it will entail some extra trouble on the police authorities. I grant him that for the sake of argument. But even if it does, I think that all the inhabitants of the country should be put on an equality as regards the possession of concealed weapons. As my hon. friend sitting next to me (Mr. Jacobs) suggests, all aliens are not desperate characters. Why should we place a stigma on respectable aliens, who I am sure are in the vast majority, by enforcing police restrictions upon them which you do not apply to other people?


Henry Arthur Mackie: Where would permits be secured in the province of Alberta?


Arthur Meighen: Wherever there is an
officer of the law-a constable or any police officer.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Some people might have to drive great distances in order to obtain the permit.


Arthur Meighen: Mounted Police will be very close at hand.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Will any mounted policeman be authorized to issue permits?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: According to the rule
which the minister will apply, a citizen of the United States residing on Fifth avenue or Riverside Drive, New York, who wishes to come to Canada to spend a few months
would be obliged to obtain a permit to have a revolver in his possession, whilst a denizen of the purlieus of London or Glasgow' who happens to be a British subject w'ould not be obliged to obtain it if he came here. Do I understand that is to be the Tule?
Mr. MEIiGHEN: Yes, that is right.


Samuel William Jacobs: I suppose the minister will admit that every alien who comes to this country will seek to qualify for British citizenship sooner or later. That would seem to be a fair inference. Every man who comes to this country seeks to become a British citizen; else, why should he come to this country? Do I understand that so soon as that person sheds- his alien citizenship and becomes a British subject, or as soon as- the Secretary of State, under the new law, immerses him in the official baptismal font, he, ipso- facto, is permitted to carry a weapon?-that this is one of the rights of British citizenship?


Arthur Meighen: He cannot carry a
weapon, but he can have it in his home.


Samuel William Jacobs: He can have it in his house in the same way as he would have a bottle of Scotch whisky in his cellar?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, that is right.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The city of Stratford, in . the county that I have the honour to represent, has sent to the Government a petition based upon evils that have arisen through aliens in that district. My hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) says fhat such petitions have come in and that the police records, show' the desirability of the law. Notwithstanding that, gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, whenever anything comes up between the Britisher and the alien, press the alien to their hearts with the greatest gusto and glee, even though it goes to the extent of making a point against a Britisher- 1


Jacques Bureau: That is incorrect.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Nickle):: Order.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. gentleman may disavow it, but I am placing what I say is the real, honest interpretation on their attitude not only in the-


Jacques Bureau: It is a dishonest interpretation.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: They seem to be perfectly delighted when they are ragging the Brit-

isher. There seems to be the same complaint by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) and those on the other side of the House who think like him. The Britisher has never been a man who, in his own environment, has been accustomed to carrying concealed weapons. We find many people from southern nations especially who, as a matter of environment, are brought up to the habit of carrying weapons. Without being offensive I may say that the Italian is noted for his dirk and stiletto. It cjoes seem to me that for the public good this is wise legislation. I would go farther and amend the Immigration Act to the extent that if an alien came to this country and was found with a concealed weapon upon his person he would be refused entry and sent back till he learned better.


Samuel William Jacobs: That was made the law this session.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: These hon. gentlemen will defend the man who comes in here with a dagger in the back of his belt or in his shoe, while they will not defend the Britisher who, as is well known throughout the world, loves a standup fight, square and fair, with his fists. Are we to allow these aliens to bring their bad habits, notions and vicious practices into this country? Will these hon. gentlemen come out and meet that situation at all ? In spite of what the police records show and the knowledge possessed by the Government, will these hon. gentlemen insist on permitting aliens to come in here with weapons?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I must protest against such an argument as that.


William Folger Nickle: Order.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. member (Mr. McMaster) is always, as I said before, willing to protest against anything that really discloses the effect of his own propaganda. He does not mind having aliens in Canada with concealed weapons and assumes that they do not carry them. He has not the slightest sympathy with the Britisher because he depends on his pair of fists in a manly way, so long as the alien may be permitted to stand, under the law, in a superior position and be allowed to carry-weapons. That is the inverse of the argument that he uses. This is not the first time that we have found the hon. gentleman championing the cause of the aliens; it shows in the attitude of the hon. gentleman, and he takes up the alien's cause whenever he gets a chance. This Bill, to

my mind, is one of the most important that has been brought into this Parliament for many years. It is a Bill especially for the public good, and for the protection of the alien who is good as against the bad alien, and of the British people in this country. In the Solicitor General's town alone, in the last two years, there have been at least a dozen tragedies in which aliens took part, arising largely out of the habit which they have of carrying concealed weapons. There has been mystery after mystery all through Western Ontario traceable to aliens and difficult to solve. If a law is put into force to stop the practice on the part of aliens of carrying concealed weapons the public will feel safe in their homes and there will be further protection given to life and property.
Mr. iMoMA'STER: I just want to register an emphatic protest against the remarks which have been made by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy). He has said that I was here to defend aliens in their wrong-doing. I respectfully and emphatically deny that, and I say that such a statement is unfair and unjust.


Jacques Bureau: And untrue.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Of course it is untrue. I hate to take up the time of the committee. I can merely repeat what I said before. I am in favour of legislation to control the carrying of concealed weapons, but I say it should apply not only to aliens, but to all citizens.


Jacques Bureau: I want to protest also against the insinuations made by the hon. member (Mr. Morphy), Tvhen he says that the remarks made by the hon. member for Brome are in line with what the Opposition say. I take issue with him and I say that he is not only unjust in his language, but that his statement is absolutely incorrect. Take the case of a decent citizen from the United States, who is as good as any British subject who ever trod upon British soil; he comes here, and because his child has an air gun in the house, he has to trot out and get a permit, and if he does not he is liable to a fine. I do not say that I am against this legislation; on the contrary-.but because I say it works a hardship and because I call the attention of the committee to that fact, the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) gets up and says we are pro-enemy in principle and un-Britisln That kind of thing is played out. Whenever we pass criminal or civil legislation, or any other

kind of legislation, the hon. member for North Perth, who is generally pretty fair outside of this House, seems to forget himself the moment he begins to speak. He wants to put himself on record in Hansard as being a patriot and he wants to put us on record in Hansard as being the worst enemies of the country. I am surprised that he does not move that beside every member on this side of the House a Dominion policeman should be placed to keep him from blowing up the building. I do not intend to take any more of this kind of bluff or this talk about waving the flag and winning the war while hiding sins of all sorts under the guise of patriotism. It is about time that sort of thing came to an end. Let us have done with that kind of business.


Mr MORPHY:: I was not aware that I had even waved the flag or mentioned the war in my remarks. However, if the hon. gentleman has taken that meaning out of anything I said, I will leave it to himself to justify his words, nothing from me in the nature of an answer is required. I pointed out, even speaking of the American citizen as an alien, it is well known that the practice has prevailed in the United States, particularly in the south, of carrying a revolver as a matter of habit. Consequently, that particular citizen coming in here might follow his habit of carrrying a revolver, and that habit has some significance. The man who carries a revolver concealed has got it for destructive purposes.


Jacques Bureau: That is not the section that is in question. This section deals with, for example, an air-gun..


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The section is not really aimed at air-guns that are harmless.' However, air-guns have been used throughout the United States with the most deadly effect by criminals of the worst class who killed their man through the medium of an air-gun-as deadly a weapon as a powder-charged gun-and escaped the penalty by virtue of no alarm as a result of the concussion having rung out on the air. I think the provision is a good one and should go through.


Samuel William Jacobs: The hon. member seems to think we are here for the purpose of defending the undesirable alien. We are not here for that purpose but to defend the desirable alien. I think it will be admitted generally in this House that the desirable alien is vastly in the majority in this country to the undesirable alien and
he must be protected from hysterical legislation which we have been putting on the statute 'books for the last year or two. There seems to be no end to the lengths to which the Government will go in the matter of legislating against citizens who have been invited to come and live in this country. As soon as they come here they have the same rights, and the same privileges, and they should be put under the same obligation, as people who are natives of Canada, British subjects, and have resided here all their lives. There should not be a different law for one class as against another. We know that by the old system under the Roman Empire and the early republic, there was a law for the stranger and there was a law for the Roman citizen. Now we are going back to that system, we are oblivious of what has taken place in the last two thousand years, and we are legislating to-day in the Parliament of Canada in the same way that the Roman barbarians did. These aliens must have some protection within reasonable limits.' If they are undesirable, deport them from the country. If they carry concealed weapons and are a danger to peaceful citizens living in the community, why not give municipalities the power to issue permits to these people, and have them amend the municipal regulations in that regard, and not amend the criminal law in order to strike at the very foundations of the liberties of a very large number of people in this country. We have tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people in this country who are not yet naturalized, and under the Naturalization Act which has been just put through, it will be many years before they can get naturalization, and while they are in this stage,, suspended between heaven and earth, they are to be put to no end of inconvenience, for no other reason than that they do not happen to be born in the country. I say it is a slur upon tens of thousands of respectable citizens in Canada to put upon the statute books a law of this kind simply because a handful of people in certain parts of the country have not behaved themselves. If they are undesirable, deport them,-the Minister of Immigration has the power, under the new law to deport undesirables,-but I would make a plea for the respectable alien, and ask that this law do not pass.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-provision re bribing peace officers, etc., extended to officers of juvenile courts:
Samuel William Jacobs: Will the minister explain this clause a little more fully?


Arthur Meighen: Section 157, which it is proposed to amend, places a penalty upon bribing or corrupting a police officer, but according to Chancellor Boyd of Ontario it is not wide enough to extend to the offence of bribing or corrupting the officers of juvenile courts. An instance has occurred in the province where that has b.een done or has been attempted to be done, but there was no prohibition of it in the Code. Now the Chancellor of Ontario has come forward and has asked that the clause be amended accordingly. .


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-what shall be prima facie evidence of neglect to supply necessaries:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would ask the minister what the necessity is for this clause. I have had some prosecutions under these sections of the Criminal Code, and the terms of the law were sufficiently wide.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I can give the explanation to my hon. friend. The amendment is intended to meet a situation which often arises in the Western Provinces where many transients arrive with their families but subsequently move on to other places, leaving those families without any support whatever. Quite a number of cases have occurred where people have come to a city with no intention to remain permanently, but for the purpose of getting employment for the time being, and have shortly afterwards departed, leaving behind them their wives and children. As the law now stands, it is practically impossible to reach such persons and the amendment is for the purpose of throwing the onus upon them if we can get hold of them.


William Folger Nickle: It is moved by the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen) that line 13 of the section be amended, by inserting the word "or" between the words "cause" and "excuse."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8.-communicating venereal disease:
Samuel William Jacobs: I would ask the minister if this applies to the communicating of the disease_to the wife of the party charged?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Might I point out to the minister that it seems to me the first proviso in the clause is unnecessary, it 
being really covered by the word "knowingly." In other words, the first proviso there, means nothing more than the word "knowingly" which is in the main body of the enactment.


Arthur Meighen: I would not like to go so far as that. I see the hon. gentleman's argument, but it seems to me the offence might be knowingly committed and at the same time committed under circumstances not permitted by the proviso.
Provided that a person shall not ibe convicted under this section if he proves that he had reasonable grounds to believe that he was free.
That is to say, if he had reasonable grounds to believe that he was free, and proves that, then he escapes, although possibly the Crown had been able to prove in the first place that at seme time shortly before he knew that he was so afflicted.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not agree with the minister's reasoning, but I am not going to take up further time, because I think it is repeating the same thing in different language.


Samuel William Jacobs: I suppose that paragraph 3 in respect to corroboration would mean the same form of corroboration as is required, for instance, in the case of rape?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: The various diseases are given in the last paragraph. Is that interpretative or limitative?


Arthur Meighen: I would say that it was limitative.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 12-notice of appeal, Judge of Appellate Court given powers to extend time and name persons to be served:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I thought the procedure was well established in appeal cases. What is the necessity for this?


Arthur Meighen: 
Henry Arthur Mackie: This paragraph provides that " the notice shall be served upon

the respondent and the Justice who tried the case." Does that mean there must be personal service? I have in mind a case where a justice of the peace made a conviction at Onion Lake, and the men convicted had to come into the city of Edmonton, a considerable distance, to serve notice of appeal. I would like to see the section amended in such a way that the service may be made by registered mail, or as the judge of the court in which the appeal is lodged may direct.


Arthur Meighen: That is the way it is now.	,


Henry Arthur Mackie: I do not understand the section- that way.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On. section 13

procedure in case of corporations in summary trials of indictable offences:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is not that the law now, or where is the difference?


Arthur Meighen: Instead of placing this amendment where it is in the old Act, between sections 773 and 774, we place it immediately after section 778.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is the old law, then?


Arthur Meighen: It is simply a re-numbering of the sections.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-prisoner must re-elect 40 days before jury trials commence, or, if committed in that period, ten days before:
Samuel William Jacobs: I want to declare my entire approval of this section. I cannot say that for all the sections that have been put before the committee to -night; this- is, perhaps, s little leaven to the lump. This rule should have been invoked years ago. I know that in the district of Montreal a person might take the option of having a jury trial, the Crown would bring witnesses from all parts of the country, and at the last moment the prisoner would change his option and declare for a speedy trial before a judge without the intervention of a jury. As a result, the Crown would be put to a great deal of expense and every one to a great deal of inconvenience. I am glad that the rule is now being changed and that we are bringing this provision into line with up-to-date legislation.
-Section agreed to.
On section 15

Crown's right to challenge when jurors stood by are recalled:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The rule now is that
the Crown can tell a juror to stand aside; then when the panel is exhausted the jurors are recalled in the order in which they stood aside. . What is the meaning of this . section?


Arthur Meighen: It has been held in a case decided in British Columbia, the King vs. Churton, that where the Crown orders members of the jury panel, when called, to stand aside, and then the panel is exhausted and there is not a jury secured, the jurymen who have been ordered to stand aside cannot again be challenged by the Crown unless the Crown is prepared to show cause as well. That is to say, the burden is on the Crown not only to challenge, but also to show cause before any member of the panel who has stood aside can be called as a juror. Though the Crown may not have exhausted its right of challenge, it can no more exercise that right after the challenge is exhausted unless it is prepared to show cause. That never was the intention of the Act, but because the word " and " is used there instead of "or," that is held to be the meaning; and it appears to me that the court of British Columbia were undoubtedly right in their finding. The idea is, 'by changing the word " and" to " or," to enable the Crown, if it has not exhausted its right of challenge when the jury is empanelled ot continue to challenge until its right is exhausted, and thereafter, and thereafter alone, to show cause.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It will not have the effect of extending the power of challenge?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suggest to my hon. friend, in connection with this Bill, an amendment for next session if he has to deal with the Criminal Code. As my hon-. friend is aware, in the province of Quebec, in any trial by jury the accused is entitled to a jury de medietate linguae. If he is French, he may ask that his jury be composed of six jurors of the French language and six of English language, and if he is English, vice versa. This custom was established during the early days of British domination in Canada. According to the constitutional documents the principle was admitted in order to placate the then English speaking minority. As my hon. friend is aware-and I do not wish to raise any religious question in connection with this suggested amendment-at the time of the cession of this country to France the Blue

Laws, as they are generally known, were in existence in Great Britain and in almost every British colony-with the exception, however, of the province of Quebec, which then comprised the whole of Canada as if-then existed. When Governor Murray took hold of the colony on behalf of His Majesty ' the King, he issued an ordinance in 1764 in which it was stipulated that "in all trials in this court, all His Majesty's subjects in the colony are to be admitted on juries without distinction." The English-speaking subjects of the King resented the treatment of the new subjects of His Majesty, the French, who had just been conquered, on a footing of equality with them as regards the jury system, and made representations to the British authorities.
In a memorandum addressed to His Majesty on the 16th October, 1764, they complain bitterly of the fact-and I am using the exact words which they then used:
-that persons professing the religion of the Church of Rome have heen impannelled on grand and petty juries even where two Protestants were parties.
In the same memorandum they recall the fact that by an Act of William III, chapter 5, section 8, "No Papist shall practise the common law as chancellor, clerk, attorney or solicitor, etc.," and they conclude their memorandum by stating:
We, therefore, believe that the admitting of
persons of the Roman religion	as
jurors is an open violation of our most sacred laws and liberties and tending to the utter subversion of the Protestant religion and His Majesty's power, authority, right and possession of the province to which we belong.
My hon. friend will find this memorandum at page 154 of Constitutional Documents published by Shortt & Doughty.
I recall this just to point out the origin, of the jury de medietate linguae. This memorandum was examined by the law officers of Great Britain, and the decision given was that the new subjects of His Majesty could serve as jurors, and in 1776, on the 1st July, a new ordinance was issued declaring that, in all actions "between British-born subjects and Canadians"-it will be noticed that in those days there was no such distinction as English-Canadians and French-Canadians amongst the old inhabitants of the colonies-" the juries are to be composed of an equal number of each, if it be required by either of the parties." This is from Shortt and Doughty, Constitutional Documents, page 173. This is the origin of the mixed jury as we have it in the province of Quebec in all jury cases,

be they civil or criminal. But I wish to qualify this statement by adding that it was at the urgent and earnest request of the British minority then that this institution of the mixed jury was established. This principle, which was crystallized in this ordinance which I have just quoted, was later on, after the union of the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, reproduced fn our statute, and it is now the law of the land; and I think we have in the Criminal Code one clause which deals with the jury de medietate linguae in the province of Quebec.
The reason why I gave this short history of the jury de medietate linguae is this. Whilst this principle is admitted in our province, yet it has been found in some cases that the proceedings taking place before such juries de medietate linguae were conducted only in one language. In ordinary cases I would not take a strong exception because generally the judge and the Crown prosecutor and the attorney for the defence will see that the rights of the accused are duly protected. But what I wish to- draw especially to the attention of the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen), and where I should like to see him introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code with regard to the jury de medietate linguae in our province is in capital cases. I have in mind a -case which was heard in one of the districts not too far from Ottawa.


Arthur Meighen: The Veuillette case?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, it was a murder case. The young man, a mere child who. I think, was not twenty years old, was accused of murder -and was sentenced as a murderer. A jury de medietate linguae was selected, and the whole of the evidence was given in the English language. My contention is' that the evidence should be translated in French, that is, all the proceedings in those capital oases should, when there is a jury de medietate linguae, be conducted in both languages. I expressly state the capital cases, because in such cases no chances whatsoever should be taken as to the manner in which the evidence is presented to the jury. The six English-speaking jurors and the six Frenchspeaking jurors should have an equal opportunity of hearing the evidence in their language. The addresses of counsel should be in both languages, and especially should the charge of the presiding judge be made in both languages. I have read the appeal .case as it was presented before the Supreme

Court, and it seems to me that there is a doubt in favour of the accused, and furthermore, four of the jurors gave affidavits after the trial that they had not understood certain phases of the evidence given during the trial. I do not, of course, wish to Te-open the trial; the case has been heard in the Supreme Court and unfortunately this young man has been executed.


Arthur Meighen: Hlis sentence was commuted, at all events, to prison for life.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thought he had been executed, and I am very pleased to hear that his sentence has been commuted. My hon. friend must have taken into consideration the favourable circumstance which came out at the time the appeal was brought before the Supreme Court in that capital case, in that the prisoner had not received the full benefit of the proceedings as they should have been conducted. I rfrould ask my hon. friend during the recess to consider this case, which I presume he must have read since he commuted the sentence, and to amend the law next year so that in capital cases especially the evidence and proceedings of the court, and the charge of the judge, should be given in both languages in order to avoid any possibility of errors. Reading over that case to which my hon. friend referred a moment ago, I am under the impression that a serious error was made, because four of the jurors made affidavits declaring that they had not understood the whole of the evidence. I submit that this is a special privilege enjoyed by both races in the province of Quebec, and it dates as far hack as the early days of British domination. It was at the request of the English-speaking minority that the officers of the Crown in England granted that privilege, and in so far as it exists and is crystallized in our statute-book, there should be no question that the privilege should be exercised in the proper way. I ask my friend to kindly consider this question during the recess and make the necessary amendments if he thinks they should be made.


Arthur Meighen: I will not likely be the minister who will have consideration of the amendments to the Code for next session. The case which the hon. gentleman specifically brings to my attention, however, is one which, although it occurred some time ago, I have a very distinct and detailed recollection of. Veuillette had been sentenced to be hanged. He had been entitled to and had secured a jury composed half of English and half of French, and the trial



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
was conducted- wholly in English without any objection on the part of the defence, and, so far as appears in the record, to the understanding of the jurors and of the accused. After the sentence was passed and after the case came before the Department of Justice for consideration, the defence took an appeal to the Court of Appeal of the province of Quebec on the ground that the accused was entitled not only to a jury composed as it was, but to the trial being conducted in French as well as in English. In the Court of Appeal of Quebec it was held, Chief Justice Lamothe dissenting-I think I am right?-
Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, that is right.


Arthur Meighen: -that the accused would not be so entitled as his right. The -Chief Justice took the view that he was so entitled and that there should be a new trial. From the decision in that court appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of -Canada, where the view taken by Chief Justice Lamothe in the Court of Appeal below was upheld by Mr. Justice Brodeur but dissented from on the part of the other justices. On the part of Mr. Justice Anglin the dissent only took this ground, that although there was an irregularity in the conduct of the trial, in that the proceedings were not -coilducted in- both languages, that irregularity did not constitute a miscarriage of substantial justice, an-d that on that account, under the wording of the -section of the code, there- was no ground for reversing the verdict or ordering a new trial. I think the majority of the Supreme Court held that there was no irregularity in the conduct of the case in one language, although Mr. Justice Anglin- gave a strong judgment the other way, holding that there was an irregularity, but with the reservation that it did not go to the undoing of justice. Consequently, he concurred with the majority in refusing to reserve the case and upholding the verdict of the Court of Appeal of Quebec. When the case came before the Governor General for decision as to commutation-, that fact was before us. I do not think I am at liberty to say what was taken into account, but that fact was before us; and there was the further fact that the boy had come twice under the shadow of the gallo-ws and execution had been- postponed while indeed the gallows were erected outside his window. There was also the fact of his tender years and his near approach to immaturity o-f intellect. However, it is clear to all that if no substantial injustice occurs, then unEDITION

doubtedly the failure to conduct the trial in the two languages cannot be very serious. So long as all understand the proceedings there can be no substantial injustice, and I think that all must have understood the proceedings in this case, because I know that all the judges, except possibly Mr. Justice Brodeur, agreed that they were understood. I do not think the hon. member can be correct in regard to the four jurors taking the affidavit. So long as all understand the proceedings, under the law as it stands to-day there is no necessity for conducting the case in both languages. I do not think I need go further at the present time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend has made a fair statement of the case, and I may simply add that counsel whc represented the accused was a very young man who, in his factum before the Supreme .Court, made the statement that he was a very young member of the bar and had not then the advantages of the experience which he had since acquired, and that he was led into error, following the action of crown counsel and the presiding judge. As a matter of fact, my hon. friend will find in the record the affidavits of four jurors who declared that some portion of the evidence had not been fully understood by them. My hon. friend will understand that there would be less danger of miscarriage of justice if an amendment were introduced into the Criminal Code. It might be made applicable only to criminal cases, because I would rely on the common sense and good judgment of the court in other oases. In capital cases, however, no risk should be taken, and from time immemorial under the British law an accused has never been sentenced on a plea of guilty. The court will always order, in spite of his plea of guilty, that he be represented by counsel and that a case be made out. So that in capital cases where there is a jury de medietate linguae, it seems to me that as a matter of course the proceedings should be conducted in both languages,-the evidence, the addresses of counsel both for the Crown and for the defence, and especially the charge of the presiding judge. I am very glad that my hon. friend has a knowledge of this case, and I hope that with his fair sense of justice, during recess if he does not himself prepare an amendment, at least he will pave the way for his colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and endeavour to see that an amendment is introduced next session.

On section 14-prisoner must re-elect forty days before jury trials commence, or, if committed in that period, ten days before:


William Folger Nickle: The amendment to section 14 provides that:
no (prisoner shall have a right to re-elect later than forty days before the day fixed for the next sittings of the court at (which trials (by jury can be had and if the prisoner was committed for trial within such forty days then not later than ten days before the day fixed for the next sittings of the court at which trials by jury can be had.
The effect of that will be that if a man is committed for trial within forty-one or forty-two days of the date fixed for the trial, he will only have forty-eight hours to elect. In many of the counties, if a man were committed in an outlying district, it would be impossible for him to come to the courthouse and elect before the forty days Bad expired. It would remove the right of election, and I would therefore beg to move that all the words after the word "had" in the fourth line be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

unless the prisoner was committed for trial within fifty days before the said date, in which event he must re-elect not later than ten days before the day fixed for the next sittings of the court at which trials by jury can (be had.


Edmond Proulx: I was not here when the law was first passed. I would like to know the reason for this change. It seems to me that it will entail many trials by jury. As the law is at present the prisoner can elect at any time before the day appointed for the sittings of the court.


Arthur Meighen: 
[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.

On section 1	(97(b)-publishing, etc.,
seditious books, etc. (Reconsidered):
William Folger Nickle: The amendment proposed by section 97 (b) in the second part of clause 1 makes it an offence for any person to publish, distribute or import any book, pamphlet, etc., promulgating the doctrines prohibited by section (97a). I can quite understand that it is necessary, if convictions are to be secured under this clause that there should be a presumption of knowledge, but it seems to me to be radically unfair that if a person is in a position to prove that he either printed, distributed, or imported any of this objectionable literature without having any knowledge of its contents, he should not be exonerated from responsibility or should be considered as a criminal. I would therefore, to put the argument shortly, like to suggest to the minister that to the clause there should be added a provision that no conviction should be recorded under subsection 1, 2 and 3 of clause 97 (b) if the prisoner satisfies the court that he had no knowledge that the literature contained the objectionable matter in reference to that he was charged with printing, distributing or importing. It strikes one as radically unfair that if perchance a printer printed a part of a work, the full import of which he did not understand, or somebody distributed a book the contents of which he did not know or, if somebody brought into the country a magazine without knowing the contents of it, he should stand trial and be convicted without having an opportunity of being freed under the charge if he satisfied the court that he had no knowledge of what the document contained and was really innocent in the eyes of the law.


Arthur Meighen: I am not disposed to favour the suggestion although I would like to hear some discussion upon it. I fear that if the suggestion is accepted it is going to defeat the law.


John Howard Sinclair: How does the law read now?


Arthur Meighen: There is no law; 97 (b) is new.


John Howard Sinclair: I mean this proposed law.


Arthur Meighen: It reads as follows:
97b. (1) Any person who prints, publishes, bdits, issues, circulates, sells, or offers for sale or distribution any book, newspaper, periodical, pamphlet, picture, paper, circular, card, letter, writing, print, publication or document of any kind, in which is taught, advocated, advised or defended, or who shall in any manner teach, advocate, or advise or defend the use, without
277 i
authority of law, of force, violence, terrorism, or physical injury to person or property, or threats of such injury, as a means of accomplishing any governmental, industrial or economic change, or otherwise, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for not less than one year, and not more than twenty years.
(2)	Any person who circulates or attempts to circulate or distribute any book, newspaper, periodical, pamphlet, picture, paper, circular, card, letter, writing, print, publication, or document of any kind, as described in this section by mailing the same or causing the same to ibe mailed or posted in any Port Office, letter box, or other mail receptacle in Canada, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable to imprisonment for not less than one year and not more than twenty years.
(3)	Any person who imports into Canada from any other country, or attempts to import by or through any means whatsoever, any book, newspaper, periodical, pamphlet, picture, paper, circular, oard, letter, writing, print, publication or document of any kind as described in this section, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to imprisonment for not less than one year and not more than twenty years.
My hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle) suggests that no person who does this shall be convicted if he is able to show that he did not know that the contents of the literature were of this character. What I say is that I fear that an amendment of that sort would go a long way, in practical operation, to- defeat the purpose of the law because, these men who -bring in, print and circulate this stuff, or are responsible for it, would have very few qualms of conscience about getting up and saying that they did not know that its contents were of this character and that' they had heard that it was very good literature. In that way they would completely escape responsibility. The man who brings in or prints literature must take the responsibility for the character of that literature and we must not allow him to escape under any plea of lack of knowledge.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not know that I would go that far. I think I would be willing to use the word "knowingly." It is an old principle that there must be guilty knowledge.


William Folger Nickle: Of course, I cannot enforce my view on the minister, and I must bow to his judgment, but I cannot bring myself to agree with the principle that if a man happens to send to the United States and buy a pamphlet or a book even though he should prove that he knew nothing whatever about the contents of the book that he had brought into Canada for his private reading, he should be treated as criminal. Or if some person came into a oity and asked a certain man to distribute certain

literature from house to house-that is the ordinary bill poster or distributor to be found in many of our cities.-that he should be held to be a criminal simply because he entered into a contractural relationship, though he demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was not in any way endeavouring to break the law. Of course, if the principle is to secure a conviction at any cost then probably this legislation will do it. But-I have always been moved by the idea that it was wise that the benefit of the doubt should be given, and that it was better at times that those who had broken the law should be acquitted rather than that those who were innocent should be convicted, because the stigma of a criminal character is not k pleasant thing for a man to carry through life. I cannot bring myself, therefore, to agree with the reasoning of the minister, although of necessity I bow to his judgment.
Mr, McKENZIE: I wish to say to the minister on this point, and I have said it so often in this House that I am almost getting tired of it, that there must be a criminal mind before there can be a crime. It is also implied anyhow that the man does a thing knowing it to be wrong. I think we can always trust to the jury and to the judge to believe or disbelieve the accused person's plea- of not knowing. Of course, although it is provided for in the law the man may say " I did not know anything about it," but it is for the jury to believe him or not. If the judge says "you did know, you could not help knowing," and advises the jury that under the circumstances the man could not help knowing, that he was familiar with this book, and with its contents, and if the jury believe the accused did know, of course they would bring him in guilty. But I think the proper way to legislate jn a criminal matter is that if a man knowingly does a thing he is guilty, and it is for the jury to believe or not believe his plea that he did not know.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on the proposed resolutions with regard to judges' salaries, (resumed from Saturday, June 28). Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it is a little
too late to take up these resolutions, but if there is anything of a brief nature the minister desires to bring forward we can go on with it.	.


Arthur Meighen: The discussion on this matter need only be very brief, because even the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) says his mind is so fully persuaded.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not see him here.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps that is why
he is not here.


Jacques Bureau: I am here all right, and I take exception to what the minister has said. I am not convinced in this matter,
I am far from being so but I do not want to take up any more time with any extended remarks, because I see it is useless. However, I want to register my protest because the equalization of the salaries of the judges of the province of Quebec has not been touched. I am not going to call attention to any specific instance, but I , will say this:	Heretofore, when we have
asked for the equalization of the salaries of the judges of Quebec, the answer given to us by hon. gentlemen opposite is that if they opened up the question of judges' salaries in one province they would need to open up the same question throughout the whole Dominion. Or to put it another way, if the question of salaries of judges throughout the whole Dominion were not opened up, it would give rise to discontent, and the Government would be flooded with demands. Every province in the Dominion to-day sees the salaries of its judges increased except the province of Quebec; that is the one province in which the judges' salaries are not touched. Hereafter if ever the question is again opened up, I do not want the argument to'be advanced that you cannot touch the salaries of the judges of one province without dealing with the salaries of judges in all the other provinces. I think a fair method would be to reverse that argument and say " You cannot deal with the salaries of judges in all the other provinces and leave the salaries in one province altogether untouched." The acting minister has given us as a reason that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) himself is from the province of Quebec, and that he knows best what should be done. I refuse to accept that reason. It would be very easy to either hold this legislation back until the minister's return', or to communicate with him and ascertain his views on the subject. I repeat, it is of no use trying to get justice in this matter, but I serve notice that perhaps in two or three years when we on this side will be in office, we will open the case for the province of

Quebec, and I do not want the other provinces to be taken by surprise if we close the case to them.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Before the resolution is finally passed, I wish to make an appeal on behalf of Mr. Justice Weir whose case is altogether exceptional, and one which I know will appeal to the Acting Minister of Justice. Mr. Justice Weir is the judge for the district of Pontiac, a rural district, and he also renders efficient and almost continuous service in the district of Montreal. All the other rural judges who render the same service in the district of Montreal are given $7,000 a year, while Mr. Justice Weir is left at $5,000. The principle of equal pay for equal work should certainly apply to all the judges of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec. Therefore, I bring this matter again to the attention of the Acting Minister of Justice- 1 believe his notice was called to it on a previous occasion-and I ask him now to consider it in a spirit of fairness and to do justice to this judge. It is not fair to Mr. Justice Weir, doing exactly the same work as the other judges are doing, both in their rural districts and the city of Montreal, that he should be receiving $2,000 a year less than they.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want the hon. gentleman (Mr. McMaster) to conclude that because I do not feel like amending these regulations I am passing any judgment at all upon his appeal on behalf of Mr. Justice Weir. I feel that the resolutions are not intended at all to take care of what I might call the domestic inequalities of a province.
. They are intended merely to take care of the general insufficiency of salaries of judges of the lower courts. That is the primary purpose of the resolutions. They have a secondary purpose, and that is to raise the salaries of Superior Courts in outside provinces to an equality with the salaries of these courts in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, but in no way now to go into any province and charge the relationships of judges, or to attempt to bring equality of salary where there is equality of labour and of service in that province. If I attempted that I would have to go into many other provinces besides Quebec, but Quebec would be the last that I would enter because as acting minister, when the minister himself is from that province, it seemed to me very becoming on my part to leave such decision for one so much better qualified to judge. It is on that
plea that I ask that this appeal be not pressed in relation to these resolutions.
As for the claim of the member from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), whose attitude to-night I appreciate very much, I do not remember its ever being argued-perhaps it was-that one cannot touch the salaries of the judges in one province without touching them in another province. I will never argue that. Wherever it can be shown that in fairness the salaries of the judges of any one province should be raised, then, that claim should stand on its own merits alone. That attitude I take now, and I will undertake to take it in future.


George Brecken Nicholson: I want to call attention to the fact that the province of Prince Edward Island has been discriminated against in this Bill. I notice that the chief justice of Prince Edward Island, who now receives $6,000 a year, is to be increased $500, and the puisne judges who receive only $5,200, are to be increased $300 each. That make a difference against our judges of $1,500. I know those judges. They attend chambers every day, they work faithfully, and they are men of good abilities; and I do not see why they should be discriminated against. To my mind it is very unfair, and I would like to know if the old excuse is advanced of cheaper living down there, which to my mind is no excuse at all. It is true we have not a large population. We might give a very good reason why it it not large-it is on account .of the policy pursued ever since we joined Confederation -the terms of our joining not having been carried out. However, I would suggests as a compromise that each judge of Prince Edward Island should receive an additional $1,000 to his salary, although even at that our judges would not be receiving as much as the judges of the other provinces by $1,000. I repeat, I strongly protest against the discrimination that is now proposed.


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. member was not present at the last meeting of the Committee when I placed this matter in the light that I conceive is just. It is true there is a difference between the salaries of the higher court judges in the Island and those of the higher court judges in the other provinces. That was not based on the principle that living is cheaper in the Island. If that had been the principle, then I would have made the salaries of the County Court judges in the Island lower than those of the County Court judges in the other provinces, but they are made exactly the same.

I did not conceive that the salaries of the judges of the higher courts needed to be increased at all on the score of the cost of living. They were sufficient everywhere to take care of the cost of living; that is to say, not ostentatiously to take care of it, but in a reasonable way. It was rather based upon the principle that the duties and responsibilities of a chief justice or a judge of the higher courts in the province of Prince Edward Island were not at all equal to those of a judge of the higher courts in the provinces of Ontario or Quebec, or, indeed, of any other province. That principle has been in effect ever since Confederation, and, so far as I know, has not been controverted-at all events, it has never been upset. , It is argued that the difference is now greater. That is not the case. The difference is a little greater as between Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia being now $1,500 where it was $1,000, but the difference is less as between Prince Edward Island and Quebec or Ontario, where the difference was formerly $2,000, but is now only $1,500. So that as compared with the rest of Canada the difference is just about the same as it has always been. It is hardly fair for the hon. member for Queen's, P.E.I. (Mr. Nicholson), to charge that his province is discriminated against in the matter of judicial salaries, because a reference to the figures will show that of all the nine provinces of Confederation Prince Edward Island obtains a larger allowance proportionately to population than any other province, the next largest being the province of Quebec. I am sorry that the two provinces with the largest amount per capita are the two that are complaining against the Bill. The allowance for Prince Edward Island amounts to about 30 cents per capita, while Quebec comes next with an allowance of about 17 cents per capita. So Prince Edward Island has almost double the per capita for judicial salaries compared with the next highest, that of Quebec.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the Yukon?


Arthur Meighen: The Yukon is not a province. It is true that the cost of salaries in the Yukon is $5,000, or nearly a dollar a head, but that is very different from the Island. I think it is only right that the Island should have the highest cost per capita, because where you have the lowest population, other things being equal, you are going to have the highest cost per capita of judicial salaries. But it is so very much the highest that I do not think it is fair to

say the Island is discriminated against. I am just maintaining the proportion that has always been maintained, which seems to me to be just in this regard, and which, indeed, is recognized in other spheres as well as that of judicial salaries.


Edmond Proulx: I see there is a Bill on
the Order Paper to amend the Judges Act, which Bill was passed by the Senate. I understand that that Bill deals with some provisions of the Judges Act with regard to retiring allowances and the rate of pay for judges doing work outside their judicial duties. Is it the intention of the minister to press that Bill in this House?


Arthur Meighen: It is no Bill of mine. I am not only not pressing it, but I shall not allow it to go through in its present form if I can help it.


Edmond Proulx: It has passed the Senate.


Arthur Meighen: I think if my hon.
friend will discuss the Bill with the hon. member for Maisonneuve he will change his demeanour.


Edmond Proulx: I reiterate the objections I expressed the other day to increasing the salaries of the judges of the superior courts without revising the provisions of the Judges Act with reference to retiring allowances. I think we should cut off the retiring allowance of judges after fifteen years' service on the Bench.


Arthur Meighen: These resolutions do
that, unless in cases where the Governor in Council determines it is in the public interest to allow them, -which cases would be, I presume, oases of illness or unfitness for office.


Edmond Proulx: I objected to that provision the other day. I do not like to see that discretion put in the hands of the Gov-, emor in Council, which in practice is the Government, because it is then subject to political influence. Sometimes it is desired to get a person out of the way to make place for another person, or a person wants to get off the Bench to go into political life. We have seen that in the past. A judge was allowed to retire, and not long afterwards he was a candidate at the general election.


Arthur Meighen: The Government cannot put a judge off the Bench.


Edmond Proulx: I mean a judge may want to 'be superannuated.


Arthur Meighen: He would not be subject to political influence.


Edmond Proulx: I mean he could exercise political influence -with the Government. He might be a friend of the Government, and they might not like to refuse to consent to his retirement, but, on the contrary, might desire to facilitate it to afford a vacancy for another of their friends.
I believe that this provision should not be enacted. A judge should be allowed to retire only when incapacitated for the performance of his duties on account of old age or illness. Before we increase the salaries, we should revise the retiring allowance provisions of the Judges Act. Is it *still the intention of the minister to make provision in the Bill for subjecting the salaries of judges to the federal income tax?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Has the minister considered the advisability of extending the application of the principle of paying judges in proportion to the amount of judicial service which they render? I understand that that move has been made in Hamilton, Toronto, London, and, I think, Ottawa. I think I can safely say that the county court judge in my county does1 more work during the year than the judges in many counties put together. If the principle is recognized of paying larger salaries to judges in the larger places because , of the greater amount of work which they do, then that principle should apply down the line so that in counties such as I speak of the judges will get salaries commensurate with the services they perform.
Mr, MEIGHEN: I have not considered that, except in the 'Sense that I will refer to in a minute. If one were to attempt to make a sliding scale of salaries based upon the amount of work done in particular counties, I am afraid that judges or friends of judges would make the continuance of such a system almost impossible. Daily, hourly, I do not know how often, pressure would be exerted by various local communities and by friends of members of the Bench with a view to having judges placed in a higher rank, and that pressure would be yielded to until we would have the condition of affairs that we have now in the province of Quebec, where the demand is made that all the judges be put in the highest rank with the least possible delay. I know that the burden of the work varies greatly, but I think the remedy is rather along the line of distributing the burden more evenly. I have earnestly tried to bring that about, I think with some success, at all events in Ontario and a little further west. The right way is for the Provincial Governments to reduce the judiciary until every judge will have a day's work every day of the year except during a proper holiday. I do not think they have done that in Ontario, but they have gone a long way towards doing it. Very shortly we shall have twenty-five fewer judges in Ontario,-there are a great many who would not weep if the figure were larger. I think that Saskatchewan might very well take a pattern from Ontario in this regard. There are now seventeen county court judges in Saskatchewan; there will be eighteen when this legislation passes. It would take a long time to convince me that Saskatchewan could nbt so distribute its district court judiciary as to provide that every member of the Bench would have his time fully occupied the year round, save during a reasonable holiday period. That is what the judges themselves would like, and that is common sense. But the outcome of the application of the principle that is embedded in our constitution, that the province creates the Bench and creates the vacancies, leaving it to the Dominion to fill them and to pay the salaries, is a surplus of vacancies, a multitude of judges, inadequate salaries, and an improper distribution of judicial burdens.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I assume the minister does not approve of what has already been done in the singling out of the four municipalities which I have mentioned?


Arthur Meighen: That is done away with by these resolutions; the salary of every county court or district court judge is made $4,000, no matter where he is. I do not know whether Ontario provides differently so far as the busier judges in Toronto and other large places are concerned, but the Dominion pays exactly the same to all.


Mr. OOPP:: I am very much impressed by what my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island has said with regard to the judiciary of his province being not fairly treated, having regard to the treatment accorded to the judiciary in other provinces. I am not so well informed with regard to the claims of Quebec, but the arguments made with regard to the treatment of -.he judiciary of that province seem to be strong as well. I suggest that the minister let this whole matter stand for the .time being. I know that that suggestion will not be very popular among the judiciary of my province, but I feel that we are going a long way when we ask Parliament to vote about $250,000 a year for the purpose of increasing the salaries of judges throughout Canada. The Government are increasing

the salaries of officials who are already fairly well paid and not paying sufficient attention to civil servants who receive lesser salaries than they should receive, having regard to the responsibilities of their positions. In New Brunswick there are seven judges of the Superior Court. Two chief justices are receiving $7,000 a year. On& of the puisne judges is judge of the Divorce Court, for which he receives an extra $1,000 a year, bringing his salary up to $7,000. Another of the puisne judges is judge of the Admiralty Court, and as such receives an extra $1,000 a year, which brings him also up to $7,000. Under this Bill, therefore, four members of the bench will get $8,000 a year and three will get $7,000 a year. The only justification for increasing these salaries at this time would be an inability to induce good lawyers or barristers to give up their practice and accept judgeships. I do not know what the experience has been in the other provinces, but I am glad to say that in New Brunswick we have been able to induce barristers of the highest standing to leave their profession and don the ermine; the judiciary of our province stands second to none in the Dominion. Three judges, men of very high standing, have been appointed in New Brunswick during the last two years. When a judge is appointed he knows what salary he is to receive; we are now asking him to accept a. bonus of $1,000 which he did not expect. I doubt very much whether these gentlemen have asked the Government to pay them this amount. I know of men in New Brunswick who hold responsible positions in the Civil Service, who are subject to the same high cost of living as the judges are, and who have to subsist on only $1,200 a year.
Yet we to-night are asked to hand over $1,000 extra to every one of these judges, or an amount practically equal to the salaries of many civil servants holding responsible positions, who have families to support just as the judges have. I have been impressed with this in thinking over the matter, because it is with some hesitation I make this protest, as I know the judges of my province, having practised with them and before them. Nevertheless, I doubt very much whether it is the duty of Parliament at this time to make this additional expenditure in order to benefit gentlemen who are now occupying positions as judges. The President of the Council (Mr. Rowell), the other night, almost with tears in his eyes, pointed out how the committee, who had been investigating the question of pensions for the widows and orphans of soldiers who had gone overseas and sacrificed their lives

in the defence of the country, had been magnanimous enough to give the widow with a family from $800 to $1,000 per annum. That means that she must rear and educate her children on less' than the amount by which we are bonusing the judges. Is it fair to those people, to the lower-paid civil servants, to us all, that we should at this time increase our expenditure to the extent of $250,000 in order to give this extra allowance to the members of our judiciary? At an opportune time, when our finances are in better shape, and when we are in a position to give to ordinary civil servants a reasonable salary as well, I shall have no protest to make, but I take the responsibility here of protesting against this increase, although I know that some of the judges in my province may not thank me for my action. Nevertheless, I believe a number of the members of the judiciary of New Brunswick, if the question were put to them fairly and squarely: Do you think, under present conditions, you should be given this increase?-would say: We are quite satisfied at the present time with what we have; we believe to-day a little economy should be practised. I know some of them would take that position, because I have talked with them. Until we are able to give our lower-paid civil servants a -little better salary to enable them to maintain their families in reasonable comfort, I feel that the Government would not be well advised at the present time in incurring this extra expenditure.


Mr. McISAAC:: I have very little to add to what I said when this matter was before the committee on a previous occasion, except to express again my deep regret and sense of disappointment that so great an inequality is to continue to exist, and to be aggravated beyond what it was, between the salaries received by the judges of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island and those received by judges occupying similar positions in other provinces of -Canada. The difference between the Chief Justice and the puisne judges respectively with regard to similar judges in the other provinces is $1,500, and that is a great inequality. It has been said already that the material of which judges are made in Prince Edward Island is quite as good as that from which judges are made in any other part of Canada. Evidence of this can be found from the positions which members of the Prince Edward Island bar have taken in the judiciary, not only of Prince Edward Island, but of other parts of the country and in the fact that the present Chief Justice of the



JUL1 1, 1919

[Stage Direction]
Supreme Court of Canada is a member of the Prince Edward Island bar.
Just one other point. The increase in the salaries of county court judges is equalized throughout Canada; their salaries are increased for Prince Edward Island as well as for every other province and are made equal. If the argument put forward by the Acting Minister of Justice that the duties are, perhaps, not so onerous in Prince Edward Island, holds good as regards judges of the Supreme Court, I am sure it will be doubly true as regards judges of the county court in that province. I do not think their labours are extremely onerous, and it would look as if judges of the Supreme Court were penalized in comparison with judges of the county court. I just wish to register my sense of disappointment and regret that this great inequality, and what I regard as an injustice to judges of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island, should be allowed to exist.	.
George Brecken Nicholson: The minister stated that per head the administration of justice was higher in Prince Edward Island than in the other provinces. We cannot help that, and there is no argument in that to retain our judges at lower salaries. The judge is not the whole administration of justice. In order to have justice administered and properly guarded in Prince Edward Island, we must have penitentiaries and so forth, -and from what I know there are not many criminals from Prince Edward Island kept in penitentiaries. Confederation was entered into by certain provinces in 1867, and we had our doubts then whether we would get fair treatment on account of our being a small province. Every time when we come up here and ask for anything in this Parliament, the reply is made: Oh, Prince Edward Island costs so much. We never asked to be permitted to enter Confederation; you came down there and plenipotentiaries were sent from Great Britain. We came in Confederation in 1873, or six years later, and at that time we were free of debt. Moreover, we handed over a railway that cost Prince Edward Island $3,400,000, which means that we have been penalized to tne extent of $170,000 per year,seeing t-hatwe must contribute our share in respect of railways built elsewhere in Canada. Yet we are told if we ask for anything, that Prince Edward Island costs so much. The other day I went home and I found an arbitrary charge of $5 per ton on freight going over the ferry. Why is there this discrimination? When I ask the minister the reason, he cannot tell me why, and
his deputy cannot tell me why. I, for one, am not going to put up with this, and I tell the minister that I will follow this thing up, now that I have got hold of it, and if we do not get fair play and if he does not consent to give these judges an increase of $1,000, we shall oppose the resolution.


Samuel William Jacobs: Come over to this side oi the House.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am not asking, in suggesting this increese of $1,000, that the salary of our Chief Justice should be as high as that of the Chief Justice of the neighbouring province. Our Chief Justice will still have $1,000 less, and it is only fair for the minister to think the matter over to-morrow morning, and bring down an amendment to the resolution so as to give our Supreme Court judges an increase of $1,000 like the other judges, and then I shall be satisfied. It cannot be regarded as anything less than a downright discrimination against our province. We are a small province with only four representatives although we ought to have six, but we are going to fight for our rights.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I cannot agree with
my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Copp) in opposition to this resolution, because I have for a long time been asking for these increases. I suggested to the minister at the time that he should make the salaries of the county court judges, $5,000. I regret that'he did not adopt that suggestion. We gave our deputy ministers $6,000, and I would be sorry to think that the position of the judge of a county court was not of equal importance to that of a deputy minister. However, it is a -fair advance, and I am grateful to the minister for what he has done, and will express the hope that later on when the finances are better a still further advance will be made to those gentlemen who are serving the country so well. When we were discussing this subject some weeks ago I suggested to the minister that when the increases were made in 1906 we forgot the Supreme Court of Canada, and it looks as if we are forgetting. it again. I suppose those judges will expect increases as well as the others. I am particularly thankful to the minister that he has put Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, British Columbia and other provinces exactly upon the same footing as Quebec and Ontario. I fully agree with my friend from Prince Edward Island in his complaint.' It requires the same qualifications to be Chief Justice of Prince Edward Island as it does

to be Chief Justice of Nova Scotia. He must be conversant with the criminal law so that when a man is on trial for his life he may be able properly to instruct the jury. Criminal law is the same all over the country and the same knowledge is called for in Prince Edward Island as in any other part of Canada. It does not matter that the province is small. Law is a science and the men who administer it must have scientific knowledge. Those of us who are lawyers are proud of the science, and we feel that men who are in responsible positions on the bench should be recognized as discharging highly important duties. I think it would be splendid courage-if I may use that term-for the minister to put the little province of Prince Edward Island, with only three judges, in	exactly	the same position as any other province so that their judges and chief justice would hold his head just as high as any other puisne judge or chief justice in any other part of Canada. It is only a small matter, and we could say with pride that while Prince Edward Island was small we treated it exactly like the others. If we cross the border we will find in Rhode Island, which is very small in area compared with Prince Edward Island, the judges and senators there, and everything else for that matter, on the same footing as in the state of New York. Because we have a little province such as Prince Edward Island is no reason why we should allow the salaries of the judges there to be less than in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or elsewhere. I have already brought to' the notice of the minister the fact that the county court judge in Winnipeg, which is one of the metropolitan cities of Canada, wrote me that he was not getting the $500 which was paid to the judge in St. John and the judge at Halifax. I do not know whether the minister forgot that distinction or not. I am very much obliged to the minister for what he has [DOT] done. I must add my word of protest to that of my friends from Quebec who think the bench there is not fairly treated, and I trust that an opportunity will be given before long to have 'these matters dealt with again when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), who has more extensive knowledge of conditions in that province, is here.


Arthur Meighen: One would actually think, listening to the tone of certain hon. members to-night, that I was the first offender in the way of drawing a distinction

between the salaries of judges in Prince Edward Island and those in other parts of Canada. I know of no time when it has not been drawn, I know of no country in the world where the same principle is not recognized. That is a pretty sweeping statement, but it applies throughout the British Empire. Where the duties and the responsibilities are less,, though the profession may be the same, the remuneration is less. There is nothing new in this, and there is no accentuation of anything that has hitherto prevailed. The same thing appertains in Canada in relation to other duties, and it appertains in the United States in the judiciary throughout the length and breadth of the country. Does any one think for a moment that there are as many important cases, or even a reasonable fraction of as many as important cases that come before, and have to be decided by, the high court judge in Prince Edward Island as by the high court judge in Ontario? No, one in his sane senses would suggest it. As regards .the salaries of the county court judge in St. John and the county court judge in Westmorland, I would ask the hon. member, who thinks there should be a readjustment, is not the science of law the same in St. John as in Westmorland?
Why does he want it?-because the duties are somewhat more onerous in St. John. That is correct but the right way to remedy that is by a redistribution of the duties rather than by a differenee~in the salaries. If we could remedy it in Prince Edward Island in the same way I would be very glad indeed, but we cannot remedy it in the same way. Consequently, we simply try to be fair and reasonable, and I am not going to be diverted from that course by threatening,s of reprisal or of slaughter no matter in what language pronounced.


Samuel William Jacobs: Under the rule that the
minister has laid down, that where the responsibility is greater the salary is greater, the judges in Quebec, and particularly in Montreal should have very much larger salaries than the judges in any other part of Canada, because on the island of Montreal we have ten per cent of the entire population of Canada and questions of the most important and intricate character come before these courts of law. It is a large metropolitan centre, and it does seem to me that the salaries that our judges are getting are not at all in proportion to the work they are performing. I was criticised, I understand, a day or two ago, for a certain reference that I made to some of our judges. Notwithstanding that I want



I, 1919

[Stage Direction]
to say that I consider that the judges in Montreal particularly are very much underpaid. How is it possible for a High Court judge in a large centre like Montreal to live on the paltry salary of $7,000 a year where the dollar has shrunk in the last four or five years to forty per cent of its former value? Yet, we expect that judges can keep up their positions socially and otherwise on the paltry sum of $7,000 a year. How can it be expected that we can get the best class of men to ascend the bench and leave a lucrative practice for $7,000? It is impossible.
Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for
Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) says it is cheaper to live in Montreal on account of the departmental stores and bargain sales.


Samuel William Jacobs: My hon. friend from Three Rivers must have been reading the advertisements in the daily newspapers in regard to department stores, but if he came to live in Montreal he would probably change his tune. Montreal is one of the dearest places in Canada to live in to-day, and if we want to keep up the tone of our bench, or to see to it that we have on the bench men of the high type that we have had in the past, it certainly behooves the Government to take up this question and see that the judges get a living wage. An ordinary river pilot to-day gets as .much as a Superior Court judge. A travelling salesman gets more than a judge does, and a designer in a clothing factory gets a very much larger salary than a judge. The Government increase salaries in the Civil Service; in fact, salaries are increased all along the line except in the case of the judiciary. I am even in favour of increasing the salaries of the members of the Government. I do not see1 how they can live on what they are getting. If we want to obtain the services of the best people we must pay for them, and the sooner the Government recognize that the better it will be for the country.


Edmond Proulx: As I said a few moments ago, I would like to see the provisions contained in this resolution incorporated in a Bill and passed. In 1905 when the judges' salaries were increased there was a provision, put into the Act that judges should not do any outside work. That provision has only been partially observed. Some judges are appointed on commissions and get large fees outside of their salaries for acting on these commissions. They are nearly always the same judges who get these appointments. There is one in Ontario who is appointed for any work that is required in that province. In Quebec also, it is
nearly always the same judge who is appointed by this Government to act on a commission. They get large fees and they get their salaries besides. It is not fair, because their judicial work suffers in the meantime. If they are employed for any length of time on commissions they cannot perform their judicial duties satisfactorily.
I would like to see the provision adopted by the Senate put into this Bill that all the fees they receive for acting on commissions or on any other tribunals, outside of their judicial work, shall be deducted from their salaries.


Mr. J. E. SINCLAIR:: I want to add another word to what I said a few days ago when these resolutions were before the House. I stated then quite clearly my objections to the increases that were going to be given by the Acting Minister of Justice to the judges of the Supreme Cburt of Prince Edward Island, and I am of the same opinion now, I have not changed my opinion in any way since the resolution was up before. I took the ground that there should be no distinction between the salaries paid to the Supreme Court judges in Prince Edward Island and the salaries paid to judges in other provinces. The minister has told us that the object of this resolution is to equalize the salaries of the Supreme Court judges in all the provinces of Canada except Prince Edward Island, and it is doing so. While I believe that to be right, I would agree with my corepresentative who says, that if the minister would consent to reconsider his position and give the straight, or proportionate, increase to the Supreme Court judges of Prince Edward Island that he has given to the Supreme Court judges of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, thus adding $1,000 per year to their present salaries, it would be better than 'the increase which is now proposed. I cannot see upon what ground the minister bases the increase that he is giving to the Supreme Court judges of Prince Edward Island. It is not fair to put the cost of the administration of justice on a per capita basis in Prince Edward Island. It was known when we entered Confederation that the administration of justice could not be carried on as cheaply per capita in Prince Edward Island as it could be in the upper provinces of Canada. We know quite well that when the Fathers of Confederation accepted the terms upon which we entered the Confederation in 1873 and under which they agreed to pay the salaries of the Supreme Court judges, they knew quite well

that they could not be met as cheaply per capita as in the larger provinces of 'Canada, and it is not fair to the minister to cite that as a reason why these salaries should not be further increased. It has almost become a habit of this Government to discriminate against Prince Edward Island. I do not know that it would be in order to mention it but we may have an opportunity before long of discussing the reclassification of the Civil Service which has been brought down and which has shown a similar discrimination as against the Outside Service in Prince Edward Island. This discrimination has spread from one department to another, and it is high time that it should cease and that the Government should recognize that Prince Edward Island is a province having status equal to that of any other province in Confederation. The minister tells us that he is making no distinction in salaries as against Prince Edward Island, that the distinction has existed. But I think the minister must admit that he is drawing a distinction in the increases of salaries that he is providing for in this proposed resolution. I stated the other day that the increases were about one-half, on a percentage basis, those given to the judges of the other Maritime Provinces. That I do not consider fair.


Arthur Meighen: What about Ontario and Quebec?


John Ewen Sinclair: The minister showed that we were $500 nearer Ontario in the matter of salaries, but if he would apply the same reasoning to the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island would come $1,000 nearer to Ontario. Is it fair that the salaries of the judges in those provinces should be raised $1,000 and the judges' salaries in Prince Edward Island only increased by $500 ? I do not see how the minister can synchronize these two sets of conditions by the legislation which he proposes. Another point emphasized by the minister is that on account of less work and less responsibility there should be less pay. But when we see that the judges of our Supreme Court are not allowed to engage in other activities, such, for example, as becoming directors or managers of industrial enterprises, but must confine themselves strictly to their judicial duties, we cannot measure their pay according to the work they do. We must uphold the dignity of the judges of the Supreme Court, whose time is entirely devoted to the discharge of their judicial duties. It is, therefore, hardly 
fair to say that on the ground of performing less work or assuming less responsibility they should receive less salary. I think the minister should reconsider his decision in regard to the salaries of the Supreme Court judges in Prince Edward Island and grant to them the same increases which he has given in the case of the judges in the other Maritime Provinces. While that would to some extent meet the case, it would not be entirely satisfactory, as there would still be a discrimination as between the salaries paid to the judges of Prince Edward Island and those paid to the judges in the other provinces of Canada.
Resolutions reported, read the first and second time, and concurred in.
Hon. Mr. Meighen moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 177, to amend the Judges Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it is now about time for the House to adjourn.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Meighen, the House adjourned at 12.20 a.m.
Wednesday, July 2nd, 1919.