1922-05-03

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What contracts, if any, had M. J. Haney,
of Toronto, or the Company of which he was President, with the Government of Canada, during the years 1898 and 1899, or about that time, for the construction of the Crow's Nest Pass ?	i
2.	Were tenders called for this work?
3.	What was he paid for such contracts?
4.	What amount, if any, was he paid on account of extras from these contracts?
5.	What other contract work, if any, did he do for the Government of Canada during the years from 1896 to 1911, and what was the tetal sum received during these years by the said Haney?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	None.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.
5. Railways and Canals Department-In 1900, Michael J. Haney had a contract for the construction of the Hillsborough bridge at Charlottetown, P.E.I., for which he was paid the sum of $1,231,125.29. A number of other contracts were undertaken during the period in question by the firm with which Mr. Haney was connected. It is, however, impossible to say what was received by Mr. Haney himself in connection with said contracts.
Public Works Department-Port Stanley, Ont., harbour, $207,650; Port Burwell, Ont., harbour, $8,880.55; Depot Harbour, Ont., wharf, $219,303.17.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the Government received a copy of a resolution adopted by the Legislature of British Columbia on December 1, 1921, (which sets out that at a conference between the federal Government and the Government of British [DOT]Columbia, the federal Government accepted responsibility for the initiation and administration of legislation relating to Mother's Pensions, Old age Pensions and other problems relating to the Improvement of Social Conditions?
2.	If so, what were the terms of such agreement as aforesaid?
3.	Will legislation be introduced this session to give effect to it and to establish Old Age Pensions in Canada?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1. A copy of a resolution of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, passed on December 2 last, was received by the federal government on December 12. This resolution refers to a conference which was alleged to have been held between representatives of the Dominion government and provincial governments at Ottawa in 1919. It is stated that consideration was given on this occasion to the responsibilities of the Dominion and provincial administrations with regard to the initiation and administration of legislation relative to mothers' pensions, old age pensions, and other problems relating to the improvement of social conditions, and that it was the understanding of the representatives of British Columbia at this meeting that the Dominion government accepted full responsibility for the enactment of legislation dealing with old age pensions. The resolution of the Legislative Assembly endorsed the principle of old age pensions and directed the attention of the federal authorities to the desirabiltiy of legislation being enacted.
A resolution was adopted unanimously at the National Industrial Conference, which was held in 1919, of Dominion and provincial representatives with representative employers and labour men in favour of the appointment of a board or boards to inquire into the subjects of state insurance against unemployment, sickness, invalidity and old age. The text of this resolution appears in the published report of the National Industrial Conference. The published report, however, contains no reference to any separate conference between the Dominion and provincial ministers on the subjects referred to in the resolution of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, and there is nothing on record in the Privy Council office on the subject. Presumably, therefore, any discussions which may have occurred between the federal and provincial ministers on these matters were of an informal nature.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.



ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Does the Aluminum Company of America, Massena Springs, New York, pay a licence for the electric power which it takes from Cedar Rapids, Quebec?
2.	If so, what is the date and amount of said licence?
3.	If not, why is said company exempted from Federal Law 6-7 Edward VII, Chapter 16?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Only companies exporting power from Canada come under the provisions of the act.



RATES ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN

Mr. COOTE:: How much did railways, owned by the Government of Canada, pay in connection with the press advertising campaign on rates, conducted by the Canadian Railway Association, during the last two years?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 

Questions



STENOGRAPHERS AND MESSENGERS

Hon. Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: 1.	Is it true that the stenographers and messengers of the House of Commons are receiving the same rate of pay?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to adjust salaries in proportion to the importance of the duties performed?
3.	If so, when?


Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Some newly appointed stenographers who are single receive the same salary as old messengers who are married and have long been in the service.
2.	and 3. Under consideration.



FIRST CANADIAN CONTINGENT

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many men composed the first Canadian Contingent that went overseas in the Great War?
2.	Approximately, how many had previous training in the Militia of Canada, and how many had not?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	30,808. (This does not include the Newfoundland regiment, the Lincoln regiment, nor the Royal Canadian regiment, which went to Bermuda.)
2.	Approximately ninety-two per cent of the first contingent received previous military training. The exact number is not available until the Hollerith system is completed.



CANADIAN EXPORTS AND IMPORTS

Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	What was the total amount of Canadian trade for the fiscal year 1876-77, and the total amount of exports and imports during the same
period?
2.	What was the total amount of Canadian trade for the fiscal year 1921-22, and the total amount of exports and imports during the same year.


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1. Fiscal year 1876-77-
Total imports entered for
consumption	$94,126,394
Total exports, Canadian produce 68,030,546 Total exports, foreign produce 7,111,108
Total Canadian Trade.. ..$169,268,048 2. Fiscal year 1921-22-
Total imports entered for
consumption	$ 747,762,984
Total exports, Canadian
produce	 740,240,680
Total exports, foreign produce	 13,686,329
Total Canadian Trade ..$1,501,689,993



TRENT CANAL IMPROVEMENT

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	What sums of money were expended for the construction and improvement of the Trent canal, by the federal Government, since the beginning of its construction?
2.	What sums of money were expended for the same purpose each year, from 1911 to 1922 respectively?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	$20,702,514.80, of which $18,849,361.11 was on construction account and $1,853,153.69 for improvements.
2.	Year ending March 31st-
1911		$ 1,744,942 25
1912	
1,820,590	321913	
1,204,105	731914	
1,177,596	671915	
1,058,566	351916	
1,027,519	031917	
624,441	781918	'..	613,980 851919	
412,507	251920	
1,077,251	361921	
690,197	131922	
673,261	15Total	$12,124,959 87
Of the total, $10,889,863.51 was on construction account and $1,235,096.36 for improvements.



WELLAND CANAL CONSTRUCTION

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	What has been the total sum expended by the federal Government for the construction and Improvements of the Welland canal, since the beginning of said construction?
2.	What sums of money were expended for the same purpose during the fiscal years ending March 31, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1921, respectively?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.
Present Welland Canal_____$29,399,405 93
Welland Ship Canal (under
construction	 30,787,977' 90
Total	$60,187,383 83
2. Year ending March 31st-
1913	.. ..$ 305,571	341914	.... 1,071,733	681915	.... 4,147,533	841916	.. . . 4,978,030	641917	.. . . 3,532,546	211918	.. . . 1,262,136	941919	.. .. 1,868,239	011920	.. .. 3,631,289	811921	.. .. 5,192,629	411922	.. . . 5,593,580	97Total	$31,583,291 85
Questions
Of this sum $203,005.60 was on construction account present Welland canal, and $719,509.50 on improvement account. The balance, $30,660,776.75 was on construction of Welland ship canal.



POTLATCH INSTITUTION

Mr. LADNER:: 1.	Has the Indian Department asked for a report from the Anthropological Society on the Indian Institution, commonly known as the Potlatch ?
2.	Were certain Indians of British Columbia referred by the Indian Department to the Anthropological Society to present their case in favour of the said Potlatch Institution?
3.	Has the report from the said society been made.
4.	If so, is it favourable to the Potlatch Institution, and does it favour or recommend any amendment to the Indian Act whereby the Indians might still carry on certain of their Potlatch practices?
5.	Have there been over fifty convictions of Indians during the past six months, in British Columbia, for taking part in potlatches? If not, how many were there?
6.	Are there at the present time twenty-three Indians serving jail terms for having taken part in potlatches?
7.	Is there in the Indian Department a petition presented by certain British Columbia Indians, asking for a commission to investigate the Potlatch Institution?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	The Indian Department asked the An- 1 thropological Division of the Department of Mines for a report on the Potlatch.
2.	No.
3.	Yes, from the Anthropological Division.
4.	The report makes no recommendation in the matter.
5.	There have been fifty convictions.
6.	No; four are serving sentence, the parole of three of whom is under consideration by the Department of Justice.
7.	Yes



RAILWAY COMMISSION-'CHIEF TRAFFIC OFFICER

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Who is the Chief Traffic Officer of the Railway Commission at Ottawa?
2.	When was he appointed.
3.	What is his salary?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1. On account of the death of the board's chief traffic officer, Mr. James Hardwell, the position is at present vacant.
2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.



VICTORIA BRIDGE-TOLLS

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: What revenue has been derived from the collection of tolls on the Victoria bridge between
Montreal and St. Lambert, during the year 1921, excepting the tolls paid by the Grand Trunk Railway?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 



$117,446.65. ISLE PERROT BRIDGE

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Is the bridge over the canal at Isle Perrot an interprovincial bridge? If not, why Is a vote of 550,000 included in the estimates of 1922-23 for such an enterprise?
2.	Is the,above amount of $50,000 the only disbursement that the Dominion Government has undertaken to pay for the said bridge construction?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1. The bridge in question is on the interprovincial highway in course of construction between Ontario and Quebec, and which crosses the canal lock at St. Ann's, which obliges the Department of Railways and Canals to bear a portion of the cost. The Quebec government has agreed to contribute $600,000, and the Department of Railways and Canals, $150,000; the latter on the following conditions:-
1.	That the design and construction of the proposed bridge, and more particularly of the bascule span, be subject to the approval of the chief engineer.
2.	That upon completion the operation and maintenance of the bascule span be assumed by the department.
3.	That not less than one-quarter of the tolls collected shall be remitted to the department.
2. No; it is the first instalment towards the $150,000 agreed upon.



TRAFFIC IN NARCOTICS

Joseph Archambault: For a copy of all papers, documents, correspondence and reports exchanged directly between the Health Department of Canada and J. A. Foisy, Dominion Drug and Chemical Company, and the North Eastern Drug Chemical, Limited, of Montreal, regarding narcotics reports in the years 1919-20-21, and principally reports made by the Mounted Police.


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Health):: I suggest that my hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archam-bault) drop this motion, because it is not considered advisable, in the public interest, that these reports by the mounted police, having reference to the traffic in narcotic drugs, should be made public, In the meantime, if the hon. gentleman wants any information in regard to this matter, he may come to the department and it will be available to him.


Joseph Archambault: Dropped.
Occupational Diseases



PROTECTION TO WORKMEN- OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (St. Mary, Montreal) (Translation) moved the following proposed resolution:
That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the fact that an act already exists for the protection of workmen agaiinst accidents while engaged in their work, it is desirable that same protection be afforded to all workmen contracting sickness while performing, or due to performance of their work or trade, inasmuch as the federal Government is concerned.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there exists in Canada and in almost every civilized country laws which are so framed as to safeguard the workman against accidents resulting while fulfilling his duties in the various occupations, such as: in house building, mills, factories, ship-yards, shipbuilding, loading and unloading of vessels, public stores, mines, quarries and in all establishments where explosives are manufactured; in all places where machinery driven by any kind -of motor is utilized; these laws entitle the victims or their representatives to an indemnity the nature and importance of which are determined, I believe that in the case of a person disabled or where death is caused by diseases said to be occupational, this person should derive some benefit if not from the Insurance Act against accidents at least from similar legislation. This legislation would apply not to all diseases in general, but to special diseases pertaining to certain industries which are responsible sometimes for the death of those who are so employed. They are also the cause of frequent unemployment the character of which is well known and are thus well termed occupational diseases. At the opening of the Congress for Labour legislation on accidents held at Berne, Switzerland, in 1891, Mr. Numa Droz thus expressed himself: " It is evident that the question of accidents is intimately interwoven with other labour questions. The one dealing with accidents to workmen, if we justly include, within its scope, occupational diseases forms as it were the centre and heart of labour legislation."
In the meantime, the views of Mr. Numa Droz have been embodied in the laws of Switzerland and occupational diseases are included in the liabilities to which industries are subject; this gives rise to claims whether mere unemployment or death be the outcome, and compensation is adequately determined in each case. The word accident is very broad in its acceptation; very

much so, when it stands as an equivalent for disability; wounds resulting from or in connection with the work of the labourer. An accident may be defined: the act by which the human body or parts thereof are affected or destroyed under the influence of unforeseen events. The human body or any part of it, through the medium of some morbid agent may be the cause of disability or of death, whether instantaneous or otherwise.
However, in all cases the employer should be held responsible towards the victim of the accident. Any morbid cause, whatever may be the name given to this agent, let it be called belt, pulley, dynamo, elevator, phosphorous, copper, lead, quicksilver, etc., the name is nothing-any morbid cause which produces disability or death at any period, by impairing or destroying the human body, in my opinion, should give rise to damages whether it is followed by ordinary unemployment, or death be the consequence. Take for instance a labourer who receives a -wound or fractures one of his limbs while working, if as a consequence tetanus or mortification sets in and causes death, certainly the employer is held responsible. Let the end come after five days or months, that does not prevent the claim to be well founded, because one part or a number of parts of the human body have been impaired and then destroyed, within a certain time, creating disability or death through a morbid process which is brought on by the wound at first, and then followed by complications throughout the whole system.
Let us now consider certain cases of occupational diseases, the existence of which is well known. Persons who are employed in the manufacture of chemical matches or in pyrotechnical works-and they are numerous-are subject, owing to the nature of the work, to different accidents. Sometimes the matter which enters into the preparation of matches ignites and explodes and is often the cause of burns; in such cases there can be no doubt that the manufacturer, as proprietor, is to be held responsible. Accompanying the dangers in the nature of accidents, which may result from certain manipulations, to workmen engaged in the manufacture of chemical matches, there exists another more serious danger. It is a disease which has been called by the workmen themselves phosphorous poisoning and which science designates as "necrosis." It consists in the mortification of the facial and jaw bones

Occupational Diseases
leading to disability and very often causing death. This disease is not general amongst the workmen; it affects but a few, and that is precisely why we may say that these persons have been victims of an accident which pertains to the special danger of the occupation followed, the work they are called upon to perform. This disease is the result of the phosphorous fumes which escape from ordinary phosphorous- the only one to which these accidents are attributed, as the c^se is not so with amorphous phosphorous or other substances. The use of the ordinary phosphorous in match factories was prohibited by the French government in 1889, thanks to the efforts of Dr. David and Mr. Truillot, because it was proved that the use of this process developed necrosis. Later, not having been able to enforce this decree, all possible precautions were taken to minimize this danger, the nature of the disease being well defined as occupational, owing to the substance that the workman is obliged to handle and the fumes which he inhales. [DOT]
Upon the advice of Dr. Brouardel and the public health committee, the legislation had to be amended so as to oblige match manufacturers to have their employees examined every month instead of every six months. It is evident that this precaution of compelling the workmen to undergo a strict monthly inspection, in order to find out whether, during this short interval, they have not contracted a disease which is not generally contracted elsewhere, is proof that this disease is more especially an occupational one. Therefore, it would only be fail as well as necessary, to give the workman who is constantly exposed to this danger which he cannot escape, the benefit of the legislation which is his protection in case of an accident when he is at work. After having examined the workman, the medical attendant of the factory, according to his diagnosis of the case, either prescribes a rest, or giving up of the work, should he deem it necessary. The first prescription is usually the extraction of the teeth, a surgical operation required by the disease. But, that to which I shall particularly call your attention, and that which is of the greatest concern to me, is the fact that the workman is compelled to cease all work, and that this unemployment in which he, himself, has nothing to say, is enforced upon him by the medical attendant. This unemployment system had been in practice in France, until Mr. Faure and
several of his colleagues obtained that the workman who is thus condemned to inactivity should, during the time of unemployment, be treated as if he had been the victim of an accident, while at work, and draw full pay at the match factory.
In 1888, Mr. Felix Faure, admitted the necessity of protecting workmen from these so-called occupational diseases, in reply to Mr. Gabriel Raspail's proposal for such a measure. He told him that his request was quite fair, but that this legislation concerned the health department more than the labour department. Now that we have here, in Ottawa, a health department as well as a labour department, could they not emulate Switzerland and France in this matter of occupational diseases? Although these occupational diseases pertain to health, I think they should be dealt with by the Labour department. As in the case of accidents while on duty, it is a question of indemnifying the workman as much as possible for the injuries caused either by the machinery he uses, or by the material he handles.
The glass industry, where the workman exercises his trade at a temperature frequently of 400 degrees, which suggested the nick name of "fire food," unquestionably breeds an occupational disease. How many times is not the worker, under such an intense fire, overwhelmed by a cerebral congestion that brings on death or apoplexy, leaving paralysis in its wake? What a number of unfortunates come to our offices covered with cutaneous eruptions, as a result of alterations which take place in the blood through inhaling the fumes of ilium inating gas which abounds in those work shops? How many of us have met such persons suffering from enormous distension of the cheeks, often more than an inch beyond the lower jaw-bone, caused by the continuous strain of glass-blowing which makes them say that they have "broken cheeks"-and the same may be said of their lungs. Since statistics show that 26 to 100 of such workmen suffer from cataracts, when forty years old, owing to the intense heat they constantly endure, and since it is known that in those industries, designedly to save coal, steam is forced over the fires, thus subjecting the workman to gaseous and sulphuric emanations that poison them; and that being so, is it possible to deny the occupational character of such diseases?
One of the most widely spread industries in all countries, and one which is the most disastrous because of the occupational dis-
Occupational Diseases
[Stage Direction]
ease it develops, is the textile industry. A staff of employees is imprisoned in buildings the ventilation of which is absolutely deficient; the atmosphere, in the carding and combing rooms, is filled with cotton or flax dust which the men and women breathe constantly, filling their lungs with this in-salubiious dust. This industry requires a humid atmosphere frequently overheated to 35 degrees as in woollen factories. Workers of either sex labour the whole day in an atmosphere laden with steam; they wear damp clothing; their feet are constantly wet: they are obliged to leave the factory in all kinds of weather, be it autumn or winter, at meal time, and when the day's work is over, so that, in a country like ours they are exposed to the most dangerous chills. The class of people who work in these factories is very poor because they receive only famine wages which is not sufficient to provide them with proper shelter, clothing and food; and therefore, the inroads of tuberculosis are far-reaching amongst these people.
If we look into the statistical data concerning textile industries it will be seen that 25 per cent of the people working in those factories fall a prey to tuberculosis.
Among rubber workers, how many cases are there of individuals inhaling carbon sulphide the effects of which upon the brain are such that it may bring on temporary and sometimes permanent insanity, always causing a marked deterioration of the nervous system! In the process of vulcanization, chloride of sulphur injures the respiratory organs, sometimes causing asphyxiation, with the most serious after effects.
It will be sufficient to remember the pitiful experience of our soldiers, the victims of asphyxiating gases on the battlefields, to have a notion of its effects upon the body of a mechanic working in a shop where rubber is vulcanized.
Grinders, 'arm-tool or metal-polishers, using emery, grit or silicate grind-stones, glass-cutters, inhale copper dusts which, combining with the acids in the human body, generate copper sulphate, a very active poison. Emery or silicate dusts emitted by the wheels settle in the lungs of these workingmen and destroy the lung substance to such an extent that a member of the French Assembly, Dr. Armand Des-pres once stated upon the floor of the House that a young man entering those workshops when fifteen years old was carried away by consumption at the age of thirty, and that 
statistical data revealed that eight out of ten were in that predicament.
I could cite many more instances which go to prove that there are occupational diseases which cause disability and even death; those I have already given are sufficient, I think, to support my contention. The law of nature is there to forbid any attempt against the lives of our fellow-men, be it for gain or other reasons, by imposing such conditions of existence or labour as I have mentioned. Money considerations do not entitle us to render a fellow-creature blind or to poison him, so as to accumulate wealth at the expense of his health.
Why should we not be as solicitous for an employee as the owner is for his horse which is hurt or falls sick while at work. Is it not true that in addition to his personal attendance, he gives his horse medicine and a more copious feeding and calls a veterinary surgeon? How different with man! When a working man who has but his day's wages for a living is a prey to sickness as a result of labour conditions, his employer deserts him; his salary is cut off; he gets neither a physician nor medicine and is very often driven to poverty, even if he does not lose his employment. And when sickness is due to the character of his work, should we not be at liberty to say that this man is entitled to some consideration for himself, and his family? In my opinion this is an anomaly and it is the duty of every representative of an industrial constituency to try and suppress such an anomaly, lest later on his parliamentary record be invoked against him and he be charged with selfishness and indifference to the welfare of his constituents.
What a contrast, if we think it over, between this apparent indifference and those national outbursts of sentiment and philanthropy over infant mortality-which I deplore myself. Far-seeing citizens, including women, are sounding the alarm year in and year out; the subject is commented upon from the pulpit and this national calamity is deplored; the medical profession furnishes its quota of apostles; the dispensaries are increasing in number as are literary writings, associations and good advices from lecturers and sacrifices intended to check this scourge. All that,
I admit, is worthy of such a cause; but after all, such admirable zeal is displayed only in order to face unfortunate consequences, it has to be acknowledged, arising from numerous causes the chief of which

Occupational Diseases
are atavism, heredity, want and poverty. Let us begin by safeguarding the maid who toils in our workshops and may be a mother tomorrow; let us protect the man while at his work, especially the father of a family to enable him to bring home regularly, comfort and the necessaries of life, instead of giving to the community young women who are a prey to anaemia, sickness and exhaustion through working in spinning mills, laundries and rubber factories, and instead of marrying them to men intoxicated, poisoned, who bring to their families insufficient wages on account of frequent unemployment. And then the problem of infant mortality will be solved.
What! the laws would not have a single enactment acknowledging the claims of a working man who would come to you and say: I entered the workshop in perfect health; I was not a prey to any ailment and I had not a trace of the disease which afflicts me to-day and which, out of fifty or sixty patients, according to the testimony of medical men, claims twenty and more victims. When a working man will come to you and say: I entered this factory and after four or five years, I began to feel the effects of the disease which has reduced me to unemployment," or when the children in turn will reproach you: "You are responsible for our father's premature death; medical science recognizes and statistics testify that the nature of his work was the cause of his death"; when they will claim damages, will it not be difficult to ignore that this workman was the victim of a truly occupational disease?
I do not quite see the difference between the risks that a workman may incur in a factory, owing to the material he handles exploding or otherwise by poisoning resulting from the same material either by the fumes emitted and inhaled or through any other process of absorption which in a short while may cause disability or death.
What was the object of bringing down a Compensation Act on accidents? The legislator desired $o come to the rescue of the workman, he wished to protect him against his own negligence, and carelessness. He did not take into account if the employer had used poor judgment or was guilty of negligence; he required but one condition for the enforcing of the law. He established the principle, and I think no exception should be made, that where there existed a danger pertaining to the nature of the work itself, thereby occasioning such conditions where accidents take
place and which generally are followed by disability to carry on the work, it was the owner of this industry who should compensate him for the damage caused.
Starting from that established principle which is well recognized in Canada, we must consequently place occupational diseases on the same footing as accidents. We are indebted to the workingmen who fall victims of an explosion either in a mine or a factory. The same indebtedness is due, based on the same principle, to the workingmen who have been victims, in a chemical factory or other, of an occupational disease which has rendered them unfit to work and which sometimes may cause death.
I believe that the two casse are absolutely identical and that it is time to cry out with Waldeck Rosseau, the father of labour syndicates in Prance: "Forward, let us advance, run if necessary, but at least let us make some headway."
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, 1 confess that 1 have not been able to follow all that my hon. friend has said in support of his motion; but in so far as it is his desire to have the federal government Consider the welfare of its employees in matters both cf sickness and of accident, I am in entire sympathy with the purpose that he has in view. I think, however, the motion, as it is worded, goes, beyond this, in that it refers to existing legislation, which is provincial, not federal legislation; and while I should not like to raise the question of the propriety of this House discussing provincial legislation, it is well, I think, to point out the possible bearing of this circumstance before my hon. friend presses his motion to a division. The resolution reads:	[DOT]
That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the fact that a law already exists for the protection of workmen against accidents while engaged in their work, it is desirable that same protection be afforded to all workmen contracting sickness.
Workmen's Compensation Acts, as the House well knows, are acts enacted by provincial legislatures, and no doubt provincial legislatures will also consider the question of extending social insurance to include insurance against sickness as well as compensation for accident. But I do not think this House could properly pass upon what the provinces should do in this matter. The resolution, however, is clearly ambiguous. The last clause of all-"inasmuch as the federal government is concerned"

Schooner Con Rein

would seem to indicate that what my hon. friend has in mind is solely the employees of the federal government. As I have already said, as regards the employees of the Government, we may very properly consider whether they should not be protected in the performance of their duties against sickness just as well as against accident, and to that extent, I am wholly in sympathy with my hon. friend's motion. But so far as it involves any expression of opinion as to what should be done by provincial legislatures, I do not think this House should consider the question further. I think my hon. friend's purpose has been well served by the able speech he has made upon the resolution, and by having presented arguments which we can all read when we have an opportunity of perusing the report of the debate.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Do I understand that the hon. member (Mr. Deslauriers) wishes to withdraw his motion?


Mr. DESLAURIERS:: Yes.
Motion withdrawn.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY EMPLOYEES-PENSION RIGHTS AND STATUS

Mr. W. A. BOYS (South Simcoe) moved:: That in the opinion of this House, immediate steps should he taken hy the Government to restore the pension rights and status of all employees and ex-employees of the Grand Trunk railway who were deprived thereof owing to participation in a strike on the system in the year 1910, to the end that all such may secure their just rights pursuant to the terms and true intent of the settlement made between the parties.
He said: In my absence on April 10, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), referring to this resolution, said:
There is no need for this resolution inasmuch as the Government has already taken steps in the direction proposed. The Government has been negotiating with a view of seeing that a long standing injustice should toe remedied without further delay: If it is not possible to effect by negotiation what we hope and believe will be attained by negotiation, then the Government will bring in the necessary legislation to see that the injustice that was done to employees of the Grand Trunk railway involved in the strike of 1910, in virtue of the terms and conditions of its settlement not having been complied with, is duly remedied.
I read with great interest and satisfaction the remarks of the Prime Minister, and in view of what he said on that occasion I certainly have no desire at the present time to press this motion. I should be glad, however, if my hon. friend

could see his way clear to give me an opportunity later on in the session, if perchance negotiations fail, or if no legislation is brought forward, to deal with the subject matter of this motion. I am very much in earnest about it, and I realize that the Government are as well. Apparently we are in accord in our views, and if the Prime Minister would be kind enough to promise me this consideration I should appreciate it very much and, on the strength of such an assurance, I would move the adjournment of the debate on the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not only am I very much pleased to meet my hon friend's wishes, but should negotiations fail and should it be necessary for the Government to consider introducing legislation, I will assist the hon. member in carrying his resolution.


William Alves Boys: I am entirely satisfied with
the Prime Minister's statement and I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



SINKING OF THE CON REIN

Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou) moved:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents relative to the Petition of the Eastern LaHave Transportation Company, Limited, and others, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and of all communications and replies from the United States Government relative to the said petition and to the facts disclosed therein.
He said: The purpose of this motion is to call the attention of the House to a matter which, although primarily of local importance, is nevertheless of national interest as illustrating an anomalous situation that prevails in this country to-day. Last year, on the 29th of August, a vessel belonging to the Port of LaHave, in the province of Nova Scotia, was sunk near Block island in the state of Rhode Island, by an American submarine. The circumstances surrounding the collision were investigated by the United States mafine authorities, and in a report which was submitted by that body it was found that Lieutenant John H. Hames, of the United States navy, commanding officer of the United States submarine K-4, was responsible for the collision between that submarine and the three-masted schooner Con Rein. I am instructed that under the conditions that exist in the United States it was not and is not possible for the owners of the ves-

Schooner Con Rein
sel to assert in the law courts, directly as against the United States government, a claim for damages which accrued to them as a result of the sinking of the vessel. Consequently they have petitioned the hon. the Prime Minister as Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the United States government to provide compensation for the loss which they sustained. That petition has come in the ordinary course and, I have no doubt, has been presented to the United States government. I am not aware of the result.
Now, the facts of this matter are so clear that there does not seem to be any doubt about the liability for the collision, and I would ask the Government to use every effort to urge upon the United States government the immediate settlement of the claim. But this affair illustrates the anomalous position of Canada with reference to matters in which Canadian citizens in the United States are interested. In order that any action might be taken in this matter, it is the duty of the Government of Canada to approach the United States government through the British Ambassador at Washington. It does seem to me that there ought to be a more direct method by which the Canadian people could have their interests protected in the American republic than through the diplomatic means now at our disposal through the British Embassy. I am aware that in previous sessions of this Parliament, when I had not the honour to be present, the question of representation at Washington was discussed, and I understand that it was announced as the policy of the late government to appoint a representative at Washington. So far no one has been appointed to such a position. I would submit to this House that many important matters that are continually arising as between the United States and Canada, adjacent as they are to one another, in which the interests of Canadian citizens are involved, require special care and attention; and it is in the interests of this country that a Canadian representative should be appointed to be resident at Washington. Looking over the proceedings of the last Imperial Conference, I gathered that the position of the British government in regard to the matter was that they had no objection to the appointment of such an official, working, of course, in conjunction with and under the British Ambassador. When one comes to think of the tremendous effect on this country of the numerous tariff changes which are made from time to time, and the
legislation of every character passed by the United States Congress, and of the thousand and one other ways which one on a few moments' reflection can call to mind, in which action on the part of the United States government is of considerable interest to the people of Canada, one is forced to the conclusion that we should have a Canadian representative at Washington.
This case illustrates the peculiarly anomalous position in which a Canadian citizen is placed. A vessel has been sunk through the negligence of a United States naval officer, but the owners cannot proceed directly against the government of the United States in the courts of that country, and when they seek the services of our Secretary of State for External Affairs they find that instead of dealing directly with the United States Government, our Secretary of State must approach that government through the British Embassy. Naturally the British Embassy is occupied with very many problems affecting the two countries, and with the delay which is always characteristic of the interchange of communications between governments, a matter such as this is very likely to be pigeon-holed; whereas if we had a Canadian representative in Washington he could take it up immediately with the appropriate department of State there and secure a speedy settlement. All over Canada there must be cases arising in which our citizens are likely to be injuriously affected in the United States, and I submit-although I have not included this proposal in my resolution-that the House might well consider whether we should not hasten the appointment of a Canadian representative at Washington. The injustice which the owners of this vessel have suffered through the inevitable delay in securing a settlement of their claims, and the peculiar position of the whole matter, illustrate to my mind very clearly the necessity of the appointment which I have indicated.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaven-ture):: Mr. Speaker, some fifteen years ago I had the honour of accompanying a deputation from Ottawa to attend a gathering at Washington of the North American Lumbermans' Association. We had the honour of being received by the then President of the United States, the late Theodore Roosevelt, and I remember he told us that the intercourse between Canada and the United States was becoming so important that the old roundabout system of dealing between the two countries through
Schooner Con Rein

the Colonial Office was entirely inadequate, and that it demanded that Canada should have nothing less than a representative resident at Washington. The president repeated that statement to several persons in our deputation, and we thanked him for the compliment he was paying to Canada's growing importance. I was of his opinion at that time and I still entertain it. I have had the advantage of hearing the question discussed in this House on many occasions, and it is a wonder to me and to all others who have given it any attention to see, when we go to Washington, insignificant little republics represented there by resident ministers or consul-generals, while this important country, with its many dealings with the United States, is without direct representation. I heartily concur in the view expressed by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), and I hope one of the achievements of the government will be to have a permanent representative appointed to Washington so that our relations with our great neighbours will be further advanced as rapidly as possible.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to endorse the request of the hon. member for Pictou that action be taken by the Canadian Government in order to get a settlement of the case to which he refers. Although the amount involved is not very large as amounts go to-day, when we are thinking and spending in millions, perhaps the officials of the Government do not realize what the loss means to the people who are directly interested. The company spoken of is doing business in my own county, and is known as the East La Have Transportation Company, Limited. This company owned a vessel named the Con Rein, engaged in the coasting trade between ports in Nova Scotia and New York and other United States ports. At the time the accident happened, last August, the vessel delivered in the port of New York a cargo of lumber and took on board a return cargo of anthracite coal for Charlottetown, P.E.I. On the way down the sound she was rammed by a United States submarine. At the investigation, in which three qualified United States naval officers took part and held court it was conclusively proved that the officers of the submarine were at fault. Not only did the owners lose their ship, which was worth $70,000, but the owner of the cargo was also a loser, and the crew lost all their personal effects.

The owners of the vessel brought the case to the attention of the Canadian Government through their solicitors, and I understand the Department of External Affairs has taken action. But, as large bodies move slowly, not only in Canada but in the United States, I would impress upon the Government the necessity of endeavouring as early as possible to get the United States government to take early action towards a settlement of the owners' claims, and I am sure that after hearing the remarks of the hon. member for Pictou the Government will do their utmost to this end.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Government will be only too pleased to follow up this matter immediately along the lines suggested by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). There is no reason why the motion should not carry.
With regard to the larger question of the direct representation of Canada at Washington, this is receiving the consideration of the Government at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Duff: That, in the opinion of this House, in order to encourage the shipbuilding and fishing industry, it is advisable that every possible assistance be given to the promotion and maintenance of international deep sea racing between Canadian deep sea fishing vessels and deep sea fishing vessels of other nations.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, there are two
questions which I wish to discuss on this resolution-the encouragement that should be given to our shipbuilding industry; and the encouragement that should be given to our fishing industry.
It is a well-known fact, Sir, that shipbuilding has been engaged in since the earliest times of which we have any records. The first vessel that sailed the stormy sea was Noah's ark-and that was a great many years ago. But as you know, Sir, Noah was given inside information of a great flood that was to come, and he was told also to prepare for it and be ready, with his wife and his family, to go into the ark for shelter. That boat, though not, perhaps, as modern a vessel as those we have at the present day, fulfilled the purpose for which it was intended, and, after a number of days passed on the stormy sea, came to rest on mount Ararat.

Deep Sea Racing


Mr. McMASTER:: Were they fishing?


William Duff: No, they were not fishing. You will also remember, Sir, from a reading of the history of Greece and Carthagena, that vessels were built in those days not only to sail the seas and carry the products of one nation to the other, but to engage in the fishing industry. Coming down to more modern times, in the sea yarns written by Kingsley, Stevenson and others, we read of the events which took place, especially in the Old Country and the United States, in connection with the building of ships in those days. Before steam came into use, when vessels were entirely propelled by sails, each country vied with the other in an effort to produce ships which would make voyages in the least possible time. We remember that ships sailed from England, went around Cape Horn and the Cape of Good Hope ,and proceeded to India, Australia and New Zealand, or ports on the Pacific coast. They carried goods manufactured in Great Britain, and brought back from India the spices of that land; from China, the teas which were raised there, and from Australia, wool and other products. These stories are very interesting, especially to those who take an interest in the sea. Not only did1 these -ships carry valuable cargoes, but there was vigorous competition between them, prizes being sometimes offered by the owners of vessels to the captains as an inducement to make the shortest possible voyage. There was competition between ships owned by English merchants, and ships owned by Americans. I could go on for a long time, but I do not wish to occupy the attention of the House at too great length in emphasizing the interest taken in the ship-building business in those days, in order that the products of the land -might be carried on the different oceans to far-away countries.
My object this afternoon is to endeavour to show the connection between the building of ships to carry the products of land and sea to foreign countries and a matter of international interest which I think the House should consider. In 1854 a New York pilot boat known as the America was taken across to England to participate in a race in which everybody in the Old Country was interested. In a contest off the I'sle of Wight, at which Queen Victoria was present, the America -defeated the English clipper which sailed against her, and what was known as the International Cup was brought from the Old Country to America. Since that time several attempts have been made to wrest that cup
from the American people and take it back to the British Isles. A number of ships were built for that purpose; Lord Dun-raven, who was a great yachtsman in the Old Country, for -several years competed in this race off New York Harbour, but in all cases the American boat was the better or the faster one, and the cup has ever since remained in the possession of the New York Yacht Club. Sir Thomas Lipton also came across, first with his Shamrock I., and competed against the Vigilant, I think it was. In subsequent years, with the Shamrock II. and Shamrock -III., -he endeavoured without success to wrest that cup from the American yacht club. In my opinion, this competition of -sailing vessels is something which should be encouraged by the people of Canada.
Some four years ago, as the result of a suggestion which I made in a speech at the annual gathering of the Nova Scotia fishermen that a fishing race should be held, some gentlemen in the city of Halifax and others who became interested decided to hold what is known as the fishermen's races. Accordingly, in 1920, off the harbour of Halifax, seven or eight fishing schooners, vessels of 100 tons which had been built for fishing purposes and had actually been engaged in that great industry, took part in a race which was the delight of those who witnessed it. The winner was the Delawana, and some Americans who were present from Gloucester and Boston, and who were interested in the fishing industry and in racing, suggested that there be a contest between the Delawana and a fishing schooner named the Esperanto. I do not need to go into the details of this contest; every man and woman in Canada read of the race which took place off Halifax harbour. One of the Halifax papers donated a challenge cup, known as the International cup, to the winner of this race. The American schooner proved the faster of the two, and she took the cup to the city of Gloucester. Last year the fishing captains and business men of Nova Scotia, with the view of getting the cup back, built several vessels to compete in the race which took place last fall. Several new fishing schooners were built-and I may say that one of the conditions of the race is that vessels taking part in it must have been engaged in fishing during the summer preceding the race. An impetus was thus given to shipbuilding in Nova Scotia as a result of the race in 1920. It will be remembered also that last fall the American fishing schooner Elsie com-

Deep Sea Racing

peted with the schooner Bluenose, built in my own town, for this international cup; and I am pleased to be able to say that the Bluenose, built by one of our enterprising shipbuilding firms, Messrs. Smith and. Ruland, won the race on both days, with the result that the cup came back to Nova Scotia. According to an arrangement arrived at by an international committee composed of men from Nova Scotia, Boston and Gloucester, this year the cup must be defended by a Nova Scotia fishing vessel in Massachusetts Bay. In other words, we have to take our ship over to Massachusetts Bay rather than compete for the cup in home waters. You will have noticed that we have built in Nova Scotia two new schooners to enter the elimination races, with the view of seeing whether they are better than the Bluenose, and that American business men and fishing captains have during the last several months built two vessels to compete in this race. We feel that this is not a local matter; we feel that it is not even a provincial matter, but that it is of interest to the whole people of Canada, because the men who go over to Gloucester will go there as Canadians. Last year when the ship Elsie came down from Gloucester, she did not come alone, but was accompanied by an American naval vessel bringing representatives from many parts of the United States. The President, for instance, sent his own representative; the state of Massachusetts also sent a representative, as did also the city of Boston; the city of Gloucester sent their mayor. When we go this year, I ask the federal government to send their representative, I will also ask the Nova Scotia government to send their representative. So this is not a matter of purely local interest, but one of international interest. It is of interest not only to the province, not only to the whole of this country, but also to the people of the United States as well.
My object in bringing this matter to the attention of the House is this. In view of the fact that this is an international matter, a few people in the province of Nova Scotia, looking at it entirely from a racing and business standpoint, should not be expected to bear the whole cost of this venture. When the race was held in home waters, the cost was not so great and a few gentlemen in Nova Scotia, as I have said, were willing to put up the expenses, but taking part in this race in Massachusetts Bay will mean an extra expense, and while the owners of the Canadian ship are

willing to risk losing their vessel in the race or en route, and also incur the depreciation that is bound to take place in the vessel, whilst she is in the race, they feel that as the country as a whole is interested in this matter, it should contribute something towards the cost. With this race being held year after year, more vessels will be built in the province of Nova Scotia, and more ships will sail on the seas carrying the products of Nova Scotia and of Canada to all parts of the world. It will also be of benefit to the fishing industry, which, in my humble opinion, has not had the encouragement in the past which it should have received. If the Government takes an interest in this matter and grants a small sum of money, I believe that not only will the shipbuilding industry be encouraged and more vessels be built to go on the high seas and the Grand Banks of Newfoundland to bring into the ports of Nova Scotia the products of the sea, but that the fishing industry also will be materially improved. I need not tell you, Mr. Speaker, why this encouragement should be given. The deep sea fishing fleet of Nova Scotia, and after all, that really means the deep sea. fishing fleet of Canada, is a great asset to this country, and the Government would make no mistake in encouraging these hardy toilers of the sea, who go down to the sea in ships and risk their lives day after day on the ocean. It is a beautiful sight,- and if you saw it, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would agree with me-to see about one hundred and twenty-five schooners, of about one hundred tons, hoisting their flags and making ready for the fishing grounds. They do not hoist the flag every day for the wind to blow it to tatters. The flag to the fishermen of Nova Scotia and their wives and sweethearts is an emblem and a symbol. It is a sacred matter. The fishermen of Nova Scotia do not believe in flapping the flag, they only fly the flag on special occasions. When these vessels are ready for sea their captains go to the custom house and clear for the deep, and the flag is hoisted to the masthead. It is a symbol that the vessel is ready to sail on an adventurous voyage, and that the crew are about to take risks that perhaps no other men in the world have to take in their daily occupation. The men down there do not cheapen the flag by raising it every day. They reserve it for this one special occasion when they clear for the Banks, when it is used as a symbol and an emblem that they are sailing out on the deep waters, to be away perhaps for two or

Deep Sea Racing
three months. Again, when the vessels return and are seen in the offing, perhaps three or four miles away, we go on the hill-tops with our binoculars and see the flag flying at the masthead, and we go down and raise our own flag to show, first that the men on board have safely returned, and secondly to signal that their families have been well while they were away. That is what we fly the flag for. It is a beautiful sight, I say, to see these ships with their flags flying, going out to sea and returning to port.
These men deserve some consideration from this Government. If we can vote $1,000 for Alpine climbers, as we are doing, and for other services not so deserving, I think this Government, in order to encourage the building of ships and the development of the fishing industry in this country might very well make a small grant for this purpose. It is a matter that is of interest to the whole people of Canada. I remember last year when the race was on, we were having inquiries from all over the country as to how it was going, and the telegraph offices kept open all night so that news of the race could be flashed every three minutes. I therefore think that Parliament should have no hesitation in voting the small sum of $5,000 for this very worthy object.
Shipbuilding and the fishing industry is no new thing in Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia all revere the memory of Hon. Joseph Howe, one of the greatest statesmen Canada has ever produced. We remember that when he was in this Parliament he gave expression to the opinion that in forty years from that date we would have at least 500,000 men engaged in the fishing industry in Nova Scotia. These hopes, however, have not been realized, and it seems to me this Liberal Government should endeavour as far as possible to realize the hopes of the great people of Nova Scotia. What did Joseph Howe say about these men? I think perhaps it is worthy of being put on the pages of Hansard:
Though my craft may be small, she is snug and she's trim,
And her crew are accustomed to battle the wave,
They are cheerful of heart, and athletic of limb,
And follow the business their bold fathers
gave.
Through the storm and the sleet of the winter we sail,
While the rich and the feeble on couches repose;
There is health in our toil, and a charm in the
gale,
And our courage still rises the harder it blows.
88i
Every harbor from Sable to Canso's a home,
Every depth from the Banks to St. Lawrence we've tried,
And we care not though round Labrador we may roam,
Or sweep on the strength of old Fundy's fierce tide.
Now wealth from the waves we draw forth with our lines.
And now with a cargo of produce we're stow'd,
Or having a full freight of coal from the mines,
We slowly sail on with our cumbersome load. Then who would exchange the rough life that we lead,
Joint owners at sea, and free sons of the soil, At the bidding of others to labour and bleed
With but little of pleasure to sweeten our toil.
We build our own shallops-
That is what we do in Nova Scotia. It is a joint venture. Nearly every fisherman on board one of these fishing vessels, which cost perhaps $35,000, is an owner in the venture.
We build our own shallops, we rear our own crew,
And life has for us sweet endearment in store, For though luxury's fetters our souls never knew,
Bright eyes bid us welcome when peril is o'er.
I think that is a most beautiful sentiment. I think it covers the whole ground, and that there is no necessity for me to argue further. I might, however, say that the shipbuilding industry in Nova Scotia needs some encouragement. All during the war we built every vessel it was possible for us to build, at the call of our country, but conditions have changed. Freights are now low, and if some encouragement is not given the shipbuilding industry in Nova Scotia, I am afraid there will not be many vessels built in the next few years. Therefore, not only to encourage the shipbuilding industry, but the fishing industry as well, so that we shall have more fishing vessels going down to the sea and bringing back its products for the whole people of this country, I think this Government would be very well advised to accept my motion and include in the supplementary estimates a small grant of $5,000 for this purpose.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: I am sure every
member of this House feels grateful to my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) for the information he has given us. His remarks certainly appealed to my sporting and national spirit, when I realized that the Nova Scotia fishermen were holding their own against the Americans and other foreign competitors in the race. I must admit his eloquent words appealed to my
Immigration Act

poetic feeling. If, as my hon. friend says, the encouragement of the Government would help the fishing and shipbuilding industry in that province, certainly some assistance should be given. I do not know whether the enthusiastic expression of my hon. friend "every possible assistance" can be accepted. It is rather wide. I have not given the matter sufficient consideration to commit the Government to any expenditure at the present time, but I promise my hon. friend that I shall give this matter full consideration, and I ask the House to allow me to move the adjournment of the debate so that I may later on convey to my hon. friend the decision of the Government on the question.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 16-Mr. Woodsworth- to amend the Immigration Act, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the time of the second reading of this bill, the Government expressed the view that, perhaps, it had better be considered by a special committee. I understand, having made inquiries from different groups in the House, that some exception has been taken by one of the groups to having the bill go to a special committee, and it was thought more desirable to have it discussed in Committee of the Whole. The Government has no objection to proceeding with the bill in Committee of the Whole, in order to see what progress we will make, and I am inclined to think, from the intricate nature of the bill, that it would be an advantage all round to carry out the original suggestion and send it to a special committee.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The suggestion
of the Prime Minister that the bill should be considered by a smaller committee is quite satisfactory to me, if it meets with the approval of the House. I recognize the difficulty of dealing in a general committee with the complicated question involved. I do not know just what the order of procedure is at this point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The order is to proceed in Committee of the Whole and see how we get along.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In order that we may intelligently discuss the first subsection, it will be necessary to give very briefly an outline as to what is proposed

by this bill. The matter was not discussed on the second reading because it was thought that the bill would go to a smaller committee. The effect of the existing amendment to the Immigration Act is really to deprive a very large section of our people of the right to trial by jury- a very serious consideration. It is unnecessary for me to review the history of the claims put forth by the British people, from the time of the Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights, to the night of trial by jury. That great document-the Magna Charta-was effective in restricting the arbitrary power of kings and ministers, but we have to-day, in this legislation which has been placed on the statute book, a reversion, if I may call it so, to the condition of affairs which prevailed before the time of the Magna Charta. There are three acts which are very intimately connected. The first, is the amendment to the Immigration Act, with an amendment to the amendment, the second is the Naturalization Act, and the third is the amendment to the Criminal Code which was introduced at the same time. Those three acts dovetail into one another and have the effect of taking away the right of trial by jury from a very considerable section of the people of Canada. This act is designed primarily, not, as one might imagine from its being an Immigration Act, to keep out undesirable immigrants, but rather to deal with people who are already in Canada. I submit that, if we are going to deal with undesirable people in Canada, or people who have committed crimes in Canada, the provision with regard to that ought not to be brought in, in connection with an immigration law. Let me repeat. This act is not designed to keep people out of this country, but rather to deal with people who are already here. It may be said; roughly, that there are four classes of people in Canada: First, the native-born, either of English or French or other origin; second, immigrants from the United States, who are technically foreigners, but whom we very largely regard as belonging to the same class of people as we are; third, those whom we commonly class as foreigners, who speak some other language than English as their mother tongue, people who come, very largely, from various countries of Europe; and fourth, British-born people, people who belong to the same stock as we do, but who have been born in England, Scotland, Ireland or other British countries. To-day, as a Canadian-born Britisher, I should like

Immigration Act
to appeal to my fellow Canadian-born Britishers, whether English or French, to relieve the British-born of the disabilities under which they are placed in Canada because of their birth in Great Britain. That is the situation as it exists to-day.
Let me deal now with the various sections of the bill. The first one has to do with domicile, and this can be understood only as we remember that the idea is to get rid of certain undesirable classes. These classes are enumerated in later sections of the act; the first provision makes it impossible for anyone, later classed as an undesirable, to obtain domicile in Canada. These people can come into this country and they may live here for a certain period of time; but if they are declared to be undesirable, it is as if they were not living here; their residence here gives them no claim whatever, no right to trial in the courts of this country. They may have been living quite a harmless life; they may have no criminal record against them, either in the Old Country or in this country; but if they are declared to be undesirable, the fact that they have been living here actually ceases to have any value.


Mr. JACOBS:: They are declared to be undesirable by the immigration authorities, I understand, not by a court of justice.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so. That
is the point. This is entirely under the Immigration Act, and my plea is that, before anybody, who has been living in this country for any length of time, is declared undesirable, his case should be presented to a regular court and decided by that court, and not by the Immigration Department or any other department. That is why I seek to have this particular section altered. Section 2 of the act provides :
Provided further that no person who belongs to the prohibited or undesirable classes within the meaning of section 41 of this act shall be capable of acquiring Canadian domicile.
Then again, subsection (ii) in part reads:
Canadian domicile is lost, for the purposes
of this act	by any person belonging to
the prohibited or undesirable classes within the meaning of section 41 of this act.
Then again subsection (iii) in part reads:
When any citizen of Canada who is a British subject by naturalisation, or any British subject not born in Canada having Canadian domicile, shall have resided for one year outside of Canada, he shall be presumed to have lost Canadian domicile.
That is, if a man, who has been living in this country for a considerable number of years, should, for instance, return to Great Britain for a year to visit his people and then come back to Canada, he would cease to have Canadian domicile and cease to have any right to trial in this country.


Samuel William Jacobs: Although a British subject?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let us be clear on that point. Although a British subject, he would cease to have any rights whatever before the courts of this country. That is the point with regard to the first clause of the Bill. If I may, I would like to run briefly over the other clauses, as they are closely inter-related. I pass on to the second clause repealing paragraphs (n), (o) and (p) of subsection 6 of section-there is a typographical error there; that should be section 3 instead of section 2. The amendment to the act adds a number of classes to those who had previously been regarded as undesirable. The objectionable feature is contained in these words:
Persons . . . . (n) who disbelieve in or are opposed to organised Government. . . . (o) persons who are members of or affiliated with any organisation entertaining or teaching disbelief in or opposition to organised Government.
And:
(p) Enemy aliens or persons who have been alien enemies and who were or may be interned on or after the eleventh day of November, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, in any part of His Majesty's Dominions or by any of His Majesty's allies.
I think it is quite obvious to any one that I am not here to advocate, in any way whatever, disbelief in organized government. But I do say that this question of belief or disbelief in organized government and the decision whether people do or do not believe in this, should not be left to an Immigration Department. That is the point. The question should be left to the courts. This matter ought to be kept very clearly before us as we proceed. I can quite understand how many people may misunderstand the position which I am trying to put forward, because, on the face of the matter, one would say: "Is that not reasonable? Should we not try to exclude people who disbelieve in organized government?" I would be quite willing to say: "Yes." But if people come into this country and are resident in this country, it ought not to be within the power of any individual in the Immigration Department
Immigration Act

or any other department to say: "You are here and since you disbelieve in organized government, you must be sent out of the country without any trial on the matter whatever." Worse than that, this paragraph (p) works a gross injustice to a large number of our fellow citizens who are technically classed as alien enemies. A good many people whom I know in the West, who came from those provinces in Austria, which lie along the border line between Austria and Russia and which were overridden first by one army and then by the other, when the war broke out, were within the bounds of Austria, and hence came to be classed as alien enemies. I protest, incidentally, this was a great injustice to them. As one of those men said to me one day: "We were enemies of Austria long before Great Britain was an enemy of Austria; we came out to this country to get away from Austria." Yet the fact that they had been born in Austria classed them as alien enemies. We find this section dealing with these people who are in this country, many of whom have been living exemplary lives, the very class of people whom perhaps we most need as immigrants to go on the land. The clause reads:
Enemy aliens or persons who have been alien enemies and who were or may be interned on or after November 11, 1918.
So that this is directed against a particular group and works a hardship in their case. I shall now consider section 41, and I would impress upon the committee that if this bill of mine is passed it does not mean that the old section 41 will be done away with; but the objectionable clauses which were introduced two years ago will be abandoned and section 41 will remain as it was before that time. Section 41, dealing with the undesirable classes, says, in part, that any person who:
-shall, by word or act, create or attempt to create riot or public disorder in Canada, or shall by common repute belong to or be suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization which extorts money from or in any way attempts to control any resident of Canada. ... or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization entertaining or teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government; such person, for the purposes of this act, shall be considered as belonging to the prohibited or undesirable classes and shall be liable to deportation.
There you have the same trouble entering in. The whole question as to whether or not a man is undesirable, or whether or not he belongs to organizations that

are supposed to teach doctrines that are not in harmony with the welfare of the country, is left to the Department of Immigration to decide. I would suggest that we should be in keeping with the very best British practice if we condemned men only when they committed some overt act and not for merely thinking this or the other thing. In Japan, I believe, there is now a law against dangerous thoughts, and we seem to be approaching very near to the autocratic imperialism of Japan when we undertake to decide whether or not a man harbours dangerous ideas. It has been taken for granted in British countries that a man may believe whatever he likes so long as he does not in any way interfere with his fellow-citizens or imperil the country. And that is sound ground to take. In section 16, I take exception particularly to the following:
Any person suspected of an offence under this section may forthwith be arrested and detained without a warrant by any officer for examination and deportation.
That, it seems to me, is going further than we can imagine possible in any British statute. It is bad enough to arrest, without warrant, any man who is really guilty, but in this case even if a man is only suspected of doing something he may be summarily arrested without warrant, and without trial deported, though he might happen to be a British subject. That is an intolerable situation. Section 17, which is amended in harmony with the other, provides:
Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen or a person having Canadian domicilehas done so and so. That is where it touches the British-born. If a man is foreign-born I presume he may have some sort of protection at the hands of a foreign consul; but if a man is British-born he has no domicile, and has not even a chance for naturalization. That comes in in another act. Provision is made in the Naturalization Act that a man, even if naturalized, may be de-naturalized at will. I have not introduced any bill with regard to that act, but, as amended in 1919, it fits into this nicely. Most of us had not realized that in order for a Britisher to obtain rights before the courts in this country, he had to be naturalized. But that is the case. It will be seen, therefore, that this catches a man in any case if he is considered undesirable. The British-born man has no domicile, and if he is naturalized he may be de-naturalized. Then

Immigration Act
we come further to the amendment to the amendment. It was considered, a few days after this amendment to the Immigration Act had been passed, that it was not strong enough and did not quite meet the needs of the time, and so still more stringent regulations were introduced. Section 41, as again amended, contains an extra clause with regard to undesirables:
Any one who without lawful authority assumes any powers of government In Canada or in any part thereof-
-may he declared an undesirable. That is to say, any man belonging to an organization that undertakes a certain kind of work which may be considered by somebody as work that ought to be done by the Government, may be declared an undesirable and without any impartial authority to try the case he may be summarily deported. Further on there is this clause:
Provided that this section shall not apply to any person who is a British subject either by reason of birth In Canada or by reason of naturalization in Canada.
There is where the difficulty comes in again with regard to naturalization. Most of our English immigrants coming to this country took it for granted that they had certain rights in the country and would receive full protection from the law. They did not consider it necessary to become naturalized, and this clause therefore places them in a far more difficult and helpless position than in the case with persons born in Germany, Austria, or Russia.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Do I understand from my hon. friend that a man born in Scotland and coming out here has to become naturalized?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, before he
can obtain protection from this act; otherwise he is liable to deportation.


Samuel William Jacobs: I think the hon. member
is quite wrong. If a man was born in Scotland he is a British subject and does not require to be naturalized at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, otherwise
he may be deported.


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes, back to Scotland.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is my point; he has no chance. This proviso relates to any person who is a British subject either by reason of birth in Canada or by reason of naturalization in this country. But since a Scotsman is a subject of Canada
neither by birth in Canada nor by reason of naturalization here, he may be deported under the provisions of this act.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is to say, his British citizenship by reason of birth in Scotland will not avail him in Canada under this act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is it. Subsection 2 says:
* Proof that any person who belongs to or was within the description of any of the prohibited or undesirable classes within the meaning of this section at any time since the fourth day of May, 1910, shall for all purposes of this act be deemed to establish prima facie that he still belongs to such prohibited or undesirable class or classes.
We have here introduced a retroactive clause-if it can ibe shown that prior to the 4th May, 1910, a person belonged to any of these undesirable classes, it should be at least prima facie evidence that he still belongs to them. I am no lawyer, but I have always thought that one of the fundamental principles of British law was that a man is to be considered innocent until he is proven guilty. Here it is provided that if he belongs to a certain class prima facie he is guilty. He is required to establish his own innocence of the "crime"-in this case of whether or not he belongs to any of these undesirable classes to which he belonged some years previously.
I do not think it is necessary at this time for me to say anything further with regard to the unfair and anti-British character of this legislation. I have perhaps emphasized the fact that it applies to Britishers. I should like to go a little bit further than that, because I think I have enough of the spirit of the Britisher in my own being to believe that everyone ought to have a fair chance in this country. I do not think the British-born want any greater privileges than any other body; I do not think that any of us who happen to be Canadian-born want any special privileges; and the idea in introducing this legislation is that we should give a fair chance to every man, Canadianjborn and1 non-Canadian born, and that if he is doing anything in any sehse detrimental to the best interests of the community he shall be regularly tried in open court, and if found guilty, deported, if you will-but given a fair trial first.
That, Mr. Chairman, as briefly as I can put it, is the contention embodied in this bill. I do not see how we could get at these subsections without having gone
Immigration Act

into that general question. I would read the first clause again:
1. iSubsection one of section two of chapter twenty-five of the statutes of 1919, being "An Act to amend The Immigration Act," is amended by repealing all such subsection from the proviso in subparagraph (t) to the end of the said subsection.
Section agreed' to.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am heartily in sympathy with this measure and for the information of the hon. member (Mr. Woods-worth) who has just resumed his seat I might say that, with the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) and several other hon. members, I opposed the law which it is now sought to repeal when it was first placed upon the statute books two years ago, at a time when this House seemed to be suffering from "jumpiness" and "nerves" induced by the long war. We had the idea that we could handle this question of undesirable immigrants very much better by permitting the immigration authorities, rather than our courts of justice, to pass upon their cases. I saw nothing at that time, nor have I seen anything since, which would cause me to alter my opinion that the proper forum for dealing with these cases is the court of justice in the district where the suspected party may be found.
I have some hesitation, Mr. Chairman, in speaking of immigration measures, for the reason that I happen to be the only member of a certain race in this House, and when I support a measure of this kind a portion of the press declare the following day that the measure is wanted only by a certain class of undesirable Jews whose views are put forward in the House by the member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs.) So I fear I am rendering a disservice to the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr Woodsworth) by backing up his measure; my support may do him more harm than good. I have been suffering for some time from attacks of this kind from certain elements in the community, particularly in the city of Montreal.
Now, I should like to cite to the committee something which appeared in the Star of Montreal yesterday, which I think will convey to them some idea of how foreign immigrants are looked upon in certain quarters. The article is entitled:
Civic Body to discuss influx of foreigners with resultant crime
Sixty per cent of serious crimes here committed by Foreigners, Official Declares-Would restrict flow into country.

Then the article proceeds:
The flow of foreigners into Canada, with a consequent increase in the number of serious crimes, will be discussed by a special committee of the City Council this afternoon. Aid. Trepanier will preside.
The name "Trepanier" is rather signi-fieant; it suggests the necessity of the operation of trepanning.
Correspondence will be read from the Union of Canadian Municipalities and from the Merchants' Association of Montreal, dealing with the subject, and pointing out the danger of an unrestricted flow of foreigners into the bigger cities.
A letter from J. Fitzgerald, manager of the Merchants' Association, states it is entirely too easy for criminal characters to come into Canada, and entirely too difficult to have them removed after they get into the country.
"I believe that eighty per cent-
This is what Mr. Fitzgerald believes:
I believe that eighty per cent of the serious crimes in Montreal are committed by people who have come into the city only a few months previous to the commission of the crime," says Mr. Fitzgerald.
I suppose he wishes to imply that as they remain longer in the country their desire to commit crimes becomes less,-that they are filled with a desire to commit crimes only for the first few months after they arrive. The article continues:
"The police, when they discover that bad characters are here, seem to have every difficulty in having them sent out of the country."
Then there is this significant paragraph:
The secretary-treasurer of the Union of Canadian Municipalities, A. D. Shibley, of Montreal,-
Whoever he is; I never heard of him.
-writing to Aid. Trepanier-
You will notice, correspondence is going on between Trepanier and Shibley which is designed to affect public opinion in the district.
A. D. Shibley, of Montreal, writing to Aid. Trepanier to offer co-operation in the movement to restrict foreign immigration, declared that from police head-quarters he had found that last year sixty per cent of the serious crimes, such as murder and robbery with violence, were committed by foreigners, whereas, in proportion to their numbers, fifteen per cent should be their percentage.
He allows them the right to commit crime, but only to the extent of fifteen per cent.
There was also a financial loss by burning of buildings and stocks of merchandise which it was known was attributable to foreigners, but in most cases it was impossible to prove it, and this cost the city millions every year.

Immigration Act
That is the kind of propaganda which is being indulged in by certain elements in the community.
A bill similar to this was introduced on two occasions by hon. members in this House in the last Parliament. The first bill, I believe, was sponsored by Hon. Mr. Calder, at that time Minister of Immigration and Colonization. After the war was over the government of which he was a member felt that there was no further necessity for any such drastic legislation. Mr. Calder's bill took away from the Department of Immigration the right to decide questions as to the desirability or undesirability of certain immigrants. The bill passed this House without opposition, but when it went to the Senate it met an untimely end. Later a bill of the same nature was introduced by the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe), but it also met the same fate when it reached the Senate. So I want to warn my good friend from Winnipeg that the passage of this bill may be met by some opposition when it reaches-I was going to say, that irresponsible Chamber, but I do not know that I will

that Chamber which is not responsible to the people. I assure him that if his bill passes this House and is defeated in the other Chamber I will support him from year to year until it becomes law, because I think it is a step in the right direction. It is something which is in consonance with British tradition and British practice, and it should pass this Chamber, unanimously.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Chairman, I think the suggestion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was the correct one in regard to the measure now before the committee, and I was glad to note that the promoter of the bill (Mr. Woodsworth) was willing to adopt that suggestion. This bill is a short one, but it involves a study of thirty or forty intricate sections and subsections of three or four distinct Acts of Parliament, and it would be idle for a committee of this size, with the time at our disposal, to give proper consideration to the important questions raised by the bill. I did not know the matter was coming on this afternoon, but I have hastily glanced over the various enactments-


Mr. IRVINE:: I would like to ask the hon. member how long it took his government to pass this act in the first place? He suggests that the matter involves a good deal of investigation.


Hugh Guthrie: In the first place, the matter received long consideration before it reached the House, and it was considered at great length in the House during the session in which it was passed. In my opinion there are not more than four or five members of the committee who understand this proposal, and I think I would be in the majority, of those who do not. I doubt if any one but the promoter himself does understand it. If such a measure as this is to be placed on our statute book, by all means let us understand it; let us have proper consideration of the various clauses. The suggestion of the Prime Minister was that the matter should go to a small committee to be fully considered in all its aspects and reported to this House. The Committee of the Whole can never fully examine the various clauses that are affected. My hon. friend who last spoke (Mr. Jacobs), in his own jocular way, endeavoured, I think, rather to minimize the importance of the question of the class of immigration that should be permitted to come into Canada. But it is a very large and very important question for this Dominion and one which should not be lightly dealt with. It is just possible that the present law is in some respects too drastic. I, for one, realize that it was placed on the statute book at a critical time in the history of the country. That critical period has more or less passed away, and it is quite possible that the law should be modified. But I have not in the time at my disposal been able to grasp fully the meaning or import of the proposal, nor have I been able to come to any conclusion as to what other legislation will be affected if the bill is passed and put into operation. For that reason, I think the promoter of the bill would do well to suggest that the committee rise and report progress, on the understanding that the bill be referred to a special committee with power to inquire into the matter and report fully to the House at the earliest possible moment.


Charles Marcil: I look
upon this question as a judicial one. I am familiar with the conditions existing in Montreal, and I know that no part of the country has received more foreigners during the last ten years or so than that city. We are all interested in protecting the standing of Canada and seeing that justice is meted out to members of all classes and all creeds coming into this country. But, like the member for South Wellington (Mr. Immigration Act

Guthrie), I am unable to give an intelligent decision on the action taken by the member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), and I would strongly support the idea of having the matter referred to a small committee of competent men so that the matter can be examined and inquired into. During the last few years the charge has been repeatedly made in the press of Montreal -I do not know whether or not it is well founded-that a large number of the crimes committed in the city have been committed by recent arrivals in this country. It is a case of protection of the people, not only of Montreal, hut of the whole of Canada, and the Government would be well advised to give this matter mature consideration through a small committee of competent men. I Support that idea and hope the Government will give effect to it.


Samuel William Jacobs: All that has been asked, as I understand it, toy this toil is that the law toe made the same as it was previous to 1919.


Hugh Guthrie: Nobody here knows what that was.


Mr. CRERAR:: I find myself in much the same position as the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). In attempting hastily to get the full import of this bill that is before the committee I found it necessary to examine many sections of the amended Immigration Act, and it is quite impossible, in the short time at one's disposal, to get an intelligent view of the whole matter. When the 'bill was before the House on a former occasion-I think on its second reading-the suggestion was made that it would toe referred to a special committee. I was certainly under the impression that that procedure was to toe followed, and I cannnot understand at the moment, having Come into the chamber after the consideration of the bill was commenced, how it has reached its present Stage. To my mind, the measure should be referred to a committee, and* it should be done at once. I am free to say that I am in general accord with the principle of the bill. The amendments to the act, particularly those drastic amendments which were passed in 1919 giving power to the officials of the Department of Immigration, to deport people without any fair trial, are not in accord with British practice and should not remain on our statute book. The question, however, is a large one. The bill seeks to repeal a good many sections of the act, and11 think it could well toe re-

ferred to a special committee for report. I would offer the further observation that the committee should be appointed at the earliest possible day and should make its report to the House as soon as it can, so that we may consider the matter and deal with it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad that apparently we have reached unanimity on this matter. It is quite true, as my hon. friend (Mr. Crerar) has said, that when the bill was before the House on a former occasion I indicated that from the point of view of the Government it should be referred to a special committee, and that the Government would take steps to ascertain the names of the members who should compose that committee. When the Whips undertook to get the names of the committee, I was informed that the leader of the Opposition objected to having the matter discussed by a special committee at all. I was unable to understand what objection there could be to that course because it seemed to me it would be impossible to have the bill satisfactorily dealt with in any other way, and I spoke to the leader of the Opposition personally about it, so as to make quite sure that that was his view. He expressed to me the opinion, quite emphatically, that he thought the bill ought to be threshed out here in Committee of the Whole instead of being referred to a special committee. As I said this afternoon, I did not like to proceed by way of special committee if there was any real objection to that course on the part of any group in the House. I think we have had sufficient discussion this afternoon to convince everyone that it would be impossible to have this bill properly dealt with in Committee on the Whole, and I therefore now move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise and report progress.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move that Bill No. 16, to amend the Immigration Act, be referred to a special committee the members of which are to be appointed at a later date, with power to report from time to time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the House to again go into committee on Bill No. 17, to amend the Criminal Code, Mr. Woodsworth:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: As this bill is related, I think, in some particulars to the

Immigration Act
one we have just referred to a special committee, I think it would be better to have it referred to the same committee. I therefore move that Bill No. 17 be referred to the committee to which Bill No. 16 was referred, and that this Order be discharged.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That procedure is quite satisfactory to me. I think it is much preferable that the matter should be threshed out in a special committee.


Hugh Guthrie: There is just this distinction between the present bill to amend the Criminal Code, and the one with which the House has just dealt. The present proposal is a very simple one, dealing practically with a single subject of the Criminal Code and involving the amendment of only one act of Parliament and one or two sections of that act. It relates to the crime known to our law under the name of sedition also to criminal conspiracies, I think. That is a matter, I think, that might fairly be dealt with by the Committee of the Whole House. However, I am not opposed to sending the bill to a special committee. I was unaware that my leader had taken a position in regard to this matter. I had never consulted him about it, but I am satisfied that if he had been here this afternoon and had heard the discussion so far as it has proceeded, he would have come to the conclusion that a special committee was proper in that instance. In the present case, speaking for myself, I am not opposed to this bill going to a special committee, although it contains a much simpler proposal than that involved in the amendment to the Immigration Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) Bill No. 45, to amend the Bankruptcy Act, was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-1919, c. 36, s. 3 amended:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Explain.


Samuel William Jacobs: I may say that a bill similar to this was introduced last year by me, but it failed to receive the support of the Government, which makes it necessary for me to trouble this Parliament with a like measure. This bill provides that it shall be an added ground for the making of a petition in bankruptcy if the debtor gives notice to any of his creditors that he has suspended or is about to suspend payment of any of his debts, and secondly, if he ceases to meet his liabilities generally as they become due.
Inasmuch as this bill deals with a somewhat technical matter known practically to the legal profession only, I would suggest that it be referred to the Banking and Commerce Committee for further study, so that we might have an opportunity of hearing from various delegations and others who are interested in the measure.


Mr MACKENZIE KING:: I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move that Bill 45 be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.


Hugh Guthrie: Just for the purpose of making myself clear on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it in order after a bill has been committed to the Committee of the Whole House to take it from that committee and send it to a select standing committee? If it is desired to refer a bill to a select standing committee, should not the motion be made immediately after the second reading, and before the bill has been referred to the Committee of the Whole House? I am raising the point of order simply that I may be enlightened.


Hewitt Bostock: A case of this kind does not often happen, but Bourinot provides a precedent for it. At page 527, fifth edition of Bourinot I find the following:
In case the committee of the whole has reported progress-*
As in this case.
-a motion may be made immediately before fixing the committee for a future date that the bill be referred to a select standing or other committee.
This is a case in point.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Jacobs, Bill No. 46, to amend the Railway Act was read the second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Kennedy (West Edmonton) Bill 54 to amend the Criminal Code was read the second time.
St. Lawrence Waterway
[Stage Direction]
Mr. KENNEDY (West Edmonton) moved, that the House go into committee on the bill.
Hugh Guthrie: I ask that the bill be allowed to stand until the next sitting of the House. The hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) mentioned this matter to me, and, I think he wanted to be present when the discussion took place. If the promoter has no objection, I ask that the bill stand until the next sitting of the House.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.



FINANCIAL CREDIT

[Stage Direction]
On the order for resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of Mr. Irvine:
That, in the opinion of this House a representative Parliamentary Committee should be appointed to investigate the basis, the function and the control of financial credit, and the relation of credit to the industrial problems.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This order will stand until the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is present.
Order stands.



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER WATERWAY

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 1, consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Church.
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government of Canada should give early and favourable consideration to the report of the International Joint Commission on the St. Lawrence River Waterway, and request the Government of the United States to join with Canada in making an international agreement for carrying out the work so recommended.
Mr. PAUL MERCIER (Westmount-St. Henri):: When the debate on this matter
was adjourned a few days ago, I was thinking that we would have to be careful in dealing with this project in Canada. When the people on the other side of the line come forward with a project of this nature they generally have a motive of interest. In fact everybody in this life acts from a motive of interest, and when I see the people living in the districts of the Great Lakes advocating this enterprise and many members endorsing it I am but little surprised.
Within the last few weeks we have seen in the newspapers that representatives of the United States' Senate favour this measure. Senator King, from Utah, and Mr. Ten Eyck, Member of Congress, for Buffalo have said:	We may have a piece

of land down the St. Lawrence valley, and we may buy another piece of land along the Great Lakes, to carry on our international project in Canada, but when the scheme is supported by these people who are interested so much it seems to me perhaps it is not a beneficial thing for our country.
The United States is surely the country which will derive the most benefit from this enterprise. Of course on our side certain districts of this country will benefit if the project is carried on, from the construction, but they will especially benefit from the development of that waterway. It will certainly he a great benefit to all the harbours and wharves situated along the Great Lakes, and will be a benefit to the ports of Detroit, Port Huron and Chicago, and even of Fort William. Steamers will carry in their holds gold and merchandise.
The people on the other side of the line who propose this project are entitled to do so. They have a right to advocate the policy best calculated to satisfy their ambitions, but I am convinced that the measure will be against the interests of Canada as a whole. For the past two months an educational campaign has been carried on in favour of the project. The United States, in order to obtain an advantage in the matter of transportation, have had the International Joint Commission report printed and distributed. The United States Senate passed a measure adopting that report and they sent it to Canada to try to obtain the approval of the representatives of this country in the House of Commons.
Is it advisable for a country like ours, which can develop itself within its own boundaries, to endeavour to associate with the people of the United States, to give them the advantage of knowing everything about our system of navigation, of importation, about all the secrets of the St. Lawrence river, its weak points, if there are any, and many other matters which affect the safety of our country and which should be kept secret. If we open our country to their steamships, within twenty-five years Canada will be their own because if a joint board is appointed that will have control of this new channel, we may be quite sure that influences of all kinds will be brought to bear upon that board to our disadvantage.
In my opinion-and my hon. friends opposite are not obliged to make the confession-this project will be very advantageous to them and perhaps to them only in the present situation and for perhaps

St. Lawrence Waterway
twenty-five years to come. But when they consider their prosperity, they should not be too ambitious. The province of Ontario at the present time is a rich province; it is getting along well and making all the progress it may desire. It is one of the oldest provinces of Confederation and it has surely attained the aims which it has had since Confederation.


Mr. MACLEAN (South York) :: Will the hon. gentleman deny us seaports?


Paul Mercier: I do not wish to deny Ontario seaports, but the ports which it has now are developing well and in the near future it may have the advantage of all the other ports that may exist in Canada. But if the people of that province want for themselves a channel that will bring to them the fullest measure of prosperity at the expense of the maritime provinces and the western provinces, I think they want a little too much under the circumstances, especially when such a project would mean burdening the whole people of Canada with an expenditure of nearly $300,000,000. This project cannot be seriously considered under present conditions because our finances are not in such a state as to warrant the investment of such a large amount of money in bringing such an enormous scheme to a successful conclusion. On account of the need for economy in public expenditure, many public works throughout the country have been stopped. Many provinces require some money for drydocks and public services. The Esqui-malt drydock is still unfinished and a large amount of money is needed to complete it. In different parts of Canada, there are wharves that are in need of repair, and there are channels to be dug so that they may be deep enough for the steamers that have to pass through them.
If we want to develop our country by providing further water transportation facilities, there is the Georgian Bay canal, which has been mooted for many years back. It would be a useful development for Canada, and it would shorten the route by 300 miles, if it is given preference to the St. Lawrence waterway. By the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, the people not only of Ontario, but of the whole of Canada, will benefit; and in northern Ontario better progress will be made, because the settlers of to-day and of tomorrow will have better transportation facilities in that district than, exist at present.
On looking at the report, which has been laid on the Table of this House, and copies of which have been sent to every member by direction of the Prime Minister, I see that many questions were asked, but the answers that have been given to those questions should have been given more plainly, because, upon those answers, depends the question whether the project of the St. Lawrence waterway is a good thing or not as regards Canada. The question is not so much whether it is right to spend a great deal of money on a project, as whether, when you invest money, under our present financial conditions, good results will he obtained. At pages 183 and 184 of the report, it may be seen that the answers, which were given to the questions put before the commission so as to inform the two governments of the United States and Canada, are not very clear. Question 6, which, to my mind, is a vital question as regards Canada's interests, reads:
What method of control is recommended for the operation of the improved waterway to secure its most beneficial use?
The answer read's:
The commission recommends (a) that such navigation works as do not lie wholly within one country or are not capable of economic and efficient operation withni one country as complete and independent units, be operated under the direction of the International Board as set forth in recommendation No. 7: (b) that all navigation works other than those particularly mentioned in (a) be operated by the country in which they are located with the right of inspection by the International Board as set forth in recommendation No. 8; (c) that power works' be operated by the country in which they are located as set forth in recommendation No. 9.
The "power works" are indeed, Mr. Speaker, the corner stone of the whole St. Lawrence waterways Scheme. No specific method of control is mentioned. That answer is an example of the answers given in the report. We have rio definite answers to any of the most important questions concerning this project. There are no facts available, and what little information we have been given is as vague as the passing clouds. Let me read question No. *9 and the an'swer thereto:
WThat traffic, both incoming and outgoing, in kind and quantity, is likely to be carried upon the proposed route both at its inception and in the future, consideration to be given not only to present conditions, but to probable changes therein resulting from the development of industrial activities due to availability of large quantities of hydraulic power?
Answer. To this question also it is impossible to give a specific answer, in the absence of definite information as to all the factors that will enter into the problem.
St. Lawrence Waterway

I agree with that statement, because the commissioners [DOT] cannot possibly foretell what is likely to happen in the future. The answer continued:
The commission has brought together authoritative information as to the existing traffic between the tributary area and overseas points as well as between the same area and coastwise points on this continent, and has reached the general conclusion that sufficient traffic will seek the new water route, etc.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a " general conclusion " is hardly a substantial enough basis to act upon in an undertaking of such tremendous importance as this, and I am not surprised that the commission cannot say definitely what amount' of traffic there would be. Before embarking upon an enterprise involving, as this work certainly would, an enormous expenditure of money and is, in my humble opinion, a national risk, there should be submitted to the governments, both of the United States and of Canada, something more definite and concrete than the generalities that have been put forward. There should be absolutely reliable information on Which dependable calculations can be made. Indisputable authority based on the carefully considered findings of civil engineering experts should be available. In 1918 the St. Lawrence Power Company, an American corporation, constructed a dam at Massena in the state of New York and the undertaking was opposed by the government of our country. The work was carried out, nevertheless, because the International Joint Commission considered that it was necessary as a war measure; and this House may rest assured that the St. Lawrence will stand to lose a considerable degree of power by the construction of that dam, to the advantage of our neighbours.
As I said the other night, let us be content to develop what resources Providence has given to each province, and let us work together for the welfare of the country as a whole, each province being satisfied with its own and not interfering with others. We have the resources in Canada and it only remains for us to develop them for us to become a prosperous nation. But, I repeat, do not let us try to grab from one another what is not ours. In 1911 Sir Wilfrid Laurier was questioned regarding the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. He said that the work was one of national character and would be carried through for the benefit and welfare of the whole Dominion. He said, " If I could do it to-morrow, I would carry
out that work." And Mr. Pugsley, who was then Minister of Public Works, brought down an estimate of $3,000,000 to start survey work in connection with the Georgian Bay canal. This project was generally supported at that time, and members representing Ontario and the city of Toronto urged the government to carry it through. To-day, however, they have evidently abandoned that scheme and want another one which would involve the country in untold debt, without any definite assurance of success. I think that the Government would do well to consider this matter very seriously indeed before taking any action at all.


Mr. BALDWIN:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. McCONICA:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Mr, Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: I caught the eye of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) first.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: As it is near six o'clock, I move the adjournment of the debate.


Thomas Henry McConica: I had hoped to say a word regarding this resolution, and for that reason


Hewitt Bostock: The motion is not debatable.
Motion agreed to and the debate adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the adjournment of the House:
Henry Lumley Drayton: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will take up the resolution respecting freight rates, and if we conclude the discussion thereon we shall resume with estimates, taking up those of the Secretary of State and Public Works.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
Thursday, May 4, 1922