1933-02-22

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
Ho use of Commons Debates
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 22, 1933

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. C. MATTHEWS (Toronto East Centre) presented the first report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That on and after Monday, the 27th instant, and all subsequent Mondays and Wednesdays till the end of the session, government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except questions and notices of motions for the production of papers and private bills on Mondays.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I do not rise to
oppose the motion, but to ask my right hon. friend if he will allow it to stand until Friday? The reason I make the suggestion is that I know there are a number of hon. members who would like to speak on the resolution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and who have not yet had opportunity so to do. It is possible that that opportunity may be accorded to-morrow, in which event, as far as the Liberal opposition is concerned, we will be quite agreeable to having this motion carried. But, if that opportunity should not present itself tomorrow I would ask my right hon. friend.to permit us to have Monday of next week for that purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall be glad to let the motion stand until Friday. The motion need not now be put, Mr. Speaker. But I point out that Monday would not be a day on which that motion could be further discussed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would it not follow immediately after the private motions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As it reads it is "on and after Monday the 27th instant." We would have to make an exception of next Monday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On Friday, if necessary, I shall ask for the extension, otherwise not.
Motion stands.



RAILWAY COMMITTEE

Richard Bedford Bennett: That the name of Mr. Munn be substituted for that of Mr. Vallance on the select standing oonnnittee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a
statement with respect to Newfoundland. A similar statement is being made in the British House of Commons to-day, and in Newfoundland.
His Majesty has been pleased to appoint the following to be a royal commission for the purpose of examining into the future of Newfoundland, and in particular of reporting on the financial situation and prospects therein: The Right Hon. Lord Amulree, C.B.E., K.C., nominated by His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, chairman; Mr. C. A. Magrath, LL.D., nominated by His Majesty's government in Canada; Sir William Stavert, Ii.B.E., nominated by His Majesty's government in Newfoundland. Mr. P. A. Clutterfouck, M.C., of the Dominions Office will act as secretary.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: May I say that the other day
when my question came up with regard to the amount of bonds that Canada had guaranteed or paid for the Newfoundland govern-

World Economic Conference

ment, I dropped it expecting that the Prime Minister would give a statement in answer to my question. His statement to-day does not refer at all to that matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under questions I will
make a reference to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Regarding the
royal commission to which the Prime Minister has just made reference, does the commission issue from the British Government? It is not from our government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought I had made
it clear that it was issued by His Majesty in London.



WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

Richard Bedford Bennett: A few days ago the hon. member
for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) spoke of the desirability of members of the house being able to obtain a copy of the draft annotated agenda submitted by the preparatory commission of experts. I have looked into the matter since and with the consent of the house it is proposed to ask that copies be printed in English and French for distribution to members of the house. I have not made the motion to-day, in order that the leaders of the opposition might be able to determine what numbers they think should be printed both in English and French. I will make the motion on Friday in the light of the knowledge which by that time will have been received as to the number of copies thought desirable to print. Representations have been made that some hon. members would like to have a copy or two, rather than a single one, in order that they might be abie to discuss matters with some of their constituents.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CASGRAIN:: Are the statements issued by the radio commission at Ottawa published in French?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Dropped.
Question dropped.


COLONEL W. H. CRAIG
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has Colonel W. H. Craig, of Kingston, been appointed permanently or temporarily inspector of penitentiaries?

2.	If so, what are his particular qualifications for this position, and what experience has he in the management or administration of penitentiaries?
3.	Has the position been advertised by the Civil Service Commission?
4.	Has Colonel W. H. Craig applied for the position of warden of the Kingston penitentiary on the two last occasions when that position was advertised and was his application refused?
5.	Did he receive any preference for overseas service or otherwise?
G. Who recommended him to the Minister of Justice?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	The Civil Service Commission has issued a temporary certificate at the request of the Department of Justice for the temporary employment not exceeding three months from the 16th January, of Lieut. Col. William H. Craig.
2.	As the department has stated that it is necessary that the person filling this position should have some experience in auditing and accountancy, and as Colonel Craig is a chartered accountant, he was selected on the recommendation of the department to temporarily fill the vacancy. His application does not indicate that he has had any experience in the administration of penitentiaries.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes, and he along with other applicants was considered.
5.	Colonel Craig was entitled to the overseas active service preference.
6.	No recommendation to the Minister of Justice.


GENERAL W. ST. PIERRE HUGHES
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	When was General V>
. St. Pierre Hughes retired as superintendent of the penitentiaries?
2.	Did he retire voluntarily or was he asked to take his superannuation?
3.	When was a successor appointed; were applications asked for by the Civil Service Commission and was a board appointed by that commission to examine the qualifications of -the various candidates?
4.	How many applicants were examined and was there a rating prepared by the board of examiners?
5.	Who was the candidate recommended by the Civil Service Commission to the Department of Justice?
6.	Was there a list prepared by the Civil Service Commission of the various candidates according to their qualifications and order of merit for the appointment?
7.	What was the rank of General D. M. Ormond on that list?
8.	Was he the candidate recommended as first choice by the Civil Service Commission, and if not, why was he selected in preference to the others?

Questions
9.	Had General I). M. Ormond any experience in the administration of penitentiaries or prisons?
10.	What were his special qualifications for the appointment?
11.	By whom was he recommended to the Minister of Justice?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	August 1, 1932.
2.	Retired under Civil Service Superannuation Act on account of age.
3.	(a) A certificate of appointment was
issued May 12, 1932. Appointee reported for duty August 1, 1932.	(b) Yes.
4.	Sixty, and a report was made by the Board of Examiners.
5.	Brigadier-General Daniel Ormond, C.M.G., D.S.O. and bar, Croix de Guerre (French), Russian Order of St. Stanislas, third class, with swords.
6.	The procedure was as follows: (a) All applications examined; (b) applicants not entitled to the returned soldier preference set aside (eleven); (c) particular examination of qualifications of forty-nine returned soldier applicants, eliminating those not considered qualified for any reason such as age, physical condition, education, experience, executive experience, administrative ability, and so forth. This resulted in all but five candidates being eliminated; (d) five outstanding candidates considered; (e) a list was prepared containing two names.
7.	First.
8.	Yes.
9.	No.
10.	Special executive and administrative experience in important commands in the Canadian Expeditionary Force and, since the war, in commanding military districts in Canada; his legal training (having practised as a barrister before the war) was also of considerable value in filling a position of superintendent of penitentiaries.
11.	No recommendation made to Minister of Justice.


CRUISERS COLBOURNE AND CHOMEDY
Mr. HEENAN:: 1.	What is the total number of coloured cooks, stewards and firemen employed on the Vagabond cruisers, Colbourne and Chomedy, sailing between Canada and the West Indies?
2.	What percentage of the above are coloured Canadian citizens?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	The coloured ratings on each of these vessels consist of three cooks, seven stewards, and eight firemen, a total of 36.
2.	All are West Indians except the three cooks on the Chomedy, who are Canadians.
53719-150i
nickel industries


Mr. SPENCER:: How much control has the federal government over the nickel industries in Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think this is hardly a proper question. It is well known, of course, that all the nickel is mined in provinces that have control of their resources, though of course it might be possible for the parliament of Canada to pass an export act. It might be answered that the jurisdiction and control of the federal government are set out in section 91 of the British North America Act, but that answer would not assist the hon. member very much. I suggest that the question be withdrawn, because it would merely be answered in the way I have indicated. I do not want to be unfair at all.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Dropped.
Question dropped.


QUEBEC, MONTREAL AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY
Mr. TETREAULT:: 1.	Was the Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway purchased by the Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so, how much money was paid for this railroad?
3.	Who was it paid to?
4.	Who were the owners?
5.	How many miles of track were sold?
6.	How long was this railway operated by the Canadian National?
7.	Is this service discontinued on the whole of the railroad, and if not, on how many miles?
S. How much rolling stock was acquired with the purchase?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Yes; in accordance with the provisions of chap. 15, 19-20 George V (Canada) 1929.
2.	Six million dollars.
3.	To the Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway Company.
4.	The Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway Company.
5.	One hundred and ninety-one miles.
6.	Since July 16, 1929.
7.	Service has been discontinued between St. Hyacimthe and Noyan, a distance of 50-03 miles, and between Fortierville and Becquets, a distance of 4-7 miles, a total of 54-73 miles.
8. Locomotives	 14
Freight car equipment... 1,441
Passenger car equipment..	..	17
Work equipment	 18
Self-propelled passenger cars..	3
Total	 1,493
Questions


RADIO COMMISSION-COMMUNICATIONS
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are the communications, orders, directions and instructions issued by the radio commission to the various radio stations throughout the country, published in French?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The following information has been furnished by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission:
Communications, orders, etc., addressed to French stations are sent in the French language. Official news is prepared in both languages for the press. No general regulations have been issued, pending the renewal of licences in a few weeks, but will be issued in both languages.


GRAIN APPEAL BOARD
Mr. COOTE:: Who are the members of the Grain Appeal Board at Calgary and on whait date were said parties appointed?


Mr. STEVENS:: G. Hill, (chairman), appointed August, 1925; C. W. Roenisch, J. A. Harris, W. McLeod, E. .J. Munson, A. Pierson, appointed August, 1925; Willard Cumming, appointed October, 1925; F. T. Allison, appointed September, 1932; F. W. Mackenzie, (secretary), appointed October, 1930.


TIE CONTRACTS-ALBERTA
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	How many tie contracts were given during the fall and Avinter of 1932-1933 in the province of Alberta from: (a) the Canadian National Railways; (b) the Northern Alberta Riaihvays?
2.	To whom were contracts awarded?
3.	IIoav many ties Avere supplied through each contract?
4.	What price AA'as paid in the case of each contract?


Mr. MANION:: The Department of Rail-AArays and Canals has no information with respect to the tie contracts of either of these railroads. The Northern Alberta Railways are not owned by the government, but are jointly OA\*ned and operated by the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways.
The questions relate to the business administration of the Canadian National Railways, the management of which does not consider it in the interests of the railway, nor in the general public interest, to publish information the production of Avhich is not required of privately-oAvned railways.


EASTERN CAR COMPANY, LIMITED
Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Has the gOA'ernment participated in any financial arrangements respecting the recent purchase of 500 cars from the Eastern Car

Company. Limited, for the use of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so, Avhat Avere the terms of such participation?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	The order in question was plaoed by the railway, with the approval of the government, as an unemployment relief measure.
2.	It is subject to certain conditions such as rotation of labour and the spreading out of the period of employment by arranging that delivery shall not exceed eight cars per day. In addition, payment for the cars is required to be deferred until January 2, 1934, the company meanwhile to make its own financial arrangements.
.ADVANCES TO NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What amount, if any, Avas advanced by the government of Canada to the government of Newfoundland about January 2, 1933. to pay the interest on part of NeAvfoundland's bonded indebtedness?
2.	What Avas the total amount of interest owing by NeAvfoundland on or about that date, and the rate of said interest?
3.	What security has the Dominion of Canada for said loan?
4.	What are the terms regarding payment of said amount loaned by Canada, and the interest rate?
5.	What is the total amount of NeAvfoundland's bonded and other financial indebtedness?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The first of these questions Avas answered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) on February 7, at page 1874 of Hansard. The answer to the second question is as folioAvs:	According to the information
available the interest payable by the government of Newfoundland on January 1, 1933, amounted to $2,482,450, including $is0,000 for exchange. The rate of interest on the Ararious loans outstanding ranged from per cent to 6 per cent per annum. Questions 3 and 4 Avere answered by the answer to the first question. In reply to the last question, according to the information available the total external debt of the government of NeAvfoundland on January 1, 1933, Avas approximately S95,000,000.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. COWAN (Port Arthur):: Regarding oAvnership, management and control of grain elevators built at public expense: (a) Avhere are such elevators located; (b) who owns the said elevators; (c) by whom are such elevators operated:	(d) are such elevators
operated as public elevators or as public terminal eleA'aftors; (e) AA-hich of these elevators are operated under control of the Department

Motions for Papers
of Trade and Commerce and also under control of Department of Railways and Canals; (f) what elevators are managed by harbour commissions; (g) what was the cost of such elevators built at public expense and what is the capacity of each; (h) what was the cost of operation and the revenue for the last year that report is available for each elevator?


FISH DOCK-VANCOUVER
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	What was the estimated cost for the construction of the fish dock built by the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners at Vancouver, and was the original estimate approved by the Department of Marine?
2.	What amount was included in the original estimate for property charges?
3.	What was the total cost of the work when completed?
4.	Was any amount allowed for extras; if so, how much?
5.	Did the commission's engineering department make the original plans and specifications and what disposal was made of these, with charges made, and was the design radically altered for construction purposes?
6.	vVhat amounts were paid, and to whom, for any property damages, encroachment or otherwise, with description and cause, respectively?
7.	What were the dates of employment, amounts paid to, and the name of each person, in connection with engineering distributed as for plans and supervision outside the commissions organization, and on what date was work completed ?
8.	Who comprised the commission when this work was inaugurated, and who when completed ?


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. MYERS:: 1.	Is the government proceeding with the construction of the trans-Canada highway?
2.	What mileage of said highway has been completed since the present government took office ?
3.	When may we expect a beginning to be made in the Prince Edward Island section of this highway?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. GOTT:: For a copy of all letters and documents in connection with the investigation of labour conditions and employment on the international channel construction work in progress in the lower Detroit river, including the full report of the immigration officer, or officers, of the Windsor immigration staff, or other officials of the department making the investigation.



QUEBEC MUNICIPAL ACT

Mr. LAURIN:: For a copy of all correspondence between the Department of Justice and the government of the province of Quebec relating to the power of the Quebec legislature to pass the Quebec Municipal Act.



MAISONNEUVE, QUE.-POST OFFICE

Mr. JEAN:: For a copy of all contracts, letters, and other correspondence exchanged between the government and the city of Montreal, respecting the purchase of the old city hall of the former city of Maisonneuve, and the establishment of a new post office in Maisonneuve ward.



GENERAL W. ST. PIERRE HUGHES

Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a copy of all documents, reports, letters, telegrams, applications, ratings, recommendations and all other papers on the files of the Civil Service Commission and the Department of Justice concerning the vacancy created by the retirement of General W. St. Pierre Hughes, superintendent of penitentiaries, and the appointment of his successor. General D. M. Ormond, of Calgary.



ST. GEDEON, QUE.-WHARF

Mr. DUGUAY:: For a copy of the original paysheets for the month of June and the period extending from April 1 to July 15, respecting work carried out at the wharf at St. Gedeon, Lake St. John, in 1930.



DOCTOR J. E. BLONDIN

Mr. ROBERGE (for Mr. Dubois):: For a copy of all telegrams, complaints, correspondence, petitions, reports, communications and other documents, respecting the dismissal of Doctor J. E. Blondin of Becancour, county of Nieolet, as medical attendant to the Abenalds in that locality.



ST. ANGELE DE LAVAL, QUE.-WHARF

Mr. CHEVRIER (for Mr. Dubois):: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, petitions and other documents exchanged between the Department of Public Works and Mr. Maurice Carbonneau of St. Angele de Laval, county of Nieolet, respecting improvements and repairs carried out at the wharf in that locality during 1932.



J. E. LANDRY

Mr. FAFARD:: For a copy of all letters, requests, correspondence, complaints and other documents exchanged between the national revenue department and any individual, with respect to the dismissal of J. E. Landry, subcollector of national revenue at Matane, Quebec, in 1928.



C.G.S. ARRAS

Mr. MacLEAN:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, which passed between the Department of Fisheries or any member of the government, or any department thereof, regard-* ing the firing of a live shell by the C.G.S. Arras, at Cape Wolfe, Prince Edward Island, last summer; also a full report of the investigation held at Halifax, Nova Scotia, into this matter, giving a copy of all evidence taken, together with the names of all parties examined in connection with the said investigation.
Peace River Railway Outlet



PEACE RIVER RAILWAY OUTLET

Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River) moved:: older settled districts because of adverse weather conditions and have settled in this new country. These people have left the southern districts because of dry weather or because their land was blown out and they have endeavoured to establish themselves in this new country. I ask the government and the house: In view of the courage these people have shown in going out to start over again, can we say to them that we cannot afford to build the necessary railway? I do not think we can afford to say that, and I do not think we ought to say that to these new settlers.
I was reading the February number of the National Revenue Review a few days ago and I noticed the following on page 18:
A Sense of Humour Left
A prairie farmer questioned by an income tax inspector regarding his income over a period of years, wrote as follows:-"You asked about my crops for the last five years; well I'll tell you. In 1924 I was dried out; in 1925 I was hailed out; in 1926 I was frozen out; in 1927 I was blown out, and in 1928 I just walked out and I'm still out."
There are many people in the Peace River Country who went through similar experiences. They have settled in the park areas of the Peace River district in an effort to reestablish themselves, and I do not think that we should say to them that they must wait an indefinite time before they can get railway connection.
Many people will say that this will cost $10,000,000 and we cannot afford it. I ask the government to decide definitely what the outlet will be and then build it as rapidly as we can afford. There are many settlers sixty and seventy miles from a railroad and they have done everything humanly possible to prevent their becoming a charge upon the dominion, the provincial or the municipal authorities. In spite of all their efforts some of them have been forced to take relief, and I submit that if we had a plan, if we could decide upon an outlet and go at it gradually, we could give these people such relief as would permit them to become definitely established in this new country.
There may have been difficulty in the years gone by in bringing about railway development in the new districts of the north owing to the fact that because of weather conditions the settlers might leave the southern districts of Alberta and Saskatchewan where railways and roads were already established and go into the north. But I think the period of intensive development in the southern areas of Saskatchewan and Alberta is past and in the future will be in the sections of those provinces that are most like Ontario and Quebec where there are many trees and

enough shelter so that the rain when it comes will stay there and do good, rather than be drawn off by the wind; at least this will be the case until such time as tree planting can so advance on the southern areas of those provinces that we may have some protection against the wind. Because of that additional fact I submit that we can reasonably expect this development will be justified.
It may be rather difficult for hon. members who live in the older sections, and who can hardly travel twenty miles in any direction without crossing two or three railway tracks, to realize the position of settlers who have gone out into a new district sixty or seventy miles from a railway. It may be easy enough to pass the matter off by saying: "It is no concern of ours," but as a national duty the time has come when we ought definitely to deal with the situation'.
Some of the settlers in Peace River and a number of boards of trade have been passing resolutions calling for a bonus on grain for export out of Peace River. Possibly the fact that I was anxious for the continuation of the bonus on wheat caused some of them to think this was a good thing to ask for until such time as the outlet was built. They are asking that Edmonton and Peace River be put on the grain export freight basis. There is a difference of about ten cents a hundred in the grain freight rate from some portions of Peace River, for instance, Dawson Creek in the constituency of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), and a difference of about six cents in the central portion in my constituency. This would of course cost a few hundred thousand dollars a year, but I wish to bring to the attention of the government the fact that, pending the construction of the outlet, they are asking for this very thing. To-day the price of wheat in Peace River is twenty-four cents or less; it has been down below twenty cents. Before the adjournment last November I submitted to the house figures from government publications showing that on the best possible basis it cost about fifty cents to produce a bushel of wheat. Yet the farmers in Peace River are to-day getting about twenty to twenty-five cents a bushel even for No. 1 northern -and it is not all No. 1 northern, although I am pleased to say that a great proportion of it is. Even if Peace River were to be put on the same basis as Edmonton, this would not meet the situation in the newer districts. Therefore I want to bring the matter to the attention of the government again and to urge action with all the earnestness of which I am capable. I am not asking them to launch out on a huge program of

Peace River Railway Outlet
expenditure. I want the route settled and sufficient of it built in the near future to meet the needs of the present settlers with completion of it as soon as possible; but it is necessary that sufficient be built to meet the requirements of the actual settlement areas where people have come from the rest of the prairie provinces where they have been dried out or hailed out, and are anxious to establish themselves in new homes and to keep themselves from being relief charges on the Dominion of Canada.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the hon.
member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) I shall not take up much of the time of the house, although I assure him it is not my desire to give him a short answer. I should like very heartily to congratulate him on his activity in this regard. I have been in this house for a number of years and, indeed, for some years before he became a member, but since he has been in the house he has been persistent and consistent in his advocacy of the building of this railway. He deserves great credit for the active way in which he has worked for his great section of country, a new empire in the far northwest, and I say in all sincerity that I trust he will be long enough in the house to see his ambitions in that regard fulfilled.


Mr. HANBURY:: Perhaps his own government can have that done.


Robert James Manion: That is quite possible,
although I am afraid if he waits that long he will be a centenarian. I hope some day, possibly in the years to come, this government may be able to have this railway built, but at the present time, owing to the financial situation not only of the dominion but of the railways, this is not at all likely during the present year.
Last year, speaking on this question in reply to my hon. friend, I reviewed the situation pretty thoroughly, so that it is not necessary to go into it in detail to-day. I shall, however, just read the report which I put on Hansard of the three engineers who made the most recent investigation into the whole project. Their opinion is explicit; it is that of the Canadian Pacific engineer, the Canadian National engineer, and the third engineer who was appointed, I think, as chairman, so that it is authoritative. The three engineers were J. M. R. Fairbairn, chief engineer of the Canadian Pacific Railway; C. S. Gzowski, chief engineer of construction of the Canadian National Railways, and C. R. Crysdale, consulting engineer of British Columbia, a man who apparently was acceptable to all parties to the question at the time. The final summing up of their report is as follows:
In view of the above-
They had reviewed the whole situation.
-our conclusions are:
1.	No western outlet is justified for the present, as the existing railway furnishes the most economical route. It will take many times the present traffic to justify another railway outlet.
2.	The Obed route for western outlet is the most favourable from a railway economic standpoint, considering the present phase of the railway situation.
3.	We recommend that the matter of a final route be decided when the question is a practical one, believing that by the time the volume of traffic has reached a point where a western outlet is justified, general and possible local conditions may have materially changed. When the decision is imperative, the whole situation should be reviewed, in order to appraise all the contributing factors, including the potential traffic which may accrue from the lands beyond the definite areas included in this report.
These are the final conclusions of the three engineers who made the investigation, late in 1931, and whose report was submitted to us and to the house early last year. May I add that Mr. Beatty and Sir Henry Thornton at the time endorsed the report as it was submitted to the government and to the house.
As to my hon. friend's suggestion that it might have been better to build the Peace River outlet than some of the hotels and other unnecessary structures that were undertaken in connection with the railways, I would entirely agree with him. The total amount of money that was spent unnecessarily on duplication of hotels, the purchase of lines that were losers from the beginning, and the building of unnecessary steamships and the like, probably would easily have built the Peace River railway outlet which would at least have been no greater a loser than have been these unnecessary capital exenditures for the railways. That, however, is water that has flowed under the bridge and we cannot change the situation. Therefore with both railways at the present time earning about half the amount they did during the peak year, it is obvious that they will not change their minds in regard to the report which their engineers and Mr. Crysdale submitted last year. The best I can say to my hon. friend-and I say it in all sincerity-is that the day may come in the near future when world and Canadian conditions will so improve that this matter may be given consideration. I am afraid that I cannot go even to the formal extent of promising consideration at the present moment of any proposal
Peace River Railway Outlet

involving the expenditure of many millions of dollars upon a new railway, much as I should like to oblige one who has been a persistent advocate of what is from his standpoint at least a very worthy object. I appreciate, as I am sure the house does, his courage and persistence, but I am afraid that the best I can say in reply to his remarks to-day is that the matter will have to be given consideration when conditions improve; for the present, as I said last year, the question will have to stand in abeyance.


Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo):: I am sorry that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) has been unable to give a more satisfactory answer to the hon. member for Peace River ' (Mr. Kennedy). I quite understand the situation so far as the railways and the finances of the country are concerned, but I think a ferv words can be usefully added to what my hon. friend from Peace River has said with regard to the situation in the Peace River country.
I am speaking particularly of the British Columbia portion of the Peace River country, because after all it is a substantial part of the Peace River country containing the largest area of contiguous farm lands that there is in British Columbia, and the construction of a western outlet is very important to their development and the prosperity of our province.
I went through that area last fall, travelling a thousand miles in a motor car over roads where three years before there were no roads at all. The British Columbia government is entitled to a great deal of credit for the construction of the roads which they have built in that area, and of course that is their responsibility. I found scattered over the area through which these roads had been built a population in the British Columbia portion of the Peace River area of some 10,000 people, where in the year 1915 there were only about
1,000.	They are settled on both sides of the river, and the difficulty in crossing it is certainly a very great one. North of the Peace river itself there are about 4,000 people, located sixty-five miles from the present end of steel, and they have to transport their wheat by trucks over that sixty-five miles to reach the end of steel at Dawson Creek. At the time I was there, for No. 1 Northern wheat they were receiving only 24) cents a bushel. Since then the price has declined, so it can be easily imagined what the farmer on the north side of the Peace river, who has to haul his grain at least sixty-five miles, was receiving in return for his labour in planting and harvesting his crop.

I found in that area on the north side of the Peace river a class of people such as have been described by the hon. member for Peace River, farmers who had been dried out or hailed out in the prairie provinces and had moved in there. A great many of them had taken in what effects they had left, and you will find settlers there now with a couple of cows, some chickens and hogs,, and implements of one kind and another to carry on their operations. They are men who have been accustomed to all kinds of railway construction work, and as the hon. member has mentioned they are anxious to get work instead of relief. They have not been in the country long enough to bring their farms into production, and practically all of them are at present on relief, and there is no better prospect than that they will remain on relief unless work of some kind is provided for them.
As I said, these men are accustomed to construction work of all kinds. I spoke to numbers of them who had done all kinds of railway construction work. They are capable of doing it, and are anxious to engage in that work. I think that there is in that country a sufficient number of men, or nearly sufficient, without bringing in any help from outside, to construct the western outlet. When you have that situation, with the men there able and anxious to do this work, and when you find the government under the necessity of providing them with Telief for which the country gets nothing in return, it does seem peculiar that this railway construction work should not be provided during these times. I am speaking not only of this government but of all governments when I say that.
The engineers, as the Minister of Railways has stated, said that the question of the construction of a western outlet would be further reviewed when it was a practical one. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know when it ever will be a practical question if it is not one at the present time. You have a population there who are capable of doing this work, people who are anxious to work and who at the present time are receiving relief. Then as to the cost of construction, I do not know a time in the history of this country when materials of all kinds were at lower prices than they are now. These people, I repeat, have to be provided with relief in order to keep them from starving to death, and in these circumstances it does seem to me that some government should be able to take some step towards starting the construction of a western outlet from the Peace River country.

Peace River Railway Outlet
It is not as if this construction has not been promised to these people. It has been promised many times by all parties in this house and by the whole country. It is a very necessary work and some day will have to be undertaken. Notwithstanding the fact that the engineers have reported to the government that it is not a practical question at the present time, in my opinion it is one of the most practical projects there is in the Dominion of Canada to-day.
I have not much more to add. I regret very much that the government cannot find a solution of this problem, that they cannot, under the conditions in that area which I have outlined, bend their energies to providing for the construction of a western outlet for the Peace River country.


Mr. OLOF HANSON (Skeena):: This is
the third time, Mr. Speaker, that I have had the honour of supporting a motion in favour of this worthy undertaking. I was sorry to hear the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) say that the construction of a western outlet for the Peace River country cannot be given consideration at this time. I fully concur in the description which the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) has given of the population in that area, and of its possibilities and resources. Undoubtedly the work can be done, and most certainly it should be done. As the mover of the motion (Mr. Kennedy) said, I feel that the present time, when we are doling out good Canadian money to feed people who have no work to do, would be opportune to start a useful work of this kind, not by any means as a matter of charity, but to provide an asset for the Canadian nation at large. I therefore urge upon the government that most earnest consideration be given to this worthy undertaking and that if it is not possible to go ahead and complete the project at the present time, at least a start should be made and the work proceeded with as fast as possible. I know the resources of that country and its possibilities, and I do not think any part of this dominion has greater possibilities and more undeveloped natural resources than the Peace River district. We hear complaints at this time that people are rushing to the cities because they cannot find work. What we want is home builders. It has been explained by the hon. member for Peace River, and also by the hon. member for Cariboo, that many of the people there are people who met with misfortune in Other parts of the country, and seeing the possibilities, established themselves in a new district, and I think every assistance
should be given them. As the hon. member for Cariboo has explained, it is not a political matter, because these promises were made by both parties. I for one, representing a constituency that is interested, say that I will support any party that will give justice to these people, who have been promised consideration not by any one political party but by the Canadian people. This whole question has been so well outlined by the former speakers that I am not going to take up any more time, but I wish to associate myself again with the mover of the motion.


Wilfred Hanbury: Like my hon. friend the member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) who wishes to have the traffic from the Peace River country diverted to his constituency, the port of Prince Rupert, I must put in a word for Vancouver, because naturally we expect great benefit if and when this road is constructed. One thing on which I wish to congratulate the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) is in having at last acquired the courage to cease his dissimulation and the dissimulation of the government on this question. It is a peculiar thing that in respect to a policy on which all the people of the country agree so completely one of the ministers says that because of some peculiar condition that exists at the present time-which we admit, but which makes this particular object especially desirable-the government have decided definitely against the project. At any rate they are not camouflaging any further. It is almost useless to refer again to the many promises that have been made to these people. We all know they have been made, not by one party but by all; not only by the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he was Prime Minister, or when he hoped to be Prime Minister again, not only by the present leader of the government (Mr. Bennett) when he was leader of the opposition and hoping to be Prime Minister, but by all.
Now the people want work, and they want that outlet. There is only one conclusion that we can come to. It is not simply that the government do not want to spend money on constructing the railway, because the expenditure can be justified; the question is whether the government wish to discourage the growing of further quantities of grain. If the government would come out openly and say that is their policy, and that they do not want more people to go into that country, we might see more reason in what they say. But, as regards construction, we
Peace River Railway Outlet

have to-day thousands of people on the dole, doing nothing to earn what it is costing the country to provide for them. We have manufacturing plants eager for work to supply the requirements for the construction of that road; everyone in the country is demanding expenditure of some kind, and if there ever was such a thing as a self-liquidating enterprise, this is one. Having all these considerations in mind, the minister is to be congratulated upon ceasing further dissimulation. I urge very strongly that the house should not take the statement of the hon. Minister of Railways as conclusive in this regard. I think it is a matter that we should seriously consider, and I hope the government will reconsider the decision which evidently they have reached.


Mr. ALFRED SPEARMAN (Red Deer):: Having entered the house some years ago at the same time as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy), I have naturally heard him present his case a good many times in a good many successive years, but I have never heard him present it in a more masterly manner. I congratulate him sincerely upon his pertinacity, upon his determined activity on behalf of his people, and upon the logical and convincing arguments with which he supported his request. I do not live in that part of the country, nor are my people directly affected by the proposed railway, but as a matter of public policy it does seem to me that every argument is in favour of its construction; there is no sound argument against it.
Ten years ago this matter was considered. During the last ten years conditions have materially changed. At the time of the census before the last one there was a population of possibly 40,000 in that great area. To-day in considering redistribution we find that the population has practically doubled, that we have almost 80,000 people there. The conditions laid down ten years ago as being essential before the construction of this outlet should be undertaken have been more than fulfilled. The potential freight then suggested as essential before a railway should be considered has been reached and more than reached; the freight is now available. The people who have gone there, as has been said, thousands of them-yes, you might almost say tens of thousands of them-have made their last stand there. They were confronted with natural difficulties and handicaps year after year, and finally left the district in which they originally settled and moved out to a country where they know that as far as nature is concerned they will have their chance. They have made their last stand there, have driven

in their last stake, pinned their last hope upon building their homes and developing their farms and doing their part to build up their country.
I am not going to speak at length; I simply suggest that there is only one objection which can be or has been offered to the building of this outlet. So far as decision regarding the route the line should follow is concerned, I can only say that if that has not been decided upon by now, it is a grave reflection upon the skill, the intelligence and wisdom of those concerned; because, as the hon. member for Peace River has said, never have I known of any piece of proposed railway construction being considered so long, surveyed so frequently, taken under consideration so definitely and so persistently as this one. Surely every relevant fact must be known, every consideration must have been given weight to; and if the engineers have not by this time made up their minds, then it is about time we had other engineers. The only real argument brought against it is the financial question: Can we at this time afford to do this thing? Mr. Speaker, although I stand for every reasonable economy-I say reasonable economy-I believe we have here an investment which is more than justified, not only for the sake of the people of that country, not only for the sake of its future development; we have a situation where governments are straining every nerve to provide sustenance for the people, with 800,000 to 1.000,000 on direct relief, and everyone agrees that from the point of view of morale as well as from the point of view of investment it is much better to provide work for these people than to give them direct relief. Here we have a project which would meet all these conditions, which would at once provide work and sustenance for the people, and a means of keeping up their morale, would develop the country, fulfil a promise, and enable tens of thousands of people to build their homes and realize their ambitions. It does seem to me that at no time and for no project would a further addition to our national debt be more completely justified than in accepting this proposal and placing that part of this great country upon a parity with the rest of the dominion.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, coming from a
northern riding in Saskatchewan, I rise to support the resolution moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) and spoken to by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) and members on this side of the house. It would appear to me that this

Peace River Railway Outlet
railway requirement for the Peace River country is important, because those supporting it desire a transportation outlet to the Pacific coast, and having in mind the development of northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan during the last few years, I believe the importance of that outlet is assuming a value in a national way that it has not assumed previously.
I listened to the hon. members who have taken part in this discussion, and I also listened to the review of the situation by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). If I understood him correctly his policy is one of doing nothing for the present time, and he presented a very vague hope of action in the days to come. I do not know when something will be done with regard to an outlet from the Peace River district, but I should like to present very briefly the viewpoint of the people living in northwestern Saskatchewan who desire some line of communication into that great country. North BattLeford, Prince Albert and Edmonton look upon themselves as gateways to that area, and any question that concerns the development of the transportation facilities of the Peace River country certainly concerns the future of those three cities and of the increasing population in the great area northwestward to the Pacific ocean.
In that regard I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Railways and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to the pledge given by the Conservative party in 1930 when they appealed to the people of Canada, and I want to know why their transportation policy has not been carried out. I should like to read pledge No. 5 in their platform as it was presented to the people some three years ago:
We pledge ourselves to the improvement of the whole scheme of Canadian transportation northward by the completion of the Hudson Bay route, and the construction of such branches as may be necessary to render it most readily available to every part of Canada; to the Pacific slope by a Peace river outlet, and east and west by the development of the St. Lawrence waterways, and we pledge ourselves to aid existing traffic channels, and to increase port facilities on the great lakes, Hudson bay and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and to the establishment of a national highway system.
That is the pledge, definite and clear as crystal, made by the Conservative party three years ago, and I should like to know where they stand to-day with regard to it.


Robert James Manion: Has my hon. friend heard of the pledge made by his own leader in 1924?


Mr. McINTOSH:: I may deal with that a little later; I am dealing with your pledge now. If I did deal with the other pledge it
would not save the Minister of Railways at all. Never mind the other fellow; get down to business yourself and do something. The question is what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways are going to do about it.
I should like to come now to & phase of the question which concerns, directly, the development of northwestern Saskatchewan. In the northern part of my riding we have the remains of a railway which was projected by the Liberal government in 1930, and sanctioned by this house, and which should have been finished in 1932. That railway has been practically scrapped by the present government. I refer to the line running from St. Walburg across the Beaver river. We have sixty-nine miles of a grade for which this country has paid and which is crumbling to pieces. For the last three years practically nothing has been done; not a mile of steel has been laid. That line passes through a country containing thousands of people who came from southern Alberta, southern Manitoba and southern Saskatchewan; they are farmers who are really farming, and last year there was at least 150,000 bushels of grain produced in that district, yet nothing has been done to finish that line. The ties are there, rotting; the grade is there, and as we have said it is falling to pieces. I maintain that this is one of the greatest pieces of railroad bungling perpetrated by this government. These people are left high and dry without railroad facilities. The argument cannot be advanced that the line would not pay; every mile of line in northwestern Saskatchewan will pay, and therefore I say something should be done immediately with regard to that road.
The grade from St. Walburg runs through a fine mixed farming area. It goes from St. Walburg to Red Cross; from Red Cross to Loon Lake; from Loon Lake it crosses the Beaver river to Plat Valley and from Plat Valley to Goodsoil. Before it reaches Good-soil it crosses the Beaver river and runs northwest towards the Pacific ocean. This ought to be a very good time to have something done, while labour is cheap. The grade is there and the ties are lying beside the grade. All that we should have to do would be to purchase secondhand steel and lay it on that road; but even with this slight cost nothing has been done and thousands of farmers as well as hundreds of business men are without railway service into that country, notwithstanding the fact that they wrent there three or four years ago with the distinct promise of railway transportation for the purpose of bringing about the agricultural and
Peace River Railway Outlet

business development of that part of the province.
The steel could have been puit on this road a year or two ago very cheaply. There was relief camp after relief camp in the northern part of that countiy where men were sent to cut highways when in my estimation they would have been a great deal better employed had they been captained by two or three experts to lay the steel on the road. The steel could have been procured cheaply and that sixty-nine miles of road could have been completed. Instead of (that they were sent to do highway work wThich in a year or two will be useless, because the second growth of timber will render the work that they have done of no effect.
The Minister of Railways, in my opinion, should give the house a statement with respect to his policy on this road. He has stated a do nothing policy regarding the Peace River outlet and I understand there is not to be a dollar this year of capital expenditure on Canadian National railway construction in northwestern Saskatchewan. This means that if the Minister of Railways does not find the money the road cannot be built, consequently there is no use "passing the buck" to the Canadian National. We might as well know now where we stand. I should like to know, before this session concludes, from the minister just what the attitude of the government and of his department is, and whether they intend to provide money for laying the steel on this road, which otherwise will very soon deteriorate and become absolutely useless. I am satisfied that a statement one way or the other would clear the air, and the people of that northern area would know exactly where they stand in this matter. What has the Minister of Railways to say about it?


Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: I
wish to say just a few words in support of the resolution. For many years I have been advocating a Pacific outlet from the Peace River country. At the special session of 1930 I suggested that a good deal of work could be done in the form of relief, and the same situation exists at the present time. In British Columbia alone there are several hundred men in camps on relief doing practically nothing, and there are, I am told, also men in this condition in the Peace River country and in Alberta. I do not suggest that the government should spend a great deal of money in the way of capital expenditure, but these men have to be taken care of and I do not see any reason why they could not be put to work in the way I propose. The average man would rather do a little work than

sit around doing nothing and taking the dole.
I leave that suggestion with the government.
The people in that country must have an outlet some day or other, and they have been promised it. The late Liberal government as well as the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) promised this outlet, and there are good reasons why the road has not been built.
I suggest, however, that the government should take into consideration these hundreds of idle men who might be working on the road at no additional expense. The government must take care of them in any event, and I leave this practical suggestion with the government. A good deal of work which must be done some day could now be gone on with.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Usually we have been promised consideration of this question when it has come up, but on this occasion, if I understood the minister's words rightly, we are to receive no consideration.


Robert James Manion: I said that the matter
would be considered when conditions changed and finances would permit it.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Well,
possibly that is better, but I think that we shall have to undertake to change conditions; that is the point. I do not believe that the engineers are at all right when they say that the work will be proceeded with when it is practicable. I venture to say that no engineer has ever made a report that was not known beforehand to be acceptable to the government and to the two railways. I submit that the engineers have never in the last ten years taken a stand on this question which -has been justified by subsequent events; not one that I know of. They have been right in certain details but they have never been right in a large way.
I know of no reason why the Peace River country should have to wait until there is a guarantee that from the outset this railway will be a profitable venture. No railways have been built in Canada on that basis. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see my way to withdraw the motion. If the government wants to bury it, let them bury it right, and let the Peace River people know it. But if you want to go ahead and do anything, then the time is ripe for action.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will
observe that the resolution does not fix any time.

Western Freight Rates


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Possibly
the government will be able to accept it, then. There is no question about time; we want action this year. That is what we want. We have been promised action practically every year but we have had no real action with regard to the matter, and I think that we ought to know exactly where we stand.


Mr. GEARY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Merrier). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.	*


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I was paired with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted, I would have voted for the resolution.



WESTERN FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to 'the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). Is he now prepared to make a full statement regarding the reduction in freight rates? He stated the other day that negotiations were under way and that he was awaiting the results.
Trade Relations with Russia


Robert James Manion: The only thing I can say at the moment is that the four western provinces have agreed to the proposal and that arrangements are being made to deal with the question.



TRADE RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry Elvins Spencer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the government based upon the following Canadian Press dispatch:
Bona fides satisfactory to the federal government have been established and the syndicate is now prepared to conduct the trade without financial guarantee from the Canadian government, according to a telegram from G. G. Serkan. syndicate head, read at a convention of the AVest'ern Live Stock Union at Calgary.
Is the government prepared to give an assurance that there will be no variation detrimental to soviet products made in the customs regulations during the life of this proposed agreement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, that any hon. member of this house should ask such a question is amazing. It is part of the constitutional practice of this parliament, and all other parliaments as well, that no government shall give any assurance with respect to customs matters to any person or persons, corporation or corporations. I recall an incident which was recited to me in my early days by an old member of the House of Commons. He asked the Minister of Finance of that day whether or not a certain change in tariff would take place and the' minister replied: If I answered that question I would consider that I was unfit for this position, or words to that effect. No assurance can be given by any government to any person at any time as to how the administration of the country's affairs will be carried on in a given contingency which may or may not arise. The hon. gentleman who asked this question, undoubtedly with the best of motives, knows perfectly well, or at least he should know, that if I were to undertake to give an answer to such a question I would be derelict in my office and violating the duties of my position.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wilfred Hanbury: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire of the Minister of Railways and Canals
(Mr. Reid.]
(Mr. Manion) if he has any information to give to the house in connection with the proposed purchase or negotiation for purchase of the Canadian National Railways dock at Vancouver?


Robert James Manion: No, there is nothing to give to
the house. The harbour commission of Vancouver is in touch with the whole situation and there have been consultations between them and the Canadian National Railways. Of course, this is a matter which will be dealt with by the railway officials and not by the government.



PREMIUM ON GOLD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Olof Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government if it intends to continue during 1933 the payment of a premium to the gold producers of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The price paid for gold is the price
which the producers can obtain elsewhere, and that is all. I assume the hon. gentleman thinks that because his products are being sold at a lesser price than they can be sold at elsewhere, a lesser price should be paid to the gold producers than they can obtain elsewhere. The government has commandeered gold in the sense that it cannot be exported without a licence and it is purchased at the price which the producer could obtain for his product in other markets.


Olof Hanson: Is the government going to continue that policy?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I could not answer as to what
may arise in the future. I have already indicated to the hon. gentleman that no government can say what is going to happen under present conditions in particular, but the government at present is purchasing gold on the basis I have mentioned and so far has no reason for believing it will change the price that has been paid.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from February 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. AA oodsworth for the second reading of Bill No. 24, to amend the criminal code (unlawful associations), and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. ARMAND R. LaVERGNE (Mont-magny):	Mr. Speaker, I feel I must ask the
indulgence of the house in speaking on this

Criminal Code

Unlawful Associations
bill at this late stage of the debate, but having sperut a good deal o.f my life in addressing public meetings, I thought I should give the house the benefit of my general experience. I for one believe in freedom of speech and would certainly support the principle of any bill that would maintain or more clearly define and recognize such freedom. But the bill of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) goes rather far and I think we must come to a definition of what is freedom or liberty. Freedom, so far as I understand it, is not the right to choose between evil and good, between obeying the law and disobeying it, between supporting society and disorganizing it; it is the right to choose in favour of good and the power to renounce evil.
The bill of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre proposes not to amend what may be defective in section 98, but to do away with that section altogether. I would ask the house to look at the question in this way: Is there any hon. member or any citizen in Canada who is prevented by section 98 of the criminal code from expressing his ideas? I have spoken in this country for the last thirty years, sometimes on rather ticklish subjects, and I have not yet found myself in any jeopardy on account of this section. No man, whatever ideas he may have to express, whether they are the most conservative or the most advanced, is deprived of freedom of speech by section 98. This section has only one object and one we cannot avoid; it is to prevent the destruction of our institutions by force. You can go on the hustings, on the public platforms, just as you can do in Hyde park, London, under the protection of the police and express any opinion, and the law cannot touch you, but the moment you try to incite the people of this country by force, murder, arson, to overthrow our institutions, section 98 steps in. With the worldwide revolution organized to-day by Moscow, this section is one of the most important we have in our criminal code. There is absolutely nothing new in it; all the paragraphs of section 98 appear in spirit or in letter in the criminal code under different sections such as 47, 48, 130, 133 and so forth. I shall not take up the time of the house by quoting them.
The other day I heard the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) say that he was not a communist. I believe him. He stated that he had nothing to do with communism. I believe him. I believe him even more today when he is in Quebec fighting against 53719-151
the rights of the people and for the most trustridden government in Canada, the Taschereau administration. I would ask the hon. member for Quebec East, if he does me the honour of reading my remarks, to refer to the February issue of the Revue des Deux Mondes, which, in a report of an investigation carried on by Monseigneur Michel d'Herbigny into the most communistic organization in the world, states that the communist theory is this: Our best agents, those who do our work the best, are not those who are out and out communists, avowed reds, but those who say: Well, in Russia there is a sort of interesting experiment going on; let us watch it quietly and see what will come out of it. According to him, those are the best communist agents, and I am sure the hon. member for Quebec East, when he reads my remarks, will not be so keen to object to section 98, which does nothing to prevent freedom of speech in this country. Who can object to section 98? Not any members of this house who, like myself, have sometimes expressed theories which were not readily accepted by the people at large in the country. The other day I heard the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) saying that the communists and bolshevists hated the hon. members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. How could they, Mr. Speaker? How could they resist the hon. member, first of all? I have read-I do not know if I am correct, but I am sure that I shall be contradicted if I am wrong-that the hon. member for Southeast Grey not so very long ago spoke in Galveston, Texas, and being an advanced member with advanced ideas she spoke on the theory which goes back almost a century to Proudhon-property is theft; and using all that eloquence which we know her to possess she brought such conviction to her audience that that very night she was robbed of 870. I am told that the hon. lady member had a man arrested in consequence which was rather ungrateful on her part, because to my mind it seemed a splendid test whether the ideas she was propounding had carried conviction.
The hon. lady member from Southeast Grey says that the communists and bolshevists hate the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. How could they? How can they resist the hon. lady? Everywhere the world over we are faced with an agitation to prepare for the overthrowing of our civilization, and more than that, of Christianity, and these agitators have found their best friends in those who have said: Why not give them a chance to express their opinions? By word
[Stage Direction]
2372	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
of mouth? No, by force, by organized revolution, forcing their opinions down our throats, not excepting even babies' throats deprived of milk.
But I go further. How could they hate the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation? If I understand aright, the organizer of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Canada is Mr. George Williams of Saskatchewan, and I say before this house, without fear of contradiction, that Mr. George Williams is a paid agent of Moscow. I think I heard a murmur of dissent. I am going to give my authority. I read in La Revue des Deux Mondes, which is the most important magazine published on the European continent, an article under the signature of Michel D'Herbigny, who has been making, on the Pope's demand, an investigation of communist activities throughout the world. The article appears in the volume dated February 1, 1933, the 103rd year of the magazine, at page 600. I will read it in French, and then translate it as best I can afterwards:
En dehors des grandes capifcales ils travaillent aussi dans lea immenses plaines de POuest eana-dien, prineipalement dans la Saskatchewan. L'organisateur du parti y fut Georges Williams, aneien president de l'Union des fermiere. Invite k un voyage en U.R.S.S., il en revint plein d'admiration pour ile plan quinquennal. Dans le journal des petits fermiers. The Western Producer, tout en menant, suit out depuis le debut de 1932, une campagne active pour proner la revolution, Georges Williams evite et recommande d'eviter dans le langage tout ce qui amenerait une application du paragraphe 98 du Code cri-minel...
He praises municipal and state ownership, etc., and the suppression of " religious obstacles."
I will now translate it for the benefit of some of my colleagues:
Outside of the great capitals the communists work also in the immense prairies of the Canadian west, principally in Saskatchewan. The organizer of the parity was Mr. George Williams, ex-president of the Farmers' Union. Tnvited on a little trip through the U.S.S.R., he came back thrilled with admiration for the quinquennial plan, and in the newspaper of the small farmers, the Western Producer, he has been advocating, especially since 1932. an active campaign to prepare for revolution. Mr. George Williams avoids and recommends the avoidance of the use of any language which may bring an application of section 98 of the criminal code.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Would the hon.
member permit a question?
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Certainly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Has he any authority whatever for saying that Mr. George Williams is the organizer of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Saskatchewan?


Mr. TURNBULL:: You tell us what he is.

Mr. LaVERGNE:	It is a fair question,
and I will give a fair answer. Personally I have no authority, but I have stated it twice to my hon. friend, about a week ago and again to-day, and he has not denied it before now.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I want to
deny it now. He is on the executive. Further than that, may I say that I have again and again heard Mr. Williams denounce the communist party and say that we do .not want Russia set up here.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I must accept my hon.
friend's denial, but I am only sorry for himself and his party that he did not deny it a week ago.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know
whether the Deputy Speaker was in the chair at the time, but-


Mr. GUTHRIE:: What about order, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. SPEAKER:: If the hon. member who
has the floor resumes his seat and allows an interruption, I do not think the Speaker can prevent it.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I have no objection at all, Mr. Speaker. I want to be fair. I do not disguise my colours. I do not hide behind theories which have worked the world over in the same way-in Spain, in Mexico, in Russia, and in France. In France we had Danton, and before Danton, Mirabeau and Lafayette, and Les Girondins before Robespierre. In Russia there was Kerensky; in Spain, Maura. Always, the world over, there was somebody who half opened the door, and then the revolution rushed in.
In this country, and here perhaps I may be contradicting the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), I am sorry to say that there are some Anglo-Saxon names in the list of communists. The Minister of Justice had the pride, the honesty-how shall I call it?-the pudeur, not to give names in the house the other day, but as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, and I believe I can speak in the name of my fellow compatriots of the English speaking race also, we are not going to be tricked. A wink is as good as a nod; we know that there is an agitation on foot to destroy our institutions in this country by a revolution, and under those circumstances I say, Mr. Speaker, that we need section 98 of the criminal code more than we ever did.
I challenge hon. members to your extreme left, Mr. Speaker, to say where, when and how section 98 can prevent any honest man from expressing honest opinions. I have had

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
some experience in criminal courts; I have perhaps pleaded for more communists than anybody else, and I know they have always had a fair trial, even those who were deported, because no man can be deported from this country without the benefit of habeas corpus if he wants it, and being brought before a judge. My experience as a lawyer is that they always want to avoid a judge. Examples have been quoted in this house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre of men who have been here for twenty years and without becoming naturalized, and were suddenly surprised to find themselves deported. I just wonder what they did during the twenty years in Canada when they did not have time to be naturalized. And I am very much surprised at the hatred they displayed of the idea of going back to their home country. If Russia is that perfect earthly paradise that it is represented to be, they should be delighted to go bade-a free trip. But not at all. But it is said: "Oh, they cannot plead." Even in Halifax they or anybody can ask for habeas corpus. They can even be taken back and brought before a judge in Calgary or Winnipeg, but it is very curious how they always avoid that procedure. Not more than three months ago I was consulted by a young lawyer in Quebec who said: "It is extraordinary, but some of these men being deported have a huge amount of money; would you act as counsel?" I said: "I do not see why I should not; a man is entitled to a trial, to habeas corpus." "Oh," they say, "they do not want that; they are willing to pay anything as long as they do not go before a judge." "Well," I said, "I am afraid they are going to go back home." He said: "They are afraid of that also."
I repeat-I may be wrong-that Mr. George Williams of Saskatchewan is closely connected with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You are right.
Mr. LaVERGNE: If he is not the organizer he is one of the leaders. I say in this house without fear of contradiction that he is a bolshevist, a Moscow paid agent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, it is quite easy to say "without fear of contradiction" when I am not permitted to contradict. Were I permitted I would say that I believe that is absolutely erroneous, and I know Mr. Williams quite well.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Well, I will say two things. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre knows or he does not know. If he does not know, he should not speak about it;
53719-loti
if he knows, his denial comes two weeks after I stated that in the house. I repeat-and it is public knowledge; the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) knows it-that Mr. George Williams has been the organizer of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party in this country. After all, Mr. Speaker, a wink is as good as a nod, sometimes it is better. And the hon. gentlemen are given forty winks. Either they are asleep at the switch or their eye is very much open.
Have we heard one earthly reason in law or common sense or otherwise for this section 98 disappearing from our criminal code? Who has suffered from it? Who is the Canadian bom citizen or the not freshly imported citizen or the law abiding citizen or tihe one who is respectful of British institutions-I will go further, of Christian institutions-in this country, who has been worried or bothered by section 98 of the criminal code? My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre said that according to this article a man can be arrested on suspicion, sentenced on suspicion. Never a man has been sentenced by British justice on suspicion. To my knowledge men always have been arrested on suspicion, but they were presumed to be innocent until they were proven guilty. And I know of no other way of arresting the guilty party than arresting him on suspicion. He cannot be arrested on certitude, he necessarily must be arrested on suspicion. All the items of section 98 are contained in the criminal code; search warrant, suspicion, being found in possession-of literature. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said a man might be arrested for being in possession of a Bible. Well, I know a good many of my own faith in this house, and a few of old Scotch Covenanter descent, who must have a Bible in their house, and for one hundred and seventy years, since this country has been British, I know of no one who has been arrested for having a Bible in his possession. But this is the kind of stuff which is given to the people of this country to work slowly in their minds and make them believe that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark. I am willing to admit, as anybody will, that capitalists in this country as well as in the rest of the world have not played the game. Everybody knows that. I think it is only to-day that we are beginning to realize what the Master of men meant two thousand years ago when he said: Woe unto the rich; not because it is a sin to possess wealth, but because it entails such great responsibilities. But should we preach hatred of the rich by the poor, or go back to the teaching of my childhood,
2374	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
"blessed are the poor," recognizing that our reward is not in this world? Whether we like it or not, men are not bom equal, shall not live equal, shall not die equal. We differ in possessions, talent, wealth, health, beauty, life. But by telling a man that because he has not got what his neighbour has, he must ask for his reward in this world, do you think, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friends at your extreme left have settled the question? We have seen how that works in Russia. How has the question been settled there? Those who were rich yesterday are poor to-day, in absolute abject misery. The saviours of the people, the long sought fourth Messiah, the lady from Southeast Grey, saviours who brought the revolution so highly regarded by the hon. member have not brought an ounce of happiness to the people of Russia more than they had before.
As far as I am concerned I repeat that I am in favour of freedom of speech, and if I thought it necessary in order to permit freedom of speech that this section should be abolished I would favour its repeal. But it does not touch freedom of speech, it does not hurt for one moment the hon. members to your extreme left who have been tolerated in going around this country for the last four or five or ten years spreading exploded ideas like that expressed from Southeast Grey and Galveston, Texas, that property is theft, a theory. which has been laughed at for the past seventy-five years in France. No better evidence of our freedom of speech can be found than in the speeches made by those hon. members. This section is necessary not to prevent people from speaking, but to save our institutions, to keep this country what we want it to remain. As far as I am concerned I believe I have expressed the desire of my French speaking compatriots, and I think of my English speaking compatriots also, that we may have a country loyal to its king, loyal bo its traditions and loyal to its God.
Mr. ERRICK F. WILLIS (Souris):	Mr. Speaker, for a few moments I desire to express my opposition to the repeal of section [DOT] 98 of the criminal code. Briefly stated I believe that in this country communism can be controlled by no other section of the code, and I oppose the repeal of this section because in Canada at this time we have a condition of affairs which has not arisen previously and which we hope will not arise again.
In passing I desire for a moment to refer to some remarks made by certain hon. members of this house who have supported the repeal

of this section. First I should like to refer to the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor), who informed the house that he was getting tired of the accusations made against himself and others, that because they desired the repeal of section 98 they were communists. May I tell the hon. member that I also am tired of being called a czarist because I desire that section 98 remain in the criminal code. I am tired also of being called a stand-patter when I realize that I am much more of a radical than many of those who are speaking of it. We are tired of these things, but in this house gradually one gets used to them. I should dislike to think that, being young, I was not a radical.
The hon. member for Toronto West Centre referred to a situation which arose in the Jarvis collegiate institute in his city; he said certain students were unable to hold a meeting due, as he implied, to the fact that they wished to discuss social reform and could not do so because of section 98. May I say to the hon. member that this places on him a great responsibility. He is a member for Toronto; the school teachers and police of that city are being ridiculed throughout the country because of that situation, and therefore the hon. member must accept some responsibility in regard to those schoolmasters and police.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) fears that because of section 98 there may be a panic of fear spreading over the country due to the fact that something may be carried on underground instead of being allowed to explode in the open. May I say to the hon. member for New Westminster that some six months ago I was interviewed by a group of Mennonites in my constituency who feared a revolution in this country due to communism. They asked me to assure them that they would not lose their farms, that the buildings would not be burned and that they would not be subjected to those things they had experienced in Russia. I bring this fact to the attention of the house because there is a panic of fear in certain sections of the country in regard to communism and lest section 98 should be repealed. I think the hon. member for New Westminster made a very good point when he said that certain of these communists were led by Scotchmen. As an Irishman I desire to impress on him the great necessity of having Irish policemen to control the Scotchmen and of having section 98 to control the communists.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) expressed the opinion that possibly this section was retained for political purposes.

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member make such a statement, because usually he is quite canny in what he has to say. By implying that section 98 was retained for political purposes he naturally suggests that the communists are going to vote for his party. That is a frank admission which, had he thought it over, obviously he would not have made. The hon. member said the section is not British and is not Canadian, but let me assure him that actions not Canadian and not British will not be punished by section 98. The hon. member also said that the time to act was after the offence had been committed. Would that apply in case of a riot in this country? After that all we would need would be the undertaker. My hon. friend also said the communists were poorly fed, that they had nothing and therefore we had nothing to fear from them. Yet the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) stated that to his knowledge they had large amounts of money and a great deal of property throughout the country.
I thought the hon. member for North Winnipeg made a very mild and well considered address. First he admitted the great condition of unrest in this country. Then he stated that he was opposed to force. The only mistake he made was that he did not draw the correct conclusion. Granting that conditions are as he said, and presuming that the hon. member is opposed to force, naturally he would desire the retention of section 98, because that section only opposes the condition which may be brought about due to force and communism.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), who made the original address in regard to this measure, first quoted the United Church, which recently has taken a great political bent. Then he quoted Professor Scott of McGill, whose speeches have been read throughout the country with some alarm. Then the hon. gentleman quoted my good friend, Magistrate R. B. Graham, but I noticed that although Mr. Graham said that revolution had been necessary at other times, he did not come within a century of the present. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seems to fear that in connection with section 98 the courts of this country may be prejudiced and that, being prejudiced, they may do those things which they ought not to do. If we are to assume that our courts will become prejudiced none of our laws are safe, let alone section 98. Again, the hon. gentleman took objection to the fact that where there were reasonable grounds for suspecting so-and-so,
certain action might be taken, but many sections of the criminal code are based upon reasonable grounds for suspicion, and the courts of this country are based upon reason. Objection was taken also to the fact that the penalty stated in this section is not more than twenty years. Let me tell my hon. friend that if I were defending a man I should be very happy if the section stated not more than twenty years, but I would be in difficulty if the section said not less than three months. Where a section says not more than so many years it is left to the discretion of the court and the court, having that discretion, will decide that which is right. You can trust the courts of this country to interpret the law. If I were to give advice to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre it would be that he look over the criminal code and see how many sections provide for penalties of S100 or $200 or not less than three months. This does not give the poor man, the magistrate or the judge, a chance.
I am opposed to 'the repeal of section 98 because of the conditions existing at the present time. Recently I read the report in regard to the riots which took place ait Kingston penitentiary. The reading of that report is sufficient for me to say that at this time section 98 is the most necessary section of the criminal code. Let me ask the house this question: What is the use of deporting communists if you are going to repeal section 98, which is intended to control them? Must we control communists only by means of deportation or must we retain section 98 which is for that special purpose?
The fears of hon. members who desire the repeal of the section are unfounded, because they all admit that they are opposed to force, and the only reason we have section 98 is that it also opposes any force that might be used by communists in this country. Those who wish to abide by the law, those who are of good behaviour need not worry about section 98; there are many sections of the criminal code much more rigorous in their application than that section.
I might say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that so far as subsection 3 of section 98 is concerned I think it is rather wide in its application and the section would be much better were it not included. But the present bill asks for the total repeal of section 98, which is impossible. For these reasons and particularly at this time I think it is impossible for us to consider the repeal of the section and therefore I shall support the amendment for the six months' hoist.
2376	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: When this bill was introduced it was not my intention to speak on it or in support of it. I felt that it was a matter which possibly some gentlemen of legal training could speak to much more effectively than I could. However, the debate has taken such a turn that I think it is most necessary that something should be said in connection with it. There was a further reason why I did not wish to discuss the bill; I felt that this government, notwithstanding that it professes to be opposed to force, is so wedded to force that nothing I might say would have any influence upon it in repealing this section. Furthermore, this government may not be the government forever; it is not very likely that it will be. If this is good law for this government it may be good law for us some day. They are going and we are coming, and in the not distant future we may have occasion to use it.
After hearing the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol) and the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) and this afternoon the hon. member for Mont-magny (Mr. LaVergne) I thought it was essential that I should say something. It seems that no matter what question we raise on this side of the house we are immediately met by these three gentlemen with shouts of Moscow, Russia, communist, third internationale and one or two other expressions which they have learned somewhere. I wonder whether these gentlemen have ever considered the background of the Russian revolution. I wonder whether they have ever heard of any government in Russia except the present one, or if they have ever realized what that previous government was. Let them remember that it is only within the last sixteen years or so that there has been a communist government in Russia, and whatever government there is in Russia to-day, be it good, bad or indifferent, it has arisen out of conditions brought about by the government that preceded it. It could not be anything else than what we find it. This is something my hon. friends have never realized and possibly do not wish to know.
Let me give one item to show what the people had to put up with in Russia before the present government came into power- and I believe that the authority for this is quite authentic. I shall state it later. I quote:
In St. Petersburg strikes broke out among the employees of the factories and the government iron works. The leader of the movement was Father Gapon, a priest, who, with the consent of the government, had been organizing labour unions, in order to win away the working men from :he influence of the revolutionary
iMr. Willis.2
agitators. On January 21, 1905, Father Gapon addressed a letter to the czar informing him that on the following day the strikers would march in a body on the Winter palace in order to submit their grievances to him in person. On the following day crowds of men, women and children, led in part by Father Gapon, marched on the Winter palace.
At different points in the city and in the palace square they were met by troops who opened fire on the unarmed multitude. The massacre lasted for some hours, and the victims of Red Sunday, as that 22nd of January came to be called, numbered several hundred killed, and at the most conservative estimate, several thousand injured.
This is from a conservative report of what happened that day. I have read reports that are very much stronger and which place the number of those massacred on that occasion at a much higher figure than is given here, but I selected this one because it appears in the New International Encyclopaedia, volume 20, page 255. These are the conditions from which the Russian revolution sprang, and let me say that unless we duplicate the same conditions in this country we need not fear anything approaching what took place in Russia in 1917. Give this government time, however, and they may be able to do anything. Even during this session we have had two bills for the purpose of more completely militarizing the police force of the Country, though that object has been camouflaged. As I said before, whenever the hon. gentlemen whom I have mentioned get up here to oppose anything we bring forward they always try to connect this group with the communist party. Speaking on another subject a few days ago, I connected the communists very definitely with the Conservative party, and the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) did it very effectively when he spoke the other evening. On the same platform with him in 1930 the Conservative candidate urged his hearers, if they could not vote for him, to vote for the communist candidate. This has not been denied.
The hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MaoNicol) comes from the city where The Worker, the communist organ, is published, and from his speeches he seems to be very familiar with communist literature. I wonder whether he ever saw The Worker. I haw here the issue of January 28, 1933. There is this headline:
Brownlee's ''socialist" police terror angers workers.
U.F.A.-C.C.F. government making ruthless application of Bennett's iron heel policy: tireless persecution of all militant workers and poor farmers.
Glaring example of the "socialism" of Woods-worth and the Cooperative Commonwealth in practice. This is what to expect when he is Prime Minister.

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
Yet the hon. member for Toronto Northwest shouts, "communist" every time we take up any matter in the house. There is a cartoon upon the front page of this paper showing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and Mr. Brownlee with their arms around each other, with Mr. Brownlee holding a good sized club. Under this cartoon we find:
Rev. Jimmie Woodsworth gives his blessing to the police bludgeonings of the Brownlee police (The U.F.A. this week, officially affiliated with the C.C.F.)
It is such things as this that mainly compose The Worker and yet despite this fact the hon. member for Toronto Northwest who is so familiar with communist literature from Karl Marx up to the day before yesterday, has never seen this. I assume that he has not seen it because I hope that if he had, he would be honest enough, to bring the matter to the attention of the house. We go on a little further and on the same page we find:
Dworkin Arrested at C.C.F. Meeting
Calgary, January 16.-Ben Dworkin who just recently was released from Lethbridge jail was arrested yesterday at a mass meeting for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. He was. as usual, selling working class literature. He is charged with sale of literature on Sunday and using profane language. Obviously this is only an excuse of the "socialist" who laid the charge in order to prevent sale of working class literature at the C.C.F. meetings.
I advise the hon. member for Toronto Northwest to subscribe to The Worker that he may keep informed on communistic activities.
There are two dangers which threaten the peace of this country. The one is the communist party and the other the Conservative party. These two parties always work together. The communists promote class hatred whenever an opportunity offers and the Conservative party-


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Establishes it.
Mr. MaeINNIS: -preaches class fear and class hatred. They teach the hatred of communism and the hatred of any progressive movement which they think will take away any of the privileges they have held for so long. This hatred breaks out every now and again. It broke out when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) went down to Toronto and advocated the iron heel for everyone with whom he did not agree. It broke out a few weeks ago in the city of Ottawa when the leader of the Senate acted as chairman for
an internationally known lecturer. We find it everywhere. I have attended and spoken at many meetings during the last few years and in nearly every case communists have been present. As soon as I sit down the first question I am asked is: Do you expect that the ruling class will let you take over the affairs of this country even though you have a majority in parliament? My answer is: Whether they do or do not is not germane to the present moment. At the present moment we are working and taking advantage of our constitutional rights and privileges and what the present ruling class may do is not our concern. When we reach that fence we will get over it as best we may.
Section 98 is supposed to be aimed at those who want to use force in the overthrow of constituted authority. But that is only a small part of the section. There are other clauses in the section which make this particular clause seem very innocent indeed. One clause makes every member of the postoffice a detective, and there are many other clauses equally undesirable.
As I said a moment ago, there are two dangers which threaten the peace of this country, the communist party and the Conservative party. Possibly I should not say "the Conservative party" but should say "conservative-minded people." All Conservatives are not conservative-minded. I have a letter which I received a few days ago from a young student in Vancouver. I should like to read it as it gives the expression of opinion of a young man of the society he sees around him. This young man is interested in an educational group known as the A.B.C. Society, a society starting its educational activities from fundamentals. He says:
The A.B.C. Society was formed last fall because we felt that although there _ were already a number of progressive thinking parties and societies, there was no organization which did not have a definite creed and platform, and which was therefore not inclined to be dogmatic.
The Conservative party has a creed and platform; the Liberal party has a creed and platform, as has the socialist party, and these people did not want to be connected with any of these parties.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.
Mr. MaeINNIS:	The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation also has one. The letter continues:
We felt that if any fundamental changes for the benefit of society are to take place without
2378	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
violence, a larger percentage of the average men and women of this country must be induced to become interested in fundamental actions than is now the case.
And he continues:
The A.B.C. Society is formed primarily for young people who do not feel satisfied with our present system (who is?) but who are not sure of their ground, and want to think the matter out. Going on a basis such as this, we have the whole population to draw from except the Conservatives and the communists, and there is always a faint hope that we may even be able to interest some of them who are thinking the thing out without prejudice. I admit that there is a faint hope that they may get some of them.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) gave his reasons yesterday for being opposed to the rescinding of this section. He is reported on page 2333 of Hansard as follows:
It is because we do not want to give error a fair field, it is because we feel that error should not he given a fair chance, it is because we do not belong to the same school as the former Minister of Justice, that we ask for the maintenance of section 98.
The Solicitor General should have defined what he meant by error. We should not forget that down through history many things have been done which we to-day believe should not have been done. These things happened because certain people defined error in their own particular way. We had the Roman 'Catholics burning and hanging Protestants because they thought they were in error in their religion; we had the Protestants doing the same thing to the Roman Catholics. Do we believe that because the Roman Catholics thought the Protestants were in error they were justified in the hangings and slayings or, on the other hand, do we think that the Protestants were justified in what they did? Before we talk about error, let us define its meaning. Going back a little in history, we find that Galileo was tortured on the rack because he said that the world moves. Everyone to-day, even the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) believes the world moves. Bruno was burned at the Stake because he said that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but most people to-day believe the earth is not the centre. Possibly the hon. member for Toronto NorthWest is an exception.
As regards those who talk about agitators. Let us not forget that Christ was crucified and the charge laid against him was that he was an agitator and stirred up the people. Let us remember further that the common people heard him gladly.
There is so much to be said in favour of repealing this section, so much to be said for

freedom at all times, that I would much rather have Someone with a more eloquent tongue than mine, deal with the question. But I should like to quote briefly from another authority, one who possibly was considered radical in his time but who would not be considered radical to-day, one for whose thoughts I at least have great regard. I wish to quote from Lord Macaulay, from his essay on Milton where he refers to freedom. He says:
In the same manner, the final and permanent fruits of liberty are wisdom, moderation and mercy. Its immediate effects are often atrocious crimes, conflicting errors, scepticism on points the most clear, dogmatism on points the most mysterious. It is just at this crisis that its enemies love to exhibit it. They pull down the scaffolding from the half-finished edifice; they point to the flying dust, the falling bricks, the comfortless rooms, the frightful irregularity of the whole appearance; and then ask in scorn where the promised splendour and comfort is to be found. If such miserable sophisms were to prevail, there would never be a good house or a good government in the world.
This is just what my hon. friends opposite do to-day in connection with Russia. They never take into consideration the material with which they had to build, or the difficulties they had to overcome. Let us give them as long a time as this country has had from confederation down and possibly they will then have just as much to boast about as we have to-day. Lord Macaulay continues :
Ariosto tells a pretty story of a fairy, who, by some mysterious law of her nature, was condemned to appear at certain seasons in the form of a foul and poisonous snake. Those who injured her during the period of her disguise were forever excluded from participation in the blessings which she bestowed. But to those who, in spite of her loathsome aspect, pitied and protected her, she afterwards revealed herself in the beautiful and celestial form which was natural to her, accompanied their steps, granted all their wishes, filled their houses with wealth, made them happy in love and victorious in war. Such a spirit is Liberty. At times she takes the form of a hateful reptile. She grovels, she hisses, she stings. But woe to those who in disgust shall venture to crush her! And happy are those who, having dared to receive her in her degraded and frightful shape, shall at length be rewarded by her in the time of her beauty and her glory!
There is only one cure for the evils which newly-acquired fredom produces; and that cure is freedom.	_
Many politicians of our time are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition, that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story, who resolved not to go into the water until he had learned to swim. If men are to wait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery, they may indeed wait forever.

Fishing Bounty
The government in its attitude reminds me of a man who owned a garden and who went out and saw a noxious weed growing up in it. In order to get rid of the weed he took a stone and clapped it down on top of the weed. He thought it was done for. What was his surprise a few days after when he found sprouts of the weed growing up all over the stone. This government has outlawed the communist party, but the result has been that it has raised dozens of sprouts where there was one before. It seems to me that with the lessons of history before us we should pay heed to their experience and teaching in order to understand that the only way to meet force is to make conditions such that force cannot exist.


Alfred Speakman: Mr. Speaker, I would
ask that you call it six o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 23, 1933