1929-05-08

[Stage Direction]
Horn P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 213 to authorize consent to the sale of certain cable and wireless telegraph undertakings established under the Pacific Cable Acts, 1901 to 1924 (Imp.), and the West Indian Islands (Telegraph) Act, 1924 (Imp.).
Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: Perhaps the hon. minister will give us a short explanation?


Mr. VENIOT:: This is a bill to enable us
to accept the agreement that has been entered into between the different contracting parties and the merging company, if it is satisfactory to Canada.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Such bills require the consent of the crown.


Peter John Veniot: Consent has been obtained.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	What wireless stations has the Dominion government in operation in Northern Alberta, Yukon, and the North West Territories?
2.	What department or departments of the government have charge of these stations?
3.	W'hat was the total cost of construction of each station?
4.	W'hat is the annual cost of operation of each station?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Aklavik, N.W.T.; Herschell Island, Y.T. (summer operation only); Dawson, Y.T.; Edmonton, Alta.; Mayo, Y.T.; Fort Simpson, N.W.T.; Fort Smith, N.W.T.; Fort Resolution, N.W.T., (summer operation only).
2.	These stations are operated by the Department of National Defence for the Department of Interior.
3.	Aklavik, N.W.T.,	$28,613; Herschell
Island, Y.T., included in Aklavik; Dawson, Y.T., SI9,049; Edmonton, Alta., $22,950; Mayo, Y.T., $20,246; Fort Simpson, N.W.T., $44,536; Fort Smith, N.W.T., $20,936; Fort Resolution, N.W.T., included in Fort Smith.
4.	The annual cost of operation of each station for 1928-29, was:-Aklavik, N.W.T.,
$16,105; Herschell Island, Y.T., $1,400; Dawson, Y.T.. $12,648; Edmonton, Alta., $13,065; Mayo, Y.T., $16,495; Fort Simpson, N.W.T., $18,338; Fort Smith, N.W.T., $18,255; Fort Resolution, N.W.T., $1,952.


INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES COMMISSION- SCHOONER &quot;DOROTHY&quot;
Mr. BRADY:: 1.	Who comprise the members of the International Fisheries Commission on the Pacific co cist ?
2.	is the Seattle halibut schooner Dorothy under charter to the commission?
3.	For what service is said steamer commissioned?	.
4.	How long has said vessel been engaged m this work?
5.	What is the total cost up to date connected with the services of said boat?
6.	What part of the total cost is paid by: (a) Canadian government; (b) United States government?
7.	What is the total number of persons on the personnel of said boat?
8.	How many are scientific men and what qualifications are required before appointment?
9.	How many men are employed in other
capacities?	.
10.	How many Canadians are employed on the Dorothy, and in what capacity?
11.	How many Americans are employed, and in what capacity?
12.	What salaries are paid and to whom?
13.	To whom does the scientific staff make reports?
14.	How many of such reports have been received so far?
15.	Are such reports available on request? Mr. RINFRET (for Mr. Cardin):
1.	Canadian members: W. A. Found and J. P. Babcock. United States members: Henry O'Malley and Miller Freeman.
2.	Yes, for a few trips. She is now on the last trip for this year.
3.	In connection with a study of the life history of the Pacific halibut.
4.	During the following cruises:-1st cruise, October 27-November 23, 1927; 2nd cruise, November 23-December 20, 1927; 3rd cruise, January 3xFebruary 9, 1928 ; 4th cruise, October 26-Dec ember 10, 1928 ; 5th cruise, January 10-February 25, 1929; 6th cruise, March 4, 1929.
5.	$37,974.45.
6.	One-half by each.
7.	From fifteen to seventeen on the different cruises.
8.	From two to four on the different cruises. Graduates from a Canadian or United States university in fisheries or zoology.
9.	The scientific staff consists of seven in all, from two to four of whom work on the boat as required.
Questions

10.	There are four Canadians, and three United States citizens on the staff. As the Dorothy was chartered with her crew, the nationalities of members of the crew are not known.
11.	Answered by No. 10.
12.	The salaries of the staff are: W. F. Thompson, director, American, $500 per month; H. A. Dunlop, asst, director, Canadian, $310 per month; F. H. Bell, scientific asst., Canadian S245 per month; R, V. Butt, scientific asst., American, $195 per month; N. L. Freeman, scientific asst., Canadian, $175 per month; John Kask, scientific asst., Canadian, S150 per month; W. C. Herrington, scientific asst., American, $230 per month.
Clerical staff: Marion Egerton part time clerk, Canadian $25 per month; Dorothy Myers, stenographer, American, $135 per month; Grace Shirk, librarian. American, $135 per month; Harold Lokken, part time clerk, American, $15 per month.
13.	The director reports to the commission. The remainder to the director.
14.	The director reports to the commission as a whole twice each year and as frequently as necessary to the chairman.
15.	The first report by the commission has been published. Several memoirs by the scientific staff are in course of preparation and will be published from time to time as they are completed.


ST. JOHN RIVER BUOYS
[Stage Direction]
2.	(a) No tenders were received for the buoy service at Hatfield point.
(b) Two tenders were received for the buoy service on St. John River, Jemseg, Grand lake and Belleisle river, namely, from Chas. H. Gorham for the sum of $360 per annum and from William J. McNamara for the sum of $500 per annum.
3.	The contract for the buoy service on St. John river, Jemseg, Grand lake and Belleisle river was awarded to William J. McNamara for the sum of $360 per annum.
4.	(a) Benjamin F. McCutcheon is at present maintaining the buoy service at Hatfield point for the sum of $30 per annum.
(b) William J. McNamara is at present maintaining the buoy service on St. John river, Jemseg, Grand lake and Belleisle river for the sum of $360 per annum.
5.	No.
6.	See answer to number 5.

Mr. ADSHEAD:: 1.	Has the provincial government of Alberta asked for the appropriation for cadet training for the year 1929?
2.	What date was such request made?
3.	By whom was it signed?
4.	What cities in Alberta had cadet training in 1928?
5.	How many scholars in Alberta were under cadet training for 1928?
6.	What amount of money was paid to the Alberta government for cadet training for the year 1928?


Mr. JONES:: 1.	Were tenders called for in the year 1927 by the Department of Marine and Fisheries or by any other governmental department for the work of placing buoys in the St. John river from Milledgeville to Fredericton, and from the mouth of the Jemseg river to the head of Grand lake and up to Bellisle?
2.	If so, who were the tenderers and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	Was the lowest tender accepted? If not
why?	*
4 Who is at present performing this work and at what rate?
5.	Have any complaints been received by the department in question against the services rendered by the present contractor in this connection?
6. If so, from whom, whe nature of the complaint?
n, and what is the


Mr. RINFRET (for Mr. Cardin):: 1.	Tenders were invited for the maintenance of the buoy services at (a) Hatfield point, and (b) on St. John river, Jemseg, Grand lake and Bellisle river.
[Mr. Rinfret.l


Mr. RALSTON:: 1,	2, 3 and 6. No payments for cadet training are made to provincial governments as such. The department pays an allowance to the instructor and another allowance to cover cost of uniforms. These amounts are usually paid to the authorities in charge of each cadet unit.
4.	Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge and Red Deer.
5.	5,974 cadets were enrolled and trained in Alberta during 1928.


OLEOMARGARINE
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is oleomargarine permitted to be sold as an article of food in Canada at present?
2.	Has oleomargarine ever been permitted to be sold for food in Canada, and, if so, when and for how long?
3.	If it has been on sale in Canada at any time: (a) how much was imported into this

Questions
country each year it was on sale; (b) how much was manufactured in this country each year it was on sale?
4.	How did prices for oleomargarine compare with prices for butter each year when it was on sale in Canada?
5.	What products enter into the manufacture of oleomargarine?
6.	Are these products commonly produced by our Canadian farmers, and, if not, from what countries do they commonly come?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes. The manufacture, importation and sale of olemaTgarine became legal December 1, 1917; the manufacture and importation was prohibited after August 31, 1923, and the sale was prohibited after February 29, 1924.
3. (a)
Importations
Dec. 1, 1917 to March 31, 1919.. 6,480,430 lbs. Year ended	March	31,	1920..	..	6,497,031	"Year ended	March	31,	1921..	..	4,630,747	"Year ended	March	31,	1922..	..	1,339,748	"Year ended	March	31,	1923..	..	1,165,440	"6 months ended September, 1923.	745,015 "Total	
20,858,411 "
Manufactured
(b)
Dec. 1, 1917 to March 31, 1919.. 10,483,179 lbs. Year ended	March	31,	1920..	..	8,450,002	"Year ended	March	31,	1921..	..	6,224,422	"Year ended	March	31,	1922..	..	1,902,629	"Year ended	March	31,	1923..	..	2,122,029	"5 months ended August, 1923.	1,880,678 "Total	
31,063,839 "4.	Records of prices on oleomargarine during the whole time it was sold in Canada are not available. Average prices in Ottawa stores, May 9, 1921, to May 19, 1921, were: butter, 40-14 cents; oleomargarine, 33-13. The average price of twenty brands of butter in retail stores, May 12, 1922, was 45-85 cents, and the average price of twelve brands of oleomargarine was 28-41 cents. On May 26, 1923, the average retail price of butter in Ottawa stores was 41-61, the average retail price of animal oleomargarine 28-75 and the average retail price of vegetable oleomargarine 31 cents.5.	Two kinds of oleomargarine were sold in Canada, namely, that containing animal fats, and that which was purely vegetable. The so-called animal oleomargarine was composed of oleo oil, neutral lard, might or might not contain vegetable fat and was churned in milk, salt was added. If vegetable fat in the socalled oleomargarine was used, such fat would likely be cotton seed oil. Vegetable oleomargarine consisted principally of cocoanut fat churned in milk with salt added.6.	Oleo oil and neutral lard are products of Canadian packing houses. The vegetable fat or oil is not produced in Canada. These come principally from the United States.


MARGARETS VILLE BREAKWATER
Mr. SHORT:: 1.	What amount was expended on repairs to the breakwater at Margaretsville, Nova Scotia,
in 1928 ? . , .,
2.	Who was the foreman m charge of the
work and how much was paid to him for services ?	.
3.	What were the names of those engaged in the work, and what amount was paid to each workman?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	$799.94.
2.	(a) Frank Abdhison; (to) $77.
3.	Gordon A'ldred, $45.75; Charlie Roach, $52; Denley Porter, $49.50; William Nixon, $54.50; John Dwiney, $55; Winslow Patterson, $31.50; Whitfield Wilkins, $1; Thomas McLean, $55; Roland Atchison, $53.75; George Banks, $36.75.


GLACE BAY CUSTOMS STAFF
Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: 1.	What is the present staff of Glace Bay customs house?
2.	What is the salary paid to each?
3.	What are the dates of their respective appointments?
4.	Is there any vacancy in the said office
now?


Mr. EULER:: 1, 2 and 3. Sub-collector of customs and excise, grade 1 outport, salary $1,740, employed 15th January, 1923.	[DOT]
4.	Yes, but Glace Bay was reduced from a port to an outport and a decision has not been reached whether the permanent appointment of a second officer is necessary.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. GARDINER:: For a return showing:
1.	The total amount of money paid to or on behalf of Private George Gregory, No. 160599, since his discharge from the overseas expeditionary forces at Calgary, Alberta, on June 4, 1928.
2.	The amount of money paid directly _to Gregory and for what purpose, namely, pension, etc.

Wheat Congestion at Terminals
3.	The amount of money paid on behalf of Gregory and for what purpose, namely, hospitalization, etc.


PORT GEORGE, N.S., POSTMISTRESS
Mr. SHORT:: For a copy of all correspondence in connection with the dismissal of Vera Sloeumb from the position of postmistress at Port George, Annapolis county, Nova Scotia, and for a copy of similar correspondence in connection with the filling of the position of her successor.


WHEAT CONGESTION AT TERMINALS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) if he can give the house some information regarding the congestion of wheat shipments at Port Col-borne and Montreal. I realize that he may not have the information on hand, and if not, I would suggest that he have it ready on Friday next.
r Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce): I do not know that there is any information I can give to the house with which hon. members are not conversant. There is a heavy movement of grain from the head of the lakes to the seaboard, and it is said that there is just the same quantity of grain in storage in the country as in former years. The crop is heavier by probably 75,000,000 bushels and undoubtedly there is at the moment an excess of grain at the seaboard. It is said further with respect to congestion at Port Colborne, -this matter was referred to recently by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning)-that it is due partly to the fact that the large carriers were filling elevators faster than the canal sized boats could get the grain to Montreal. There is a good deal of Argentine grain on the European market and orders are not plentiful. The marketing of Canada's crop is in the hands of those who own it. There is no further information I can give to explain the congestion apart from the fact that there is not at the moment a sufficient market for the grain we have at the seaboard.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. W. FANSHER (East Lambton):: I wish to direct to the Minister of Railways

(Mr. Dunning) a question based on a despatch appearing in The London Free Press headed thus:
C.N.R. completes plans for building big grain elevator at Port Huron. Sir Henry Thornton makes announcement at dinner given in bis honour in the Michigan city.
Is it correct that the Canadian National proposes to build elevator facilities in the city of Port Huron and, if so, why was that place chosen in preference to Sarnia on the Canadian side?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	I am sorry I cannot answer the question offhand. I shall make inquiry regarding the matter.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Before you leave the chair,
Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring before the house a matter that affects a considerable section of the citizens of this country: that is, what seems to be a more or less concerted effort to abrogate certain British rights and to suppress, at least so far as certain sections of the community are concerned, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. A little time ago we had the arrest of Arvo Vaara, the editor of a Finnish newspaper, Vapaus. Then came the cancellation of certain licenses to communist halls in Toronto at the instance, I believe, of the police of that city; then next the forbidding by the Toronto police of the use of any language other than English in certain halls, under penalty of such halls having their licenses cancelled. The next step was the breaking up of street meetings in Toronto, in connection with which six men were arrested on the charge of being disorderly as a result, of having failed to move on at the request of the police officers. And now there is pending an application for the deportation of two of these men-a rather serious matter which will have to be dealt with by the Department of Immigration. The other day a petition was presented to the house by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre)-this was on April 25-for the suppression of the Finnish paper Vapaus, "for what appears to the petitioners good and sufficient grounds"-that was all. Then more recently according to the press, steps were taken in various cities to prevent Mayday celebrations.

Freedom oj Speech
I could not but contrast this series of repressive measures witlh the accounts we had the other day concerning the Mayday celebrations in London, England. The communists there went on .parade and were offered facilities in that parade by the metropolitan police; when they held their meeting they were guarded by the police lest in any way the meeting should be interfered with. Lord Byng himself was observed in the crowd. Every effort was made to see that the fullest rights of freedom of speech were protected. There seems to be a danger in this country of our allowing other methods to prevail.
Now I am aware that it is not popular to plead the cause of the communists, and to allay any misapprehensions I may as well state at the beginning that I do not belong to the communist party. I wish to say, however, that there is an altogether unreasoning prejudice with regard to anything bearing the name of communism. For instance, in a recent issue of a paper published in my own city, the Evening Tribune, of May 4th, the following appears in one column:
It is expected that M. Lunacharsky whose, *photo appears above, will be appointed as the first minister from Soviet Russia to the Vatican at Rome, Italy. A mutual agreement has been reached between these states in a treaty by which the Vatican recognizes the Soviet government and the Soviet agTees to the free function of the Roman Catholic religion in Russia.
That is published on the front page, and in another column on the same page of the same issue I find another article headed:
Soviet to bar Russian Easter celebrations. Anti-God societies urged to prevent citizens from attending churches. Suppression as far as possible of the celebration of Russian Easter which falls to-morrow, has been determined on by the Soviets. Anti-God societies have been urged to intensify their efforts to prevent people attending churches and to induce them to give up their religious beliefs.
Then further:
Iszvetia, the official government organ, publishes a new law for the control of all religious organizations and this provides that religious bodies must register, but must confine activities to special buildings and cannot form cultural, educational or medical aid societies. The restrictions are so general as practically to place religious organizations at the mercy of local Soviets who are given unlimited opportunities of closing or confiscating church buildings.
Quite obviously those two articles are incompatible; yet that is the sort of thing we meet with constantly, when anything is mentioned concerning Russia or the communists in any part of the world.
It is quite true that Trotsky, one of the great Russian leaders, was exiled, and that
probably logically debars the communists in this country from protesting against any curtailment of speech here. But it does not debar me from protesting against curtailment of speech, for I believe that freedom of speech has always been the proud boast of Great Britain. It is true that there are a number of foreign bom among the communists, 'but I would urge that this is all the more reason why we should very jealously safeguard the rights of these foreign born. They are almost without political voice. This again emphasizes the need for Showing them the utmost fairness in Canada.
ft is quite possible it may not be very good politics for me to introduce this matter. In my own city of Winnipeg the communist party is one of the political rivals of the Independent Labour party, and the members of the communist party have constituted themselves our most bitter critics. But if I were not pleading for the communists I should be pleading fior ourselves, that we maintain the British traditions, or what we have always been told were the British traditions, of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. Moreover, I ask the house to remember that when a lawyer undertakes to defend a man charged with murder he does not lay himself open to the charge of defending the crime of murder-much less to -that of advocating murder; so, if I undertake to present certain phases of this question to-day, I hope hon. members will refrain from sugesting that I am advocating all the things which may have been advocated by some of the people for whom I speak. I know we have had some difficulty in that regard in the past.
I fancy that the attitude of a number of citizens of Toronto, although I hope this number is not very great, may be illustrated by a recent editorial which appeared in the Toronto Globe of April 27 under the heading "Communism Must Go." The editorial stated:
The thin edge of the communist wedge has entered the life of the mining districts.
And again:
There is presented the odd anomaly of a strange people in a new land filled with oppor-unity preferring to cherish the bitternesses of the older country from which they come. These deluded immigrants, apparently chiefly Finnish, cannot see that, by feeding their minds on the disastrous teachings of embittered demagogues, they are standing in their own light and erecting a barrier between themselves and the rest of the community. Here they found a young country needing citizens ready to aid in its development. They also came among a people eager to give them welcome and anxious for their assistance in creating a new and virile
Freedom oj Speech

in his power through fear. Finally he forced her into public prostitution, and he often visits her for immoral purposes in her abode of shame.
He has an honourable place in the published list of the Catholic clergy of his archdiocese. She is numbered among the inmates of a brothel. He is beloved as a "Reverend Father in God." She is loathed as a common harlot- Father Crowley, Romanism A Menace to the Nation, p. 420.
And then on page 4:
Tyrant and Slave
The Roman Catholic Church is the hereditary enemy of democracy. For no one can be a loyal Roman Catholic without renouncing his mental and moral freedom, and placing his civil loyalty and duty at the mercy of a petti-coated priest. The priests claim to be sacred persons, a caste apart from their fellows. Unless a man accepts them and their dogmas, they tell him he is damned. This is church teaching for Roman Catholics. If a Canadian places his head beneath a priest's foot, he is no more a. free and enlightened citizen than a dark-skinned worshipper kneeling before a highly-decorated medicine man on the outskirts of an African jungle. The silk hat and dog-collar of the Roman priest makes no real difference between the mental attitudes of the priest and the worshipper. The one is a tyrant and the other a slave.


Mr. BEAUBEEN:: Who is the editor of that paper?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is The Thunderer, an independent bi-monthly, issued by the The Thunderer Publishing Company, 191 John street, P. Sullivan, editor.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: What city?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is published iD Toronto. The charge on which Vaara was convicted was that of inciting ill-will between different classes of the king's subjects, and he is in gaol to-day; yet papers like The Thunderer circulate freely throughout the country and come to us through the mails. I submit that that is not British fair play.
hy should the poor, defenceless working man, who has not perhaps a full knowledge of the king's English and who in this case must use his own language in order to reach his own people have his paper censored and given publicity? We translate the offending article and scatter it all over the world. Then we send the editor to gaol. Is that the way to encourage the highest type of Canadian citizenship in this country? I think that matter can be allowed to stand without further discussion, as I cannot go into it in detail in the brief time at my disposal.
The Toronto police, under threat of the cancellation of the licenses of the halls, have forbidden the use of any language other than
(Mr. Woodsworth.]
English in the halls where working class meetings are held. I can understand that the police may be granted certain authority to see that the halls are properly protected, that they are sanitary, that they have proper fire escapes and that kind of thing.


Mr. GEARY:: Is it any language other than English?
Mr. W'00DSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. member can tell us what it is?


George Reginald Geary: French may be spoken. There is no question about that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad to hear that.


George Reginald Geary: Under that order it may be used in meetings.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad to hear that. But the languages of other races that have rights in this country are not allowed to be used in meetings. There have been published complaints with regard to the use of Yiddish. I have had complaints from Toronto friends with regard to the use of, I think, Bulgarian or Macedonian in national clubs, which have been organized under more or less religious auspices. These languages are being barred, so I am informed-and I think from credible sources-in the city of Toronto. I would say that the police of Toronto, if they are doing this, are exceeding their authority. Their action is impinging upon the fundamental rights of British citizens.


Mr. JACOBS:: Why does the hon. member not make his complaint to the municipal authorities of Toronto instead of to the Dominion parliament?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The complaint has been made-


George Reginald Geary: Where?


James Shaver Woodsworth: -but I will show more fully, later on that I am making my complaint here because this is a place where I have a seat and the federal parliament has certain responsibilities in the matter.
Further than that, street meetings have been broken up. The judge in the trial of at least one of the men was Judge Coatsworth. He presided on April 25, 1929, at the trial of one Harvey Murphy. I was interested in noting that Judge Coatsworth's name occurs on some literature which has been sent to me. The leaflet before me is entitled " The Canadian Christian Crusade." Among the members of the advisory board is His Honour Judge Coatsworth of Toronto, and I presume

Freedom of Speech
it is the same gentleman. The reasons for the existence of this organization are given as follows:
The C.C.C. was organized as a result of the grave concern aroused in the minds of God's people over the ever-increasing menace of communism, bolshevism, and atheism.
Aim of the C.C.C.
(1)	To secure provision to address companies of younger and older people on the subject of the 4-A propaganda, and thereby counteract its attack against the Word of God.
(2)	To issue a "C.C.C. leaflet" periodically,
giving startling facts relating to atheistic activities, and their menace to the life of the Christian community.	.
(3)	To secure a representative in every Christian assembly who will receive such leaflets for distribution that prayer may go up in a mighty volume against this evil.
Inquiries are solicited, and should be addressed to:-
Secretary, Canadian Christian Crusade, Room 301, 366 Bay street, Toronto, 2.
On the third page of this leaflet appear the following statemetnts:
The A.A.A.A.-


An hon. MEMBER:: What is that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have no idea.
-have issued a leaflet with various quotations from the Bible, which they ridicule and attempt to utterly disprove.
I am indebted to Mrs. Bertha Carr-Harris for permission to quote from her book "The Five A's versus The Four A's in this connection, and propose to take some of their statements, and answer them from scripture verification.
Atheism: "Heaven is a solid roof supporting reservoirs of water."	,
Reply: "The Hebrew word for 'firmament' is 'raquea', and has no such meaning. It indicates an expanse"
Atheism: "Four-footed fowls 1"	_
Reply " 'All winged creeping things that go upon all fours are an abomination unto you.' Such things as flying frogs, flying lizards, still found in Asia, were prohibited as articles of diet."	_
Atheism: "Rainbow given as a pledge. . . . The rainbow is as old as rain and sunshine." Reply: "It is not said that it came into existence at this time, but it was then pointed out as a sign."
Atheism: "If Methusaleh lived 869 years, he survived the flood. He was not in the ark. Where was he?"
Reply: "He was dead. That's Where he was. He was 187 years old when Lamech was born. Lamech was 182 when Noah was born. Noah was 500 years old when Shem was born (see Genesis 5: 25 to 32) and Noah was 600 years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth (7:6). Therefore-187 plus 182 plus 500 plus 100 equals 969. 'And all the days of Methuselah were 969, and he died' (5:27)." (More of these answers will be given each time The Leaflet is issued until some of the absurdities of denial are cleared up.)
Pray Pray Pray and Give Thanks.
I said that on that document is to be found the name of Judge Coatsworth, and he is one of the men who decided whether or not these men were guilty of holding street meetings and of being disorderly. That shows very clearly a prejudiced mind.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. A judge may not be attacked in the House of Commons except by way of impeachment.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand that Judge
Coatsworth has resigned and so I suppose he may be attacked now.


George Reginald Geary: The proper course is indicated in Beauchesne at page 101:
The proper course for persons who feel called upon to attack the conduct of a Judge is to proceed by way of a petition in which all the allegations are specifically stated so tha-the person accused may have full opportunity to answer the charges presented against him.
If my hon. friend wishes to attack a judge who, if I may say so, happens to be a very learned and exemplary person, let him do so in a proper manner.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not intend
further to attack the judge. I want simply to call attention to the general situation which exists. A little while ago I pointed out the hard conditions under which many of these Finnish people had to live and work. I think I was not going too far afield when I called the attention of the house to the religious and intellectual background of the judge who presided at the trial of this case. Someone asked me a little while ago why I brought this matter before the house. I said that it was because this was the place where I had a seat. I feel this is an important enough question to bring before parliament and the country at large. I would ask several things of the government; I am not insisting upon a decision to-day, but I would urge that the government consider these matters. First, I would ask that they carefully consider the question of leniency in the case of Vaara and the six men who have been imprisoned because of the attempt to hold a street meeting. I know it is not usual to grant leniency in the case of short sentences, but this is a very exceptional type of case. Second, I would urge that with respect to these men whose 'oases are now before the Immigration department, deportation should not be ordered on political grounds. These men were attempting to hold a street meeting. Possibly they broke the ordinances of the city. They were sent down for a month. Further than that they were charged

Freedom of Speech

with being disorderly because they in some way resisted the police. Possibly they are guilty on that charge. I submit that this is not a sufficient ground for deportation, that behind the charges against them lay the fact that they were members of the communist party and attempting to carry on communist propaganda. I would hope that in this country we would not follow the lead of the American republic, which has deported people for political reasons. It is a long time since Great Britain did any such thing.
I would even go so far as to suggest that certain representations might be made to the provincial authorities and to the police of the city of Toronto that they were coming at least rather near to exceeding their authority in prohibiting meetings at which languages other than English or French were being used. If I remember aright, there are clauses in the treaty of Peace which commit the signatories to respect the language rights of nationals, and I take it that we have certain responsibilities in Canada under that treaty of protecting the language rights of the various peoples who are living in this country. Whether or not, however, we undertake to keep our faith with the others who signed the treaty, I would say that from the standpoint of expediency it is highly desirable that when we invite people to come to us from other lands these immigrants shall be assured that they will have in Canada the full use of their own language.


Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo):: If they obey the laws of the country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My hon. friend from South Waterloo suggests, if they obey the laws of the country. We have certain laws on the statute books under which these men may be charged and tried if they are not obeying the laws of the country, but it is absolutely absurd, that the police, simply for their own convenience, should say: You must not use a language that we cannot understand.
Further, I would suggest to the government that the government put on the statute books even at this session-and only the government can do it at this session-any legislation that is necessary in ordter to protect what most of us have been taught were the fundamental rights of British people.
May I in closing venture to quote a paragraph or two from an editorial on personal liberty in the Round Table of March, 1929:
The second foundation of the British commonwealth is the liberty of the individual. This immortal idea, the most precious and important of all social rights, legally established in England by the long struggle which lasted from 
Magna Charta in 1215 to the Bill of Rights in 1688, and protected by countless enactments and judicial decisions, is the basis of law everywhere in the British commonwealth. This is not always perfectly realized. Liberty may be denied to individuals by fraud or corruption or ignorance here and there.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. gentleman's time is up.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that under standing order 37 I have the privilege of speaking even beyond forty minutes.


Hewitt Bostock: Standing order 37 reads:
No member, except the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, or a member making a motion of "no confidence" in the government and a minister replying thereto, shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.
In the present instance there is no motion of "no confidence", but the hon. gentleman may continue while I consider the matter further.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall not trespass upon the time of the house, except to finish this quotation:
It may for short periods be temporarily suspended in cases of civil emergency or foreign war. But nowhere in the British Empire can it be constitutionally destroyed, nor has it ever, even in times of emergency, been long suspended.
What this means may be realized by considering the consequence in other countries of extravagant idealisms, communistic, nationalist, facial or religious, which have recently triumphed at the expense of the older and far more important ideal of personal liberty. In Russia, in Italy, in many other countries of Europe, and in most parts of Asia outside the British commonwealth, the liberty of the individual is at the mercy of the caprice of government, whether constitutional or revolutionary. The right of assembly, the freedom of the press, the right of asylum, the integrity of the courts, the immunity of the individual from unlawful arrest, even the right of private judgment, are all habitually denied. The people may enjoy national independence; they may be able to try various experiments such as socialism, or some new but arbitrary form of law- and order after a period of chaos; but they have not the most precious of all rights, security that the law and the courts will secure to them as individuals the advantages of liberty and justice, whatever government may be in power.
I plead, Mr. Speaker, that we in this country should follow the lead not of Europe or even of the great republic to the south, but rather that of the motherland, and in all these cases absolutely and rigidly insist upon the fullest measure of freedom.

Freedom of Speech


Hewitt Bostock: In order that there may
be no misunderstanding, I maintain my first ruling that the hon. gentleman should not have been allowed to speak for more than forty minutes, although by the courtesy of the house he was given that privilege. Standing order 37 says:
No member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister-
The hon. gentleman was not properly speaking in reply to the motion made by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means. It was on that motion that the hon. gentleman rose for the privilege of expressing certain grievances before the house should go into committee of ways and means, but he is not entitled to speak for more than forty minutes.


George Halsey Perley: May I suggest that Your Honour consider the matter a little further? I am not quite sure in my own mind what the committee originally intended by this rule, but the question now raised is a very serious one, and I think it ought to be carefully considered by Your Honour, if you will do so, and perhaps give a judgment later. This motion is certainly a government order; there is no question about that. The Minister of Finance moves a government order, and the first member who speaks in reply is entitled under this rule to speak for more than forty minutes. Again, if a member makes a motion of " no confidence " in amendment to the motion for supply, that case is also specially provided for in rule 37.


Hewitt Bostock: If there is a motion, but there is no motion of " no confidence."


George Halsey Perley: Apart from that, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is the member speaking in reply immediately after the Minister of Finance moved a government order, and therefore under rule 37 he should be entitled to speak for more than forty minutes. I admit that the words of the rule are not as plain as they might be, but the Minister of Finance certainly moved a government order, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is the first member speaking in reply to it. I quite admit that it is arguable, but it is a matter that the Speaker might very well consider most carefully because it makes a lot of difference. It might very well be that at various times on the 78594-149J
motion to go into ways and means or supply, a member would wish to speak on a subject which it would take him much longer than forty minutes to discuss, although he would not go so far as to move a non-confidence motion. Many questions are discussed to better advantage without a non-confidence motion, as the government are then able to view the question dispassionately. To say that on a motion to go into supply no member shall speak for more than forty minutes, unless he is going to move a non-confidence motion, is proceeding a little further, I think, than the committee intended. It might be well for the Speaker to consider the point carefully. I think the first member to speak might be allowed more than forty minutes on a motion to go into supply, even although he does not move a non-confidence motion, because he might desire to discuss a very important question.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, might we not ask that this point be debated? That is, that we might have an opportunity of presenting it before Your Honour makes a final ruling. Frankly, I think this is a most serious step. For instance, a government order might deal with any government -bill, and under the suggested ruling we would be limited lo forty minutes replying to a minister on a highly complicated bill that might take a long time properly to review. In regard to this particular motion to go into committee of ways and means or committee of supply, it is the inherent and most sacred right of a member to present to the house the grievances of any subject. In reply to the motion of the Minister of Finance that the house go into committee of ways and means, and before that is granted to the minister, a member has a right to present -his grievance, which might take him a very considerable time. Personally, I would earnestly request Your Honour not to make that final ruling on this occasion, because to my mind it would very seriously abridge our rights.
It has been suggested that I elaborate for a moment the question of dealing with a government bill. We will take as an instance a bill, that might be on the order paper now, we will say a railway -bill involving a large expenditure of money and a very complicated issue. If the member who sets himself the task of preparing an answer to the government's proposal were limited to forty minutes, he could not possibly do so adequately.


Mr. DUNNING:: There is not any suggestion of that in the ruling.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh yes, it would follow
if that ruling were established. The minister
23G0
Freedom of Speech

presenting the bill has unlimited time to cover the ground fully, but the member replying would be limited to a period within which it would be impossible for him to present his case. Therefore I would respectfully urge Your Honour not to make that the final ruling until we have had further time to consider it. I would also ask that Your Honour grant us an opportunity to debate it fully, especially in the absence of my hon. leader.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Latoelle):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, the remarks made by the member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) and now by the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) are, I think, extremely opportune. The new rules of the house ought to be interpreted according to the spirit, and not according to the strict letter. Now, the standing proposition of the Minister of Finance every time we are going into supply is for the house to transform itself into committee of the whole to grant ways and means to His Majesty's government. This is a substantial function of parliament and, as Your Honour has well stated, it is a substantial right of every member to take advantage of that motion to present to the house any grievance from any community represented by him.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Why should
that be limited to one hon. member?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I will deal with my hon. friend's point in a minute. Therefore I say it is the outstanding duty of every member not to let that privilege be abridged. It may be abused at times, it may be used inopportunely by this or that member. But we should not consider the rules from that point of view. We should take the general rule as it is, and the principle underlying it. Now, every time the Minister of Finance moves that the house resolve itself into committee of ways and means, it is the right-and very often the duty-of each or any member to oppose that motion in order to bring before the house any grievance or something which he may think of immediate interest to the country.
The question then raised takes precedence over every other business, and has to be dealt with thoroughly by the house before it decides to vote for or against the motion of the Minister of Finance.
I have been asked a very pertinent question by the member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young): Why should it be confined to one member? That is the chance of every member. The first member to stand up when the motion is made by the Minister of Finance takes that

precedence for that day. He brings up the question which he thinks ought to be discussed and settled by the house before the motion of the Minister of Finance is adopted. I think it is a very important point, Mr. Speaker. It might give rise to consequences much more important and numerous and varied than we may imagine at first. We must look at the rule, and at the ruling passed upon it, not from the sole point of view of the member who has brought up the question to-day, but from the point of view of its general application. I claim that whether there is or is not a motion of want of confidence, every member who challenges the motion to go into committee of ways and means has the right to present fully to the house the question which he thinks important for the time being to be disposed of. It can be only one question. It has to be dealt with by the house before the motion of the Minister of Finance is adbpted, and I think we should look twice before we abridge that individual right of all members of the house.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, the dilemma in which we find ourselves to-day is only another illustration of the undesirability of the rule we passed a couple of years ago. I am quite willing to accept your ruling, sir, and also the objections made against it. because they are both correct in that they illustrate our position.
You, sir, have ruled, taking the concrete instance, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is not entitled to speak longer than his forty minutes, because the motion before the house is to go into committee of ways and means, and he was discussing a subject quite remote from the motion. Therefore it would seem reasonable that he should' not be allowed to exercise a privilege denied, as my hon. friend says, to other members. Why should the privilege be granted to the man who first gets to his feet? I may have a burning grievance of as much importance to my constituents as the grievance of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is to his constituents. Because he first gets your eye, sir, he can speak for all eternity, and I am limited to forty minutes.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) made a very clear point, but he omitted one illustration which I think is very strong. It is a well-known fact that the budget speech of the Minister of Finance is generally replied to by the financial critic of the opposition rather than by the leader of

Freedom of Speech
the opposition, and I believe this rule was worded for that purpose, so that it would allow the man speaking on behalf of His Majesty's opposition to criticize the whole budget; he would not be limited to forty minutes, which would be evidently grossly unfair. Therefore that privilege is to be conceded. If we allow that, we must also concede the privilege to any private, insignificant member to get up and delay the house while he discusses perhaps some private local grievance when that right is denied to other members following him. I suggest that the matter could be best solved by taking another vote, and I am sure that we should find the majority of the members willing to do away with this foolish forty minute rule.


Hon. CHARLES MARGIL (Bonaventure):: The intention of the committee at the time the rule was drawn up was to limit speeches to forty minutes, but we made certain exceptions thereto. The first exception was made in favour of the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition and that was agreed to unanimously. But the question was raised that someone might speak on behalf of the Prime Minister-someone on the government side-or some member of the opposition might speak on behalf of the leader of the opposition, as for instance the critic of the opposition speaking in reply to the budget speech. We therefore extended the exceptions from two leaders to the minister who might move a government order or to the member of the opposition replying thereto on behalf of the leader of the opposition. That was our intention.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: It does not
specify a member of the opposition.


Charles Marcil: We thought that the leader of the opposition on occasion might not wish to speak himself but might request one of his colleagues to speak for him, and our intention was to limit the rule to the two leaders or to the two members speaking on their behalf-a member of the government speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister or a member of the opposition speaking for the leader of the opposition. I quite agree with the two hon. members who have spoken immediately before me that it is a time-honoured custom of parliament to allow grievances before supply, but the intention of the rule was to limit speeches to forty minutes, with the exceptions I have indicated.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I would point out what would seem to be an anomaly if such an interpretation were put upon the
rule. The rule distinctly states that the member speaking in reply, immediately after the minister, shall be included in the exceptions. According to the hon. gentleman's interpretation, we find ourselves in this dilemma: Either the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) was speaking in reply to a minister or else he was speaking absolutely out of order. If he was not speaking in reply to the minister he was not speaking to any motion. It seems to me that he could be speaking only to the motion made by the minister.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Which admits of any subject being presented.


John Livingstone Brown: Certainly. So that if the rule should foe that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre shall be limited to forty minutes then we find ourselves on the other horn of the dilemma, that he was not speaking to any motion at all and was therefore out of order. It may foe that this rule goes further than those who devised it intended it to go; that may very well be. But the rule is as we have it, and it is not just now in point to debate whether the forty minute rule is desirable or not. I cannot see, under the rule as we have it, but that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, speaking as he was, was entitled to take any time he saw fit in presenting his case.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: As a member of the committee that redrafted the rules, I cannot agree with the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). My recollection is that the committee intended to allow the first member of the house speaking in reply to a minister to exceed the forty minutes. I understand the tentative ruling to be that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is limited to forty minutes inasmuch as his speech is not a reply. The committee did not undertake-and I do not think this house would undertake-to dictate to any member what form his reply should take. If the hon. member chose to say what he did say in reply to the minister's motion that is for him to decide; no matter what he may say, he replies. It may be irrelevant or otherwise ; we all have differences of opinion as to the effect and the advisability of statements made in the house. But no matter what his statement was it was a reply and therefore should not be limited to forty minutes.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: As a member of the committee which revised the rules I remember distinctly both the spirit and the intention behind that rule. There is no doubt
Freedom oj Speech

in my mind that the exception was inserted to safeguard what we have considered to be a very valuable privilege in parliament, namely, that grievances might be discussed on the floor of the house. I was so certain of this that I prompted the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to the effect that he had more than forty minutes in which to state his grievance. I agree with the hon. member for Bonaventure with respect to his main contention, but I do not agree with him that the committee intended the exception to be confined to the official opposition. That clause was inserted to apply to every member of the house replying to a minister in the technical sense. As a member of this house I have always understood that an hon. member rising to a motion to go into supply was replying to the minister who moved the motion. I have always understood that to be technically so, and I believe the rule was drawn up to give effect to that right. My memory is so distinct regarding the motives and the intention of the committee in this respect that, as I say, I took it upon myself to prompt the hon. member when he was speaking and when I saw that he was being hurried for time.


George Halsey Perley: Although I have already spoken I should like to make one further comment. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has raised a point which seems to me to be very relevant. There is no question that it was intended that if a member of the government moved the second reading of an important bill when he would have the right to take more than forty minutes, the member who spoke immediately after him would certainly be entitled to speak for more than forty minutes. But under what rule would he exercise that right? He would have the right under standing order 37, which relates to the member speaking immediately after the minister who moves a government order. It seems to me that inasmuch as a member has that right to speak for more than forty minutes after a minister moves a second reading, the same rule must apply in this instance.


Alan Webster Neill: We have now heard from
four members of the committee who framed the rule and no two of them are in agreement as to what it means.


Mr. E. A. LAPIERRE (Nipissing):: I cannot allow the statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre regarding the editor of the newspaper published in Sudbury

Vapaus-to pass without explaining to the members of the house the situation as
(Mr. Bird.]
it exists in that city and in the district of Nipissing. The editor of that newspaper was tried and after a fair trial convicted of seditious libel. The newspaper did not represent the opinion or the sentiments of the Finnish population of northern Ontario. We had in that district a very large number of Finnish families, many of whom are pioneers who have lived in that section of the country for more than a quarter of a century, and their descendants to-day have taken their place along with other Canadians and are engaged in trade, in the professions and in other occupations. They are considered among some of our most desirable citizens. I would point out to my hon. friend that notwithstanding the fact that we have this large foreign population in the district of Sudbury we have been free from strikes for the last twenty-five years. Living conditions among the mining population of northern Ontario are far better and far more comfortable than they were made to appear by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. No class of labourers in Canada receive better remuneration, live under better social conditions or are more prosperous than the mining people of the north, and no class of people have contributed more to the development of that great north country than those who are engaged in carrying on the work of our mines. Many years ago these people realized that it was to their own interest to create living conditions in the mining districts which would attract the very best labour, and the model towns of that district are taken as examples throughout Canada.
We have been free from strikes; we have been free from strife and we have been entirely free from racial or religious disturbances. The Finnish people in our district are not communists or socialists and the people in northern Ontario have failed to be influenced by propagandists who have been sent there to induce the labourers employed in the mines and in the lumber camps to join Communistic organizations. In that way we have kept free from labour disturbances and have succeeded in creating living conditions for that class of people under which they have no reason to complain. I would invite the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to visit some of the new plants which are being erected at present, before he makes such statements as to the living conditions of the mining men in the north.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I visited some of
the old plants.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: That may be so, but I am inviting my hon. friend to visit some of the

Freedom oj Speech
new plants, and I would direct his attention to the fact that no labour disturbance ever has taken place in our mines.
I will leave it to those better informed to reply to the hon. gentleman with regard to the Hollinger mine, but when I visited that mine a few years ago it compared favourably with any of the hundred mines I have had the opportunity of seeing during the last eight or ten years. I may tell my hon. friend also that the working conditions in our copper and nickel mines to-day are equal to those existing in any other place in the world.
In conclusion I wish to say that the petition which was presented to this house requesting the suppression of that communistic paper published in Sudbury represented the very best elements of our society. It was signed by representatives of all the organizations interested in the welfare and the future development of northern Ontario, and I may say that that section of our Finnish population known as the White Finns-


Mr. HEAPS:: What other colours are there in addition to white.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: I will leave that for my hon. friend to deal with; he knows them better than I do. These people, however, have been absorbed into our population and to-day are just as good citizens as we have anywhere in that north country.


George Reginald Geary: There are one or two points arising out of the address of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) to which, as representing at least a part of the city of Toronto, I should refer. Just how the hon. member considered the greater part of his speech to be relevant to the subject he was discussing I cannot make out. His speech was a criticism directed mainly, one gathers, against the courts which tried offenders for breaches of certain clauses of the Criminal Code.
As to the Hollinger mine fatality the hon. member who has just taken his seat, of course, is well versed. I know little of that case, but I do know that within a week of the disaster the Ontario government instituted an inqury under a gentleman who was not a judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario, but who was a judge holding equal rank with judges of that court, Mr. Justice Godson, who at one time was mining recorder. It is not my intention either to commend or to criticize Mr. Justice Godson, but I have no reason to suppose that he, any more than any other judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario, should be subject to unfair criticisms in this house. I have not the slightest doubt
but that he gave his decision in that case after careful inquiry, to the very best of his ability and with absolute conscientiousness. That being so, I think it is too bad now to criticize him. If there is any action which should have been taken following his report I think my hon. friend would be on more solid ground in suggesting it, but he has not ventured to make such a suggestion.
The other case taken up by the hon. gentleman was the one to which the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) has referred. That is the case of the judge who tried and sentenced an offender under the Criminal Code. With all respect to my hon. friend I do think that no good purpose is served by ex parte criticism in this house of a judge of our courts. It was the integrity of the court to which my hon. friend referred when he read from the Round Table magazine, and if we cannot trust our courts and if we are free to criticize our judges on such grounds I think matters have come to a very serious state. If this house considers it necessary to criticize the judgment of any judge here rather than in the proper courts of appeal, if such there be, the house should so declare, but at the moment the house should follow the rule which says there must be no criticism of a judge in this house. I regret very much that my hon. friend has sought to violate this rule, not only in regard to His Lordship Mr. Justice Godson but also in regard to His Honour Judge Coatsworth, who is a judge of the very highest standing.
The city of Toronto, through its police commission, has issued an order in regard to speeches at -public meetings, with the terms o-f which I am not fully conversant. I do not think my hon. friend himself will defend in this house the doctrines of communism; I do not believe he can see eye to eye with those who profess to follow those doctrines of communism. I may say that no city in Canada is more ardent in defence of the principle of free speech than is the city of Toronto.


Mr. SANDERSON:: No more so than
many other cities.


George Reginald Geary: No, I do not say that; I
did not intend to do more than point out the position taken by the city of Toronto, since it has been -more or less attacked this afternoon by my hon. friend. He may say he was not attacking the manner in which the affairs of that city have -been conducted, but from his reading of certain magazines or pamphlets, of which I have never heard but which hap-
Freedom oj Speech

pen to be published in Toronto, which fact he emphasizes, I can only understand that he wishes to take objection to the conduct of public affairs in that city. The police commissioners, who are an independent body, issued an order, to prevent communistic appeals being made-which appeals would have the result of creating disorder-in a language which was not one of the authorized languages of this country, and I think the hon. member will admit that the meeting he mentioned was being conducted in a language which does not come within that classification. I do not defend the action of the police commissioners because I do not know enough about it, nor do I criticize it, but I do say that the action of the chief of police, endorsed by the Board of Police Commissioners, has been apparently sanctioned by the approval of the people of Toronto, and also apparently by the people of the province.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Has the hon. member
not heard anything of the protests made by citizens of Toronto against the ruling of the chief of police?


George Reginald Geary: No, I have not heard of any, but if the hon. member says that such complaints have been made I am perfectly willing to accept her word.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: If the hon. member
had been reading the press he would have seen them.


George Reginald Geary: I have not observed them,
but at all events they have not induced a reversing of the order.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It wouldn't in Toronto.


George Reginald Geary: I am one of those here to represent my city, and I think we can judge very well from what the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Maophail) has just said, exactly what the sentiments are which inspire so many of these remarks. The city of Toronto has not lacked in any sense a proper appreciation of her responsibility as a city, to her province, to her dominion and to her empire. I say that on behalf of my city with regard to what I think are feelings which are not justified and to expressions which are made, quite often without cause, by hon. members of this house.
If it would be admitting anything to the hon. member, I will say that the city of Toronto is definitely and I hope unalterably opposed to the adoption of the principle of communism in this country. I do not know this for a fact-perhaps the hon. member for

Winnipeg North Centre will correct me if I am 'wrong-but I am informed that the Labour party in Toronto^ which owns a building called the Temple, does not permit communistic meetings to be held within that building. That is to say, organized labour, which is strong in Toronto and commands the respect of the people of every class, does not choose to allow its building to be used for this same sort of meeting, even when the addresses are made in English. The police commissioners have decided that it is in the interest of public order to forbid communistic meetings being held in a language which is not understood.
In a very ingenuous way the hon, member complains of a man who was arrested for resisting the police and charged with disorderly conduct. I leave it to the house to decide whether or not that was disorderly; it certainly was not orderly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My reason for referring to that was because the charge is now being made the basis for an appeal for deportation.


George Reginald Geary: I think the hon. member is in the proper forum as regards deportation, but in regard to the domestic affairs of the city of Toronto I personally would be very much obliged if hon. members would consider that after all Toronto has got to a point where she may be supposed to be able to take care of her own interests and we do not overwelcome interference and criticism which we think is not justified.


Mr. MALCOLM LANG (South Timis-kaming):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the northern part of Ontario has entered into this discussion I feel that I should express my sentiments on this matter. I quite agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) when he says that we should all try to live up to the traditions handed down to us from the old land, the traditions of the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. I do not believe that we can follow that too closely, because just as soon as we depart from those principles we get into difficulties. I also agree with what the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) has said regarding the good citizenship of the Finnish people in northern Ontario.
I do not know anything about the paper which was suppressed as I did not follow the case at all, but I do feel that the people who seem to be taking this matter so seriously have been misled. I have been in touch with conditions there because the southwest comer of my riding comes within four miles of Sud-

Freedom oj Speech
bury. I meet the people in that section at intervals throughout the year and I know that some people in Sudbury were greatly worked up about this affair, but to my mind it was only a tempest in a teapot. Only a few people were concerned in it, but probably they are the class who would try to get others interested in their agitation and perhaps they did express themselves in a way which was not fitting as citizens of our country. However that may be, the case has been in court and has been dealt with. My opinion is that the Finnish people around Sudbury are not going to be affected seriously by any action which has been taken by certain people or by the courts with regard to this matter. My experience, not only with the Finnish people but with the other European peoples who have come to our country, is that they always prove to be good citizens. It is true that when they first come here and do not know our language they have difficulty in understanding our ways; probably they do not understand our laws and it takes them some time to become accustomed to our methods of living. Whether tlheir children come with them, or are born in Canada., I have always found that after they have attended our common schools they become a high type of citizen.
The tragedy which occurred at the Hollinger mine some two years ago has been mentioned in the house to-day by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. That was a disaster which was entirely unexpected and something which we all felt very keenly about, but it did occur. I knew Judge Godson for many years before he became a judge, when he was a mining commissioner, and I feel quite satisfied that he used his best judgment in trying to arrive at a finding in connection with the cause of that disaster. Nothing, transpired because of his finding other than that the management have the experience which they had in that particular case and I believe that since this disaster has happened, the management of all the mines in northern Canada and indeed, throughout the whole country, -will be much more careful. In the mining camps in the north country the mines, and particularly gold mines, are known mostly as wet mines, and mining men never believed that a fire such as happened at the Hollinger mines, could occur. But, however that may be, nothing that could be said by anyone or any findings by any commission that might sit on the case could make me change my opinion with regard to the matter, namely, that the responsibility for a tragedy such as happened in the Hollinger mine at that time, must rest upon the management of the mine. Had the management been what it should have been, greater care would have been taken to see that the regulations laid down in the Mining Act of Ontario were properly carried out, and such a tragedy could not have occurred.
There is another angle of the Hollinger disaster which, it occurs to me, has something to do with the comparatively small spread of communism throughout our country. Had there been throughout the mines in the Porcupine camp and other parts of northern Ontario a good miners' union well organized and kept alive; had the miners' union continued to exist as it did in the earlier days oi the camps, then even had the management been neglectful in regard to the care of the mines, the matter would have been forcibly called to their attention by the men working in there, because they would have had behind them an organization strong enough to protect them in making necessary comments or complaints to the management so that the work could be carried on properly and carefully. I know the opinion I hold is not shared by everyone, perhaps not by the majority of the people in the north country, but I think nothing tends more towards a good, safe and successful operation of a mine or any other big industry than a good organization amongst the employees and one that in its operation merits the confidence of the management and the executive, so that the executive of the labour organization will be called in to meet and may meet with the management and discuss around a table the conditions which they have to face in order to make a success of the enterprise in which they are all engaged. For some years past the organization of the men employed in the mines of northern Ontario has not been kept intact. I hope that the time will come when the men will have a good organization. They need it. It will be a good thing for them and it will be a good thing for the mine owners and the mine managers, because only by their properly working together can the best success be made out of the development that is taking place in the north country.
Just a word with regard to communism. I think I am right in saying that they never had a good miners' union in the Sudbury district; but if we had a good miners' union throughout northern Ontario, that in itself would do a great deal towards preventing any spread of communism among peoples who come to our land from parts of Europe where they do not know our conditions and who, under the conditions that exist in the north
Freedom oj Speech

country to-day, are left to fight their own battles, to look after themselves without any organization to help them and probably without the care, sympathy and assistance that they should have from their employers. It is not any wonder that some of them drift into the hands of these agitators who are endeavouring to spread communism throughout the land. I am thankful to say that communism is not spreading to any great extent throughout northern Ontario, but I am not inclined to place the blame for the little that exists, upon the poor individuals who are taking part in that agitation. We who have had more opportunities than they 'have, who have lived in that country for a long time, who are and always have been citizens of Canada, who know the conditions, and who have invited these people to come and live with us, and who want them to remain with us, should take a greater interest in them, and thereby keep them away from the communists who gather around them. I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the house, but when this opportunity arose today I felt that I should make my viewpoint clear upon just these few matters.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I think all have appreciated the speech of the hon. member for South Timiskaming (Mr. Lang) who has just taken his seat. Let me state in the beginning of the few remarks which I intend to make, that I am not a communist. Neither, indeed, is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). It was just this winter that he was chased out of the Labour temple by the communists-or at least, caught his train a moment or two before he intended to. He had his meeting broken up by them and I understand he is not in very good odour with them. So it cannot be said that either of us is a communist, although I need not defend the hon. member because he is quite able to do so himself.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I interrupt?
I left the meeting before the row started. Even the communists did not frighten me.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I can quite believe that. I am interested in this discussion only from the viewpoint of free speech, free assembly and a free press. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary), an hon. gentleman who is held in very high regard by all the members of the house, say that he was not familiar with the protests that had been made by the liberal-minded people of the city of Toronto. I
[Mf. Lang.]
suppose they are so few in numbers that the sound they made did not reach the ears of my hon. friend. By "liberal" I do not mean Liberal in politics, but liberal in thought; they are not the same thing. But surely anyone who has been reading the press knows that W. A. Cameron, the minister of Lloyd-minster church, conducted a real campaign, and a very able one, in favour of free speech in the city of Toronto, that meetings were held in Hygeia hall and many letters written to the members of this house, all because of the ruling, I believe, of the chief of police of the city of Toronto. I should be glad to think that all over Canada we had freedom of speech and of assembly and of the press. I think it is true that we have freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, except in a few dark spots, but we have not quite got, I think, freedom of the press, and I think all hon. members of this house will secretly agree with that. We boast a great deal about following British traditions and honouring them by copying them, but this is one in respect to which I think we have fallen short. In Great Britain there is much greater freedom of speech than there is here. There one can say I fancy, almost anything and no one tries to stop him. But in this country, unless one is saying what is an accepted fact, one runs into difficulties. I think we might well become more British and less American in that regard. I do not think there is anything to be gained by trying to make all people think alike. I have every confidence in freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press because I believe that the truth will out, and if you let people talk who have nothing to talk about, they will naturally kill themselves; but if they have something that is a living and a vital thing, you cannot stop it from coming out, and the more you try to stop it, thS more it grows until it becomes so strong that it overcomes all obstacles in its path and sometimes brings a great deal of destruction, like a dam when it bursts. That was borne out by the speech of the hon. gentleman who preceded me. I was happy to hear him say that he believed that if there was organized labour in the northern areas there would not be so much communism. That is my own idea, and one always thinks that the person who expresses one's own ideas is very clever indeed. I think that the more opposition there is to freedom of speech and assembly, the more opposition to decent standards of living and to acquiring decent standards of living by organization of the men themselves, the

Freedom 0/ Speech
more communism there will be. Suppress that and you will bring about the thing you fear-communism. I want to support the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre because I believe in free speech, free assembly and a free press. I believe that the more freedom there is in those respects, the greater will be our happiness and our self-respect.


Alan Webster Neill: While I did not follow the hon. meihber for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in regard to conditions in northern Ontario, I must support him and the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Meuophail) in their advocacy of the right of free speech, even if it comes to free speech in the House of Commons in connection with the forty-minute rule. I do not need1 iperhaps to say that I am no. communist and that I have no sympathy with such doctrines, and I hope there are no communists in the district I represent. I believe that the best method of dealing with extreme views is to afford them the greatest publicity. It is far better to have these doctrines shouted from the housetops or in the public squares than whispered in the cellar, because that is where they will be whispered if you do not allow them free outlet in God's air, so to sipeak. The surest way of propagating a doctrine is to make a martyr of somebody in connection with it. History all down the line tells us that. You can pour a pail of water on a cement floor, and you cannot eliminate it by beating it; you only spread it, and that is the effect of trying to stop people uttering seditious doctrines with which we are thoroughly out of touch.
The hon. member for Southeast Grey spoke of conditions in the old country. I was over there a couple of yearn ago, and I went to Hyde Park one Sunday evening. I was amazed at the freedom of speech that was allowed there. A man mounted a soap box and he talked sedition from the word go, and I was astonished to see that the people were listening to him and appeared to be taking it in.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How do you know it was
seditious?


Alan Webster Neill: It was in my opinion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is all.


Alan Webster Neill: And in the opinion of most
people. What was the ultimate result? There were a couple of men who looked like artisans standing in front of me, one of them with his
wife. My hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) will no doubt want to know how I knew it was his wife. I took that for granted, Mr. Speaker, in spite of my experience with divorce cases in Canada. These two men stood in front of me and I thought they were taking it all in, but at last one of them said, addressing the speaker,, "Oh, go and bile your bleeding head. Let's go home, Bill," and that broke up the meeting. I thought the speaker had been making an impression upon his audience, but the sound common sense of the British working people was too much for him. That remark was the end of him; his audience laughed and disappeared. But if he had been compelled to hold his meeting in a cellar, he might have made some impression.
Another instance which I did not see, a friend told me about. A man drove up in a car and stopped to listen to one of these soap box orators. He left the engine of his motor running, making a little noise. A policeman came over to him and said, "You will 'ave to stop that engine. You are hinterfering with the heloquenee of the horator." That orator was talking sedition but the policeman saw that he got free vent anyhow, and no doubt with the publicity he got he ended as the man did in the other case I mentioned. Darkness, ignorance and suppression are the mothers of sovietism and communism. Give these doctrines the light of day and publicity, and we can trust to the sound common sense of the Anglo-Saxon race that there will .be no danger of our being troubled with communistic principles. But make martyrs of these people and there is something in human nature that lends itself to follow them, and you will be doing more harm by trying to suppress their doctrines than if you gave them access to the free air, where they will naturally dissipate themselves.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The
few speeches that we have just heard have proven to the house, I think, that the initiative taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) was quite timely. I did not have the advantage of hearing the hon. member, but I took my impression of what he said from the remarks of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary), whose accuracy and probity of mind I trust entirely.
There were two or three points made by the hon. member for South Toronto in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which ought not to be passed over
Freedom oj Speech

without some reference. With regard to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, that subject has been under discussion so often that I do not think it necessary to insist much upon it. I almost entirely agree with what my good neighbour (Mr. Neill) has just said about the advantage of letting people have vent for what they have to say, even if it is foolish. That is better than trying to suppress it.
I still more perhaps agree with the hon. member who spoke a moment ago, from South Timiskaming, I think. He hit the nail on the head, so far as agitation and propaganda among the labouring classes, and especially the foreign labouring classes, are concerned. There are two causes for this propaganda. He dwelt upon one-the lack of organization on the part of some sections of our labour world, and the lack of encouragement given to labour organizations either by employers or by the public at large. Quite a number of people in this country seem to imagine that syndicalism or labour organization is a mere matter of class concern for the labourers. That is an entirely wrong view. It is a matter of public interest, of social concern, of public safety for the whole nation. Under modern conditions of life and labour, the whole nation-I will go further.-the so-called possessing classes, have a direct and immediate interest in seeing that labour is properly organized and in a position to deal with a sense of collective responsibility either with employers, or with the public at large, or with parliaments, governments, and s|o forth. I well remember in my young days when, in such organizations as the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, for example, the policy was to prevent or stifle any such things as labour unions. Well, there was among the vast number of employees of that company at that time a spirit far more inimical to the company and to society at large than there is now. Why? Because some few men saw the reasonableness of the employees' position. May I name one? The late Lord Shaughnessy. He, having had the advantage -I call it advantage-of beginning work at the foot of the ladder, had a heart and a mind big enough not to have forgotten the days of poverty, the days of humbleness, the days when he was under the load of authority and wealth which made itself so heavily felt by the labour classes. Instead of fighting that spirit of organization among the employees, he encouraged it. Of course, I admit that large employers of labour by adopting a friendly attitude towards organized labour often get their men to agree to certain conditions which they might not accept if their

employers were hostile to them. But there is not the slightest doubt that since the spirit of syndicalism has spread out, since labour has organized itself in a sensible manner and a sense of responsibility has grown up among the labouring classes, it is easier to settle labour problems.
Now, in regard to the intrinsic and political right-I call it political in the very broad sense of the word-of people holding the doctrine of communism to express their views, well, that is a very broad question. There are many people nearer to the capitalists than to the communists, or people not belonging to any set class, who believe that the doctrine and practice of capitalism., as existing to-day in America especially-and I make no distinction between Canada and the United1 States in this regard'-are just as baneful, just as opposed to the basic principles of natural law, just as contrary to the essential laws of prosperity, of the economic balance, of social and distributive justice, as may be the doctrine of communism. It was found long ago in such countries as England and Germany, for example, that communism is the direct and natural and logical result of the excesses of capitalism. Well, if it is wrong for people to hold the doctrine of communism, it ought to be just as wrong-at least many people would think it just as wrong-for others to hold the doctrine of capitalism. Where would that lead us to? Would the member for Winnipeg North Centre be entitled to raise a movement among the people he represents to get the public bodies of this country to suppress papers or organizations which hold the doctrine of capitalism? And yet he would be just as entitled under the constitution of our country, interpreted in a broad way, in asking for the suppression of capitalism, for the suppression of newspapers and of public meetings holding the views of capitalism, as the member for South Toronto and myself may be allow'ed to propound the view' that communism should be suppressed and that the expression of view of those w'ho hold that doctrine should not be made public.


George Reginald Geary: Will the hon. member excuse me? The only point I made was that the action of the police commissioners of Toronto was based upon disorder arising from the advocacy of communistic principles in a langugage they did not understand. I was neither condemning nor approving their action.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I thank my hon. friend. That brings me to another point-language- which should not be lost sight of, but before I touch on it I want to deal with another

Freedom oj Speech
point, that of due respect for courts of law. Here again it is very difficult to draw the line. It is often said that this parliament is the highest court of the land. There is not the slightest doubt that all jurisdictions in the land, whether -civil or criminal, whether federal or provincial, hold their powers from this parliament or from the local legislatures. They are amenable to the supreme action of either this parliament or the provincial legislatures. That so long as parliament or the provincial legislatures do not think proper to change the law, individual judges should not be insulted or attacked or unduly criticized because they administer the law -as it stands, I quite agree. But should we go -the length of saying that no adjudication by any court should be open to criticism or attack on the floor of parliament or of any legislature? Then in what manner could we operate upon public opinion to have such laws changed? When you read history you fin-d th-at no judicial powers-I mean on matters of importance-have ever been changed by the proper authority, let it be king or parliament, until abuses had repeated themselves from time to time, until excesses of authority had been committed by tribunals, and therefore until those abuses and excesses had been denounced by public opinion in one manner or another. Is it not a fact that criminal jurisprudence in England was largely amended in the last century, and for the better of society as well as for the safety of the subject, thanks to the unceasing campaign-many people called it slander- which "Labby" carried on through his paper Truth, when for weeks and weeks, and months and months, he published judgments rendered by courts of assize, police courts or magistrates in England sending men to gaol for eight days for real -crimes, and others to the penitentiary for two or three years for offences which were considered trivial or unimportant by the people generally. The mere fact that the uncertainty of English justice, that the partiality of English judges, was put before the English public week after week by Truth had more to do with the amendment of English criminal jurisprudence than any other agitation to this end.


Mr. FORKE:: Didn't they send Labby to
gaol for his freedom of speech?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of course, he was sent
to gaol, he was covered with fines, but nevertheless after a while his views prevailed. I do not think there is a single responsible public man in England to-day, whatever opinion he may have of the late Henry Labouchere personally, who will not admit that it was through that campaign-I repeat, as it was called-of slander-


Robert Forke: My only point was that
speech was not always free in England.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so. It is the same everywhere. And speech cannot altogether be free. I simply want to make it clear that if a member of parliament or a Canadian citizen believes there is a tendency in the application of the criminal or the civil law which will -be detrimental to the country, or work against the individual or political liberties of the subject, I fail to see any other means of arousing public opinion and of bringing parliaments and legislatures to the point of amending their laws than by denouncing such judgments as they deem wrong.
Now I admit it is a question of degree; it is a question of tact; it is a question of opportunity. It is very difficult to draw the line. The only point I want to make is this: in spite of any written rule of this parliament,
I lay down the broad principle that under the British system of government, and -preserving what is "best in -that system, you cannot accomplish anything unless you take some risks, personal and political, and appeal to public opinion as against set rules, as against systems of policy, and even at times as against the authority of judges. But-and I repeat it for the second or third time-it must be done with tact and discretion; nevertheless it is very often a duty to be performed, and as regards the views held -by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think that hon. gentleman did his duty when he pointed out the danger of certain jurisprudence which had its beginning in the days of the war and which threatens to perpetuate itself.
With regard to the use of foreign languages in publications or in public speech, I would point out that here again we have a very broad question of policy. I would -be the last man to charge the good people of Toronto with more narrowness of mind than others. In this respect, not belonging to the province of Ontario, I am happy to repeat, and from a -purely disinterested standpoint, what the hon. member for South Toronto has said. As an individual I can render testimony to the breadth of mind of a large proportion of the individuals of all classes inhabiting the city of Toronto. This may surprise my good neighbour (Mr. Neill), who seems horrified. I know some of my good Ontario Grit friends would not agree with that, but I claim to be a living -witness to the fact. I believe I have denounced the views, political and social, held by the majority of the people of Toronto, in the city of Toronto, and before various bodies-universities and clubs-more often perhaps than any other member of this house.
Freedom of Speech


Mr. MANION:: And were applauded.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, and when I was not applauded I was listened to. In fact, all the broken sticks I have received in the varied course of my public life for saying just wlhat I thought, I have received in my native province and not in the city of Toronto.
Mr. MeGIBBON:	They are generous
minded1 down there.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, I will not say they
are generous; I want to say exactly what I think. I think the majority of the individuals in Toronto are broadminded. But I am afraid that the concern which they have as a community, a collectivity, to be known as the standard city of loyalty has developed among them a public spirit which is not airways in keeping with the breadth of mind, the intelligence and the culture of the im-dividuals. I am afraid that their manifestations of political thought and of public life are very often the cause of the bad reputation which that city enjoys. I believe that is a fair view to take of the city; at all events I say what I feel. There is not the slightest doubt that, having an eye to "French dominated" Quebec, another eye to these new provinces of the west where armies of "foreigners" are invading these sacred precincts of the British Empire, the people of Toronto feel that they have a greater responsibility laid upon them collectively to preserve the rights of the king and the integrity of the empire than the king himself feels, and certainly than all the millions of the people of England and Scotland assume. I have felt that every time I have had occasion-and I may say I chose the occasions-to go to Toronto; I felt it more vividly after I came back from London. I have never experienced a change of atmosphere so sudden and so powerful. What the hon. member for Comox-AJbemi has said I have experienced time and again. I remember going with the late Joe Martin to a public meeting in his constituency of St. Martin's, one of the London ridings. There a public orator began by stating quite frankly that he was neither communist nor socialist, but he denounced the naval policy of the then Liberal government-a Liberal government, mind you. Someone interrupted him: Well, we have need of a strong navy; to which he asked: Why?- Well, to defend our country.-Defend our country against whom?-Against the Germans. -Why defend us against the Germans?-To keep our king and parliament.-Why, our king is a German anyhow; why have two German kings, one in Potsdam and one in 
Buckingham? Have only one in Potsdam and it would be less costly to us. And' so far as we labourers are concerned, the German labourers are far better treated than we are.
Mark you, these words were uttered in London in the presence of several policemen and about six weeks before the outbreak of the Great war. But no one felt hurt; no one was scandalized. There were a few people who heckled him but not in any bad spirit. They seem there to think that their loyalty to the king and their attachment to their institutions are solid and genuine enough to resist the effect of any word spoken or written to the contrary. Some of our good friends in Ontario, on the other hand, appear to be so little sure of their loyalty as to be afraid to have anyone challenge it.
Of course, when you come to the foreigner it is another question. I think the hon. member for South Timiskaming (Mr. Lang) has said the truth and the whole truth. I know a good deal about the various foreign elements which have come to our country in the last twenty-five years and are scattered throughout the western provinces and in northern Ontario, and comparing their state of mind with the state of mind of our own people in the province of Quebec, I think I can draw this conclusion: the more you attempt by force to make them British or even Canadian the less you will succeed. The French Canadians became thoroughly, and I might say radically, attached to British institutions the moment the British ceased to endeavour to make them British by force. So long as the representatives of the British crown and government endeavoured either by force or by diplomacy to impose the English language uipon them and to deprive them of their rights, or their undue privileges as the British called them, in matters of school, church organizations and civil law, the French maintained a spirit, I will not say of disloyalty, exactly, but of resentment towards British rule. They looked upon that rule as something imposed upon them. They were sceptical of every attempt on the part of some few representatives of the crown to smile upon them; they always thought that there was behind the screen something which meant either their absorption or the denial of some of their privileges. But the moment the British, after nearly a century of political and at times physical struggle, renounced the idea of imposing their views upon the French Canadians, that moment did the French Canadians become the staunchest upholders of British rule. Not because it was British; you could not

Freedom of Speech
expect that from them; but because British rule as applied in Canada, after it had been made adaptable to the needs of this country, contains a germ of liberty and equality which they prized. In that sense they became more British than they had been French in the past. It will operate in the same way in connection with the newcomer, provided you do not turn the whole machinery of parliamentary law, of judicial authority and police repression upon them and say, "You must be British; you must speak English; you must talk this way and not the other way." You will never make them British or Canadians in that way.
It may be said that it is an inconvenience for police officials not to understand the languages used in public papers or at public meetings. Of course there are inconveniences in all systems; but I claim that this inconvenience is less vital than the blunder and the crime of leaving aside those broad principles of liberty, including liberty of speech in any language, in order to enable a policeman to understand what has been said or written. Let us do what they did in Austria and in Russia; let us have interpreters who will tell us what has been written or said, and if anything really criminal has been stated in any publication or in any speech let the principles of law and order which are applied to English or French speaking citizens apply to these other Canadians who speak in their own language. To say that you are going to force a community to print a paper in English or in French and so prevent a Canadian citizen from using in public or private speech the language he has learned, the language he is entitled to use by natural law and by a broad application of the highest principles of British liberty, it is a mistake. If you encourage that kind of jurisprudence, if you encourage that sort of legislation, you should begin by erasing some of the finest and noblest pages of Canadian history, which have become engraved in the hearts and minds of all true sons of Canada, whether their origin be French, English, Scotch or Irish.
A few years ago I happened to be travelling in the hills of Wales, and there I found some of the old-timers, old shepherds and old farmers who remembered their school days when they had received strokes of the rule on their hands because they dared speak their native language in school. My hon. friend from Rosetown (Mr. Evans) will understand me. Their struggle for the right to speak their own language was maintained from the conquest of their country by the English
in the twelfth century down to the last years of last century; and finally, after six hundred years of stubbornness, the English understood that they had gained nothing by enforcing that rule. Now the Welsh people can use their own language in pleading before their courts, in their political or literary societies, and also in their municipal councils and so on. Have they become less devoted to the British crown? I do not think so.
To-day in that country of which my friend the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) is a worthy son there is a revival of the Scotch language and the Scotch nationality under way. Does that constitute a threat to the unity of the British empire? I do not think so. I 'believe that anything which gives greater opportunity and wider scope for the mental, intellectual or moral growth of a people and all its component elements is for the good of the country and for its political safety. For heaven's sake let us endeavour to be reasonable in this regard and let us not follow the narrow-minded policy which is in force on the other side of the line. Have they succeeded in furthering the moral unity of their country by imposing upon their children the most backward and narrow system of education in existence to-day throughout the civilized world? They have not. There is less moral unity in the American nation to-day than existed previous to the war, and the reason is that they endeavoured to get their people to become what they called one hundred per cent Americans. The people revolted mentally against that attempt. Today the German-Americans, the Italian-Americans, the Hungarian-Americans, the French-Americans and the Polish-Ameri-cans are less one hundred per cent Americans than they were before the war, because their understanding of the natural law and their sense of human dignity have revolted against this system.
This is a point which was brought out very well by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; and I think the hon. member for South Toronto, if he remembers his close personal contact with the French and other peoples during the war, must realize that if we want moral and political unity in this country it will not be achieved by making foreign-bom Canadians English-speaking or French-speaking by force; it will not be achieved by days of imprisonment, by fines or by threats of what may happen if they dare use this or the other language, or if they dare oppose a certain social or political theory which may be held by other people. If we impress upon them that this country
Freedom oj Speech

is more free than the country to the south, more free mentally, morally and intellectually; if we impress upon them that there is a place in Canada for every group of people to grow according to its racial or intellectual tendency provided the whole community is united in a few basic principles of national unity, we will get much further. Of course they must accept also the Canadian constitution, Canadian law and what I would call Canadian communal life; but if we take the broad attitude I have described, I think we will attain far better results than by letting it be known that such decisions as that rendered in the case brought up today by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre reflect the cool judgment and determination of either Canadian public bodies or the Canadian people at large.


George Reginald Geary: I rise to a question of
privilege, not to object to what my hon. friend has said but rather to correct him, since I believe his impression is erroneous. In the action of the Board of Police Commissioners of Toronto I understand there is no condemnation of the use of any particular language. To my knowledge there are two excellent journals published in Toronto, one in the Yiddish language and the other in the Italian language, both weekly publications bearing very excellent reputations. With regard to the use of any particular language, a great body of respectable citizens in Toronto are of the Hebrew race; they use their language as they please without question, and so far as I know that point never has been raised. What my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre took issue with was an edict or order of the Board of Police Commissioners directed against communist meetings carried on in a foreign language, and made on the ground that they provoked disorder and the police could not understand what was going on. I neither condemn nor defend that action, because I do not know the circumstances. At this point I might say to my hon. friend from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) that perhaps she was right in her expression of surprise during the course of my previous remarks. As a matter of fact I did not know of the agitation to which she referred, but since then I have been informed by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) that a great deal of discussion pro and con has been carried on in Toronto. Meetings were held and it was a matter of some public interest. I suppose through absence I was unaware of that and so made the statement I did. The hon. member was probably right in correcting me; I should have known.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I understand
the hon. member has already spoken.
Mr. GEARY': I am speaking on a question of privilege.


James Shaver Woodsworth: On a question of
privilege also; my information is quite different from that of the last speaker.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiskam-ing):: Mr. Speaker, as I represent the Porcupine district, I think it is my duty to say a few words. I intend to be very brief, but statements have been made this afternoon which I believe should be corrected. I have in mind more particularly some of the utterances made by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in referring to the contents of The Thunderer. As a Catholic, I say that this paper should be permitted to carry on its propaganda because I believe it will make people of that faith better Catholics than they were before, after reading such trash. I am convinced also that 99 per cent of the protestant population of Canada who happen to read that paper will become more broadminded on religious matters than they were previously.
I do not desire to make any extended comment upon the communistic paper which was published in the Sudbury district, but I believe that judgment has defeated its own ends; it has become a boomerang to communism. I feel sure that only a very few members of this house have read that little paper or knew about it before it was mentioned in this discussion.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned the lot of the miners in northern Ontario. As a citizen of the Porcupine district I know of the conditions there and I believe the lot of the miner will compare favourably with that of any other worker in the industrial life of this country. The minimum wage paid to the miner in that district ranges from $4.60 per eight hour shift upwards. Most of the Finnish people are working under contract and many of them make as much as $7 to $10 per day. Many of the miners in our section are directly or indirectly interested in the mine stocks, but that may not be a sign of prosperity; many of them own automobiles, which may not be a sign of prosperity; but in South Porcupine, Schumacher and Timmins a large proportion of the miners own their own homes, which is a sign of prosperity. The bank managers tell me that there are millions of dollars in savings deposits which belong to the miners, so I believe their lot is a pretty good one.
I agree with the statement made by the hon. member for South Timiskaming (Mr. MAY 8, 1929
Special War Revenue Act
Lang) that there would be no communism in our section of the country if labour were properly organized. The hon. member mentioned the word "capitalism". I hold no brief for the capitalist because I represent every section of the population of my constituency, but I must say in all sincerity that without capital our section of the country would not have the prosperity and advancement we are experiencing at the present time. Following the words of the hon. member I really believe that the miners themselves are to be blamed. We have found it almost impossible to organize them because the man working at the Hollinger mine does not want to be organized with the man working at the McIntyre mine, and so on. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was up in our section of the country a few years ago and he told the people at that time that organization was absolutely necessary. We have one organization in Iroquois Falls, and it is working quite well as the newsprint manufacturers in that section of the country are satisfied to work in cooperation with the labour element. The hon. member for South Timtskamiing said that it was raitiher surprising we had not more communism in our section of the country, and I believe that the proper way to counteract any activities of that kind would be through proper organization.
Mention has been made of the disaster which occurred at the Hollinger mine in February of last year. Judgment has been rendered and I believe every member of this house will bear me out when I say that it is a ipositive fact that the company was not responsible for that disaster and that it certainly was not premeditated. I happened to be in Timmins during that time and I heard many fiery utterances which were made against the management and against the government, but I feel sure that 95 per cent of the population of that section of the country were satisfied with the verdict which was rendered after the inquiry had been held. New legislation has been passed and new means afforded for preventing a similar disaster.
That is all I have to say about this matter, Mr.'Speaker, but I thought it was my duty to correct some of the statements which were made


Mr. SPENCER:: In view of the importance of the forty minute rule, and the statement made to the house with regard to the length of the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is the house to understand that Your Honour hqs given your decision or that you purpose making your ruling at a future time, as has been requested by several hon. members?


Hewitt Bostock: I have no doubt in my
own mind as to the correctness of the ruling itself, but in view of the .expressions of opinion of experienced members of the house, I am quite ready to consider the matter further.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I was not here, but I
fully agree with Your Honour's ruling.


Mr. BENNETT:: I was here, and I wholly disagree with Your Honour's ruling.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: When the committee
rose last evening we were considering an amendment moved by the Minister of Finance to paragraph 4 of resolution, No. 3. The amendment reads:
That paragraph 4 be amended by striking out clause (e) and substituting therefor the following:
(e)	one cent for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over one dollar per share, but not more than three dollars per share;
(f)	one-fourth of one cent for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over fifty cents per share, but not more than one dollar per share;
(g)	one-tenth of one cent for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price of fifty cents or less per share.


Mr. LAWSON:: Mr. Chairman, immediately prior to the rising of the committee last evening I was endeavouring to point out that 74 per cent of all stocks traded in on the Standard mining exchange were stocks selling at. a price under $3; that the rate of taxation, even under the amended proposal made yesterday evening by the Minister of Finance, resulted in a rate of taxation varying from 10 iper cent to 3/100 Of one per cent; that the small investor was penalized by having to pay in tax to the government a much larger percentage on his investment than was the man of larger means, and that the new taxation as proposed, calculated on the basis of one day's trading on one exchange by eleven brokers, meant an increase in tax of $20,228.32.
I stated last night that I would endeavour to make a recapitulation in view of the suggested amendment of the Minister of Finance; but unfortunately the data from which such a recapitulation can be made is not available in this city, and hence I shall have to quote another figure which I do with the full realization that it will be to some extent reduced by the new proposal of the Minister of Finance. It has been conservatively esti-

Special War Revenue Act

mated that the imposition of this new tax would produce, on shares of Ontario mining companies alone, an annual amount of $5,000,000. That amount of $5,000,000 would equal approximately 40 per cent of all the dividends paid by all the silver and gold mines operating in Ontario last year. The result of the imposition of that tax will be, I believe, to drive the financing of all new mining properties into the hands of the organized concerns and to prevent the ordinary prospector and the small investor from sharing the profits which may accrue from such investment. I endeavoured to point out that its effect, by reason of curtailment of market, would 'be to curtail the mining industry, and I would call attention to the fact that if the mining industry is curtailed, the effects are wider than the results merely on that industry. Last year, in seven out of the twelve months, the mines produced the greatest amount of tonnage carried on our railways, and during the high peak in the month of October, they produced 5,426,255 tons. In most, if not all of the provinces of this Dominion, we have a Transfer Tax Act, but every one of them has been based upon the principle that there shall be the same per cent of investment paid in tax by the small investor who invests in the small priced issue as shall be paid by the large operators who can afford to invest in the higher priced issues, and that the same per cent of tax shall be applicable to mining stocks which are the lower priced, issues as is applicable to industrial stocks which are the higher priced issues.
The question whether there should be an increase in the amount of tax imposed by the Dominion upon the transfer of shares is one of individual opinion. At the moment I am not directing the attention of the committee so much to the quantum of the tax as to the inequality of the rate of tax in this proposal. To my mind it would be just as logical for the government to argue that the whole ascending scale of percentages imposed in connection with income tax should be reversed as it is to impose the scale of taxation now proposed, because in the result it would be exactly the same. In effect by this proposal the government says to the small investor who buys the cheap issues, the lower priced issues: You, by reason of purchasing that lower priced issue, should pay in tax to the government a larger proportion on your investment than should the large corporation. Last night we were treated to some vain boastings by hon. members opposite as to the advantages conferred on mining in this

country by this beneficent government. It will be interesting to observe by what argument the government will attempt to persuade the mining industry that it receives any benefit from the imposition of this unequal tax, or !by what reasoning it will endeavour to convince the small investor that he is not being discriminated against in favour of organized wealth. Surely this proposal has not had from the government the thoughtful consideration which it deserves. If it has had consideration, then one can only conclude that this is another evidence of an unfair burden of taxation being imposed upon the masses, and a remission of taxation upon the wealth of' this country. If it has been considered at all, this is further evidence of allegiance by the government to that modern and expressive, though ungrammatical plagiarism " Them that has, gits."


Robert James Manion: I do not intend to delay
the passing of the resolution. I intended to stop in time to let it pass if I was the only speaker.


Mr. ROBB:: It is nearly six o'clock, and I
think other hon. members desire to speak. I believe I shall be able to show that the tax as now presented is reasonable to the nation as well as to those who speculate in these stocks. We can, however, discuss that later. I want to take advantage of the few moments that we have before six o'clock to say to the committee that I shall move to amend the Excise Act, being chapter 60 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, by repealing subsection (a) of section 219 and substituting therefor the following:
On every pound of malt manufactured in Canada, subject to excise regulations with respect to coomings and absorption of moisture in warehouse as provided by the order in council of the seventh day of February, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, three cents: Provided that malt may be removed from a malt-house to a distillery in bond, and the duty on such malt may be remitted upon proof satisfactory to the department that such malt has been used solely for the production of spirits, in which production no other material than malt is used; and provided further that malt used, in any licensed bonded manufactory, in the manufacture of malt extract or other similar medicinal preparation approved by the department or in the preparation of any malt food product approved by the governor in council may have duty thereon remitted under such regulations as the department establishes;
In this way it will appear in Hansard and the votes and proceedings. The object of the motion is this: in the manufacture of malted milk there is an excise tax on malt and as there is a considerable industry desir-

Special War Revenue Act
ing to establish itself in Canada to manufacture malted milk, they have represented to us that we should relieve them from this tax. We are therefore going to wipe out the tax for that purpose.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is not
going to ask the house to pass the resolution in regard to the Special War Revenue Act to-night?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Robert James Manion: I wish to point out what
I think is an inequality in this tax. I shall do so by quoting a few figures I have compiled myself. For example, 1,000 shares of Noranda at to-day's price of $54 amounts to $54,000 and the tax upon it is $30. On the other hand, 1,000 shares of Kirkland Lake at, say yesterday's price of $1.02, comes to $1,020 and the tax is $10. This bears out the criticism offered by the hon. member for West York. It does not seem a fair method of taxation whereby you tax a small dealer to a much greater extent in proportion to his deal than you tax the larger dealer.


James Alexander Robb: Not the small dealer, the small priced stock.


Robert James Manion: The small priced stock
purchase. He is a small dealer in that he buys or sells small priced stock. On the other hand, I do congratulate the minister on this, that he has very much improved matters so far as the penny stocks are concerned, but even yet the penny stocks are being -charged rather heavily. For example, take 1,000 shares of Columbus Kirkland, currently selling at ljr cents a share. That deal would amount to $15, and the tax would be $1, whereas in the Noranda deal which I instanced, 1,000 shares selling at $54 a share, the tax would be $30. In addition, there is a commission on the Columbus Kirkland deal of $1.50 and an Ontario tax of 30 cents, making total charges of $2.80. It is true that only $1 of that is chargeable to the Minister of Finance, but it must be remembered that a lot of these penny stocks do become the parents, so to apeak, of first-class mining stocks. My hon. friend who took his seat a few moments ago gave some examples. I will mention only one or two. Teck-Hughes, which is one of our outstanding gold mines, was selling a few years ago at 10 and 15 cents a share; it is now selling around $9 a share. McIntyre a few years ago was selling at 15 and 20 cents a share; to-day it is selling around $16 and $20 a share. Sheritt-Gordon within the last few j^ears was selling at 60 cents a share; it is now selling around $8.50. So these small penny 78594-150J
stocks that are largely traded in are sometimes the cause of the development of a large mining interest.
I want to put on record before six o'clock one other -point in regard1 to industrial stocks, which I think is worthy of the consideration of the Minister of Finance between -now and Monday, when he may possibly have to make some changes. Take an industrial stock, although really it is a mining concern, like Smelters. One hundred shares of Smelters at yesterday's price of $420 would amount to a $42,000 deal. The tax on -that is $4, according to the minister's figures. One hundred shares of Cosgrave Brewery at $3.50 a share would be a $350 deal, and the tax on that is $2. There is a tax of $2 on a $350 deal, and a tax of $4 on a $42,000 deal, in the same number of shares.


James Alexander Robb: How would it be to put them all on the same basis as with the sales tax?


Robert James Manion: I do mot think the sales
tax would be fair at all. The minister has spoken of that in the past. I understand, but I do not think it would be fair because these shares change hands so frequently. We think that the sales tax should be wiped out altogether, but, at any rate, as it is presently applied it is fair to this extent, that when you buy a suit of clothes you make that purchase and you keep the suit, paying the sales tax only once, but these stocks change hands again and again and it would not be a fair method to apply the sales tax to them. One way in which it could be done-I am speaking for myself

would be a percentage tax on the value of the deal, although I have not worked out any percentages. I may say a few more words in regard1 to this matter when it comes up again, but I thought in the meantime the minister might give it his consideration.
Progress reported.


SPEAKER'S RULING ON POINT OF ORDER
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker,
before you finally arrive at a conclusion with respect to the point of order which was raised this afternoon, there -may be an opportunity for some further discussion?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes. I will let the hon.
gentleman know further with respect to the matter.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned until Friday, May 10, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
United States Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 10, 1929