1926-06-02

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for presenting reports:
Mr. SPEAKER:: Yesterday a question came up with regard to the report on a certain petition, and Objection was taken to the drafting of the report signed by Mr. Todd, who is the Examiner of Petitions. His report appears in the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday.
It was stated by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) that the examiner should not, so to speak, dictate to the House what course it should follow. I have read very carefully the report of Mr. Todd, who, by the way, has been almost fifty years in the service of parliament, and who is one of the most distinguished officials of this House. His report was not inspired by me, I need not say, and in my opinion Mr. Todd in presenting this report has followed what has been the practice of this House ever since my memory serves me.
Hon. members will see that Mr. Todd in his conclusions states:
The forai of this petition and its contents so far as the first part of the prayer is concerned are within the requirements of the 75th rule, and refer only to such matters as are within the right and competency of the House to deal with, should the House desire to do so; should, however, the course suggested in the second part of the prayer be taken by 'the House it would apparently have the effect of authorizing other persons to exercise a power which the House has already delegated by statute to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts.
Apparently the first part of the prayer of this petition is only of a preliminary nature leading up to the main request as contained in the second part, consequently, the prayer, (considered as a whole, brings this petition within the rulling of Mr. Speaker Lemieux given on the 6th May last, in a somewhat similar case, which ruling was subsequently sustained by the House on appeal, viz., that a petition which prays for any action to be taken by the House that might involve in any respect an interference with the provisions of the Controverted Elections Act, chapter 7, R.S.C., 1906, cannot be received.
Under these circumstances I have therefore the honour to report that this petition should not be received.
Mr. Todd does not order the House, he does not even direct the House, not to receive the petition. He simply states that in his opinion, as an officer of fifty years' experience, and having always reported in that way to the House, the petition should not be received. But the House, of course, is at liberty to receive it or not, as it sees fit.	.

I should like to point out this, and I am not now dealing with the merits of this case at all: Last year on two occasions, on the 17th of June and again on the 27th of June the Clerk of Petitions reported on two different petitions with this postscript: "Irregular. Would involve the expenditure of public money." And in the House, on the 17th of June, and again on the 27th of June, Mr. Speaker decided, following the immemorial usage:
That as the granting of the prayer of this petition wouild involve the expenditure of public money, it cannot be received.
The same wording is used this year as last year; therefore there has been no departure in this case from the procedure followed in former days. It is taken as a matter of course that when this official makes his report, provided it is not in excess of his authority and that he keeps within the meaning of his prescribed duties, the House always accepts it. As I said a moment ago, I am not now speaking on the merits of this case. I notice there is a motion to reject the report and to proceed further with this petition.
As the action of this official was called in question yesterday, let me read from the Classification of the Civil Service of Canada, which defines his duties:
Olerk of Petitions
Definition of Class:
Under direction, to receive and handle petitions presented by members of the House of Commons; to read and revise petitions in accordance with the rules; to bring to the attention of the Speaker such petitions as do not comply with the rules and to point out their defects.
I respectfully submit that Mr. Todd only pointed out in his report to the House and to the Speaker the defects contained in this petition.
The standard authority in this House is Bourinot, who for half a century almost was our guide at the Clerk's table. He left before he died to the officials of this House his directions regarding the powers and privileges of the Houses of Parliament as respects their officers, clerks and servants, in which he says:
The Houses cannot part with any of these privileges, immunities and powers, necessary for the conduct of *business, their existence and their dignity, except by statute expressly conveying and delegating their powera, immunities and privileges to others. For instance, in the trial of controverted elections, the Commons parted with their jurisdiction previously exercised by committees of their own, and handed it over to judges in express terms.
I quote this simply to remind the House that Mr. Todd, who for a long period was associated with his immediate chief, Sir John Bourinot, could not ignore the principles and precedents laid down by the late Clerk. Some

Red Lake Railway Company
of those principles are to be found in a concrete form in section 91 of the Controverted Elections Act. But as I said a moment ago,
I am not passing on the merits of the case at all. This is a.temple of free speech and of free thought (in matters affecting parliamentary procedure. There is a motion to reject that report and it is within the right of the House to accept or reject it. I simply wish to present these considerations in justice to Mr. Todd and to point out that he did his duty, and only his duty, by reporting respectfully to the House his candid and honest opinion in regard to the petition.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the petition is not before the House, or at least has not been received by it and will not be until a motion is made to that effect?


Hewitt Bostock: The petition is not received. The petition is laid on the table. The report was tabled yesterday and is printed to-day. It is now open to the House to take action with respect to it. I understand the Clerk received a motion last night to the effect that the report of the examiner on the petition should be rejected. I do not pretend to cite exactly the contents of that motion.


Ernest Lapointe: I think the motion is that the petition be received notwithstanding the report.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I rise only because of a reference in your judgment, Mr. Speaker, to the probability of my moving to-day the motion of which I gave notice yesterday. That was not my purpose. Indeed, I have no right to do so seeing that forty-eight hours' notice is necessary.



PACIFIC CABLE BOARD

Ernest Lapointe: I desire to lay on the table of the House a return moved for by Sir George Perley containing all the documents concerning the Pacific Cable Board.



RED LAKE AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a motion dealing with a private railway bill. May I just explain before I make the motion to refer this bill back to the select standing committee on Railways and Canals, that it is Bill No. 95, to incorporate the Red Lake and
Northwestern Railway Company. It came before the House some time ago and was sent to the Railway committee. When it came before that committee I was present so that if there appears to be-although there is not meant to be-any criticism in my words of the Railway committee, the criticism is as much of myself as of any other member of the committee. The bill has reference to a railway in northwestern Ontario, the section from which I come. I had never heard of the measure until it came before the committee and-I say this without disrespect to the committee in any way-we dealt with it rather briefly. I should like now, if the House will permit me, to make a motion referring the bill back to the committee. I have taken the matter up with some of the officers of the House and I am told that I am in order in doing so. The only thing I ask is that the bill be sent back to the committee. What becomes of it then is a matter for the committee to deal with; I am in no way concerned except in so far as it deals with a section of the country in which I am naturally interested, I therefore move, second by Mr. Lapierre, the hon. member for Nipissing:
That Bill No. 95, an act to incorporate the Red Lake and Northwestern Railway Company, :be referred back to the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines for reconsideration.
Speaking for a moment to the resolution, I wish to say that all I ask is that the committee have power to deal with the question again, because I am informed by those who are promoting the measure that they have information to give the committee at the present time which they did not give, or rather were not permitted to give, when the bill was last before the committee. I ask the House to allow the bill to go back to the Railway committee for them to deal with as they see fit. The section to be traversed by this projected line is a newly discovered mining district. It will probably mean great development for northwestern Ontario, and if the promoters of the enterprise can prove to the committee that this is a bona fide application for a charter with the intention of going on with the railway, and that they have the necessary financial support for the purpose of building this railway where no railway exists, it seems to me that the committee might well reconsider it. I am informed that the National Railways have no objection in any shape or form to this charter being given, but that is for the committee finally to deal with. I hope the House will permit this bill to go back to the committee for reconsideration.

Questions


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman is
within the rules in presenting his motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hewitt Bostock: Shall I say carried?
Carried.


Ernest Lapointe: On division.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	What was the total amount paid to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the carrying of mail matter in 1923, 1924, 1925, respectively?
2.	What was tlhe total amount paid to the National Railways for the carrying of mail matter dn 1923, 1924, 1925, respectively?
3.	What is the total mileage of the Canadian Pacific railway in Canada?
4.	What is the total mileage of the National railways in Canada?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.
Fiscal
year
1923-	24	S3,657,873	221924-	25	
3,619,511	661925- 26	*	3,642,236 64'
2.
Fiscal
year
1923-	24	$3,166,138	061924-	25	
3,195,404	511925-	26	
3,156,174	713.	13,542 miles in 1925.4.	20,782 miles in 1925.


IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY ON PACIFIC COAST
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has the government had under consideration for the past three or four years a proposal to subsidize an iron and steel industry on the Pacific coast?
2.	Did the government authorize counsel to draft a general act to be entitled "Resources and Industries Development Act' * ?
3.	If so, is it the intention of the government to introduce the said act this Session?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to give effect to a pledge dated September 25th, 1925, and made to Mr. R. G. McPherson, of Vancouver, over the signature of the Minister of Public Works, Hon. Dr. J. H. King, reading:-
"Now, however, we feel confident of being returned to power with a working majority, and immediateily we are so returned, or if returned as the largest group, we shall bring the Resources and Development Act before the House, and under this act, the British Columbia iron project will receive assistance to an . 
amount not to exceed $4,000,000, or an amount equal to the actual one-third of the proposed installation of iron and steel works.'*


Hon. Mr. KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No, but representatives of the company did present a drafted act.
3.	No.
4.	No such statement was made by the minister who, however, did advise Mr. McPherson as follows:
Now however we feel confident of being returned to power with a working majority and immediately we are so returned, or if returned as the largest group, we shall bring the Resources and Development Act before the government and under this act the British Columbia iron project if acceptable will receive assistance to an amount not to exceed four million dollars or an amount equal to the actual one third cost of the proposed installation of iron and steel works.


LOUISEVILLE POST OFFICE-CARETAKER
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Has Mr. Victor Heroux been appointed permanent caretaker for the post office at Louiseville?
2.	Is the government aware that the above person was born on April 2, 1864, and is more than 62 years did and therefore too old to enter the civil service?
3.	Has the Department of Public Works or the Civil Service Commission received applications from a number of citizens to fill the vacancy, if so, from how many ?
4.	Among the applicants were there any returned soldiers ?
5.	Was there a person by the name of Freddy R6gnier who claimed to have served three years in the war?
6.	Did this returned soldier 'by the name of R6gnier produce certificates of recommendation for the position? If so, from whom?
7.	Did the Department of Public Works and the Civil Service Commission receive protests against the report of the official, Mr. Gingras, of the Department of Public Works, charging said official of having been influenced and of having made a false report after his examination of applicants for said position?
8.	If so, by whom was said charge made?
9.	Did the department receive a request bearing 143 signatures from the citizens of Louiseville protesting against the appointment of Heroux and asking for 4 he appointment of a returned soldier?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Applicant gave his age as sixty-one.
3.	Applications were received from nine residents of Louiseville and two outsiders.
4.	Yes, two.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes, Hon. Dr. H. S. Beland; Senator J. H. Legris; Lt.-Col. H. Chasse, A. A. and Q:M.G., MJD. No. 4, late O.C. of the Royal 22nd Regiment; Canon L. A. Dusablon, P.P.; Dr. J. J. A. Legris; Auguste Desrosiers; Napoleon Chevalier and Omer Rinfret
7.	Yes.
8.	Senator J. H. Legris.
9.	No.

Question*


HALIFAX HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. SPENCE (Maple Creek):: How much money has been spent by the Dominion government since 1911 on the harbour improvements at the port of Halifax?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Department of Public Works-
$1,693,772.33 including Halifax graving dock which was eventually sold to the Halifax Shipyards Ltd., for the sum of $1,250,000, payable by annual instalments.
Department of Railways and Canals-
From 1911 to March 31, 1926, there has been spent by this department on harbour terminals at the port of Halifax $17,354,903.29.


TORONTO VIADUCT AND TERMINALS
Mr. SPENCE (Maple Creek):: 1.	How much money has been expended by the Dominion government and the Canadian National Railways on the Toronto viaduct scheme and the Toronto union terminals?
2.	What further amounts will be required?


Ernest Lapointe: Department of Public Works-
1.	No expenditure made on the Toronto viaduct scheme and the Toronto union terminals but this department constructed postal station "A" which forms the eastern wing of the new Union station, at a cost of $1,708,278.25.
Note-In addition to the above expenditure for construction of building now completed, there is an annual charge of $17,000 for rent of site and a varying sum of about $6,000 per year for municipal taxes on same.
2.	No information.
Department of Railways and Canals

1.	The amount expended by the Canadian National Railways is $4,458,500, which includes the Canadian National Railways' proportion of the new station.
2.	Chapter 70, 1924 and chapter 28, 1925, authorized the expenditure of $10,577,500 of which $4,458,500 has been expended to date.


TRANSLATION OF DEBATES
Mr. POULIOT:: What is the name of the translator who translated page 3710 of Hansard May 20, 1926?


Hewitt Bostock: I am informed that the
translators in question are Messrs. Chevassu and Fauteux.


FITZROY HARBOUR-QUYON FERRY SERVICE
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1. Were tenders asked for the contract for ferry service between Fitzroy Harbour, Ontario, and Quyon, Quebec ?
2.	If so, what are the names of (those who submitted tenders and the amounts of their respective tenders?
3.	Who was awarded the contract, and was it the lowest tender?
4.	If not the lowest tender, why was the award so made?


Hon. Mr. KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(1) James Amm and J. L. Amm, $200 per annum; (2) J. A. McLean, $50 per annum; (3) H. Owens, $40 per annum.
3 and 4. No license has been granted. Tenders are still under consideration.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. DAVIS:: Far a coipy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the department and any persons whomsoever, with regard to the suspension of Indian Agent Faunt of the Blood Indian reserve at Oardston. Also a copy of the report sent to the department by Inspector Christensen of Regina in this connection.


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: If the words "the suspension of" in the third line are deleted, I am quite willing that the motion should pass. I ask for the omission of the words referred to for the reason that the agent was never suspended.
Motion as amended agreed to.
TORONTO HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS Mr. CHURCH:
For a copy of all telegrams, letters, correspondence and other documents passing during the year 1926, between any person or persons addressed ito the government, or to the Prime Minister, or Ministers of Public Works and Marine and Fisheries, or other ministers, relating to a federal commission re Toronto harbour improvements, or to the appointment of Mr. L. G. McCarthy, K.C., ex-M.P., or others, as special commissioner, and the replies of the government sent thereto. Also a copy of all correspondence from A. A. Mulholland or A. O. Hogg, or others, on the same question; and all correspondence relating to the appointment in 1923 and 1924 of these two persons as representatives of the federal government on the said commission. Also all correspondence relating to the election of a chairman of the commission during 1926, between the government or any member thereof, and any other person or persons.


DISMISSAL OF SYDNEY DES BRISAY
Mr. DOUCET:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, telegrams, and other documents, in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Sydney Des Brisay, as postmaster at Petit Rooher, Gloucester county, New Brunswick, together with a copy of charges made against said postmaster, evidence taken at the enquiry and report of the investigation.
C.N.R.-Substitite Securities


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved .that the House go into committee at the next sitting of the House to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for the extension of the provisions of chapter 11 of the statutes of 1918 (relating 'to guarantee on renewal or postponement of indebtedness of ithe Canadian Northern Railway system), to the Canadian National Railway Company and to a-ny company referred to in the Canadian National Railway Act, 1919 (1919, c. 13), and in the act relating to the Grand Trunk Railway system (1920, c. 13), and to enable each one of such companies to issue its notes, obligations or other securities, hereinafter called "substituted securities," for the purpose of acquiring, by application of the proceeds thereof, or by exchange therefor, the notes, obligations or other securities or indebtedness of any other or others of such companies, and to authorize the Governor in Council to guarantee the substituted securities.
Hewitt Bostock: Is the minister making
the usual statement as to His Excellency the Governor General recommending the resolution to the favourable consideration of the House?


Mr. DUNNING:: It is not necessary, as
I understand.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Explain.


Charles Avery Dunning: This bill is legally
necessary, to enable the Canadian National Railway Company to arrange for the issue of securities and their sale, in order to redeem the securities already outstanding in connection with the various constituent companies. Certain facilities already exist in legislation to enable this to be done, but I am informed that they are not legally sufficient to enable the company to deal with the matter. The bill of course will go very much more fully into detail and into safeguarding than the resolution, but that is the objective.


Arthur Meighen: In case of borrowings
heretofore for the purpose of refunding-that is for the purpose of discharging existing debts-were not those debts in nearly every case the debts of the constituent companies? Therefore was not the power exercised just the same power asked for here?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not exactly. If my
right hon. friend will refer to the two authorities which now exist he will see that a break existed. We can discuss this matter very much better when we have the sections of the bill before us. Another point I might

mention just now is that the original authority only gave us power on maturity of securities, and not prior to maturity of securities.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camrose):: I desire
to draw the attention of the government to an item which appears in to-day's Journal which reads:
Referring to the statement of Hon. Ernest Lapointe in the House of Commons this afternoon, Premier J. E. Brownlee told the Canadian Press that he maintained the same opinion as he had expressed previously.
"The validity of section 17 has nothing to do with the transfer of nautral resources to Alberta," he said. "That was our stand in the House and it is stilll. If the Dominion government wants to take the matter to the courts they do so at their own responsibility. We do not think that is necessary."
In view of this statement and the fact that the validity of section 17 is a matter entirely for separate consideration, will the government not reconsider its decision and, at an early period during the present session carry out its promise, as embodied in the Speech from the Throne which has been passed by this House, to introduce a bill for the transfer of its natural resources to the province of Alberta?


Ernest Lapointe: I have nothing to add to the statement which I gave to the House yesterday. The question of the validity of section 17 of the act was the cause of any difficulty that had arisen in this matter.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister be
prepared to say what is to be the policy of the government with respect to the resolution on the subject standing on the order paper in the event of the courts declaring the prior legislation valid, and in the event of the courts declaring it invalid.


Ernest Lapointe: I have nothing to add to the statement I made yesterday, which I think was complete.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISCUSSION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: In view of the paragraph which the hon. member (Mr. Lucas) has just read, as to the validity of section 17 may I ask a question-

Alberta Natural Resources


Hewitt Bostock: The matter has already
come up this afternoon on a question of privilege.


Thomas Langton Church: I intended to refer to
Hon. Mr. Brownlee's reported statement. There are questions of policy and of law involved in the matter. The question of law was referred to yesterday in the statement of the Minister of Justice, although it was dealt with and settled by parliament in 1905. The policy was amended in the King's Speech at the opening of parliament, and I would like to ask if an opportunity will be given to discuss this policy, as I desire next week to bring it up on the motion to go into supply.


CORRESPONDENCE TABLED
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I lay on the table of the
House a copy of the correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of Alberta with reference to subsection (a) of section 2 of the Alberta Natural Resources bill.


Arthur Meighen: I presume this is as
promised yesterday-or intended to be?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I asked for the entire
correspondence with the government of Alberta with respect to the whole bill,, not just as respects one section.


John Warwick King: I understood
the right hon. gentleman had reference to that one section-


Arthur Meighen: Yes I had reference to
that, but I think I made it general.


John Warwick King: I shall be glad to secure the remainder.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	A few days ago I
was asked by the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox) regarding the Weston-Woodbridge line of the Canadian National Railways. I am now advised that the line is being lifted on account of a very large loss in operation running as high as $1,500 a mile; that all the proceedings taken have been regular with regard to it; but that in consequence of representations received to the effect that there might be a purchaser, the actual work of dismantling the line has been
discontinued for thirty days in order to give prospective purchasers an opportunity if they so desire to put in an offer for the line.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec-South):: With reference to resolution No. 17 standing in my name on the order paper with regard to the ancient walls and fortifications of the city of Quebec, with the consent of the House I would ask that this resolution be dropped because there is no likelihood of its being reached this session and because I intend to discuss it at some length when the estimates are before the House.


Hewitt Bostock: Of course this can be done only by unanimous leave of the House and I suppose it is granted. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman shall have leave to withdraw the resolution standing in: his name?


Arthur Meighen: Just so that I shall not
misunderstand for the future, I understood you, Sir, to rule that the hon. member for Quebec South could not withdraw his resolution except by unanimous consent?


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the House.


Arthur Meighen: I understood the rule to be that a motion was entirely within the power of the mover until such time as it was addressed to the House from the Chair when it became the property of the House and that prior to that time he could withdraw it of his own volition.


Hewitt Bostock: The rule is that the order under which the motion stands should be called. I forget if I called it, but I took it for granted that nobody would object to an hon. member dropping a motion standing in his name. I asked for the unanimous leave of the House and I understood it to be given. Strictly speaking, I should have called the notice of motion standing in the hon. members's name. I am ready to review my interpretation of the rule.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the point the
leader of the opposition is making is that it is open to any hon. member who has a resolution standing in his name to withdraw it at any time of his own volition without asking the consent of the House.


Arthur Meighen: Until it is addressed to
the House from the Chair when it becomes the property of the House.
Privilege-Mr. Heenan


Charles Gavan Power: The question is not one of the rule, but of an hon. member being polite to his fellow members.
Motion dropped.
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY On the Orders of the Day:


Henry Lumley Drayton: I desire to ask the leader of the House whether be will table the files relating to the Georgian (Bay Canal Company. I have particular reference to the files containing later correspondence and applications for the approval of plans.	'


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not sure that I am
fully aware of what my hon. friend wants. Undoubtedly the correspondence will be in other departments than those over which I have control and I wish to confer with the ministers first. I will give my hon. friend an answer to-morrow.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The only reason I referred the matter to my right hon. friend was that we learned before that the correspondence was in several departments and I thought we might reach them all through him.


COLD LAKE FOREST FIRE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I wish to draw the attention of the government to question No. 1 on the order paper in relation to a forest fire near Cold Lake, Alberta, in October, 1925. I put this question on the order paper more than four weeks ago and I am at a loss to understand why an answer has not been given. I shall be glad if an answer can be given at an early date.


Charles A. Stewart: The difficulty is that we have to send to the forest rangers in the Cold Lake district for reports. We have not received a report yet from the resident ranger in that territory, but as soon as we receive it I shall be glad to answer my hon. friend's question.



PRIVILEGE

[Stage Direction]
STATEMENT BY ME. HEENAN On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: On a question of privilege I want to draw the attention of the House to an editorial in the Toronto Star of yesterday's date. This editorial misconstrues my state-
ment made in this House in my speech on the 11th May. It is headed "The Heenan-Robertson dispute" and reads:
The recent dispute between Peter Heenan, M.P. for Kenora and Rainy River, and Senator Gideon Robertson as to certain features of the general strike in Winnipeg in 1919 shows both parties to have faulty memories, although they were in the Manitoban capital at the time.
Mr. Heenan was inaccurate in charging that the senator, as Minister of Labour, ordered into Winnipeg troops who fired on a crowd with fatal results. The only volleying that took place was (by the North West Mounted Police, forty-nine of whom were regularly stationed in the city.
Senator Robertson, on the other hand, was wrong in ihis statement that the only man shot was a foreigner who persisted dn throwing a missile after being warned by policemen. The red-coated "mo unties", after charging the mob several times, using clubs upon the scattering rioters, took up position dn front of the city jhaJll and on the word of command fired a volley with their revolvers. The Canadian Annual Review, in its report of the ocouirrenc, stated that one rioter was killed and that there were thirty-three other casualties, of which sixteen were mounted policemen.
This is not fair to me because I did not charge that the senator as Minister of Labour ordered troops into Winnipeg. What I said is this and it will be found on page 3286 of Hansard:
All tha-t was necessary in the Winnipeg trouble was that the Minister of Labour, who was on 'the job, should have used a little horse sense, and there would have been no blood shed. But instead of that, they
chose to 'have the troops sent in	I say the
government is entirely responsible for that
I want to repeat that statement. I have nothing to retract and I am now ready to prove that my statement is correct in its entirety. I intended to do this some time during the session, but if I have the unanimous consent of the House, I would prefer to do it now.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman has
stated the question of privilege. Bourinot at page 303 says:
In the Canadian House, questions of privilege take a wide range, but it may be stated in general terms that they refer to all matters affecting the rights and immunities of the House collectively, or to the position and conduct of members in their representative character. In this category may be placed: motions touching the seat or election of members; reflections or libels in books and newspapers on the House or members thereof-
And so on. The hon. gentleman has stated his case; he has denied the accusation brought against him in another place than this building, and I consider that the incident is closed.


Arthur Meighen: I may add that it will be very unfair to have the hon. member go into the matter, because if he seeks to estab-

Immigration Act
lish what he said he will be absolutely wrong and I desire on that ground to take issue with him because I know the facts myself.


Peter Heenan: In view of the statement just made-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: I am rising to a question of privilege.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: I know it is against the rules to refer to any gentleman in the Senate, but now that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has contradicted my statement, surely it is only fair, both to himself and to his colleague in the other House as well as to myself, that- I should be given an opportunity to state my case.


Arthur Meighen: At the proper time.


Peter Heenan: Mir. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: If there are any hon. gentlemen opposite who have any objections to my proceeding, they do not want to hear the truth.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. CAHAN:: I rise to a point of order. There is a proper time for the hon. member to make his statement, and that time is not now. Under the rules of the House he is not in order.


Hewitt Bostock: I would advise the hon. member to let the matter stand as it is. He has made his statement on a question of privilege and has given his explanation. Now objection is taken by another hon. member to that statement. The hon. member objecting thinks he is in the right and the other in the wrong, and I do not see what interest the House can have in amplifying the debate.


Peter Heenan: Before we get through the House will have to listen to the discussion -of this question. It is bound to come up anyhow. Why not therefore thresh it out now?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: I intend to take it up in .any case and I will do so. Why not discuss at now?


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member may
avail himself of many opportunities to debate the question, which apparently is controverted, at least in essence. On this occasion he has made his statement on a question of privilege and-


Peter Heenan: Now I want to prove it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: -it is not permissible ru the orders of the day that a debate should ensue on a question of privilege.



IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 28 consideration in committee of Bill No. 91, to amend the Immigration Act-Hon. Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)-M'r. Duff in the chair.
Charles A. Stewart: When the bill was before the committee some days ago a question was raised as to the propriety of the proceedings in view of a mistake having been made in the single amendment comprising the reprinted bill. I promised to take the matter up with counsel, and I have ascertained from the Clerk of the House that the committee is in order in discussing the bill without reintroducing it inasmuch as the principle remains unchanged. All that has been altered is the wording of the amendment. My hon. friend (Mr. Boys) raised a question regarding the persons who are required to send in the report. We are seeking to amend section 41 of the Immigration Act which provides that upon certain offences being committed by aliens the board appointed by the minister for the hearing of such cases shall have authority, if necessary, to deport without trial before a court. We are now changing that regulation to provide for trial before the court; and upon conviction the immigration authorities shall undertake the deportation of the convicted persons. I think the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) wanted to know whether the offences remained. They do. I think I have answered all the points raised in the discussion.


Charles A. Stewart: Is there any change made to meet the point raised by the hon. member for Simcoe?


Charles A. Stewart: No; we have not altered the provisions as to who shall report. The old practice has been satisfactory and we are letting the same parties report to the immigration authorities for the purpose of deportation.


Mr. BOYS:: When the bill was last before the committee I pointed out that under the former section it was not a question of conviction but of complaint, which is a different thing. In the case of a conviction the proper person to send in notification is the magistrate presiding or some other judicial
Immigration Act

officer, perhaps a county court judge. I do not see why three men should be required to submit the report.


Charles A. Stewart: In the majority of these cases the municipality is the most interested party, and I see no harm in allowing the clerk of the municipality to report.


William Alves Boys: Confine it to the clerk of the municipality, then. I do not object to his sending in the report, but the point is that one person and not three should be charged with this duty. I want to impress upon the minister that under the former section there is no question of conviction, whereas here the only occasion for notification arises when there is an actual conviction. Surely the proper person to send in that notification would be either the clerk of the court or the magistrate or other judicial officer convicting.


Arthur Meighen: I want to make one comment on the wording of the bill. The word "complaint" is hardly appropriate; it should be "report." Why should an officer of the department complain because someone was convicted? He should rather be glad. He has simply to report the facts. The next observation I make has reference to the explanatory note, in which I find the following words under (b):
To remove ithe discrimination against tihe British born as it stands in tihe existing section, by recognizing his Canadian citizenship as in the case of the alien bom who has been naturalized in Canada.
I do not know who is responsible for that wording, but it is a most unfair and incorrect description of the law as it stands.


Charles A. Stewart: The discrimination was removed two years ago, I think.


Arthur Meighen: It never was there to be removed. There never was any discrimination. I am not objecting to the clause being repealed. If I remember rightly a bill to repeal it was introduced by the late government in its last session-but failed in the Senate-on the ground merely that the circumstances which gave rise to the legislation and justified it no longer existed and that there was no need of keeping people in apprehension and unnecessary worry. But to assert that there was in it discrimination against the British bom is pure nonsense; there was nothing of the sort. The act provided that anybody coming to Canada- whether he was British-born or not did not matter-of the type and character described therein was subject to deportation. That is

to say, the discrimination in favour of the British-born which theretofore existed was removed as regards this class of people. If, for example, somebody came from France or from Italy of the type described in the act, he was subject to deportation upon inquiry before a board and proof that such was his character; but if a fellow came from somewhere in Scotland or England and was of just the same type, and was just the same menace to the country, there was no way of getting rid of him except by the formality of a trial. Under the circumstances of those times you could not do that. The minister, if he will take his mind back to those days, will recall that there was justification for this act. We did not impose any special discrimination against'the British-born immigrant at all; we removed something which was in his favour for the time being. I do not know that such a person would have very much to complain of if that enactment were allowed to stand. I do not know why an anarchist coming from Britain should be better treated than if he came from some other country. We ought to treat them all alike and give them all the same chance. But we do not want to encourage immigrants who believe in overthrowing government by force. For my part I would treat them all alike, whether British-born or natives of any other country. However, I do not think we are likely to get any of this type now, and I am not objecting to the repeal of the act.


Charles A. Stewart: The section does not discriminate.


Arthur Meighen: But the explanatory
note would make it appear so.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Section 41 says that it shall be the duty of any officer:
forthwith to send a written complaint to the minister, giving full particulars.
I presume that after conviction and the receipt of a written report it is optional with the minister to order deportation of the convicted person; or does conviction settle his deportation?


Charles A. Stewart: I think the same system would prevail as, for instance, under the Narcotic Drug Act.
4 p.m. Where an alien is convicted of an offence under that act we are notified and are required to have an officer on hand to deport the convicted person as soon as he has served his term.

Imrr&qratiov. Act


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is only
in connection with certain offences under the Narcotic Drug Act. ,
Mr. STEWART . (Edmonton):	Yes, but
that procedure will apply generally if the conviction specifically provides for deportation of the convicted person.


John Wesley Edwards: That is just the point. Where an. alien is convicted of any of the offences enumerated in the explanatory note, does the fact of his conviction involve his deportation; or is it optional with the minister after receipt of the report to order deportation?


Charles A. Stewart: It is not
obligatory on the part of the minister in every case, for the reason that under the act as it stands the board passes upon the case, and they may or may not order deportation; but where we think the offence is so serious that the court would register a conviction, we would order deportation. I cannot conceive of any such case where we would not exercise our right of deportation, because the convicted person would certainly be an undesirable citizen. Of course, if it could be proven that he had been wrongfully convicted the case would be different.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the
minister is right in not hazarding a statement that the department would have to act. As a matter of fact it would not have to act. All he is doing now is to substitute a conviction for the former initial proceedings which gave the department jurisdiction to order deportation. It seems to be entirely a matter of departmental regulation or ministerial responsibility as to whether there would be deportation. I would not suggest that the bill be delayed now, but I think the government might well have their representative in the Senate suggest that authority be given to judges to deal with deportation. Some high court judges have spoken to me about it, as I have no doubt they have to the Minister of Justice, and suggested that in certain crimes, instead of imposing sentence of imprisonment, they should have the right to order deportation, to be carried out under the rules and regulations of the department. In this way they think that the Canadian standard of citizenship could be very much better maintained and alien criminals more effectively controlled. It seems to me the government have started the movement in making this provision as to conviction. The logical thing to do now is to give the presiding judge the right to order or recommend deportation.


Mr. HEAPS:: Have not the judges the
right now to recommend deportation?
.Sir HENRY DRAYTON: Only under the Narcotic Drug Act I think, but I confess 1 am not sure about it.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend desires that the judge be given authority to deport rather than convict an alien?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The first step
is a conviction. After that if it is a proper case for deportation why should the country be put to the expense of maintaining the criminal here? Why should there not be an immediate deportation, and why should he not direct and find accordingly? The Minister of Justice is now in. He might talk this over with his law officers and see what can be done. There is just one other thing. I think the minister ought to state, and if there is any doubt about it the Minister of Justice himself ought to state, in order that we may have at least a fair criticism of existing laws, that section (b) of the explanatory notes is entirely wrong. There is no discrimination at all, and whoever was responsible for the drafting of that note has drawn something that is absolutely incorrect.


Charles A. Stewart: The difficulty is that these explanatory notes are put in after the bill is sent to the House. I think the attention of the law officers has been directed to the matter sufficiently by the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for West York to make any necessary correction.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon.
friend says he agrees, there is an end to it.


Charles A. Stewart: I have an
amendment to make. I move to substitute the word "report" for the word "complaint" which appears in the last line but one of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BURY:: There is just one matter that has come to my notice which perhaps the minister may be able to settle. On the last occasion this bill was before the committee, I asked whether the offences in section 41 of the act of 1919, which is set out in the explanatory note, were covered by the new and shorter repealing section, and the minister said yes. That is satisfactory, but I notice now that there is a bill coming up, Bill No. 153, to amend the Criminal Code.


Charles A. Stewart: May I just point out to my hon. friend that all the offences mentioned in this section that we
Immigration Act

are repealing will come up under the Criminal Code amendment, and will be dealt with under the Criminal Code, not under the Immigration Act.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is not the point. I understand that we are here merely substituting a new section for the present section in the Immigration Act of 1919, defining the causes of deportation by references to the offences in part 2 of the Criminal Code. Then I asked, will that make any difference in the offences for which deportation will lie under the new amendment? The minister said no. I would be quite satisfied with his statement, but I want this to be considered: There is a bill coming up to amend the Criminal Code. It deals specifically with part II of the Criminal Code, and according to Hansard, it deals with the section that has to do with unlawful assemblies, and what I should like the minister to be sure of is that while now all the offences under the present section are covered by part II of the Criminal Code, they will be covered by part II of the Criminal Code after the amendment proposed to be made by bill No. 153 has been made. In other words, will the amendment to bill No. 153 cancel any of these offences?


Charles A. Stewart: That is not my understanding.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I do not know whether I
have made my point plain. We have the assurance of the minister that today part II of the Criminal Code covers all these offences for which deportation now lies.


Charles A. Stewart: Just at
that point, my hon. friend is speaking of the Criminal Code as it exists now. I am not sure as to that, but when the amendment is made these offences will be covered.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Oh no, that will not do, because when the amendment to the Criminal Code comes up this act will have been passed, I take it. I would like to know before we pass this bill whether the amendment to be made to bill No. 153, which is not yet before the House at all-we have not even seen a copy of it-


Charles A. Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend that these two bills were harmonized by the two departments.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: So long as I have the minister's assurance on that point.


Charles A. Stewart: There has
been some delay on that account, but the
IMr. C. A. Stewart.]
two bills will harmonize so that we shall be able to take action under the amended Criminal Code.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Can the minister assure us
that bill No. 153, when it is passed, will not cut out some of the offences that are now deportation offences under the Immigration Act?


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed that they are all covered.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Even after the amendment?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is all I want.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: The explanation given by the minister with regard to the bills referred to by the hon. member for East Edmonton brings up a question that arose early in the session. The minister, when asked the other night as to who was pressing for this legislation, intimated that it originated with his department. Now there is a relationship between the bills referred to by the hon. member for East Edmonton- the Immigration Act, the Criminal Code amendment, and the Naturalization Act. It is also quite apparent that early in the session a good deal of pressure was being brought to bear on the government to exact promises from them with regard to certain legislation. It also happened that these are mentioned in connection with a letter which was placed upon the records of parliament by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), a letter from the Prime Minister, which has been referred to as a supplement to the Address which was presented at the opening of parliament. It was somewhat significant that this letter was demanded by certain members of this House, and the Prime Minister took the unusual course, after having had an interview with those parties, of writing a letter to have it placed on Hansard immediately before the vote was taken in this House on the Address. These amendments that are now coming up are the fulfilment of the promises which were contained in that letter, over the signature of the Prime Minister, addressed to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. These amendments are coming up piecemeal, to one bill after another, and as the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) has pointed out, there is a direct relationship and bearing between these three bills. Reference was made to this early in the session in connection with the alleged bargaining which was going on between the government and certain groups in this House, but that was ruled out of

Immigration, Act
order by the chairman. To-day we are witnessing the attempt to deliver the goods in connection with the promises which were contained in a letter from the Prime Minister, addressed to the leader of a certain group in this House. I think it would be well to have a thorough understanding with regard to the relationship of these three bills, one to the other, before this bill is allowed to pass.


John Warwick King: I must thank my hon. friend for bringing up this matter. A good deal of discussion, as he says, took place upon it when I was not present in the House and had not an opportunity of being heard. May I just say to him at once that if he makes the statement that any letter of the kind was demanded, he unconsciously or consciously makes a statement which is not correct; it is not true. There was no demand made upon me, there was no demand made upon the government for any letter whatever.	'	,
My hon. friend goes on to say that this legislation is part of a bargain between the government and certain members of this House. I want to take direct issue with him, and tell him that it was in no particular a bargain. There was no bargain whatever of any kind, and when he makes that statement he makes a statement that is incorrect and untrue.


Robert James Manion: I rise to a point of order. I do not think the Prime Minister has any right to used the word "untrue" in regard to a statement made by any member of this House.


John Warwick King: I am saying the statement is untrue. I do not say the hon. member is consciously making an untrue statement but that the statement itself is untrue and in saying that I am well within the rules of the House.


Robert James Manion: I ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman, as to whether the Prime Minister has the right to say that a statement made by any member of this House is untrue.


John Warwick King: Whether made by any person in this House or outside of it. I am not saying the hon. meimber has made a statement which he believes and1 knows to be untrue. What I am saying is that any person in any part of this Dominion who declares that any bargain was made between the government and the Ion. members for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. IVoodsworth) and North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) with respect to legislation now before the House is stating something that is absolutely untrue.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I ask for
your ruling in regard to that point. May I speak to the point of order? I know that again and again in this House the ruling has been given by Mr. Speaker that one hon. member cannot say of another hon. member that he made a statement which is false. I know that I have been called down for that myself. I ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, on this point.


John Warwick King: There is a
great difference, as I think my hon. friend recognizes, between saying that a certain statement is untrue and deliberately charging a member with making a false statement. I was very careful to say that the hon. member might, quite unconsciously, be making a statement which was untrue. I do not wish to reflect on the hon. member at all but I will say this: If any person hereafter makes that statement, in view of the denial of it which I am making at the present time he will be stating that which is untrue; I cannot put the case any plainer. The hon. members from Winnipeg are occupying their seats at this moment. They know whether there was any demand made upon me or upon the government for this legislation or for any letter or communication in regard to the same. They know whether this was part of a bargain or not; and I leave it to them to say whether or not I state the truth when I assert that the legislation we are considering now is legislation that has been two or three times before the House in previous sessions and that when I was asked in the early part of the session whether this legislation would be included in any legislation contemplated by the government I made it quite clear that the government did intend to re-introduce certain legislation which had been previously before the House.


Robert James Manion: I should like your ruling
on the point-of order, Mr. Chairman.


The CHAIRMAN:: The point of order
raised by the hon. member for Fort William is that the Prime Minister should not say that the statement made by the hon. member-


Donald Sutherland: Before you give your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I merely ask the Prime Minister if he was speaking on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Fort William. Because I should like to say something before you give your decision, and if permitted I will refer to the letter over the Prime Minister's own signature in Hansard of January 29. Possibly he will deny having written the letter. The state-
Immigration Act

ment was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that when they came to this parliament at the opening of the session a letter-


William Duff: The hon. gentleman is not speaking to the point of order by reading a letter of the Prime Minister.


Donald Sutherland: My contention is, Mr. Chairman, that every statement I have made is borne out by the records of this House.


William Duff: The hon. member for Fort William raises the point of order that the Prime Minister has declared that the statement made by the hon. member for South Oxford is untrue. I rule that the Prime Minister was quite in order in his declaration-*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Duff: *-as there was in it no personal reflection on the honour of the hon. member for South Oxford.


John Warwick King: May I go on to say-


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, I have
no objection to that ruling, in fact I think there has been such a ruling before, but I know the very opposite has been held against us repeatedly this session. I propose to quote your present ruling, Mr. Chairman, if that is ever done again.


John Warwick King: Perhaps I may continue with what I was saying.


William Duff: Before the Prime Minister proceeds I may say that I am only responsible for my own ruling, I am not responsible for the ruling of any other occupant of the chair.


Arthur Meighen: I think we had better have some uniformity of ruling here. On account of the rulings which have been given by Mr. Speaker in this matter, and in order to get that uniformity, I appeal, Mr. Chairman, from your ruling.
The Speaker having resumed the chair the question was put as follows:
In the course of the debate on Bill No. 91, the Prime Minister said that a cent-ain statement made by the member for Oxford South was untrue. A point of order was raised on the ground that the word "untrue" was unparliamentary. The Prime Minister replied that the word applied to the statement made by the member for Oxford South and not to the honourable member himself.
The Chairman ruled that in the circumstance the expression was not unparliamentary.
From this decision the right hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) appealed to the House.


Arthur Meighen: I think I caught the
way this matter was put to you, Mr. Speaker, by the Chairman of committees, and I take exception to it. The question is much more simple than that presented to you in the written statement given by the Chairman of committees. The statement made by the Prime Minister-at least the only statement objected to-was that a certain remark of the hon. member for South Oxford was untrue. A point of order was raised by the hon. member for Fort William that the statement of the Prime Minister was out of order. The Chairman of committees ruled that it was in order from which decision, for the sake of uniformity in the application of the rules of this House, I appealed. The question of circumstance was never raised by the chairman in making his ruling, nor could it 'be raised. It was the mere statement that the statement of the member for South Oxford was untrue. That and that alone is before the Speaker for decision. *


John Warwick King: In connection
with what the right hon. member has just said, I wish to draw attention to this fact: the statement referred to is a statement which relates to myself personally. I am the only one who can say whether or not that statement is true, and I was saying that the statement was untrue. I was in no way seeking to reflect on the hon. member. _ I took good care to say he might be unware that it was untrue, but I was telling him that it was untrue and that anyone who repeated it would be repeating a statement which was untrue. No one in the House could know whether a statement which relates to a member of this House is true or not, except the member who is directly affected by it.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is not debatable and the Speaker is bound to accept the memorandum prepared by the Chairman of the committee. I shall read it again for the information of the House-


Arthur Meighen: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Arthur Meighen: The statement was never submitted to the committee before being submitted to the Chair. Surely it is not the rule of this House that whatever the Chairman says is the point of order is really the point of order under review either by the committee or the House. The point of order was as clear as day. The Chairman stated it before the committee clearly, and he puts it in a different way to Mr. Speaker. That was the first I knew of it. He should have put it to the committee.

Immigration Act


Hewitt Bostock: I think I am bound to
accept the statement of the Chairman.


Arthur Meighen: Then appeals are useless.


Hewitt Bostock: The point of order is
stated by the party who is to report it to the House, or when appeals are taken from the ruling of the chair, the Chairman states his point. The Chairman stated his point in this way:
In the course o.f the debate on BiM No. 91 the Prime Minister said that a certain statement made by the member for Oxford South was untrue. A point of order was raised on the ground that the word "untrue" was unparliamentary. The Prime Minister replied that the word applied to the statement made by the member for Oxford iSouth and not to the hon. member himself.
The Chairman ruled that in the circumstance the expression was not unparliamentary. From this decision the right hon. member -for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) appealed to the House.


Arthur Meighen: I speak with some
diffidence, because it is some time since there was a precedent, but, I think it is the duty of the Speaker to decide a point of order.


Ernest Lapointe: Section 183 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms reads:
In case of an appeal to the House, it is the duty of the Chairman to leave the chair immediately and xe-port in writing the point of order which he has decided. The Speaker must then submit the matter to the determination of the House in the language reported to him and put the question: "That the decision of the chairman be confirmed." No discussion is allowed on the appeal. Should the Speaker be absent, the Chairman takes the chair of the House and another member takes the chair of the committee for the instant and makes the report of appeal to the acting Speaker who will at once submit the question to the House for its decision.
I submit that even my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition should be amenable to the rules of the House.


Hewitt Bostock: Might I respectfully call
the attention of the right hon. gentleman to
what May says under rule 14.
Note that the appeal from the Chairman's decision is to the House and not Xo the Speaker.
The question is: Shall the ruling of the Chairman be sustained?
The question was decided in the affirmative.


John Warwick King: May I say
again that I had no desire in any words of mine to reflect upon any hon. member of the House, but I do wish to make it perfectly clear that, after what I have said this afternoon, if any hon. member, or any person else in this country repeats that statement he is repeating a statement which he knows to be
untrue. I am quite within the rules in saying that. The hon. member has referred to a letter which I gave to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The reason I gave that letter to the hon. member was not in any way for the purpose of a bargain or an agreement. I was leaving for Prince Albert, to be absent from this city for several weeks, in connection with a by-election which was then pending. I desired that there should be no misunderstanding, either on the part of the hon. member, or on the part of my colleagues in the government, as to the sessional programme as it had been arranged, and in reference to the matters that were of particular interest to my hon. friend I left that letter in the nature of a memorandum. That was the sole object of having any communication of the character between us. I hope I have made clear the circumstances of that communication, and I leave it to my hon. friend for Winnipeg North Centre to say whether in any way he demanded any communication of me, or whether what I am now stating to the House is not absolutely correct-


Donald Sutherland: Before getting away from the matter referred to by the Prime Minister, he states that the letter was given solely for the purpose of satisfying the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his colleague, as to where the government stood with regard to those matters. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated in the House that he had an interview with the Prime Minister, the matter had been discussed and these promises had been made. Then why the necessity of a letter of this kind being placed on Hansard just immediately before a vote was taken?


John Warwick King: I have given
the answer. The hon. member knows he may have many conversations and there may thereafter be a question of difference of view and opinion. My desire has been to avoid as much as possible any difference of view or possibility of difference with any hon. member of the House, and as my hon. friend knows I was not in parliament at the time. I was not in a position to stand in my place as I am at the moment and say whether one thing or another was to be done. I had to take some means of protecting myself with respect to my position as leader of the government as to matters to be brought before parliament. I took the means that I have referred to of removing the possibility of doubt as to matters that were to be dealt with at this session. As
Immigration Act

I was leaving the city I took steps to leave in the form of a record for my colleagues as well as for the members what was from ,the very beginning the intention of the government in this matter.


Donald Sutherland: Perhaps the Prime Minister will give some further information with regard to the statement he has just made. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his colleague the hon. member for North Winnipeg addressed a letter to the Prime Minister on the 7th January. Apparently three weeks elapsed and it was only after an interview had been had by those gentlemen with the Prime Minister that he made those promises. That statement had been made in the House by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill).
Notwithstanding this, when we had been for about three weeks debating the Address and it was very doubtful as to how certain members were going to vote, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spread on the records of parliament the letter received from the Prime Minister, boasting about the favourable position they were placed in as a result of the government being without a majority in the House and stating that they had forced these promises from the government. I was referring to the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; I did not make the statement, and when the Prime Minister of this country-


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I just rise to say that the statements now being made by the hon. member are not correct. My statements will be found on Hansard.


Donald Sutherland: I
presume in view of the denials which have been made, that with the consent of the House I shall be permitted to refer to Hansard.


William Duff: The hon. gentleman cannot refer to a previous debate during this session.


Donald Sutherland: I am not at all surprised at your ruling, Sir, in view of the ruling that has been given this afternoon and other rulings that have been given in this House during this session.


Ernest Lapointe: I rise to a point of order and I demand that the hon. member withdraw those statements.


William Duff: I might say to hon. members that I am quite willing to admit that

in the new duties which I have assumed I may not know the rules of the House as well as older members do, but I do not think it is fair, especially for older members, to censure me in the way that the hon. member for South Oxford has just done. I resent it and I demand that he withdraw the statement that my ruling was not right.


Donald Sutherland: Surely a private member in this House has some rights. What I stated was that I was not surprised at the ruling in view of other rulings that had been made in this House on former occasions.


Ernest Lapointe: I demand a withdrawal and moreover I will ask the leader of the opposition to take issue with his follower on this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely he is responsible as well as we are for the dignity of the Chair.
Mr. M.EIGHEN: I would be quite prepared to do anything to restore a better feeling in this House, but I want to say very frankly that the first step that should be taken to restore a better feeling would be for the Chairman to report correctly the point of order he was last asked to report.


Mr. CANNON:: What about the withdrawal?


Donald Sutherland: I
should like to know how I have transgressed the rules of the House and what words I am asked to withdraw.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member said that he was not surprised at this ruling owing to previous rulings given by the Chair. If that is not a reflection on the Chair, I do not know what it is.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Chairman, if it will please Your Lordship and other members of the House, I will say that I am surprised, very much surprised, at the ruling.


William Duff: The hon. member has been asked to withdraw a certain statement he made. I respectfully ask him to withdraw it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Withdraw what?


Donald Sutherland: I
am at a loss to understand what I am to do.
I first stated that I was not surprised; now I have completely reversed my position and I say that I am surprised. I do not see what I am going to do.

Immigration Act


William Duff: I rule that both statements are out of order. I consider that they are both reflections, not on me personally, bflt on the Chair.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Can you suggest, Sir, anything that will be neither " surprised " nor " not surprised "? Can you suggest any frame of mind that is between the two?


William Duff: I do not think there is any necessity for that. As I stated to the committee just a moment ago, my position is an onerous one and I do not think it is fair that an hon. member should take advantage of my inability to know exactly the rules of the House. But I am quite sure that the hon. member for South Oxford is out of order when he says he is not surprised at the ruling I made previously.


Donald Sutherland: If
you can outline something that would be between the two extremes I would be very glad to abide by it.


William Duff: I have asked the hon. member to withdraw the statement and I still ask it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wh'ch statement?


Donald Sutherland: The statement that I am not surprised and the statement that I am, or which one have I to withdraw?


Ernest Lapointe: Withdraw the reflection on the Chair.


Arthur Meighen: On the point of order, if the hon. member is to be asked to make no reflection whatever on a point decided by the Chair, there should be the unfettered right of appeal which by the precedent of this afternoon we know now is worthless. I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that your conduct has made it impossible for us to take the constitutional procedure.


Ernest Lapointe: I protest against those words of the leader of the opposition. In my experience in this House which extends for over twenty years, this is the first time that the leader of a party has used words to that effect in order to impair the dignity of the Chair or of the Speaker in this House of Commons. It has been my experience in the past that leaders of both parties have upheld the dignity of the Chair.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: I am in order and as a member of parliament of long standing I protest against the conduct of the leader of the opposition to-day.


Arthur Meighen: I am always anxious to have the good-will of the Minister of Justice.
I am also anxious to conduct my functions as leader of a party with dignity just as much as anyone in this House in a similar position would be, but I think my duty is to see that the party which I lead has its constitutional rights in this House. When those rights are denied or impaired by circuitous proceedings as was done this afternoon, it is my duty to protest and I intend to protest no matter what the objections may be.


John Warwick King: I have no desire to prolong the discussion but I do not think my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) would wish to leave an entirely false impression from his words with respect to any act of another member of the House. In the course of his remarks he stated that I had received a letter from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a few days after the opening of the House. It was some three weeks before that letter was answered, and he drew the inference that the delay was due to the fact that during that time a debate had taken place in this House, that the House was about to vote, and that the hon. member for Winnipeg wished before recording his vote, to have some written assurance as to what was to be done with certain legislation in which he was interested. I think I am right in suggesting this as the inference to be drawn from the hon. member's words. In order to disabuse his mind of any suspicion let me tell him exactly the circumstances, and explain why there was no answer for three weeks. When the communication was forwarded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at the opening of the House I had a conference with him, and I was here in the city from then until the time I wrote the letter. At the time I wrote the letter I was leaving the city to be absent for some time. I did not know then whether I should be returned as a member of parliament or not, but I was anxious that the hon. gentleman himself, as well as any one who might stand in my place, if someone else did, should have a record of the programme of the government as I outlined it to him on the occasion of our first interview, which took place not at the end of three weeks, but at the very opening of the session. I state the facts, and all I ask hon. members to do is to judge for themselves whether this was not the course which any one placed in the position of responsibility I was in would have taken under the circumstances.
Immigration Act


Donald Sutherland: As I am prevented from referring to what was actually said, I would direct the attention of the committee to Hansard of January 29 wherein they will find a statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and a letter written by the Prime Minister referring particularly to the three matters in which the hon. member was interested-the Naturalization Act, the Immigration Act, and the Criminal Code amendments-in relation to which legislation had been promised. The statement was also made by the hon. member that they were very grateful that, in view of the peculiar combination of circumstances,-


Ernest Lapointe: I rise to a point of order. I ask that the hon. member be directed to withdraw the expression he used with reference to the Chair.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw what?


Donald Sutherland: In view of the speech made by the Prime Minister since the point of order was raised I naturally assumed that the matter had dropped. I thought I had made sufficient retraction, if retraction was necessary, in having reversed the statement I had made, and the Prime Minister's speech subsequent to the point of order clearly renders irrelevant the point raised by the Minister of Justice.


William Duff: The Minister of Justice, having insisted on the hon. member's withdrawal of his remarks reflecting upon the Chair, I must ask that under rule 236 he retract them.


William Alves Boys: There is no rule 236.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There are only 129 rules.


Lucien Cannon: The point comes under rule 13.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Lucien Cannon: It is 236 in Beauchesne.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely no member who
has had any experience in this House challenges the contention that there must be no reflection upon the Speaker or upon the Chairman of committees.	.


Robert James Manion: The bon. member for
South Oxford said he made no reflection on the Chair, and he reversed the statement he had previously made. There cannot therefore be any reflection on the Chair.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friends appear to
lose all sense of fairness on occasions such as this. The Minister of Justice has spoken six or seven times on the question: have I not the right to say a word? I am pointing out, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member declared he had made no reflection on the Chair. He made a certain statement and reversed it. How therefore can there be any reflection? Your judgment will be with the hon. member, I think, Mr. Chairman. Furthermore, I would point out to the Minister of Justice that the Chairman himself in allowing the Prime Minister to go beyond the point of order was apparently personally satisfied, and if the Chairman is satisfied I do not see why anyone should object.


Ernest Lapointe: He is not satisfied; he
has asked that the remarks be withdrawn.


William Duff: I did not hear the hon. member for South Oxford say that he was willing to withdraw the remarks, nor did I understand him to contend that he had not cast any reflection on the Chair. The Minister of Justice insists that the words reflecting on the Chair be withdrawn and I must ask the hon. member to withdraw them. May, at page 298, says:
The House of Commons will insist upon all offensive words being withdrawn, and upon an ample apology being made, which shall satisfy bo<th the House and the member to whom offence has been given.


Peter Heenan: I want to say a couple
of words.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Peter Heenan: Be quiet. I was wondering, Mr. Chairman, why we are so particular in this House, because I know that on the twelfth day of last month a gentleman on the other side of politics in another chamber-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: -said that a member of this House-


William Duff: Order.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: I am all right.


William Duff: The hon. member is
out of order.


Peter Heenan: I don't know, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: What I was going to say-

Immigration Act


William Duff: Will the hon. member
be good enough to resume his seat?


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: You had better withdraw now.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat disappointed in the treatment meted out to me this afternoon in this House by the Prime Minister and also by the Chair-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Donald Sutherland: - but in view of your ruling I may say that I am neither surprised nor not surprised.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Donald Sutherland: I
absolutely drop the word "surprised."


William Duff: The hon. gentleman
will not be allowed to escape with any such partial denial. He must unreservedly withdraw the reflection on the Chair.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, there is
such a thing as being too sensitive. Is one not to be able to say that he is disappointed in a decision?


William Duff: I do not refer to that
remark.


Arthur Meighen: That is what the hon.
gentleman says, and he adds that he absolutely withdraws the word "surprised." I think he has gone far enough. Perhaps the Chairman did not hear him say that he withdrew the word "surprised." Surely it is not to be held that a member is not to be allowed to express disappointment? Because I may add to his disappointment my own.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Chairman, I think
this incident has lasted long enough, and now that the members have more or less cooled off I am sure both sides will be of the opinion that we should all respect the Chair. If we do not, our proceedings become not only useless but practically impossible.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Lucien Cannon: The Chair may make
mistakes, but even so it is the duty of every member to support the dignity of the presiding officer and uphold the decorum of our proceedings. I have known the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) for many years. He is a very strong adherent of his party, but he has always to my knowledge respected the rules, and' I think that if he considers the matter further he will please 14011-253
both sides by upholding the dignity of the House and continuing this debate as it should be continued. I do not wish to follow the right hon. leader of the opposition on the ground which he has taken, and I am confident that when he reads his remarks in Hansard to-morrow he will regret them. Speaking as the leader of a great party, and as a former prime minister of this country, I think he should use his influence and his prestige to require his own followers-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Lucien Cannon: -to set an example of
that respect which we all owe to you, Sir-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Lucien Cannon: -and I do not think the hon. member for South Oxford should be allowed to take any further part in this debate unless he follows the ruling of the Chair. He should not be permitted to do what no other member has the privilege or the right to do.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, I hope
you will observe that on discussion of the point of order the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) is permitted to read me a lecture on my deportment in this House. How that affects the point of order is rather difficult for the ordinary mind to grasp. I just draw that to your attention so there will be no need of further disappointment. But I submit there is no reflection in the world and no offence against the rules of the House in expressing disappointment over a 5 p.m. decision of the Chair. There may possibly be a reflection read into the word "surprise." I think such an interpretation is a little far-fetched. At all events I asked the hon. member to withdraw the word and he has done so. I submit that if he had used the word "disappointment" in the first place there never would have been the slightest exception taken to it. I think we have gone more than half way to meet the susceptibilities of hon. gentlemen opposite, and I think we should stop there.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish):: He
should state he did not intend' to reflect on the Chair.


Mr. FORKE:: Mr. Chairman, I am greatly disappointed with the proceedings that have taken place in this House this afternoon.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Forke: However it may affect hon. members to my right, I do not feel that this is a subject for amusement.


An hon. MEMBER:: Neither do we.

Immigration Act


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Robert Forke: I have not encroached very
much upon the time of the House and-


An hon. MEMBER:: What is your point
of order?


Robert Forke: I have only a few words
to say and I am going to say them.


An hon. MEMBER:: State your point of
order.


Robert Forke: I have listened to the whole proceedings and I am quite convinced of what the hon. member for South Oxford meant to convey, no matter what words he used.


John Wesley Edwards: Perhaps
your mentality is at fault.


An hon. MEMBER:: Perhaps yours is.


Robert Forke: Unless hon. members are
going to pay at least some attention to the dignity of the Chair and respect its rulings, we are not going to get very far. I think it is derogatory to our parliamentary life that such proceedings should have taken place in the House this afternoon.


John Wesley Edwards: You have
got in the press now on that.


Robert Forke: It is all very well for my
hon. friend to say that, but I can assure him and other hon. members that if the people of this Dominion understood something about the proceedings that take place in this House none of us would get very much respect, and I think there would be an entirely new House of Commons.


John Wesley Edwards: Speak for
yourself, John.


Robert Forke: I do not know why hon.
members to my right are so much worked up over this incident. I am blaming no one section, I am speaking of the whole House and the proceedings generally. I have taken part in a good many debating organizations in my public life and I never saw anything like it in twenty-five years, even in a municipal council.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Forke: I am perfectly convinced,
Mr. Chairman, of the meaning that the member for South Oxford meant to convey, and I think it would tend to his own dignity and to the dignity of the House generally that the

incident should be brought to an end by an intimation on his part that he would respect the ruling of the Chair.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one word on the point of order. You objected to the statement made by the hon. member for South Oxford and to his reversal of that statement. The point in it all was contained in the word "surprise," which has been withdrawn. If there was any reflection in his statement it was contained in that word, and therefore his withdrawal of it must also remove the supposed reflection.


Finlay MacDonald: Why
does he not say that he did not intend to reflect on the Chair


John Wesley Edwards: It is not
for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) to interpret the hon. member's statement. The hon. member himself can make his own interpretation. I am speaking to the point of order and I-


Finlay MacDonald: He can
say whether or not he intended to reflect on the Chair.


John Wesley Edwards: I have the
floor at the moment. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for South Oxford has met your demand by withdrawing the word "surprise," and I submit the incident might very well end there.


William Duff: I am very glad
that the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) is as desirous as I am of closing the incident. It is quite true the hon. member for South Oxford used the word "surprise." He also used the words "not surprised," which really meant the same thing. All I ask is that he withdraw both expressions and so close the incident.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Chairman, surely I am not expected to make a similar withdrawal on two or three occasions? I have already withdrawn it.


William Duff: Perhaps I should
apologize to the hon. member if I did not hear him withdraw the word "surprise" and the words "not surprised." Did the hon. gentleman withdraw those words?


Donald Sutherland: Certainly I did.


William Duff: Very well.


Donald Sutherland: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not permitted to express

Immigration Act
my feelings. I should like, however, to refer to what was under discussion when the Prime Minister displayed such heat in what might be termed unparliamentary language, and what has been so termed in the past. The peculiar combination of circumstances in the House on the 27th and the 28th of January, just before the vote was taken, gave rise to the boast on the part of some members with regard to promises of certain legislation, that they had wrung those promises from the Prime Minister-the promises referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). This was the matter that I was referring to, and I would gladly deal with it as it is contained in Hansard, but hon. members I know do not wish to have the exact words placed before them. 1 merely rose to direct the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the bill which is now before the committee amending the Immigration Act, and to point out the -connection there was between the three bills promised, and which are to be dealt with by this House. The minister, when this matter was before the House the other night, and he was asked who was pressing for these changes, stated that they originated with his department. The Prime Minister in his statement this afternoon states that he gave that letter to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre so that the people and parliament would know that the government proposed introducing this legislation at this session, although it was not referred to in the Speech from the Throne at all. It has frequently been referred to since as a supplementary Address brought down during, you -might say, an emergency. The vote on the Address was taken on the 1st day of February, and this letter was placed on Hansard on the 29th day of January, and was written by the Prime Minister on the 28th day of January. In view of the relationship between these three bills which have been mentioned by the hon. member for East Edmonton, I think great care should be exercised to see that there is no overlapping, and whether there is really any occasion for the bills being passed.


Charles A. Stewart: Now that the tempest has calmed down, I may say' in reply to my hon. friend from South Oxford that the legislation I am introducing is not new by any means. As a matter of fact, an attempt has been made to amend section 41 of the Immigration Act at three different sessions, and' the amendment was passed by this House on three different occasions and went on to the Senate. So there is nothing new about this.
14011-2S31
I have nothing to say as to the controversy between my hon. friend from Sou'll Oxford and the right hon. the Prime Minister, but in reply to the -hon. member for East Edmonton, I want to put myself right. I made the statement to him that the amendments to the Criminal Code would contain all the offences mentioned in section 41 of this act, but I aim informed by the Minister of Justice that they will not. I want to make it perfectly clear that my own officials informed me that the statement I made was correct, and on the strength of that information I made that statement. I hasten to correct it, because I am now informed by the Minister of Justice that some of the provisions of section 41 will not be covered by the amendments to the Criminal Code That is why I was hoping this storm would subside, so that I would have an opportunity of giving that information to my hon. friend.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I would not for one moment! imagine that the Minister of the Interior waff not making a- frank statement. I quite believe that he was fully convinced in his own mind that the amendment to the Immigration Act was not going to have the effect of removing from the list of deportable offences any of the offences that are at present deport-able under the act; but in fact, the case is quite different. Let me read the offences that are deporta-ble under the act as it now stands. If hon. members will look at the explanatory statement on the blank page of the bill, they will see that the section of the act of 1919 to be repealed reads as follows;
Every person who by word or act in Canada seeks to overthrow by force or violence the government of or constituted law and authority in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or Canada, or any of the provinces of Canada, or the government of any other of Hi3 Majesty's dominions, colonies, possessions or dependencies, or advocates the assassination of any official of any of the said governments or of any -foreign government, or who in Canada defends or suggests the unlawful destruction of property or -by word or act creates or attempts [to crea-te any riot or public disorder in Canada.
and so on. Those are the acts which are deportable under the Immigration Act as it at present stands. They are acts for which deportation lies under part II. of the Criminal Code as it now stands, but when the amendment to the Criminal Code that is proposed to be made by bill No. 153 becomes law, they will no longer be a-cts for which deportation lies; at least, it is very questionable if they will. Let me read the offences which will be removed from the list of deportable offences under the amendment which the government
Immigration Act

proposes to make in bill No. 153. They will be found in section 97A (1) of the Criminal Code:
Any association, organization, society or corporation, whose professed purpose or one of whose purposes is to bring about any governmental, industrial or economic change within Canada by use of force, violence or physical injury to person or property, or by threats of such injury, or which teaches, advocates, advises or defends the use of force, violence, terrorism, or physical injury to person or property, or threats of such injury, in order to accomplish such change, or for any other purpose, or which shall by any means prosecute or pursue such purpose or professed purpose, or shall so teach, advocate, advise or defend, shall be an unlawful association.
That is to be repealed; also section 97A (3) "of the Criminal Code, reading as follows:
Any pereon who acts or professes (to act as an officer of any such unlawful association, and who shall sell, speak, write or publish anything as the representative or professed representative of any such unlawful association, or become and continue to be a member thereof, or wear, carry or cause to be displayed upon or about his person or elsewhere, any badge, insignia, emblem, banner, motto, pennant, card, button or other device whatsoever, indicating or intended to show or suggest that he is a member of or in anywise associated with any such unlawful association, or who shall contribute anything as dues or otherwise, to ft or to any one for it, or who shall solicit subscriptions or contributions for it, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for not more than twenty years.
Also this provision in 97B (1):
Any iperson who prints, publishes, edits, issues, sells, or offers for sale or distribution any book, newspaper, periodical,
and so on. Those are all going to be repealed, and consequently, while under part II. of the Criminal Code as it stands these are .deportable acts, after the amendment has been made to bill No. 153 these acts will no longer be deportable, and what I maintain is that the committee should very carefully consider whether it is in the interests of the country that persons who are now described under section 41 as persons who are members of these unlawful associations, and who are working for and advocating the aims of these unlawful associations are desirable people to have in this country. I suggest that the change is going to have the effect of preventing the deportation of persons who are members of these very undesirable asocia-tions, and who are soliciting and propagating the principles and publishing the literature of these particular associations that are mentioned in sections 97A and 97B of the Criminal Code. Therefore, the amendment is not nearly so innocuous as the Minister of the Interior, perfectly honestly, conceived it to be. The amendment is in reality part of a scheme and purpose and arrangement by which men who would otherwise have
[Mr. Bury.l
been deported under the act will now be able to remain in the country and be not subject to deportation at all. If I am incorrect, I shall be very glad to be corrected.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There are a few remarks I should like to make with regard to this legislation. It is not my purpose to go into the matter raised by the hon. member for South Oxford a few minutes ago in which my name was brought up, because my statement in regard to that matter has already been made on the floor of the House, and I have nothing to add to it. I would, however, say that this change in legislation, with changes in the Criminal Code, have been, as everybody who was in the last parliament, knows, matters in which we have been interested for some time. At the very commencement of the present session I approached the Prime Minister with regard to what could be done this year as to legislation of this character. Four years ago I introduced an amendment to the Immigration Act which sought to secure the ends contemplated by this bill, and on several subsequent occasions the government itself introduced amendments along those lines. I would remind the House that in 1919, at the time there was a good deal of panic and hysteria, several pieces of legislation passed this parliament with very little consideration. As a matter of fact they passed not only this House but both Houses and became the law of the country within about forty minutes. This legislation which is to be repealed was one of the acts passed at that time. When we introduced proposed amendments before the idea was to do away entirely with that power which gave to the Minister of Immigration the right to deport people for certain crimes. Those amendments have been very widely misunderstood. It was thought by some gentlemen that we were trying to introduce into this country individuals who might be guilty of the crimes specified in the act. Nothing was further from our thought. Our idea was to get rid of legislation which had the effect of taking away from certain classes of people in this country the right to trial by jury.
The hon. gentleman who has just spoken is quite evidently misinformed with regard to the effect of this legislation. Under the law as it now stands he-bom, I think, in the Old Land-might, for an alleged offence, be taken before a committee of the Immigration department and shipped out of this country without trial.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: May I just interrupt my hon. freind for a moment to correct him? I would

Immigration Act
not have anybody deported without proper trial and conviction; I am dealing with the people to whom the act refers, not with the way in which they are to be treated.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so, but this
particular amendment deals entirely with the matter of procedure.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: No, it does not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman is not correct as to that. I have some knowledge of this matter. The amendment deals entirely with an act of procedure. That is a point not very clearly understood by a, good many members of this House. As I was saying, under the existing law, if it were put in force, my hon. friend (Mr. Bury) might be taken before a committee of the Immigration department simply because he happened to have been born outside of Canada, and he might be shipped out of this country as an undesirable person if the Immigration department felt that he came within that class. My point is that every man in this Dominion-whether he is Canadian born as I happen to be, or whether he comes from Great Britain, as does the hon. member for East Edmonton, or as my colleague here (Mr. Heaps)-has a perfect right to a trial by jury.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? What about the fellow who comes from France or Italy?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not accept the position of the leader of the opposition, but I would say it should apply to the man who comes from France, Italy, or any other country. The point about the present law is that it might be used to deport people, without trial.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman say that the Immigration Act should be changed so that any immigrant from Italy, Austria, or any other country should be allowed to enter Canada-


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


Arthur Meighen: -and remain here?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I have not suggested it.


Arthur Meighen: That is just exactly what the hon. member did suggest.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, no; just a
moment and I will answer that point. Presumably the Immigration Act ought to keep undesirable people out of this country, whether they come from Great Britain, Italy,
France, or elsewhere. We are trying by the Immigration law to exclude undesirables, and with that I have every sympathy.


Mr. HOCKEN:: But if they get in?


James Shaver Woodsworth: If they get in, and if they commit a crime in Canada, they should be tried by a jury in this country.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Has the hon. gentleman heard me oppose that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, but the hon. gentleman has not understood the bearing of this legislation; that is what I suggest. This relates to matter of procedure. I do not want to go into past history, but I may just say very frankly that perhaps the reason some of us feel very strongly about this matter is that my colleague the hon. member for North Winnipeg would himself have been deported from this country without any jury trial if the law had been put into force, simply because he happened to have been born in England. And that was the case with a number of others at that time.


Arthur Meighen: Was he guilty of any
such offence as that outlined?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


Arthur Meighen: Then how could he have been deported?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Simply because of this law. The right hon. gentleman is frank in asking this question?


Arthur Meighen: He certainly is.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Surely he has not failed to grasp the significance of the legislation for which I think he was more or less responsible.


Arthur Meighen: No, he was not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Possibly not, but I have seen more of the correspondence of that day and if it could be brought down I think, my contention would be sustained. Paragraph 2 of section 2 of the Immigration Act as it now stands provides that no person who belongs to the prohibited or undesirable classes within the meaning of section 41 of the act shall be capable of acquiring Canadian domicile. And then the act proceeds to speak of the people who are considered undesirable. In that respect although a man might have been here one year, five years or ten years, if he is accused of belonging to the undesirable classes he may be deported. He cannot possibly acquire Canadian domicile. That is the bearing of the legislation to which we object. There are a great many Britishers
Immigration Act

to whom this would apply: The hon. member for East Edmonton was born in the Old Country and is not ashamed of it; my own colleague was born in England and I know he is not sahamed of it; the leader of the Progressive party was born in Scotland and I know he is not ashamed of it. These gentlemen might, according to this act, be accused of committing some crime against the state of the character indicated. If they were accused under the act as it now stands, the Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization could have them before his committee and the day after to-morrow could ship them back to England, Ireland, or Scotland, as the case may be, without their having had any jury trial. Now, as a Canadian citizen I cannot be deported, but to me as a British subject, brought up in the idea of the liberty of the citizen and the right to trial by jury, that situation- which I venture to say most of the members have not realized1-is intolerable. We should insist that if any man comes to this country, whether from Great Britain or from some foreign land, and in this country commits or is alleged to have committed some crime, he ought to have a jury trial. I do not particularly object to his being deported if he is found guilty. Perhaps we made a mistake when this legislation was introduced earlier, because there were some hon. members in this chamber, and I think some in the other chamber, who got the idea that we wanted to retain these people in this country. That was not our thought at all, but we desired to get rid of obnoxious legislation which would permit deportation without trial by jury. I think the minister has fairly well met the situation by retaining the right of deportation, but providing that the deportation can take place only after conviction. I am sure there is not a member in this House who wants to deport anybody without trial. I can hardly conceive that any hon. member is willing to leave to a departmental committee the decision as to whether or not a man is guilty of offences of this kind. So it is quite clear that by the proposed amendment we refain the right to exclude undesirables or to deport people who prove to be of that class, but we do say that they should first have a fair trial. Surely that is fair.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Are they described in this clause?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, and it is quite true that amendments to the Criminal Code are being proposed that will modify the legislation of 1919 regarding political crimes. But I would remind the hon. member that that has

nothing to do particularly with deportation. The Criminal Code does not provide for deportation. It provides for trial. We say that no one should be deported without trial.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is not the true point.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is no viewpoint in it. If the hon. member objects to the eliminations which are proposed in respect to the Criminal Code, the time to discuss the matter will be when they come up. I am quite willing to discuss them now, but I do not think it is the proper time. We will have an opportunity to discuss whether or not these emendations to the Criminal Code should be made, but that has nothing to do with deportation.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It has a very important bearing upon it, because some hon. members of this House might be perfectly willing to take some of these offences out of the Criminal Code and yet not to take them out of the Immigration Act. They might not be prepared to make those offences crimes under the Criminal Code; at the same time they might not want people of that character to be left in Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the hon
member think he himself is in a very enviable position? Would he like his status to remain as it is, namely that he might be shipped out of the country without trial?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am not dealing with that
point.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am dealing with it.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: My hon. friend is dealing with a point I have not rasied. He is - drawing a red herring across the trail.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I am trying
to keep to the point at issue.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I never raised that point.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This is a matter
of procedure, and in this bill we are making an effort to try to see that everyone who is living in Canada shall have the right to a jury trial. The question of deportation is a secondary matter. I am quite willing to concede that everyone in this country who commits any of these alleged crimes should be deported. I am not worrying about that part of it. Let them be kept out of the country, but after they are in the country let them have a fair trial so that it may be ascertained whether or not they are guilty.

Immigration Act


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
has given a great deal of attention to this matter. He has referred to what is going to be done. Would he tell me what acts, hitherto looked upon as offences, are to be taken out of that category?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am not against jury trial
or conviction, but section 97B is to be repealed by bill 153. That section says:
Any person who prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, or offers for sale or distribution-


Charles A. Stewart: That is not this bill.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I know that, but my hon.
friend says it is entirely a question of procedure. Either he 'has not appreciated what the bill provides for, or else he is not perfectly frank. This is a bill of procedure first, and secondly a bill of description of the particular acts that come within its terms. That element of the bill has been altered. I am not dealing with procedure. Leave that out. It is more than a bill of procedure when it changes the description of the acts which come under the deportable provisions of the law, and it changes those acts when it *-corporates the Criminal Code. The Minister of the Interior has been absolutely frank in respect to his answer to my question; he afterwards corrected himself and said, "I admit there are offences under the law as it now stands which will not be offences under the law after bill 153 is passed." For instance after the passing of bill 153 it will not be a deportable offence to print, publish, edit, issue circulate, sell or offer for sale or distribution any book, newspaper, periodical, pamphlet, picture, paper, circular, card, letter writing print, publication or document of any kind, in which is taught, advocated, advised or defended sedition.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Where do you find that?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is section 97B of the
Criminal Code, part II, which will no longer be an offence if bill 153 is passed. Therefore a person who by word or act seeks to overthrow constitutional government, or advocates or suggests the unlawful destruction of property, will not be a deplorable subject after the Criminal Code amendment has gone through.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend knows
that that offence would come under some other section of the bill.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Not in part II. You wish not
to discuss this with bill 153, because palpably
the object of the government is to get this amendment through first, and having passed this, the other will be adopted also. I do not want this amendment to go through without the committee understanding what it is doing. If this amendment goes through and the Criminal Code amendment goes through the result will be that anybody can write or distribute literature and can work in any way along seditious lines for the overthrow of constitutional government in this country and advocate the destruction of property.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend is going too far now, although his main argument is correct. My hon. friend is quoting from section 97 of the Criminal Code.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: 
Charles A. Stewart: But does my hon. friend not forget that both section 41 of the Immigration Act and section 97B of the code were passed in 1919 for special reasons, all of which may have been good in themselves? I think he will find that the code in another section covers the point he is raising.


Ernest Lapointe: The man who would do what my hon. friend has read would come under section 132, which refers to seditious words, seditious libel, seditious conspiracy.


Charles A. Stewart: All we are attempting to do in the Immigration Act by striking out the provisions of section 41 is to take from the control of the Minister of Immigration the power of deportation for offences of this character without trial. These provisions are not being struck out for the purpose of getting rid of these offences or of making them non-indictable offences. When we come to the amendment to the Criminal Code my hon. friend will be quite in order to raise the objections he is now raising, but I see no good purpose that will
Immigration Act

be served by delaying the taking away from the Minister of Immigration of the powers contained in section 41. Under section 40 the Minister of Immigration has all the power to deport without trial, but when this amendment goes through as regards the provisions contained in section 41 he will not have power to deport except after proper trial before a proper tribunal.


Arthur Meighen: What are the powers in section 40?


Charles A. Stewart: They have always been in the Immigration Act. Section 40 reads:
Whenever any person, other than a Canadian citizen or person having Canadian domicile, shall be found an inmate of or connected with the management of a house of prostitution or practising prostitution, or who shall receive, share in, or derive benefit from any part of the earnings of any prostitute or who manages or is employed by, in, or in connection with any house of prostitution or music or dance hall or other place of amusement or resort habitually frequented by prostitutes, or where prostitutes gather, or who in any way assists any prostitute or protects or promises to protect from arrest any prostitute or who shall import or attempt to import any person for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose, or who has been convicted of a criminal offence in Canada or who admits the commission prior to landing or entry to Canada of a crime involving moral turpitude, or has become a professional beggar or a public charge or practises polygamy, or has became an inmate of a penitentiary, gaol, reformatory, prison, asylum or hospital for the insane or the mentally deficient, or an inmate of a public charitable institution, or enters or remains in Canada contrary to any 'provision of this act, it shall be the duly of any officer cognizant thereof, and the duty of the derk, secretary or other official of any municipality in Canada wherein such person may be, to forthwith send a written complaint thereof to the minister, giving full particulars.


Arthur Meighen: In those cases the minister will see that there are many things in respect to which the complaint may be made, and among them is conviction of a crime. The others do not include any conviction at all. The minister is capable of deporting in any such case upon evidence satisfactory to himself. Does that apply to anybody from Great Britain, or just to foreigners?


Charles A. Stewart: Any person who is not a Canadian.


Arthur Meighen: That is just the point on fvhieh I want to make a remark. I do not know whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) can rest his soul in patience or not while section 40 stays within the act. I cannot understand how he can sleep at night. Think of it! Under that act men, women, by the score, by the hundred, can be deported without trial.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why was it necessary to amend this in 1919?


Arthur Meighen: To add another class who could be deported. What I am calling attention to is this: What seems to boil up in the soul of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is the idea of deporting anybody without trial. A jury trial, he says, is the right of a British subject. Still we have section 40 remaining under which in respect of 95 per cent of the cases there is no right to jury trial at all in determining whether the man or woman is deportable. This has been in the act for years. All that was done in 1919 was to add another class to those who were not entitled to jury trial. The class we added were those who came from the Old Country and were anarchists. In a word we added anarchists to prostitutes and beggars. That is all we did. We said: If a man was an anarchist, for the purpose of deportation he should not have any special rights merely because he came from Scotland or England. That was the terrible offence. It was not a case of invading the right to jury trial at all. The right to jury trial is the right of the citizen, whether he be a British subject or an Italian or a Swede or a Pole or a Jap.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This takes away that right.


Arthur Meighen: No, it does not. The hon. member has never understood it. That right is a right that all have, British subject or no British subject, if they are living in Canada, before they can be punished for a crime. That is all that jury trial was ever intended for.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the hon. gentleman deny that the effort was made to deport men without trial?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is in a hurry because I think he now sees the point. Jury trial is not anything that pertains to a British subject, to somebody born in Britain or Canada; it pertains to anybody before he is punished for a criminal offence. Under the code if he is charged with a major offence he has the right to jury trial. It is his right before he is punished for libel. But it is not anything that is especially the property of a British subject; it is just as much the property of a Pole or an African or a Hottentot. It never was the special right of anybody to have a jury trial before deportation. That is what I want to drive home to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. You do not need to establish crime against a man in order to have the right to deport him.

Immigration Act


Mr. WOODS  WORTH@: Does the hon. gentleman think an Englishman who has been resident in this country for twenty years should be incapable of establishing Canadian domicile and be subject to deportation?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is getting the red herring again; he is bound he will not follow me. For years he has been preaching before his own audiences that we took away the right of jury trial. We did not take it away at all. There never was the right of jury trial as a condition to deportation. That right exists only as a condition or protection against punishment for crime. I want to try to get that point into the hon. member's head.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Am I not right in arguing that the effect of such legislation would lead to the deprivation of such individuals of the right to trial by jury?


Arthur Meighen: Just the same as the legislation that remains.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is entirely satisfied, if some poor woman is found to be a prostitute, to deny her any right to jury trial, and to deport her. But if someone is found guilty of anarchism he immediately springs to his feet and espouses the right of that individual to trial by jury.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Who is to decide whether a person is guilty of anarchy?


Arthur Meighen: The same person who decides whether some woman is guilty of prostitution.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I personally have taken the ground that it would be well to have legislation enacted providing that for all offences committed in Canada there should be trial by jury. But with regard to some of these cases the social effect of depriving the accused of that right is considerably greater, as in relation to political matters.


Arthur Meighen: I am of the other view myself. I think there is a great deal more potential evil in some anarchists than in some poor girl who lives in a house of ill fame. The sympathies of the hon. gentleman are aroused only in the case of the anarchist, but he will not move a hand to repeal section 40.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As a matter of fact I have already moved in that direction. The hon. gentleman will find that four years ago I introduced legislation to repeal these sections.


Arthur Meighen: Section 40?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, that is my recollection.


Arthur Meighen: It is not mine. I will not be positive-


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is my recollection.


Arthur Meighen: -but as I remember, with respect to anarchists, the hon. gentleman's bill corresponded in effect to this legislation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the right hon. gentleman consent to the repeal of section 40?


Arthur Meighen: No; I would not. Not at all. And what is more, I do not see any special necessity for this bill. I do not think it is needed. What I am pointing out, however, is that the hon. member has for years misrepresented the legislation in this regard, and has got votes on that misrepresentation. He has never been fair about it; never in the world. This legislation merely put those who came from the Old Land, if they were found to be anarchists, on the same footing as immigrants from other countries who might be suspected of the same offence. It never denied them the right to trial by jury for the purposes for which trial by jury was instituted. Are hon. members going to say that it is tremendously important that merely because someone comes from the Old Land he must stay here, no matter what his character, even though he may be an anarchist, until you can get him convicted? Does any hon. member suggest that this should be the treatment accorded men coming from the Old Land and not men coming from Italy or France? Is it to be different in their case? I do not think that is fair.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Neither do I.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member agrees with me on that point when I mention the anarchist; but what interest does he display in behalf of offenders when I refer to other classes? Here is some fellow begging for a living; cannot find a job; throws himself upon public charity. The minister can deport him without any trial save such as he may himself conduct, and the plight of such an unfortunate does not seem to bother the hon. member at all. But if the minister undertakes to deport some man on the ground of his being an anarchist, then woe betide the government! This, briefly, is the stand the hon. member takes.
Immigration Act


Thomas Langton Church: It is difficult to tell just
what this debate is all about. One does not know whether it is a discussion of the Winnipeg strike or a consideration of the Immigration Act. But it seems to me that the Winnipeg strike is one cogent reason why section 41 of the act of 1919 should be retained on the statute books. I certainly do not think the repeal of that act can be justified. Every loyal citizen of this Dominion sympathized with the government when it passed section 41 which hon. gentlemen are endeavouring so strenuously to-day to repeal. Do those hon. gentlemen want us to revert to the appalling conditions that prevailed in 1919 and prior to that time?
The responsibility for maintaining law and order is a very serious one, and it is all that our police systems in Canada can do to keep the peace. This is distinctly a retrograde step. It is one which the people in the country will not regard favourably. Australia has refused to loosen up on its law in regard to immigrants who commit offences that make them liable to deportation. Look at the strike that occurred in the Old Country the other day: what was responsible for it? It was the result of propaganda, and the same sentiments that led to that strike are so rampant in this country at the present time that those in authority who are responsible for the maintenance of law and order find their duties exceedingly difficult. I do not care whether the agitator is a British subject or not; if he does not abide by the law he should be deported be he Greek, Jew, or Gentile. The sooner this country wakes up and puts on the statute books a proper law, and one sufficiently stringent, the better it will be for administration generally and for law and order in the country.
I am absolutely opposed to this change, for which there is no demand that I can see. The civil authorities whose business it is to keep order have not asked for it. As a matter of fact, the municipalities are very largely against it, and the police themselves are opposed to it. They discussed the question at a convention in Ottawa some time ago, and while I cannot speak for them I think I am safe in saying that as a unit they took a stand against any interference with the immigration law as it was adopted in 1919. No one who is liable to deportation, whether he be a British subject or not, should be immune from the provisions of the act. And some of the most dangerous agitators in Canada today, some of whom I know myself, come from the British Isles. The average foreigner

is peaceable and law-abiding, and he tries to obey the laws of the land; but some of these agitators bring with them into Canada views of government which are not shared for a moment by the people here who have built up this country. There should be no special provision for the British subject if he is an agitator or an anarchist. He should be treated just like any ether undesirable. These disturbers of the peace advocate policies that are the reverse of good government. With the experience which the government have gained during the past four years, and in the light of the Winnipeg strike, the labour troubles that have prevailed in the Maritime provinces, and the industrial unrest generally, not only in this country but elsewhere as well, notably in the Motherland and in Australia, I fail to see how hon. gentlemen opposite could bring down a bill like this and seriously ask parliament to adopt it. It is not too late to withdraw the bill and I hope the government will see fit to do so.
When agitation was rife in the Australian Commonwealth what did Premier Bruce say? He'said: "We will make this a white man's country. It does not matter whether the anarchist came from Europe or from the British Isles, he will be deported. Everyone who comes to this country has got to abide by the law and if he attempts to make any disturbance we will deport him." That is the attitude taken by the premier and the government of Australia, and that is the attitude we should take in this country. The Australian parliament backed up Premier Bruce by an overwhelming majority. I have come across a good many agitators in my time. When I was chairman of the Board of Police Commissioners in Toronto the board had frequently to consider cases of disturbance created by men of this type. I remember on one occasion there was a good deal of trouble, and the foreigners in St. John's ward were by no means to blame.
The government will have to take the responsibility for any violations of the law to whiefh this legislation may give rise. The responsibility is on their shoulders. T. know of no reason why agitators who are British by naturalization should not be subject to the same deportation laws when they try to upset constituted government, and cause trouble in Canada. On the government of the day is the responsibility for maintaining law and order. In the British House of Commons the Right Hon. Sir John Simon recently declared himself strongly against the doctrines of communism as subversive of the state, and

Red Cross Society Act
expressed the opinion that in the last resort the Attorney General should prosecute whoever disseminated such doctrines. I agree with him. Colonel Grassett, a former chief of police of Toronto, on one occasion expressed the opinion that it is better to let agitators hold their meetings in the open rather than have them disseminate their noxious doctrines in secret meetings. The time has come when something should be done to regulate communism in this country. To-day there are Sunday schools in Toronto where communists are teaching their children these continental European doctrines -doctrines which are not British and are alien to the soil of Canada. It is the duty of the government to check such teaching. I believe in proper support for labour, but I venture to say that the real labour leaders of Canada do not approve of communism; they respect British institutions.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is a retrograde step on the part of the government to introduce this bill. Section 41 of the act of 1919 is a very good section, and you might as well abolish the immigration officers altogether if you are not going to strengthen their hands in the larger centres of population. In this matter we should take a leaf out of the book of the United States. When the government of that country found a few years ago that Americans of Anglo-Saxon stock would soon be in a minority, they passed what is popularly known as the quota law, which limits the annual number of immigrants from any country. One thing you must respect the Americans for-they make everyone obey the laws. I repeat it is a retrograde step to repeal section 41 and substitute this section, which means nothing. I contend-*


Charles A. Stewart: It now being six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the committee rise and report progress.


Arthur Meighen: Before the committee rises, will not the minister admit that under the law as it stands the power of deportation applies only to a British immigrant during the first five years of his residence in Canada?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, once they become citizens you cannot deport them.


Arthur Meighen: And they become citizens in five years or three?


Charles A. Stewart: Five years is the shortest period.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: In that connection, is it not. true that a man mav remain
in Canada' six, eight or ten years without taking out papers-I know some do-and then be deported?


Arthur Meighen: That does not apply here at all; that man is not a British subject. Once a British subject has been in Canada for five years the act does not apply.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No one, according to the act, who belongs to the prohibited or undesirable classes within the meaning of section 41 shall be capable of acquiring Canadian domicile, and then the act proceeds to enumerate the classes of undesirables. So it does not make any difference whether such an immigrant is here for five years cr twenty, he cannot acquire Canadian domicile.


Arthur Meighen: That cannot be the effect, as is shown by the discussion in 1923
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



CANADIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence) moved the second reading of Bill No. 151, to amend the Canadian Red Cross Society Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 1-Disposal of property.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: What is the object of
this bill?


Finlay MacDonald: I explained the purpose of this bill on the first reading. Under the act of 1909 incorporating the Red Cross Society, which was consolidated under the legislation of 1922, power was given to the Red Cross Society to hold and acquire property for the purposes of the society, but strangely enough, no power was given to the society to dispose of their property when they should find it necessary or advisable to do so. During the war, I am instructed by Doctor Robertson, who is head of the Red Cross Society, in different parts of the country the society acquired little pieces of property which in their own interests they desire to dispose of from time to time, and this bill simply gives them power to dispose of it as they see fit
Railway Act Am'endment


John Wesley Edwards: The same
power as is enjoyed by other societies?


Finlay MacDonald: Yes.
There is nothing more involved in the bill than that.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 149, to amend the Railway Act, 1919.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 1-Apportionment of money of railway grade crossing fund.
Henry Lumley Drayton: We have had a very full discussion of this measure, but I think there is just one thing the minister was going to look into. It was the point raised by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). Has my hon. friend looked into that?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have made some inquiries regarding the matter, more especially of the Board of Railway Commissioners, because of course their past practice with regard to this matter is important. I am informed that it has been the practice of the board to interpret section 262 liberally, and that following such practice each separation of grade-that is, each particular crossing of a highway by a railway, or vice versa, even though a number of such crossings be included in one work or project ordered by the board-would be treated as a crossing within the definition of the same in the act, and aid therefore could in each case be apportioned to the extent of 25 per cent of the cost thereof not exceeding $15,000, subject to the limitations in the act respecting the number of crossings in each municipality. That is the manner in which the board has administered the old provision, and I think it clears up the point.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE H. BOIVIN (for the Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 114, to amend the Customs Tariff, 1907.

Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 1-British preferential tariff.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose this
relates entirely to the West India treaty, does it not? No, it has to do with our own ports.


Mr. BOIVIN:: Yes, itr limits the preference to our own ports.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Schedule A amended.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I think this
very largely refers to the West India treaty, does it not?


Georges Henri Boivin: Clause 2 contains the general changes. Of course some of these changes refer to the West India treaty.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we have an understanding with the Minister of Finance to the effect that these changes in connection with the West India treaty shall not come into force until the treaty is ratified.


Georges Henri Boivin: I believe that understanding is perfectly correct, with the exception of a slight amendment with respect to cocoa beans.
Before section 2 carries I beg to move an amendment to tariff item 626a, namely, that the enumeration of goods and the several rates of duties set opposite that item be struck out. This change was asked for by the maufacturers of men's and boys' hats in Canada who imported the hoods in the rough from foreign countries. It will be remembered that a slight change was made when the resolution was before the committee to meet the requests of certain Canadian manufacturers of the same kind of hoods. After that change was made and the bill was printed the manufacturers of hats who do not manufacture hoods represented to the government that they were being placed in a worse position than before. The striking out of tariff item 626a leaves the customs tariff absolutely as it was before and there is no change whatever in that regard.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The item is
just dropped.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Schedule B amended.
Georges Henri Boivin: In regard to section 1055
there has been a request made to alter very

Customs Tariff
slightly the wording, and instead of using the words "when used in the manufacture of" in the first line, substitute the words "which enter into the cost of". Certain manufacturers in Canada represent to us that they must procure oil's and machinery for the manufacture of these parts; that if they are not placed in the same proportionate relation to the imported parts as they are at the present time they will suffer hardship, and that therefore the machinery, oil and other materials required for the manufacture of these parts should be subject to the same drawback a3 the part itself, when it is imported by the Canadian manufacturer.


Mr. MORAND:: Does that include the dies?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: All machines
used in the manufacture of automobile parts?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes, they will be subject to the 25 per cent drawback upon the present rate of duty.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You should make it read, "All machines used in the manufacture of automobiles," because you cannot make automobiles without using parts.


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes, it would apply to both.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many of these machines are at present made in Canada, dies and the like?


Georges Henri Boivin: I am not in a position to give that information, although I am told that the stamping machines are not manufactured in Canada at all at present, and it is precisely to cover the very expensive stamping machines that we are asked to make this amendment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is not limited to stamping machines?


Georges Henri Boivin: No. It is to cover all machinery used in the manufacture of the parts which may be imported into Canada with the 25 per cent drawback. The manufacturers of parts and the manufacturers of automobiles represent that if they are obliged to pay full rate of duty on the machinery which they must import they will be suffering a hardship of 25 per cent, and that they should enjoy the same proportionate advantage as the company manufacturing parts in the United States.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It hardly does that. I think the minister means that he puts them, having regard to the capital account necessary for their machinery and machinery
supplies, in the same position as they are having regard to the drawback on the finished article.


Georges Henri Boivin: It has been stated in the
department that if we leave in the section the words "when used in the manufacture of," it will mean the actual material which goes into the car itself, and that it would be clearer to substitute the words, "which enter into the cost of".


Mr. CANTLEY:: I apprehend from what the minister says, that all machinery used in the manufacture of automobiles is now to go on the free list.


Georges Henri Boivin: Oh, by no means. A great deal of it comes in at 27J per cent duty and perhaps more. This amendment would give a reduction of 25 per cent on the present rate of duty. In other words, the present rate of duty would be reduced by one-quarter when the machinery is used exclusively in the manufacture of automobiles.


Thomas Cantley: How are you going to protect the manufacturer of machinery fpr that loss of protection? Are you going to put him in the position he was in before?


Georges Henri Boivin: That is one of the difficulties of an intricate protective tariff, but the representations made to the government have been that the drawback clause would cause serious hardship to the manufacturers supplying parts to those car manufacturers who are now making 75 or 85 per cent of their car in Canada. If they could purchase the excess of the 40 or 50 per cent of their car, which must be of Canadian manufacture, in the United States cheaper than they could purchase the same parts here, they would naturally give the preference to the American market. In order to place the Canadian manufacturer of parts in a position to meet as far as possible that reduction of 25 per cent, it is only fair to give him a reduction of 25 per cent of the duty on his machinery. It is true, as the hon. member pointed out, that there may be a slight hardship in this for the manufacturers of machinery, but it must be remembered that they are not manufacturers of machinery for the purposes of the manufacture of automobiles only; that they have a very wide range of factories to which they can sell that machinery, and their loss of protection will only be one-quarter of the present rate of duty on machinery sold to the automobile manufacturers.


Thomas Cantley: I am thoroughly aware
of that, but it means you are cutting away
Customs Tariff

the duty, first to help one and then to help another; the next thing we will have will be a reduction of duty on iron and steel entering into the cost of the machine to relieve the machine man.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It has gone
already.


Thomas Cantley: No, not in regard to the
makers of machines. The Bertram Company in Hamilton are making machinery of this kind. One-quarter of their protection is cut off; next you will take the duty off pig iron, and so it goes on- in that way. Tampering with the tariff is like tampering with the truth, one lie necessitates another. When you thus tamper with the tariff you do injustice after injustice all down the scale.


Georges Henri Boivin: I agree with my hon. friend. The idea is to lower the cost to the consumer as much as possible and do as little injustice to the manufacturers as we can.


Thomas Cantley: It is always doing some.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Will you give us a list
of the things that enter into the manufacture of automobiles?


Georges Henri Boivin: My hon. friend is quite
aware that that list would be very long. An enormous number of articles enter into the composition of an automobile, and it was for that reason that no definite attempt was made to make a specific rate of duty on each one of those parts and materials. Instead, it was thought best, in order to encourage as far as possible the manufacture of the car and of the parts in Canada, to give a rebate, and a slightly lower rate of duty to the manufacturers who would devote their entire energy to the manufacturing of all they possibly could in their own country. They are the only ones who will have any advantage from this drawback. Those who do not comply with the provisions of the new item and have their cars at least 40 per cent manufactured in Canada for the first year and 50 per cent after that, will not benefit by the drawback. I would say that I would hold up the legislation until Friday in an endeavour to give my hon. friend the list he has asked for, if that would be possible, but he knows very well that it would take a long time to get that information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course one
of the great difficulties is that of knowing where we start and where we stop in all these things. The minister will agree with that. It is extraordinary what a quantity of steel comes into this country for the purpose of

making agricultural implements. Practically everybody is in the business and if they are in the business almost everything they turn out is for an agricultural implement. This is something you cannot police when you are looking after rebates on goods for distribution in your own market. Last year we imported something like $11,000,000 worth of steel for agricultural implements and it is safe to say that a good deal of that steel was used for something which was not strictly an agricultural implement. The steel companies have always complained that you cannot police this matter. We are getting more and more into that policy. My hon. friend is right; he cannot help it. The trouble is that the government started by laying down a policy and made some cuts without knowing anything about the matter. In that way they have caused a great deal of trouble and they are now trying to fix up their fences. It is a natural thing to endeavour to correct the harm we do particularly when the inevitable results unless we do that are shown.
My hon. friend ought not to think that the manufacturers of parts have a protective duty of 30 to 35 per cent on automobiles, because he knows that a very large proportion of automobiles are exported and there is a large rebate of duty on exports. The result is that if a manufacturer is exporting 50 per cent of his output, as regards his cost in purchasing parts the duty of 30 per cent on his parts drops down on his total business to 15 per cent. I think my hon. friend will follow me in that. As the matter now stands, that actual duty of 15 per cent, although an apparent duty of 30 per cent, will under this change become a duty of something like 11 per cent, or one-quarter off fifteen.


Georges Henri Boivin: The export is about 47 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I take 50 per cent for the sake of ease in calculation.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Under this item practically everything that goes into a machine shop, engines, boilers, lathes, drills, shears, shafting, boxes equipment of every description, will be subject to the drawback of 25 per cent in the duty. It means simply that a manufacturer of machinery of every description is going to be penalized to this extent. This is a case of endeavouring to transfer the burden from one man to another. There is not a manufacturer of machinery in this country who is not going to be hurt to that extent under this clause.


Georges Henri Boivin: If my hon. friends seriously object to the amendment I do not want to

Special War Revenue Act
press it. I proposed to insert it for the purpose of trying to assist Canadian part manufacturers. I am not doing this at all for the purpose of trying to place the responsibility on the other side of the House; I am willing to assume the responsibility. If my hon. friends think the item is too dangerous and we should not give this aid and assistance to the part manufacturers, I am willing to assume the responsibility not making the amendment. I am not asking anyone else to share the responsibility.


George Brecken Nicholson: To start in this piecemeal business of attacking first one industry and then another and then to try to rectify something that should not have been done is not the way to proceed at all. We have no information before us except the general information that one has with regard to manufacturing business. Under this item the manufacture of machinery of every description will be subject to a reduction of 25 per cent in the duty. We have not the general tariff before us. It is impossible to state just what the effect of this will be; we do not know what effect it will have on the automobile industry, and because the government did wrong in attacking the automobile industry is no reason why we should continue to do wrong by attacking other industries.


Thomas Cantley: The minister has been
exceedingly frank about the matter. This is going to open a very wide door and I think he would be wise to withdraw the amendment he proposes.


Mr. BO  IVIN@: I shall not press the amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Bill reported.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is a matter that I would draw to my hon. friend's attention. I think he will agree with me that the third reading should stand.


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting of the House.



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE H. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise) moved the second reading of Bill No. 115, to amend the Special War Revenue Act, 1915.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 1-Exception.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is the section we were trying to define.


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Excise tax on playing cards.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What will be the increase under this item?


Georges Henri Boivin: About $1,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the present turnover?


Georges Henri Boivin: About 150,000 dozen packs a year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Tax on sales by operation of law, etc.
Henry Lumley Drayton: The effect of this clause is to provide that in the case of property sold under lien the ordinary tax shall apply.


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes, or when the lien holder takes over and continues operating the 'business.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Fifty per cent of tax on canned fish.
Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the sales tax?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Excise tax on carbonic acid gas removed.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is merely one of the nuisance taxes which the minister is getting rid of. It brought in no revenue and he is right in abolishing it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8

Refunds of tax paid on ships' stores.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the purpose of this section?


Georges Henri Boivin: The purpose of the section is to encourage vessels to fit out in Canadian ports and to enable dealers to sell ships' stores on the same terms as a manufacturer or wholesaler. There is no sales tax on American goods sold in bond.
Special War Revenue Act


Henry Lumley Drayton: The principle here is the same as in the case of a rebate of duty on goods exported.


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9, 10 and 11 agreed to.
On section 12-When sections 3, 5, 6 and 7 come into force.
Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no change here?


Georges Henri Boivin: No, it is merely fixing the time at which these sections shall come into force.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: I shall not ask that the bill be reported out of committee to-night. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is unavoidably absent, and while I do not know that he has in mind any changes, this is one of the matters which it was understood were not to be put through until his return. I have had the bill considered to-night merely to expedite the business of the House and I now move that progress be reported.


William Duff: It is understood that all the clauses are carried. There remain for consideration just the preamble and the title?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-WINNIPEG STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE H. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise) moved that the House go into committee of Supply.
Peter Heenan: Before the motion is carried I should like to have from the government a statement of its policy in relation to the despatch of troops into strike areas. In this conection I want to relate some of the circumstances that attended the strike in Winnipeg in 1919. On March 11 I stated on the floor of this House that troops had been sent into Winnipeg at the time of that strike, that shots were fired, and that a person was killed; and I added that had the then Minister of Labour exercised a little horse sense that strike could have been settled without any bloodshed. Now I desire to prove these statements.
I notice that the ex-Minister of Labour, speaking in another place, lamented the fact that he had left the files behind him when he left the department, but I want to assure him that the files are all right. They are intact, and to refresh his memory I shall quote

several of his own telegrams and communications as taken from those very files. The strike occurred on May 15, 1919 and I find that on the previous day, May 14, General Kitchen, the commanding officer in Winnipeg, communicated with the secretary of the military council at Ottawa, advising that the mayor of Winnipeg had communicated to him his intention of calling upon the military authorities to take steps to protect property. So that we have evidence there that it was the intention of the mayor to seek the assistance of the military authorities.
On May 19, four days after the strike was declared, General Kitchen wired from Winnipeg to Military Headquarters at Ottawa:
At the request of the mayor and on his written statement that he anticipated disturbances beyond the powers of oivil authorities to deal with, a percentage of the active militia 'has been called out.
In that comunication he enumerated the different battalions, eleven in number. So that right at the outset we have evidence that the militia had been called out. On the 15th of the month, the day the strike took place, instructions were sent for a squadron of the Northwest Mounted Police returning from overseas, to be demobilized at Winnipeg and handed over to Commissioner Perry. Later this was done. Consequently during their term of duty in Winnipeg they were members of the mounted police and not of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the authorities were camouflaging and pretending that these men of the Canadian Expeditionary Force were members of the mounted police because of the fact that they had been demobilized-and for a purpose.
On May 20 General Kitchen wired for authority as to the source of pay for the militia units that he had called out or of the portion of the units that might be used in the course of the strike. On the same day he was advised that the pay would come from the military authorities.
On May 22 the Adjutant General sent a message to General Kitchen that the Hon. Mr. Meighen and Senator Robertson were convinced by the Citizens Committee lof Winnipeg that a certain officer at the head of the militia should be relieved and his place taken by some other officers whose names they suggested. On the same date a message was sent by General Kitchen to the acting prime minister and the military authorities at Ottawa reporting that everything was quiet in Winnipeg, that there were no signs of disturbance, but asking that extra Lewis guns be furnished and forwarded to Winnipeg under guard. It rather looked as if everything was not so quiet.

Supply-Winnipeg Strike
On May 23 General Hill was ordered to go to Montreal to meet the 27th battalion, explain the situation at Winnipeg, and ascertain whether the whole or a portion of that battalion would consent to remain on duty during the period of emergency in Winnipeg. He was also advised that an officer would report to him at Turcotte yards, near Montreal, at 3.30 a.m. on the 24th instant with eight Lewis machine guns packed in ordinary packing boxes and marked regimental baggage, 27th Battalion." These were to be placed on the first train carrying that unit and delivered to the officer commanding military district No. 10 on arrival. The message continued:
An officer will deliver twelve Lewis guns similarly packed and addressed at Smiths Falls on arrival of the first train. It is desired that these guns reach Winnipeg without anyone being the wiser.
If the then Minister of Labour did not know what was going on he should have known, because his government was doing this.
On May 25 Senator Robertson wired for the information of council that in his judgment:
This is not an opportune time to make a declaration in favour of principle collective bargaining as it [DOT]would be grasped as an excuse by strikers to claim they have forced the government and thereby proved success of sympathetic strike.
In the same message he added:
I anticipate that the general strike will either be called off very shortly or a last desperate move made to make it successful. If it proves a failure the One Big Union movement intended to be launched at the Calgary convention on June 4-
That is, about ten days ahead.
-will I think also fail. These are my personal views expressed in Mr. Meighen's absence and for the information of council.
I said the other day, Mr. Speaker, that had the then Minister of Labour used a little horse sense the strike could have been settled without bloodshed. The strike was called on May 15, and everyone that had anything to do with it said that it was for the purpose of maintaining the principle of collective bargaining. Yet on May 25-ten days afterwards- it appears that some of his colleagues in council here had been advising him to make a declaration in favour of the principle of collective bargaining, but Senator Robertson at the time apparently put his own views before those of some of his colleagues and said that this was not the proper time to make such a declaration. His only excuse was that he was afraid the strikers would be encouraged to prolong the strike. I submit that right there and then he had the greatest opportunity of his life, either to call the bluff 14011-254
of the strikers if he thought they were bluffing, or to settle the strike; but he failed to do so.
On May 26 General Kitchen reported the arrival of the 27th battalion in Winnipeg, and that he was conferring with General Hill that evening. He added:
The machine gun section was in serviceable condition.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the ex-Minister of Labour in another place stated that on his honour as a minister of the crown there was not one soldier sent into Winnipeg. Well, there we have the acknowledgment of the arrival of the 27th battalion with twenty Lewis machine guns. I do not know bow he harmonizes those two conflicting statements.
On May 26 General Kitchen communicated with the Prime Minister and others that after conferring with the ministers who were in Winnipeg-that is, Senator Robertson and Mr. Meighen-the only solution to his mind was to have the agitative leaders arrested for instigation and intimidation. He continued:
If this was possible I consider the bottom would fall out of the movement to tie up the whole country by
a sympathetic strike.
On May 27 Senator Robertson again wired council that labour leaders were frantically endeavouring to camouflage the issue by attempting to contend for the recognition of collective bargaining, and that "General Kitchen's arrangements were both adequate and admirable." In the first place, he had refused to make a declaration in favour of tne principle of collective bargaining, and two or three days afterwards he pointed out that the strike leaders were camouflaging, yet he did not use enough horse sense to call their bluff. So I repeat my statement that had he used a little horse sense he could have settled the strike without one shot being fired and without any bloodshed.
On May 31 General Kitchen wrote to the Minister of Justice, that Mr. Meighen, and Senator Robertson had arrived in Winnipeg on May 22, and that Mr. Meighen had issued a proclamation to the postal service on strike warning them that all employees would be given until 11 a.m. on the 26th of May to return to duty, that after that date such as did not accept the offer would be dismissed and debarred from further employment in the postal service, and that the vacancies so caused would be immediately filled by 9 p.m. the selection of suitable volunteers.. During the last election, Mr. Speaker, the late Minister of Labour, Mr. Murdock, was very properly ridiculed for

Supply-Winnipeg Strike

telling the post office employees at Toronto "They could stay out until hell froze over." This is a similar expression, in effect that if they did not accept the position by a certain date they could also stay out till the same place had frozen over.
Then there was a certain time which was apparently utilized to beat the strikers rather than to settle the strike. On June 5th, Senator Robertson wrote a letter giving permission for 44 porters to be brought in from the United States to take the place of the Canadian Pacific Railway men on strike. On June 7th, Mr. Andrews of Winnipeg, who was acting for the Justice department, wired Senator Robertson giving details of an offer of the metal employers to settle the strike. Here was an opportunity to settle the strike at the instance of the employers themselves.
On June 9th a message was sent by a gentleman who I understand was a member of this House at that time, Mr. Allan, interfering in the matter. He wired to a gentleman by the name of Nanton-I think we all knew Sir Augustus Nanton-as follows:
Feel strongly company should adhere to refusal mediator's proposal collective bargaining and that sympathetic strike should be called off before negotiations are resumed. Understand citizens' committee and companies agreed sympathy strike cannot be allowed wholly or partially to succeed.
In other words, they were more interested in breaking the strike than in settling the strike. Evidently the interference had some result, because on June Kith Sir Augustus Nanton answered Mr. Allan-and by the way, through the military sources here-to the effect that all sympathetic strikes must be called off as a preliminary to any further negotiations, and Senator Robertson was again called on to use all his influence in the matter.
On June 9th evidently there were some members of the government here at Ottawa who did not desire the strike should be called off, because I find here a message from Mr. Meighen to Mr. Andrews advising that certain legislation was likely to be introduced- we were discussing some of that legislation today-and it seemed to him-Mr. Meighen- that the settlement on the terms proposed would be a triumph for the strike leaders. In other words, members of the government here ait Ottawa were not anxious that the strike should be settled or that the plans the employers had submitted should be accepted.
On June 15th, Senator Robertson wired the Prime Minister that owing to the failure of mediation proceedings and the strike extending to the train service men a clear-cut definition and declaration on the question of colfMr. Heenan.]
lective bargaining seemed to be justified, and that such was submitted to the metal trade employers and had been accepted. After he had refused to make this declaration on May 25th, he now considers, on June 15th, that this is the opportune time to make the statement he should have made I'ong before. He advised further in that telegram that further action outlined in the telegram of the 13th was likely to be taken within the next twenty-four hours, "which we anticipate will result in speedy and satisfactory conclusion of the trouble here." In other words, he was advising that there, would be arrests of some of the men within the next twenty-four hours, and within the next twenty-four hours ten men were arrested.
On June 17th, Senator Robertson wired the Prime- Minister pointing out the importance of providing machinery for the deportation of undesirables, also advising him of ten arrests on the previous night, and that the Labour temple and several Labour hal'ls had been searched for printed literature and records.
On June 17th, the day after the arrests, Mr. Meighen wired from Ottawa to Mr. Andrews in Winnipeg questioning the legality of the arrests, and pointing out that the arrests had been made without proper authorization, but that the proper authorization was being immediately despatched. In other words, the men -had been arrested illegally, but once arrested the government was going to make their arrests legal. Mr. Andrews got a slight slap on the wrist there from (Mr. Meighen), and answering the Minister the next day he practically blamed the whole situation on Senator Robertson. He said:
Everything I have done has been at the suggestion of Senator Robertson, but because it might weaken his position with Labour I have taken the full responsibility for the Justice department.
In other words, Senator Robertson was in politics, and if he had done anything along these lines it might have weakened his position with Labour if it had been found out, so they had in Winnipeg, acting for the Justice department, another gentleman, who was not in politics, and who took full responsibility in order to save Senator Robertson in a political way.
On June 17th Mr. Meighen wired to Mr. Andrews that although he had himself questioned the legality of what had been done, it was all right anyway. He said:
Notwithstanding any douibt I have as to the technical legality of the arrest and the detention at Stony Mountain, I feel that rapid deportation is the best course now that the arrests are made, and later we can consider ratification.

Supply-Winvipeg Strike
In other words, legal or not, the arrests had been made and the government were determined to get these men out of the country, and later ratify the action that had been taken. We were discussing a bill here this afternoon, in a camouflaged sort of way which does not go to the kernel of the matter, for the legislation was put there for no other purpose than to break the strike in 1919.
On June 17th Mr. Calder wired to the head of the mounted police in Winnipeg:
You are 'hereby authorized under section 42 of the Immigration Act to take into custody and detain for examination for the purposes of deportation the several persons referred to in your telegram of the seventeenth.
In that he was authorizing the arrest and detention of men after they had already been arrested and detained in Stony Mountain.
Again, on the same day Mr. Meighen wired to Senator Robertson advising delay in arrests, in which he said that the provincial government had so advised. "Authorization depends wholly on you." In other words, Senator Robertson was in Winnipeg with full authority in regard to the arrests, but in view of the fact that the provincial government advised against	the arrests	Mr.	Meighen wired	toSenator	Robertson	that authorization	depended wholly upon him, the Minister of Labour. On the same date Mr. Calder wired to Judge Robson as follows:
Message received. If Senator Robertson has not left, please get in touch with him immediately as local representative was directed, to obtain his approval for any action contemplated.
Again putting the whole responsibility on Senator	Robertson,	the	then Minister	ofLabour.	On June	18th	Senator Robertson
wired the Prime Minister reporting: everything quiet in Winnipeg and that "our action has proved effective and satisfactory to citizens generally and will be wholly justified." He asked in the same message that certain amendments to the Criminal Code be hastened, as Commissioner Perry, of the northwest mounted police, might desire to take general action throughout western Canada at an early date. Having arrested ten men illegally and put them in Stony Mountain penitentiary, having conquered Winnipeg, as it were, he was now prepared to attack the whole of western Canada. He therefore asked for certain legislation to be hastened so that he could get out on the war path again. On June 19 the Prime Minister wired Senator Robertson as follows:
Thanks for various messages and especially your telegram of yesterday. Pray accept warmest congratulations upon your masterly handling of a very difficult and complicated situation.
14011-254i
So that apparently the whole proceedings had the blessing of the Prime Minister and the government generally. But two days later something serious happened. I have led up to the point where a situation occurred that is deplorable to think of. On June 21st a message was received here in Ottawa to this effect:
Serious riot started at 2.45 p.m. Mounted police turned out and now engaged with crowd. Mayor read Riot Act and called on militia. Turning out at once.
So it happened that the militia were used. On the same day there was a message from Mr. Andrews to Hon. Mr. Meighen in reference to the strike, in which he stated:
I think, however, if we had not admitted to bail riots would have 'been participated in by strike committee who I believe, did all in their power to prevent red soldiers parade which started riot.
I want to draw this to the attention of hon. members: The strike committee were blamed for causing a riot. The ex-Minister of Labour, speaking in another place on the 12th of May, went on to say that the committee of the strikers with whom he had been negotiating at an hotel left the hotel with the statement that they were going out to fight that afternoon, and one of them said, "No, we don't want anything to eat; we can fight better on an empty stomach." Nevertheless we find the general officer commanding in Winnipeg making this statement in a telegram to the Hon. Mr. Meighen: "I believe the strike committee did all in their power to prevent the red soldier parade which started the riot." On the other hand Senator Robertson is found declaring in another place that the strike committee were prepared to fight on empty stomachs.


Robert James Manion: In the riots the hon.
member speaks of were any people killed?


Peter Heenan: Yes.


Robert James Manion: How many?


Peter Heenan: One.


Robert James Manion: Were there any others
killed during the strike in addition to that one person?


Peter Heenan: Not that I know of. I
do not mind any hon. gentleman asking questions. May I say just at this point that I was in Winnipeg. I have been in the labour movement all my life, and have been at the head of every union with which I have been identified locally and I never was on strike one day in my life. I was more interested in an honourable settlement of this strike at that time than I was in anything else. But when it comes down to placing the respon-
Supply-Winnipcc Strike

sibility for certain occurrences that took place at that time I am going to state the facts no matter who is injured by it.
Senator Robertson in another place made the assertion that I had made a false statement on the floor of this House knowing it to be false, and that I did so for a malicious purpose.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend has invited questions; may I ask him one more? Was it the troops or the mounted police that did the killing?


Peter Heenan: If my hon. friend had
been following me he would have gathered that a squadron of mounted police arriving from overseas had been demobilized in Winnipeg so that they would not be known as soldiers but as mounted police. They were the men that did the shooting. If my hon. friend will just give me time I will cover all those points as I go along.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: What do you
hope to accomplish by rehashing this" matter of the Winnipeg strike? You are simply creating bad feeling in this country.


Peter Heenan: I hope to vindicate my
honour in the face of the charges made against me.


David Spence: It was nothing
but an attempt at revolution, that is all it was.


Peter Heenan: On what do you base
that opinion?
Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale); Everybody is of that opinion.


Peter Heenan: I will tell you what it
was: A straw man was simply put up for the purpose of knocking it down. That is all it was. I never heard anything so ridiculous in my life as the suggestion that there was an attempt at revolution in Winnipeg. The 27th battalion with twenty machine guns were there, and yet the ex-Minister of Labour made the statement in another place that not one soldier was called upon. This is the gentleman who charged an hon. member of this House with making a malicious statement knowing it to be false. Do hon. gentlemen opposite think that I have no honour or selfrespect?
The ex-Minister of Labour in another place made a statement to the effect that there were men on the tops of buildings and other very secluded places firing rifle or revolver shots at the mounted police. There is on record a report from one of his own men who states

the circumstances under which the shots were fired. I cannot pronounce this man's name, no Irishman in this country could pronounce it. The initial of his Christian name is all right. It is "P". Whether that is "Patrick" or not, I do not know. The surname is spelled in the following manner- G-U"g-e-y-e-z-u-c-k.


Mr. JACOBS:: Can you sneeze it?


Peter Heenan: The ex-Minister of Labour eulogizes this individual in another document as one who could be depended upon and recommends that he be given extra pay for his work during the trouble. This man had been reporting regularly. Two days after the strike, on the 23rd of May. he states:
The authorities were well prepared to stop any disturbance. At 2.30 they began to gather around the market square. The Royal Northwest Mounted Police and special police came up to keep order and stop the parade. As soon as they were near the crowd many stones and bricks were thrown at them and yelling "boo-hoo". In reply to this the mounted police started shooting. There was one killed, thirty were injured and about one hundred arrested.
Instead of firing revolver shots from the tops of buildings, as the senator says, somebody shouted "boo-hoo". Then the mounted police started shooting and1 killed a man.


David Spence: They did fire a revolver shot and threw two brickbats. I was there myself at the time.


Peter Heenan: What is the government doing in this connection? I ask the government to amend the act so that no soldiers can be sent into any strike area, except on the responsibility of the government. I do not believe we should allow orders to go round this country promiscuously, requiring soldiers to go into any of these areas. I think I have proved conclusively that the Minister of Labour did on a whim of his own, against the advice of some of his own colleagues, prolong the strike by refusing 'to declare in favour of collective bargaining. I think he says himself it was in the interests of the international unions. Speaking in another place the hon. minister said that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, who was a young member in the House, should confess his indiscretion in making such statements, should admit the truth and thus apologize. In speaking to the House I have left out a lot of quotations from statements from the files because I think it is in the interest of the country not to use them.
In conclusion I have one apology to make, and that is that I was one of the men who was instrumental in recommending to the Prime Minister the appointment of Senator

Supply-Winnipeg Strike
Robertson to represent Labour in the Senate of Canada. I have now to apologize and say that we appointed a man who became a misfit, and through his indifference actually caused the riots in Winnipeg. I repeat again that he used a little common sense-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Hewitt Bostock: I would remind the hon. member that the gentleman of whom he is speaking is a member of the Senate. According to our rules decorum must be observed and no expression imputing discredit on a member of the House of Commons or member of the Senate should be used. The hon. member used the expression u misfit and applied it to a senator. I do not think the expression is parliamentary, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw it.
Mr. IiEENAN: I withdraw it; I am sorry I used it if it is against the rules. But I think someone should communicate to the other chamber and inform them of the rule, so that the same order might prevail over there. I do not think a member of the House of Commons, who has to go before the electors, should be spoken about in the way I was spoken about by a member of the Senate who feels a certain amount of security, ;n that he does not have to face the electors. 1 do not want to dictate to the Speaker, but I feel that in all fairness he should communicate to the Speaker of the Senate the ruling he has just given. I am perfectly -willing to abide by it. The ruling is a proper one.
The strike we have been discussing should have been settled, but the whole negotiation leading up to the riot was carried on in a manner to prevent its being settled. I do not think anyone could rely on the information the commanding officer was receiving from different sources, because I find in the documents that he had secured a man to go amongst the labour unions as one of them, to find out what was going on and report to the officer. He was paid $75 a week on account of the danger of the job. But, hon. members will note that the officer had so little confidence in that man that he had to employ another man at $50 a week to check him up for fear he would be double-crossed. That is the report received from the general officer commanding at Winnipeg. If I had been an officer of the crown receiving the reports here, I would have been afraid there was actually a revolution of some description in progress in Winnipeg. I say there was no sign of a revolution, and when the minister went up there for the purpose of settling the matter, if he had really attempted to settle it or was desirous of settling it, he
could have done so without the delay that actually did occur in bringing about a settlement.


Arthur Meighen: 
Peter Heenan: In explanation I may say that I said I would take it up at the first opportunity.


Arthur Meighen: I did not know what
would be the hon. member's first opportunity,, consequently I am in -the position of nob knowing precisely what the hon. member's words were. As I went to Winnipeg at the time with the Minister of Labour of that day, and had to do with all with which the Minister of Labour had to do, I am tolerably familiar with the circumstances, and in referring to those circumstances, speak only under the handicap of the time which has since elapsed.
I have just had the opportunity of reading what was said in another place by the Minister of Labour at that time. Only now have I had the time to read it, and I hasten to say that what was said by the Minister of Labour in another place was, in every line of it, correct. No troops whatever were ordered into Winnipeg by the government or anybody else at the time of the strike in 1919. Not only were none ordered in. but none went in and none had anything to do with the labour trouble. There were troops in Winnipeg at the time. They were never used. There were some troops who enlisted voluntarily, because the citizens of Winnipeg were not allowed to attend to their own ordinary duties, and they deemed it their first immediate task to try to protect their city. There was nothing else they could do anyway, so that they were all the more ready to protect the city from the danger they felt it was in. As a consequence somewhere in the neighbourhood of from 2,000 to 3,000 enlisted in the unit whose headquarters was in Winnipeg, under the permanent officer of that unit, just as any citizens have a right to enlist.


Robert James Manion: Just as they did in England the other day.
Supply-Winnipeg Strike


Arthur Meighen: Yes, just as they did in England, under circumstances, much less crucial than existed in Winnipeg at this time. Those troops who so enlisted, citizens of Winnipeg, were never requistioned and never took any active part. They were merely held in reserve to support the civil authorities should that support be found necessary. I think I have already referred to, and under the circumstances I feel justified in repeating, .a report which I received. While I have not the authority of the party making the report do give his name, I feel I could get it; but .1 say to the House that it was one high in authority. I wrote to him for a report on the matter and I have a copy of it before me. I will ask the House to accept my word that he was one high in the militia of Canada and that he was on the ground. I do not know that the hon. member will accept my word.


Peter Heenan: Why not?


Arthur Meighen: Possibly he will. If so, he will have to retract' a great deal that he said. The writer of the report says:
I have been away for some little time, and so I trust you will please excuse the delay in replying to yours of the 20th October.
In reply to your request, I may say that no troops were either sent in or brought into Winnipeg for use in connection with (the labour troubles of 1919 from any outside points.
One battalion of infantry, returning from overseas- the 27th City of Winnipeg Battalion-whilst on its way to Winnipeg for demobilization purposes was authorized to be kept on for duty during the tenure of the strike, but I did not consider this was necessary and it was demobilized the same day it arrived.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the date of the
report?


Arthur Meighen: 
Abraham Albert Heaps: I had no intention when I came to Ottawa to discuss the subject which has been brought up to-night.


Mr. FOSTER:: Don't do it, then.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not disposed to accept the advice of hon. gentlemen opposite. I will follow my own inclinations on this occasion and will continue to do so so long as I am a member of this House. The subject having been brought- up without my knowledge or consent, I feel compelled to reply to some of the remarks made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). I think I know as much about the conditions in Winnipeg at that particular time as does any man in this House.


An hon. MEMBER:: You ought to.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes. And I hope that hon. gentlemen who say I ought to know will accept my statements as facts.


James Dew Chaplin: Not necessarily,


Abraham Albert Heaps: One of the statements that
fell from the lips of the right hon. leader of the opposition was the fact .that all of the eight men who were arrested were convicted. That statement is not correct.


Arthur Meighen: I said, at the instance of the federal government-all but one.
Supply-Winnipeg Strike


Abraham Albert Heaps: I was arrested at the instance of the federal government and wa3 tried along with the rest of those men, and I was not convicted1; I was acquitted. If the right hon. gentleman's other statements are on a par with that-


Arthur Meighen: Was not the hon. gentleman tried with Mr. Dixon?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, I was tried along with the eight, "the famous eight," as they were called.


Arthur Meighen: Seven out of eight is
a pretty good proportion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That does not alter the fact that the statement is inaccurate. As I say, I was acquitted, and I have no wish to dispute my having participated in the strike. I did, and I have no regrets to express and no apologies to offer. That strike in Winnipeg was an ordinary, peaceable strike.
Some hon. MEMBERS Oh, oh!


Abraham Albert Heaps: I suppose hon. gentlemen
opposite must have been reading the newspapers in Ontario. They derive their education from that source and I am sorry for them.


Mr. MULLINS:: I was in Winnipeg at the time and was not reading any Ontario papers, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that my food supply was cut off. It was no ordinary strike.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will discuss that point later. Let me say that the evidence submitted by the crown-and I listened to that evidence, not for weeks, but for months-and the tactics which were adopted to ensure the conviction of the accused persons on that occasion would have done justice to the days of Judge Jeffreys. The trial was not such as one would have expected1 to find in a court in Canada in 1919. There were 250 jurymen-


Hewitt Bostock: I do not know whether I quite caught the remarks of the hon. member, but I may advise him when refering to the crown he should not use any derogatory language.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If I have unwittingly transgressed the rules of the House, Mr. Speaker,
I unequivocally withdraw any statement that may foe in any way offensive. I am always willing to abide by the rules and by the decisions of the Chair, and I do not quibble when withdrawing objectionable remarks. I accept the ruling of the Chair unreservedly,
Mr. Meighen.]
and I trust that other hon. members in the House will do likewise.
Now, the leader of the opposition referred to the convictions which were obtained at that trial. I claim the right to reply to the right hon. gentleman on this score. As a general rule, in the province of Manitoba, the jury panel comprises about forty-eight persons, and I would point out that in this particular trial 250 jurors were empanelled. Moreover, before these jurors came into court the Royal Northwest Mounted Police had been around inquiring into all of their antecedents.


An hon. MEMBER:: Perfectly right.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Perfectly right?
Some hon. MEMBERS, Hear, hear.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, if that is the attitude of hon. gentlemen it seems to me it would be absolutely impossible to secure fair trials. What is more, the government of that day paid three-fifths of the costs incurred in connection with that jury-another very unusual proceeding. Again, they paid the costs of the lawyers engaged in the prosecutions. Why? Because they could not get the province to pay them. The provincial government were not in favour of the proceedings taken by the Dominion government.


Arthur Meighen: Did they not prosecute
some of the men, too?


Abraham Albert Heaps: They may have done so
but I am pointing out who paid the costs.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member knows they did, the only difference being that whereas they failed we succeeded.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Perhaps the right hon. gentleman will be satisfied if I cite some of the costs paid by the federal government on that occasion. The total amount of the costs in connection with the lawyers and others taking part in the trials was $180,259.38. That is what some of the lawyers got out of the strike in return for their patriotic services. The firm represented by one particular lawyer received, according to the statement I have here, $19,374. That man was in receipt of between $150 and $175 per month from the firm for whom he was working.


Mr.   POSTER@: Who was it?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am willing to let my hon.
friend see the statement, but I do not wish to make the gentleman's name public. The fact, however is as I have stated. One lawyer,
A. J. Andrews, received $32,6231; another'

Supply-Winnipeg Strike
$3,399; another; $26,990, and still another $21,587. All this money was paid for just a few months' service.


Robert James Manion: Has the hon. member the
figures paid by the present government la3t year in fees to a lot of Winnipeg lawyers for doing work down here?


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is no comparison between the work of the lawyers engaged in those prosecutions and the work of legal gentlemen who came from Winnipeg to Ottawa at the request of the Dominion government.


Robert James Manion: They were pretty big
figures last year, I remember.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think the hon. member
for Fort William will readily understand that the two situations were entirely different. One was an invasion of provincial rights-the counsel were there without the authority or sanction of the provincial government of Manitoba; in this case they came down to assist parliament.
For the moment, however Mr. Speake,, while it is fresh in our minds, I should like to compare the action of our government of 1919 with that of the British government recently under somewhat similar conditions. When the sympathetic strike was called off a few weeks ago, what happened in Great Britain? His Majesty the King and Premier Baldwin each made public announcements asking both sides to the disputes to forget the past and look towards the future. But what happened in 1919 in the city of Winnipeg? Forget the past? Oh no. They went at it as hard as they could and did things there which I feel sure hon. members who had a hand in them must now feel somewhat ashamed of. They speak of law and older. Constitutional government has been referred to very often this afternoon. Let us again consider the message read a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) and see who was acting unconstitutionally on that occasion:
Notwithstanding any doubts I have as ito technical legality of arrests-
In other words, the sender of this message had legal doubts whether or not those arrests were in order.
-and detention at Stony Mountain-
That is, the sender of this message doubted whether it was legal to place those men in Stony Mountain.
-I feel rapid deportation is 'best course-
In other words, the right hon. gentleman who sent this message said: Now, whether
these men had been arrested legally or illegally in his view the course to pursue was to have them deported. But here is the worst part of the message:
-now that arrests are made and later we can consider ratification.
That is: Arrest the men, keep them in jail, deport them, and if it is illegal, well we will get parliament to ratify our action. In other words, parliament was to be a rubber stamp for the right hon. gentlemen who sent that message to the city of Winnipeg. Who was the author of this message? The Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. He sent that message on June 17, 1919 to A. J. Andrews, a lawyer in the city of Winnipeg. I do not think the right hon. leader of the opposition will care to deny the authorship of this telegram. Yet it has been claimed in this House on several occasions that the men who took part in the Winnipeg strike were acting unconstitutionally!
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that no child in Winnipeg so far as I know suffered during the strike for the want of a drink. I heard witnesses give evidence on that occasion, and I heard the manager of one of the largest creameries in the city say: So far as we are concerned there was neither a shortage of milk nor a shortage of water. I claim that if there was no shortage of these liquids in a creamery, there certainly was no shortage anywhere else in the city.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about bread?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why did the shortage of
bread come about? If the bakers ceased operations there was no reason why the people should go without bread; they could have done the same as my wife did-bake their own bread. When a strike takes place there is bound to be a shortage of various commodities. What happened? The men and women in Winnipeg withdrew their labour. Thereupon there was bound to be a shortage of some things, just the same as in Great Britain recently when labour was withdrawn there ensued a shortage of commodities, and trains ceased to run, mines to operate. Those things that function under ordinary circumstances cannot possibly function when a strike is in progress.


John Wesley Edwards: Did not the strike committee cut off the delivery of bread and milk?	*


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, the bakers and the drivers came out on strike, so naturally there was no 'bread.
Supply-Winnipeg Strike


John Wesley Edwards: I am asking, did not the strike committee cut off, by order, the delivery of bread and milk?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Ai'l the bakers and the drivers came out on sympathetic strike. There were thousands of people in Winnipeg who could not be kept at work at that particular time; they came out then by the thousands. But the next day an arrangement was made for bread and milk to be delivered. One of the men who helped to bring about that arrangement was subsequently made prosecuting attorney. Now, who suffers most during a strike. When hon. members opposite speak of bread and milk being cut off, whom do they think suffered most? Is it not the men and women who were out on strike? Are they not just as much a .part of the citizenship of this Dominion as any hon. members in this House? Consequently when supplies were cut off, they were cut off from those people just as much as from any of the other citizens of Winnipeg.


James Dew Chaplin: They ought to be pitied.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, I do not want any hon. members to have pity for the people of Winnipeg. The people of that city can look after themselves. If the government here in Ottawa had I'eft the people of Winnipeg to settle their own affairs that strike would have been settled pretty quick. It was the interference from Ottawa, the assurance given the employers of Winnipeg that arrests were going to be made, that strong arm methods would be used, that caused the strike to be prolonged.
Now, it might be said that those men who came out on strike, or even those who were arrested, were in no way representative of the people of Winnipeg. Indeed., this has been said so often that perhaps it might ;be worth while for me to deal briefly with that particular aspect of the question. Eight men were arrested who were said to have been in the forefront of that strike and brought to trial. Three of them at least had very little to do with the strike. One of them came into the city very unexpectedly and was subsequently arrested. He was not even on the strike committee. But it is well to point out that of those eight men several including my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), have since been elected and re-elected to public offices in the city of Winnipeg.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member permit me? By what government or under

whose instructions was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre arrested?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not know.


Arthur Meighen: He knows quite well.
Why does he not tell the House?


Abraham Albert Heaps: It was a mystery.


Arthur Meighen: It was no mystery at all. He was arrested at the instance of the provincial government.


Peter Heenan: I can tell the House if my hon. friend wishes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It was a mystery during the whole of that period as to who constituted the crown. We could not find out.
10 p.m We were told there were two authorities representing the crown, one in Manitoba and one in Ottawa. We had municipal elections there. The city council had stood nine to five. Naturally the city council was an important body during the strike, and yet after all the money which was poured into that civic election, and after all the big efforts which were made by our opponents, and in spite of the slender resources which the Labour movement had, after that election that was held in Winnipeg in November, 1919, the city council' of Winnipeg stood seven to seven and the mayor who was opposed to Labour during the strike, after his election had to thank the people who came from outside the city of Winnipeg for his election.


Mr. GARDINER:: Would the hon. member tell the House who the nine and five represented?


Abraham Albert Heaps: The nine were anti-Labour, and the other five Labour members of the council, and when the civic elections were over the city council stood at seven to seven. Immediately after that happened, the board of trade in Winnipeg were very anxious to change the method of election in the city of Winnipeg, and they forced on the Labour members of the council the method of proportional representation in order that the city might be divided up on a different basis, and perhaps give Labour a much lesser representation than that to which it was entitled.
In the following year the provincial election came along, and four men were put up in the city of Winnipeg who were in jail at that very time. You would think that a man who was in jail would not have an opportunity of becoming a candidate and would never receive the endorsation of his fellow electors, but in spite of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that these four

Supply-Winnivcg Strike
men were in jail, the man who received three times as many votes as the second highest on the poll was the man who had previously been acquitted, Mr. F. J. Dixon, and the three other men who were serving jail sentences, having been charged with seditions conspiracy, were also elected to the provincial legislature.


David Spence: It was not
much credit to Winnipeg.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If any hon. gentleman has
anything to say, or any question to ask, I shall be glad to answer it if he will ask it in the usual parliamentary manner. Now what does that show? It clearly shows that the strike had the support of a very large number of the people of the city of Winnipeg.
What happened subsequent to that? My hon. friend who sits next to me (Mr. Woods-worth) was one of those who were arrested, and what was the charge laid against him? He was actually charged with seditious libel for having quoted parts of the Bible, for having quoted certain well known verses from Isaiah, running somewhat to this effect, "Ye shall build houses, and ye shall inhabit them." That was put in as part of the seditious libel uttered by my hon. friend who sits here tonight. Yet in spite of the part he took in the strike he was elected to this House in 1921, and in spite of the action that I took during that period I have since been elected three times to public office, and was elected on two occasions previous to 1919.
I claim, Mr. Speaker, that the strike in the city of Winnipeg was an ordinary manifestation of the workers who protested against the conditions of employment that existed at that time in the city of Winnipeg. Let me say this:	When men are arrested and thrust into
jail because they hold certain ideas, and are going to be deported because of those ideas, then the authorities who think they can imprison these men, and who do so, are merely strengthening those ideas amongst the masses of the people of this country or any other country. There was never a jail or a penitentiary built yet that was strong enough to contain within its walls ideas that were worth while. Ideas that are worth while will continue to live and continue to grow more in favour with the people. Ideas that are not worth while will die without any unnecessary action by any public authority.
At that time we were charged with almost every conceivable crime under the sun. The actions that were taken by the then government were not taken for the purpose of settling the strike; they were taken with the idea of
breaking the morale of the men and breaking the strike in the city of Winnipeg.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Certain hon. gentlemen
opposite applaud that statement, thinking that the government of that day were justified in the action they took. I am glad that some hon. gentlemen opposite take that stand. I would far rather that they come out openly and say they stand behind the government of that day in trying to crush the organized labour movement in the city of Winnipeg, than hide their opinions. We will know then where they stand, and what their protestations amount to when they come here pleading on behalf of the workingman, as we so often hear them plead in this House.
As I said a moment ago, the action taken at that time was not taken for the purpose of settling the strike, but for the purpose of breaking it. Now I want to look back in Hansard to a statement made under date of March 22nd, and I want to quote a few words offered on that occasion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon.
gentleman not to refer to past debates.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am reading from a certain
document, if that will satisfy hon. members. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), one of the gentlemen concerned-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman is
apparently reading from Hansard.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will give it from memory, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre made certain statements in this House during the debate on March 22nd, and the right hon. leader of the opposition denied the accuracy of his statements. He denied the fact that-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Under the rules of the
House the hon. member is not allowed to refer to past debates.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, there was an
occasion, not very long ago, during a discussion-


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, is not this
the hon. gentleman who just about ten minutes ago talked about equivocation under the rules? Is he not now trying to equivocate rather clumsily, by no means creditably, but plainly equivocating?

~n
Supply-Winnipeg Strike
0 Mr. HEAPS:	I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I have been trying to learn a few things from the leader of the opposition, trying to learn how to get around the rules of procedure in this House. I do not know that I have succeeded well enough yet but if I am here long enough I may learn and become a little better accomplished in that direction than I am at the present time.
There is one little item Mr. Speaker, to which I wish to refer. My hon. friend to my left made certain statements in connection with men who were threatened with deportation by the right hon. leader of the opposition, and which the right hon. leader of the opposition denied absolutely and in toto-


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member
is to be allowed to break the rule, Mr. Speaker, I must ask the chance to reply.


Hewitt Bostock: I must ask the hon.
gentleman not to refer to a past debate.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think it matters
very much anyhow.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not afraid of the facts if some hon. gentlemen opposite are. I wish to give the facts, and I am not afraid of any past debates being quoted in regard to anything I may have said.


An hon. MEMBER:: You ought to be
ashamed of yourself.


Hewitt Bostock: The expression "You ought to be ashamed of yourself" is not parliamentary. Within my own recollection a ruling to that effect was given by the late Mr. Speaker Sproule.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I now wish to refer to another incident if I may. Early in January last, during the present session, I made a reference to the strike, and my observations at that time probably did not exceed one hundred words. I then referred to troops being sent to Winnipeg, and the right hon. leader of the opposition took exception to my statement. But I maintain that troops were sent in and they received government supplies, government clothing, Lewis guns and government revolvers, and that government armoured cars were shipped in as motor cars. On the occasion of my former remarks I received a rather severe castigation from the right hon. leader of the opposition who declared that I had given utterance to what almost were untruthful statements. I immediately put a motion on the order paper asking for the production of all documents relating to the send-f.Mr. Meighen.]
ing of troops to Winnipeg during the 1919 strike. I wanted to get a complete and accurate statement with respect to the particular incident to which I have alluded, and I also desired that everybody interested should be placed in possession of the entire facts. When that motion was reached on March 15th a certain hon. gentleman opposite-I do not know at whose instigation-had it placed under debatable motions thereby preventing the early production of the documents bearing on the subject, which would have demonstrated the truth or falsity of my statements. Why was that motion placed on the debatable list of resolutions? Was it not the desire of some hon. gentlemen opposite that these documents should not be brought down?


Hewitt Bostock: Order. First of all the hon. gentleman should not question the motive of any hon. member who exercises his right, under the rules of procedure, and asks that a certain resolution under Notices of Motion should be made debatable. That is the right of any hon. gentleman. I have so ruled at the request of hon. members on both sides of the House.
In the next place the hon. member impliedly' states that the request was made for the purpose of preventing a disclosure of the truth. I would ask the hon. member not to make any such insinuation against his fellow members.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, if in making
that statement I have transgressed the rules of the House, I withdraw it unreservedly. I am a comparatively new member and have yet to familiarize myself with the rules of procedure. I hope if I remain here a little longer to be able to conduct myself with more accuracy.
There is one other matter to which I ought to refer before concluding. There was a rather long discussion this afternoon in the course of which a desire was expressed to learn why certain amendments were being made to the Immigration Act. Some hon. members seem to be talking at random without realizing why the amendments in question were enacted in the year 1919. By looking up Hansard of that period the ostensible purpose of those amendments will be ascertained.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman is again out of order.


An hon. MEMBER:: You had better give it up.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Am I to understand, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot go into the motives responsible for the legislation of that date?

Supply-Winnipeg Strike


Hewitt Bostock: If my hon. friend is violating the rules I do not think he is doing so intentionally.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, we at this end of the House experience great difficulty in hearing what Your Honour is saying. If Your Honour were to speak a little more loudly, that difficulty would be overcome.


Hewitt Bostock: I will have recourse to my best baritone voice in order to be heard by hon. gentlemen at the other end of the chamber. I was saying that I did not think the hon. member intentionally trangressed the rules. The hon. member is wrong in the impression that those rules prevent freedom of discussion. They exist for the protection of hon. members generally, and particularly of those who belong to the minority. The rules which are as old as parliamentary government, were framed above all for the protection of the minority. If I call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he must not refer to a past debate there must be a reason for that. The reason is that if such references were permitted the session, instead of lasting six months, would continue for the whole year. When a debate has taken place on a certain question it cannot again be referred to during the same session.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I thought it was permissible for a member to allude to the debate of a previous session. I was saying that Hansard of 1919 would' disclose the reasons for making amendments to the Immigration Act. It was done for the purpose of breaking the strike in the city of Winnipeg. That was most unusual method to pursue. The methods employed by the government of that day are scarcely in line with the methods that a constitutional and democratic government would employ. A bill was introduced in this House which took away from a British subject the right of trial by jury, one of the foundation stones on which the whole system of British jurisprudence has been built up in the course of many a century. Yet it received all its readings and was passed in the course of twenty minutes. The bill was passed in another House in an equally brief period. Its enactment into law therefore took only the short space of forty minutes. Under that act men in Winnipeg were arrested and were to be deported. Now, if there is anything Which arouses the resentment of Labour it is the fact that such methods as those are used against men who enjoy the confidence of a very large section of the community. Under that act men were to be deported- yes, men were arrested at three o'clock in the morning-and it was stated that within forty
hours those men were to be started on their way across the Atlantic ocean. That is the law that was passed by this House in twenty minutes. Yes, members of the Conservative party, have boasted in this House during the last few months that they had increased their representation in this parliament, from 61 to 116 members. That was felt to be something for which they ought to take a great deal of credit. But why did the Conservative representation in the House of Commons sink down to 61 in 1921? Have hon. gentlemen opposite ever investigated the reasons why they were so overwhelmingly defeated at the polls in 1921? Was it not because of the actions of the then government in 1918, 1919, and subsequently, which reduced the representation of the Conservatives to the second largest group in this House in the year 1921?


An hon. MEMBER:: No, the third largest group.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The third largest group; I beg pardon. Was it not the fact that the workers of Canada had not forgotten the actions of the government at that time, and are not likely to forget it? Why, the gentleman who was Minister of Labour in 1919 could not go and address a public meeting in the city of Winnipeg to-day. If he does go there it will have to be when nobody knows anything about it.


Robert James Manion: In fairness to the Conservative members in this House, is it not true that in respect to that bill which my hon. friend says passed the House in twenty minutes-I was a member of the House at the time-there was not only no protest from the Conservatives, but no protest from the Liberals or the Progressives at that time?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I believe that statement is
absolutely correct.


Arthur Meighen: Did the hon. member say that Senator Robertson did not dare speak in Winnipeg?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I said the then Minister of
Labour cannot go into the city of Winnipeg and address a public meeting, if the meeting is properly advertised and the people know anything about it.


Arthur Meighen: What would happen?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Let him come and see what would happen. I am not saying anything. During the last election he came to Winnipeg to speak against my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, but nobody knew he was coming. It is quite true, Mr. Speaker, that when the bill went through this House
Supply-Winnipeg Strike

in twenty minutes and received its three readings it got the unanimous vote of the House; otherwise I do not think it would have gone through. But I have spoken to certain members of the Liberal party-not now but in 1920-and I believe I also spoke to the hon. member for Fort William in 1920; I do not think he remembers it. At that time it was stated to me that the whole thing had been totally misrepresented to hon. members in this House.


Robert James Manion: I never said that to my
hon. friend.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not say that you did,
but the Liberal members I spoke to then and those to whom I have spoken since claim it was put through in such a manner that they did not know anything about it.


Robert James Manion: Would my hon. friend
not think there was a little politics in that?
_ Mr. HEAPS: This is the statement I got in 1920, I claim there was a lot of politics in this thing in 1920. I believe the party who put the act through were helping their friends the manufacturing and financial interests of Winnipeg. -Sure it is politics. I do not say anything further on this particular question. In some respects I am sorry the matter came before the House this evening; in other respects I do not regret it in the least. I took part in that strike, and if any hon. member says it was revolution in Winnipeg he does not know what he is talking about, because revolutions are not made; it is only fools that talk about them. It is said that fools talk about revolution but the wise men conform to them. No revolution was ever made or intended in that city. It was a bona fide strike and men and women came out because there was something at stake. They do not strike for the mere sake of striking. No one enters wholeheartedly into a strike. When the millions of people went into the strike in England, it was not done with a light heart. When people know that their families will have to do without the necessities of life, they think more than once before they enter upon a strike. In Winnipeg, owing to the conditions existing there, it was forced upon them; the men and women came out strongly, but they were not all called out in that case. . They thought they were justified in striking. Yet when it had' been in progress four or five weeks the government of the day magnified it into some kind of revolution, and if the official record of the House could be brought down it would show the true conditions. But all the records do not exist, Mr. Speaker. In some of the departments as early as February, 1922, a
fMr. Heaps.]
few months after the present government came into office, when a notice was given for the production of certain papers from the Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice and one other department, it was stated that there were no documents in existence.


Mr. PETTIT:: What connection was there between the strike in Winnipeg and an order known as the Independent Workers of the World or the I.W.W., pointing to the use of armed force in Winnipeg and British Columbia?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have never heard the name of that organization.


George Hamilton Pettit: It is called the I.W.W.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have heard the name;
this is the first time I heard of them in that connection. The I.W.W. had no more to do with it than the hon. member who asked the question. The strike was called by the workers in Winnipeg and a sympathetic strike ensued. What is wrong after all in a sympathetic strike? Some hon. members asked me about documents that were not found. I will deal with that in a minute. I have here copies of two sessional papers asked for by the Hon. E. J. McMurray as far back as May 3, 1922. One was an order of the House asking for documents from the Minister of the Interior. I think the hon. member who was then Minister of the Interior is now the right hon. leader of the opposition. The document reads:
I beg to say that, as far as the Department of the Interior is concerned, there is nothing on record respecting this matter.
That is giving the gist of the answer. Now, Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Labour and in other departments there are all kinds of documents. There must have been a file nine inches thick in the Department of the Interior in 1921, but when it came to 1922 the documents had disappeared. I am not blaming anybody for the disappearance, except that they could not be found. Then we come to the Solicitor General's department. The same thing happened there, according to the admission of the Solicitor General of Canada; they had no documents in that department. Yet on file in another department there is a stack of letters, telegrams and other documents, which show clearly that between 1919 and 1921 there was a large file in these departments which could not be found when the request was made for production in this House. Fortunately there are copies of them in existence elsewhere which some day may be published.

Supply-Winnipeg Strike
In reference to that organization, the Independent Workers of the World, I did not know there were any independent workers. I do not think I have ever met a member of that organization in my life. I have never had the pleasure of being in Vancouver and do not know anything about the organization there. It is possible they have such an organization there. I wish I could impress upon hon. members of this House that when workers enter into a strike they do not do it lightheartedly. They do not do it for the purpose of having a strike, but they go into it because it is the last resource for them. In 1918 there was a strike in the city of Winnipeg.


Henry Alfred Mullins: With reference to the
statement my hon. friend made in Toronto-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Why did you go to my
farm and agitate my men to go off the farm, when I was giving them the very best food, the very best care I could give them, purchased the best mattresses I could obtain for them to sleep on and did the very best possible for them? You or your walking delegates came to my farm and took my men away to engage in a strike in Winnipeg. Why was that done?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I know nothing of the incident to which my hon. friend refers. I am glad my hon. friend did not make a personal reference to me, because I do not know where his farm is; all I know is that he represents Marquette in this House. I was saying that workers do not go lightly on strike.


An hon. MEMBER:: Answer the question.


Abraham Albert Heaps: A little detail as to what
goes on does not matter very much. This clearly indicates, as I have just stated, that some hon. gentlemen who make statements in this House do not really understand what Labour stands for or they would not ask a question of that kind: Why did somebody come on my farm and ask the workers to go off? The question is absurd in regard to a strike of 30,000 workers. Does anyone think that everybody who has anything to do with a strike knows all the little details that happen at such a time?
I was referring to an incident in 1918 when there was a strike in Winnipeg. During that time I did my best to try to settle the strike. I was a member of the city council at that time. What happened to me? I was condemned from both sides. On the one hand the workers and on the other the city council condemned me because I tried to settle it. That is often what happens to the peacemaker during a strike and consequently I am not very anxious to act as a peacemaker when a strike occurs.
When the strike of 1919 took place I saw that the workers were right and I gave them my unflinching support on that occasion. There is no doubt about their being right; no worker goes on strike except as a last resort and when compelled to do so by force of circumstances. But what I protest and will always protest against is when a government, I care not which party it is, attempts to suppress by forcible methods, what should after all be the inalienable right of every Canadian citizen.
On that particular morning of June 17 those eight or ten men were arrested and sent to Stony Mountain penitentiary, the idea being to deport them. Those men were arrested not because of their participation in the strike because some of them had hardly participated in it at all, had no part in calling it, and had come into Winnipeg more or less accidentally. Those men were arrested and were to be deported because they had certain ideas which were distasteful to the powers that be. The men were selected for deportation at the ' instigation of the then government and the man who did the selection was the then Minister of Labour. The documents will go to prove that if they are ever brought down to the House.
I am sorry if I have detained the House so long as I have; this matter has come up rather unexpectedly to-night. Personally, I do not care to look backward; I prefer to look forward. _


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I wish some hon. gentlemen who sit on the other side would also look a little forward and not always look backward. Looking backward is generally a prerogative of the legal profession.


Samuel William Jacobs: If the hon. gentleman would keep to his own field, it would perhaps be better all round.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I once had nine months' experience of law and somebody said that I would have made a pretty good lawyer if I had stayed at it' a little longer. I had quite an experience of lawyers and one thing that was taught me was that lawyers knew nothing about law; that the only man who knew law was the judge; that what the judge said was law and what a lawyer said was merely an opinion and nothing more. After seeing lawyers in action for a short period I said
Supply-Winnipeg Strike

that I would have nothing to do with them; that I was going to plead my own case. I did so and I happened to be the only one who was unlucky or lucky enough to be acquitted.
If I may I will pursue the story a little further as it is worth repeating. A few weeks after the trials were over I met the late Judge Metcalfe on Portage Avenue in the city of Winnipeg and after the usual saluta-tations he said: " Heaps, the luckiest thing in the world for you was that you had no lawyer defending you. If you had had a lawyer to defend you, you would have gone to gaol with the rest." Ever since then I have had an idea that when we take notice of lawyers as we sometimes do in this House we always get into all kinds of trouble. If you wish to keep out of trouble in this House or out of it do not take too much notice of what lawyers say. Lawyers as a rule can go back for precedents for thousands of years, but when it comes to looking forward for five or ten minutes they sometimes get hopelessly lost.
I wish however to impress upon hon. members again that when a strike takes place we should bear in mind that as was the case with those men in the city of Winnipeg, the men are as good and loyal Canadians as you have in the Dominion of Canada. In the Winnipeg strike thousands of those men had just come back from overseas. To-day they are in the ranks of the organized labour movement, and they were in the ranks of the organized labour movement in 1919.


Mr. PRICE:: Was the hon. member one of them?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I frankly admit that I did not go overseas. If loyalty, if patriotism is to be determined by a man's desire and 'inclination for war I am no patriot. If patriotism means love of your people and of your country I am second to nobody in this House or outside of it.


Otto Baird Price: Well, well.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If the hon. gentleman wants to interrupt me in an orderly way I hope he will get up and do so. The strike in Winnipeg took place; it is gone; it is a thing of the past. I would say to those gentlemen who were in charge of events of that period that if they had only had the same feeling, perhaps even the same amount of understanding as has the Prime Minister of Great Britain at the present time, those events would never have taken place in Winnipeg
1919. There was a desire at that time to crush organized labour.


Otto Baird Price: Is the hon. gentleman in order at the present time?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not know whether the hon. member is a lawyer or not. I was saying that if the members of the House of 1919 had had the same breadth of outlook, the same understanding as the Prime Minister of Great Britain has at the present time those events in Winnipeg in 1919 might have been spared. Nevertheless, in spite of what took place there organized labour can never be crushed. The more attempts that are made to crush organized labour, the stronger it will rise. The organized labour movement is never defeated. It may lose here or it may lose there, but ultimately it will come back stronger than ever.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take many
minutes of the time of the House in regard to this matter. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has made certain statements to which I wish to refer. He informed us that he was not afraid of facts, and for that we shall all be devoutly grateful. I couple with that the statement he made a little later that he hoped with some experience to conduct himself with a little more accuracy than he was able to do now. Wre can put the two together and draw our own conclusions. The hon. gentleman says that in Winnipeg no children had to suffer for want of milk. He did not answer the question I put to him: did the strike committee cut off the delivery of bread and milk? That question he sidestepped; he declined to answer it. I want therefore to read to this hon. gentleman, who is not afraid of facts, what was stated in the bulletin issued by the strike committee, of which I suppose he was a member. He declares that he was deeply involved in the whole thing, and certainly his sympathies were with the undertaking. This is the bulletin issued by the committee on May 17 with reference to their proposal to establish supply depots to give preference to strike families.
Impossible to distinguish between the sick children owing to the fact that it would take days to establish a card system and reports fast coming in of children on verge of death for the want of milk.
So that some of them did have sufficient compassion, when they saw children on the verge of death for the want of the very necessaries of life, to withdraw that order which they had issued and which they had proposed to carry out, giving preference to the families of those who were engaged in the strike and withholding any consideration

Supply-Winnipeg Strike
from those who did not participate in it. That is the situation which the hon. gentleman has described as a quiet, peaceable strike. The fact is that the Winnipeg disturbance was not an ordinary strike, the object of which was to obtain better wages. It was an organized attempt to get control of the city and to induce labour in other centres of population to do likewise, with the end in view of destroying or breaking down national government. I do not think I can do better than quote some of the utterances of the hon. member and others associated with him on that occasion, and in the first place I might read what was said by the hon. member sitting immediately to his left (Mr. Woodsworth). Speaking in Vancouver on February 7 of that year that gentleman said:
The ultimate object of the Federated Labour Party is the collective ownership and democratic operation of the means of wealth production. This involves a complete revolution in our whole economic and social structure.
That is from one of the leaders in this movement. Let me quote again from the same source:
The federal authorities control the military and the courts, and labour is not going to get what it wants until it in some way gets control of the military and the courts.
That is the peaceable strike. That is the spirit that moved this very quiet and law abiding demonstration on the part of labour. Now I will quote from another gentleman who was prominent in the movement, a Mr. Russell:
The blood that is spilled in Canada will depend on the working class. We must establish the same form of government as they have in Russia so that we may have a Russian democracy here.
That is what that prominent participant in the strike declared at that time, and I have heard somewhat similar opinions expressed since then.
* The hon. member who resumed his seat a moment ago (Mr. Heaps) criticized the act which was put through this parliament on that occasion for the deportation of undesirable people, and he observed that it had been disposed of in twenty minutes. That act, Mr. Speaker, was adopted unanimously, not a single voice having been raised in dissent. All I have to say to the hon. gentleman is that the people of this country, regardless of their political affiliations, welcome to Canada decent, law abiding men and women, no matter from what country they may come. But I want him to understand-and he can convey this message to those who think and feel as he does in matters of this kind- that the Canadian people, upon whom depends the future stability of this country, 14011-255
will not tolerate foreigners who come to these shores imbued with the determination to stir up trouble. We will not permit such people to come and establish on the soil of Canada conditions of the sort from which they were running away in leaving the country of their origin.
This was a peaceable strike, says the hon. member for North Winnipeg. Let us see what he himself said at the time. Speaking in July of that year he expressed this regret:
We were having beautiful weather and we were having a beautiful strike when the citizens butted into the game and began to attempt to assert their authority.
A terrible thing for the law abiding citizens of Winnipeg to interfere with that beautiful strike, during such beautiful weather.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the hon. member suggest that I made the Statement which he has quoted?


John Wesley Edwards: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In the month of July I
never made such a statement.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. gentleman has told us that he hopes to conduct himself-


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Does the hon. member
desire to raise a question of privilege?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes. In the month of July, after we had been arrested, I made no such statement, for the reason that we were under bond at that time to make no public statements at all.


Mr. EDWARDS (Fontenac):: I accept the hon. gentleman's denial, as I am obliged to do under the rules of the House, and I do so all the more readily in view of his confession a short time ago that he hopes, as he gains experience, to conduct himself with a little more accuracy than he is able to do at present. We will let it go at that.
I will now refer to another statement made by one of the bosom friends of the hon. member and the hon. gentleman who sits immediately to his left. I quote now from the remarks of one Ivens:
The storm is about to break and this time the lightning is about to strike upward instead of downward. I think the parliament buildings on Kennedy street would make a good labour temple, and t-he way things are going we will soon move in.
Another evidence of the kindly disposition of the gentlemen associated with the hon. member for North Winnipeg and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

Supply-Winnipeg Strike


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I suggest that I have heard people outside the Labour party express a desire to have a place on the treasury benches?


John Wesley Edwards: The hon.
gentleman may suggest what he likes. I have not been so close to the treasury benches as he has been, this session at all events, and I have not been able to dictate any of the terms of the Speech from the Throne. I will give the House another quotation.


Mr. MALONEY:: With his permission I
would ask the hon. member this question: In view of the past attitude of the hon. member for North Winnipeg and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with regard to labour, why does he classify those hon. gentlemen as belonging to the Labour party?


John Wesley Edwards: I am not
the first man who has found it difficult to answer a question on the spur of the moment. It would be rather hard for me to give a sound reason for classifying these hon. gentlemen as representatives of labour, and I must say I appreciate the point raised by my hon. friend from Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). In all earnestness and sincerity, however, I am bound to confess that hon. gentlemen across the way, representing the city of Winnipeg, notwithstanding that they classify themselves as Labour members, are not in my opinion, in any true sense of the word, real representatives of Labour and of labour interests in this country.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, speaking at Calgary on October 29 of that year, said:
I am not worrying as to whether 'they keep me in the pen or not-we'Ll win anyway. I don't think the workers of .this country will let us stay in anyway.
The hon. gentleman had at any rate the consolation of believing that, even though the utterances of himself and of his associates did create turmoil and result in his landing behind the doors of a penitentiary, he had a sufficient number of friends outside who would use their influence and endeavour to get him out. He would not stay in very long.
The Winnipeg strike, Mr. Speaker, was not an ordinary strike in any sense of the term. I repeat, after the most careful consideration of the matter, that I have no hesitation in asserting that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of certain persons to get control of the city and to induce labour in other centres of population to follow their lead, with the ultimate object of overthrowing the properly

constituted government of this country and establishing in its place something along the lines that one of those strike leaders expressed himself so much in favour of, namely, "what they had in Russia"-the most debased country to-day on the face of the globe.
I repeat what I said' a few moments ago, Sir, that we are all sympathetic towards Labour. We recognize that Labour is entitled to demand its rights. We welcome people from all countries of the world to come here and establish their homes, but it is just as well for certain hon. gentlemen who sit opposite to thoroughly understand, and convey that understanding to those with whom they were associated in bringing about the Winnipeg strike, that we Canadians do not propose to allow men to come into this country from Europe or any other part of the world and establish conditions such as drove them out of their native land.


Mr. W. W. KENNEDY (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances it is with some hesitation I rise and admit that I come from the city of Winnipeg, and it is with considerable diffidence that I *prolong what seems to me to be an absolutely purposeless and fruitless discussion of something which would be much better forgotten than stirred up in this House at a time when we have real business to transact.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: Again I ask
a question similar to the question I asked on a somewhat like occasion:	To what purpose
is the time of this House taken up with the discussion of the strike in the city of Winnipeg some seven years ago? I tell you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members, that it is for one purpose only-propaganda pure and simple.
I go further. I trust too much to the intelligence of this House to suggest that it * will be misled by the speech of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) into believing that in speaking as he has tonight he is representing or forwarding in any substantial way the interests of honest, sane labour in the Dominion. He has told you that the late Minister of Labour, now Senator Robertson, dare not come into the city of Winnipeg to address a public meeting, if public announcements thereof were properly made. I now tell him that during the last federal election the same Senator Robertson did come to the city of Winnipeg and did there address public meetings that were publicly advertised with his name at the top of the list in my constituency, and at no

Supply-Winnipeg Strike
meeting that he addressed did he receive to my knowledge one single interruption, but on the contrary he was accorded most attentive and enthusiastic hearings.
As evidence of how labour stands in the constituency of Winnipeg South Centre let me refer to the result of the last general election.	I may say, without any lack of
modesty, that in my opinion Winnipeg South Centre is a very important constituency and in point of population and of the number of registered electors is in fact the greatest constituency west of the lakes. During the recent election a candidate of his party-the Independent Labour party-contested that constituency and lost his deposit. Senator Robertson addressed several meetings during the course of the contest. I do not give him credit entirely for the result, I take some credit to myself, with the loyal support of the rank and file of that constituency. But I want to tell the hon. member for North Winnipeg that the constituency of Winnipeg South Centre has among its electorate far and above any other class of people the labouring class, and yet the candidate representing the Independent Labour party was out of the running entirely in fifty out of the fifty-two polls, and in the aggregate, as I have said, he lost his deposit. I merely cite that to show to this House that so far as Winnipeg is concerned hon. gentlemen do not need to worry as to what real Labour will do there. If the House has any apprehension as to the status of Labour in that city, I now declare there is no cause for alarm. The 1919 strike was taken care of not by the militia, but by the citizens at large; and I can assure hon. members that in the event of any strikes in the future similar to that of 1919 they will be taken care of again by the same citizens.
The hon. member for North Winnipeg has told us that he prefers to look forward rather than backward. Well, I ask this House:	Which way has he been looking to-night? Has he been taking a forward view? Rather has he been stirring up these unpleasant memories of the past. I ask for what purpose. I submit that it is only for the purpose of serving the individual ends of the hon. member himself. His purpose, in season and out of season, of which the House has had a good demonstration tonight, is not to solve the problems of labour in this country but to stir up dissension and discord in order that he may thereby profit.
14011-2551	.
Now, the hon. gentleman has referred to the conditions in the city of Winnipeg during the strike. I myself have a very distinct, recollection of those conditions-11 p.m. In the early part of June 1919 I returned to Winnipeg with a regiment that is well known to many hon. members of the west-the 46th battalion. That is a battalion of which Saskatchewan has a right to be proud. Because of the strike conditions we were unable to get telegrams to our families advising them of our return. The street car service was suspended. Milk was allowed to be delivered to homes only by those whose dairy wagons bore the card, "Operated by permission of the strike committee." Restaurant keepers were intimidated, and many of them found it to their advantage to post in their windows cards bearing the inscription "Kept open by permission of the strike committee," or an inscription to the like effect. Fire protection in the city of Winnipeg, as an effective protection, was cut off. Police protection was interfered with. Fire protection was demoralized to such an extent that it was necessary for the civilians to go into the fire halls and take the place of the men who were called out in order that the homes of the citizens of Winnipeg might be protected. So far as police protection was concerned, a much similar condition prevailed. Citizens of Winnipeg had to be sworn in as special constables to protect their own homes and their property. The first night that I arrived home and went to my house I was asked by my neighbours to come out and discuss the situation as to the protection of property, and I tell the House this:	We went to the end
of the street and met on a little lot, and there arranged for patrols in order that the street might be patroled from sunset to sunrise to protect property. Hon. gentlemen may say that our fears were groundless, but I tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this House, that that was the condition of mind of the people of the city of Winnipeg at that time. That is what the hon. member (Mr. Heaps) refers to as a peaceful strike.
Let me say this: So far as Labour is concerned, Labour will never find me its enemy in this House or outside of it. I believe in a fair wage. I believe in fair living conditions. I believe in the right of Labour to organize to advance its interests. But when agitators seek to use unionism in labour, not to advance but to prostitute the cause of Labour, I hay it is time to call a halt. That was the condition which existed in Winnipeg in 1919 due-
Supply-Winnipeg Strike



ing the strike referred to this evening. That has passed. It was dealt with by the citizens of Winnipeg, and perhaps the less said about it the better.
The hon. member for North Winnipeg has made same references to patriotism. He has told you that it is not necessary to be in favour of war in order to be a patriot; I agree. But there are some things, whether you call it patriotism or not, that are expected of a citizen of a country. I think we cannot place the duties of even the humblest citizen of Canlada lower than this, that we have a right to expect of him that he shall uphold the laws for the time being of his country, and that if he seeks to bring about a change, he shall do so only by constitutional means. I submit that the test I have given is not too strong a test. Measuring the hon. member for North Winnipeg by that test, I leave it to this House to judge how high he stands. If there be any doubt, I would like to refer to the House an extract that has been handed to me, and to read it and ask the hon. member whether he is the person referred to in this article. The heading is, "Red Flag Hoisted in Winnipeg City." When I refer to the red flag, surely it is not necessary for me to remind this House that the flag of this country is not the red flag. It goes on, "Union Jack Which Mayor Forced Socialists To Carry Placed Beneath Rostrum," and the despatch follows:
Winnipeg, Man., May 1.-Instructions of chief of police Newton that a Union Jack be placed at the head of the column was the only hitdh in to-day's May day parade. The order was complied with, and 2,000 paTaders moved off without interruption. Almost every radical organization in the city was represented, including a few members of the international bodies, although (be Winnipeg Trades and Labour Council had previously decided not to participate with the O.B.U.
This part of special interest:
After the parade a mass meeting was held, presided over by Aid. A. A. Heaps. The Union Jack was th^n deposited beneath the rostrum and the red banner hoisted.
Is that the test by which patriotism shall be measured in this country? Judge for yourselves the patriotism of the hon. member.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say this: While this demonstration in the House to-night on the part of the hon. member for North Winnipeg may be something of a novelty here, it is no novelty to us in the city of Winnipeg. We understand it there, and it is so that you may properly appreciate it, that I rise to-night. It is not because I personally have any apprehension as to what will happen in the city of Winnipeg in the future, but to say to this House that sentiments such

as have been expressed here to-night by him do not represent Labour in the city of Winnipeg. Let me say further that during the last federal campaign organized Labour in the city of Winnipeg was not behind the Independent Labour party.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the hon. gentleman-


William Walker Kennedy: Will you kindly keep
your seat?


Abraham Albert Heaps: In view of the gentlemanly remark made by the hon. member, I will.


William Walker Kennedy: As in the past, so in the future, the citizens of Winnipeg will not call upon nor will they have need for any outside militia to take care of disturbances in that city. We took action ourselves then as civilians. We shall do so again in the future whenever the occasion arises.


George Brecken Nicholson: 
Peter Heenan: When was that statement made?


George Brecken Nicholson: In June, 1919. One thing more in regard to the position taken by organized labour in Canada. The president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Fireman and Engine Men, the chief of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the president of the Order of Railway Conductors, the heads of the trainmen, telegraphers, and machinists,- what did they do? Let me ask the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River what they did in Winnipeg.


Peter Heenan: I will tell you.


George Brecken Nicholson: I will tell my hon. friend if he will just keep quiet for a moment.


Peter Heenan: I thought you asked me a question.


George Brecken Nicholson: What did they do?
This is what they did. They ordered their Canadian vice presidents, or the general chairmen of the organizations of the different lines, to go to Winnipeg and tell the members of their organizations to observe not only the law of their own constitutions but the law of the land in which they were living. One of those men who went to Winnipeg at that time was the more recent Minister of Labour,
Supply-Winnipeg Strike

the Hon. James Murdock. Another one, if my memory serves me, was a gentleman named Mr. Kennedy, who was a former resident of the city of Kenora, the vice-president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. Another one was the vice-president of the Brotherhood of locomotive Firemen. Another step they took was to warn their members about having anything to do with this so-called strike-which was nothing more or less than a revolution which began by seizing the civic government of the city of Winnipeg, what did they say? They said:	Any single
member of these organizations that violates his obligations to his organizations or the law of the land, will be replaced by members of our own organizations. That is the position they took. Let me repeat that the whole plan of the Winnipeg strike was nothing more or less than the outcome of a scheme that had been growing and developing through the western and northwestern states, and through western Canada, the first purpose of which was to destroy organized labour, as the organizer of the movement himself so declared in a statement given to the Chicago Times in June, 1919.


Peter Heenan: The hon. gentleman asked me a question. Does he want me to answer it now?


Hewitt Bostock: Does the hon. member
for East Algoma wish to allow the question?


George Brecken Nicholson: No, Mr. Speaker. I simply put a question which I answered myself and I think I answered it completely.


Hewitt Bostock: Will the hon. member
proceed with his speech, or has he completed what he desires to say?


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I *am through.



SUPPLY-RED LAKE MINING AREA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. R. O'NEILL (North Timiskaming):
Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few short remarks on a matter of keen interest to mining investors in the north country and to the mining industry throughout Canada-this by way of attracting the attention of the present administration and of the Minister of Mines (Mr. Stewart) in particular. Within the past few weeks the malicious statements of an unscrupulous individual named Braun, have been receiving considerable publicity, and his prevarications are hampering the advent of would-be investors and are proving most

irritating to those who have every just faith in our wonderfully gifted north country. Tnere is every reason to conclude that Braun's propaganda is inspired by some selfish and insidious element. I feel justified in using the term "insidious," otherwise they would not have chosen such a mountebank as their mouthpiece. His remarks are ostensibly so stupid, so asinine, so idiotic, as not to merit consideration but, as I say, for the ramifications of the widespread publicity due to this apparent backing, and in the interests of those who might be deceived, we cannot allow the incoherent observations of this gross libeller to pass unchallenged.
Now, just what is this man guilty of? What his he said? What has he done? He is credited by the Associated Press with statements against the possibilities of the Red Lake mining area, and is falsely reputed to be an engineer of standing. For some mysterious reason his libelous utterances have been accorded an unusual amount of publicity. I might quote from several typical articles to demonstrate this man's lack of knowledge and disregard for the truth.
Mr. G. C. Bateman, of the Ontario Mining Association, is one of the many outstanding and reliable professional men who have endeavoured to gather some information regarding Mr. Braun and I should like to quote from a reply to his inquiry from Mr. James O. Handy, Director of Chemical and Metallurgical Investigations at the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory:
Replying to your letter of May 14, I have done my best to get for you all of the information I could con-cerming W. F. Braun, an interview with wfhom appeared in the Pittsburgh Sun of May 12.
Mr. Braun os not known to me, nor to any of my friends whom I have asked about him, so far. He is not a member of the Engineers' Society of Western Pennsylvania, which includes nearly all of the mining engineers, and engineers >in other (lines, in the Pittsburgh district. He is not a member of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers-In view of these facts, it can hardly be said that Mr. Braun sipeaks for Pittsburgh, or for -the mining engineering profession at large. Such a wholesale condemnation of a new mining district is certainly not warranted, in view of the action of (the Dome and McIntyre companies. Anyone who expected to find gold, on unstaked claims covered by snow, or to acquire staked diaims cheaply, would naturally be disappointed.
I have personally great faith in gold mining in Ontario, and am actively engaged in the development in Davis township, Ontario, about which I spoke to you last fall. The gold showing is very good, and I believe that further work will show that the Wanepitei district is worthy of further and very serious consideration.
Every effort has been made, in vain, to prove him anything other than a nonentity.

Supply-Red Lake Mining Area
He has succeeded however in demonstrating himself a multitudinous ass by the very fatuity of his statements. It is a fact that he is unknown to any governmental mining authority, federal or provincial in any part of Canada, and was never heard of until he permitted his name to be used in the scandalous and libelous utterances which he fathered.
We have the sworn statement from Capt. A. S. Stevens, of Cobalt, Ont., that Mr. Braun stated to him on April 6, 1926, that he had not been in the Red Lake district personally, but had a representative in the district If this be true, then the falsity of his statements establishes him as an unprofessional, unethical and unreliable charlatan, and whose business card, as follows, further suggests the character of the man:
215 Cole Building	P. O. Box 633
Tulsa, Okla.	Tuscon, Arizona.
W. F. Braun 413 Union Bank Building
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Personal Examinations and Confidential Reports
Made on private or public inspection of mining and oil properties, any part of United States, Canada or Mexico. Thirty-three years actual field experience in above countries. Best of references. Member Tucson Chamber of Mines, American -Association of Engineers, Tulsa, Okla. Chapter and other similar organizations.
Chamber of Commerce, Pittsburgh, Pa.
His statements are in direct contradiction to the judgment of engineers, who are professional men representing large financial interests and who are firmly established in their profession as men of character and reliability, which is the result of a thorough training in their profession and a reputation for integrity and character following a long experience in the mining industry.
In view of the fact that the press of America, represented by such journals as the New York Times, the New York World, the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, the Washington Evening Star, and in fact the leading newspapers of the United States, published articles for several weeks setting forth the possibility of the Red Lake district-through their chosen representatives-being another development similar to those which have already established their reputation for the production of great wealth as set forth in the Dominion and provincial reports, it is felt that they will appreciate this defence of the mining industry and the men who have identified themselves with its development in the province of Ontario.
In view of the methods employed by this man in practising his deception upon the section of the press which has published his articles through his arrangement for personal
interviews, it is felt that the journals upon whom he has practised his deception will recognize an inspired propaganda of such a character as will suggest to them the necessity for an exhaustive inquiry and examination of any statements which may be submitted to them in the future before permitting themselves to further the ends of the man, or men, who may be responsible for this activity as evidenced by Mr. Braun.
As further evidence of this man's statements as to his having been in Red Lake being false, a telegram received from Mr. Joe Kenneally, at Hudson, dated May 15, 1926, is herewith quoted:
Have consulted all stopping places and transportation companies, including plane service. No one 'here ever saw or heard of Braun except through paper.
In connection with the disparaging and untruthful statements made by one W. F. Braun, designating himself as a "mine examiner," a number of men who have been in Red Lake district, brand as false in every detail the statements which he is reported to have made, and which have been published in some of the leading journals of the American press, for the following reasons:
1.	We believe that Braun never visited the Red Lake district, as he states he did-and further states, that he remained in the district ninety days-basing our belief upon an affidavit made by Capt. A. S. Stevens, of Cobalt, that Braun made declaration to him that he had not been in the district, but had a representative there.
2.	No man has driven into the district with eleven dogs as he states he did, and no man could leave the district in the dead of winter via aeroplane without the authorities having knowledge of this fact.
3.	None of the undersigned ever heard of him, and there is no record, as evidenced by inquiries made through Mr. Joe Kenneally, that he was ever in the district, and no one ever saw him, or heard of him, until they read the articles above referred to.
There are hardships to be borne by the pioneers who go into a new country, and Red Lake is no exception to this experience, but none of the hardships as portrayed in his articles. There is no shortage of food, and with the breaking up of winter and the opening up of water transportation there will be assured shipments that will meet the demand of the men who are now there and of those who will go into the district this year. The properly constituted authorities have not and will not delegate their responsibilities for the welfare and safety of those who prospect and mine in the north country.
His false and ignorant statements regarding the geological and economic conditions in Red Lake district stamp him as totally unreliable and devoid of character or knowledge, and how the statements of such a man can be accepted and published by resDonsible
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Red Lake Mining Area
journals is beyond the conception of the men who are carrying on the pioneer developments in the new field of Ontario's great mineral wealth. The statement of these men who know the district goes on to say:
We are 'basing our activities upon the findings of expert opinion, both official and private, and upon a wide experience in the important work of prospecting a country for economic deposits of ore, which will increase the wealth of the province and the Dominion, and resent keenly the reflection upon the character and integrity of the men who have devoted their Lives to this great industry, and more especially through the inference that there is no protection and that there has been no effort upon the part of the proper authorities to safeguard in every way possible the interests of those who are interested An mining in northern Ontario.
I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, the names of men who have been in this district and who endorse as true the facts appearing in the statement. With the consent of the House I would like to place them on Hansard. The names are as follows:
Geo. McNeely, Haileybury.
H. B. Mullins, Hudson.
M. Williamson, Cobalt.
J. L. Sweet, Cobalt.
Joe McDonough, Ottawa.
D. Ciinas Giniriay, Ottawa.
J. E. McDonough, Ottawa.
Walter J. D. Penly, Cobalt.
Peter McDonough, Cobalt.
H. J. Jowsey, Ottawa.
Digby Grknstom, Timmins.
H. I. Lynell, Winnipeg.
Clias. H. Lynell, Winnipeg.
Finlay MacCallum, Winnipeg.
H. E. Owens, So. Porcupine.
J. A. Davidson, Toronto.
Jno. W. Callinan, Toronto.
G. MacGregor, Toronto.
Alex Gillies, Toronto.
When you try to realize, Mr. Speaker, what a producing mining area, particularly at this location, will mean to our great railway systems, to the country as a whole, and parti cularly to the vicinity of Winnipeg, which has come in for so much adverse criticism to-night, I feel quite justified in taking advantage of the publicity following a statement in this House. I feel that the men in the north country have every justification in being incensed at any attempt to malign their efforts or to defame this wonderfully promising area. Besides, there are hundreds of intrepid prospectors, the noblest and pluckiest fellows in the world, braving the elements, risking their lives and spending their all, drawn on by some inscrutable and irresistible impulse, year in and year out, in the interests of mining which means so much to mankind, and it is easy to imagine how they resent the lying criticism of a mercenary and misinformed charlatan.

We need capital to open up our country and to develop our natural resources. Every man in the north country welcomes United States capital. I know all hon. members will agree with me when I say that every effort should be made by the federal and provincial authorities to see that capital will receive just protection and encouragement in Canada. Braun's statements bear the opposite implication and should be refuted from every angle. For the sake of international courtesy and good-will, I trust the press will give similar publicity to this disclaimer as to the meretricious fabrications of this gypsy geologist.
['Perhaps we can\nlet this item pass and go home.']
Robert James Manion: The hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. O'Neill) asked me as coming from, northern Ontario to give him some support in the remarks which he has just made. I am pleased to do so in view of the fact that that great section of northern Ontario has, I think, been slandered by this man Braun. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) who acts as Minister of Mines, is not in his seat, and I should like to draw to his attention the remarks of the hon. member for North Timiskaming. No doubt the Department of Mines has reports upon the Red Lake district which, according to the statement of my 'hon. friend, has been slandered, and I am sure those reports would show that the statements of this man Braun are gross exaggerations and slanders upon that district. It is in the interest of the Dominion of Canada that statements such as Braun has made should not go unchallenged, and I believe the Minister of Mines would be well advised if he looked or had one of his officials look into them and if possible issue an official statement from the department as to the facts of the case. I hope the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who is leading the House at the moment, will draw to the attention of the Minister of the Interior the statements made by the hon. member for North Timiskaming.


Ernest Lapointe: Certainly.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Last week and this week in Toronto I came in touch with the Mines Department of Ontario and they are most encouraged at headquarters by the reports they receive as to the coming development not only in northern Ontario, and Manitoba, but all round that country. My feeling-and I think it is more or less correct -is that from now on we shall see in this country a mining exploration and development almost unequalled in the history of the world. It will not be confined to one province, but

Government Loan
it will include Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and right across the continent. While the west has its wealth of farms with grain, cattle and all that sort of thing, a new and greater revival of business is coming to this country based on its mining wealth in the north.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely the government is not seriously proposing to open up new business now.


Georges Henri Boivin: Just one item to have it said that we went into Supply.
Public Works-chargeable to income-New Brunswick, public buildings, $51,000.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Public Works):: This is a small item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How are the
appropriations not required made up?


John Warwick King: The statement is as follows:
APPROPRIATIONS NOT REQUIRED 1920-27 New Brunswick
Monioton-P-ub 1 ic bu Ming	$100,000
St. John quarantine station-dwelling	for
engineer	 5 000
Shed'iaw

public building	 8,000


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps we can
let this item pass and go home.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Lapointe moved the adjournment of the House.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
business for Friday?


Ernest Lapointe: Third readings of Bill
No. 114, to amend the Customs tariff, 1907, and Bill No. 115, to amend the Special War Revenue Act; second reading of Bill No. 116, to amend the Income War Tax Act, 1917; second reading of Bill No. 150, respecting the Chicoutimi Harbour Commissioners; second reading of Bill No. 152, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act; second reading of Bill No. 153, to amend the Criminal Code; consideration in committee of Bill No. 91, to
amend the Immigration Act. If we go into Supply we will take up the estimates of the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Public Works,
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m., until Friday, June 4.
Friday, June 4, 1926.