1931-05-27

PORT McNIOOLL VOTERS' LIST

Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: I lay on the table of the house part of a return, reference No. 287, on the motion of Mr. Thompson (East Simcoe) relating to correspondence and other documents with reference to the preparation of voters' lists for the municipality of Port McNicoll. With the leave of the house, I may explain that certain documents which were called for by the order are not laid on the table for the reason that the chief electoral officer has directed attention to the Dominion Elections Act which provides, in section 76, in respect of certain documents, that they shall not be inspected or produced except under a rule or order of the superior court or of a judge thereof or other proper authority. I am laying on the table all the documents in the possession of the chief electoral officer except such as come within this section. I leave it to the house, or to the select committee which may be appointed, to call for the production of the others in the proper way. The . proper procedure the house will have to determine.



FIRST READING SENATE BILL

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 51, to incorporate Acme Assurance Company.-Mr. Lawson.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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

Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Has the contract for carrying mail over the Hatfield point rural route No. 1, in electoral district of Royal, New Brunswick, which expired on March 31, 1931, and for which tenders were called due December 26, 1930, been awarded ?
2.	If awarded, to whom?
3.	If not awarded, why is same held in
abeyance?	.
4.	What temporary arrangements, if any, have been made for the transportation of mails over this route pending the award of a regular contract ?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Adam Bain.
3 and 4. Contractor started on 1st April, 1981.


MALBAIE DEMONSTRATION STATION
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that the demonstration station conducted by the federal Department of Agriculture, located at Malbaie, district of Riviere Mailloux, under the supervision of Mr. Rene Villeneuve, has been moved [DOT]to another location?
2.	If so, why was this change made?
3.	Had complaints been made against Mr. Rene Villeneuve regarding the way this station was being conducted, and if so, what was the nature of said complaints, and by whom were they made?
4.	Who replaced Mr. Villeneuve as superintendent of said demonstration station?
5.	By whom was he recommended?
6.	What is the salary of the superintendent of the said demonstration station?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	No demonstration station was conducted by the federal government under the supervision of Mr. Elie Villeneuve. An illustration station was operated on Mr. Villeneuve's farm for three years, the .regular period of our contract.
2.	Because of indifference toward conducting this illustration station work, this station was discontinued.
3.	The indifference as to workmanship reported by the federal inspectional staff of illustration stations.
4.	No illustration station has been chosen to replace this one discontinued.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Since there was no demonstration station, there was no superintendent or salary. Illustration station operators are paid no salary.


OLD AGE PENSIONS-PETERBOROUGH
Mr. BOUCHARD:: What amount has the city of Peterborough received from the government of Canada: (a) on account of old age pensions for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931; (b) is the government of Canada still paying the whole amount of old age pensions to any municipalities in Canada; (c) if so, to what municipalities?


Mr. GORDON:: (a)	Nil; (b) No. The government of Canada has never paid old age pensions to any municipality, but reimburses each province one-half of the total amount of the old age pensions paid by the provincial government; (c) Answered by (b).


ST. BENOIT DE MATAPEDLA POSTMASTERS HIP
Mr. MARCIL:: Has the postmaster of St. Benoit de Mata-pedia, county of Bonaventure, been dismissed, [DOT]who lias been appointed to the position, and is the appointment a temporary or permanent one?


Mr. SAUVE:: No.



ST. EUSTACHE, QUE.-MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Did the Post Office Department give to one Eustache Dumoulin dit Lafrance the mail contract of St. Eustache, Quebec?
2.	If so, on what conditions?
3.	Were tenders called, and if so, on whose recommendation was said contract given?
4.	Is the Post Office Department aware that the said Eustache Dumoulin dit Lafrance was, subsequent to the elections of 1927, sentenced to pay damages for hitting a citizen during the course of a joint meeting at St. Benoit, Quebec?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Under a temporary agreement at existing rate of payment.
3.	No. Postmaster General.
4.	Department has no official information.



ST. CANUT, QUE.-MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Who at present is holding the contract for carrying of mail on rural route No. 1, St. Canut, Quebec?
2.	Was this contract granted after the calling
of tenders?	.
3.	Who was the previous holder of said contract, was the contract cancelled, and if so, on whose recommendation?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Arthur Robert.
2.	No.
3.	W. O'Connor. No.
Questions



RIVIERE DU LOUP WHARF

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many labourers and carpenters were employed each week at the Riviere du Loup wharf, Quebec, since September 8, 1930, to December 31, 1930?
2.	What amount was expended:	(a) for
materials; (b) labour; (c) teamsters; and (d) rent of vessel, at the Riviere du Loup wharf, from September S, 1930, to December 31, 1930?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Week ending October 4, no labourers, 4
carpenters; week ending October 11,	1
labourer, 5 carpenters; week ending October 18, 10 labourers, 11 carpenters; week ending October 25, 11 labourers, 11 carpenters; week ending October 31, 11 labourers, 10 carpenters; week ending November 8, 12 labourers, 9 carpenters; week ending November 16, 13 labourers, 8 carpenters; week ending November 23, 14 labourers, 7 carpenters; week ending November 30, 14 labourers, 7 carpenters; week ending December 6, 5 labourers, 4 carpenters; one day, December 9, 4 labourers, 4 carpenters.
2.	(a) $3,879.18; (b) $3,881.70;	(c) $732;
(d) $192.50.



VIGER, QUE., POST OFFICE

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is there a post office on the eighth and ninth back settlement of the township of Viger, in the county of Temiscouata?
2.	If so, when was it established?
3.	Who is the postmaster?
4.	Who recommended him?
5.	How is the mail carried to this post office?
6.	Who secured the contract for carrying the mail, and on what conditions?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	9th March, 1931.
3.	Felix Tardif.
4.	C. E. Dube, Riviere du Loup.
5.	Daily from Viger post office.
6.	Philippe Tardif at $400 per annum.



ST. ARSENE-VIGER MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What are the names of each tenderer for carrying the mail between St. Arsene and Viger, Quebec, and the amount of tender submitted by
each ?
2.	To whom was the contract granted?
3.	On what conditions?
4.	Was the original tender of the new holder reduced, and if so, by how much?
5.	Was the new holder recommended to the department, and if so, by whom?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Ovide Lebel, St. Epiphane de Viger, $373 per annum; Francois Tremblay, St.
 _
Epiphane, $375 per annum; Alfred Gagnon, St. Epiphane, $475 per annum; Antoine Roy, Viger, S600 per annum.'
2.	Ovide Lebel.
3.	Under a four years contract at $373 per annum.
4.	No.
5.	Charles Eugene Dube.



TROIS PISTOLES, QUE.-WHARF

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was cement used for repairing the wharf jf Trois Pistoles, Quebec, in 1930?
2.	If so:	(a) from whom was this cement
purchased before August 7, 1930; (b) after August 7, 1930?
3.	At what price per bag was the cement purchased before August 7, 1930?
4.	At what price per bag was said cement purchased after August 7, 1930?
5.	How much was paid for carrying this cement to the Trois Pistoles wharf before August 7, 1930?
6.	How much was paid for carrying said cement to the Trois Pistoles wharf after August 7, 1930?
7.	Who recommended to the Department of Public Works the person or persons who sold cement for the Trois Pistoles wharf after Aiigust 7, 1930?
8.	Was the original price of cement purchased for the Trois Pistoles wharf reduced after August 7. 1930?
9.	If so, by how much, and why?	, .


Mr. STEWART (Leeds) :: 1.	Yes.	***[DOT]*[DOT]!
2.	(a) Nazaire D'Amours and Joseph Rioux;
(b)	J. B. Deschenes.
3.	Eighty cents a bag.
4.	Seventy-five cents a bag.
) 5 and 6. Nothing paid as price f.o.b. wharf.
7.	Engineer in charge.	-
8.	Yes.
9. (a) By five cents; (b) lower price quoted.	.



GOVERN MENT ICEBREAKERS-PROPELLER BLADES

Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	Did Delphe Maranda supply propeller blades to the Canadian government icebreakers during the year 1930-1931?
2. If so, what number of blades were supplied, and at what price?
3.	From whom were these articles purchased by Mr. Maranda?
4.	Is the government aware that the said Maranda is a retail lumber dealer, and is not in any way connected with any industry which supplies or manufactures such articles as propeller blades?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.	,2.	Six blades. Total cost. $3.049 34.	_[DOT]
Questions
3.	Two blades requiring a percentage of nickel content were cast by Canadian Foundries Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., and machined by La Cie F. X. Drolet, Quebec, P.Q. No information with respect to the remainder.
4.	No information.



SASKATOON FEDERAL BUILDING

Mr. TOTZKE:: 1.	How many appointments have been made
to positions on the staff of the new federal building at Saskatoon; who received such appointments and what are the duties of each appointee ?	.
2.	Were the positions advertised, applications invited and examinations held?
3.	Were these appointments made by the Civil Service Commission?
4.	Upon whose recommendation were the appointments made?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1 bo 4. No permanent appointments have been made. The following positions have been established in connection with the new public building: 1 public building engineer caretaker;
1	stationary engineer of heating, grade 2;
2	elevator operators; 6 cleaners and helpers; 1 watchman; 2 firemen-labouters; 1 seasonal fireman; 1 charwoman.
The appointment of a caretaker, engineer, five cleaners and helpers, watchman and two elevator operators will be made by the Civil Sendee Commission. The position of caretaker, engineer and cleaners and helpers are now being advertised by the Civil Service Commission. Appointments to the remaining positions will be made by the Department of Public Works.



PHILEMON VALLIERE

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Is Philemon Valliore employed by the Immigration department at Quebec?
2.	If so, in what capacity, and what is his salary?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	As caterer; salary, $3,000 for season.



CAP DESROSIERS LIGHTHOUSE

Mr. LARUE:: 1.	Was Captain .T. Napoleon Cote lighthouse keeper of the Cap Desrosiers lighthouse, county of Gaspe in 1926?
2.	If so, how long did he occupy this position?
3.	By whom was he recommended?
4.	Who recommended his dismissal?
5.	Was he dismissed without an inquiry?
6.	If an inquiry was held, who was the inquiry commissioner?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	September 22, 1920, to March 17, 1927.
3.	He was transferred from Greenly island lightstation, with approval of the Civil Service Commission.
4.	Dismissed by order in council dated 13th January, 1927.
5.	No.
6.	Mr. Maurice Brasset.



HULL COUNTY POSTMASTERS

Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	To how many postmasters, in the county of Hull, have demands of resignation been sent since August 7, 1930?
2.	What are the names and addresses of postmasters to whom demands of resignation were made?
3.	Were inquiries held in each case; by whom were they held, and what was the result?
4.	How much was paid to the inquiry commissioner in each ease, for his service and other fees?
5.	Who required these inquiries to be made?
6.	Was a preliminary notice sent to the postmasters in each case to the effect that such inquiry was going to be held, and what was the length of said notice?
7.	What are the names of places where postmasters were dismissed in the county of Hull since August 7, 1930?
8.	Were the dismissed postmasters replaced by persons duly qualified to fill the office of postmasters?


Arthur Sauvé: 1 and 2. No resignations have been demanded, although in the following cases the postmasters were advised of charges of political partisanship made against them: Miss Maria Legault, Pointe Gatineau; L. Morin, Val des Bois; J. A. Larrivee, White Deer.
3.	4. 5 and 6. No inquiries held.
7.	One dismissal effected-White Deer-the
postmaster having admitted active participation in politics.	.	.	,
8.	Yes.



INTERIOR DEPARTMENT


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: 1.	How many employees between September 1, 1930, and May 1, 1931, were transferred from other branches of the Interior department to the National Parks branch of the same department ?
2.	(a) What are their names; (b) what are their ages, and how many years of service has each one of them; (c) which were permanent and which were temporary; (d) did any of them have any previous experience in the National Parks branch?
3.	How many of these employees have since been retired from the service?
Questions

4.	(a) How many employees of the National Parks branch who were employed in that branch on the 1st September, 1930, have been dismissed; (b) how old were they and how many years of service did each one have; (c) were they permanent or temporary employees; Id) what is the cause for their being retired from the service?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1. 8. '
2. (a), (b) and (c).
Permanent-	Age Yrs. Mos.	Service Yrs. Mos.	Ball, Miss F. M..	25	7	3	-Good, Miss M. M.	29	-	10	6Stinson, W. W..	34	7	15	11Drouin, G	22	-	3	11Denison, E	33	7	11	6Archibald, Miss F.	25	3	6	-Johnston, F.. ..	22	1	4	5Temporary-	Handley, J. A. .;	19	1	1	7
(d) All had previous experience fitting them for the work they had to do.

0.	1.
4.	(a) 2, (b) One was 57 years and 5 months old and had 8 years and 7 months service. Age of other not known-had 5 years and 3 months service, (c) Permanent, (d) Unsatisfactory service.



RAWDON, QUEBEC, FOSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Was Mr. James Skelly, postmaster of
Ilawdon, Quebec, dismissed, and if so:	(a)
at whose request; (b) who made complaints against him?
2.	Was an inquiry held, and if so, who acted as inquiry commissioner and what was the cost of said inquiry: (a) commissioner's fees; (b) travelling expenses; (c) all other costs?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes; (a) As result of order in council based on report of commissioner; Ob) Mr. C. E. Jeannotte.
2.	Yes, by Mr. Gaston Allard; (a) $20.00; (b) $2.65; (c) S2.25.



SADDLE LAKE INDIAN AGENCY

Mr. BUCKLEY:: 1.	From whom is the Saddle Lake Indian agency purchasing their meat at the present time?
2.	Did the department discontinue obtaining their meat from E. Meunier of St. Paul, Alberta, if so, why?
3.	Was any complaint made as to same, and if so: (a) by whom was said complaint made? and (b) was said complaint investigated, and if so, by whom?
4.	Upon whose recommendation was authority issued for obtaining supplies from the present butcher ?
[Mr. Beaubien.l


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	For Indian rations-from Swift Canadian Company, lowest tenderers; for employees' rations for April-from Star Market Company and E. Meunier.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The answer is in the negative.
4.	The departmental policy is to purchase supplies at fair and reasonable prices.



ST. PAUL, ALBERTA, INDUSTRLAL SCHOOL

Mr. BUCKLEY:: 1.	Has the Department of Indian Affairs purchased any live stock for the use of the industrial school at St. Paul, Alberta?
2.	If so, who was authorized to make said purchase?
3.	How many animals were purchased, what amount was paid, and to whom?
4.	Has the department authorized any breaking or clearing to be done on the lands surrounding the industrial school?
5.	Has any contract therefor been given and, if so. to whom and at what rate of pay?
0.	If not, will the work be given by contract, or how, and will local labour be employed?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes, clearing only; C. H. Gauvreau, St. Paul de Metis, Alberta; 40 acres heavy brush at $8 per acre, 60 acres light scattered brush at $6 per acre; prices include clearing and burning all brush and putting land in condition for plough.
6.	Answered by No. 5.



ST. PAUL INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL-FARM MACHINERY

Mr. BUCKLEY:: 1.	Has the Department of Indian Affairs purchased any farm machinery for the use of the industrial school at St. Paul, Alberta?
2.	If so, from what company has said machinery been purchased?
3.	Was said machinery manufactured in Canada?
4.	If no machinery has been purchased as yet. is it the intention of the department to make any purchases?
5.	If so, will Canadian manufactured goods be purchased?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1. No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.



BELLECHASSE CENSUS COMMISSIONER

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Who was appointed census commissioner for the county of Bellechasse?
2.	What is his salary?

Questions
3.	For hew long was he appointed?
4.	Who are his census enumerators?
5.	What is the salary of these enumerators, and for how long were they appointed?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Mr. Alfred Goulet.
2.	An allowance of $225 to cover organization expenses. For viseing of the returns made by the enumerators; checking them and forwarding to Ottawa, verification of enumerators' accounts and the general supervision of the census within the district over which he is appointed as commissioner the following rates are provided: 1 cent for each name on the "population" schedule; 3 cents for each "agricultural" schedule; 1 cent for each entry on the "animal and animal products, not on farm" schedule; 1 cent for each record of blind and deaf persons; 1 cent for each record of merchandising and service establishments.
3.	For the period of the census.
4.	Information not yet available.
5.	Salary of enumerators as follows: 5 cents for each person recorded on the population schedule; 5 cents for each absentee family card; 5 cents for each closed house card; 35 cents for farms of 5 acres and over; 25 cents for farms of 1 to less than 5 acres; 35 cents for vacant and abandoned farms; For animals, animal products, fruits, etc., not on farms, 10 cents per family; For merchandising and service establishments, 10 cents each; For blind and deaf persons 5 cents per name. In lieu of horse hire and all other expenses at the rate of $5 per 100 names on population schedule. Enumerators employed for the period of the census.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-'HALIFAX PROPERTIES

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to meet the demands of the city of Halifax for a grant in lieu of eivie taxation on properties operated by the Canadian National Railways in the city of Halifax, the title of which is still vested in the crown?
2.	If so, when will the grant be available to the city of Halifax?
3.	If the above grant is made will the same treatment be extended to all other portions of Canada where properties operated by the Canadian National Railways exist, the title of which is vested in the crown?


Mr. MANION:: This inquiry relates to a question of government policy which will be decided in due course.



NEW WESTMINSTER-INSPECTOR OF BRIDGES AND WHARVES

Mr. REID:: 1.	Who is the inspector of bridges and
wharves in the federal riding of New Westminster? [DOT]	.
2.	When was the said inspector engaged by the government?
3.	On whose recommendation was he employed ?
4.	What is the amount of remuneration for
such services?	[DOT]
5.	What amounts have been paid for all such services since August 1, 1930, up to the present time?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: 1 to 5. The Department of Public Works has no such position as inspector of bridges and wharves. All works of that nature come under the direction and supervision of the district engineer and his staff.



SIR GEORGE PERLEY

Mr. POULIOT:: On what date and at what time of the day did the right hon. Sir George Perley act as Acting Minister of Railways and Canals last fall, and particularly in October, 1930?
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The first question sent in was in French and read as follows:
1.	De quelle date et quelle heure a quelle date et quelle heure le Tr&s Honorable Sir George Perley a-f-il agi comme Ministre in-terimaire des Chemins de Fer l'automne dernier, et en particulier en octobre 1930?
The present question is not as complete as when first sent to the house, as one section has been deleted. There was a second paragraph which appears in votes and proceedings of May 25, reading as follows:
2.	What was (a) the date, (b) the number,
(c)	the purpose of each order in council submitted by him while acting as such, to the privy council, during said period?
I came to an understanding with the Clerk of the House that that second paragraph would be acceptable if amended by substituting the words "subject matter" for the words "the purpose."


Mr. SPEAKER:: The Clerk informs me
that he endeavoured to amend the question to make it comply with the rules of the house. If the hon. member desires to ask another question he can send it through in the regular way.
Question dropped.



Questions as Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DORION:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of
inquiry commissioners appointed from September, 1921, to August, 1930, in the province of Quebec, to inquire into charges of political partisanship in the various departments of the government ?	.
2.	What departments have ordered the inquiries?
3.	What was the amount paid to each commissioner ?


WOMEN IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE
Mr. ROSS:: 1.	How many women are employed by the government of Canada at Ottawa whose husbands are also in the employ of the government?
2.	What is the number in each department?
3.	How many married women are in the employment of the government of Canada?



DAIRY INDUSTRY ACT

Mr. DENIS:: 1.	How many prosecutions were taken from 1920 to 1931 against violators of the Dairy Industry Act for adulteration of butter, showing each year separately?
2.	How many persons were found guilty, and what are their names, occupations and addresses?
3.	What was the penalty or punishment in
each case?	,
4.	How many inspectors are there in the city of Montreal?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-PROPERTIES PURCHASED IN OTTAWA

Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1. What properties, with description of same have been purchased by the Canadian National Railways in the city of Ottawa during the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930?
' 2. What were the purposes for which these properties were acquired?
3.	(a) Who were the vendors; (b) what was the purchase price for each parcel?



ST. HYACINTHE-ROUVILLE POSTMASTERS

Mr. FONTAINE:: 

UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Charles Marcil: For a return showing ratings given for each of the applicants for the position of overseers on the government wharves ait St. Charles de Caplan, Fleunant, St. Omer and Carlaton, all in the county of Bonaventure.



WINDSOR, N.S., WHARF EXTENSION

Mr. ILSLEY:: For a copy of all petitions, resolutions, letters, telegrams, reports and other communications and documents to or from the Minister of Public Works, and any other minister or official of the government, with reference to an extension to the wharf at Windsor, Nova Scotia, the plans therefor, the method of doing the work thereon, and tenders for work thereon.


Mr. BENNETT:: This motion is too general, it should state as between certain dates.


James Lorimer Ilsley: From January 1, 1930.
Motion as amended agreed to.



SHUBENACADIE POST OFFICE

James Lorimer Ilsley: For a copy of all petitions, resolutions, letters, telegrams, reports and other communications and documents to or from the Minister of Public Works, the Postmaster General, and any other minister or official of the government with reference to the construction of a post office at Shubenacadie, and the selection of a site therefor.


Mr. RHODES:: Would the hon. member
amend this motion in the same manner?


James Lorimer Ilsley: From the same date, January 1, 1930.
Motion as amended agreed to.



WINDSOR, N.S., FISH HATCHERY

James Lorimer Ilsley: For a copy of all petitions, resolutions, letters, telegrams, reports and other communications and documents to or from the Minister of Fisheries, the Deputy Minister of Fisheries, and any other minister, or official, or department of the government with reference to the establishment of a fish hatchery at or near Windsor, Hants county, Nova Scotia, and the selection of- a site therefor.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The same date?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, for the last three years.
Motion as amended agreed to.

Motions for Papers



ST. NEREE FLAG STATION CARETAKER

Mr. BOULANGER:: For a copy of ail correspondence between the Minister of Railways and Canals and Sir Henry Thornton, or other persons, regarding a charge of political partisanship against Maxime Labbe, caretaker of a flag station at St. Neree, in the county of Bellechasse, on the Canadian National railways, for which he receives a salary of $15 per month, together with all reports, evidence and other documents relating to this matter.



BOARD OF GRAIN SUPERVISORS

Mr. MOTHERWELL:: For a copy of the orders in counoil appointing the board of grain supervisors which operated during the grain seasons of 1917-1918, 1918-1919, setting forth their duties and scope of supervision, also copy of all reports, recommendations so made by such board to the government of Canada, or any member thereof.



WHEAT BOARD

William Richard Motherwell: For a copy of the order in council appointing the wheat board which operated during the grain season of 1919-1920, setting forth its duties and scope of activities, and also copy of all reports and recommendations made by such board to the government of Canada, or any member thereof.



RIVIERE DU LOUP STATION

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the letter, telegram, or other document sent by the government to the Canadian National Railways to notify them that Department of Railways and Canals had refused to sanction the construction of a new station at Riviere du Loup.
For a copy of (a) the application of the Canadian National for approval of the proposed new station at Riviere du Loup; (b) plans numbered P-1-12-179-2, 17105-1, 17105-2, and 17105-3, dated respectively January 31, 1930, July 15, 1930. and June 12, 1930, on file with the board under file No. 36455;	(e) of the
report and recommendation of the chief operating officer of the board as mentioned in order No. 45205, dated August 9, 1930, of the Board of Railway Commissioners.
For a copy of (a) plan No. 17321-1, dated Moncton, March 31; (b) submissions filed on behalf of railway company, the board of trade of Riviere du Loup, the provincial hygiene service, and the city of Riviere du Loup; and (c) of report and recommendation of the chief officer of the board as mentioned in order No. 46476, dated March 27, 1931, of the Board of Railway Commissioners.



DISMISSAL OF H. S. HOWEY

Mr. GRAY:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, etc., on file in the Department of National Revenue, relating to the dismissal of one H. S. Howey, formerly employed in the preventive service of this department.



APPOINTMENT OF RIGHT HON. SIR GEORGE PERLEY

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the order in council appointing the Right Hon. Sir George Perley, Acting Minister of Railways and Canals, in October, 1930.



ORDER IN COUNCIL P.C. 2292

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the order in council P.C. 2292, of September 30, 1930, by which the Hon. Minister of Labour was authorized to enter into an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-RIVIERE DU LOUP

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of petitions or requests sent by the city of Riviere du Loup, and all other municipalities in Tdmiscouata county, Quebec, for assistance under the Unemployment Relief Act.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of calls for tenders, notices published in the papers, estimates, and forms of tenders, in connection with the construction of a new Canadian National Railways station at Riviere du Loup, Quebec.
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between Mr. W. U. Appelton. general manager, Atlantic region, Canadian National Railways, and Mr. C. E. Dube, since July 29, 1930, to October 7, 1930.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it will be observed that it is beyond the power of this house to furnish the material asked for in these motions. The correspondence is between the railway company and other people and it is not even alleged that parliament has the remotest interest therein.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I submit that these motions are entirely in order. The one motion refers to tenders submitted to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) which tenders were approved of. In that sense the government had something to do with this matter and that is why I ask for the production of the papers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nothing is said about that in the motions.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will amend them.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I rule that these motions are out of order and they will be struck out.
Motions dropped.
.2016
Motions for Papers



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-RIVIERE DO LOUP STATION

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, personal or other, exchanged between:	(a) the right
hon. Prime Minister: (b) the hon. Minister of Marine; (c) the hon. Postmaster General; (d) the hon. Solicitor General; (e) the hon. Secretary of State; (f) the private secretary of each one of them, and Mr. C. E. Dube, regarding the construction of a new Canadian National Railways station at Riviere du Loup, from July 29, 1930, to date.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I submit that
this motion is out of order beoause it calls for correspondence "personal or other."


Jean-François Pouliot: I have no objection to
deleting those two or three words if it will please my hon. friend. I ask that the motion be amended by striking out the words "personal or other."


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This motion as it appears on the order paper is out of order, and it will be struck out.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Mr. Speaker, this is not
the usual way to deal with a matter of this kind. The minister accepted the motion with the qualification he mentioned and implied that the correspondence would bo filed with the exception of that of a personal nature. This is the first time such a motion has been ruled out on this ground.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is only bv the unanimous consent of the house that a motion can be so amended. I understood the minister to object to the motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He certainly did.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, on the
point of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have given my ruling;
if any hon. member wishes to appeal therefrom he may do so.
Motion dropped.



BLACK LAKE, QUE., PUBLIC BUILDING

Mr. ROBERGE:: For a copy of all orders, correspondence, reports, memoranda and letters, in the possession of the government or any member thereof, if acted upon, written by J. E. Beaudoin, Megantic county, or any one else, by any member of parliament, any minister of the crown and by any official of the Department of Public Works, with regard to the construction of a public building at Black Lake, Quebec, for which a sum of $26,000 was voted in the estimates of 1930-31.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I
desire to call the attention of the house to the fact that the hon. member who moved this resolution some time ago moved a similar resolution asking for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports, petitions, documents and memoranda in the possession of any department of the government in connection with the construction of a post office at Black Lake, Megantic county, Quebec, since August 1, 1930. That was passed as an order for return which was tabled on April 29, 1931. Everything asked for in this motion has been tabled as a return to the former order, so I ask that this motion be struck out.


Eusèbe Roberge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to
a point of order. I submit that my motion is in order. I have in my hand a copy of the order in council which was recommended by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) on August 5, 1930, and passed by the privy council on August 6, 1930. This order in council covered the building of a post office in Black Lake, Megantic county. In order to save time, and with the unanimous consent of the house, I will hand a copy of this order in council to Hansard. The second reason I advance is that in 1929 when the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) was Postmaster General, a notice of motion similar to mine for the production of papers was passed in this chamber. For these two reasons, I contend that my notice of motion for the production of papers is in order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Probably the motion is in order, but the Minister of Public Works pointed out that the documents called for by it have already been brought down to the house in pursuance of another resolution. Therefore I suggest that the hon. member let this resolution stand until he examines that return.


Eusèbe Roberge: No. It is not the same motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member wishes to go on with it, I shall put the motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is understood that if there are any papers other than those covered by the previous return, they will be brought down in response to this motion, and that will be considered as compliance with it.

Motions for Papers


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That will be quite satisfactory. I am only telling the hon. gentleman that we have brought down everything we have, and in my opinion this will be a barren' motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order. The house has now dealt with resolution No. 15. No decision has been reached in regard to resolution No. 14. I would like to know if the motion as amended is in order or stricken out.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It was ruled out of order and struck off the order paper.


Jean-François Pouliot: At whose request were resolutions Nos. 13 and 14 stricken out?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.



Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, personal or otherwise, exchanged between the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, the hon. Acting Minister of Railways and Canals, their private secretaries, the deputy minister, and any other officer or employee of the Department of the Minister of Railways, and Mr. C. E. Dube and any other person, regarding the construction of a new Canadian National Railways station at Riviere du Loup, from August 7, 1930, to date.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely this motion should not be passed. Such an order has to my knowledge never been made by the house. I would hope that in the terms in which it stands, it would be ruled out of order.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Might not the same procedure be followed with regard to this resolution as with regard to others? There are three words "personal or otherwise", which I understand the hon. member is prepared to drop-


Jean-François Pouliot: Certainly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and to have the resolution amended accordingly. Cannot the resolution as amended be permitted to pass?	[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Their private secretaries."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Private secretaries are public officials.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They may or may not be with respect to some of these things. As the right hon. gentleman knows, one has no control over their correspondence. Of course one has control over such of it as is public.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There is a point of order, that the resolution as it appears on the order paper is out of order.


Ernest Lapointe: I understand the Prime Minister objected to the resolution. It was not a point of order that was raised.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I raised the point of order whether or not this is a proper resolution for the house to adopt where it asks for personal correspondence if there is any. All one has to do is to look at the order paper and see the number of applications made by the same hon. member covering the same subject and the same papers, but couched in different terms, to realize just why I am raising the objection. I think the hon. member would do well to reconsider the matter. I think my hon. friend would take the same view if he were similarly situated.


Ernest Lapointe: I was similarly situated, except that I was next to the then Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not mean the office. I meant with respect to the terms of the resolution itself. Let it stand until the hon. gentleman can consider how he will word it


Ernest Lapointe: I remember my right hon. friend as recently as last year took the position that any letter, even if marked "confidential," when a government official or a minister took action on it, must be produced if the house so requests.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it is on the file, I believe that is so. If it is not on the file, I believe the house has not control over it. What arose last year, the hon. member will recall, was that in connection with the Post Office Department certain letters were produced although marked "personal,." They dealt with public matters, and I took the view, after looking up the authorities, that if they were on the file they must be treated as public documents, but the personal documents which the minister keeps on his personal file, were never brought down because they were not available.


Mr. VENIOT:: Last year, at the request of the right hon. gentleman who is now leader of the government, I was asked to produce a personal letter that was not on the public file but on the minister's file. The contention
Motions I or Papers

was that, although marked "personal," it was acted on :by the minister, and that such a letter should be produced. These are the very words:
A personal letter written to a minister about a personal matter and placed upon his personal file is privileged, and this house has so ruled. But a letter marked "personal" which deals with the public business of Canada cannot be made personal merely by marking it so. That principle has been laid down by parliament from the first time the production of papers was called for, because parliament claims the right to redress grievances and it claims the right to know what the grievances are before supply is granted.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Who said that?


Peter John Veniot: The present Prime Minister, as reported at page 1726 of the second volume of Hansard, 1929. Under the ruling I produced a letter from my own personal file. I had acted upon that letter although it was on my own personal file as minister, and according to the ruling of the house and the statement made by the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, I produced that letter. I do not think an exception should be made in this case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wholly agree with the observations of the hon. member for Gloucester that no exception should be made in the application of the rule. The letter to which he refers was a letter, knowledge of the existence of which came into being through a letter which was on the file produced. It thus came to the attention of those who had the file that such a letter had been written about the public business and therefore it was producible; but the principle has not been changed in the least that personal correspondence is not in any sense to be brought down. It never has been and I suppose it never will be in any parliament. The hon. gentleman may say that it was on a minister's own file, but what happened in that case is no evidence of what may have happened in this. In that case in the file brought down there was reference to a letter. We asked where the letter was. The then minister said: It is on my personal file. We said: As the correspondence shows it was acted upon as a public document, obviously it must be produced as such. That is all. I am of the same opinion still. But the question whether or not a man has the right to mark a letter as "personal" is quite clear; it has never been challenged in parliament. It arose very acutely in the 1926 campaign as to whether a letter marked "personal" could be brought down, could be shown. The consensus of opinion was that the writer was the

judge of the character of the communication; that he had the right to maintain the personal character of his communication, and that until he gave his consent the recipient could not make public the contents. That is the position, as far as I understand it, and everything I said on that occasion I would repeat now. If by any chance any letter is shown by the file to be a letter that, although marked "personal," is referred to by the minister in the action he takes, I would still hold to the view I then expressed, and say that it should be produced on the public record.


Ernest Lapointe: On the point of order,
I would say that whether or not those papers should be tabled, is a matter for argument. The house has the right to refuse such a motion and it has done so in the past; but that is not a question of order. Any member has the right to ask for these documents; it is not against the rules to ask for them. The government may take the responsibility of asking that the motion be refused, but not of asking you to rule it out of order, Mr. Speaker, because it is not out of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just before the subject of correspondence is left, if it is a proper moment at which to refer to it, I think that a distinction must be made between what is personal in the sense in which personal communications are generally so understood, and what is personal only in the sense of avoiding publication of the reply. For example, if a communication is addressed to a minister of the crown on a public matter, his reply to that communication should be available for publication equally with the original communication. Otherwise, ministers of the crown may evade answering in a public way questions on public matters. I raise the point more particularly because I believe it is true that with respect to a very considerable amount of the correspondence that has taken place since the present administration came into office, replies made by ministers of the crown to public communications, have been marked "personal". The reply in no sense, strictly speaking, was personal. It was an answer on the part of a member of the government to a public communication, and there should not be afforded to the ministry the possibility of evading the publication of their replies to public communications simply by marking them "personal." If, however, a minister wishes to communicate on a personal matter, certainly he can mark his letter "personal", and a personal communication in that sense would be respected, but on a public matter where an individual writes

to the government and expects to receive an official acknowledgment, and receives that acknowledgment on government paper signed by the minister, the word "personal" written on the corner of the letter should not in any sense protect it from publicity. I think that that is the sound view.
Speaking on the same matter with respect to private secretaries, the private secretary's reply is the reply of the minister. The private secretaries are civil servants, and communications signed by private secretaries should not in any way be privileged. They must stand on all fours with communications from the ministers. A letter from a private secretary is in exactly the same position as a letter from a minister and should be regarded as such.


Hon.   I@: I might mention an instance to illustrate that the statement of the right hon. leader of the opposition as a general statement of policy cannot be accepted. Within the last couple of days a bishop of one of the churches of Canada wrote to me as Minister of Railways on behalf of a man who had been dismissed from the Canadian National Railways, and argued that he should be reinstated. I made inquiries and found that this man, for causes which are very serious, had been dismissed. Now, in that case I had either bo refuse to answer my correspondent or to write him a personal letter giving him private information as to why the man was dismissed. It was a case of either refusing to answer or giving a personal reply for the private information of my correspondent, so that he would not feel that this man had been unfairly treated by the Canadian National Railways.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister's statement at the moment refutes his own contention. The minister could reply to the clergyman in question by saying that the man had been dismissed for cause, and he did not think it was in the public interest to disclose the cause. If he felt that it was in the public interest that the reason for the man's dismissal should be made public, let him give the reason, but he certainly should not send a reply which could not be brought down in this parliament to a communication which had been addressed to him by a citizen of this country.


Robert James Manion: I do not agree that you
can simply take that attitude. The very fact that the man was dismissed by the Canadian National Railways, not by the department-
Motions J or Papers


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is all public business.


Robert James Manion: It is not. The man may have been dismissed for some very serious offence, say pilfering, for instance, being short in his cash. Would the right hon. gentleman suggest that I should write a letter in reply to my correspondent that could be published, branding that man as a thief? He would be having difficulty enough over having lost his job for stealing. It seems to me he would have been sufficiently punished. If I wrote a personal letter explaining the circumstances privately, I do not think that reply should be made public or be brought down in this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If what my
hon. friend says were to be followed by business houses it would be impossible for any person to write to another to get any kind of information about former employees. The minister may couch his reply' in any words that he pleases to use, but he has to make a reply in a form that may be given to the public.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the right hon. gentleman had followed the decisions in the courts he would realize that the problem is not as simple as he suggests. The action of McIntosh vs. Dunn, which went to the privy council from Australia, is the leading authority upon the subject. I happen to recall it at the moment. There are other cases of the same kind. The question of privilege, when set up by the recipient of a letter, and the publication of it with respect to a claim for damages for libel, raises issues that I shall not take the time of this house to discuss, but I think that this is a fair rule. I think the right hon. gentleman has stated it too broadly. The right of any minister to write a personal letter to a correspondent I think cannot be denied. If the correspondent seeks information of a public character the minister may turn the letter over to one of his staff, to a secretary, and see that he gets a reply. If the correspondent writes a letter seeking some information about a very ordinary, everyday transaction, and the minister in reply says, "For your personal information I can only inform you such and such," certainly it seems to me he should be able to protect himself and make that a personal communication by marking it "personal," not for the purpose of evading anything, but for the purpose of carrying on, if he desires, a friendly correspondence with anyone who addresses him in a personal way, for the purpose of ascertaining certain facts.
Motions for Papers

Certainly I have seen enough correspondence of former ministers, now sitting on the other side, during their tenure of office to know that the word "personal" was used very frequently on many communications that were received by their correspondents, sometimes by myself, in answer to inquiries that I had made, and in my judgment that word was quite properly put there. As the right hon. gentleman knows, cable communications that pass between different governments are marked "confidential," and, for reasons that are good and sufficient, they cannot be brought down in this house without the consent of the other government. Whether marked "confidential" or not, the consent of the other government should first be obtained before bringing them down. Broadly, the question is one of maintenance of good faith between people who carry on a correspondence. If one has written the letter in good faith on a personal and confidential matter, he has the right to have it so treated if he marks it as such. But on the other hand, if the letter is sent for the purpose of public attention being directed thereto and reference being made to it publicly, it does not come within that rule.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is precisely the position with respect to a letter to which I referred the other day, and to which my right hon. friend took- exception. A letter had been written by a man as a public communication to the Prime Minister, and it was intended as a public communication. The Prime Minister replied to him and marked his reply "personal". According to what my right hon. friend now says, as the original communication was not marked "personal," the reply sent to it should be regarded in the same light as the original communication. That is my contention, and I hope that my right hon. friend will continue to agree with me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think my right hon.
friend has put that a little too broadly. I have a right to say, when I direct my reply, whether I shall treat that matter as a public matter and make a short reply of half a dozen lines, or whether, for personal reasons, I shall make it a private matter and amplify my reply, giving him a great deal of information which I otherwise would not do, in order perhaps to induce him to believe that the conclusions at which he had arrived were wrong. That is a very different thing altogether. I conceive that I have a right to mark "personal" my communication to anybody that I direct it to. That was the ground the former ministers took with respect to 
very important communications, and it was the view of those to whom the question was referred, parliamentary and other authorities, that they were quite within their rights in doing so.	.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before you give your
decision, Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. It has been the
custom of the house to allow the leaders of the parties in the house great latitude in discussing a motion of this kind, but strictly they are not debatable. Do I understand the hon. member for Temiscouata desires to amend this motion by striking out the words, "personal or otherwise."


Jean-François Pouliot: All right, sir. I move
accordingly.
Motion as amended agreed to.



RIVIERE DTI LOUP STATION

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the order in council referred to by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals on May 12, 1931 (Hansard page 1664, second column, 24th line), and relating to the proposal to build a new station at Riviere du Loup.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I have
examined the record in Hansard and find I did not refer at 'the line or page indicated to the order in council mentioned in this motion. Therefore in this connection there are no papers to be supplied.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend is kind enough-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member should make his request accurately.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend the Minister of Railways-


Peter John Veniot: The motion is carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask what has
happened-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: -to order No. 14.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion is declared
carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is No. 14 stricken out, or adopted as amended?

Unemployment Relief



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister if he has a statement to make to the house as to when the budget is to be brought down, and also if he is in a position to indicate what the order of business will be for to-morrow, in the event of the budget not then being brought down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot submit the budget to the house to-morrow; I hope however to be able to do so on the succeeding day. The submission of the budget to the house depends upon my ability to encompass a given amount of work in a given time. If I can I shall; and if I cannot, I cannot.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend will advise the house to-morrow as to whether or not the budget may be expected on Friday?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Owing to the fact that to-day Mr. Speaker leaves the chair at six o'clock without question put, may I ask what the business will be for to-morrow?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is our intention to proceed with supply, because I shall not be present to proceed with the tariff bill. Government bills appearing on the order paper for second reading might be considered.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What departments will be taken in supply?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will proceed with any department which is open, beginning with Agriculture, followed by Trade and Commerce.



ALBERTA COAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: May I ask the Minister of Mines whether the report is correct that was recently published in the newspapers to the effect that the special freight rate of $6.75 on Alberta coal to Ontario has been extended to cover the entire twelve
months in each year, and whether the arrangements have been made by amendment to the order in council or by direct action of the Board of Railway Commissioners?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The question of assistance to the coal industry is under review, and I could answer my hon. friend's question more accurately if it were placed on the order paper.	.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the minister regard my question as a notice?



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. B. M. STITT (Nelson):: May I ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) whether he has found it practicable to reduce working hours on the Hudson Bay railway in order to furnish a greater amount of work for the unemployed? Such action would relieve the unemployment situation.


Robert James Manion: The other day the hon. member suggested that we should try to double the number of men employed because of the seriousness of the situation respecting unemployment. An arrangement under which the men would work day about was suggested whereby it would be possible to employ 500 or 600 more men. I am glad to say we are doing our best and hope to make satisfactory arrangements along the line suggested. The section of the country through which the railroad passes would be greatly benefited if a satisfactory arrangement could be made.



CANADIAN NATIONALS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 24, to define Canadian nationals and to provide for loss or renunciation of Canadian nationality.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take much of the time of the house in a discussion of this bill. I think we have reached the stage in the evolution of our national life when we should seriously consider the foundations for its future development. For sixty-four years we have had a very satisfactory material development. We have been promoting great national works, carving out new provinces, providing organized govern-
Canadian Nationals Act
[Stage Direction]
ment for the great Northwest Territories, and I think we have succeeded far 'beyond the expectations of the fathers of confederation in the material and commercial development of Canada. In connection with that development, however, if we are to assume the status of a nation within the British commonwealth, we must also assume very serious duties and responsibilities. Among the responsibilities resting upon the parliament of Canada is that of framing a clear definition of "Canadian nationals" for whom the government and parliament are responsible, whether they be resident in the dominion or temporarily resident outside our territorial jurisdiction. So long as they retain the status of Canadian nationals they should in my opinion be treated as such and as holding a status within the dominion equal to that which any others individually enjoy.
When the Treaty of Versailles was signed certain articles related to Canadian nationals. The matter came to my personal attention because of the fact that many hundreds, who were applicants for compensation for damages suffered by illegal enemy warfare, necessarily were compelled to prove before the commissioner appointed to hear evidence that they were Canadian nationals at the time the Treaty of Versailles was ratified. In proving that they were such Canadian nationals they were compelled to resort for a definition to the Immigration Act, which was drawn not for the express purpose of defining the term "Canadian nationals", but rather for the purpose of defining those who are not admissible to this country as immigrants. It seemed to me a matter of regret that in dealing with the status of Canadian nationals we should be compelled to resort to an enactment which was put on the statute book as an act respecting immigration, for the purpose of providing measures for keeping people out of this country.
Then a further serious question was brought frequently to my notice. We have in this country hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have obtained certificates of naturalization, and who are settled here and who by reason of the fact that they have become domiciled British subjects are, within the meaning of the present act, "Canadian nationals." But if any of those immigrants who have obtained naturalization certificates-some of them members of this parliament-happen to be out of this country for a year, for instance, on a voyage around the world, or on a visit to Argentina to attend the British Empire fair, and through illness are not able

to return home within the year, those Canadian nationals, simply by reason of that absence, although British subjects, are, under the existing acts prevented from reentering Canada and from resuming their domicile here, except they do so subject to the same objections as if they were coming in anew from Siberia, Kamchatka, Turkestan or some other foreign country, and had never been subjects of the king, domiciled in Canada. It seems to me that these surprising difficulties should be dealt with by an act of parliament clearly defining who are Canadian nationals.
Take another case. During the short time that I have occupied the position of Secretary of State I think there is not a religious organization in Canada engaged in missionary work in foreign countries that has not brought before the Department of State questions as to the national status of its missionaries in Japan, China or India whio were formerly domiciled in Canada, but who have remained outside of this country for more than a year, and who have married and had children born to them in those countries. Under the present law some of those missionaries have no right -I make that assertion subject to correction, but it has been so decided I think-have no right to return to this country with their wives and children simply because under the existing law they are not Canadian nationals in the sense that they retain the right to return to Canada and resume the domicile which they left temporarily to represent great Canadian religious institutions in foreign countries.
Since I assumed the office of Secretary of State, representatives by the score, Canadians abroad, commercial agents, men sent abroad for the purpose of performing public duties and public service on behalf of the government of Canada, have raised the question as to whether their wives and their children bom abroad are to be deemed Canadian nationals. If they are Canadian nationals as defined by the parliament, of Canada, then I take the ground that it is the duty and responsibility of this parliament to enact that those Canadian nationals shall have the right to return to their former domicile and take up their lives in this country as from the time they left Canada on foreign service or to represent our great religious institutions, or other institutions dealing with trade, commerce and industry, which to successfully perform their functions abroad must have trade agents and representatives in foreign countries.
If this bill is to pass in its present form it seems clear that there must be amendments to it or to the Immigration Act. Therefore it may be difficult to proceed with the bill in

Canadian Nationals Act
committee of the whole house. But I should like, and I think the government of the day would like, to have an expression of opinion from hon. members as to whether, for the preservation of our own self-respect, for the maintenance of our dignity as a young nation, and to lay the foundations for our future national life, the time has not come when we are bound to define, as clearly as concise language may permit, who are Canadian nationals, with a view to fulfilling our duties and responsibilities to those Canadians temporarily resident abroad who should have equal status with ourselves in this country.
I should like this bill to receive second reading. As to whether it should go to a select committee or should be dealt with in committee of the whole house, I am at present in doubt. Therefore if the bill is read a second time I should like to have it reserved.
Of course, I have received protests against this bill, especially from the province of British Columbia, on the ground that under its terms one of the Japanese or Chinese race who was born in British Columbia would thereby become a Canadian national. But in that respect I wish to say that this bill makes no change whatever in the existing law. Whether a person be of the Chinese, the Japanese, the Malay or the Indian race, that person, male or female, born in this country thereby becomes a British subject, and if domiciled in this country thereby becomes a Canadian national under the law as it at present exists. I repeat, no change is proposed in that respect.
Therefore I submit the bill for the sympathetic consideration, I hope, of the house, because, speaking for myself, I am as proud as any other man of being a Canadian national born and bred in this country, but I shall be prouder still of my own people when 'by the laws we place upon the statute book and by our administration of those laws we make it clear that a Canadian national shall continue to be a Canadian national unless, by his own overt act he severs his connection with this country and refuses to continue his status as a Canadian national for the future.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I ask the minister a question?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I do not think questions should be asked on the second reading; they should be reserved for the committee stage.	*


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will answer any questions.


Charles A. Stewart: Surely the
chair is not going to rule out questions when the principle of the bill is under discussion?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I heard
the hon. member for Montimagny (Mr. LaVergne) ask several questions the other day, on second reading.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes, but it was out of order.


Charles A. Stewart: Surely I am not to be prevented from asking a question?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am not preventing my hon. friend from doing so; I am just stating the position of the chair.


Charles A. Stewart: I want to
be clear as to the position the chair is taking. If I am to be prohibited from asking questions I will not ask them. I will obey the ruling of the chair. The question I wish to ask my hon. friend is this:	Does he
argue that by reason of the provisions of the Immigration Act, children born of Canadian parents outside Canada cannot be admitted into Canada as Canadian citizens?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think it is clear that the interpretation which was placed upon the Immigration Act by the previous administration-and I confess I am not an expert in the matter-is that children born abroad of Canadian parentage, in seeking admission to this country, must pass the same physical and mental examination as though they were foreign immigrants. But take another situation that exists right here. We have a large number of the most representative members of this House of Commons who are naturalized British subjects. It is absolutely clear that if one of these gentlemen remains out of Canada for more than twelve months, without reporting to some diplomatic officer- and often there is no diplomatic or consular officer to whom to report-that gentleman upon his return is, by our law-


Charles A. Stewart: Is my hon. friend speaking now of naturalized or Canadian-born citizens?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am speaking of those
naturalized.


Charles A. Stewart: I was
speaking of Canadian-born.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No; I do not think my
hon. friend was speaking of Canadian-born citizens.


Charles A. Stewart: So far as
the children are concerned.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. member was
speaking, I understood, of children bom abroad. And the question has been raised by every religious institution in this country,

Canadian Nationals Act
without exception, I think, and raised by a great number of our commercial agents abroad, as to whether, according to the interpretation which has been given to the Immigration Act, the children of such parents, if born abroad, are not subject to exactly the same examination and the same grounds for refusal of entry as if they were foreigners, of a different race. My hon. friend shakes his head. Well, if it is necessary the correspondence can be brought down. I may say that some of it has been forwarded to me by the Department of External Affairs and from other sources, with legal opinions to the effect I have stated. If, therefore, there is any doubt in the matter it should be cleared up. None of the legal officers with whom I have consulted can give me definite advice in the matter, as to how otherwise the doubt could or should be cleared up. If a doubt exists as to children born abroad of British parents who, except for their absence abroad, would be domiciled in Canada, there is with respect to such persons a section of the Naturalization Act under which the minister, to remove such doubts, may issue certificates of naturalization. And that we have done in a very limited number of cases. But the other fact remains that, even if they receive certificates of naturalization in that way, inasmuch as they are born abroad, in India or Japan or some other foreign country, there arises the question whether, through lack of actual domicile in this country, they are Canadian nationals. Under the act as it stands at present there are Canadian nationals who eannot obtain admission to Canada. That fact also must be considered.


Charles A. Stewart: I think
they would get in.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman thinks
they would get in?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, I do not wish to go
into it, but I have before me the report of the former Canadian minister at Washington and a memorandum prepared by Mr, Wrong of that legation, pointing out case after case in which there exists a grave doubt.


Charles A. Stewart: So long as the children are minors-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But they sometimes grow
up.


Charles A. Stewart: Of coujse.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, suppose they , grow up and suppose they make a clear declaration under the act that they wish to remain British 
subjects: they may go back to England, but they eannot, under our law as it stands at present, come back to Canada except as immigrants. England takes this broad view, that a British subject, so long as he remains a British subject whether domiciled or formerly domiciled in any part of the world, is free to enter the confines of Groat Britain, and he continues to be regarded as a British subject. But while there are difficulties in the way of determining who are Canadian nationals, we in this country, under the law as it stands at present upon the statute book -and it has not been amended since my hon. friend was Minister of Immigration-do not admit that Canadian nationals, who have been naturalized here, may return to this country after an absence of more than one year, and, if they are natural-born British subjects, after more than five years. But that is a matter that this house must consider. It is not a party matter. It is a matter that must be dealt with by an almost unanimous decision in this house as to who for the future shall constitute the nationals of this country.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I may point out that Canada is the only country in which there is not such a law as the minister is speaking of, in conformity with international law.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have already intimated to the house that discussion by dialogue at this stage is out of order. The Secretary of State was entitled to speak once; he has spoken twice by leave of the house. Other hon. members are also confined by the rules to one speech. I must emphasize again that discussion by dialogue on the second reading of the bill is out of order, and any hon. members who rise now may not speak again.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: I do not wish to speak at any length on the bill, but I may observe that with the principle of it we on this side of the house, or at least a large proportion of us, agree. This is not a new matter. It was brought before the house in 1921 by the Right Hon. Mr. Doherty, who was then Minister of Justice, and who had a bill passed covering the subject. The whole question was under study by the late administration of my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), both in the Department of the Secretary of State, over which I had the honour to preside, and in the Department of External Affairs.
Reports have been asked from experts in the matter with respect to the international,

Canadian Nationals Act
legal and other points of view, and there is a vast amount of correspondence, besides other documents, with respect to the whole subject. This information, gathered by the two departments I have mentioned, is the product of years of effort to find a solution for this very interesting but most complex problem.	.
The principle underlying the bill is the endeavour to define what is a Canadian national as distinguished from a British subject. British subjects are defined in the Naturalization Act; and, as the house is aware, the conditions under which persons become British subjects by statute are decided, not in this Dominion alone but by agreement between the mother country and the various dominions. Certain conditions underlie the granting of certificates of naturalization to British subjects, one <of them being the condition just alluded to in the dialogue which took place after my hon. friend's speech on the question of residence. May I say that that residence clause in the Canadian statute is not exclusive to us, but it is one of the conditions upon which all the dominions and the mother country have agreed to in the granting of naturalization papers. The present bill does not deal with naturalization, it is simply a definition of what is to be a Canadian national, distinguishing a citizen of Canada from a citizen of Australia or New Zealand, although all are British subjects under another statute.
I hold in my hand a report on this very problem which was made to the Secretary of State by a learned professor in Toronto. I do not intend to quote very extensively from this report, but a passing allusion to it may clarify the situation. This professor suggested a definition of subjects of His Majesty peculiarly relating to their Canadian citizenship. The explanation given is that two conditions must be recognized: first, the fact that the Dominion of Canada is not an independent state according to the categories contained in international law, and, second, the fact that she possesses legal rights arising from her position under the crown and in international affairs which she can confer on certain persons or classes of persons. The term 'Canadian national was adopted both by my right hon. friend and by Right Hon. Mr. Doherty in 195S1, the contention being that it satisfies both, the idea of Canadian national autonomy and Canada's essential position in relation to the crown and the empire. In a way it is a cumbersome title but, as the expert says,
and I fully agree with him, no simple title will meet a complicated situation.
A bill was introduced and adopted by this house in 1921. I confess that I am basing my conclusions on the different reports which came before me since that time. The main difficulty with the bill introduced by the Right Hon. Mr. Doherty in 1921 was that the definition then made of a Canadian national was based on some other statute, namely, the Immigration Act. The bill of 1921 enumerated the classes of Canadian nationals, among them being any British subject who is a Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Immigration Act. There were other sections in that bill, but I allude only to that one.
In defining a Canadian national we should have a basic statute which independent of any other enactment should be complete and inclusive in itself. The Immigration Act deals with a special situation, that of admitting citizens into this country and I know -the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) will bear me out in this-that there has always been a great deal of difficulty in the administration of the Naturalization Act under the Secretary of State and the administration of the Immigration Act under some other department. If we follow the example set by the bill of 1921, and define a Canadian national as being a Canadian citizen as defined by the Immigration Act, we will be faced with further difficulty. I commend the attitude taken by the Secretary of State in endeavouring in his bill to define "Canadian national", not by a reference to any other statute but by making a basic statutory definition which will be complete within the borders of the bill.
The interchange of questions and answers which we heard just a moment ago on some of the complexities of this matter, and the doubt entertained by such a learned person as the Secretary of State, would lend strength to his suggestion that this bill be referred to a special committee of the house. We agree with the principle of the bill, affecting as it does a matter upon which the late administration had been working for some time. I will vote for the second reading. It is not within my province to move that the 'bill be referred to a special committee for consideration, but as the Secretary of State has invited suggestions on this point, I urge very strongly that the bill be sent to a special committee where the many difficulties and complexities connected therewith can be fully threshed out.
Canadian Nationals Act


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is one of the most important bills which has ever come before this house. I agree with the suggestion of the last speaker (Mr. Rinfret) that this bill should be referred to a special committee of [DOT]the house for very serious consideration. There is one subsection which should receive special attention, namely, subsection (f) of section 2, which reads:
"Natural-born British subject" means a natural-born British subject as defined in part I of the Naturalization Act.
This clause of the Naturalization Act provides that a person bom on a British ship, whether or not in territorial waters, becomes a British citizen, and if that subsection were adopted the same definition would be carried out in the present bill. Our naturalization laws should conserve for our own people the exclusive right to say who may become citizens of this country, but that right is not preserved in the present bill. By the provisions of the Naturalization Act a child bom in Canada or upon a British ship becomes a British subject, whether we like it or not, or whether children so born, or their parents, are fit persons to become citizens of Canada. I contend that the provisions of this bill should be changed to such an extent as not to extend this right to any child of alien parentage bom within His Majesty's dominions or on board a British ship, unless the parents of suich child are fit and proper persons, both physically and morally, to become naturalized citizens of this country.
Many undesirable people are making their way into this country, and I believe I am correct in saying that the state has the power to say who shall become its citizens. On the Pacific coast we are faced with a race problem. These newcomers will not assimilate with our Anglo-Saxon stock, and they are content with a much lower standard of living and of civilization. Their birth rate is much higher, and in this connection I should like to refer to the increase in the school population of orientals as against whites. Even if bars were put up against Asiatics coming into British Columbia, and such immigration ceased, the birth rate would still be alarming and in the course of years the Asiatic probably would overshadow the white population. There are some 54,000 orientals in British Columbia and last year the birth rate for Japanese alone was 38 per cent as against five per cent for whites. Steps should be taken immediately to conserve our heritage for our own people. When I speak of heritage I mean the land that these Asiatics are 
gradually beginning to control in British Columbia. The figures for last year, compiled by the Minister of Lands for British Columbia, show that some 50,000 acres are owned or controlled by members of the Japanese race.
The oriental problem has two sides, economic and national, but the national side is the most important. The Asiatic problem has been before the house many times, but I think this would be a good time to consider seriously whether or not we are to continue to allow such people who are not assimilable [DOT]to become Canadians. This question must be settled definitely sooner or later. At present it is probably primarily a British Columbia question, but it is a very serious question so far as our province is concerned.
For the benefit of the house I am going to recite briefly the history in connection with the situation out there. In 1908 the so-called gentleman's agreement with Japan was made by the Hon. Mr. Lemieux, whereby among other conditions it was agreed that Japan should limit immigrants of the domestic and agriculture types to 400 a year. Former residents of Canada and those coming to work under contract were also admitted. In 1910 the Immigration Act was amended to give the minister power to exclude any race deemed undesirable in Canada. In 1919 the act was further amended to give the minister power to reject those considered unsuitable for assimilation. This provision was not used against the Japanese. In 1913 the Anglo-Japanese treaty was adopted by Canada. It contained a clause allowing the nationals of other countries to live and trade in the country of each contracting party. Canada's adoption of the treaty was modified by a clause stating that nothing in the treaty should be held to affect the provisions of the Immigration Act. In 1923 negotiations with Japan modified the Lemieux agreement and cut the limit of domestics and agricultural labourers to be admitted to 150 instead of 400.
There is no specific law dealing with Japanese immigration. Canada acts simply under the agreement with Japan which undertakes to limit the number of pasports to those desiring to enter Canada, while Canada agrees to admit those with passports and to prohibit others from entering. In the years preceding 1927 the Japanese birth rate was over five times that of the white. Last year the Japanese population increased 74 per cent as against an increase of 6 per cent in the white population. Your oriental is no pioneer. He lets the white man open up the country. When it is organized he purchases

Embargo on Russian Goods
or leases improved land and reaps the reward. This is where uninformed eastern opinion goes astray. Otherwise why should they look on that problem as largely one of filling up our open spaces. I am not going to deal with the matter at greater length, because many figures have been given in connection with it; but the suggestion of the minister should be taken seriously and before we proceed much further with this bill it should be referred to a committee where this grave aspect of affairs in British Columbia should be 'taken into consideration.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



EMBARGO ON RUSSIAN GOODS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice, for the Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I would ask the forbearance of the house to consider for a moment a matter of importance, especially in view of the comments that have been passed in the province of Quebec with regard to the adoption by the government of the order in council prohibiting the importation of Russian goods. I want, however, to enlarge the question and to discuss for a few moments the whole principle of government by order in council. In order to make my position clear, I shall read immediately the motion which I propose to move:
The house regards the growing practice of deciding by order in council important matters of public policy as an encroachment upon the duties and privileges of parliament and a violation of the principle of responsible government.
Ever since I have occupied a seat in the house-and that is thirty-five years ago-and even prior to that, I have heard leaders of the various oppositions criticize the then government for deciding by order in council matters which should be referred to parliament. I shall not dwell at length upon what might be called the academic aspect of the question; but nevertheless it seems to me that, especially since the war, the evolution of government in this as well as in other countries calls for serious reflection on the part of those who still hold faith in parliamentary and responsible institutions. I must say that my own faith has been somewhat shaken; but at the same time, so long as we pretend to be a country governed by parliamentary practices, so long as we claim that
the government of the day is but the executive committee of the House of Commons, we should be very careful about allowing the cabinet to carry on, by orders in council or even by private dictates of the Prime Minister, matters that ought to be threshed out in the house where the elected representatives of the people sit.
Of course I was bound by the rules of the house to give to this motion perhaps the appearance of a motion of want of confidence, but I want to say at once that it is not so much a motion of blame against the present government, as an expression, might I say, of criticism against a system that has been growing upon us and that has been pursued by practically all governments. In order to make my position clear, I am going to illustrate it by summing up before the house the case of our external relations, taking as a concrete example the relations between Canada and Russia during the last ten- years. I have chosen that particular question for two reasons, first, because in those ten years all our relations with Russia have been dealt with by. orders in council. Not in a single instance has a decision been taken by the Canadian government, whether by a Liberal or by a Conservative government, under the advice of the house, nor has the government received from the house any mandate to enter into or to break relations with Russia, or to change the basis of our relations with that country. In these days, especially since the war, when we are entering into the field of foreign affairs, whether for the making of trade agreements or of diplomatic arrangements, when we are beginning to have Canadian representatives accredited to foreign governments, it is of the highest importance that there should be an understanding whether our foreign relations, either diplomatic or commercial, are going to be determined by parliament or by the government without consultation of parliament. That is my second reason.
Three years ago I gave a part of the story which I am bound to repeat to-day, in order to complete my argument. As may be remembered by some members of the house, in 1921, a trade agreement was concluded between the British government and the government of the Soviet republic. This trade agreement was not made by a labour-radical cabinet, but by the coalition government presided over by Mr. Lloyd George. It was signed by a staunch, respectable Conservative member of that government, Sir Robert Horne, and on behalf of Russia by Mr. Krassin, who, I think, according to all testimony, was one of the most respectable-I hope there were others-mem-
Embargo on Russian Goods

bers of the Russian government. This trade agreement was concluded, in the very terms of the white paper which I have in my hand, "pending the conclusion of a formal general peace treaty between Great Britain and Russia."
It contains various clauses defining, for example, the conditions under which the nationals of the two countries should live in their respective territories, concerning the protection of the rights and facilities necessary to enable the people of both countries to carry on trade, and so forth. It contemplated the appointment of official agents of each government to the other. This agreement was concluded on the 16th of March, 1921. I am now going to quote from various papers produced during the session of 1928, under numbers 180 A, B and C of the sessional papers of that year.
On the 22nd of August, 1921, an order in council was passed by the Canadian government upon the recommendation of the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, Sir George Poster, with no bolshevist tendencies, I believe, in these terms:
The minister recommends that His Majesty's government-
The government in England-
-be informed that Canada desires to participate in the arrangement for the resumption of trade with Russia.
That was referring to the agreement concluded in the month of March. The order in council was communicated by Lord Byng to the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Churchill, on the 30th of August. Some previous despatch must have been sent, because on the 25th of August, Mr. Gregory, who was, I think, Under Secretary of Foreign Affairs in England, had already written to Mr. Berzin, chief of the Russian delegation in London, as follows:
I am directed by the Marquess Curzon of Kedleston-
Another one, I believe, not under any suspicion of bolshevism-
-to inform you that the Canadian government has expressed the desire to be associated with His Majesty's government in the trade agreement between Russia and Great Britain.
Mind you, Mr. Speaker, there was no question of restraining the relations of Canada and Russia merely to trade matters. What the Canadian government asked for was to be associated with the government of Great Britain in all the terms of what I might call this preface to a formal peace treaty between Great Britain and Russia. Some correspond-

ence ensued and on October 15, 1921, Mr. Churchill wrote to Lord Byng a despatch in which a form, of the adhesion of Canada to that treaty was suggested. The form is this:
The government of the Dominion of Canada having expressed their desire that the provisions of the agreement between the government of the United Kingdom and the Russian Soviet government for the resumption of trade and commerce between the two countries which was signed at London on the 16th day of March, 1921. should apply also to Canada and to merchandise, the produce and manufacture of Canada, it is hereby agreed that the provisions of that agreement shall as and* from the date of the present agreement-
Meaning the agreement to be made by Canada-	[DOT]
-be held to apply to the Dominion of Canada and to govern the relations between Canada and Russia.
Not only trade relations between Canadian dealers and Russian tradesmen, but relations between Canada as a state and the Soviet republic as another State. Evidently the matter was considered favourably by the Canadian government because on the 26th of December, 1921, upon a report from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who was then the Prime Minister, Mr. Arthur Meighen. an order in council was passed by the Canadian government in the following terms:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report dated 17th of December, 1921, from the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for External Affairs

Mr. Meighen-
[DOT]-to whom was referred a despatch from the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 15th of October, 1921, regarding the desire of the Canadian government to participate in the arrangement for the resumption of trade with Russia, proposing a formula to be embodied in notes to be exchanged between the foreign office and the Russian trade delegation with the object of making applicable to Canada the provisions of the trade agreement between the government of the United Kingdom and the Russian Soviet government, and inquiring whether Your Excellency's ministers would concur in the terms of such formula. The minister, with the concurrence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce-
Again, I repeat, Sir George Foster-
[DOT]-states that the proposed formula is approved by the Canadian government.
The committee on the recommendation of the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise that Your Excellency may be pleased to inform the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies to this effect by telegraph.
All of which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency's approval.
(Signed) Rodolphe Boudreau,
Clerk of the Privy Council.

Embargo on Russian Goods
To show the house the importance which the then Conservative government attached to getting into close trade and political and friendly relations with the Russian government, which has been styled both in and out of this house as a government of atheists and murderers, this order in council was passed, I would point out, twenty days after the Conservative government had been defeated at the polls and just three days before they resigned. Practically the last action of importance that was taken by that government was to make sure that Canada would not lose her chance of entering into friendly relations with the Soviet government. I am not saying that in any spirit of criticism or sarcasm, but simply to demonstrate on what a fragile basis rest the comments that have been made recently in the province of Quebec with regard to our relations with Russia. The Soviet government with which the Canadian government made that agreement was much more directly concerned, either as a government or through its personnel, with the murder of the czar, the czarina and their children than the present Russian government. Mr. Lenin was still the chief of that government, and the foreign minister was still Mr. Chicherin. The representative of the Soviet in London was Mr. Krassin. Mr. Krassin had no share in the responsibility for events of October, 1917. But the government with which Canada entered into friendly relations was a government certainly as, if not more, communistic than that with , which by order in council of a few months ago we broke relations. At the present time I am not expressing my opinion as to the propriety of one action or the other, but am simply pointing out the facts.
Three days after this important document was passed and after the arrangement had been made, a change took place in the government of Canada. The Liberal party was called to power. They concluded the accord, in other words, they affixed their signatures to the document which had been prepared by Mr. Meighen upon the suggestion of Sir George Foster, and it was sent to London. So far as that is concerned I hope both political parties in the province of Quebec will cease their accusations and counter accusations of being friendly to murderers, atheists and communists because as a matter of fact both parties have, by order in council without consideration by the house, committed themselves and Canada to friendly relations with the government of Russia.
So much for the point of departure. Matters w'ent along for some years until we come to the year 1927, and I wish to dwell upon 22110-129
what happened at that time. Various demands had been made in London to bring about a cessation of the relations with Russia. The previous Labour government had refused. Sir Austen Chamberlain had refused. But Sir William Joynson-Hicks,-familiarly known in London by the short name of Jix, and who since has been lordified under what name I do not know-took the course he thought best and organized the Arcos raid. I have read the speech delivered by Sir Austen Chamberlain in the House of Commons to explain the action of his colleague. It is a masterpiece of parliamentary diplomacy. Nevertheless the action of the British government was strongly criticized by Mr. MacDonald, by Mr. Henderson, the present foreign secretary, and by Mr. Lloyd George. Whether or not the British government acted properly in the matter is not my business. I quite agree with a statement previously made by the present Prime Minister, who I regret to say is not in the house, that it is not our business to criticize the action of any other government unless we are directly concerned. Immediately however, Mr. Amery, the very active and able Secretary of State for the Dominions, wired to Canada on May 23, 1927, asking if we would follow suit and break relation with Russia in the same manner and for the same reasons that had induced the British government to act. I shall quote from his communication:
Especially as the Soviet action which has led to the present situation is directed against institutions of all parts of the British empire, we should like to suggest for consideration that as regards the retention of Soviet representatives this is a matter on which uniformity of action by the various members of the commonwealth concerned would present great advantages.
To this communication the then Governor General, Lord Willingdon, in the name of his ministers, replied in these very significant terms:
The despatches received from London do not indicate that any documents have been found in the Arcos raid -which establish that the official agency in Canada has been a centre of espionage and subversive propaganda. If any evidence to this effect has been discovered, it is desired to be informed as early as possible. It is further desired to learn whether His Majesty's government in Great Britain, in terminating the trade agreement, are acting under paragraph 1 of article 13 of the agreement, providing for six month's notice, or under paragraph 3, providing for immediate termination in the event of an infringement, and in the latter case whether any special steps have been taken towards giving the other party an opportunity of furnishing an explanation.

Embargo on Russian Goods

Here we have the assertion by the Governor General of Canada that no case of espionage had been detected in Canada, and that therefore Canada as a nation had no reason to break the arrangement. To that communication the Secretary of State replied:
Such information as was obtained from Arcos raid directly relating to Canada consisted of addresses found in possession of Anton Miller.
Curiously enough most of the addresses were found to be located in the loyal city of Toronto, and the names mentioned were of good Anglo Saxon origin. No mention was made in the despatch concerning the activities of those persons, nor was any mention made of any subversive propaganda being carried on in Canada. Without waiting for further evidence, on the 26th May, the day following the despatch from Mr. Amery, the Governor General wired the following to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs:
So far as Canada is concerned there has been a steady and substantial growth of trade under the agreement and there has not been any substantial ground of complaint as to espionage or propaganda against the present official agent in Canada.
Of course, the reference here was to the Russian agent.
My ministers have concluded that the evidences of espionage and subversive propaganda set forth by your Prime Minister make it clear that an essential condition of the agreement as entered into by Canada as well as Great Britain, namely, that each party should "refrain from hostile action or undertakings and from conducting outside of its own borders any official propaganda direct or indirect against the institutions of the British Empire," has not been fulfilled. In order to remove any doubt as to whether the agreement lapses automatically and having regard to all the circumstances, they have accordingly decided to terminate the agreement.
So that as the matter then stood, Mr. Speaker, after the Canadian government had admitted and asserted officially and unreservedly that no evidence of communistic propaganda had been found in Canada, before they had received even the text of the speeches delivered in the Imperial House of Commons, they terminated our agreement with Russia-again by order in council. But they left private individuals still free to deal with each other as they thought fit and under the ordinary risks of trade between two countries that have no special treaties or trade agreements, but are not at war with each other. Such was the situation till last year, when, at the fall session, a bill was passed to amend the customs tariff, under section 2 of which it is provided:
The governor in council may, from time to time, prohibit the importation into Canada of
[Mr. Bourassa }
any goods exported directly or indirectly from any country not a contracting party to the Treaty of Versailles, executed at Paris, France, on the 28th day of June, 1919; and any order of the governor in council prohibiting the importation into Canada of any goods from any such country shall be published in the next following issue of the Canada Gazette.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I readily take my share of the blame in having given to the government this power to deal with a matter of great importance by order in council, and in that respect I admit that the government has' at least acted constitutionally according to the narrow interpretation of parliamentary practices. But was it contemplated by the government or by the house to interrupt trade relations with Russia on moral grounds? That would have opened a very broad aspect of the question. Referring to the debate which took place, I think I can show clearly that it was not the intention of the government, and therefore that, although they received the power under this clause to pass such order in council, they did not receive from this house any mandate to pass it as an expression of opinion of Canada upon any matter of policy, social, religious or otherwise. I quote from the explanation given by the Prime Minister at page 470 of the debate last fall:
The limitation here is wider,-
Referring to some other legislation-
-but it is to meet the possibility of an unusual situation that may arise between now-
That is, September 19, 1930-*
-and the next session of parliament. It is the only method that it is thought will meet the situation without incurring the criticism of, in a statute, anticipating, shall I say, discourtesy to any peoples with respect to the export of their commodities. It stands in the mere position of being there as an instrument for national well-being if it is desirable for that purpose to use it.. Otherwise, of course, it will not be used.
Later on the member for Prince (Mr. MacLean), made the statement:
I have before me some startling campaign literature stating that Mr. Bennett would stop the importation from Russia of 125,000,000 tons of coal. It states that this coal is mined by the Soviet, an enemy of Christianity.
Mr. Bennett:	Who said that?
Mr. MacLean:	There is a slight difference
in-	.
Mr. Bennett:	Who said that?
Mr. MacLean:	It appears in campaign literature which I have on my desk.
Mr. Bennett:	The hon. gentleman *will not
connect that language with me.
Mr. MacLean:	No, I am not saying that.
Mr. Bennett:	I just wished to make that
clear.
So I think it is quite evident that the legislation which was passed last fall was not contemplated, either by the government or

Embargo on Russian Goods
by the house, as anything else but power given to the cabinet by order in council to stop the importation of certain goods on due grounds of-shall	I say?-industrial	or
economic policy, and the Prime Minister took great care to dissociate himself from any moral motive that could be attributed to him or to the government in connection with this matter.
I am insisting on this point, Mr. Speaker, because in the province of Quebec, at least, this measure has been presented primarily, exclusively, emphatically, by the legislature of Quebec, the so-called Liberal government, and a Conservative opposition vying with each other as to which group would congratulate the government in warmer terms, as a great move in combating " the perils of communism and atheism." The city council of Montreal, which is at present under the sway of the leader of the opposition in the local legislature, also adopted resolutions of congratulation. One of the city councillors went so far as to say that this was the beginning of a crusade against atheism and communism. It is on this ground particularly that I want to make myself clear and to dissipate some of the equivocations that have been developed especially in the province of Quebec.
As regards the principles and practices, as much as we know them, that have been carried on in Russia since the revolution, not only of October but of March, 1917, I declare myself what I have been all my life long- a Christian and a Canadian citizen imbued with the principles of British government as we have applied them for half a century now. I hate atheism as a Christian, I hate communism as an adherent to the doctrine of social order and economic liberty. But, Mr. Speaker, I would not be a Christian, I would not be a British subject, and I would not be imbued wdth the principles of social liberty, if I would not assert at the same time that the economic system under which the United States and Canada have grown, progressed or retrograded, for the last twenty-five years, the capitalistic system upon which rests the whole policy of North America, is just as antagonistic to the principles of Christianity, of social justice and of British tradition as is the communistic and atheistic system which now prevails in Russia. And for my part I repeat, as a Christian and as a Canadian, I do not consider that we have received either from Providence or from the conscience of the Canadian nation any mandate to teach lessons to other nations.
But suppose that, contrary to what was stated last fall by the Prime Minister, the 22110-129J
main object of this order in council was to protest against communism and atheism, would not the protest have been far more emphatic if it had been made by the parliament of Canada? Communism has prevailed in Russia ever since 1917, and from that time also atheism has been taught in that country. Parliament never protested; neither the Conservative nor the Liberal government raised its voice against these doctrines. They did not protest against the murder of the czar and the czarina and their children. On the contrary, they entered into an agreement with the murderers. They made trade arrangements with the propagandists of communism and atheism, and the succeeding government carried on these things until Sir Henri Deterding, not having been able to close a bargain with the Russian government on matters of business, secured from his friend Sir William Joynson-Hieks the Arcos raid which compelled Great Britain to sever her relations with Russia.
I do not think religion had much to do with that. But, it is suggested that solicitude for the principles of religion and social order is at the basis of this order in council; that is asserted by the legislature of Quebec and the city council of Montreal. Well, I am puzzled. Our religion forbids us to purchase coal from Russia; with our sense of order we stand aghast at the idea of purchasing pulpwood from that country. But our religion invites us to go and kiss on both cheeks the representatives of Russia in order to sell our wheat in conjunction with them. I say, I am puzzled both in my religion and in my policy; and I think many other Canadians will be similarly puzzled.
I remember a good many years ago in the old house a farewell speech delivered by Mr. Blair when resigning as Minister of Railways in protest against the contract entered into between the government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company for the building of the Transcontinental. Replying to an eloquent sentence in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's speech, "But the country demands it; the country cannot wait," Mr. Blair said: "Perhaps the truth is that Senator Cox cannot wait." Perhaps in this instance it is not so much the religion of the people of Canada which is imperilled as that of Senator Webster, who controls the importation of Welsh coal, or the social sense of Sir Herbert Holt, who monopolizes, to a large extent, the pulp and paper trade, his only rival being the International Paper Company.
A gesture of this nature must be, first, true; secondly, it must be effective; and
Embargo on Russian Goods

thirdly, it should receive the moral sanction and support of the nation, if it is to have any weight. I remember a good saying of old Metternich. Once he was asked to protest, in the name of Austria, which was then still the predominating power of Europe. I believe the request had been sent by Mr. Guizot, but it does not matter. The reply was, "A self-respecting government does not speak unless it is capable of making its words good." Now if, after the revolution in Russia, the great nations of Europe with which we were united had concluded a sensible peace; if for a moment the French and English had been able to forget their rancours against the Germans; if Italy had been satisfied with a fair portion of the plunders of war; if they had realized that Christendom, or, if you prefer, western Europe needed all its united forces to face the menace that had arisen in Russia, first in March 1917, and later in October of that same year: then, Canada, having played a part in the war which precipitated the revolution in Russia, might have joined the forces of resistance for the salvation of Christendom and the preservation of political Liberty, liberty of trade, and established traditions; not to impose our will upon Russia, but at least to help Europe in preserving itself against the penetration of communism and other Russian practices. But the great nations with which wTe were associated did not do anything of the kind. Even after so many years of experience, especially after two years of experience of the Russian revolution, the European countries were determined to crush Germany and to exact from her terms with which they knew she could not comply. They were determined to weaken the only barrier that remained in Europe against the spread of political, economic and, perhaps to-morrow, military bolshevism. One of the most determined nationalists in France, and one of the best informed Frenchmen on foreign affairs, Mr. Jacques Bainville, expressed the view in the midst of the war, and under censure from old Clemenceau, that the only force capable of putting some order into Russia was Germany. I shall never forget a conversation I had with one of the most enlightened Englishmen of the last twenty-five years. It was during the war, and I asked him what he thought of it all. "An understanding between England, France and Germany to check Russia." Then the pope submitted his peace proposals. But he was not listened to. By the way, where are the French Canadian Catholics who gave moral support to Pope Benedict when he appealed 
to the conscience of nations to restore some degree of peace in Europe and to stem the tide of revolution? Not till the trade of Senator Webster was in danger did the conscience of Quebec awaken. At any rate, those supporters were very few and not very strong. However, let that pass. The peace was concluded in such a manner as to disarm what remained of Conservative forces in Europe; and since then, all the countries of Europe, with the possible exception of England, have been shaken, at least to some extent, by the struggle between the forces of revolution and the counter forces of autocracy. Now, I do not think that Europe has put itself sufficiently into moral and political order to attempt to settle the affaire of Russia. Are we then going to do it all by ourselves? I do not think so. And, I repeat,
[DOT]-in this regard I am speaking of government at large, without any party spirit-it is not the business of a self-respecting and serious government to teach lessons which it has not itself learned.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	In other words, if we
cannot prevent evil, let us take part in it?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It is not a question of
taking part. I will carry the question still further. If we are going to put a stop to trading between Canadian citizens and the citizens of countries that are conducted on non-Christian principles, where are we going to trade? There are more atheists to-day in the United States of America than there are in Russia.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	But they do not use
the same propaganda.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: When millions of
Russians are standing up for their religion and risking and giving their lives for their convictions, I still have hope for the revival of that great nation. I do not believe in a revival of Christianity in the midst of wealth and materialism. If we are not going to trade with a nation which practises atheism, are we going to stop trading with the United States? It is said that Russia has taken practical and effective means to replace religion with atheism, but I regret to say that no country has so penetrated the minds of its youth with practical atheism as did the French government forty or fifty years ago.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	But they did not use
the same method.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It was less barbarous
but far more effective. The barbarous methods were discarded. But what did they do? They not only expurged the name of God from

Embargo on Russian Goods
the textbooks; they even falsified the most illustrious classics of France. I have seen the Fables of Lafontaine, one of the first books put into the bands of boys and girls of twelve and fourteen years of age, falsified in order to erase the name of God. Did tihe Conservatives or Liberals of that day, in Canada, suggest that we should -break off relations with France and stop trading with that country because that government was carrying on propaganda against creeds and against religion much more effectively than that carried on during the days of the French revolution, and more effective than that now being carried on by Russia?
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Does my hon. friend
think that the French clergy approved the second method as compared with the Russian method?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am not speaking for
the French clergy, but I know that the most enlightened French clergymen acknowledge that in France religion has been held down much more effectively under that regime than it was under the regime of brutality carried on in the first revolution. I do not approve of either method, I simply say that I cannot see upon what political, moral, economic or other ground, we have a mandate to do what no other nation has done. It may be said that this is to be an example, but if it is to be an example: why was not the sense of parliament asked? The following comment was issued on the day the order in council was passed:
The government is convinced that there is forced labour in the cutting and transport of timber and in the mining of coal, that political prisoners are exploited, that the standard of living is below any level conceived of in Canada, and that broadly speaking, all employment is in control of the communistic government which regulates all conditions of work and seeks tg impose its will upon the whole world. This is communism, its creed and its fruits, which we as a country oppose and must refuse to suport by interchange of trade.
If that is the motive for passing this order in council why did the Prime Minister take such pains at the last session to explain that he did not want to pass the order in council upon that ground? He twice interrupted the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) when he suggested that that was the reason. If our sense of honour is so high, if our horror of the Russian nation is such that we cannot purchase coal, furs and pulpwood from them, how is it that the official representative of Canada when in Rome invited the Russian government to commune with us in the solving of the problems of our wheat trade? Mr. Ferguson's
invitation did not include Great Britain-the "murderers" were invited, but our allies, the British, were excluded. Mr. Ferguson made it quite clear that he did not want the British; he did not want the consumers, he wanted only the producers. If that invitation had been accepted, the Russian delegates, the representatives of a government of "murderers" and "atheists", would now be the guests of Canada and they now would be embracing certain hon. members of this house.


Edward Joseph Garland: They would not embrace them.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: They would be the guests of Canada and receive all the diplomatic courtesies and privileges accorded to the representatives of the other nations. How can the so-called moral lesson be applied under such circumstances?
I will not discuss at length the economic aspect, but I will quote the opinions of a couple of men who have nothing in common with communism and who have no sympathy with atheism, Sir George Paish and Lord Arbuthnott. When Sir George Paish came to Canada a few weeks ago he spoke in both Montreal and Toronto, and I think his words are worth while referring to. Sir George Paish was the only man of authority-I know one without authority-who ten years ago predicted what has now occurred, the present crisis. He showed the fallacy of the false prosperity which has made worse the present crisis. He now states that we must desire the five-year plan to succeed in Russia because that is the only salvation of our economics. If the five-year plan succeeds, then the Russians will not attempt to ship all their goods to foreign countries, but they will ask for a larger part of them to be retained in order to improve their own lives.
I do not think Lord Arbuthnott has any revolutionary tendencies. He was once a great cattle raiser, in Canada, I think. When asked whether or not he expected the plan to succeed he said: I do not know, but I know this much, that if it succeeds, we will have to revise all our conditions of production and interchange of trade.
Some time ago, I was in France-the Prime Minister reproached me with this some time ago, but travel is my only luxury-and during that time three things happened in the sphere of European and international affairs: the Imperial conference, the round table conference relating to India, and the famous trial in Moscow in connection with the so-called sabotage of the five-year plan. I followed the proceedings of these three interesting
Embargo on Russian Goods

events with great interest, the last one especially; but what struck me most forcibly was this. In a letter written by a French economist in a most conservative and authoritative organ of the French press, le Temps, he gave this warning to the leaders in France in politics, diplomacy and economics: Do not make any mistake; if the Russian people put up with the exigencies of the situation, the five-year plan is going to succeed.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Heaven help us then.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, heaven help us
then, I admit, but this brings me to this aspect of the question: Is there danger in Canada of a spreading of bolshevism? Bolshevism is, of course, merely a word. Is there danger of a spreading of the principles or practices or policies pursued in Russia? I am not one of those who take either too optimistic or too pessimistic a view of the situation, but I am sure of one thing: if there are occasional and local eruptions of feeling, if there are symptoms of economic or social or even religious revolution in Canada, this will be not on account of what is done in Russia but on account of what is lacking in Canada. If there is one thing which a study of history teaches, it is this: that revolutions occur in any country and at any period not on account of the actions or the feelings or the policies of far-distant governments, but on account of the conditions in the countries in which those revolutions occur.
Mr. LaVERGNE: May I be permitted-


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Would my hon. friend kindly respect the rules of the house? I have never interrupted him; I have never interrupted anybody. I am old and somewhat nervous, and I ask his gracious permission to proceed. He will have plenty of opportunity to speak.
Mr. LaVERGNE: My hon. friend should not make statements which are not correct.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: What brought about the success of the revolution in Russia? If I may sum up what I have gathered after ten years of reading, studying and inquiring from men of all shades of opinion, Frenchmen, Englishmen, Germans, Italians, Catholics, Protestants, unbelievers,-I have lost no occasion to inform myself as to the state of affairs in Russia; in 1922 I spent three months in Rome, and I came into contact with some of the men who organized the various works of help in Russia, men who have known intimately the Russian nation-and the con-

sensus of opinion of all was this: What brought about the extraordinary success of bolshevism was the defects, the vices of the regime which preceded it. I do not mean czardom alone. I think the poor devil of the czar, as in France prior to the revolution the poor king of France, was the scapegoat of many, many sinners. I would put it broadly as lack of responsibility on the part of the leading classes, whether czar, bureaucrats, or noble absentees, spending on the Riviera by millions money gathered from the peasantry of Russia with whom they had no contact. The absenteeism of the landowners was the curse of Ireland for centuries; it was the curse of France in the century and a half which preceded the French revolution. What prevented England during her great upheaval from falling into the same abyss into which France fell 140 or 150 years later, or into which Russia fell a few years ago, was that the English landlords, with all their defects, their narrowness of mind and class spirit, at least lived on their lands. They fulfilled some of the social functions and duties for which they had received their privileges. The English merchants w'ere patriotic; they were sometimes narrow and sometimes grafting in their trade relations, but when the nation came to a crisis they were generous in the disposal of their wealth in order to help out their country. At times they espoused the cause of the people against the king; at times they sustained the authority of the king; but with their faults and mistakes they at least, to the best of their knowledge, fulfilled their social functions. In any country, especially in every large country where you have an immense population that has been groaning for centuries, deprived of the elements of comfort and civilization, and where you have a privileged class enjoying all the privileges and not fulfilling its duties, there is bound to be revolution. Revolution is a* punishment permitted by God to reestablish the proper order of things. It is the necessary purgation of the sinning society. I do not like it, but it is the application of the word of Christ, there must be scandal. So much the worse for the scandalist, but there must be scandal.
I repeat: Is there danger of the spread of revolution in Canada? Yes, there is. I do not think it is close upon us, but the germs are here. It is not a question of a supreme king or czar or kaiser; it is not a question of an aristocracy living in laziness and luxury; but with the evolution of economics that has taken place in the United States and Canada in the last fifty years, we have in certain respects something which is wiorse than any irre-

Embargo on Russian Goods
sponsible monarchy or leisured aristocracy that can at least invoke the past services of its ancestry, and it is a plutocracy without any responsibility. Let the brand of communism or socialism be put upon me, but I stand on the solid ground of traditional Christian social law as it was defined last week in that memorable encyclical which I commend to the attention of every hon. member, whether he be Catholic or Protestant, where the principles of social justice are once more defined and given to the world-as the only salvation possible. Of course the upholders of capitalism without restraint, the classes and the institutions that profit by our present system, will point out in that encyclical those proposals which denounce communism and condemn socialism. But let them read the whole of it and they will find that the system upon which wealth in Canada and in the United States is so unevenly divided to-day that millions and millions of dollars have been accumulated in the hands of a few individuals or corporations, while millions of people are on the verge of starvation, the economic system under which you have a surplus of rural production which the farmers of the west or of the east cannot sell and which the consuming population of the cities cannot purchase because they have no work,-that system, in the very words of the head of the Catholic church, stands condemned just as much as the communistic system in Russia; and I hope those who pose as the champions of religion in Quebec will read the whole of that encyclical and turn their activities towards curing the social and economic iniquities of Canada before they utter empty words in regard to the deeds of a government over which we have no control.
The other day I was reading casually a very sensible reflection by a minister of the United Church in Montreal, Doctor Lloyd Douglas. He is evidently a well-informed man, and while combating socialism and communism just as strongly as the pope does, he comes out with this reflection:
It will do no good to try to ride communism down with police horses, or ridicule it with funny bewhiskered cartoons, or squelch it by law. Either communism will solve some serious economic difficulties or it won't. If it will, and if it does, there is no sentiment or coercion that will stop it, and if it won't work, no propaganda can keep it alive.
There is a good deal of sense in that. There is something else I would commend especially to the attention and reflection of my Catholic friends since, unfortunately, religion has been introduced into this subject in Quebec, but which I commend also to all members right and left. I refer to a course of lectures delivered last winter by a humble Catholic priest
in Detroit, Father Coughlin. Unable to reach the public through the press, because the press in the United States as in Canada belongs to the privileged class of plutocracy, he installed in his church a broadcasting station to communicate abroad his short Sunday sermons. If any man was to utter in the province of Quebec the propositions contained in those sermons, which have been published with the official approval of the bishop of Detroit, he would be branded as communist and socialist.


Mr. HEAPS:: And seditionist.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes. Of course, he condemns socialism and communism, but he turns to the men who have in their hands the powers that be-law, political authority and money-and what else is there of power in America, I ask you? What else remains in the hands of the state? Even at that I must correct myself. Wealth is not a power in the hands of the state. Wealth in North America is a power in the hands of irresponsible and anonymous corporations, which take partners from among all the political parties in Canada and the United States, and take partners from among the common people is well, in order to prevent the exercise by the state of that authority which forty years ago Pope Leo XIII, and which this last week Pope Pius, has defined as being the primary duty of the state, namely, to intervene in order to prevent a few individual companies from owning millions and millions of dollars whilst millions of the common people are starving. Those passages of the encyclical will not be commented upon favourably in such organs as the Montreal Gazette. The Montreal Gazette has given a very fine eulogy on the encyclical commending that part which condemns communism; but if we want to do our duty we must see to it that those evils which produced communism in Europe, and which threaten to produce communism in the United States and also in Canada, are dealt with with a firm hand. May I give a couple of examples from Montreal just at random? We have in Montreal a monopoly of gas, electricity and power.


Mr. McGIBBON:: No monopoly of the first.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It is the biggest monopoly in Canada to-day. The Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated was originally three independent companies supplying gas, electricity and power. Now these three independent companies are all combined in one, under the authority of the legislature of Quebec, that same legislature which is so strong, both Liberals and Conservatives, in condemning the government
Embargo on Russian Goods

in Russia. The Financial Times, or the Financial Post, I am not quite sure which, some three or four years ago, issued a statement commenting on the situation of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, which has combined all those independent companies into one, explaining that through the distribution of stock for which not one sent of money was paid by any shareholder of the company, the holders of the original shares of the Montreal Gas Company and of the Royal Electric Company then possessed eleven times the amount they originally held, but that the company was so considerate of its consumers that it had never raised the dividend beyond 7 per cent. But, Mr. Speaker, 7 per cent on the capital, multiplied eleven times, amounts, if I am not mistaken, to 77 per cent; and I am told that since then there have been three further distributions of stock for which nothing has been paid by the shareholders, so that at the present time the shareholders of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated receive practically 98 per cent on the amount of money that was originally subscribed.
I will give another example, that of the greatest insurance company in Canada, the Sun Life. Not long ago I was comparing their two statements of 1929 and 1930. In 1929 they paid a dividend equivalent to 50 per cent on the share capital. This year the surplus of their assets over their liabilities has decreased from $62,000,000 to $33,000,000, a decrease of $29,000,000. Their reserve for doubtful stock has been decreased from $12,500,000 to about $5,000,000. On the other hand, they increased their capital investment in their enormous and monstrous building in Montreal from $11,000,000 to $23,000,000, and they have raised their dividends to their shareholders to 75 per cent of the capital. Now I ask, in the face of such things, are we entitled to teach lessons in Christianity and social order to other countries, when during last winter we had thousands and thousands of fathers of families not capable of purchasing a pound of bread for their children, receiving alms from charitable institutions and from city councils, and when we have hundreds of thousands of children raised in Montreal in dwellings that are not fit for human beings? When we see such a monstrous concentration of capital, when we see especially that unchristian and unsocial creation of fictitious capital, which you and I and every other consumer of food or clothing or any other human need, have to pay for, do you not think, sir, that it is about time that we should look to ourselves and put some degree of Christianity into our own social and economic polity be-
fore we launch a crusade against coal and pulpwood, but not including wheat, because there are too many farmers in the west who want to sell wheat? Joseph Chamberlain, in the days that preceded the alliance of Great Britain and Russia, when he was trying to make a bargain with Germany in order to crush France and Russia, speaking of the barbarous Russian, said, "If you want to sup with the devil, you must use a long spoon." We do not want to sup or dine or breakfast with the devil as far as coal is concerned, because it may hurt Senator Webster's trade. We do not want to take Russian pulpwood because it may endanger the speculative stocks of Sir Herbert Holt. In. order however to relieve the sufferings of our northwestern friends we are prepared to breakfast, dine, sup and take the last cup with those devils, with very short spoons, and even to drink from the same glass with them, as I think Mr. Ferguson has done this week.
I do not think there is any necessity to dwell further upon this subject. I thought it was my duty to discuss the matter for several reasons, one of which is that I am an old man. I have not much to risk; my political future is rather limited. My principles and ideals are well known both in my province and outside. I have put up many a battle, perhaps wrongly at times, for what I thought to be my duty to my country. Throughout those battles may I say without boasting I always had in mind two guiding thoughts. Whatever my faults and mistakes may have been I have never sacrificed what I thought to be my convictions as a Catholic, my duty to my race or to my country. But more than anything else I have hated the making use of either religion or racial sentiment to achieve political ends or mercantile purposes. I have no respect for such motives. I do not charge the government with having had such motives in view. I have quoted from the remarks made last year by the Prime Minister to the contrary. The previous administration made a mistake in 1927 when by a very feeble act they acted upon the telegraphic order from Mr. Amery. In the present instance I am afraid the government has not resisted the temptation of gathering a little cheap success in the province of Quebec. All parties have done it at turns, and I do not brand such action as a crime. However I thought it my duty to bring the matter before the house. Having been interested in the affairs of the nation for forty years I want to warn my people in the proyince of Quebec against the delusion that

Embargo on Rxissian Goods
this little measure will have any effect whatever either in Russia, in Europe or even in Canada. It cannot have. The effect it could have had as a moral lesson has been destroyed by the simultaneous action of the government refusing to trade with Russia in certain matters but agreeing to deal with her in other matters. So much for the moral standpoint. The political lesson is lost when we think of the attitude taken by all the nations of Europe with which we are united. If it is stated that we owe a debt to our dignity I repeat that we must think of the consequences. At this point may I give an example to my Catholic friends and at the same time beg the pardon of my hon. friends who are not Catholics but who will realize my interest in raising the point?
In 1922 I was in Rome when the Genoa conference was called, the first conference following the war to which Germans and Russians were invited. Mr. Lloyd George was responsible for the convening of the conference, Mr. Briand agreed; but Mr. Poincare raised such a turmoil in the French chamber that Mr. Briand was defeated. The conference accomplished nothing for the time being but nevertheless the ice was broken. When the delegates from the nations arrived at Genoa, including Mr. Chicherin, one of the primary leaders of the bolshevic government, the venerable Cardinal Archbishop of Genoa received the delegates, including the representative of the government of Russia. The Archbishop shook hands with the delegates and appealed for the blessing of God on their deliberations for peace. Immediately some French Catholics raised their hands in horror. I am afraid some of them were more concerned with their unredeemed loans to Russia than their religious principles, because their protest was upheld by men such as Mr. Poincare and others, who had no connection whatever with Catholicism or Christianity. Those French Catholics criticized the Archbishop of Genoa for having shaken hands with the representatives of the murderous government of Russia. On the other hand however, the pope,'-the same pope who condemns communism, who condemns socialism, who protested against the crimes of Russia when all the governments of Europe were simply concerned with trying to make bargains with Russia,-the pope wrote a letter to the Archbishop of Genoa congratulating him for having gone to meet the men who were convening the first time for the purpose of establishing peace. Could not our Catholic friends in Canada have some degree of the breadth of mind and wisdom of judgment of the Roman
authorities? I am always surprised by some of the attacks made against the pope in the non-Catholic papers of Canada. They ought to know that the pope is bigger and broader minded than many Catholics in this country.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The authorities in Rome *are strict on matters of principle; t'he pope will suffer anything rather than sacrifice one principle. He will condemn communism in Russia, Canada or the United States, because he believes the principles of communism are incompatible with those of Christian social philosophy. But when it comes to dealing with men, the pope tries to make use of what is good in the sinner. Pope Pius IX has been the strongest opponent of revolution in Europe during the last century. But one day a French royalist was talking to him of the curses of the great revolution in France. To which the author of the syllabus and of so many condemnations of socialism and even of liberalism replied: "There is no such thing as absolute evil; there is only absolute good and absolute truth, and that is God himself. Even some good arose from the French revolution." The question was asked, "But, holy father, what can you point out that was good?" "Equality of all men before the law" replied Pope Pius IX.
Purely by hazard I was reading last week the very interesting memoirs of a Russian royalist who entered Russia in disguise three years ago to find out what had become of his son who had disappeared with the army of Dettekin during one of the attempts to throw down the bolshevik government. The author of the book, who himself is a royalist, entered into communications with the hidden royalists of Russia. He hopes for the downfall of the present regime and predicts the restoration sooner or later of czardom in Russia, but his conclusion is that the first duty of the restored monarchy will be to maintain all it can of what good has been accomplished by the present government in Russia. I am not revising or opposing this judgment, I am simply saying this: ignorant as we are of what is going on in Russia, incapable as we are of doing anything practical to save our traditions or our principles or our notions of social order in Russia, for heaven's sake let us mind our own affairs, and introduce into Canadian .policy, Canadian business and Canadian social arrangements some of the principles of Christianity. I think thereby we shall render a much better service both to religion and to society than by simply uttering empty words.
Agricultural Products

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Neill the following amendment:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following words substituted therefor:
the house regards the growing practice of deciding by order in council important matters of public policy as an encroachment upon the duties and privileges of parliament and a violation of the principle of responsible government.
At six o'clock the bowse adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 28, 1931