1931-05-08

[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegmpf lines.-Mr. Harris.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 43 to amend the criminal code.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this
bill is to make it easier, or perhaps I should say to make it less impossible, to secure a conviction against that ever growing band of crooks who make it their business to prey on the public b}' going from town to town and from district to district leaving behind them a trail of cheques drawn on banks where they have no funds or where in many cases they even never had an account. At the present time these men can be proceeded against only under the section of the criminal code which deals with false pretences and it has been found almost impossible to secure a conviction under that section. It is necessary to show an evil intent when the cheque was passed, that is, an intent to defraud the payee, and it is practically impossible to prove what is in a man's mind on a given occasion. Very often the plea is made: Yes, I knew I had no money in the bank but I expected President Hoover or someone else to make a deposit before it came due. It is very necessary to check this growing evil which imposes a heavy burden on hotels and business men, which burden is ultimately passed on to the consuming public. This will be rather a difficult piece of legislation because it is essential while proceeding against this type of man to protect two classes of individuals. The first is the man who by mere inadvertence allows his account to become overdrawn. I have done that myself, and that man must be protected. Then there is the other man, almost equally innocent, who is running a small business. Times are hard and he is being pressed, we will say, by his wholesaler. He knows it will take four or five days for a cheque to reach the wholesaler and then be returned to his bank; he knows he is getting money in all the time from his customers and he takes a chance and draws a cheque which may not be good at the moment but which he honestly expects will, in all probability, be good by the time it comes back to his
Privilege-Mr. Cayley
[Stage Direction]
bank. That man should be protected, and this bill fully protects these two classes of individual.
If the house will allow me to introduce this bill and have it read the first time, I will not press the second reading so that perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) may consider it, and boards of trade, chambers of commerce and business men throughout the country will be given an opportunity to express their views.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. M. CAYLEY (South Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I desire to rise to a question of privilege. The Woodstock Sentinel Review of Monday, May 4, contains the following item:
Oxford members at Ottawa voted opposite ways on the Armistice day holiday bill. Presumably the south riding will refuse to take the day off.
Every hon. member knows that this bill passed the house unanimously; there was no opposition. There was a division on the motion of the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) to adjourn the debate on the second reading, which I opposed, but the bill itself was passed unanimously as will be shown at page 133 of Votes and Proceedings of April 28.
The south riding of Oxford will consider it a solemn duty and honour to keep this Remembrance day in honour of those splendid men who died during the great war.



DOMINION CONVERSION LOAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I promised the house yesterday that I would make a general statement with respect to the proposed conversion loan. During the years of the war the Canadian people loaned the government of Canada 853,000.000, payable in October, 1931, with interest at 5 per cent per annum; 873,000,000, payable November 1, 1932, with interest at per cent per annum; 8446,000,000, payable on November 1, 1933, with interest at 5^ per cent per annum, and 8511,000,000, payable on November 1, 1934, with interest at 5^ per cent per annum. The total amount of these four loans is $1,083,000,000, and it will be ob-

served that nearly one billion dollars of this amount falls due in November, 1933, and November, 1934. These loans will either have to be paid or renewed and it is obviously impossible that they can be paid except by the flotation of new securities, the proceeds to be used to liquidate the old loans.
At the moment this large obligation is a serious menace to our financial operations because it is felt that as long as these liabilities have to be met in successive years there will be increasing difficulties in connection with the handling of such transactions. The government, with the best advice available, has concluded that it is desirable to anticipate the maturity of these obligations and has created what will be known as the Dominion of Canada conversion loan, 1931. No new money will be sought but the old securities will be exchanged for new bonds bearing a rate of interest of 4} per cent per annum. All interest provided by the former securities and any benefits and privileges created thereby will remain intact until maturity.
On Monday next every newspaper in Canada will contain a full statement on the proposed conversion loan and I do not think it is necessary to do more at the moment than to merely indicate the general reasons which have actuated the government in taking this action.
Before taking any final steps in this matter, the government was fortunate in being able to set up with the aid of the banks and bond houses of Canada a central committee, the chairman of which is Sir Charles Gordon, president of the Bank of Montreal and the vicechairman, Mr. Victor Drury of Montreal. The 'Canadian Bank of Commerce is represented by Mr. S. H. Logan, its general manager; the Bank of Nova Scotia by Mr. J. A. McLeod, its general manager; the Banque Camadienne Nationale by Mr. Beaudry Leman, its general manager and the Royal Bank of Canada by Mr. M. W. Wilson, its general manager. The bond houses in Toronto are represented by Mr. Arthur F. White, of the Dominion Securities Corporation, Mr. H. R. Tudhope of A. E. Ames & Company, and Mr. J. H. Gundy, of Wood Gundy & Company. The bond houses in Montreal are represented by Mr. Drury and Mr. E. G. Hanson of Hanson Brothers. In addition to that, Mr. G. W. Spinney, one of the executive officers of the Bank of Montreal, has given unremitting toil to this transaction and, while not a member of the committee, has undertaken large responsibilities in connection therewith.
The plan involves the participation by and cooperation of 4,500 agencies throughout Canada, including the branches of all the char-

Conversion Loan-Mr. Bennett
tered banks of Canada and of the recognized bond dealers and brokers. I need hardly say that in a country as large as Canada it is important that the same opportunity be afforded on the same day to every person interested and it therefore becomes necessary to prepare very large quantities of material to be made available on Monday next in every part of Canada. It will perhaps sup-prise the house to know that during the iast seven days orders for over 8,000,000 forms have been placed with the, Printing Bureau and that the major portion of this large order has been delivered to the Department of Finance. Prior to noon to-day, actually
4,850,000	forms had been shipped by the Department of Finance to various depositories established throughout Canada. Five hundred thousand interim certificates in various denominations from 8100 to $100,000 are being printed and distributed to the offices of the receiver general throughout Canada. We expect that on Monday next the interim certificates for those who wish to exchange the old bonds for the new, will be available for the full amount of the loan, and therefore the conversion may be made promptly.
The Post Office Department has done a great deal of work in expediting the transmission of mail, because in large cities like Montreal and Toronto, this has imposed upon that department a great additional effort. The campaign is for the moment limited to the conversion of $250,000,000 of the old securities. The books will open on Monday next and it is proposed that the, Minister of Finance shall have a discretion as to the closing of them, otherwise they will close on the 23rd of May. Whatever additional information any hon. member may desire to receive will, of course, be available on Monday morning through the press, but I do not think any useful purpose will be served by stating more than I have indicated as to the purpose and intention of the government in making this conversion at this time.
It is the belief of the government and those best qualified to speak with authority in Canada, that a conversion or exchange of this kind at this time will be of a two-fold advantage to this country. In the first place it will do something to remove from the horizon a dark cloud of impending borrowing that every Minister of Finance must face as long as there is $1,000,000,000 to be liquidated in some way between now and 1934. In the second place, inasmuch as the securities are largely held by Canadians, it is believed that by accepting, after the date of maturity of the present obligations, a rate of interest one per cent less than that which they have been receiving, they will indicate a faith and belief
in the future of their country that will be a striking testimony to the value of its assets and its credit amongst the peoples of the world. I do not think it is necessary to take up further time than to indicate in this general way what the purpose of the government has been in this regard.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like
to ask the Prime Minister a question in reference to one feature that has been referred to in the press, namely, a possibility of the exemption from taxation of any of the new bonds. Would my right hon. friend indicate whether anything of the kind is contemplated?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am very glad the right hon, gentleman mentioned that because really I did not suppose it was necessary in this day and generation to say that the bonds and the interest therefrom are all taxable. The nontaxable feature which is, of course, a part of the contract of the old bonds, cannot be abrogated, but none of the new bonds is free from taxation as to principal or interest. They are all taxable.


Mr. EULER:: What is the length of term
of the new securities?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reason I did not go into the details of that was that some of them are somewhat complicated, and it would be better just to make the general statement: twenty-five years from the date of the maturity of the present obligations, callable at the end of fifteen years. That is, during the last ten years of the life of the new bonds the government has the opportunity of calling them in.


William Daum Euler: That is a long period.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but it is desirable in an operation of this kind that we should have that right. The bonds are for fifteen years certain. Do I make myself clear?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Is there a time limit on the applications?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They open on Monday and they close on the 23rd. They may close earlier at the discretion of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: The Prime Minister says that $250,000,000 will be dealt with at first. Is it the intention to deal with any of these issues prior to 1934?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is specified that those who hold bonds of 1931. 1932, 1933, or 1934 may, on signing the proper application form, convert them into the new security and $250,000,000 is the amount fixed at the moment. If there should be a very general desire on the
13S4
Unemployment Situation

part of the Canadian, people to increase that amount, we would not hesitate to yield to their wishes in that regard.


Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Would the Prime Minister have any objection to stating to the house the rate of commission that will be paid to the banks and bond firms for handling this issue?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think there is any reason why this information should not be given, although I think the hon. gentleman would have been well advised, in the interest of the loan, not to ask this question at this particular time; but as he has asked it, I think it must be answered. I do not think, in asking it, he is doing any good service to his country.


Frederick George Sanderson: I shall be quite willing to drop the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been asked now, so it does not make any difference. The sum payable for commission to all is one half of one per cent, including all the expenses which they may incur, and little and big will be paid the same rate. There are no over-riding commissions. In the interest of the loan, I am very sorry the hon. member asked the question.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have no apology to make.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I did not expect the hon. gentleman would have.



UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: I
should like to direct a question to the acting Minister of Immigration. At a recent meeting of the Winnipeg city council, the matter of civic servants who were not naturalized citizens of Canada, was taken up. In the course of the discussion, the following statement was made:
Alderman Flye claimed that the foreigners seemed to get the preference of jobs ip this country. For example, he said, a whole shipload of Germans had been brought direct to Montreal and sent to Churchill, where they had been given employment immediately, while hundreds and thousands of British citizens went idle.
The communication in which this clipping was enclosed is from the president of the St. Boniface Young Men's Board of Trade, who says:

We have been informed through the enclosed clipping that a shipload of Germans has been brought direct to Montreal and sent to Churchill where they have been given employment immediately.
I do not want^ to rouse a strong objection until I am positively sure of this being the case, so will you please ask the Hon. W. A. Gordon, Minister of Immigration, if he knows anything about this.
Has the minister any knowledge of this? Is this information correct, and if so, is it going to be the policy of the government, in face of the fact that we have hundreds and thousands of British citizens who are idle in this country?


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immi-gation):: Could the hon. gentleman inform
me when this shipload arrived? Does he know anything about the date of arrival?


John Power Howden: I have just a clipping
giving an account of the meeting of the Winnipeg city council. It was on May 2, 1931, that this meeting was held.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways find Canals):: In regard to the port of
Churchill, I might tell my hon. friend that no Germans or other nationals have come from any country in the world and been shipped to Churchiil.


John Power Howden: I am glad to hear the
answer of the minister. The duty devolved upon me to put the question to the house.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I promised yesterday to make a statement with regard to the operations of the Canadian farm loan board. This morning I had prepared a short memorandum, part of which I shall now submit to the house:
The Canadian farm loan board is constituted and operates as a body corporate and politic under the provisions of a special act of parliament which defines its powers and duties, namely, chapter 66, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927.
The members of the board are appointed for a term of years by order in council of the Dominion government. The administration of the board's activities, however, in each province iR carried out through the agency of a provincial board of three members all of whom are the nominees of the provincial government. Provision is made also for the appointment of a fourth member to each provincial board who shall be the nominee of the borrowers in that province.
The Dominion government provided the initial financial assistance for the board in the form of advances of capital up to five million dollars which are free of interest for three years from date of advance.

Farm Loan Board-Mr. Bennett
That is to say, the government of Canada advances the money to the board which for the first three years is free from any interest charge in favour of the country; the country for the first three years gets nothing for its money. The memorandum continues:
The amount of the said advances, however, with interest, after the initial three-year period, at the rate of five per cent per annum, is repayable out of the earnings of the board. Subsequent loaning funds are obtained through the sale by the board of farm loan bonds issued on the security of mortgages held by the board on account of loans already made. These bonds do not carry the guarantee of the government and the payment of interest on the said bonds and the repayment of capital must 'be provided for by the board itself.
As a body corporate, the board under the act is empowered to issue capital stock. The subscribers to the said stock are limited to three classes:-[DOT]
The Dominion government purchases stock of the board to the extent of five per cent of moneys loaned by the board;
Each provincial government subscribes to stock of the board to the extent of five per cent of moneys loaned in the province;
Each borrower subscribes to stock of the board to the extent of five per cent of the loan obtained.
All earnings derived by the board in the course of its operations, after providing the necessary reserves, are distributed to the shareholders in the form of dividends. Dividends on stock held by the governments, however, are limited to five per cent per annum, the borrower shareholders alone participating in dividends declared in excess of this amount.
In the interests of all shareholders, the Dominion government appoints a firm of chartered accountants to make an annual audit of the board's affairs and this report-
As perhaps the house will recollect:
[DOT]-is tabled in parliament.
As protection to the interests of the provincial governments, provision is made under the act for the convening by the Minister of Finance from time to time of an advisory council consisting of the provincial treasurers and the chief executive officer of each provincial board to confer on matters relating to the administration of the board.
As an assurance to shareholders that the board shall riot in its regulations exceed the powers given to it under the provisions of the act, the regulations of the board are subject to approval by the governor in council.
As is apparent from the foregoing, the whole scheme of administration and the financial structure of the board is entirely different from the structure of the provincial boards which are or have been operating in the various provinces of Canada.
In the case of the various provincial boards, loaning funds of the board have been provided either directly by vote of the provincial legislature or through the sale of government guaranteed securities and all the earnings of these boards in turn have been directly accounted for by the provincial board as received to the provincial government.
Assuming the loans had been made, and many have been, the next question is as to
the policy of the board with respect to the collection of the interest and the principal. That question being asked yesterday, I asked the chairman of the board, Dr. J. D. MacLean, as to what .that policy was, and he has submitted the following memorandum:
The policy of the board with respect to arrears, which recently went forward to the various provincial offices, is outlined in the form of a memorandum, as follows:
"The general policy of the board in dealing with cases of arrears must be framed along the following lines:
(a)	In cases where there is actual inability of the borrower to pay, carry the borrower over for a reasonable length of time, provided,

1.	He is making an honest effort to pay and is giving the board equal consideration with other creditors.
2.	There are reasonable prospects of ability to pay within a reasonable length of time.
3.	The security is not deteriorating in value, and the amount of the board's loan plus arrears and unpaid taxes has not grown to an amount which jeopardizes the board's prospects of realizing by sales proceedings the amount of the board's investment.
Naturally, where the borrower's intentions are the best but where there is no reasonable prospect of the applicant improving his position either because of other liabilities or because of lack of farming ability, and where the postponement of action means no ultimate relief to the borrower there is no object in withholding the institution of sale proceedings.
(b)	Where there is ability to pay but failure to do so, the failure of the applicant to furnish either satisfactory collateral security to secure payment within a reasonable length of time or to give other satisfactory assurance of payment should be followed by either a distress on chattels or the commencement of foreclosure proceedings whichever is, under the circumstances. most appropriate.
In view of the importance attached by head office to the necessity of following up collections in the early stages of the board's loaning operations we request that starting May 1st every superintendent forward a brief monthly report on each case of arrears."
That is the memorandum sent to the provincial offices. Dr. MacLean continues:
The provincial boards have placed on each borrower who has professed inability to pay the onus of giving to the board satisfactory reasons for an extension of time for payment. Each such borrower has been required to submit a statement of crop returns and a statement of receipts and expenditures covering the last year's operations and an up-to-date statement of assets and liabilities, with a view to determining whether or not a good case has been made out for an extension of time for payment.
All borrowers who have given what appeared to be reliable undertakings for future payment, or who, as the result of the year's operations, are actually financially unable to make a payment until proceeds of present year's crops are received, are granted the necessary extension of time. In cases, howeverwhere the borrower has not displayed any inclination to cooperate with the board nor to give satisfactory information or replies to letters from the board, solicitor's collection letters have gone forward. In other cases, where there appears to be
1386	COMMONS
Farm Loan Board-Mr. Bennett
ability to pay but the failure to do bo, distress warrants have been issued, to enforce collections.
I may say that in the province of Alberta, where we have the largest percentage of arrears at the present time, no foreclosure or sale proceedings have been instituted in any case up to the present time. Distress warrants have been issued in not more than ten cases, and in each case where such distress warrant has been issued the borrower has made a satisfactory payment very shortly after seizure was effected.
Solicitors' letters have gone forward in all provinces, however, to a percentage of borrowers who had failed either to carry out the promises previously made, or who had failed to make a satisfactory response to communications from the board.
The responsibility of collection rests with the provincial board of each province. Distress proceedings may be instituted by the provincial superintendent on the authority of the provincial board. Sale or foreclosure proceedings, however, are instituted only on instructions from head office upon the recommendation of the provincial board.	_
Reinspection reports on the securities held bv the board in as many cases of arrears as possible will be obtained during the course of the present season.
I trust that two points are abundantly clear, two points about which there has, apparently, been some doubt:	First, that
the government of Canada is not responsible for the initiation of proceedings in connection with collections; secondly, that there can be no foreclosure proceedings taken or sale under foreclosure proceedings made unless the head office does give its authority. I think it is also patent to everyone that the board itself is an organization over which the government as such has no control; in other words, it is not an instrument of government; it is an organization created by a statute, and is discharging its statutory obligations with the assistance given by the governments of the country, federal and provincial, and by borrowers from the funds which it may have at its disposal.
In the Finance department this morning I received from Mr. Sellar the last report of the federal farm loan board of the United States for the year ending December 31, 1930, and I venture to read two or three lines from the opening pages of that report because I conceive them to be of some importance in this country where our experience has been limited as compared with the very large experience which the farm loan board of the United States has had in the conduct of business of this character.
The chairman indicates the effort made to -shall I say?-place the business of the board in politics by introducing measures in the House of Representatives that on the one hand would force action on the part of the board or on the other restrict its activities.

At page 5 of the report I find the following:
In this connection a number of bills and resolutions have been introduced in both houses of congress providing for the suspension of foreclosures by the federal land banks in certain sections of the country for varying periods of time or the extension of the time of payment of instalments on loans due the Danks and authorizing loans by the government to the federal land banks to enable them to defer foreclosures. These measures in effect would result in the establishment of a moratorium on payments. The secretary of the treasury, in response to requests from the committees on banking and currency of the Senate and house for his recommendations, has reported adversely with respect to these proposals. In the opinion of the board measures of this character would impair the morale of borrowers generally,' encourage delinquencies on a widespread scale, imperil the market for federal land bank bonds and do incalculable harm to the system. Incidentally it should not be overlooked that, as only about 12 per cent of the farm mortgage indebtedness of the country is held by the federal land banks, such measures, even if enacted into law, would not affect a large number of the farmers in the sections concerned.
The board is advised that many borrowers in a position to pay have not paid promptly because they understood that they would be granted extensions by law and that the banks would be prohibited from taking action for self protection. This presented an unfortunate condition, and it was a serious problem for the banks to correct these impressions and misunderstandings. For example, one borrower from a federal land bank pinned a newspaper clipping, announcing the introduction of a bill proposing an extension of the time of payment, to the notice which the bank had sent him regarding the instalment on his loan -which was due and returned it to the bank without payment. In another case one of the banks received from a delinquent borrower a copy of a letter which had been written to him, pointing out that legislation had been proposed extending the time for making payments on loans and stating that some form of relief as to extensions likely would be made. A field man of one of tbe banks reported that he found "numerous cases of the least deserving just suspending their efforts to make the payment and feeling confident that they will be relieved." These instances are cited merely as illustrations of the effect that even the introduction and consideration of the proposals had in increasing the collection problems of the banks, which, of course, as stated above, must make all the collections possible in any event.
There is also in the report an extract from the recommendations of the secretary of the treasury, but I will not trespass upon the time of this house to read them. It will be observed the problem to which attention has been directed is not one peculiar to Canada, but one which has to be dealt with in every country where this form of organization exists. Fortunately or unfortunately in this case, so far as the government is concerned, we have no power to deal with the matter in the sense in which the question was asked yesterday.

Business of the House
Power must be exercised through the provincial boards, and I have every reason to believe that every possible consideration has been extended to borrowers who are also shareholders in the board for the purpose of enabling those who have hope and confidence in the future to carry on and succeed in deriving from their efforts such sums as will enable them to liquidate their obligations.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the orders of the day are called I think it is desirable that there should be an understanding between the government and other hon. members of the house as to the business of the day. Last night at the conclusion of the sitting the question was raised as to the significance of standing order 28. That standing order is as follows:
28. On Thursday and Fridays when the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply, or of ways and means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, providing that, except by the unanimous consent of the house, the estimates of each department shall be first taken up on a day other than Thursday or Friday.
I assume therefore if order No. 5 is called, "House again in committee of supply," Your Honour will leave the chair without question being put. For that reason, as the matter is one which affects the privileges of the house, I wish to raise the point I do before Your Honour leaves the chair. Under standing order No. 28 I assume that with the exception of estimates which have been taken up on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, the government will not have the right to proceed, except by consent of the house, with estimates of any department other than those which have been discussed on those days. The only estimates which have been discussed on Mondays, Tuesdays or Wednesdays have been the estimates of the Department of Public Works, and the government would be perfectly in order to-daj to proceed with the estimates of that department. If, however, the government were to proceed with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs they would have to have the consent of the house so to proceed. Last night I intimated that in order to meet a certain purpose to which the Prime Minister referred, so far as the official opposition was concerned we would consent to proceeding with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, by the
calling of a certain item to-day. I was surprised when I found that the Prime Minister felt he had a right to proceed to-day with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. He apparently assumed such to be the case simply because yesterday we consented to allow him, for yesterday only, to take up an item in that particular department. Not only did we consent to take up the item but we consented to the passing of it. I am not raising this question for any factious reason or to embarrass the government. It is important that the privileges secured by rules to members of this house should be observed, and that advantage should not be taken by the ministry of any arrangement arrived at through courtesy in order to secure a right or gain a position which ;he rules of the house never intended the government of the day to have. If it will help to simplify matters for the government and at the same time to secure due the observance of the rules without embarrassment to anybody, I am content to say to my right hon. friend that if we proceed with supply and the Department of Public Works is concluded, I have no objection immediately to have taken up the items of the department of External Affairs. If the government wishes to take up external affairs estimates immediately for the purpose indicated we are quite prepared to give our consent that that should be done to-day. If when these two matters are disposed of, should there be no further business before the house, then if my right hon. friend asks for the consent of the house to proceed with another department we will seek to oblige him. However it is important I think that the rules as they are should be maintained. It should be understood that giving consent to-day for proceeding with the estimates of any other department would not be held to establish a precedent or a reason for the estimates of any such department being taken up on a subsequent Thursday or Friday unless in the first place, they had been considered, as the rules demand on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. I see the embarrassment of the situation-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No embarrassment at
all, not the slightest.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I felt quite certain there must be at least some misapprehension on the part of my right hon. friend or he would not have made the observations he did last night. To suggest that anyone on this side of the house desired that the rules should be abro-
Business o] the House



COMMONS ' 3SS

[Stage Direction]
gated or that other than the utmost good faith should be observed is I think most unfair and unjust. I resent the language used just now by the right hon. leader of the opposition when he implied that anything but the utmost good faith had been observed in connection with this matter. I now propose to prove to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this house that not only did I place the same interpretation upon our rules as the right hon. gentleman has now indicated but I took steps twice at least during the evening to make my position abundantly clear. If the house will be good enough to refer to page 1374 of Hansard it will be observed that immediately at the conclusion of the debate and the indication of the pairs, supply was called. The deputy speaker then took the chair. Whereupon, Mr. Bennett realizing he had no right to proceed except by consent, and having first of all crossed to the right hon. gentleman opposite and spoken to him, rose in his place and made the following statement:
Mr. Chairman, by consent of the house, 1 purpose to take an item in the Department of Trade and Commerce and also an item in the Department of External Affairs.
I would ask the house please to be good enough to observe those words, "by consent of the house". And I am not unfamiliar with rule 28, which says that, when the Speaker leaves the chair on Thursdays and Fridays, without any question being put, except by the unanimous consent of the house, the estimates of a department shall not be taken up unless that department has already had part of its estimates considered in committee on some other day. It therefore followed that having received unanimous consent of the house, I was in a position to proceed and I then used these words:
The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) intimated his desire to speak to-morrow when the Geneva item is called upon the question of the rights of minorities in Poland. As the council of the league meets at an early date the hon. member should be afforded that facility if at all possible. If the house consents we will take a single item in the Department of Trade and Commerce, and then an item in the Department of External Affairs. From that point we will proceed with items in the Department of Public Works.
Mr. Mackenzie King: I can see no objection to expediting matters by taking an item in any single department, but to take two departments is perhaps going a little farther than i3 usual.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly, I have already said that. I replied:

The right hon. gentleman is quite correct. I remember that last year the estimates for the Department of External Affairs were put through very expeditiously, and my reason for suggesting consideration of the items in that department was to afford the hon. member for Vegreville an opportunity to speak, as the meeting of the council will be held at an early date.
Mr. Mackenzie King: If I understand the Prime Minister correctly, he does not intend to take up different items in the department, but rather to consider at this time only one item?
Mr. Bennett: Yes. We shall go on with the Department of Trade and Commerce, taking an item at this time so that it may come before the house to-morrow, thereby affording the hon. member an opportunity to speak.
Then the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce were taken up and an item was passed. At page 1376 an item of External Affairs was taken up, and hon. members will note the following discussion:
Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Secretary of State for External Affairs):	There is no
change in this item either as to staff or amount involved, except the statutory increases.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. Bennett: It is understood that the next item of External Affairs to be called, if the committee please, will be the League oi Nations. Geneva, on which the hon. member for Vegreville wishes to make some observations.
Mr. Mackenzie King:	Does my right hon.
friend intend to go on with External Affairs to-morrow?
Mr. Bennett: Whatever my right hon. friend wishes.
Mr. Mackenzie King: I would prefer to leave it until next week.
Mr. Bennett: Then that will be the only item in External Affairs to be taken up tomorrow, the item dealing with the League of Nations.
Then we went on with Public Works, and when the business of the house for to-day was being considered the right hon. gentleman raised the question as to what estimates should be dealt with. At page 1379 will be found the following discussion.
Mr. Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend whether he understands the government will be free to go into Trade and Commerce estimates to-morrow if they wish to do so ?
Mr. Bennett: My understanding is that we cannot take up the estimates of any new department to-morrow beyond those of Trade and Commerce, External Affairs, and Public Works, and that only one External Affairs item will be taken up namely that respecting the League of Nations, after which we shall take up Trade and Commerce. If we do not decide to continue until we finish that, then we shall take up an item on Public Works, the estimates of which are nearly all through.
Then my right hon. friend proceeded to quote the rule that he has just read.
What has happened is that we have made to-day a Tuesday for the purpose of going into

Business of the House
supply, and Trade and Commerce is the item which we have considered, which we could not have considered otherwise than by consent of the house.
So all this difficulty might have been obviated by just looking at this single line:
-which we could not have considered otherwise than by consent of the house.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That applied
only to yesterday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that. I
said we could not have considered the item otherwise than by consent of the house. I continued:
It having been so considered and the house having further consented that External Affairs be taken up to enable the hon. member for Vegreville to speak about a particular matter, my submission is that the house has now before it three supply items; Public Works, Trade and Commerce, and External Affairs, and that having agreed to take up but one item in External Affairs to-morrow; we may go on with Trade and Commerce, because that item is now properly before the committee by consent of the house. It could not be otherwise.
I repeat that in my desire to sustain the rule I said again, now for the third time, that the item could not have been considered otherwise than by consent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except by consent. I
sat in the position which my right hon. friend now occupies during a period of some three years and learned something in connection with the transaction of parliamentary business, and I recall very distinctly that a similar situation then arose. The difficulty at that time was to determine whether or not the result of the adjournment of a debate, either by reason of the eleven o'clock rule on an ordinary day or the six o'clock rule on Wednesday, was to carry the debate arising out of an amendment on going into supply to the next Thursday, skipping the Wednesday intervening, or to the next Tuesday. Last year we departed from a practice that had theretofore existed, and it was determined then that we should go forward into the next Tuesday unless by consent it was determined otherwise. So, first, there is no difference between the right hon. gentleman and myseif with respect to the necessity of preserving the rule; secondly, the rule can only be abrogated by unanimous consent in the terms of the rule itself; thirdly, that consent was given yesterday. As a result of that consent the committee of supply is seized of the items relating to the Department of Trade and Commerce, and once it is seized of them, and the Speaker is out of the chair, supply then with respect to these items is before the oommittee. In other words, you cannot be out and in at the same time. That is all. The only difference-about which I think the right hon. gentleman has used somewhat stronger language than the facts would warrant-is with regard to what was covered oy the consent. Not once, but three times, and almost a fourth time, I said except by consent we could not go on. With that consent we went into committee of supply, and my hon. friend from Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) followed my right hon. friend a moment later and said he thought we should deal with only one department. I said at once that we desired to deal with more than one branch at least, and that was because of my desire to accommodate the hon. member for Vegreville, for reasons which I made apparent.
Now once more if the house will be good enough to look at the rule it will be found that the difficulty suggested is more imaginary than real. This is the rule that:
On Thursdays and Fridays when the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply, or of ways and means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question,-
That is tcwday, Friday, he leaves the chair without question put.
-provided that, except by the unanimous consent of the house, the estimates of each department shall be first taken up on a day other than Thursday or Friday.
Yesterday, exactly within the terms of that rule, by the unanimous consent of the house, the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and the Department of External Affairs were taken up and an item passed in each, so that we come distinctly and positively within those very words "unanimous consent of the house." All that my submission was or ever has been is that that having been done, and to-day being Friday, on the Speaker leaving the chair, we have before us three departments, and three only, Public Works, Trade and Commerce, and External Affairs; and that it is competent to call items in any one of those departments because they are there, two of them by unanimous consent of this house, and that once being there they cannot be taken out except in the manner and form provided by the rules themselves, namely, after consideration when the committee of supply is determined and its report made. That is the position, otherwise no purpose would be served at all.
But I think the difficulty can be resolved very simply. Last evening we entered into a discussion before the Speaker. He had no jurisdiction because the matter cannot arise before him; it must arise in committee after

Business of the House

the Speaker leaves the chair. Of course, it may ultimately be dealt with by him. I did not then treat the matter as other than a suggestion by the right hon. gentleman opposite as being one that involved the exercise by the Speaker of his official functions, because he could not at that time deal with it. I say to the right hon. gentleman that I am greatly obliged for the suggestion he made in the latter part of his speech. I would not have thought of taking up the time of the house in dealing with the matter had he not made his statement in the terms he did.
I assure him he will never have any cause to complain that the utmost good faith has not been observed by me or by anyone associated with me on this side in the transaction of business, and I am sorry he saw fit, in the light of the consent so graciously given yesterday on three occasions, which enable us to expedite the country's business, to have spoken as he has done. I did find it a little difficult to understand just why he should have taken the view he did. I find it more difficult now to imagine why he should animadvert on our motives in dealing with the matter in the way we did; but if we take up the item to which reference was made yesterday, that with respect to Geneva, and then proceed with public works, we will probably get through with that department. I do not see, however, how the Trade and Commerce estimates can ever be brought more before the committee than they now are, because unanimous consent was given to treat yesterday, Thursday, as though it was Tuesday and put the items before the committee of supply. That is the position.
I think that some confusion has arisen with respect to two things. Perhaps I was responsible for part of it in this sense, that I said the effect of the action was to make Thursday Tuesday. It was qua debate, because we could not debate the matter at all except by unanimous consent, and we regarded yesterday as Tuesday. Once the debate was ended I realized I could not go into supply on Trade and Commerce, and I went over and consulted with my right hon. friend, with the result that the matter was dealt with as indicated. On three separate occasions, and partially on a fourth, I said I could proceed only by unanimous consent, and it was on that basis, the unanimous consent of this house, that every step has been taken in dealing with this department. I am sure that on further consideration the right hon. gentleman will realize that not only was there neither intention, nor desire nor effort to take advantage of the consent thus given, but that,

on the contrary, an endeavour was made to avail ourselves of that consent for the purpose of carrying forward *what I believe was contemplated, namely, the transaction of the business of the country as expeditiously as possible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish
to prolong the discussion but there might as well be an understanding between the Prime Minister and myself as to further occasions of suspending the rules, which may have to be the result of arrangement between us.. Last night my right hon. friend crossed the floor and spoke to me about taking up an item of External Affairs to-day in order to oblige an hon. member of this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And I said Trade and
Commerce.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right
hon. friend said Trade and Commerce I did not hear or so understand him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Last night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Indeed, I was
rather surprised that he mentioned it when he began speaking opposite. I would not have made the remark I did if my right hon. friend had spoken about Trade and Commerce.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No objection was taken
to it in the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I read
what my right hon. friend has said. I wish to repeat that the understanding between the Prime Minister and myself had relation to the taking up of an item of External Affairs. That was the understanding, at least when the right hon. gentleman spoke to me over here. When he crossed the floor again he made an announcement to the house in the words I am about to quote. He said:
Mr. Chairman, by consent of the house I purpose to take an item in the Department of Trade and Commerce and also an item in the Department of External Affairs.
and so on. I replied:
I can see no objection to expediting matters by taking an item in any single department, but to take two departments is perhaps going a little further than is usual.
I would not have made that observation had I had an understanding with my right hon. friend that two departments should be proceeded with. My right hon. friend replied:
The right hon. gentleman is quite correct. I remember that last year the estimates for the Department of External Affairs were put through very expeditiouslyand so on. Then:
Mr. Mackenzie King: If I understand the Prime Minister correctly, he does not intend

Soldier Settlement Board
to take up different items in the department, but rather to consider at this time only one item.	*
Mr. Bennett: Yes. We shall go on with the Department of Trade and Commerce, taking an item at this time so that it may come before the house to-morrow, thereby affording the hon. member an opportunity to speak.
The house went into supply immediately, and before I had a chance to say a further word, I took advantage of the first favourable moment thereafter to point out to the Prime Minister wherein I considered he had misstated the arrangement between us. And I asked, before the adjournment of the house-


Richard Bedford Bennett: But we passed an item in Trade and Commerce without any objection from the right hon. gentleman. That is the real point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If that is the
real point, let me answer it in this way. That item was dealt with by consent of the house to take it up yesterday and not to-day. Consent was given to take up Trade and Commerce yesterday, and to take up, as well, one item of External Affairs. But that consent applied only to Thursday, May 7, and not to Friday, May 8. That is the difference between my right hon. friend and myself. If the Prime Minister wished to have the consent of the house to go into supply on Friday, the 8th, on items other than those of the Department of Public Works he should have got specific consent for that purpose. But he must not assume that consent as having been given in virtue of a rule having been suspended to oblige an hon. member.


Robert James Manion: But what would be the
use of passing one item of Trade and Commerce except to put the estimates into supply?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
might have wished to get through certain supply in Trade and Commerce, and as a matter of fact the house did vote an item for salaries covering the entire civil government in connection with that department. The point is this, however. The business so transacted yesterday was done in virtue of the suspension of a rule by unanimous consent, which gave the government an opportunity to disregard the ordinary procedure for that day but that day alone. The motion passed on May 6 was:
That the debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance that "Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of supply" and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Brown, be 22110-SOI
resumed on Thursday. May 7th instant, and that standing order 28 be suspended on that clay in relation thereto.
The Prime Minister has not read that motion to-day and it is the one in virtue of which we proceeded as we did yesterday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That had to do only with the debate, and when the debate was through I immediately obtained consent to take up an item of Trade and Commerce in order that it might be open to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not going to argue the matter further. I should assume the Prime Minister is as anxious as anyone else to maintain the privileges of the house in these matters. I still contend that the understanding with respect to yesterday's proceedings had relation only to that day, and that so far as to-day's proceedings are concerned we are governed by standing order 28. We intend to proceed on that assumption.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I
would remind the Prime Minister that yesterday I asked him whether he would be good enough to give instructions to the officials of the soldier settlement board to go easy on evicting soldiers under the present financial depression. He was kind enough to promise a reply to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I intended to have mentioned that I
was unable to get in touch with the minister this morning; he was engaged in some other work. But he will prepare a statement for Monday. I do not think there is any such thing as eviction being carried on.


Alan Webster Neill: Perhaps that is not the right word. I believe it is referred to as the rescission of contracts, which has very much the same effect.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I may tell my
hon. friend that the soldier settlement board is not adopting any attitude such as is suggested. I am sure that the board and the officials employed by them realize very well that this is no time to take any severe or drastic action with respect to any soldier or settler who is making an honest effort to remain on his farm.
1392	COMMONS
Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Luchkovich



DEPARTMENT OF MARINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: I wish to complete the answer
given to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Beauhamois (Mr. Raymond) as regards the French version of the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the year 1929-1930.
The hon. member for Beauhamois complained that he was unable to obtain the French version of the report in question. I must state that yesterday in leaving the house, I sent for the French version of this report and it was brought to me. The French version, therefore, is out and I even have a copy here at the disposal of the hon. member for Beauhamois.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Would it not be better
to bring down both versions at the same time?


Alfred Duranleau: That may be. I do
not know the custom followed in this respect, however I believe that the practice of past years has been followed this year.


Ernest Lapointe: No; departmental reports have always been brought down in both languages.


Mr. RINFRET:: Would the hon. Minister of Marine allow me to draw his attention to the fact that his approval appears on the first page of this report. I am therefore astonished that yesterday, although this report was approved by him, he did not know of its existence.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Geneva-Canada's contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations for 1931. including Secretariat, International Labour Organization and Permanent Court of International Justice, $205,083.94.
Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: 
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Was any action taken :by the British House of Commons?


Michael Luchkovich: They have appointed a committee of three which is looking into these provisions. I do not know what the result of their meetings has been, but I understand the council will sit sometime in May and that the whole matter will be discussed at that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On May 11.


Michael Luchkovich: The above petition deals with the alleged infractions of the treaty signed on June 28, 1919, between Poland and the associated and allied powers. It also calls for a committee to consider an impartial inquiry into the facts. From information that I have gathered from the Ukrainian Veterans' Association, the Ukrainian Self Reliance League, the personal experiences of Miss Sheepshanks and Doctor Dey, the accounts of foreign correspondents in Poland, as well as from other reliable sources, I have no doubt that there are very serious infractions of the provisions of that treaty. As proof thereof witness the diabolical methods of racial extermination revealed by Miss Sheepshanks. The manner in which the punitive expeditions referred to in her report were earned out against the Ukrainian minority in Poland, the fiendish application of collective responsibility for individual acts of unsubstantiated sabotage, the wholesale punishment of innocent men, women and children-all constitute an absolute infringement of the following provision of article 2 of the above treaty:
Poland undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to all inhabitants of Poland without distinction of birth, nationality, language or religion.
Miss Sheepshanks says that the repressive measures were ordered not because of individual acts of incendiarism but in order to terrorize the population into voting for the government list in the elections. Imagine what would happen in Canada if any party tried to gain power that way. Otherwise why should these expeditions have been sent into villages where no acts of sabotage or incendiarism had ever occurred? Why were 20 Ukrainian members of the Polish Senate arrested and subjected to frightful treatment in a Polish prison? Why was election literature in favour of Ukrainian candidates prohibited, ballot boxes plugged, voters terrorized and struck from lists, and election candidates imprisoned without charge or trial, if it was not to facilitate the election of Pilsudski and his bloodthirsty henchmen? Is it not, sir, a plain violation of article 7 of the above treaty which provides that:
All Polish nationals shall be equal before the law and shall enjoy the same civil and political rights without distinction as to race, language or religion.
The methodical terrorization of the Ukrainians included the indiscriminate extermination of athletic and reading clubs, cultural and economic associations, and schools, both public and private.
Notwithstanding the stipulation under article 9, ensuring the use of the Ukrainian
1398	COMMONS
Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Luchkovich
language as a medium of instruction in the primary schools, I might add that out of over
3,000	Ukrainian schools that existed when Poland took over Eastern Galicia, only about 400 survived her tender care; and out of 17 Ukrainian high schools, the few that are left are being gradually forced to succumb to the influence of a harsh and methodical Polon-ization.
The Ukrainian colleges-
Says a correspondent.
[DOT]-affiliated with the Lemberg university were closed and the Ukrainians applying for admittance were put on quota and were asked to sign very humiliating declarations.
These shameful conditions caused the scattering of the Ukrainian students seeking higher education all over Europe, while many of them, not being able to finance themselves in other countries of Europe, were forced to form a secret Ukrainian university, which was incessantly persecuted by the Polish police. It was quite a usual occurrence for whole classes of students to be arrested en masse and paraded through the city to jails to the accompaniment of the jeers of the Polish populace.
On taking over the Ukrainian territories, the Polish government signed a special pledge to create a separate Ukrainian university by the end of October, 1924. So far the government has not even voted enough money to buy a load of bricks for that university. Just imagine! Seven million Ukrainians carrying one-third of the burdens of the state,-without a university."
Churches, libraries, reading rooms, and economic institutions present the same deplorable picture. If hon. members could for a moment visualize the Royal Canadian Mounted Police demolishing our places of worship, the public libraries, the homes of our families, the central wheat pool office in Winnipeg and all other cooperative buildings in the west, they would get some idea of the terrible and wanton destruction of property that is being carried on in eastern Galicia. What makes the situation more tragic is the fact that the very proprietors of these dearly acquired possessions were forced by the Polish Uhlans to pull down their own buildings and perform all this destruction on their own property. A dispassionate observer of these uncalled for depredations is reported to have said:
If the Poles were as capable of building as they are of destroying there would be no need for such excesses in Poland.
I regret that I cannot complete my remarks for lack of time.


The CHAIRMAN:: By unanimous consent the hon. member may proceed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By the brief intervention of a single member it would be possible for the hon. gentleman to go on again.


Michael Luchkovich: May I quote the
Polish Ameryka Echo, published at Toledo, Ohio. In its issue of November 30, 1930, it has the following:
All those punitive military expeditions into peaceful Ukrainian villages, in particular, into villages where no acts of sabotage were committed, have, by their savage conduct, beatings and tortures of innocent people, achieved this -that Poland has alienated the whole civilized world, while the Ukrainians have been made her irreconcilable enemies.
With respect to this charge of incendiarism, allow me to read an article that appeared in the Daily Illustrated Courier of October 4, 1930. I may say that this is one of the most widely circulated and the most extreme chauvinistic newspaper in Poland. It says:
For some months we have been calling the attention of the public to the fact that the recently observed insurance policy, based upon the increased valuation of movable goods and carried on for the purpose of securing higher premiums, gives a direct incentive to incendiarism. The facts of daily experiences now confirm our prediction of consequences, which can to-day be observed in every part of
Poland	 Conflagrations have recently
assumed great dimensions. In a whole series of municipalities the farms of large estates or the corn-stacks standing on such estates have been victimized. It is significant to note that in the majority of cases the persons found guilty of originating the fires have been none other than the owners of the damaged objects. The fires were crimes of arson perpetrated for gain.
This quotation, as I say, comes from the most chauvinistic newspaper published in Poland. It will be observed that it says that these burnings were not limited to any particular district where the Ukrainians were predominant, but happened throughout the length and breadth of Poland.
My time, sir, is too limited to go into any detail with respect to this greatest of modern persecutions. Suffice it to say that humanity, truth and justice demand that this bestial policy of national extermination shall cease forthwith. Hon. members will no doubt be told that the reasons for these military visitations was merely to "pacify" the inhabitants of western Ukraine; but how the Nero of modern time, Marshal Pibudski, can justify the excesses of his debauched and degenerate soldiery is beyond all comprehension. For in the light of all that is human and ethical, in the light of our standards of what is right and just, this attempt by Poland to liquidate the Ukrainian question by means of physical torture and complete destruction of cultural and economic possessions, this attempt to divest by forceful means a minority of seven million Ukrainians of a natural and elemental attachment to their religion, language,

Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Bennett
and culture, will go down in history as one of the mosit hideous, despicable, heinous and diabolical crimes ever perpetrated on a defenceless, peaceful and self-respecting people.
How can this house justify the murder of defenceless women and children? How can this house justify the wanton demolition of public and private property? In a word, how can this house justify the cunningly planned extermination of a whole race merely to gratify the insatiable and historical appetite for lust and rapacity of a ruling class that has always been stigmatized as the most reckless, dissipated, cruel and incompetent in Europe?
The world cannot expect the Ukrainians to sanction their own crucifixion; on the contrary it would be surprising if they did not use every effort to take the bleeding body of western Ukraine off the cross while life still exists and place it in the hands of a competent world physician for restoration to health and well being; for every race has the right to live according to its rights and traditions, and certainly no reasonable person will condemn the Ukrainians on this score for their unwillingness to commit national suicide.
The League of Nations has the necessary restorative powers if it only cares to exercise them. According to a treaty signed between Poland and the allied and associated powers, she was bound by guarantees to grant the Ukrainians equal political rights, local selfgovernment, and full freedom with regard to church matters, cultural, educational and economic development. These pledges and obligations were assented to and signed by the representatives of the Polish Government with a great flourish and with many promises to live up to them. But as soon as the Poles found themselves firmly entrenched in their domination of the whole country these same pledges and obligations were relegated to complete oblivion. In view therefore of the gravity of the situation and of the existence of a treaty binding Poland to certain minority guarantees, to which Canada was a signatory, I respectfully urge on behalf of three hundred thousand Ukranians resident in Canada that this matter be submitted to the council of the League of Nations in order that that body might institute an impartial inquiry by appointing a commission to investigate the whole situation in eastern Galicia, and take whatever steps it deems necessary to safeguard the rights of minorities in Poland.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No doubt the house expects the government to make a statement at once with respect to a matter of this character. That
my hon. friend (Mr. Luchkovich) should bring the matter to the attention of this house, having regard to the fact that Canada is a member of the League of Nations and that, as he has told us, he himself has a personal interest in those concerned, is of course not surprising. But the extent to which this house may interfere or deal with such a question is an altogether different matter.
Years ago the parliament at Westminster considered alleged atrocities in Bulgaria and other parts of Europe. It has not been unusual at Westminster for members to discuss the treatment accorded by a country to certain classes of its citizens. In this country it is perhaps within the memory of all who have read the debates of the past that so eminent an authority as the Hon. Edward Blake, to say nothing of the Hon. John Costigan and others, thought that this house had full right and authority to pass resolutions with respect to Ireland. But in this instance Canada occupies a different relation to Poland and to other parts of the world from that which it did prior to the great war. Canada is a member of the League of Nations, and that being a tribunal in one sense, and having power to set up tribunals in another sense, which it has done, it would appear to me that all that can be done is to bring to the attention of that body, of which we are a member, the fact that certain representations have been made. It must be in the mind of every hon. member of this house that there are conflicting views as to what has transpired in Poland. On the one hand, the allegations to which my hon. friend has referred have been given wide publicity through the press and otherwise. On the other hand, Poland has been equally strong in her denials. Poland has declared that what was done was to stamp out incendiarism and various other offences in the communities affected. It is not for me, or, in my opinion, for this house to pass judgment upon the sufficiency of the evidence to establish either the charge, on the one hand, or the defence, on the other. But it might be important to direct attention to the fact that, in the very nature of things, it was to be expected that in the treaty of peace, when full regard was not had to self-determination in the sense in which that term was thought to be used by those in authority, some provision would be made safeguarding the rights of minorities. Accordingly, Article 8 of the treaty of Versailles, signed on July 28, 1919, provides that:
Polish nationals who belong to racial, religious or linguistic minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in fact, as the other Polish nationals. And
1400	COMMONS
Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Bennett
particularly they shall have equal right to establish, manage and control, at their own expense, charitable, religious and social institutions, schools and other educational establishments, with a right to use their own language and to use their religion freely therein.
That right, conceded to the minorities in what is now Poland, or the larger Poland that resulted from the military operations in eastern Galicia, is the basis oif the claim now made to the League of Nations.
There arises, then, the question as to how those rights may be protected by the League of Nations. And that question is one of very considerable difficulty. The truth is that no general system of jurisprudence has been established applicable where there are racial or linguistic or religious rights that are in any sense assailed or attacked. All that the league aims to do is to facilitate the solution of the problems that arise out of the existence of minorities in certain countries that enjoy the benefit of the provisions of treaties of peace and other treaties to which I might refer.
Now, the executive organ of 'the league is its council; and- the council of the league from time to time, when -cases are presented for its consideration, remits inquiries to committees or bodies of experts to make the necessary investigations. Petitions, of course, have been sent to the league from Canada, and large numbers of persons in this country have signed them. The hon. gentleman states that three hundred thousand Ukrainians in Canada are affected. These Canadians finding their kinsmen and relatives complaining of breach of the treaty, have of course appealed to the League of Nations to safeguard the rights, as they conceive them, oif their kinspeop'le in Poland. The -council has laid down certain rules with respect to petitions and1 their re-eeivability. These petitions:
(a)	Must have in view the protection of minorities in accordance with the treaties;
(b)	In particular, must not be submitted in the form of a request for the severance of political relations between the minority in question and the state of which it forms a part;
(c)	Must not emanate from an anonymous or unauthenticated source;
(d)	Must abstain from violent language;
(e)	Must contain information or refer to facts which have not recently been the subject of a petition submitted to the ordinary procedure.
These are the requirements with respect to oetitions. Now, from 1923 to 1930, it is idle to -deny t-ha-t there has been a great conflict in Poland between what you might call the Ukrainian nationalists and the Polish a-uthori-
[Mr. Bennett.l
ties; -and in 1930 the agitation reached a point which it had not previously touched. The results, as indicated by the Polish authorities and the Ukrainians, have -certainly been very contradictory. On the one hand, the Polish authorities say they have restored law and order and have stamped out in-cendiarism and offences of that kind. On the other hand the Ukrainians have represented, -as the hon. gentleman has just observed, that what -has happened is part of a campaign for the destruction of their nationality. On that state of facts it became necessary -for the -council -to take some action, -and so in -the end a -committee of inquiry was set up, which committee is now functioning, consisting of representatives of the United Kingdom, of Norway and of Italy. It has met twice during recent weeks and I understand will meet again before submitting its report to the sixty-third session of the council, which is to meet in Geneva on May 18. This committee is making the necessary inquiries to enable the council of the league to be seized of the facts and to determine what, if any, -action should be taken.
Under these circumstances I am sure the hon. gentleman will be the first to see that we in this parliament, of all places in the world-Canada being a member of the league -cannot take any action at this moment for by so doing we deny the authority of the very organization to which we belong, as we ourselves were parties to the setting up of the committee for the purpose of taking the action suggested. We cannot say that the committee will be ineffective or insufficient; we cannot, it seems to me, do more than support the council in any action it takes-it being a body of which we are a member-for the purpose of ascertaining the truth of the allegations made. I need hardly repeat that the Polish authorities have denied in very unequivocal language the accuracy and truthfulness of the charges made against them.
There is one other fact to which I think attention should be directed, and it is this: recently large numbers of petitions have been sent from this country to the league at Geneva. Recently one of the petitions was denied on the ground1 that the matters therein alleged had already been presented to the league and were now under consideration by the committee to which I referred. Within the last ten days the government has been advised that the petition forwarded by the Ukrainian Self Reliance League of Canada has been declared irreceiv-able because it contains no information not already included in seven petitions which are at present receiving the consideration of the

Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Woodsworth
committee appointed at the last council in January to examine Ukrainian charges of treaty violations.
I think the hon. gentleman has discharged to the full his obligation and responsibility to those in Canada who are affected, and however strong may be his views, he must, and I think he will, like all of us, realize that this is not the tribunal which can hear the defence of those who are charged with these offences. That tribunal is one which we in common with other members of the league have set up to make a report upon the facts. When that report is made the council will take such action as may be necessary to enforce the claims of the minorities to the extent that their rights have been violated.
May I say in conclusion that the House of Commons of Canada has to be doubly careful to-day, more so than was necessary in days gone by. In the past we could readily make declarations touching upon and affecting the rights of peoples in other countries, but at the moment, having submitted to the jurisdiction of the League of Nations and having exercised with pride a very considerable influence in that body, we must in the vrny nature of things be careful that what we do does not reflect upon the action taken by a body of which we are a member, and especially in connection with a charge that one of our fellow members has failed to recognize its responsibilities. Our responsibility is to strive to see that such action is taken in the council as will protect the rights of minorities under a treaty which ensured their rights and, at the same time, to do so in such a way as not to oast discredit or suspicion upon the body known as the League of Nations, in which, as I have said, we are members and which is charged with responsibility under the treaties. It is for that reason I think we must speak with, shall I say moderation, and that all we Can usefully do is to press upon the council the necessity of taking such prompt action as will ensure the vindication of the rights of those who claim they have been deprived of the privileges to which they are entitled under the terms of the treaty. In doing that I am sure we will have the assistance and support of our fellow members in the league; for experience has shown, and the record of the proceedings of the league has indicated, that in every instance where a matter of this kind has been brought to the attention of the council and a committee has been appointed and a report made, it has not been slow or hesitant to take such action as the necessities of the case warrant.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Chairman, some of
my Ukrainian friends asked me to support the proposal of the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Luchkovich). To this request I very gladly acceded because it seems to me that we have here a matter which is of such importance to a large number of our fellow Canadians that we cannot afford lightly to pass it by. I know there are some who will say:	Why should a matter of this kind be
discussed in the House of Commons? I think we have the best answer in the fact that we have in Canada some 300,000 Ukrain-ian-Canadians. Let me remind the committee that that number is almost four times the population of Prince Edward Island. Few people in eastern Canada recognize how important that population is to Canada and how necessary it is for us to see that they have no grievance.
There is a possibility that this discussion may tend to intensify the racial feeling which exists already between the Ukrainian and Polish communities in Canada. I recognize that danger, and anyone who has lived among the Ukrainians and Poles will recognize it also. Some have felt that we ought not to open this question, but in discussing this matter with my Polish friends-I have a number of Polish friends in Canada-as well as with my Ukrainian friends, I have tried to put it to them that after all the Polish people resident in Canada are not distinctly responsible for the acts of the Polish government and that, therefore, they should not take the matter in any personal way. I have taken the position that true patriotism does not consist in justifying the government of my country, "right or wrong." Last year I mentioned some of the atrocities which according to my information were being perpetrated in India, and some people rather resented the fact that I should mention those things in the house. Some of the newspapers were kind enough to suggest that I was anti-British and raised these questions because of some anti-British feeling. That is not so, because these matters are being freely discussed in the British papers. In England it is a matter of the policy of the British government and I take it I am a true Britisher when I try to remedy those things which I find to be evil. I do not take the ground that we in Canada have any special responsibility with regard to the conditions in India; but being members of the league, we are interested in a general way and we should assume our share of the responsibility In my judgment, we are truly patriotic when we seek to remedy any evils which may exist in our country or for which our governments may be responsible. I think my Polish friends in Can-
1402	COMMONS
Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Woodsworth
ada will come to look at this matter in that way; for many of them are as deeply shocked as anyone else at what they read as to what is going on in the old country. In this connection I could not but think of what was said many years ago. Franklin asserted at one time: "Where liberty is, there is my home;" to which Thomas Paine replied: "Where liberty is not, there is my home." It seems to me that in our interrelated world every one of us is responsible to a certain degree for whatever goes on in any part of the world. That- is the situation which we are coming to realize more and more clearly. We cannot disregard our responsibilities toward humanity.
Let me urge, too. that in the house we should show an interest in our fellow Canadians of other races. We of Anglo-Saxon stock or we of Latin stock have our own particular problems. I think every Canadian must recognize that we of the English-speaking group ought to try more than we do to understand our fellow French-Canadians. I regret exceedingly it is difficult for some of us who are unable to speak French, especially those of us who are middle aged, to enter into the cultural life of our FrenchAIanadian fellow citizens.
But this is what I should like to impress upon the house, that long before we have developed a thorough-going understanding between the French and English portions of our community, we have had thrust upon us those other and exceedingly complicated problems which have arisen on account of the very large immigration to this country of peoples from various countries of Europe. If we are to succeed in incorporating these different peoples into our Canadian nationality, we shall have to try to the utmost to have a better understanding of them than most of us have at the present time. I wonder if I might refer to a book that has recently been published. I do this for the benefit of some Canadians *who may not know of it. It is entitled The Ukrainian Canadians, by Charles H. Young. Doctor Helen R. Y. Reid, of Montreal, in *writing a foreword to this book, says:
Finally the committee believes that a positive change of mind and attitude on the part of old Canadians towards the new Canadians is both due and necessary, not only for the unity of the country and for the development of a healthy Canadian spirit, but also for the promotion of international friendships and world peace. A racial study such as this which ve now offer would provide for a better understanding of the values, cultural and economic, contributed by each race to our Canadian civilization, and should, therefore, make for the establishment of better relations between the old and the new peoples of Canada.

I think, we have a really significant incident to-day when the hon. member for Vegreville, the first Ukrainian to sit in this Canadian house, comes to us and asks us to take up a matter which is of vital concern to that group from which he comes. This is an indication of a new condition into which we are emerging. It is an earnest of what may be possible in the future, that instead of these grievances being hidden away and talked about in secret, a prominent and well educated Canadian of Ukrainian stock can come into the House of Commons and from his seat present what he believes to be a matter of vital concern to the national group from which he comes.
Some of our Canadians I find take this attitude; let these people who come to us leave the old world behind. I confess sometimes I have a little bit of sympathy with the feeling that we should leave Europe behind and build up a new civilization on this North American continent. But I would point out that Britishers have not done that, and when the great war arose in Europe, tens of thousands of British born went back to their homes in order that they could, as they thought, defend the motherland. I would suggest that the man who forgets his fatherland and who is indifferent to the welfare of his own brothers and sisters will not make a very good Canadian citizen. We ought to bear that in mind. I have heard those who say: Let these people remember they are Canadians; let them forget the old country. Surely in this country we value men who do not forget the old, but rather bring with them the very best of the old. You cannot divest yourself of the old associations and traditions and be worth anything. The Englishman remembers the country from which he came; the Scotchman remembers the country whence he came. We value them because of that. The same thing is true with regard to Ukrainians or peoples of other nationalities who have thrown in their lot with us.
Let me say this with regard to these Ukrainians who have come to Canada: more than 10,000 of them voluntarily enlisted from western Canada at the time of the great war. If you talk of loyalty, that surely is an indication of loyalty to British institutions and as they conceived it and as most people did at that time; they were willing to answer the call which went forth. Just in passing, let me say I think it was one of the most disgraceful things that we on our part did not understand the situation, and while those
10,000	young men were enlisting, we deliberately disfranchised many of their fathers and

Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Woodsworth
brothers. This just indicates the lack of knowledge and lack of sympathy that we have in regard to these newer Canadians. One of my Ukrainian friends said at the time; "You call us enemies of Breat Britain, we who are from Austria. Austria was an enemy of ours long before she was an enemy of Great Britain." I felt I could but hang my head in shame as I saw the way in which we misunderstood and mistreated these people. Not that we did it deliberately, but we did it ignorantly. Now the time has come when we shall have to take these racial and social questions more seriously.
Let me point out that if these matters in Europe are not settled on principles of justice, we are bound to have difficulties arising in this country because these old world difficulties will be reflected here. Out in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, there often occur community quarrels. Why? Simply because the Ukrainians are reading Ukrainian papers, the Poles are reading Polish papers, the Germans are reading German papers, and so on, and they are following in detail all these things that are happening in the old country. If peace and justice are not established in Europe, we shall have the same old battles fought out in this country. When we so readily accepted hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Europe, we did not know all the responsibilities which we were going to have to shoulder because of their coming here. The Europeans are here and we shall have to deal with the different problems which their coming presents.
Looking at the matter from a broader standpoint, I take it that we Canadians must come more and more to think internationally. The forefathers of most of us Canadians of the older stocks lived here before us for several generations in comparatively isolated communities. We were removed from the main world currents. But particularly since the war we have been drawn into those currents and when after the war Canada became a member of the League of Nations, we definitely took upon ourselves international responsibilities. I am not quite sure that the Prime Minister was correct in his statement with regard to what it was possible for us as a nation to do in this matter. Let me point out that according to the treaty, article 11:
It is also declared to be the friendly right of each member of the league to bring to the attention of the assembly or the council any circumstance whatever affecting international relations which threatens to disturb international peace or the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the hon.
member realizes that I am aware of that provision, but action has already been taken. The petitions having been presented and the committee set up, I said that we should not prejudge a matter that was sub judice.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister may be technically correct, but, after all, these petitions were presented .by private individuals.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By organizations, as well.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The petitions were presented by private organizations. I am not suggesting that we in this house can decide whether the charges made can be substantiated or not; but it does seem to me that we as a nation might make our representations to the League of Nations, either to the assembly or to the council. I think that that is a possibility under the clause which I have read.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were made-in
January last-and the committee was set up in accordance with the representations.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But if I am rightly informed, they have been -made by private organizations, and not directly by the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But Canada's representatives were a party to the representations. The petitions were submitted; some were received, some declined; and the committee was set up in consequence of the complaints made.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It may be that we have done all that we could. My submission would be that under clause 11 it is still competent for this house to take action and make representations with regard to this matter. Let me read one other clause of the Treaty of Peace. This will .be familiar to the Prime Minister, but perhaps not so familiar to all the members of the house. Article 23 reads:
Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon, the members of the league:
(a) will endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women, and children, both in their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend, and for that purpose will establish and maintain the necessary international organizations.
So I take it that we are quite within our rights in taking any opportunity that we can of representing to any other nation any conditions which are liable to cause a breach of
1404	COMMONS
Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Woodsworth
international peace, or of bringing to their attention any conditions which may bring hardship to any section of the community.
I am not going to follow the hon. member for Vegreville in any detail. I think he has shown that there is very good ground for believing that the rights of the minorities in Poland have been violated and that the treaty has been broken. Let me point out that, after all, Poland itself is more or less an arbitrary creation. The Poland that we have to-day is not the Poland that once existed, and I think that this new state is one of the big blunders of the peace treaty. We have set up a country with centralized powers, and we have relegated the minorities in that country to a very inferior position indeed. But aside from this, it seems to me that there is abundant evidence [DOT] to show that the treaty has not been strictly observed. I think there is a sort of presumptive evidence to that effect in the fact that there has been a great deal of difficulty experienced by other minorities in Poland. The members of the house may remember that the German minority have had trouble with the Polish government. Some months ago a committee was set up to deal with the charges brought by the German minority in Poland, and this was the report of the committee. I read from the "Monthly Summary of the League of Nations" for January, 1931, dealing with the sixty-second session of the council:
The Japanese representative, M. Yoshizawa, submitted a report on the position of the German minority in the Voivodies of Silesia, Poznan and Pomorze. The report, which was adopted by the council on January 24, 1931, reads as follows:
I shall make only two or three excerpts:
I should now like to consider the second element in the question, namely, that relating to the attacks alleged to have been made on the persons and property of members of the minority. The "Volksbund" petition gives a detailed account of 255 cases of this kind. I do not think I should now enter upon a detailed consideration of these cases. No one has denied that attacks of this kind took place, and that such attacks were sufficiently serious and widespread to justify the conclusion that there was in numerous eases an infringement of Article 75 and 83 of the Geneva Convention.
Then further:
As to direct responsibility-the Polish government has informed us that all the cases mentioned in the "Volksbund" petition have been the subject of thorough inquiry. We are told that as a result of those inquiries 125 cases were brought before the courts, that in 28 cases the public prosecutor of the republic instituted proceedings, and that in 10 of these the competent courts have already pronounced judgment. It is stated that disciplinary action has been taken against 17 officials.

Again:
Further, the council will desire to receive from the Polish government, before its next session, a complete and detailed statement of the results of the inquiries ordered in these different cases, and also of any penalties imposed and measures for compensation that may have been taken in consequence of these inquiries.
Again:
It is, in any case, essential that the German minority in the Voivodie of Silesia should regain that feeling of confidence which, unfortunately, seems to have been profoundly shaken, but without which it would be impossible to establish between the minority and the state that cooperation which, in the treaties and the resolutions of the assembly and the council of the League of Nations, constitutes a duty equally imperious for the state and for the minority concerned. The council will certainly desire to be informed in due time before its next session of any decisions which the Polish government may have felt right to take in this matter.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Vegreville, the trouble is that the Ukrainian people have no national home, they have ho great national state to back up their petitions, and so it is doubly incumbent on the other members of the league that they should take an active part in pushing forward this investigation.
It is not my desire to endeavour to substantiate in any way the charges which have already been made. Any hon. members who have read the Manchester Guardian must have noted the letters and articles which have been appearing in it for months. We are not so near the scene, of course, and we are not in so good a position to judge, but I note that a very large number of the members of the British House of Commons have taken an active interest in this matter. Among others I note the names of A. Fenner Brockway, Rhys Davies, Commander J. M. Kenworthy, Cecil Malone, M. Phillips Prince, Wilfred Wellock, and many other well-known members of the British house. With these statements before us, and with the information which has been brought to us to-day by the hon. member for Vegreville, we would be justified in taking whatever steps are possible. It may be that the Prime Minister is quite correct, and that all has been done under the machinery of the league that is now possible, but I would urge that the government itself should insist that there be no delay in making the fullest investigation possible.
Anyone who has been closely in touch with the Ukrainian community in Canada must realize that our Ukrainian citizens feel that this is a very, very important matter. It concerns the welfare of their brothers and sisters who are still living in Europe.

Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Lapointe


Richard Bedford Bennett: I trust that the hon. member heard my statement that the report of the committee was expected to be made to the council on the 18th day of May.


Michael Luchkovich: If I may interrupt, did I understand the Prime Minister to say that the committee of three was to investigate whether the petitions were correct according to the regulations set up by the league, or whether the committee was to make an investigation into the actual brutalities?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of the
receivability of petitions is already provided for by regulations which I read, and the committee is making a report upon its investigations of the facts.


Ernest Lapointe: I desire to say one or two words in
connection with the protection of minorities. First may I say that the hon. member who has brought this matter to the attention of the house has made a most vigorous and able presentation, and the facts, if they are as he has described them, do not speak very highly for the present state of civilization. Of course, as the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has stated, there is another party to the difficulty, and that other party does not represent the facts in exactly the same light. However my hon. friend has said enough to justify the government's bringing the matter before the council of the League of Nations, pressing it and seeing that a proper investigation is made.
The matter of trouble in eastern Galicia first came to my attention in a rather strange manner, and I cannot resist the temptation to relate the incident. In 1922 I had the honour of being a member of the Canadian delegation to the League of Nations, accompanying the late Hon. Mr. Fielding. On the first day of the meetings of the assembly I received at the hotel a card on which were written the names of three men who represented themselves to be delegates from eastern Galicia. They were shown to my room, and before Mr. Fielding and myself they pleaded their case very eloquently. Two of them spoke neither French or English, but one spoke very good French and fairly good English. After we had discussed the matter with them for some time and had undertaken to discuss it with other British delegates, the one who had been speaking addressed me as follows: "Does not Your Excellency remember me?" Hon. members should take note of the fact that in Europe all ministers are called "your excellency." In a most humble 22110-90
way I replied, "Have I ever seen you before?" He said, "When Your Excellency was in his last year at the classical college of Rimouski I was in my first year." "Well," I said, "you are from Rimouski?" He said, "My name is Jean, and I was bom in St. Simon de Rimouski." I said, "If your name is Jean and you were born in St. Simon de Rimouski, drop the 'Excellency' at once." He happened to be a young priest who was completing his education in Europe when the war broke out. He was in Galicia at the time and, having to remain there, had become one of the leaders of the nation. I believe that incident tends to show that Canadians can be successful everywhere.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was his nationality?


Ernest Lapointe: French-Canadian. He
is now in the Abitibi district in the province of Quebec, and he has brought with him a great many of those Galician people who indeed are industrious settlers within our province.
The question of the treatment of minorities is a troublesome one and presents one of the greatest difficulties with which the League of Nations has to deal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: And it could not be
otherwise. Following the war many new countries were formed; they were carved out of the territories formerly included in other countries and inevitably there came together people of various races differing in language and religion. Necessarily difficulties were bound to arise. Those who attended the peace conference and those who were responsible for the various peace 'treaties knew that such difficulties would arise and they took good care to ensure a protection for linguistic, racial and religious minorities in those various countries. The same clause may be seen in all the treaties concerning Austria, Hungary, Roumania, Poland, Bulgaria, Greece and other countries.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	And the British North
America Act.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, I may say a word
about that at a later time. It was considered that the fundamental principle of protection for minorities was of international concern, and the guarantee was entrusted to the League of Nations. I am not sure that I properly understood my right hon. friend but I thought he said the league had not, except in a very mild manner, the authority to intervene.

1408	COMMONS
Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Lapointe


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said the council was
the instrument set up by the league. The league itself has very limited powers to enforce the conclusion at which they might arrive after inquiries had been made. That is what I endeavoured to say.


Ernest Lapointe: The league is authorized to take any steps it may deem proper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree, however, with
my right hon. friend that steps might be taken which might not always be opportune.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: The work of the league
in that matter must be a work of conciliation, otherwise it could not achieve results; its work would be nullified by the obstructive tactics of the government affected. A state or a government cannot be coerced in a matter of that kind. Of course, conciliation, education, and negotiation can always be resorted to, and, I believe, especially in these modern times those 'are the only practical ways of achieving results in respect to such matters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the weight of public opinion.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, the weight of public opinion; I agree with my right hon. friend in that suggestion. I wish to describe particularly the rights of minorities under the treaty. For instance the treaties laid down:

that nationals belonging to minorities shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense charitable, religious and social institutions, schools and other educational establishments, with the right to use their own language, and to exercise their religion freely therein.
And, further:
The obligation to grant adequate facilities in towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of nationals speaking a language other than the official language of the state, to ensure that in the primary schools (1) the instruction shall be given to the children of such nationals through the medium of their own language.
Then there is another clause which might be of special interest in a certain part of this country. It is said:
The treaties also lay down that in towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of nationals of the country belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities, these minorities shall be assured an equitable share in the enjoyment and application of the sums which may be provided out of public funds under the state, municipal or other budget, for educational, religious or charitable purposes.

Mr. LaVERGNE: Even when that minority is a majority in the district.


Ernest Lapointe: Exactly. The league has established, as occasion arose, minority committees, such as the one the right hon. gentleman has referred to, but apparently-and this may be the trouble of my hon. friend and his friends-their proceedings are kept secret. I remember having heard Sir Austen Chamberlain say that it was in the interests of the negotiations and of a settlement that the proceedings of the committee should be kept secret. On the other hand, the public at large cannot see what is the proportion of successes and reverses in the negotiations of those committees. I read somewhere that there have been three hundred applications from minorities and about one hundred and fifty investigations. I think at the last assembly, or the last but one, the suggestion was made-and there is a strong current of opinion behind it-that there should be a permanent commission dealing with those problems instead of roving committees, which are not stable in their character because it happens very often that the members do not attend and are represented by substitutes.
Now, there is another matter that I wish to mention. There are minorities elsewhere than in those countries which have come into existence by the treaties of peace, and on September 21, 1922, the League of Nations passed a resolution which I wish to call to the attention of the house. I remember Roumania, for instance, saying to the assembly: "Why should we be treated because we have treaties of this kind in a different manner from the other countries of the. world who are forcing us to observe the treaty clauses?" This is the resolution:
The assembly expresses the hope that the states which are not bound by any legal obligations to the league with respect to minorities will nevertheless observe in the treatment of their own racial, religious, or linguistic minorities at least as high a standard of justice and toleration as is required by any of the treaties and by the regular action of the council.
I think that was a very proper resolution to adopt. Even since that time there have been proposals to the effect that all the members of the Society of the League of Nations should have a treaty under which they would accept the clauses protecting the minorities in their respective territories. Those proposals are still before the league, which has not yet taken action, but some objectors represented that it might 'be very well to apply those clauses to minorities which have passed under another flag as a result of war or of diplomatic negotiations, but not to groups

Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. LaVergne
which might settle in a country of their own free will, and which necessarily must adopt the customs and the usages of that country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One is choice and the other is compulsion.


Mr LAPOINTE:: Yes. In this country, on various occasions we have had difficulties with regard to minorities concerning school and language. I wish to emphasize this remark which I have already made, that the French minority in Canada is of course composed of citizens who are loyal to the crown, who are proud and happy to be as they are to-day, but who have come under the British flag not of their own free will but as the result of wars of long duration, negotiations and treaties. Therefore I do not see why they should be treated differently from those various peoples in central Europe that have come into other nations by the peace treaties following the late war. The French in Canada have always represented that they have the right to their language, that they were the first settlers in the country, that they are at home everywhere in Canada; and certainly they resent any attempt, for instance to deprive their children of receiving education in their mother tongue. But even there, as is the case with regard to the treatment of minorities in the League of Nations, I know that coercive methods cannot serve any useful purpose.	It is through conciliation,
negotiation, weight of public opinion that this right-not privilege-can be successfully recognized and granted everywhere. Consequently when a member of this government finds it his duty to refer to a serious educational and language trouble in one province, certainly there is good ground for thinking it is a case where some arrangement could be made.
I repeat, I am in favour of the motion of my hon. friend-if it can be called a motion- that the weight of Canada's prestige and Canada's authority should be behind the move advocated by my hon. friend and that a full investigation should be made by the League of Nations. But after all we must set our own house in order everywhere in this country. We in Canada are members of the League of Nations, as we are in Eurpoe, and I think every one of the various parts of Canada should set an example to those nations to whom we preach moderation and justice.
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Montmagny): Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak at any length. I rise to congratulate the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) on his remarks. I am glad to find that, companions at university, we are still very close 22U0- 90.}
together in our older age. I think the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) was quite right in bringing this question before the house. Brought up to regard Poland as having been for so many centuries the soldier of Christianity, I must confess that it is a sort of heart-break to me to learn of the things that are going on there; and I agree with the hon. member for Quebec East that the prestige of Canada should be behind the claim of the Ukrainian people in this country for justice in the matter. But, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has said, inasmuch as the machinery already exists nothing can be done except for this parliament to pass a resolution asking for justice, as was done in days gone by when Ireland was in sorrow. There again, however, I agree with the hon. member for Quebec East. If we wish to instruct other nations in their duty in the way of justice to minorities, we should first put our own house in order; and we need not cross the seas, to Poland or Roumania, to find minorities that are suffering. We need not step out of our own country. To tell the truth, outside the province of Quebec, every minority in every province of Canada has suffered. Our position would be a rather sad one if we undertook to teach other peoples before settling our own troubles. As the hon. member for Quebec East has said, it is only by agitating and calling for justice, not by coercion, that we can settle this question.
Before concluding, I might say this. The dual civilization of Canada is the greatest gift Providence has ever bestowed upon any country in the world, and we must maintain it. And if I were an English-speaking Canadian I should be the first one to insist upon the maintenance of that dual civilization, because therein we find a guarantee for the preservation of our country. Therein lies the differentiation of Canada from the United States-our greatest safeguard for the maintenance in Canada of British institutions and the preservation of this Dominion from what, to my mind, is its greatest menace, namely, absorption in the melting pot of America.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



MINISTERS OF THE CROWN


[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River, for Mr Jacobs) moved the second reading of Bill No
Ministers of the Crown
[Stage Direction]
35, to remove the necessity of the reelection of members of the House of Commons of Canada on acceptance of office,
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) to move the second reading of this bill in his absence. I would ask the house to permit the bill to go into committee, when the necessary explanations can be given.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the mover of this bill should be present; I should like to hear from him on the second reading.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: In that case, may I submit that the alteration asked for by the hon. gentleman in his bill is that we should do away with an almost prehistoric piece of legislation dating back to the days of good Queen Anne. At that time there was a tremendous conflict between the commons and the crown, and it was the desire to prevent the continued usurpation by the crown of the powers of the commons that induced the enactment of the legislation which in its present form compels any individual member of the House of Commons selected for a portfolio to return to the electorate in his constituency or in some other constituency for reelection. No one knows better than the present leader of the government (Mr. Bennett) the difficulties entailed in this procedure. I have distinct recollection of instances during my short life in parliament where the best man available within the party was not elected for office because a majority in his constituency could not be ensured, and such has been the experience in all British parliaments. It is exceedingly unfair to a minister himself, very often a man of humble means, to be compelled to meet the expenses of an election even though at the time he be a member of the House of Commons. The point I would make in this connection is that no man whose ability commends him to the office should be passed over simply because his seat does not appear to be a safe one. If his abilities are such or promise to be such as to justify the appointment, that and that alone should be the sole consideration. It is unfair to the electors in the constituency to subject them to the disturbance of a byelection, especially if it comes shortly after the general elections. The only ones that could be interested in those performances would be the opposition.
Another reason which makes the present system unfair is that the person selected is diverted from his duties for the three or four weeks necessary to carry on an election at the very time he should be acquainting him-

self with those duties and familiarizing himself, in the case of many of the portfolios, with the tremendous work entailed in carrying them out. Moreover, in by-elections of this character it frequently happens that the person nominated to the portfolio is subjected to all sorts of pressure and induced to make many statements he would not otherwise make were he in office for some time studying its responsibilities and securing the well-developed advice of his colleagues.
Speaking on this very question in the British house, I think in 1926, Sir John Simon contended that perhaps one of the most serious aspects of the legislation in this respect was that very often a newly appointed minister during the period1 of such by-election forgot for the time being that he was no longer a pi'ivate individual and frequently gave voice to expressions regarding government policies that afterwards required denial on .the part of the ministry involved. That would be a most embarrassing situation for all parties.
A measure of this character would be of much greater value to a ministry with a small majority than to a ministry such as we have now facing us. For example, had this proposed legislation been on the statute book in 1926-I have no doubt the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) will raise this point-the ministry of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, had it so desired, might have retained office, constitutionally at least, for the continuation of the term of that parliament, whereas on account of the unconstitutional and illegal position in which they found themselves they were rejected by the house and compelled to go prematurely to the country. So far as we in this corner of the house were concerned, the result was that we lost at least one year in having brought into force certain legislation which at that time was exceedingly desirable. I refer specifically to the question of the revaluation of soldier settlers' land, and also to other measures such as the Long Term Farm Loans Act.
The present method, as is stated by Sir William Anson in his Law and Custom of the Constitution, causes needless and vexatious delay in the conduct of public business. It distracts the mind of the member selected for a cabinet position from the duties of his office and very frequently embroils the entire ministry in the particular by-election. I think hon. members will concede that all elections are annoying. If I were asked for my own choice in the matter, I would say that the most satisfactory condition of affairs would be one where the present personnel sat forever and simply swapped positions at the will of the

Ministers of the Crown
House of Commons. However, it is not likely that such a condition will come in my time, so I am compelled to accept the situation as it is and do the best I can to carry on.
I am willing to concede another objection which may be taken to this measure. There is no doubt in my mind-and I say this with all respect-that the present ministry even after the short time it has been in office could hardly expect to go back to the country today and be returned in anything like its present strength. We have not in the house at the present time a minister of labour, and sooner or later the present administration will in all probability be compelled to select such a minister. Should this bill be enacted at the present session and become operative immediately thereafter, it is quite possible that the new minister of labour would not have to submit himself to the electorate, and therefore the public would be denied an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the present administration. To offset that argument, which is a valid one, I submit that it is very rarely that by means of a by-election of the kind which would likely follow such an appointment any fair estimate of the general opinion of the public can be secured, because the person selected would no doubt contest a seat which from the experience of history it was felt would give a majority to the Conservative member seeking reelection on acceptance of the portfolio.
The one great objection which could be offered to this bill is one -which has been raised in other times, namely that its effect would be to deny to the electorate the power to give expression to its resentment against the type of administration which was then in office. But I submit that as our parliamentary term is only four years, sometimes not more than three, no great hardship will result; as a matter of fact in each constituency it frequently happens that local issues predominate and overshadow the issues concerning the general welfare of the nation. If it is contended, then, that the electorate would by such legislation as this be denied the power of expressing its dislike for an administration, I submit the only remedy would be to offer an election to the entire country and ask all of Canada to decide upon the minister's appointment. That, of course, would be absurd, and an utterly unnecessary expense. I think that disposes of one criticism that I can foresee against this legislation.
The present situation with regard to the Prime Minister himself is interesting. If the present Prime Minister of Canada desires to assume, as possibly he might, some further portfolios, under the present law as I read
it he would have to go to the country on the assumption of each of them. The hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) assures me that this is not the case. It was the case in Britain prior to 1926. In 1919 the first attempt was made in the British house to amend this legislation. At that time I think it was the Right Hon. Bonar Law who introduced the proposed amendment, which was in much the same form as the bill now before the house, the purpose being to amend the then existing legislation so as to provide that no member of the House of Commons, on being appointed to the ministry, need appeal again to the electorate. In the committee stage an amendment was introduced to the bill, providing that this should not apply after the administration had held office for nine months. I submit in this connection that nine months have elapsed since the election of the present administration bo office, and there would be little advantage in introducing the legislation unless it were to apply solely to subsequent parliaments, or to whatever by-elections might bake place in the next few years. Mr. Bonar Law, however, in accepting the amendment, used that expression which has since become a famous quotation:
Perhaps it is preferable to take two bites at a cherry. We will take the first bite now, and the second later.
The second and complete bite was taken in 1926 when the necessary change was again introduced into the British house, and I understand it passed at that time by a very large majority. The situation then was that the Conservative party in the British house had an enormous majority. The situation in Canada is that the Conservative party in this house has an enormous majority. But at that time Sir John Simon, I think it was, used this expression:
The position here is not as it is at the moment in Canada, where a ministry is poised on so narrow a ledge that considerations which are not necessarily consideration of the first order may have to determine exactly how to choose this colleague or how to refuse that.
Now the situation- -is reversed; in this country we have a Conservative government in power with a very large majority, whereas in the British house there is in power a Labour party tottering on the brink of compromise on every occasion.
Some extremists in -the house may point out that legislation of this kind would simply give to the executive powers or privileges that in the past we took from the crown. I am inclined at times to agree with those who criticize the present form of parliamentary government in this and other countries because of the tremendous and growing
Ministers of the Crown

power of the executive council. I cannot, however, see that the enactment of the legislation now proposed would necessarily in any way add to their powers in this house. What it would do in effect would be to remove from this country an anomalous and almost prehistoric condition that so unnecessarily hampers business and increases the cost of administration. Another hon. gentleman pointed out at one time that it would remove the only effective check over the executive by the electorate. I have dealt with that already. I do not think by-elections have ever been sufficiently intelligently conducted under existing conditions to bring into the light, as they would be brought in a general election, all the major issues facing the whole country; but they are decided for the most part on local issues.
I commend the legislation to the consideration of the house. I ask the house to give the bill its second reading, in the hope that it may be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. I hope the hon. member for Oartier will not condemn me too much if I do what I think he would do as a reasonable member of the house under the same conditions. I am not going to insist on the measure passing in its present actual form, but like Bonar Law I would be willing to take two bites of a cherry. If the time limitation were brought in the legislation could be introduced at once, in which case whoever becomes Minister of Labour in this house would have to submit himself to the electorate; thereupon the administration might receive a severe shock; on the other hand, it night not. I do not think any definite conclusion could be drawn from an election under those conditions.
The clauses of the bill are simple. All they do is modify the existing legislation in the direction I have indicated. The matter has received consideration in many parliaments other than ours. It is already, as I have indicated, enacted in the British house. It was enacted in New South Wales parliament in 1906. It has been in force in South Australia and New Zealand since the inception. It is also in force in Tasmania and in Queensland. The Union of South Africa like the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Irish Free State, have had it since the new constitution came into force. I ask the house to let the bill pass its second reading and then go, I hope, to the committee on privileges and elections.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not like to interrupt my bon. friend in his very able presentation of this bill. For

reasons that I need not go into now, I do not agree with him, but I think he is out of order.
1 cannot at the moment put my finger on the particular rule, but, you, Mr. Speaker, will no doubt be cognizant of the rule which states that the second reading of a bill must be moved by the hton. member who has charge of it. There is an exception to it in the rules which I have read quite recently, which says that in the case of an unopposed motion for the production of papers, it was arranged a few yeans ago by general consent that such, a motion might be made by proxy, but this does not refer to the instance now before us.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I understand the hon.
member for Comox-Alberni to object to proceeding with the bill now?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. The hon. member is
out of order, and any hon. member except the one in whose name the bill stands, is out of order in making a motion of this kind.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The practice has been,
when the member in whose name a bill stands on the order paper is not present, and another hon. member rises in his place in the house and says that he is authorized to act for him, to accept that.


Alan Webster Neill: But there is a rule to the
direct contrary. That custom applies only in connection with an unopposed motion for the. production of papers.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This is a public bill and it will go to the committee of the whole, not to any standing committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have had some conversation with the sponsor of this bill and my recollection is thait in the conversations I have had with him he intimated that his intention was that the measure should contain a limit of time within which its provisions would operate. In his absence it would, I think, be unfair to proceed with the bill, at least beyond the second reading.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I say to my right hon. friend that to-day about one o'clock the hon. member who sponsors this bill asked me to raise the question in the house. He discussed it with me at some length and he made no mention whatever of a time limitation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I quite accept my hon. friend's word. I hope that he will be equally prepared to accept mine when I say that when on more than one occasion the same hon. member introduced this measure when I was sitting on the other side of the

Ministers oj the Crown
house and when the iparty which I have the honour to lead was in office, discussing the measure together we repeatedly argued the point as to whether it would be in the public interest in a democratic country to take away from the electorate the right it now has of voicing its opinion in the manner which is afforded by a by-election, where a minister of the crown is being appointed to office for the first time. The argument, as I remember it, of my hon. friend was always to the effect that it was an absurdity for a by-election to be necessitated immediately after a government had been returned to office or during a certain period of time thereafter, but that there might be reasons why by-elections should continue to take place when ministers of the crown were appointed at some period of time considerably beyond that at which a ministry itself had taken office. However, whether that is his view or not, I should like as one member, on the second reading of the bill to say that it is the view that in the interests of the electorate of this country I myself entertain. I favour the idea of allowing a ministry, after it has been returned to office at a general election, to have its ministers returned by acclamation if they have been elected as members of the house. When hon. gentlemen opposite were elected there was no opposition put to the return of any of their members as ministers of the crown. Indeed, so far as the official opposition was concerned, we did not limit our withholding of opposition to members of the administration who had been returned to the House of Commons, but when the /present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) sought a seat elsewhere, so far as the opposition had a voice in the matter at all, it was used in persuading those in the constituency in which he ran not to oppose him but to allow him to be returned by acclamation, which he was. I think that a practice of this kind, where a new ministry is formed immediately after a general election out of members elected to parliament, is a good one to follow, but I think that there should be a limit of time within which the practice should apply. That limit originally in the case of Great Britain was nine months. I should think we might do well to follow the British practice, proceeding by stages. If we are to change our practice in Canada, let us do it step by step as was done in Great Britain, and amend this measure so as to make the new provision applicable to members of a ministry which has just been returned and to ministers who may seek reelection within a period of nine months thereafter. I do submit that there are very strong reasons
from the point of view of the ministry itself as well as from the point of view of the general public, why by-elections should take place where ministers who have not theretofore held office are brought into a government, especially where a government has been in power from one to two or three or four years.
The limit of opportunity of appealing to an electorate is fixed by statute at a period of five years. It might well be that within that period of time the public itself would wish to voice its opinion in regard to policies which have developed in the course of time during which the ministry has held office. Every by-election affords that opportunity to a degree and there is a special reason why that opportunity should be given where a ministry undertakes to change its complexion without having consulted the electorate in the first instance.
Then with respect to a minister himself, a minister of the crown has a responsibility very much greater than that of a private member of parliament. A member has a very special responsibility the moment he becomes a minister of the crown. An electorate may be prepared to support an hon. member of the house as a member of the commons, where the same electorate might not be prepared to entrust him with the additional responsibility that attaches to a minister of the crown holding a particular portfolio. I am saying that not in the way of reflection upon anyone who may be taken into a ministry at any time, but I say that it is one of those many safeguards which in the interests of the public generally it seems to me wise to throw around the office of a responsible minister of the crown and which I believe it is also wise to throw around whoever may be called upon to fill such a position. I am prepared to agree to the general principle of the bill, though limiting its main provision to a period of time; I shall not oppose the second reading. I hope the house will feel that in the absence of the sponsor of the bill, it might remain at that stage and that it will not be necessary to proceed in committee on its provisions this evening.


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to another point of order, Mr. Speaker, and in this case I have the data before me. I refer you, sir, to standing order 70, which reads as follows:
No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.
Beauchesne paragraph 744, comments on that standing order as follows:
If the Speaker finds that the bill is in blank or in an imperfect shape, he will decline to put
Ministers of the Crown

the question and will return the bill to the member, who must take another opportunity of bringing it up in conformity with the rules.
I now turn to page 348 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms where, under the heading, Rules of the House of Commons, I find this:
The rules of the House of Commons as to the preparation and printing of bills, adopted J4th June, 1923, must be followed by all departments. They are as follows:
Then follow five clauses, the first of which reads:
1.	In the preparation of bills amending existing enactments the amendments shall not ordinarily be made by clauses which add or leave out words or substitute words for others, but by clauses which reenact the section, subsection or other minor division, as it is amended.
This particular bill conforms with that requirement inasmuch as it strikes out two sections and replaces them with the proposed section. The second clause of the rules reads:
2.	In the text of the bill, on the left hand page, new matter shall be indicated by such typographical means as may best suit the varying circumstances of each case, such as brackets, italics, underlining, asterisks, etc. Opposite each clause, on the right hand page, the enactment amended thereby, or so much thereof as is essential, shall be printed with the proposed changes to be made therein similarly indicated.
That clause has not been adhered to. The amending bill reads:
His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-
1. Sections thirteen and fourteen of the Senate and House of Commons Act, chapter one hundred and forty-seven of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, are repealed, and the following are substituted therefor:-
As sections 13 and 14 of the old act are proposed to be repealed by this measure, it follows by the rule which I have just quoted, that t'he clauses to be struck out must appear on the right hand page, but all that appears on the right hand page is an explanatory note; very useful, but that does not conform with the rule. The explanatory note reads:
The British parliament has passed an act for the same purpose as this proposed legislation, in the Imperial statutes, 16-17 George V, chapter 19, assented to 15th July, 1926. In New South Wales in 1906, the rule of nonreelection was adopted, and it has always been in force in South Australia and New Zealand. It is now in force in Tasmania and in Queensland. In the Cape, the Transvaal, the Orange River Colony and Natal it was never introduced, and in the Union of South Africa, like the Commonwealth of Australia follows the same model.
That is very interesting information, and is highly useful in an explanatory capacity.

However, the rules say that the sections supposed to be struck out must appear on the right hand side of the page and in this instance they do not appear. No section whatever appears in that position. According to Beauchesne's rule No. 2 on page 348 of Parliamentary Rules and Forms, the bill is in an imperfect state, cannot be read, and should be returned by Mr. Speaker to the hon. member-who did not introduce it, by the way.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Referring to the point of
order raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) I am bound to rule that Bill No. 35 as it appears and is now in the hands of hon. members complies sufficiently with the rules the hon. member has quoted.


Alan Webster Neill: May I speak to the point of
order?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have ruled that the bill complies with the rules quoted.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Alan Webster Neill: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you have ignored the rule and that you have' decided absolutely against the rules of the house. What must we do if we do not have the rules upheld?


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Before the bill proceeds to a further stage I would like to make a few remarks, because I introduced a resolution a few years ago along the lines followed by this proposed legislation. This bill is really an innovation, and if passed would change a practice which has been in effect in Canada since confederation. When a similar bill was before the British House of Commons it was argued by some hon. members that the fact the British constitution could be amended showed its value.
There are many arguments which could be used for and against the proposal embodied in the bill. Mr. Dunnico, speaking in the British House of Commons, used the following argument against a similar bill introduced into that house:
Suppose a minister resigns because he feels he is not getting enough money to carry on his department, would it be right for the Prime Minister to put a man in his place without consulting the people?
That is one argument which was used against the change then proposed in Great Britain. Mr. Dunnico said that the bill involved an infringement on the rights of the electorate and a departure from the principles of democracy. He claimed that with all its faults and shortcomings, democracy would

Ministers oj the Crown
triumph, and that in the perfecting of democratic institutions lay the progress of the masses. He said:
We are the custodians of great traditions which we have inherited and we should pass them on not only unimpaired but strengthened in every way possible.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask a question? Does the hon. member wish to leave the inference that the British House of Commons is to-day undemocratic?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I am referring to the time that the bill was before the British House of Commons and quoting from the discussion which then took place. As I have said, there were arguments for and against the bill, and undoubtedly good arguments could be used on either side. Sir John Simon, Great Britain's greatest constitutional lawyer, said:
The change should be made, but it should not come into effect until after a general election.
He thought it was hardly fair to allow a member of a government which had held office for a period of nine months to be returned without going to the country.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I
remind the hon. member that this is the first regular session since a general election, and according to his last contention this would be the proper time to introduce such a measure.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: That may be all right, but there is an argument advanced against it. Supposing there is a vacancy in the cabinet; within a few months after a general election there is not much time for a change in the feelings of the people and the necessity of holding a by-election to return a member would not be so apparent at it would be three or four years after a general election. That was the argument used at that time. Another argument was raised in Great Britain with which we do not have to contend here. There the cabinet ministers are pensioned off; in this country we have not developed to that stage. In the old country this argument was used:	If an unscrupulous Prime Minister
saw clouds gathering and wished to have his cabinet secure, he might have all his cabinet ministers resign, let them all draw a pension and call in another cabinet.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: If the hon. member will permit an interruption, I would like to say that his information is not quite correct. As I understand the situation, cabinet ministers in the old country are not pensioned off, as a matter of fact they are not
pensioned at all. The great bulk of them never receive a pension, but there is a law under which an ex-minister of the crown may receive a pension if he requires it. Such pension, however, is in the gift of the Prime Minister. If the ex-minister of the crown has not enough to live upon and requires a pension he may receive it by appealing to the Prime Minister. It is not, however, given as a matter of course.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Except iD the case of the Lord Chancellor.


George Halsey Perley: Yes, the Lord
Chancellor might be the exception. However I would not say he receives a pension; he acts as the head of the privy council and receives an annual allowance. The ordinary member of the government of Great Britain is not entitled to a pension.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: My hon. friend should be well acquainted with the situation in England; no doubt he is an authority and well qualified to speak on this question. However, Mr. Williamson, who spoke in the debate to which I have referred, said:
In the old country a minister four years in the cabinet is entitled to a pension if he can show he is entitled to it.
I suppose that is the condition referred to by my hon. friend. It would seem from this statement that the minister would receive a pension if he needed it. Cabinet ministers are human, and it seems to me that they would not experience much difficulty in proving that they needed it.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. member is not correct. I think if he will search for the facts he will find that the great bulk of cabinet ministers in England do not receive a pension. It is only in the exceptional case that an ex-minister applies for a pension, and he must put his case before the Prime Minister before he can obtain it.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: At that time Mr. Williamson advanced the pension as an argument why the bill should be opposed. As the leader of the opposition said to-night, it seems very unreasonable that cabinet ministers who are selected immediately following a general election should have to go to the country for reelection, but after nine months have elapsed I think they should have an appeal to the electorate. If the bill goes to the committee I purpose saying something more on the subject.
Ministers, oj the Crown


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry I have not been here
during the whole of the discussion on this bill. I have heard only the last few minutes of the debate. I understand however that the right hon. the leader of the. opposition has stated that if there was a limitation, he would not be opposed to the principle of the bill. That is exactly where I stand in the matter. I rather think that after a general election it is a tedious and a useless process to go through by-elections to reelect the members who are selected to form the cabinet; but after a period of one, two or three years has elapsed, when public opinion may have changed, I do not think it would be democratic and in accordance with the best parliamentary practice and representative institutions that the Prime Minister should be able to select any member to enter his cabinet without having his selection endorsed by the electors of that member. For instance, I do not want to be personal in any way, but suppose my right hon. friend next year, or a couple of years hence, should select my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) as Minister of Labour, or for another department of his government, there is a moral certainty that the electors of that gentleman would not support his entrance into the cabinet. I do not think that this freedom of choice should be left to the Prime Minister without the people having a chance to pronounce upon it. Public opinion is what controls governments and parliaments, and we should not try to get away from that control, and thus deprive it of any opportunity to show where it stands after a certain period following a general election. I would favour the principle of the bill as far as it applies to the period immediately following a general election, that is, that there be a limitation.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	It may be very useful
even after a general election.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Moved by Mr. Garland
(Bow River) for Mr. Jacobs, seconded by -who seconds the motion to go into committee of the whole?


Ernest Lapointe: Nobody.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, did not the
leader of the opposition ask for an undertaking, and receive it, that if the second reading was passed the bill would remain at that stage? I oertainly heard him make that observation.
[Mr. MaoLean.l


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Mr. Speaker, I will
second the motion for committee of the whole.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Moved by Mr. Garland
(Bow River) for Mr. Jacobs, seconded by Mr. Campbell, that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on said bill. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. Next
sitting of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: All those in favour of
the motion will kindly say "aye." Those opposed will kindly say "no."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In my opinion the
"noes" have it.
Motion negatived.



REPRESENTATION ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Heenan for the second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Representation Act.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the house ready for
the question?


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: This bill, Mr. Speaker, is
really a most unusual proposal, particularly at this time. Here we are in the first session following a general election with the census being taken this year, with no likelihood-I was going to say no possibility-of an election for three years.


An hon. MEMBER:: There might be.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite agree that the
expression "no possibility" is rather too strong to apply to anything pertaining to human affairs-and we are still human; I admit that. But there is not much probability of an election for three or four years, and before that time there must 'be a general redistribution act brought in adjusting the boundaries of some of the constituencies, particularly those in which there has been a considerable increase of population during the intervening period. For us to pick out one riding and leconstitute its boundaries when there is positively no need for it at the present time would be futile. In the interim no one can be affected prejudicially, no interests are jeopardized, no one is suffering. This is just a delightful whim on the part of the very handsome and genial member now representing the district.

Representation Act


Mr. HEENAN:: If the hon. minister will
pardon me, this is not a whim; this bill was introduced last session.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That makes it all the
worse. The hon. gentleman was a member of the government last session and-


Peter Heenan: The opposition then opposed the measure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -he had around him then all the support necessary to carry his bill through, and he did not or could not carry it through; in any case it was not passed; there intervened a general election and now he asks us to adopt the bill. Really I feel that we can appeal to the hon. member's sense of fair play and decency in dealing with a thing of this kind not to push his proposal any further. I do not like to go so far as to say it is almost trifling with the affairs of the country-


Peter Heenan: I know the hon. minister
is sincere, but does he think it is really a whim or a trifle to enfranchise 600 men?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the hon. gentleman
is not enfranchising a single soul, as there is not likely to be any election prior to redistribution. There is not an individual in the country-and the hon. member knows it -who will be in t.he slightest degree affected by the rejection of this bill. I regarded it as a joke, but if the hon. gentleman is serious, let us consider it. Not an individual in this countiy can be affected by the bill.


Peter Heenan: How does the hon. minister know?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know a census is being
taken and I know this house-


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. minister
does not know what he is talking about.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the hon. gentleman
will permit me. A census is being taken, and until the resultant information is in hand neither my hon. friend nor anyone else in the house can do justice to the redistribution of the electoral districts. The census is under way, later we will have the necessary information, a general redistribution bill will be brought down, and then in the usual way a committee composed of members from all sides of the house will take the question up. It is not a trifling matter to change the boundaries of an electoral district; it is a serious matter. It may be that my hon. friend has some reasons to advance for seeking to change the boundaries of his riding, as I might advance reasons for changing the boundaries of other ridings, but if we proceeded on such a basis nothing but chaos would result.


Peter Heenan: I think my hon. friend-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Peter Heenan: I am trying to inform the house. If somebody on the other side knows all about my riding, there is no use in my saying anything.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the hon. member wishes to ask a question?


Peter Heenan: I wish to point out that
the purpose of my bill is not to change the boundaries of my riding, it is to incorporate a part of the country that is not to-day in any electoral district.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I apprehend what the
hon. member is trying to do, but it is certainly changing the boundaries of his riding. I am not objecting to his desire to incorporate in his riding certain districts which on account of the change in the boundary, if I remember rightly-


Peter Heenan: New found territory in Ontario.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. But the point I am making is that there is no need of doing it now. Let the matter rest until a redistribution bill comes down, which will be probably next year or, at the latest, the session following, when the whole question of redistribution will be under consideration by a committee of this house.


Peter Heenan: And suppose there is a by-election in the meantime.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member says, suppose there is a by-election in the meantime. Does he expect to be invited to become a minister of labour in this government? I recall that shortly after the last election there was a rumour about that Barkis was willing. But I would not-


Peter Heenan: No sir; and if there was a rumour it was on that side.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not at all; it was like a halo round the hon. gentleman's head.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: If you cannot find a minister of labour on that side we will lend you one.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If we want a minister of labour we know where to get one. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is both unreasonable and
Representation Act

unwise for us to consider this matter further. I will therefore move that the word "now" in the motion be struck out and that the words "this day six months" be substituted therefor.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Up to the moment that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) proposed his amendment I was inclined to feel a certain sympathy with him in the suggestions that this measure be not pressed unduly just at present. The amendment however does give to the action of the government a significance which I doubt very much the government has fully appreciated. The situation at the moment is this. There are in the district of Patricia six hundred people who have not the right to vote at a general election in Canada or in a by-election in the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River; they are disfranchised. A member of the government now introduces an amendment to this motion Which may make it impossible, no matter what circumstances may arise, to consider the inclusion of these six hundred persons as electors for that particular constituency should there be occasion within a certain period of time for any reason to consult the people in that riding.
I remember quite well the circumstances that occasioned the postponement of this bill at the time it was originally introduced by the present sponsor, the then Minister of Labour. We were just on the eve of a general election and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), speaking then as leader of the opposition, maintained very strongly that there was no part of Ontario where the people had not the right to vote. He said that there was no group of electors in Ontario who were not included in some federal constituency. That was the position he took, and he so advised the house. In that statement he was entirely in the wrong, for there were in the district of Patricia six hundred persons who had been included in the constituency under the Ontario Electoral Act and who had the right to vote in a provincial election, but who were not included in any federal constituency. The boundaries of the constituency as fixed for provincial purposes were narrower than those fixed for Dominion elections. There was not at the time opportunity to go carefully into the matter. The hon. member took the matter up at once at the next session and is now bringing it up again. The purpose of this bill as introduced by the former Minister of Labour, is like its predecessors, to make the boundaries of the
fMr. Stevens.]
federal district as terminous with the boundaries of the provincial district: in other words, to give all the people duly qualified in that Patricia area the right to vote in federal as well as in provincial elections. It was because of the immediate pressure of prorogation that the bill was not proceeded with before the general election of 1930 and as I have said it was not proceeded with largely because of representations which were made at that time by the then leader of the opposition.
I have in my hand a statement from the chief electoral officer submitted to the Hon. Lucien Cannon, at that time Solicitor General. It reads:
Ottawa, May 29, 1930.
In the Representation Act of 1924 the district of Patricia has not been included in any electoral district of the province of Ontario or of any other province. Therefore persons residing in the district of Patricia, which is situated north of the English river, are not entitled to vote at a Dominion election.
Jules Castonguay,
Chief Electoral Officer.
That means that there are at the present time at least six hundred persons who are disfranchised, and the amendment now proposes to make doubly sure that they shall so remain That surely is not in accordance with representative institutions; and whatever may be done with the bill, for reasons which may have to do with the census which is to be taken, I do submit that this house should not in the interval, seek deliberately, by a motion of the government to disfranchise six hundred electors in the district in question.


Mr. J. A. BRADBTTE (North Timiska-ming):: It is almost nine o'clock, and the time allotted to this discussion is therefore practically at an end; but I wish to say a word or two in the few minutes that remain.
I must say I was astounded at the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) towards a matter with which evidently he is not conversant. I heard the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) say last year that as the result of an operation her mood had been somewhat improved. I am afraid that this is not the case with the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has pointed out, there are at the present time in the district in Ontario now in question six hundred people who at the last election could not vote, and I can tell the Minister of Trade and Commerce that if he resided in northern Ontario he would hear some of the criticisms which are current there. The hon. gentleman's strongest ar-

Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Beaubien
gument against the bill now proposed is the fact that federal ridings are well defined. In the last election, I might say, as a result of changes which were made in West Algoma and in my own riding, two divisions were eliminated from North Timiskaming.
There is every reason for the adoption of this measure. We know that in most cases development in Canada to-day is moving towards the north.- Every riding in the south fringes on the American border, that the lines are well defined. But the same principle does not apply to the northern ridings.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It being nine o'clock, the hour for consideration of private and public bills has expired, and the house will resume in committee of supply.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Geneva-Canada's contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations for 1931, including Secretariat, International Labour Organization and Permanent Court of International Justice, $205,083.94.
Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I
congratulate the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) on the splendid presentation of his case to-day. We who form a part of any minority in Canada can easily extend our sympathies to minorities in other parts of the world, and certainly I can say this for myself, having lived in a section of Canada where the minority rights of Freneh-Canadians have been taken away one at a time. Knowing how the French-Canadians have been deprived of these rights, and realizing that this has retarded the progress of those parts of Canada where such rights have been denied the people, we can readily sympathize with any minority, wherever it may be.
Some controversy has taken place with regard to the atrocities alleged to have been committed in Poland. I have received a copy of a book entitled Ukraine-The Sorest Spot Of Europe, issued by the Ukraine Information Bureau. If the facts as related in this book are true, I feel certain that the best element in Poland, knowing them as I do in this country, would be the first to ask for redress. I received another book entitled Polish Library Of Facts-The Situation In Southeastern Poland ("Eastern Galicia"), published by the American-Polish Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Incorporated, in New York city, in which are refuted the statements
made in the other publication. The facts could be very easily ascertained, Canada, being a member of the League of Nations and a signatory to the treaty of Versailles, and having guaranteed protection to the minorities in certain component parts of Europe, should make every effort to discover the truth, and if such atrocities as have been described are being committed, do everything in her power to have them stopped.
The Ukrainian is a fine law-abiding citizen who has made a great contribution to this country, especially to western Canada. He is a good living citizen, the equal of any who come from other countries in central Europe. This matter should be investigated and I am glad the hon. member has brought it to the attention of the committee. I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) Secretary of State for External Affairs will do everything in his power to see that tho League of Nations takes note of this debate.


Milton Neil Campbell: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) has covered the subject matter of this debate so well that there is very little left to be added thereto. However, I intend to review briefly the history of this people from early times. From the dawn of history there has been a Ukrainian race, with its own language, its own culture and its own literature, antedating the Norman conquest of England. For ages the Ukraine was the battle ground of the east and west, between oriental and occidental, between Mohammedanism and Christianity, and it bore the brunt of saving Europe, of saving Christianity from Mohammedanism and from the Turks and Tartars. It was the King of Poland, John Sobieski, who drove the Turk and Tartar out of Vienna and saved Europe from Mohammedanism, and his army was composed largely of Ukrainian cossacks.
The province of East Galicia, which is under discussion at this time, is only a part of the Ukraine, the larger portion, as we know, being incorporated in Soviet Russia. In 1654 this particular part of the Ukraine was ceded to Poland by Russia. On the dismemberment of Poland in 1772 this' province fell to Austria and it was, as we know it now, the province of East Galicia in Austria. On the breaking up of Austria after the great war this state declared itself independent under the name of West Ukraine, but it had to fight Soviet Russia on the one hand and Poland on the other, and the state never had an opportunity to exist; it never enjoyed peace long enough to build up a government or to do anything for itself. Austria surrendered all rights and
1418	COMMONS
Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Campbell
interests in East Galicia to the allied powers under the treaty of St. Germain which was signed on September 10, 1919. The allied powers, including Great Britain, by the acceptance of that treaty became legally and morally responsible for the well-being of the people in that territory. On December 8, 1919, the supreme council of the peace conference laid out the boundary between West Ukraine and Poland, known as the Curzon line, which formed the boundary line between the states of West Ukraine and Poland. The very fact that that boundary was drawn up by the supreme council of the peace conference showed that the purpose was to give to that state self-determination; at any rate it was shown clearly that it was not the purpose to leave it under Polish domination. United States Secretary of State Colby issued a statement to the press on October 10, 1920, in which he stated that Poland must be an ethnographic state and nothing more, and that she must accept the Curzon line as her eastern boundary. This clearly proves that the allied nations had some responsibility in guaranteeing these people their self determination. However, in spite of the legal position in 1919 Poland forcibly took possession of the country and has held it ever since. May I quote briefly from an editorial which appeared in the Manchester Guardian of March 15, last, which reads in part:
When the Austro-Hungarian empire foundered the Ukrainians, like the Poles, the Czechs, and the Croats, proclaimed their independence in accordance with the principle of selfdetermination championed by President Wilson and by the allies, and, like the others, they fought to defend their newly asserted independence. But in June, 1919, the supreme council allowed the Poles to continue to occupy the western Ukraine, though expressly^ reserving the ultimate status of that region for future settlement.
I do not think I need refer to the treaty of minorities, as the Prime Minister referred to that matter this afternoon and the hon. member for Vegreville has covered it very well. This treaty was signed on June 28, 1919, between Poland on the one hand and the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan on the other and guaranteed full rights of nationality, language, race, religion and so on to all non-Polish races in the new Polish state. From that I would like to quote part of article 12, which reads:
Poland agrees that any member of the council of the League of Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the council any infraction, or any danger of infraction, of any of these obligations, and that the council may thereupon take such action and give such direction as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances.

This has a very direct application to Canada, because Canada is a member of the League of Nations and the action that it is proposed to take to-day is taken, I presume, under that clause.
It is not necessary for me to deal with the question of the alleged' atrocities, 'because that has been very well covered by the hon. member for Vegreville. The question is of vital interest to at least one third of a million of Canadian citizens of Ukrainian stock. That fact in itself is entitled to some consideration outside altogether of the humanitarian angle of the question and Canada's responsibility as a member of the League of Nations. The request that Canada as a member of the league should support an independent investigation into this question and let the world know the actual conditions, seems to me a very modest one.
This afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) mentioned that a committee was already dealing with this matter. I am not entirely clear about that. If I am wrong, perhaps the Prime Minister can set me right. My understanding is that that committee is dealing simply with the petitions; that is, that committee is not appointed to go into Poland and to make a thorough examination and investigation. If it is, of course the matter has gone as far as we can go now, but my understanding is as I have indicated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My information is that the committee dealing with the receivability of the petitions is one of the standing committees of the league. The committee consisting of representatives from Great Britain, Norway and Italy is dealing with the subject matter that we are discussing here today, and this country could not as a member of the League of Nations do other than insult the league by taking action when action has already been taken. I tried to make that clear this afternoon.


Milton Neil Campbell: I quite appreciate that. I was not dear on that point. My understanding was that the committee was circumscribed in its powers, and was dealing only with the subject matter of the petitions. What the Prime Minister has stated, however, would seem to clear the matter up to some, extent, and we hope this investigation will have some good results.


Mr. G. D. STANLEY (East Calgary):: It
is not my intention to prolong the discussion; I desire simply to say a few words of approval of the presentation of the case by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich). The Ukrainian people in Canada have made

_______ Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Stanley
good citizens. Three hundred thousand of them have come out to this country, most of them to western Canada, and the younger generation have certainly taken on their Canadian citizenship in a very commendable manner. I know many of them intimately and consequently I cannot help feeling a good deal of sympathy towards them in their case.
The League of Nations, as I understand the matter, have set down certain very definite principles dealing with questions of the rights of minorities. There is no doubt that the Ukrainian minority in Poland has certain definite rights. Those, I understand, according to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) this afternoon, are now under the definite consideration of the League of Nations and will be investigated. Canada has already selected her delegates who will go there with a knowledge of the situation so far as the Canadian people and parliament are concerned. The rights of the Ukrainian minority will be respected and looked after.
Canada is in a peculiar position in regard to the question of the rights of minorities. The soul of Canadian history and progress rests, I believe, to a large extent upon the manner in which the Canadian people have treated their minorities. Those rights have been respected from the earliest days of Canadian history extending down to more recent days, and particularly as applied to the very people of whom we are speaking, when they came out to Canada as a minority and became Canadian citizens.
It is not my intention to deal with this matter at any greater length. I simply wish to express in these few words my approval of the presentation of the matter by the hon. member for Vegreville, and also of the action taken by the Canadian government in respect to its representation at the League of Nations.


Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):: I have no intention of trespassing upon the time of the committee for more than a very few minutes. I am glad that the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) brought this subject to the attention of the committee for discussion and debate. I am glad, for two reasons, that he did so; first, because it afforded an occasion for the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to make to the house and to the country the statement he made this afternoon as to the present position of this question; in the next place it has given an opportunity to hon. members in all parts of the chamber, representing all sections of political thought, to show that we are of one mind in our attitude on this matter. After all, as the Prime Minister stated this afternoon, the only
sanction which international law possesses is the sanction of public opinion, and the more clear, emphatic and insistent public opinion is upon any question of international interest, the greater will be the effective power of those principles of international law which are involved. In no way can the public opinion of this nation better express itself than through the opinion of this house, especially when it is shared so largely by all political sections represented here.
I have no intention of going into the history of the Ukrainian people or the question of the rights of minorities. I shall do no more than deal for a few minutes with the specific matter that has been brought before the committee.
I am not concerned with the wisdom or the unwisdom of the action of the Paris peace conference in dividing up amongst four nations the Ukrainian people and the land which they inhabit. I shall not discuss the question whether the charges which are made and which we have heard to-day are true or untrue. We cannot in that matter arrogate to ourselves the place or the powers or the functions of a judge. For the most part, if not entirely so, the evidence that is brought before us, at least so far as the great majority of hon. members of the house are concerned, is hearsay. It is true that the volume of the evidence, the nature of the authority, the seriousness of the charges, and the sources from which they come, are such as to make it imperative that some action be taken, and I am perfectly certain that the house and the country will accept the statement made by the Prime Minister that action has been taken. As I understand the suggestions of the hon. member for Vegreville, all he had in mind was to call attention to the conditions and to insist that, they required some action, some investigation, without saying whether we believe the charges to be true or false. We are not in a position to say whether they are true or whether they are false. But we have a right, I think, to ask for such action, for the sake not merely of the Ukrainian people themselves but also of the Polish nation and the Polish government, whose reputation and good name have been called in question. If the charges are true, they should be proved to be true; if they are false they should be silenced. That is all we ask.
Action should be taken also for the sake of the League of Nations itself. A great many people in Canada and throughout the world regarded the institution of the League of Nations as a more or less utopian idea. They never conceived that it would be possible for the League of Nations to bring about any real
1420	COMMONS
Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Bury
results in the way of pacification or the settlement of great international questions and problems that might be the cause of war. But history has shown that the League of Nations is a practical force, not a mere utopian dream. For the sake of its own reputation and its own effectiveness, for the sake of the hopes that were based upon it when it was brought into being and the hopes that are still harboured in the breasts of people who have faith in its efficiency, it is essential that the League of Nations take action, and I have no doubt that it will do so. No aspersion is cast upon the Polish people by the house, by the people of Canada, or iby any of those who support the address of the hon. member for Veg-reville. The Polish people themselves say that the charges are not true, and they ask that an investigation shall be made. We are simply taking them at their word. We are only saying that even for their own sake everything should be made absolutely clear; that if the charges are false they should be proved false; that if they are true, then, for the sake of the good name of Poland itself, action should be taken to put an end to that which has occasioned them. That is the position I believe which most members of the house take. That is the position whieh I myself take.
I have in my hand a letter from the bishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Canada, a gentleman whom I know very well, and he gives me the assurance that the matter is one that does require very serious and very immediate investigation. This in itself would be sufficient to convince me that the matter called for investigation. I rose, Mr. Chairman, simply to say that I am in hearty sympathy with the feelings of my friend the hon. member for Vegreville, and I thank him for having brought the matter to the attention of the committee and thus given us an opportunity of expressing our views with regard to it.


Mr. HARRY BUTCHER (Last Mountain):: I also should like to join with hon. members on all sides of the house in congratulating the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luehkovich) on the very able presentation he has made to the house this afternoon of the case of the Ukrainian minority in Poland. I am quite sure that every member of the house will realize that the Ukrainian people of Canada and their compatriots in Poland have had a very able advocate to present their case here to-day. I have in my constituency probably ;hree or four hundred families of Ukrainians, and I have learned to admire them during my twenty years of close acquaintance with them.

I have found them hard-working, law-abiding, and very loyal. I was much relieved to hear from the lips of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that their troubles are receiving, or will shortly receive, the consideration of the council of the League of Nations, and I am sure we all hope that there will soon be a very happy ending 'to all their sufferings.


Mr. J. H. STITT (Selkirk):: I do not know
that I can add anything useful to this debate except to say this: I believe that every member of the house, every Canadian who is a believer in minority rights-and every true Canadian is a true believer in minority rights -is concerned for the peace of the world and the happiness of mankind. In rising to congratulate the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luehkovich) for bringing this question to the attention of the house, perhaps I can best do so by saying that he made such a splendid advocacy of his case to-day that he proves himself to be the best example of the virtue and the capacity of the many Ukrainians who are citizens of Canada.
There are many of these people in my constituency, almost seven thousand. Ju^t before I left the west to come to attend to my duties here I was called upon by a number of influential Ukrainian residents in my constituency, who pointed out to me the extremity of their compatriots in Poland. May I say this, without any intention whatsoever of taking any side on the question, or of giving the slightest offence to any citizen, that when considering this important matter we do well to remember that it was a single shot fired in the capital of Serbia many years ago which precipitated the nations of the world into the Great war. Possibly there is a situation existing in Poland at the present time which, if it were not taken in hand by the League of Nations, might again precipitate the world into a wholesale war.
I am very glad indeed to learn from the lips of the right hon. the Prime Minister that he believes that the best thing which this country can do in the matter is to press it upon the attention of the League of Nations. The League of Nations is the proper tribunal, in fact the only tribunal we have, to work out this great problem of world peace. I am sure that the Prime Minister's announcement will be heard also with satisfaction by the hon. member for Vegreville, who asked in a very reasonable way simply that there might be an impartial tribunal before which this very serious question might be adjudicated upon and determined.

Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. McIntosh
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Before this question is finally
dealt with I would like to add a few words to what hon. members on both sides of the house have contributed to the debate.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) bring up this question concerning the condition of Ukrainians in Poland. The condition in that country at the present time is described as the sorest on the continent of Europe. Before I left for Ottawa from western Canada, while visiting some of the portions of my riding where Ukrainians have contributed a splendid part to the opening up of that part of Canada, I learned that it was the intention of the Ukrainian organization of western Canada to have the hon. member for Vegreville bring this question before parliament. At that time I said that no better man could bring such a subject to the attention of hon. members of this house. After his address this afternoon that is still my opinion. He made a splendid contribution to the debate, and I am sure his words will be read with interest from ocean to ocean.
While the hon. member was speaking, I thought his words brought two viewpoints before hon. members of this house. The hon. member himself belongs to an organization of his own people which links his people in western Canada to the homeland. The family connection between one's adopted land and one's motherland is always important. Any minority which will allow that bond to weaken will soon be submerged, and such a weakening might not be for the good of the nation of which they form a part. I believe that a nationality to be useful or to do a great work in any land must remember its motherland and also must be true to its adopted home. I believe the Ukrainians in western Canada are trying to follow that sound course. Then I thought of another connection between Canada and Poland, where we are told there is great trouble. I refer to the parliamentary connection, the discussions taking place in parliament, the activity of the League of Nations and the work of the committee which has been appointed by that league to make an investigation. When this discussion is over and the resolution is accepted, I hope the action of parliament will serve to strengthen the hands of those whom we shall send from Canada to attend the meeting of the League of Nations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To what resolution is the hon. member referring?


Mr. McINTOSH:: The motion of the hoa member for-


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no motion.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Well, then his suggestion. That does not affect the meaning of the words I am using. I was stating that I hope the discussion in parliament will be as emphatic as possible and that the action taken by parliament will 'be of a definite nature so that our representation in the League of Nations will be in a position diplomatically and emphatically to present to that organization the viewpoints of the Canadian people. If that is done I believe the investigation will be as full and complete as possible. In the event of the future continuation of the investigation which is now being carried on the record of the action of this parliament to-day will be of importance.
At this time I wish to say a few words about the Ukrainian citizens who compose a part of the population of the North Battleford constituency. These people constitute quite a colony in that federal area. They came into the district about twenty-five years ago and I consider it my privilege to-night to tell the house of the worthy contribution these people have made to the progress of that part of Saskatchewan. The district into which they came was considered anything but favourable. It was very undulating, quite rough, and was not supposed to be first class wheat land. However they came in to that section of northwestern Saskatchewan without money but with determination, fine vision and the high qualities of pioneers. They have done well. They have opened up that area and to-day it is a very productive wheat growing district, with splendid mixed farming possibilities. It can boast of many beautiful homes.
They have a fine patriotism; they have a great love for Canada; they are loyal citizens to king, country and to empire; they are industrious; they are law abiding and they are anxious to get along in life. They are people of integrity and honour; they are not materialistic but have high ideals and do not seem to have any great difficulty in adjusting themselves to their Canadian environment. They are men and women of vision, and that vision has arisen out of their adjustment to new conditions in this Dominion. They are not foreigners, as some people have called them, but they are as good Canadians as we have in Canada.
In that particular area of Saskatchewan the inception of the movement for better organization of those settlers took place many years


[Stage Direction]
1422	COMMONS
Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. McIntosh
ago and the effect of that organization, educationally and socially, has been wonderful. To-day most of the schools in these districts are manned by Ukrainian teachers who are doing good work among the rising generation, a generation which will be worthy of its new Canadian home. One ambition on the part of every father and mother is to send one or two of the family to the higher institutions of learning, to the universities and colleges. Today the children of Ukrainian families are competing favourably with the children of any other class of people in western Canada. At the present time they are doing great work and we look forward to greater work being done in the future. Last night the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) made the statement that around the Maple Creek district there are areas of land which never should have been settled. And land broken up in a night would be breaking through a soil texture which could not be rebuilt perhaps in many years. I want to tell the minister that wherever Ukrainians have gone, whether the land has been rough or otherwise, they have broken through all difficulties. Whether it be to put fibre in the land, to build homes, to build educational institutions,1 to be thrifty and save money, to get ahead in life, to take part socially, educationally or otherwise in the building up of their country, the Ukrainians are on the job all the time and they can be thoroughly depended upon to do their work successfully.
I do not intend to go into the history of the Ukraine. The hon. member for Vegreville told us this afternoon that the Ukrainian people had a glorious past, that in days gone by they had a great and mighty kingdom, but that kingdom was overthrown, and from that time until the conclusion of the war in 1918 the Ukrainian people had never ceased their efforts to regain their lost sovereignty. But their hope that the treaty of Versailles would recognize their claims to self-determination were disappointed, and their country was included in the new Polish state, with the disastrous consequences to the Ukrainians that we have heard detailed this afternoon.
I believe it is the desire of all our Polish settlers in western Canada that the charges be investigated fully and that the good name of Poland be vindicated. On the other hand, our Ukrainian settlers feel that to a large extent their indictment can be substantiated, and they too want a thorough investigation, so that if they prove their case the League of Nations will take action and see that justice is done. But, Mr. Chairman, even if the present situation is adjusted in a manner satisfactory to the Ukrainians, I do not think it

will satisfy their aspirations, for they look forward to the day when their claim to selfdetermination will be recognized and they will become an autonomous nation.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I hope
the hon. gentleman will pardon me, but he is now advocating something that the League of Nations distinctly says should not be done. I speak simply as the representative for the mtoment of the League of Nations. To suggest the erection of an autonomous community within another is forbidden by the league, and I appeal to the hon. gentleman not to place this parliament in the position of being censured by the League of Nations by taking a position that is wholly at variance with the principles of the league and its statutes with respect to this question to which we have acceded. It is not a matter of order, it is a matter of debate.
Mr. MeINTOSH: I was not attempting to link up parliament or the League of Nations with that viewpoint at all. I plainly stated that that was the viewpoint of the best educated Ukrainians in western Canada, but I am quite willing to deal with the question in a limited way, if, as the Prime Minister has intimated, if it will help forward a satisfactory settlement between the two peoples.
The minorities treaty is quite definite on what treatment, ought to be accorded to the Ukrainian people. Article 2 definitely states that, there must be protection of life and liberty; article 7 provides that all shall be equal before the law; it is also provided that the enjoyment of civil or political rights, as, for instance, the admission to public employments, functions and honours, or the exercise of professions and industries, must be guaranteed; and article 8 provides that the Polish nationals who belong to racial, religious or linguistic minorities shall enjoy the same treatment in law as the other Polish nationals, and particularly that they shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense, charitable, religious and social institutions, schools, and other educational establishments, with liberty to use their own language and to exercise their own religion freely therein.
May I conclude, Mr. .Chairman, by expressing the hope that, when this question is brought before the League of Nations by the delegates from Canada, the report soon to be tabled by the committee of investigation appointed by the league will prove of such a nature that the aspirations of the Ukrainians will be realized, that harmony will grow out

Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Luchkovich
of discord, and that not only will the Ukrain-f ian people feel satisfied, but that the adjustments between themselves and their Polish fellow citizens will be of such a nature as still further to promote the peace of the world.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the item carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If we are through
with the discussion, before the item itself carries may I ask my right hon. friend just what the increase of $20,000 is for. The item
is:
Canada's contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations for 1931, including secretariat, international labour organization and permanent court of international justice.
There is an increase of $20,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The $20,000 increase, if the right hon. gefitleman will recall the circumstances, arises out of the construction of the new building .and a slight increase in the contribution, which is arbitrarily fixed. The whole question of the cost has been gone into from time to time, as he knows. The entire annual cost of the league started at $4,000,000 and it has risen since 1921 to approximately $6,000,000. That has not been regarded as a large increase having regard to the expansion of the work which has been undertaken. The new building has been perhaps a little more expensive than was originally contemplated, as buildings usually are, and the slight increase in our contribution represents that, as I have said. Generally the staff has not been changed. As my right hon. friend knows Mr. Riddell has represented us there almost since the inception of our representation permanently at Geneva. Lieut.-Colonel Vanier remained there until he was seconded to London a few days ago. His place has not yet been filled; the matter is under consideration. The provision that is made in the estimates contemplates there being someone there to do the work that Lieut.-Colonel Vanier attended to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has Lieut.-
Colonel Vanier permanently left Geneva?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has been seconded to London.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is he permanently associated with the London office?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not say permanently. He has been seconded to London and appointed to the position formerly occupied by Mr. Pacaud who has resigned.
22110-9U


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a fact that Mr. Pacaud has resigned?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Michael Luchkovich: Mr. Chairman, in
view of the many questions asked me by hon. gentlemen in the recess since six o'clock, I think it would be a good plan on my part to give some information to them, but before I do so I wish again to express my appreciation of all the speeches that have been delivered to-day on this question. Possibly in my presentation of the case I have been somewhat harsh, but that must be excused on the ground of the occasion and circumstance. When I came to Canada I was a boy of fifteen and I came alone. I hardly knew a single person in this country. And before I was fifteen I hardly knew that there were such people as Ukrainians in the world. I could not speak a word of Ukrainian.
I was asked to present the case on behalf of the Ukrainians in Canada, and the reason for that, I suppose, is that I am of the same descent. Many hon. members have discussed the subject to-day in a cultured and admirable manner and I should not like the opportunity to pass without congratulating them on the way they have presented it from their point of view. The hon. member for East Edmonton contributed a fine speech to the debate. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that the members of this house could not treat this question in any other than a spirit of fair play, for it would be folly for any hon. gentleman to make any appeal to race prejudice such as would aggravate or strain the relations between Poles and Ukrainians in Canada.
There is one matter to which I wish to refer, suggested by the remarks of the hon. member for East Edmonton. The hon. gentleman mentioned a letter received from the bishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Not the Greek Catholic
church, the Roman Catholic. ,


Michael Luchkovich: At any rate the
letter came from a bishop recommending a discussion of this matter in the House of Commons. May I state here that the former bishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church, Bishop Budka, is now in eastern Galicia, and in a report which appeared in the Chicago Tribune of April 24 I find the following :
Bishop Nicetas Budka, fifteen years head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church of Canada, who was transferred back to Galicia, told me how, hearing of the "pacification
1424	COMMONS
Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Luchkovich
measures," he immediately went to the village where his invalid mother had been bedridden for two years. He found her sleeping on the floor in the remnants of her bed clothing. She had been tossed from bed by the soldiers, who ripped it to pieces searching for arms.
From this, hon. members will gather that even the former bishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church in Canada has not been immune. If hon. members wish further information with respect to the technicalities and machinery provided by the League of Nations in regard to minorities, I suggest that they ask that very learned Canadian, Dr. Skelton; I am sure he would furnish it.
I would refer now for a moment or two to the manner in which petitions are presented and heard in the House of Commons. I was very much pleased to hear two great Canadian lawyers speak to-day on this subject, the right hon. the leader of the government and the former Minister of Justice. I do not know whether the right hon. the leader of the opposition is a lawyer, but I am under the impression that I have heard him on one or two occasions deprecate the fact that he was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very
sorry I am not.


Michael Luchkovich: I was glad to hear
the matter presented so ably from the legal standpoint to-day. Now I wish to read from a report of the 36th convention of the International Law Association, and I am going to read this because there is a good deal of suspicion on the part of minorities about the way the League of Nations treat minority questions. These minorities believe that the success of the league in dealing with such questions is rather on a par with the performances of the surgeon who carries out a successful operation, althought it is reported that the patient died. I shall read this report as I have it:
Thirty-Sixth Convention Of International Law
Association
Held at the house of the Association of the Bar at 42 West 44th street, New York City, September 2 to September 10, 1930.
Session of September 8,	1930, subject
"Minorities" (as reported in New York Times September 9, 1930.)
Jurists Ask Leave To Help Minorities
World Law Session Proposes Permanent Commission to Protect Racial Groups Finds War Peril In Unrest
Geneva's Handling of Dominated Peoples' Protests is Criticized
With a warning before them that the plight of minorities in central Europe was dangerous to world peace, the jurists of the International Law Association, representing a score of countries, called upon the League of Nations yesterday to create a permanent minorities' commission to protect subordinate racial groups and investigate discriminations against them.

Coupled with the association's request was a criticism of present procedure before the league in relation to the disposition of protests from minorities. Provision was not yet adequate for proper publicity on the findings in each case, the jurists held, and protestants had no opportunity to reply to an official defence presented by the government in question.
The -warning of impending peril in the makeup of the European map was enunciated by Dr. Paul de Auer, leader of the Hungarian Peace Society and counsel to the Bank of France. Despite the American slogan, "selfdetermination of nations," in the world war, the peace treaties had left a larger number of peoples living under foreign domination than before the war, he declared.
Sees World Peace in Danger
"Self-determination has not been respected," he continued. "Millions and millions of population have been simply transferred into other countries, incorporated in other states, without having been asked, without having been given the opportunity of self-determination by plebiscite.
"The atmosphere will not be clear in central and eastern. Europe until minority questions are satisfactorily settled. The present discontent of great masses leads to permanent uneasiness and is dangerous not only to the minorities but chiefly to the States to which they belong and to the peace of Europe and the world."
The request directed to the League of Nations was embodied in a report of a committee headed by R. E. L. Vaughan Williams of England which was adopted unanimously. A permanent minorities' commission of the league, the report says, could insist upon the preservation to minorities of such fundamental rights of justice and equality before the law as are set forth in the minorities' protection treaties.
_ The report also suggests that the commission should have power to investigate as to whether there are infringements of the guaranteed protections.
"It has been alleged," says the report, "that certain laws indirectly and in a disguised form affect minorities unfairly; that by certain laws a discretion is given to the administrative authorities who act in an arbitrary manner unfair to minorities; that there are no proper provisions for appealing by due process of law against administrative decisions; that minorities are not given their fair share of land under agrarian reform; that educational facili ties are denied to minorities in respect to their language; that the free exercise of their religion has been denied to certain communities in breach of the treaty rights.
"Your committee, while of course expressing no opinion, as to the facts alleged, feel strongly that it is for the good of the states concerned, no less than for that of the minorities, and in the best interests of peace, that such charges should be investigated in the manner above suggested."
To .buttress what has been said in this report I will quote an article which is very-pertinent to the question, as it appeared in the Manchester Guardian some time ago:
Amongst the Ukrainian petitions submitted to the league there was one drafted and signed by Mme. Milena Rudnicka, who is well known

Ukrainians in Poland-
-Mr. Luchkovich
in the international women's movement as a person of high intelligence, integrity and heroism. Amongst very many petitions sent in to the league since the "pacification" (as the Polish excesses committed in the Ukraine last October are officially termed) here is one of the few that have been carefully and intelligently drafted. It also included the most comprehensive record that has yet been made of the "pacification." 1 have referred to this report in a previous message-it is a document of about eighty pages of typescript, and is oi fundamental importance (it was included in the interpellation made by the Ukrainian members of the Polish parliament). Indeed, to disregard this document would be a grave if not a fatal omission in any inquiry into the subject.
I now learn that the league secretariat has formally declined to regard Mme. Rudnieka's petition as "receivable." So far six Ukrainian petitions have been declared "receivable." One of these six is a flimsy document by a Ukrainian resident in Paris. There is good reason to believe that some, at least, of the others are also badly drafted, and feebly provided with documentary evidence.
It is possible that the report embodied in Mme. Rudnicka's petition is embodied in one or more of the other petitions also, in which case it is too early to say that this report will not be dealt with by the league. But the fate of Mme. Rudnicka's petition is bound to raise grave doubts as to the way petitions are treated by the secretariat. The number of Ukrainian petitions sent in within the last few months grows into hundreds; to pick out a few of inferior quality that can easily be pulled to pieces by those astute people who are anxious that nothing may come of any Ukrainian petition would not be particularly high-minded. To say that this has actually happened would be premature.
Why Mme. Rudnicka's petition has been rejected is not stated. It certainly conforms to at least four out of the five conditions that were laid down by a resolution of the league council in September, 1923

 (1) that its purpose is the protection of the minorities in conformity with the treaties; (2) that it is not put in the form of a demand for a rupture of political ties between the minority in question and the state of which that minority is a part; (3) that it does not emanate from an anonymous or doubtful source; (4) that it contains matter which has not been the subject of previous petitions; (5) that it is drawn up without violence of language.
None of these five points has been left unfulfilled in Mme. Rudnicka's petition with the possible exception of the fourth. If a previous petition that had been declared "receivable" includes the eighty-page report then little harm will have been done. But if not, then Mme. Rudnicka's petition will have conformed to the fourth point also, for the report is new material. In that case the rejection of Mme. Rudnicka's petition would be a great wrong.
Additional facilities for the hearing of petitions by the League of Nations should be provided. There are four matters to which I would direct the attention of hon. members as pertinent and relevant to the case. They are as follows:
Woodrow Wilson's fourteen points.
Treaty of Versailles.
Decision of the Council of Ambassadors.
The Minority treaty.
Under the first heading I would refer to the following:
Number 10. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous development.
Number 13. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.
(Promulgated in address to congress, January 8, 1918).
Under the second heading, Treaty of Versailles, I quote the following:
Article 93.	.
Poland accepts and agrees to embody in a treaty with the principal allied and associated powers such provisions as may be deemed necessary by the said powers to protect the interests of inhabitants of Poland who differ from the majority of population in race, language, or religion.
(Signed, June 28, 1919).
This treaty is often confused with the minorities' treaty, but they were separate treaties although signed on the same day. The third document to which I desire to make reference, the Decision of the Council of Ambassadors, reads in part as follows:
The British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, signatories, together with the United States, as principal allied and associated powers, to the treaty of Versailles:
Whereas, according to the terms of article 37, paragraph 3, of the above treaty they shall establish the frontiers of Poland, not specified in that treaty.
I am reading only those parts which refer to the subject matter under discussion. The document continues:
Whereas, Poland has recognized that as Eastern Galicia, the ethnographical conditions make a regime of autonomy necessary;
Autonomy has been promised to the Ukrainians in the western Ukraine and in eastern Galicia. The document continues:
Whereas, the treaty between the principal allied and associated powers and Poland, signed June 28, 1919, provides in all territories placed under Polish sovereignty special guarantees in favour of racial, linguistic, or religious minorities.
I will not read the remaining paragraphs as they do not relate to this matter. That document was signed by the Polish plenipotentiary, Maurice Zamoyski at Paris on March 15, 1923. I will not quote from the minorities, treaty because it has been referred to already, not only by myself but by other hon. members. I would also like to quote an article by Mr. H. Wickham Steed. This appeared in the Review of Reviews of December 15,
1426	COMMONS
Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Bennett
1930, and presents such a good case for the Ukrainians that I feel I must read it. It i3 as follows:
The Case of Poland. In no country is the precise and impartial ascertainment of facts more necessary than it is in Poland, and no country has a . greater interest in presenting to the world an irrefutable case. Polish methods of repressing incendiarism and other acts of sabotage, of which sundry Ukrainian groups were guilty last Autumn in east Galicia, have been brutal to a degree which reasonable Poles are the first to deplore and condemn. While it may be true that these acts were instigated or encouraged from Berlin, the fact that they were committed justifies neither the neglect of the Polish government to remove legitimate Ukrainian grievances, nor its folly in playing into the hands of its enemies by dragooning whole Ukrainian districts. The folly was the greater because it strengthened the hands of Poland's detractors who lose no opportunity of declaiming against the Polish corridor and the Upper Silesian settlement. The case of the Polish corridor is far stronger than the public in western Europe and in the United States understands. Poland has nothing to lose by an impartial ascertainment of the facts concerning it and, especially in regard to the position of east Prussia. But Poland or rather the "Cabinet of Colonels" by which Marshal Pilsudski has thought fit to surround himself, chills many sympathies by the adoption of methods similar to those employed by the old bolshevist regime in Russia or by the fascist dictatorship in Italy.
This is all I have to say on this subject at the present time. May I conclude by again extending my thanks to all hon. members who have participated in this debate. The people who asked me to sponsor this presentation appreciate the opportunity afforded, and I extend their thanks to the right hon. the Prime Minister and the right hon. the leader of the opposition for helping to facilitate the discussion on the minorities question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, it is perhaps desirable that I should make two or three additional observations, not to trespass upon the time of the committee but rather to clarify a situation which I think has been somewhat obscured by reason of the fact that there is an earnest desire on the part of a large number of hon. members in this house to indicate their sympathy with a people so largely represented in their constituencies.
We might as well realize that this country is a member of the League of Nations and that accredited to this country at the moment are several Polish consuls. As regards the Ukrainians, as the hon. member for Vegreville pointed out, they are at present, so far as we are concerned, citizens of Poland. That is one of the difficulties which the house has not frankly realized.

When you begin to discuss the internal government of a friendly power, you are on very dangerous ground. It is not the duty of this Dominion to undertake to advise people how they should govern themselves. That is their business. On the other hand, there is an obligation upon us as a member of the League of Nations, and it is a rather serious obligation, not to reflect upon the other members of that league, and hon. gentlemen have been fair enough to realize that. The league having now undertaken a responsibility-and a very serious one it is-must carry it through, and we may find ourselves at the appropriate moment voting to determine what action the league shall take. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that an open mind should be kept with regard to these problems.
I certainly sympathize with the hon. member for Vegreville. As he said, he might be pardoned for taking a strong view with respect to this matter. Would one not expect him to do so? Would one not expect any young man who came to this country at the age of fifteen of the same stock as the people of whom he speaks, to have a strong view with respect to the matter? We know that under similar circumstances we would, and we expect it in his. There is a great difference between Canada and other countries on this continent in this regard. Under our constitution, if the rights of minorities are affected, recourse may be had to the courts. Barrett vs. the City of Winnipeg is the outstanding case on the subject. In that case the privy council decided there had been a prejudicial interference with minority rights with respect to education in the province of Manitoba. Later the privy council decided that the minority was entitled, under the provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act, to remedial legislation. There you have a tribunal which determined that rights had been taken from the minority and, secondly, that the minority had a right of redress under the constitution itself. That is where the position is not analogous to that of the Ukrainians in Poland, for it is not the constitution of Poland that is concerned, but a treaty made by the country to which they owe allegiance with other countries of the world. Thus far no international court has been set up that can by adequate and appropriate sanctions take effective action in cases of violations of treaties. In other words, the science of international law has not reached the stage in its development where a court of international justice, by its judgment, is able to decree and carry into effect a decree with respect to the violation of treaty rights by the government, over a portion of the population it governs.

Ukrainians in Poland-Mr. Bennett
There is the clear distinction. It is unnecessary to remind the house that during the last few years great progress has been made. There has been a persistent and continuous endeavour on the part of representatives of all democracies to ensure that some tribunal be set up that might not only have the jurisdiction to determine matters of this kind but also have power by appropriate sanctions to see that its decrees were enforced. That time has not yet arrived in our developement in international affairs. Perhaps later, during the discussion of the General Act, I may have occasion, to make a few observations, but at the moment may I again assure the hon. gentleman that the delegation which represents Canada at the next meeting of the league will do everything that can be done to ensure that justice-and who would not like to see justice attained and who does not know hoiw difficult it is of attainment?-is done alike to the Ukrainians and the country of which they are citizens.
I could not, of course, in the position which I occupy for a single moment, permit without at least some protest, anything to be said that would indicate that, the parliament of Canada was seeking by any intervention on its part to secure the setting up of a new government by a portion of the population of Poland. To do that would be ruinous to the position of this Dominion as a member of the League of Nations. If I might say so, I know from what the hon. member for Vegre-ville has said to me, he thoroughly appreciates that position, thoroughly understands the implications of it, and he has very well refrained from making that suggestion, except as it might be inferentially understood from what was said by another and not by himself in one of the quotations read into the record. That being the case, I am sure a very useful purpose has been served by this discussion. I trust not the least useful part of it has been that part which has brought home to us a sense of our own responsibilities and also, so far as it may be possible, by a country new in international affairs, a realization of what age-old conflicts, conflicts that are not a century but sometimes several centuries old, mean. Those who followed the history of the great war, and remember the battle between the Serbs and the Turks, will recall that in the opening sentence of the history of that time, we are reminded that the success by the Serbs meant victory in the conflict that had been waged for centuries. So it is that we have here age-old animosities, age-old difficulties that will not be solved in a single minute, and least of all by a new
democracy 4,000 miles away from the spot where the differences arise. If the discussion has brought to our minds that sense of responsibility, it has certainly been useful.
It has also been useful inasmuch as it has brought to our attention the fact that there are two sides to every question. When the hon. member referred to the pamphlet that .had been issued on behalf of the Ukrainians and in the next breath referred to the pamphlet issued on behalf of the Poles and their counter-allegations, he made the case complete, and we are not judges in Israel or elsewhere. Least of all are we judges of the conditions in Poland, because if we accept one story, we must arrive at one conclusion, and if we accept the other, we must arrive at a different conclusion.
As I said a moment ago, humanly speaking there is nothing so difficult to attain as justice, for it is not easy for any of us to think in terms of absolute righteousness and justice. In this instance we are not abrogating to ourselves the right to determine where justice lies between two contending parties. We can only say that men, women and children numbering 300,000 or thereabouts in this Dominion are interested in the welfare of their kinspeople in the land whence they came, believe they are not receiving their rights under the treaty that Poland made with the nations of the world, and ask at our hands that every possible facility be provided to make known the extent to which that treaty has been violated, if at all, and what would be the appropriate steps to take if it is established that there has been a violation of its provisions. That, I think, has been the result of this discussion. So far as the government is concerned, it will endeavour to the best of its ability to see that those who represent Canada make known the claims that have been presented so admirably, if at times with some feeling, as the hon. gentleman said, a feeling which we can rightly and properly understand, to those who have the enormous, the tremendous responsibility of determining the rights of contending parties in order that justice, the end aimed at, may be done to all.


Michael Luchkovich: Just a parting word. When I broached this subject first to both the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition, I told them that it was with no intention of putting something over parliament. I have presented the facts .as I got them from certain parties. Whether they are true or not, it is not for me to say. I hope that the committee of three will find out whether the allegations are right or wrong.
Supply-External Affairs

If they are wrong, I shall be glad to know it; if they are right, I shall be glad to know it. I hope they are right, but if they are wrong, I shall be one of the first to admit that they are wrong. With respect to my relations to Canada and my relations to the country whence my parents sprang, I should like to tell this house that my first loyalty is to Canada and I say quite sincerely to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of this house, that if those relations should conflict the Ukraine would have to be forgotten because I am first of all a citizen of Canada and to her I owe my absolute loyalty.


Mr. SPENCER:: Would the Prime Minister inform the committee on what basis the expenses of the League of Nations are allocated among the different members of the league?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The expenses were first determined on the basis of our contributions to the postal union. That was found to be very unsatisfactory, and now an arbitrary sum is fixed by a committee of the league itself. If the hon. gentleman so desires, I shall give during the discussion of some other item the exact contributions that have been assessed against this country since the day we first became a member of the league. I have not that information beside me at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Roads and Bridges
Des Joachims bridges-repairs, etc., $1,350.
Burlington channel bridge-maintenance and repairs-under contract, $16,000.
Dominion roads and bridges-generally, $7,000.
Edmonton-repairs to bridge, $2,500.
Interprovincial bridge over Ottawa river at Hawkesbury, the Quebec government to contribute one-third of cost of construction only, the Ontario government to contribute one-fourth of cost of construction and to pay annually one-fourth the maintenance costs- under contract, $122,000.
Kingston-wharfs and bridges-maintenance and repairs, $11,000.
Ottawa-maintenance and repairs to bridges and approaches, $6,000.
Portage du Fort-repairs to bridges, $1,200.
Repairs	to	international	bridge	over	St.
John river at Edmundston, N.B., $3,200.
Repairs	to	international	bridge	over	St.
John river at St. Leonard's, N.B., $3,000.- Total, $173,250.
Mr. BERTRAND:: With respect to the interprovincial bridge at Hawkesbury, would the minister give the date of the opening of the tenders and state when the contract was awarded?
[Mr. LuchkovichJ


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: The amount of 8122,000 is required to provide for the government's share of the cost of completing the interprovincial bridge now being constructed over the Ottawa river at Hawkesbury. An order in council was passed on August 5 accepting the lowest regular tender of Farley and Grant.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Up to what date were the tenders received?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not that information.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: What wages were supposed to be paid to the labourers on that work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The schedules are from time to time procured from the Labour department, and are attached to and made a part of the contract.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: There was a schedule
attached to this contract when it was awarded. I hold in my hand one of those schedules, and according to the schedule the wages to be paid to the labourers on that work were 45 cents an hour. Later, the contractor who was awarded the contract paid the labourers only 35 cents an hour. Complaints were made by the labourers from Hawkesbury, and after considerable correspondence had been exchanged between the Department of Labour, the Department of Public Works, and the interested labourers, an additional five cents was remitted to these men; which proves that a reasonable wage was not being paid to the labourers. Now they have applied to the Minister of Labour for the 45 cents an hour which they were originally supposed to get.
I am under the impression that this schedule which I have here, lowing a rate of 45 cents an hour, was even placarded on the works.
I shall not take time to read all this correspondence which I have here. I will simply say that the Minister of Labour wrote that he was fixing a rate of 40 cents an hour. This trouble over the wage rate has created a lot of uneasiness in the district. The contractors knew very well when they submitted their tender that they were expected to pay 45 cents an hour for labourers. Later on, as I said, the Minister of Labour decided that 40 cents an hour was a reasonable wage on this work. As the Minister of Labour has not a seat in this house I appeal to the Minister of Public Works. The contractor most certainly based his price, when submitting his tender, upon a labour cost of 45 cents an hour. The labourers received only 35 cents an hour, and later five cents an hour more was added.

Supply-Public Works-Bridges
There is an additional five cents an hour not accounted for. The labourer has not got it, and the labourers are asking themselves if the government is taking the part of the contractor rather than supporting the interests of the labourers. If that is not the case, where did this other five cents go to?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My understanding is that the rates are determined by the prevailing rate of wages in the locality where the work is done. This is an interprovincial bridge, and possibly there is some difference between the rate in the Province of Ontario and the rate in the province of Quebec. Such differences are adjusted through the Department of Labour. I can assure my hon. friend that the Public Works department sees to it, wherever complaints are made, that the provisions of the contract in respect to the payment of labour are carried out. The Minister of Labour is really the referee in the matter. He is the one to whom we refer and with whom we consult when conditions of this kind arise. I shall draw this matter to his attention and have it further investigated.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Before the tenders were called for, the Department of Labour sent a representative to Hawkesbury, and I believe he made an investigation and a report to the Department of Public Works. The report states the different salaries to be paid to the different trades or classes of labour employed. In the report attached to the tenders it is stated very plainly that labourers are to be paid 45 cents per hour.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know
whether they have been or not. If there is a complaint I suggest it be made to the Department of Labour; that department will take up the matter with the Department of Public Works and if possible have it adjusted.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I would not like to retard the progress of the item, but would the minister allow me to produce correspondence to show that they were not paid 45 cents?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should be glad if my hon. friend would furnish me with evidence that the contractor had not fulfilled his contract with respect to the payment of labour. We are in a position to investigate the matter, ascertain through the Department of Labour what has been done, and adjust grievances where it is possible to do so.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I think the minister ought to be satisfied that the price stated in the schedule to be paid to this class of
labour was 45 cents per hour. May I read a letter written by the contractor on February 20, 193.1 to one of the interested parties: Re: Hawkesbury-Grenville Bridge
The matter of wage rates for labourers on the above work has been determined by the Department of Labour to be forty cents (0.40c.) per hour.
It was fixed at 45 cents, and as I said a minute ago it was revised by the Department of Labour some time in February and placed at 40 cents.
You worked in 1930 a total of 5104 houra for which you were paid at the rate of 0.35 cents per hour. There is therefore coming to you an amount of 5104 hours at 0.05 cents per hour or a total of $25.52 for which you will find our cheque No. 5227 dated April 15, 1931.
Then there is a section of the letter which I shall not read. It is more or less of a personal character. Then, to continue:
Enclosed you will find duplicate receipt forms which we would ask you to sign and return to this office immediately upon receipt of enclosed cheque dated April 15, 1931.
The situation is that when the 5 cents was refunded each and every man was compelled to sign a receipt in duplicate so that he would not have any come-back on the contractors for the original rate. Before the signing of the receipt this contractor was sure that the Department of Labour would refix the salary at 40 cents per hour, instead of adhering to the first schedule on which they had based their price when they bid at the rate of 45 cents per hour. If these contractors bid having in mind the fact that they were to pay the labourers 45 cents per hour and if the labourers did not get the last 5 cents, where did that 5 cents go? I would ask the Department of Public Works if in that instance they are not especially protecting the contractors.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The rates for
labour are not based upon the estimates of what contractors propose to pay. They are based upon what the Department of Labour considers a fair and reasonable wage, and if the contractor makes his estimates too low, he is the loser.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I am not quite satisfied with the answer made by the minister. Supposing the schedule had been fixed at $1 per hour for labourers, would the minister suggest that the contractor would have fixed the same unit price to do that work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Again I would say to my hon. friend that we are not controlled by the action of the contractors. We are controlled by what is considered a reasonable, fair and decent wage in the locality,

Supply-Public Works-Bridges
and that figure we secure for labourers regardless of what the estimate of the contractors may be. I am sure if the contractor estimated his wages so much above the current rate he would not be the lowest tenderer. We have no way of learning what the contractor's estimate was, and we decline to be bound by it.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Does the minister say that in spite of the schedule providing for 45 cents per hour these labourers will have to be satisfied with 40 cents per hour because they were paid 35 cents in the first place and the Department of Labour requested a payment of 5 cents more? When the cheques were handed over for the payment of the last 5 cents these men were compelled to sign a duplicate receipt in order to show that they would have no further claim.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can only repeat that the Department of Labour is organized for the protection of labour.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is not protecting in this case.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In this case
whatever rate the Department of Labour has determined is reasonable and proper under the circumstances must be the schedule prevailing. On that basis payment must be made.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I want to repeat that
the schedule in the original contract provided for 45 cents.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No. The
schedule of the contractor was apparently at the rate of 45 cents. They were paid at 35 cents, and then as I understand it the Department of Labour raised the rate to 40 cents and they were paid on that basis.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was there not a schedule prepared and inserted as part of the plans and1 specifications when tenders were called for? If so, what was the rate therein set out?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There would
be a schedule prepared at that time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What would
the rate be according to the schedule?


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I hold the schedule
n my hand; it was 45 cents per hour.


Mr. DUFF:: Read it; put it on the record.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is that the
schedule which was attached to the contract and made part of it, or is it some other schedule?


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Of course it is the
schedule attached to the contract.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know
what was attached to the contract.


William Duff: Read it.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: This document is
headed Labour Conditions, and is as follows:
(1) No workmen employed upon the said work shall at any time be paid less than the minimum rates of wages, nor shall work more than the number of hours set forth in the following schedule:-
Schedule of Wages and Working Day Hours
Rates of wages
Trade or Class of Labour	not less than
Operating engineers	85 per	hourCarpenters	70 per	hourStone masons	
1.25	per	hourDivers	
1.00	per	hourFiremen	55 per	hourBlacksmiths	65 per	hourBlacksmiths' helpers	50 per	hourCement	finishers	60 per	hourCement	workers	50 per	hourCement	mixers	50	per	hourCement	floaters	50 per	hourCement	mixer operator.. .	.60	per	hourDrill runners	55 per	hourPowdermen	50 per	hourLabourers	45 per	hourDriver with horse and cart	5.00 per day
Driver with team and wagon 6.50per day
Truck driver	50 per	hourBoatmen	50 per	hourMachinists (repair men)..	.65 per hour
The minister will notice that labourers were rated at 45 cents per hour under the contract.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that signed?


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: This particular doeu-
' ment is not signed, but I am positive that it is an exact copy.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I have said already to my hon. friend, I will take the matter up with the Labour department and see if the contractors have fulfilled their contract and paid the stipulated rate of wages.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I thank the minister
and I hope he will take the matter into consideration, because there is a letter from his department stating that this case was discussed with the Department of Labour and that that department had made an arrangement regarding it. We claim that the later arrangement is not quite fair, because they have cancelled the first schedule of 45 cents and are allowing the men only 40 cents. The contractors first asked the labourers to accept 35 cents and on the Labour department insisting that the rate be 40 cents, the contractors required the men to sign a duplicate receipt for the extra 5

Supply-Public Works-Bridges
cents in full discharge of all claims, so that later they would not be able to claim the original rate.


Mr. VENIOT:: Is it not a fact that when
a proposed work is to be undertaken the chief engineer of the Department of Public Works invites the resident district or provincial engineer, as the case may be, to state the local scale of wages? Then if the scale is higher than that on which the cost is estimated, the estimates are revised before tenders are called for, so that anybody wishing to tender can ascertain from the district engineer what the wages will be and tender accordingly. If in this case they tendered on a wage scale of 45 cents, and are now allowed by the Department of Labour to pay 40 cents, they are making that much more profit out of the labouring men than they intended to do. I hold in my hand a specimen of the form sent out to the district engineer, and it contains this paragraph:
With reference to proposed wharf at so-and-so, please note the following scale of wages as set forth by the Department of Labour:

Then the scale is set forth for carpenters, blacksmiths, driver with horse and cart, driver with team and wagon, and so on, and there is a request to be advised if these rates will affect the estimates cost. So the man who tenders has every opportunity of finding out from the district engineer what wages he will have to pay under his contract. ,


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: If the minister is satisfied bo let the item stand so that he may investigate the matter, I will not deal with other objections for the moment.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot do
more than again assure my hon. friend that that matter will be taken up by the Labour department in the light of the terms of the contract, and justice will be done these men. My hon. friend suggests that we may be taking the part of the contractors. I assure him that nothing of that kind is being done; we feel that our first duty is to protect labour.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: The more my hon.
friends opposite say "carried" probably the further I will go. I think I have been fair to the minister. I have not given a single name, I have not tried to put anybody in the hole. All I have asked is that these labourers at Hawkesbury be treated fairly. If hon. gentlemen opposite are not satisfied with this method, I can do it otherwise.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go to it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: The minister says he is going to take the matter up with the Department of Labour. My reason for asking that this item stand for the moment in order that further information may be supplied the committee is based on this letter:
Mr. Romeo Bazinet, Secretary,
"The Bridge Workers,"
P.O. Box 73,
Hawkesbury, Ont.
Dear Sir,

I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 23, as regards the scale of wages in connection with the contract for the Hawkes-bury-Grenville bridge, I noted carefully the various points to which my attention was drawn. In answer, I wish to inform you that the stand taken by this department in the matter is clearly set out in my letter of February 13, and, in my opinion, the rate mentioned in that letter should be acceptable to the workers concerned.
This letter is written in French and signed by Mr. Ward, Deputy Minister of Labour. He states very plainly that a decision was given, that he reconsidered it again, and refers to a previous letter of February 13th.
Mr. D'UFF: Read the letter.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: It is as follows:
Ottawa, February 13, 1931
Mr. Romeo Bazinet,
"The Bridge Workers,"
P.O. Box 73,
Hawkesbury, Ont.
Dear Sir,-
I am directed by the Minister of Labour to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated on the 9th instant, enclosing copy of the proceedings of the meeting held by workers employed oh the construction of the Hawkesbury-Gren-ville bridge, as well as a list of the employees present at that meeting, and recommending to the department the wage rates which have been referred to.
It w'ould perhaps be of interest to you and the workers whom you represent, to know that not one single claim was received from the workers employed on the contract of the Hawlcesbury-Grenville bridge, while the work was being carried out, and that, in fact, no complaint reached us before many weeks had passed after the work had been discontinued, for the season at least. Long before claims were received the department on its own initiative ....
I wish to draw your attention to this passage for although it was stated that there had been no complaints, there had really been complaints made, as this part of the letter will show:
Long before claims were received, the department on its own initiative carried out inquiries, among others, one in connection with the contract aforesaid, following which it prepared a statement including the name of each worker employed, the total working hours, the rate per hour and total payments received.
Business oj the House

The lower rates mentioned paid, as it appears from the information gathered by us, refer evidently to unskilled labour.
In this connection, I should mention that as a whole the remuneration of unskilled labour in the province of Quebec is inferior to that paid Ontario. In the present case the contract refers to the construction of the substructure of the bridge linking the two provinces, the labour engaged in this work having been distributed as evenly as possible between the two provinces.
Moreover, we believe that there existed no drawn line as to work to be done by each of these two groups of workmen, and the work was equally interchangeable.
Under these circumstances and others, it is believed that 40 cents per hour is considered a fair and reasonable rate for unskilled labour and is higher, we think, than that paid at present either at Hawkesbury or across the river. We shall therefore see that each worker receives, in due time, a cheque covering the increase of the additional amount of 5 cents per hour for the period of work done by each one, that is the difference between the old rate of 35 cents and the fixed rate of 40 cents per hour.
With reference to information required as to the responsibilities of sub-contractors and rates for overtime, when the regular day's work is over, I must inform you that the rates fixed by contract apply exclusively to the work on the substructure.
A clause in the contract with reference to work fixes a maximum of 8 hours per day, however, no penalties are provided as to overtime work. May I, in this connection, point out that never during the execution of the work was the department apprised that the 8 hour day was not observed, otherwise we would have immediately taken steps to have the provisions of the contract, as regards working hours, strictly carried out.
Yours truly,
H. H. Ward,
Deputy Minister of Labour.
The deputy minister in this letter has fixed the wages, at 40 cents an hour whereas previously it was 45 cents; so that there is a difference of five cents. But as the hon. member for Gloucester stated a few minutes ago, when these tenders were put in the price was fixed in accordance with the wages which they were supposed to pay to the labourers. This schedule was attached to their contract. In the county of Prescott the contractors paid only 35 cents an hour, and of course the men complained. Now we find that the Department of Labour on February 13 fixed their wages at 40 cents. The reason the people are so greatly dissatisfied is that the contractors are able to make a profit of 5 cents an hour on all the hours of labour put in by the men. That 5 cents the labourers lose, and besides they are asked to sign receipts to say that they have no further claim.
These labourers have not been treated fairly and they are complaining. I tell the minister quite frankly that they are very uneasy about

it. They claim that the government is helping the big interests as against the interest of the labourers. I did not, wish to mention this, and if the minister had allowed the item to stand, on the understanding that further information would be provided, I would not have done so. I have not a copy of the receipt which they were asked to sign, but the receipts were made out in duplicate and were returned to the contractors at the time the cheques were issued. Some hon. member has asked whether I have a copy of the receipt which the men had to sign. I have not, but in the letter from the contractors to the labourers this statement appears:
Enclosed you will find duplicate receipt forms which we would ask you to sign and return to this office immediately.
Once again I urge upon the minister the importance of looking into this matter with a view to finding, if possible, some means of doing justice to the men employed on the construction of that bridge. I am speaking for the men from the province of Ontario; I am not speaking for the Quebec side. It is now practically eleven o'clock and I should be glad if the minister would undertake to furnish the information I have asked for.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I assure my hon. friend, as I have assured every hon. member, that I am prepared to give all the information available, and I cannot understand the suggestion that I am seeking to withhold anything. This is the first I have heard of this complaint and I have promised the hon. gentleman to take the matter up with the Department of Labour and try to get the facts and give them to him. I have no objection to the item standing, and have never endeavoured to press it through. I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, May 11, 1931