1933-02-14

Mr. G. C. WILSON (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a petition from the milk producers of Wentworth county in which they request that all reasonable and effective measures be taken in order to revive the dairy industry upon a basis equally advantageous to the producer and consumer, and that some equitable arrangement can be made whereby the producer of milk will be paid for his milk and milk products a price which at
C.N.R.-Annual Report

least covers the cost of production and (provides for a profit on a par with that earned by the dairies.



DEPUTY MINISTER OF MARINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay):: On Friday last the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) told the house that the appointment of deputy ministers was under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, so I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman why the position of deputy minister of marine has not yet been filled.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: I suppose the answer is because no appointment has been made.


Pierre-François Casgrain: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is not an answer. Why has no appointment been made?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) if he can state when the report of the national railways will be presented to parliament. [DOT]


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I have had no word yet, but I Will make inquiries and let the right hon. gentleman know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it the intention to constitute a committee to deal with the report and national railway matters, as has been the practice in previous years?


Robert James Manion: That is a matter for the house. In view of the legislation now before the Senate, which will later be before the house, I hardly thought it would be advisable to proceed in that way, but of course that is my own opinion. It is for the house to decide.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What difference can the Duff report make in the consideration of these matters in detail by the committee?


Robert James Manion: The reason is that the Duff report suggested that the committee should not meet as it has met in the past. There are some suggestions which should be dealt with before that committee meets again, but of course that is only my own opinion again.



REPORTED PURCHASE OF RAILWAY DOCK AT VANCOUVER BY FIRM OF COAL MERCHANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) :: In view of recent head-lines in the Vancouver newspapers I should like to ask whether any representations have been made with regard to the sale of the Canadian National railway docks in Vancouver. This question has been asked before, and I wonder if the minister is in a position to make a definite statement at this time.


Robert James Manion: I have no definite information.



WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) asked a question with regard to the agenda of the monetary and economic conference. I told the hon. member that I had received no official copy of the agenda, but a draft annotated agenda has been issued by the League of Nations, and I fancy it is now available to hon. members here. So far as I have been able to ascertain I have not received any extra copies as yet, but a draft has been received.



PENSION LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario):: I should like to ask the Minister
of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mao-
Laren) whether it has been decided as yet to introduce legislation based upon the report of the committee which investigated the wmrking of the Pension Act?


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: It has not
been decided, but I think it quite likely that legislation will be introduced. I cannot make a definite statement to-day.



TOBACCO COMBINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): A few months ago representations were made to the government with regard to an investigation into a suggested combine in the tobacco industry. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) whether any steps in this direction have been taken.

Migratory Birds Convention Act
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: I consulted with the registrar under the Combines Act some weeks ago, and he has been assembling the material touching upon the question. He will proceed with his investigation, and in due course-and I hope it will not be too long delayed-his report will be made.



BROADCASTING OF SEDITIOUS SPEECHES AT STATION CHLP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
inquire from the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), whether he has been informed that certain seditious speeches were delivered under the patronage of the "Federation des clubs ouvriers" at the broadcasting station CHLP, "La Patrie," Montreal, and, if so, whether measures have been taken to prohibit such speeches.


Hon. Mr. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker,
the Department of Marine, so far as I know, has received no official information that seditious speeches were made at any broadcasting station.



MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 7, consideration in committee of Bill No. 19, to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act -Mr. Murphy-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 2-Royal Canadian Mounted Police to be game officers.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When the committee adjourned I understand the specific question under consideration was that asked by my hon. friend the member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) whether the Minister of Justice would consider specifying individual members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to be migratory bird officers, instead of a blanket authority conferred upon the whole force.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I remember the discussion that took place. I think the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth urged two points; one in regard to clothing members of the police with magisterial powers. I am inclined to agree with the objection which he took in that respect. I do not think that members of the police who are designated as officers under the Migratory Birds Convention Act should be clothed with the powers of magistrates. And as I read the act now carefully I do not think the act gives them such powers, though 53719-131
that power was conferred upon those who were appointed under the present act.
On the other point that the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth urged, that certain members of the mounted police force should be designated in each province as inspectors under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, I have discussed this with the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and he is utterly opposed to the suggestion. He says that if such a proposal were adopted the tendency would be for members of the force to imagine that was their particular work, and they would disregard other services which they were called upon to perform. He says it is one of the cardinal rules of the force that its members shall enforce in general all the laws of the country or the province, and shall not be designated for any specific branch of the service. We have the preventive service, for instance; in certain provinces they do work under the liquor laws. He is utterly opposed to segregating any part of the service for any special law enforcement, and he objects for that reason to the proposal made by my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth. He says it will be far more satisfactory to allow the whole force to become inspectors under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, so that it will become the duty of every member to enforce that as well as other laws.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When
this act is passed, will the enforcement of the provisions rest with the Department of Justice or with the Department of the Interior as heretofore?


Hugh Guthrie: If it rests with any department I would fancy it would rest with the Department of Justice, because the Migratory Birds Convention Act enforcement has now been transferred by order in council to the Department of Justice, being the department, in control of the mounted police. I assume that all prosecutions would be under that department in the future.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I ask
then if all the officers will be transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Justice?


Hugh Guthrie: That has already been
done.


Mr. MURPHY:: The Migratory Birds
Convention Act, interpretation clause states that the minister for the purpose means the Minister of the Interior; that has not been changed. The order in council .simply transfers to the Department of Justice the police work, carrying out the regulations, dealing with illegal shooting.

2074	COMMONS
Migratory Birds Convention Act
In order to clear the matter up I will read the clause of the order in council, being P.C. 2283-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When
was that passed?


Charles Murphy: Friday, October 14, 1932.
The clause reads:
Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Justice and under the provisions of section 2	(a) of chapter 165, revised statutes of
Canada, 1927, is pleased to order that the responsibility for the police work in connection with the enforcement of the provisions of the Migratory Birds Convention Act and regulations thereunder throughout Canada be and it is hereby transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. All other responsibilities under the said act to remain with the Department of the Interior.
According to the terms of the order in council the Department of Justice, through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, will be charged with the police duties, but other phases of the act will continue to be enforced by the minister of the Department of the Interior.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: AVhat
will the other responsibilities be that will remain with the Department of the Interior when the actual enforcement of the provisions of the act is transferred to the Department of Justice?


Charles Murphy: The Migratory Birds
Convention Act was passed following an agreement between this country and the United States for the conservation of the wild bird life of this continent, dealing solely with migratory birds. There are many other duties beyond that of merely police work in protecting the birds from illegal shooting during certain ^seasons of the year. It is a much broader question, it deals with the conservation of the wild bird life of this continent, which is very important. One phase of the duties would be the establishment, as has been done, of sanctuaries throughout Canada where no shooting is allowed. Also studies of the habits of these birds, in order that a proper understanding may be had of them with a view to necessary regulation or legislation for their conservation and increase. Merely protecting them from illegal shooting is only a small part, I would say, of the duties of the Department of the Interior in conserving these birds.


Mr. BRADETTE:: That does not do away with the argument I advanced the other day about conflict of jurisdiction. I do not want
 .
to go over the ground again, but I believe I [DOT]showed the other day that in the application of that law there will be conflict between federal and provincial jurisdictions. I believe that could be cured by an amendment, after the words "game officers"-
in districts and territories where the federal government has full jurisdiction.
I know from personal knowledge of many occasions in northern Ontario when conflict has arisen-not open rivalry, because I say here that all mounted police are glad to work in cooperation with municipal and provincial police. But I believe there is an anomaly there which should be remedied. Surely the federal government does not want to interpose its authority where a province has full jurisdiction. I believe that amendment would do away with a lot of criticism and things that have happened in the past.
The Minister of Justice in answer to my question said it was within the authority of the federal government, in the case of an international treaty of this nature, to impose upon the provinces the application of that law. So why the conflict of authority? I do not see the necessity of it, and I take it the Minister of Justice and also the Minister of the Interior want to avoid any friction.


Hugh Guthrie: I think my hon. friend's anticipation of friction is purely imaginary. His amendment would confine the federal jurisdiction to rvha,t we know as the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The rest of this country is allotted to the various provinces who have sovereign rights in their respective portions. There is no conflict of jurisdiction with regard to an international treaty, the federal government being vested with power to carry out in the various provinces the provisions of such treaties. I cannot imagine that there will be any conflict between the provincial and federal authorities with regard to this particular convention. If my hon. friend's amendment were to carry the jurisdiction of the federal authorities would be confined to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Protection is not nearly so necessary in those parts of Canada as it is in the more settled portions where there are more sportsmen and more guns. It is to protect the migratory birds in these districts that this convention is framed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two observations with regard to this bill. In the first place I am opposed to a division of jurisdiction between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice

Migratory Birds Convention Act
in connection with the enforcement of the provisions of this bill and the conservation of wild game. I am opposed also, by inference, to the suggestion which, according to the Minister of Justice, has been made by the commissioner of the mounted police to the effect that it would be a bad principle to appoint specific men by name. I have the greatest respect for this officer but I contend that parliament should decide these questions and not any gentleman who happens to be the head of the mounted police. I do not say it is deliberate, but there does seem to be a tendency to take away from various departments of government certain powers which are turned over to the mounted police. It is possible to go too far in this direction. The provisions of the old bill were better in every way. Under the present bill I think there will be a conflict in authority. It is all very well to say that it is only the policing that is being vested in the Deportment of Justice, but the fact remains that there were very few complaints against the old game officers under the Department of the Interior. I am afraid too much authority is being vested in the mounted police. Lost year they took over the preventive service, it is now being proposed that they shall take over the migratory bird service and next year it may be something else. I wish to sound a word of warning against the vesting of too much authority in the mounted police of Canada.


Charles Murphy: Mr. Chairman, supplementing what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has so well said as to there being no conflict of jurisdiction in these matters, I wish to say that the provinces and the dominion have always worked in the fullest cooperation. There has been no conflict in enforcing the provisions of the act or establishing closed seasons during certain periods of the year. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) fears that the jurisdiction is being divided, but may I say that we are only doing now in the maritime provinces what has been done in all parts of Canada during the past years. Last year the mounted police took over the duties previously performed by the provincial police in the provinces of the west. The enforcement of the police regulations of this act, if I may so term them, was carried out by the provincial officers in the western provinces and last year this work was taken over by the mounted police. We are only doing now in the maritime provinces what has been done throughout the rest of the country.
53719-131J


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that
done specifically or generally?


Charles Murphy: It has been general in each province. In the province of Ontario the provincial police officers have been in the main enforcing the police regulations of this act, as was the case in the western provinces until last year, when the provincial police duties were taken over by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I do not think there is any basis for the fears of my hon. friend.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Mr. Chairman, with
what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) I agree fully in so far as the taking away of further rights from the provinces is concerned. As one who delights in spending as much time as he can during the proper seasons in the bush and on the streams, I think it is a great mistake to change the officials who have been administering this law. In the districts with which I am acquainted, I think the law has been administered very efficiently. It has been my good fortune to have travelled extensively in the Gatineau valley and north of Maniwaki, and I have always found that the officials in Quebec were looking after their duties in a most efficient manner. I have the greatest admiration for that very wonderful corps called the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and I know how efficiently they discharge all duties entrusted to them. I have no doubt that they would be able to carry out such duties as are required under this act in an efficient manner as far as the urban and more thickly settled districts are concerned, but I do not think this would apply to the more thinly populated sections. These game wardens travel by canoe and on foot over every inch of their country, they have the qualifications and the aptitude to discharge their duties, and I do hope that these men will be maintained in their present positions. I do not think the mounted police would be able to perform these duties as efficiently as the present game wardens.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: With all due respect to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) I must tell him and the house that I know from personal experience that there have been many instances of conflict between the two authorities in northern Ontario. I should like to quote from Hansard at page 1777. I asked the minister the following question:
I would ask the Minister of Justice: This act we ate dealing with being an international matter, is there in the constitution machinery which will allow the federal government to ask the provincial governments to apply this act?
2076	COMMONS
Migratory Birds Convention Act
The Minister of Justice replied:
There is a provision in our constitution that in regard to international treaties the federal government can enact laws imposing upon a province whatever is necessary to carry out an international obligation. This being an international obligation, a matter of treaty between Canada and the United States, the federal government is empowered to pass such laws as are necessary to put it into force in the various provinces of Canada.
When you have two police bodies, the provincial police and the mounted police, there is bound to be conflict if they are both given the same jurisdiction. I should like to inquire of the minister if the officers of the mounted police would be also justices of the peace?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: If they are to have no jurisdiction in the imposing of fines, then the conflict would not be so great.


Pierre-François Casgrain: For the reasons mentioned when this bill came up before, I think it is my duty to protest once more against the enactment of this legislation. As I pointed out at that time, I think this power, if put into force, will have the effect of depriving of their livelihood many humble people in my constituency who earn their living by having been appointed under the authority of the Department of the Interior to enforce the law under the direction of Mr. Lewis. It is not fair of the government to take such action. I see in it also a certain kind of propaganda the government wants to spread, because when these officials of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are appointed to patrol a whole district, they will have in a way a say at election times. Although I do not know whether all those who have been appointed of recent years to the mounted police are of any one political party, there is no doubt that when they will have charge of the enforcement of the law in those districts, they will be much more severe on the people there than would the officials who were formerly appointed. Those who were appointed before under the direction of Mr. Lewis were men who knew the territory in which they were serving, and so far I have not heard of any complaint against them or against the work which Mr. Lewis has been performing in that district.
As I said before, the government in these matters every year brings in too much legislation giving most extensive powers and territory to cover to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I quite agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre when he said that year after year new legislation is introduced giving broader powers to

the mounted police. I may put it in a word, as I said the other day, that the government seems to have gone mad on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I do not think the government will gain anything by amending the law in the way they want to do.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: In looking
over Bill No. 19, to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, it would seem to transfer to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the enforcement of the recommendations contained in the Migratory Birds convention. I understand that laws are passed in this house and then most of them are left to the provinces to enforce. In our province of Quebec we have special legislation covering the protection of migratory birds and game; we have also our own game keepers appointed under provincial laws, to enforce our legislation. According to the proposed measure, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are to be made game wardens. The result will be, for instance, if a mounted police officer, appointed under this legislation as a game warden, sees at a railway station or a wharf, some game, he will bring the offender before a police court magistrate. Then the court will be open to receive a writ of certiorari, and a writ of summons and a petition declaring a statement of claim that the legislation that is being passed this afternoon should be declared ultra vires.


Hugh Guthrie: This bill does not propose to interfere in any way with the local game laws of any province or with the enforcement of those laws. The only proposal in this bill is to change the nature of the inspectors from civilians who have been appointed heretofore to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Charles A. Stewart: I gathered
from the minister's remarks that those police officers were not to be magistrates, but I see section 2 reads:
Subsection one of section 5 of the said act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following words:
"All members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shall, for the purpose of this act, be ex officio game officers."
I see that section 5, subsection one, at present reads as follows:
The minister may appoint game officers for carrying out this act and the regulations, and may authorize such game officers to exercise the powers of a justice of the peace or the powers of a police constable.


Hugh Guthrie: Those are the ones appointed in that way. I made the same mistake

Migratory Birds Convention Act
as my hon. friend has made. Those were game wardens appointed under the act as it stood:
The minister may appoint game officers for carrying out this act and the regulations, and may authorize such game officers to exercise the powers of a justice of the peace or the powers of a police constable.
The mounted police are not appointed by the minister. They are appointed, according to the amendment, as follows:
All members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shall, for the purpose of this act, be ex officio game officers.
Consequently they will not be justices of the peace.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I should like to ask the
Minister of the Interior what the relations will be between the chief migratory game officer and the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In the maritime provinces, for example, there is a chief migratory game officer, Mr. Robie Tufts, of Wolfville, Nova Scotia, and in that province there are some 150 members of the mounted police who are under the control of the Department of Justice. Will Mr. Tufts have authority to select any one or more of the members of the mounted police and direct them to go into particular locations, watch for offenders and lay charges? In other words, are they to be under his direction? If so, have you not officials who are controlled by the Department of Justice under the authority of superior officers who are controlled by the Department of the Interior? Perhaps the minister could explain that.


Charles Murphy: I do not anticipate any
difficulty on that score because we have in the western provinces an official of the department in the person of Mr. Munro who exercises the same powers as does Mr. Tufts in Nova Scotia. We have also in the person of Mr. Lewis at Ottawa a permanent migratory bird warden who exercises for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec the same powers as do these other two men. These men simply cooperate with the police force, whatever it may be, in enforcing the regulations in regard to illegal shooting. There should therefore be no difficulty in the matter. The chief officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Mr. Tufts will no doubt work in close cooperation, and * Mr. Tufts from his long experience will be able to advise that officer as to the steps which should be taken to protect those birds. But as regards the mounted police taking orders, certainly they will take their orders as such from their superior officer in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It seems to me that is going to interfere with the administration of the act.


Charles Murphy: It does not.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is very' important that
the chief migratory game officer should have a deciding voice as to what information should be laid and what prosecution should be undertaken. By this legislation his powers are taken away from him. If this is to be the effect; if he has cooperating with him and not working under him officers who are charged with the duty of apprehending offenders and laying informations and yet he has not any power over those officers, then you are going to have a division of responsibility which does not make for good enforcement of the act. I do not know anything about conditions in the other provinces, but this is very important in the maritimes and perhaps more important in Prince Edward Island than in Nova Scotia. I am not sure whether Prince Edward Island is policed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, it is.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, the same condition
will arise there. I am of opinion that the enforcement of the act will not be as effective with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police not subject to the authority of the chief migratory game officer for the district as it is under the present system. In my own province the chief migratory bird officer is an enthusiast and he commands the respect of everybody who knows anything about the enforcement of the act. He knows from experience the sort of men who will work efficiently under him, and he has built up an efficient staff which now is going to be taken away from him entirely, and instead he is to be supplied with certain officers of another department over which he has no actual authority, and he is going to be charged with the administration of the act in his district. It seems to me that this change will not make for efficiency.


Mr. GOTT:: I ^should like to make a brief observation to the house, and that is that if there were a few more game conservationists throughout Canada of the kind found in my riding you could dispense with all your Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers and all your game wardens. It is in the county which I have the honour to represent that Jack Miner has established his bird sanctuary, and I challenge all the representatives in this house to show that all your game vardens

Migratory Birds Convention Act
and all your mounted police officers can protect more birds than Jack Miner does in his sanctuary.


Paul Mercier: Has the
Minister of Justice received any objection from the attorney general of the province of Quebec to the passing of this act.


Hugh Guthrie: No, none whatever.


Mr. IIOWDEN:: It is very convenient
sometimes not to have a legal mind. Personally I am not very much concerned over the legal aspects of this bill. I think myself that the bill is a decided step forward, and the only thing the matter with it so far as I can see is that it does not include nonmigratory birds as well as migratory.


Charles Murphy: They are under provincial law.


Mr.   BOWDEN@: So much the better. I
come from a province which boasts one of the finest game birds in the world, the prairie grouse.


Mr. ERNST:: The prairie grouch?


John Power Howden: I do not believe there
is any better game bird in Canada than our prairie chicken in the fall, but I regret to say that we have had on two or three occasions to close the season for grouse hunting for a period of several years because the birds have become so depleted. I honestly believe that the depletion was not caused by legal hunting, but because certain citizens of Manitoba insisted on shooting the birds in season and out of season all the year round. To a very large extent the rural citizens in certain districts of Manitoba-and I do not blame them so much because they feed the birds- shoot the prairie chicken twelve months in he year. As is well known, the mounted police have the habit of going out and getting their man which the old game wardens did not have, and I think it is a mighty fine thing to have the mounted police on the trail of the offender under this act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the preamble.
Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Has section four been
passed, Mr. Chairman?


The CHAIRMAN:: Yes, it was passed the other day.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: In this privileged corner of the house one can hardly hear what is going on because the proceedings are often
[Mr. Gott.l
conducted in an undertone. If section four has been passed, I am very sorry because I intended to make certain remarks upon it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The section wa's passed the other day, but if the committee has no objection the hon. member may speak on the preamble.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 21, to amend the Indian Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1.-Truant officers.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would the minister explain this section?


Charles Murphy: As the hon. member
doubtless knows, we have both residential and day schools established on the reserves throughout Canada for the purpose of educating 'Indian children. The services of a truancy officer are not required to any great extent, if at all, for the residential schools, but in the case of the day schools the services of a truancy officer are sometimes required. On some of the reserves we have special constables who perform this duty among their other duties, but on other reserves there are no such special officers, and it has been the custom in the past to appoint members of the mounted police for this duty. This section simply blankets in the force to carry out this duty wherever their services may be required.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would the minister explain what the powers of a truancy officer are as defined in the section?


Charles Murphy: Subsection 3 of section 10 of the act reads:
The Superintendent General may appoint any officer or person to be a truant officer to enforce the attendance of Indian children at school, and for such purpose a truant officer shall be vested with the power's of a peace officer, and shall have authority to enter any place where he has reason to believe there are Indian children between the ages of seven and fifteen years, and when requested by the Indian agent, a school teacher or the chief of a band shall examine into any case of truancy, shall warn the truants, their parents or guardians or the person with whom any Indian child resides, of the conse-

Indian Act
quences of truancy, and notify the parent, guardian or such person in writing to cause the child to attend school.


Charles A. Stewart: Evidently this seotion is directed towards day school attendance?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: Has the
minister considered the objection there might be towards having a uniformed mounted police offioer going to an Indian home to asoertain whether or not the children have been detained by action of the parents? I am inclined to believe that the proposed section is drastic?


Charles Murphy: In years past mounted police officers have performed those duties in various places. As I said a moment ago, on certain reserves we have special constables, but on others we have not those constables, and in such cases need the services of some offioer. I must say the phase of the matter to which the hon. member has referred did occur to me in connection with the proposed amendment. My view however was that for years past mounted police officers have been performing very wide duties, and enforcing many laws throughout Canada. I cannot conceive that the sight of a mounted police uniform, one which must be familiar to the eyes of all Canadians including Indians, would raise any undue alarm in the breasts of those people.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is it the intention of the government to formulate a similar provision with regard to the Douk-hobor children who refuse to attend school?


Hugh Guthrie: That is a hard nut to crack.


Charles Murphy: The enforcement of attendance of white children rests with the provincial authorities.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I know of reserves in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec where they have their own school boards. I believe that condition applies at Caughnawaga, and at some points in Ontario. It may be that the proposed change will conflict with local laws, because if I understand school legislation properly, and more particularly in connection with the province of Ontario, the school board has power to appoint truant officers, and the same legislation would apply to reserves. I do not suppose it applies at points such as Caughnawaga where there are only Indians, and where there may be no
school boards. In the older reserves, however, it is my information that there are school boards, and that those bodies have the power to appoint truant officers. What provision is to be made in such cases?


Charles Murphy: If the children are attending school there will be no difficulty.


Mr. POULIOT:: Is it proper to teach
children to have no respect for authority?


Charles A. Stewart: I am quite well aware that this matter has given the department some considerable worry. The fact that on the one hand school teachers are paid, schools established, and on the other that parents connive to prevent the attendance of their children at school, must present real difficulty. The only question which arises in my mind is one concerning the advisability of uniformed officers performing the duties of truant officers. I can well imagine that in some instances where they perform special duties, they might do so without difficulty. I am doubtful however as to the advisability of this measure, and while it may be necessary to send mounted police officers to reserves to enforce laws, the matter now under discussion is of a somewhat different nature. I do not know what the experience of the minister has been, but my experience in the administration of the act was that the fault was usually that of the parents, and never that of the child. The parents keep their children away from school, a difficulty which does not arise in connection with boarding schools, but arises in connection with day school attendance. I believe it is inadvisable to use Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers for the performance of these rather petty duties.


Hugh Guthrie: It was represented to me by officials of the department that for the last ten or fifteen years it has been the custom of the Department of Indian Affairs, in connection with attendance at day schools, to appoint the member of the mounted police who happened to be in that neighbourhood, or nearest to it. I presume that practice was adopted for the purpose of saving money.


Charles A. Stewart: Mounted
police officers are not on the reserves, unless sent for special duties.


Hugh Guthrie: I referred to the officer
nearest at hand.


Charles A. Stewart: They have been on the Six Nations reserve, at the request of the minister.
Indian Act


Hugh Guthrie: I believe when the hon. member was in charge of the department police officers visited the reserves. The police are changed from time to time, as they are moved around. To get rid of the difficulty of swearing in a new man as a truant officer it was proposed to insert a general clause in the act allowing any officer to act as a truant officer. I an informed that in some districts there are truant officers who are not members of the mounted police force, but are acting in the capacity of special constables. It has been represented that the proposed change would have the effect of saving some money, and would make general a practice which has been developing throughout the last ten or fifteen years.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I have high respect for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a body of men of which we ought to be proud. I feel however that if the present legislation were passed we would be encroaching upon provincial rights, and would be going beyond the provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act, which provides:
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education.
And so on. That is the principle of the section. The people in any province are subject to the provincial laws concerning education. I may be wrong, but I am taking this opportunity of placing my views before the committee. If I am wrong, so much the better. In the province of Quebec there is a Huron reserve, in connection with which there is a school commissioner and a school board. Rightly or wrongly-and I think rightly-in that province we are opposed to compulsory education. A truant officer or a Royal Canadian Mounted Police constable could, under the proposed legislation, enter one of our reserves and enforce compulsory education, contrary to the laws of our province. For that reason I believe we are on dangerous ground. There is but one matter in connection with education left to federal power, and that pertains to the rights of minorities. It would seem that that section of the British North America Act has been forgotten on many occasions. It is my view that making a Royal Canadian Mounted Police constable a truant officer, and conferring upon him special power concerning Indians, is encroaching upon a matter which should be left entirely in the hands of provincial authorities. The British North America Act is an imperial statute and is supreme; in this committee we are bound to respect every clause of it. In a matter of school rights, which, by our constitution, are 
left entirely within the control of the provinces, we should be very careful before interfering or extending further authority to Royal Canadian Mounted Police or other truant officers. The bill before us relates only to Indians, but in the light of section 93 of the British North America Act I doubt very much, if we have any authority to create truant officers to act in any province against the laws of that province. I ask the committee to be very careful before making a definite decision.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to support
every word that has been said by my hon. friend from Montmagny. This is not only a matter of school rights; it is also a matter of the rights of parents, and as a French-Canadian I am rather afraid. If my hon. friend from Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) were Minister of the Interior, for instance, would he consider the French-Canadians as Indians? Would we be looked after by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? I have been arguing for liberty. I have great respect for my good friend the Minister of the Interior and also for my friend the Minister of Justice; I should be very sorry to be unpleasant to them, but the rights of the provinces must be respected, and the rights of individuals must be respected as well. I wonder if we are taking the right course now. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are looking after migratory bird*s; now they are to look after the Indians. What will be next?
I would suggest that legislation of this kind is nonsensical at this stage of the session. We are here to deal with the problems which concern the nation, but this question does not interest the nation. We are waiting our time discussing it, but we have to discuss it in order to defend the rights and privileges of our Canadian citizens. The Indians were the first inhabitants of this country. They do not have the right to vote, but they are fellow citizens. I think it is a very bad thing to open the door through which our liberties may disappear. To-day it i*s the Indians; what will come next? That is the whole question.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Riviere du Loup station.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad to say that the Riviere du Loup station has been fixed, and well fixed. I only suggest to the minister, who is an able man, that he should not pay too much attention to suggested legislation submitted to him by people who like to split hairs. There are people in the country [DOT]suffering from hunger; our farmers cannot sell

Indian Act
their products. Let us deal with those questions. The other day the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) dealt very courageously with the condition in which agriculture finds itself.


Charles Murphy: Perhaps my hon. friend
will pardon me; there seems to be some objection to this clause, so perhaps we might let it stand and proceed to something else not quite so controversial.
Section stands.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Consent of agent required for sale or barter.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I should like to ask the minister if in these case-s the property belongs to the government or whether the ownership is vested in the Indian.


Charles Murphy: Without expressing a dogmatic opinion on the point, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the ownership would remain with the Indian, although I must say that the department does sell the Indian's crop for him. He is not allowed to do it himself without a permit from the department, but the proceeds of the sale inure to the Indian concerned.


Mr. McGIRBON:: Would the minister be
good enough to tell us if the agent has the final say as to price?


Charles Murphy: Yes, as a matter of practice, but any matter can be submitted to the department for final decision by the Superintendent General. As a matter of practice the prices are usually determined by the Indian agent.


Peter McGibbon: Do the Indians know
they have that right of appeal to the department?


Charles Murphy: I must say that, generally
speaking, they are pretty well advised as to their privileges.


Charles A. Stewart: The only
change I see in the section is that now you are going to hold the Indian liable as well as the purchaser.


Charles Murphy: That is correct.


Charles A. Stewart: You are not taking away the right of the Indians to barter one with another.


Charles Murphy: Not under this section.


Charles A. Stewart: Have you
had any difficulty in this connection, with the Indian going off the reserve to sell his produce.


Charles Murphy: Yes, that has been brought to the attention of the department on quite a number of occasions.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: In this section I see
the words "shall sell or otherwise dispose of to anyone other than a member of the band." I believe there may be some difference of opinion as to the meaning of the word "band." How would the department define the word? Would it include the member of another tribe who married into the tribe concerned? Is there any distinct definition?


Charles Murphy: The word " band " is
defined in the act, and if my hon. friend desires me to do so I will be glad to read the definition.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Have complaints been
received with regard to the administration of the act as it stands at present? Has there been trouble through sales made by the Indians?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Has the minister any
complaints before him at the moment ?


Charles Murphy: I cannot give my hon. friend any specific instances at present, but I have been informed by officials of the department that Indians, knowing of these restrictions, have taken their grain or cattle from the reserve to other places to be sold in contravention of the act. Under the terms of the act as it has been in' force, only the person who made the purchase was liable and there was no penalty for the Indian who committed the offence, although he was well aware of the offence he was committing, and in some cases was more familiar with the restrictions than was the person making the purchase. By this amendment we are simply making the Indian liable for the offence as well as the person who purchases from him.


Pierre-François Casgrain: These amendments seem to affect only the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and the territories. Are there any restrictions similar to these in the province of Quebec, or have any complaints been received from the province of Quebec?


Charles Murphy: As I told my hon. friend
a moment ago, I cannot give him specific cases at the moment, but most of the agricultural reserves, if one might use that term, are located in the prairie provinces. If memory serves me correctly the majority of complaints that have reached the department have emanated from those provinces.
20S2
Indian Act


Pierre-François Casgrain: The minister does not
recall any coming from the east?


Charles Murphy: Not to my knowledge,
though there may have been some.


John Power Howden: I should like to ask a
question about ownership by individual Indians. It has always been my impression that animals, implements and so on placed with the band by the government belong to the band as a band and do not become the property of any individual Indian.


Charles Murphy: I am speaking without the advice oi my official, but in regard to ownership of cattle w-hich have been purchased from time to time either by the government from parliamentary appropriations or from band funds, I am not certain in the first instance as to where the ownership rightfully belongs. But I can tell my hon. friend this, that when cattle, placed in charge of the individual Indian, are sold the proceeds go to the individual Indian.


Vincent Dupuis: I notice that section 3 of
the bill provides for an amendment to the act concerning sale of cattle, whereas section 4 relates to the sale of grains, roots and crops; then section 9 provides for a penalty. As the . minister explained it, this affects only the western provinces. May I call to the attention of the minister the reverse aspect of that. I am ready to admit that this amendment is an improvement in this respect, that the Indian will be liable to punishment if he sells his cattle oT crops without the permit of the agent, but there is no provision of the Indian Act for any penalty or responsibility when the Indian buys from white people. For instance, an Indian may buy an automobile or whatever he likes, and as the hon. minister said a few minutes ago he is quite conversant with his irresponsibility, he laughs at his creditors. It goes further than that. I have a reverse in my riding, at Caughnawaga. As a matter of fact the majority of the Indians are good citizens, honest, industrious and very skilful in certain kinds of work; but, as in any other community, a certain number being familiar with and taking advantage of their impunity under the law do injury to the whole community. I suggest that where Indians take advantage of their irresponsibility the law should require them to pay for whatever they buy or whatever damage they cause. I have in mind an instance of an Indian farm with, of course, no fences or ditches around it, situated in the neighbourhood of the property of a citizen of the parish of St. Constant. If cattle happen to pass from one farm to another an animal may be

seized by the Indian and sold for his own use. If the owner of the animal takes action against the Indian and tries to execute his judgment he is just laughed at; the Indian is not responsible! If we apply to the department the department answers,-very rightly, because the law is so construed:-We have nothing to do with that. So the irresponsibility of the Indian under the law is abused by those on the reserve who do not respect the law at all. .
In summing up my remarks I would like to know from the hon. minister if it would not be advisable to insert in the act a section covering such cases.


Charles Murphy: As to the responsibility
of Indians generally for debts contracted in the ordinary course of business, I would imagine that all merchants and others having dealings with Indians are fully aware that in selling to an Indian on credit they are taking long chances. In other words, the Indian is considered as a minor, a ward, and the only method I can conceive of whereby that particular Indian could be made responsible for his debts would be to enfranchise him and make him a citizen, in which case he would be amenable to the laws and subject to be sued in court.
As to the other point, the straying of animals on reserves, there is provision in the Indian Act whereby such animals should be impounded, as they are in any other locality, and after due advertisement sold. I cannot conceive of an Indian, merely because an animal has strayed on the reserve, selling that animal and using the proceeds, without being subject to procedure in the courts.


Vincent Dupuis: That is the fact.


Charles Murphy: I cannot argue the legal
aspect, I am not a lawyer, but I think that would be only common sense and I believe good law.


Vincent Dupuis: In answer to the argument of the hon. minister, when he compares the Indian to a minor, if the law so regards him the comparison should be continued. An individual who is a minor has a guardian and if the minor does something wrong the father or guardian is responsible for his act. But in the case of the Indian the Department of Indian Affairs takes no responsibility for the mischief the Indian does. So I believe there is something wrong. Then the hon. minister says that people in general must know that when they deal with an Indian they deal at their own risk. As the minister knows, these Indians do not always stay upon the reserves. They come to Montreal or to Laprairie and

Indian Act
it is hard to tell them from white men. Many of them own automobiles, they obtain licences and go driving through the country and when an accident occurs they attempt to escape liability by saying to the injured party, "I am not responsible, I am a minor."
Mr. BURY': So does a minor.


Vincent Dupuis: That is the answer given to many who suffer injuries in collisions with the cars of these Indians. The extent of the damages may amount to two or three thousand dollars, it may be that even a death occurs, but they attempt to escape liability in this manner. I must say that many of these Indians will try to cover any damages which might occur, but there are some of them who try to escape. I do not think that the Indians or the Department of Indian Affairs should be above the law in such matters.


Peter McGibbon: I endorse what the hon. member has just said. I do not see why a colour line should be drawn; I see no reason why certain Indians should not be given the franchise. Many of them are very intelligent, many conduct different kinds of businessea Those who fought in the war were enfranchised but in many cases they have brothers and sisters who are just as intelligent and as ambitious as they are. I suggest to the minister that he consider seriously the enfranchising of those Indians who are capable of exercising their rights. There are two bands in my riding made up of intelligent and industrious people. They follow different lines of occupation and yet they are treated as minors or wards of the government. I remember very distinctly one bright boy coming to me and telling me how he was handicapped because he was an Indian. He was very ambitious and had saved enough money to buy a motor car, but he found he could get no work to do. When he applied for work he was told that as the work available was for relief purposes and as he was a ward of the government he could not be given anything to do. He was very ambitious and ready and willing to work, yet he could obtain nothing. Providing an Indian has the necessary intelligence, I think he should be given the rights of citizenship. I suggest that many white men are not capable of exercising their rights, and I think an effort should be made to see if we cannot make a better citizen out of the Indian.
There is another matter I should like to take up with the minister, although it may not be exactly germane to the present discussion. I think the department should exercise greater care over the health of the Indian. I am told that throughout the northern parts of Ontario
tuberculosis is sweeping the Indians into eternity by the hundreds. A doctor visits these Indians once a year, he leaves certain medical supplies but in the meantime they have to doctor themselves just as they have to feed themselves. As long as they remain wards of the government, the government has a responsibility which should be exercised in as humane a way as possible.


Charles Murphy: I might mention that section 7 deals with the enfranchisement of Indians.


Paul Mercier: I hope the minister is going to give the committee an explanation in connection with the payment of debts by Indians. A man came into my office last week who had sold a horse to an Indian for $150. He could not obtain payment and had obtained a judgment to get the horse back. He had had to pay his own costs and found he was unable to regain possession of the animal. He wanted to know if he had to lose everything or if the department would not interfere.


Charles Murphy: For the information of the hon. member I would direct his attention to section 105 of the act, which reads:
No person shall take any security or otherwise obtain any lien or charge, whether by mortgage, judgment or otherwise upon real or personal property of any Indian or non-treaty Indian, except on real or personal property subject to taxation under the last three preceding sections: Provided that any person selling any article to an Indian or non-treaty Indian may take security on such article for any part of the price thereof which is unpaid.
As I read the act, any person selling a binder, a horse, a pig or any chattel to an Indian has a right to take a lien upon that property in order to satisfy his just debt.


Paul Mercier: Does that mean that the lien must be registered with the department?


Charles Murphy: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I do not meddle much in the affairs of other counties; however, as the hon. member for Qucbec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), has previously made inquiries in connection with the post offices of Temiscouata, he will no doubt be pleased by my inquiries in connection with the distribution of patronage in his constituency which have reference to purchases made for Indians. The following is what seems to have transpired:
You must, no doubt, be aware that the government, in these hard times, grants to the Indians of Notre-Dame-de-Lorette, as a sustenance allowance for their families . . .
Indian Act


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: I think
the hon. member is drifting away from the subject.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, may I state that this article refers to the sale-


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: I am
aware that it is a question of sale, however, it has no connection with the assistance granted by the Department of Indian Affairs, it simply is a question of sale between Indians and between white people and Indians.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Indians sold scrips or orders in that locality and now the system has been changed. The section refers to sales which take place on Indian reserves, and I am, at present, discussing the sale made on a reserve.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: The hon. member will have an opportunity of discussing this question when the house considers the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs or the administration of the funds set aside for Indians. I do not wish to appear discourteous to the hon. member, but I do not think that the discussion is in order, so far as section 3 is concerned.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, section 3 reads as follows:
Section forty of the said act, as enacted by section five of chapter twenty-five of the statutes of 1030. is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:-
No person shall buy or otherwise acquire from any band or irregular band of Indians or from any Indian and no Indian shall sell or otherwise dispose of to any one other than a member of the band, any cattle or other animals of any kind from any reserve in the province of Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta or the territories without the written consent of the Indian agent.
The following is an explanation of sections 3 and 4.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: Section
3 cannot cover a case which may have oocurred on the Huron reserve of Quebec-Montmorency; according to the strict wording of section 3, this only refers to the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and to the Territories.


Jean-François Pouliot: The letter
which I wish to read contains also strict wording-


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: I think
the hon. member might postpone his remarks until the estimates of this department are brought down.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very
sorry indeed, I thought that it would interest you, sir.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: It does.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I fully appreciate the second clause in that section of the act, but it seems to me it is a little too restrictive; the conditions of marketing are too strictly defined. I am referring to the fact that the federal government is assisting in connection with stock raising and so forth. There is no doubt that in some sections of the country the Indians of these reserves are increasing production. According to the spirit of the act they are supposed to offer their produce only to their own band. Now, with overproduction they have the same problem that confronts the white man. The white man has to sell his surplus to the outside world and the same principle applies to the Indian. How can this be accomplished if the Indians are not permitted to sell to anyone except their own people?


Charles Murphy: The hon. member is, I think, in error in what he is stating. There is nothing to prevent an Indian, whether on an agricultural reserve or any other type of reserve, from selling any of his produce if he has a surplus. All he has to do is to apply to the agent for a permit or ask the agent to sell the goods for him, and this will be done.


Mr. REID:: I think it was last year I brought to the attention of the minister a question of the responsibility of the government in regard to Indians who own motor oars. This is a very serious matter. As the minister well knows, the Indians have forsaken the cayuse and are using four-wheel chariots. I have under my hand the report of a case where a man, his wife and four of his family were almost killed through the recklessness of Indians driving a motor car. It is true those Indians had been using some loganberry -wine before setting out. They were later taken before the court, one of them being sent to gaol and the other fined. At the present time, at least in British Columbia, before one is allowed to drive an automobile, he has to have a driver's licence and a licence for his oar.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not think the hon. gentleman is speaking to the question before the committee.


Thomas Reid: That is true; the clause before the committee does not-deal with the subject I have introduced, but there is not in the

Indian Act
bill any clause dealing with it specifically, and another hon. member speaking before I did, raised a similar question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
second reading of the bill was dispensed with especially in order that its general principles might be discussed as well, in committee.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am not aware of that.
I am only aware of the rules and regulations of the house.


Thomas Reid: I believe I am quite in order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member can bring this question up when we go into supply. It does not come under the act.


Thomas Reid: I am suggesting that some regulation be put into the act.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is speaking of a specific case in British Columbia. This clause applies only to Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta or the territories.


Thomas Reid: It applies to wards of the government and certain actions of Indians as such.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The committee must adhere to the rules and regulations, otherwise we shall not make progress.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In connection with the last two bills, second reading was dispensed with so that members would be entitled to discuss any feature of the Indian Act.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not quite right. On the second reading, the principle of the bill is discussed, not the details.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: On the second reading, the principle of the bill may be discussed. On the third reading, my hon. friend is entitled to introduce any amendment he wishes and to drscuss the question he desires to bring before the house, but he cannot disregard the rule that discussion in committee is limited to the clause under review. The discussion must be relevant to the item before the committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Surely
the principle of the bill is the regulation of Indians who are wards of the state and any question may be a'sked of the minister in regard to the regulation of those wards. My hon. friend is bringing up a very important and material point in regard to wards of the state. Surely you are not going to eliminate discussion in regard to that.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: My hon. friend is quite right, but he knows very well that in committee discussion must be strictly relevant to the section under review. If no section before the committee covers the point which the hon. member wishes to raise, he can, on third reading, bring in an amendment to add what he considers is lacking or discuss the bill when it is being finally passed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are
on section 3 and I find in this section clause 40 where reference is made to an irregular band of Indians. My hon. friend wa's referring to just that very thing-Indians who are irregular in their habits. Therefore I think he is in order in bringing up the matter.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If my hon. friend will
read further, he will see that it refers to the province of Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta or the territories.


Thomas Reid: I am willing to bow to your
ruling, but an hon. member who preceded me brought up a similar question.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: And I stopped him
and referred to section 7. So far as I am concerned, I am in the hands of the committee.


Charles Murphy: I have no objection to
the hon. member making the remarks he wishes.


Thomas Reid: I am glad I have the indulgence of the minister as well as of the chairman. This is a very serious matter in some districts. As I say, I have before me the report of a case where a man, his wife and family were almost killed through Indians who had been using some loganberry wine which perhaps was too strong. While they were driving along at a reckle'ss speed, they ran into this man's car. They were arrested, one being sent to gaol for sixty days and the other fined. At present in British Columbia an ordinary citizen, before he is permitted to drive a car, must have a driver's licence and also a licence for the car itself. But an Indian may purchase a car, either outright or on time, and he is let loose, so to speak, throughout the country. He know's he is a ward of the government. Under our laws it is true that the ordinary citizen may drive a car on the public streets without its being insured. If his car is in an accident he cannot run it again until he takes out insurance fully protecting the public. It is not so with the Indian. He may have as many accidents and cause as much injury a's he likes, and nothing can be done against him because he is a ward of the government, so long as the government does not allow the injured party to sue. As the Indian is the
Indian Act

ward of the government I believe the government should be responsible for the actions of its wards, just as a father is responsible for the actions of his minor children. But if the government cannot see its way to making such an enactment, it at least should be provided that after an accident the agent should be empowered to refuse the Indian the right to use his car again on the highway. The minister last year said that he would give this matter some consideration, and I would ask him now if he has done so, and whether he has in contemplation regulations to protect the public against the recklessness of Indians.
Mr. MUPtPHY:	As the hon. member has
stated, he did draw this question to my attention some months ago, but I think he is in error when he states that an Indian can drive a motor car on the public highways without a licence. He may drive it on the reserve without a car licence or a driver's licence, but once he leaves the reserve, unless I am greatly mistaken, it is necessary for him to take out a car licence and a driver's licence.
The hon. member also raises the point of the Indian being an irresponsible party in case of a motor car accident, and he suggests that there should be some provision whereby the Indian would be held responsible. May I draw attention to the fact that there are many white people driving cars to-day who, if they are involved in an accident with their car, have no property which can be seized in case of a judgment against them not being settled. They are in just the same position as the Indian in that respect.


Thomas Reid: Not quite.


Mr. NEILL:: The white man has to have car insurance.


Charles Murphy: In some cases, but not in
all.


Charles A. Stewart: As a matter of fact, the Indian comes under the provincial law the moment he leaves the reserve.


Thomas Reid: The white man can only have an accident once without taking out insurance, but an Indian can have accidents repeatedly.


Charles Murphy: Not off the reserve, because the provincial authorities would have the right to refuse him a licence for his car and a driver's licence, and in that way the Indian could be made amenable to the provincial law. So I think the hon. member is wrong in his contention.


Alan Webster Neill: Might I explain that? The
white man is, like a dog, entitled to only one bite. In British Columbia, for instance, I 
think the white man is allowed to have only one accident before taking out insurance fully protecting the public. The people in British Columbia at any rate have recognized that they must protect the public against these accidents caused by irresponsible people. While the law as it stands is good so far as the white man is concerned, I think it should be amended to make it even more strict so that a man cannot cause an acident with his car once without the public being fully protected against damages. As it stands now, the white man must satisfy a judgment against him before he can run his car again. That is the inducement to take out insurance. More than that, he has not only to pay the judgment against him, but he cannot run his car again until he puts up a sum of money or takes out an insurance policy guaranteeing that he will be good for any future accidents in which his car may be involved. Where the law is lacking is that it should have in it this insurance principle to begin with. A man may be running a motor truck for his livelihood, and because he is involved in an accident he is deprived of his livelihood by a judgment, say, of five or six thousand dollars, which he will never be able to pay very probably, and he is thereby deprived of ever running a car again. Even where he is able to pay the judgment, he has to take out insurance.
While the minister is probably correct in saying that once the Indian leaves the reserve he comes under the provincial law as to driver's licence, car licence, and so forth, he is not responsible financially. In my own home town a white man was very badly injured in. a motor accident by an Indian, and under ordinary conditions he -would have got a judgment of perhaps two thousand dollars against a white man, but he did not get a cent because the man was an Indian. Now that Indian is not going to be warned by that accident, because he did not suffer in any way, and he can go out and do the same thing to-morrow. We want to see the Indian put on the same basis as the white man in regard to responsibility. In British Columbia at least, and I understand that Ontario is following very much along the same lines, we are guaranteeing the general public against serious material loss caused by irresponsible or careless drivers, but when it comes to the Indian we are absolutely hopeless and helpless.


Charles Murphy: With the general remarks of the hon. member I am rather in agreement, but I do not quite agree with him in his conclusion that there is nothing to prevent the Indian who has had one accident from

Indian Act
going out again and having another. The granting of the car licence and the driver's licence rests with the provincial government, and if the Indian is not considered by the provincial authorities a responsible party to put in control of a motor vehicle, all they have to do is to deprive him of his licence, and he is thereby deprived of the right to drive his car on the highways of the province.
I think, therefore, the hon. member is wrong in his contention.


Alan Webster Neill: But the civil law does not exist for the Indian, and that is the trouble. A man may cause serious damage with his car and yet not be deprived of his licence, and in the case of the Indian you have no recourse against him under the civil law. The civil law is taken away so far as the Indian is concerned.


Mr. COWAN (Port Arthur):: I have not heard the whole discussion but I have not yet heard any explanation of the limitation in this section. Why is it confined to the reserves in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the territories? Why does not this provision apply to the other provinces in which there are reserves?
Mr. MlfRPHY: When this clause was first drafted, if my information is correct, it was drawn with particular reference to those provinces because it has been the policy of the department for a number of years to encourage the Indians in the western provinces named in this section to establish themselves by cultivating the land. It is there that the Indian who formerly obtained his livelihood through the chase, or by other means, has been induced to take up the arts of agriculture,, and in order to protect him during this process of transition from a nomadic state to that of a farmer it has been considered necessary to protect him in the disposal of his produce. That is the reason why these particular provinces are mentioned in the section.


Vincent Dupuis: The hon. minister and some hon. members have spoken of the irresponsibility of the Indian in the sale of his produce < and in regard to automobile accidents. I am afraid that this discussion will leave the public under a false impression that the Indians are responsible when they are outside the reserve. That is not the fact. But if I am wrong I should be very pleased if the minister would amend the legislation so that it would be absolutely indisputable that an Indian outside the reserve is responsible and that if he causes an accident or if he buys something he comes under the law just the same as the white man, who can be sued and judgment
obtained against him. If that is the fact, 1 should like to hear from the minister, and if not I beg, ask or pray that some amendments be made to the law for the protection of the public.


Charles Murphy: I believe the hon. member has read more into my remarks than I had intended to, or in fact did, convey. In no place in the Indian Act is the Indian described as a minor or a ward. I realize that those are terms generally used when speaking of Indians, but at no point in the act are they so described. Under the Indian Act he is described solely as an Indian. In some cases by treaty, and other cases by other means, he is given certain privileges, if they may be so called. Concerning the responsibilities of Indians on reserves, I should like to make some observations. If an Indian who has suit brought against him for damages has property off the reserve, he is in the same position as a w'hite man, but not in cases where his personal property is owned on the reserve.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I have been a lawyer
for some time in the province of Quebec, and I believe the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville is labouring under a mistaken idea. The Indian is under the same responsibility as a white man; he has the same criminal responsibility; he cannot be granted a motor car licence unless that licence be issued by provincial authorities. He is subject to all the traffic regulations and motor laws of his province. If he causes damage, he is responsible. If he has property, his responsibility is the same as that of a white man who has property and causes damage. If he has no property we come to the old French dictum: La oil il n'y a rien le roi perd ses droits: "Where there is nothing the king loses his right." If the Indian owns the automobile, in the event of his causing damage, it can be seized.


Vincent Dupuis: No.
Mr. LaVERGNE :	The hon. member is
mistaken. In a case such as he has described the minor, or the Indian who is supposed to be a minor under the law, would be responsible. He is responsible for the damage he causes just the same as any other man would be. The father would be responsible only when he was aware of the minor's action, and when he had such action under his control and did not prevent it. Otherwise there could be no responsibility against a father. The minor must take the responsibility himself, and action could be taken only against him. It is the minor wdio pays and is respon-
Indian Act

sible for the damage he causes. In the same way a man who sells to an Indian knows very well what he is doing, and if he sells to one who has no goods or no property he must take the risk, in the same way as if he were selling to a white man, or to a minor who cannot contract. Nobody is supposed to ignore the law. But if an Indian has property, or if an object which he sells has a lien against it, under the law he is responsible. Therefore, unless my understanding is incorrect, I do not see how the cases outlined by the hon. members for Laprairie-Napier-ville and New Westminster can be dealt with by amendments to the Indian Act. Further than that, I believe no amendment to the Indian Act could interfere with the enforcement of provincial traffic or civil laws. Those remedies rest entirely within the control of the provinces. The only action we could take would be to change the statutes pertaining to Indians.


Charles A. Stewart: I think
Ontario law has gone that far.


Vincent Dupuis: Ontario law, but not Quebec law.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Yes, and Quebec law.
I have had some experience pleading for Indians.


Vincent Dupuis: If the hon. member for
Montmagny would permit me I should like to refer to a case in which the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville appeared. I refer to an action which arose from an automobile accident occuring outside a reserve. The client of the hon. member suffered personal injuries and also damage to his car. He tried to sue, but was informed that the Indian was a minor and was not responsible. I believe the department told him he had no recourse. The hon. member for Montmagny has said that the Indian is on the same footing as the white man; in my view he is mistaken. Particularly is that so in the province of Quebec, and I believe his interpretation of the law would be as incorrect in regard to the other Canadian provinces. The stand taken by the Department of Indian Affairs is to the effect that Indians are not responsible. They hold that if an Indian, the owner of property, goes outside a reserve with an automobile and causes damage, but returns to the reserve, he is above the law, and nobody can sue him. To be more accurate, he could be sued, but there could be no execution against him.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I believe the hon.
member is wrong in that.


Vincent Dupuis: Seizure of the car could be made only when it is outside the reserve. I believe if the hon. member would inquire from the minister he would learn that my information is correct.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I am not quite certain, but I believe that under the act any bailiff can enter a reserve and seize the personal goods of an Indian.


Vincent Dupuis: No.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	That is a matter however which is subject to discussion, and I must say I have heard arguments and have had judgments both ways. I am inclined to believe that if the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville had gone to the court and not to the department he would have got redress.


Vincent Dupuis: I have obtained judgment
in court, but could not get execution.
Mr. LaVERGNE : I do not know whether I should blame the Indian, the judge or the lawyer; I am sure however it was not the lawyer. As the hon. member knows, there are some bad judgments handed out. The responsibility of the Indian exists absolutely within the law; he is responsible [DOT]ivilly and criminally. So far as civil responsibility is concerned there is no difference between a white man and an Indian. The point is to know how much of the damage can be repaired. In that case again the Indian is in the same position as the white man who has no money or property, or whose automobile is not paid for. I must close my remarks, because I must not set a bad example by being out of order myself.


Vincent Dupuis: The hon. member's remarks are most interesting.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I believe the Indian
should be enfranchised, and so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, with special reference to Two Mountains, St. Regis and Caughnawaga; I believe they could claim franchise. They are here under special treaty with the King of France. At the time of the conquest they became subject to govern- , mental authority, just the same as the other inhabitants of the country. They are British citizens, just the same as we Canadians of French origin. I understand, however, that many of the Indian bands in the province of Quebec do not want the ballot; they prefer to be wards of the nation. They have certain privileges which they do not want to give up for the fallacy, shall I call it, of the ballot. Of course usually the ballot does good, but sometimes it goes astray. I do

Indian Act
not think we can do anything here to meet the complaints brought up by the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville and the hon. member for New Westminster. These matters rest entirely with the provinces. If an amendment were passed here certainly it would be ultra vires; it would be encroaching on the rights of the provinces.


Thomas Reid: I do not wish to delay the committee, but I should like to ask one question which might clear up a lot of doubt. My information is that an Indian, though he may own property on the reserve, cannot be sued for damages outside the reserve. That is my information, and that always has been my opinion. The Indian can be prosecuted and put in jail, but I understand that he cannot be sued for damages. I should like to ask the minister whether or not that is correct.


Charles Murphy: Not being a member of the legal fraternity or a judge I do not know that I am in a position to give a categorical answer to that question. However, my information would lead me to the conclusion that an Indian may be sued, though I am not altogether certain that if a judgment were obtained in favour of the plaintiff it could be ent'oroed. My information is to the effect that if an Indian owns property outside the boundaries of a reserve he is in the same position as a white man. Property within the reserve would be exempt from the enforcement of such a judgment, but if in the opinion of the court such property did not belong to the reserve-a motor car, for instance-it might be seized in execution of the judgment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Roads.
Charles A. Stewart: I should like to ask the minister if this gives the Superintendent General authority to over-ride the Indian council.


Charles Murphy: Yes, I think it does.


Charles A. Stewart: I have not the act before me, but I thought that in all cases the Superintendent General had power to over-ride the actions of the Indian councils. I just wondered why you should ask for this particular power.


Charles Murphy: At present there is nothing in the act which gives the minister any such specific authority, and that is why we are asking for it now.


Charles A. Stewart: I was referring to the general authority possessed by the Superintendent General to control the Indians and their councils if the occasion should arise. The only reason I asked the question was because I wondered why this particular case should be specified.


Charles Murphy: It was to enable the Superintendent Getneml to deal with any particular case that might come up in connection with the location of a road.


Charles A. Stewart: I agree with the principle, but here is the point: I under stood that the over-riding clause was general in its application to the whole act; it is an arbitrary right, but I believe it is necessary. My fear is that you will be asked to specify all cases in which this right exists. If you simply take one case and say it is necessary for the Superintendent General to have the authority to over-ride the council with respect to any road or road allowance I am afraid you are weakening his authority generally under the act.


John Power Howden: I am just a little curious about this section. Why should the Superintendent General have the right to say where a road should go within a reserve, when he probably never sees the reserve and knows nothing about it.


Charles Murphy: Of course the Superintendent General would act upon the advice of the surveyor who determined in the first place the proper location for the road. Certainly the minister would avail himself of all possible information before making a decision.


Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I am interested in the application of this section, and I should like to preface the question I am about to ask by stating an actual case. In my constituency there are seven reserves, four of which come under what is known as the Crooked Lake agency. Crooked Lake is in a widening of the Qu'Appelle valley; it is about a mile and a half wide and about fifteen miles long. On one side of this lake there is a splendid beach, and many people living in the southeastern part of the province have established cottages at this point. In order to get to their camps they have to cross a portion of the reserve at the west end of the lake. From time to time they have had considerable difficulty with the Indians on the reserve, since they are really trespassers when they cross. Two years ago we presented a petition to the department in an effort to get a road put through the reserve, but on that occasion the Indians refused to consent to the

Indian Act

proposition. I should like to ask the minister whether, under this section, it would be possible to take any action in this respect. There are about thirty camps in this vicinty, and I should like to know whether it would be possible for the government to open a road through the reserve which would give these people access to the beach.


Charles Murphy: This amendment was not designed for the purpose of giving the Superintendent General authority, generally speaking, to override the desires of the Indians. It was rather designed for a purpose such as this; suppose it is in the interests of the Indians to locate the road through that reserve. We send a surveyor from the department for the purpose of locating that road, which they themselves are willing to have constructed. The surveyor makes a report to the department as to the proper location of that road. But for some reason a few Indians may object to that location. Their reasons may or may not be well founded. In those cases it is considered by the department that the authority should rest with the Superintendent General, after receiving the best advice he can get, to determine the location of that road.
Before giving a specific answer to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle I would say that any minister charged with the responsibility of conducting Indian affairs would have to give very serious consideration to the question whether he should, in direct opposition to the general wishes of the Indians, place a road through the reserve for the sole benefit, shall we say, of white people. It was not the intention in drafting this amendment to give to the superintendent that power, or to exercise that power in that particular way, but rather to exercise it in the way I have indicated.


Charles A. Stewart: I quite
agree with everything the minister has said on the case cited by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle. If agreement could not be secured from the Indians the Superintendent General has authority to do these things. He may not exercise that authority, but it is given him by the act. My only reason for asking about the insertion of this particular clause was to learn why it was taken out of the general provisions of authority and segregated as dealing with roads only. I can oite a number of cases in which this particular question has arisen before. We have had difficulties with the Indian council, who are not in agreement with the provincial authorities usually when these projected highways have to pass through their reserve.


Charles Murphy: If my hon. friend will
permit me, this is really to deal with roads in reserves for the benefit of the Indians, but not having reference to provincial highways, in respect of which expropriation powers can be exercised.


Charles A. Stewart: I thought
the Superintendent General had this power. I have not the act before me, but he has very wide powers. My curiosity was aroused to know just why they are asking for this specific power.
Progress reported.



STATEMENT OF MR. NEILL-ALLEGED MALADMINISTRATION IN MARINE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I wish, before going into supply, to bring to the notice of the house a question of maladministration in a department. I am sorry to see that the minister in charge is not in the house, the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau).
In these days when the government is at its wits' end for money, when cuts have to be made in almost eveiy estimate, and when economy has to be practised to the extent that it almost becomes false economy, it very much becomes the government and the several departments to be particularly careful to prevent anything that savours of waste, uselessness, abuse or graft, to avoid what is called even the appearance of evil. The policy I have adopted in such matters if such have been brought to my attention has been this; I would bring the matter complained of to the attention of the particular minister, and if he took steps to rectify it, to get restitution from the parties concerned if it were a case of money improperly spent, and to check the abuse complained of, I was satisfied with that and the matter went no further. I did not bring it to the floor of the house or the public platform and seek to make political capital of it. Some of the minister's colleagues are aware that I have acted in that way. But, in a case where they refuse to take any action, propose to brazen it out as justified, then I think it is my duty to bring the matter to the attention of the house, not only as a

Marine-Alleged Maladministration
warning to others but to demonstrate to my constituents that I at least have no part or parcel in the transaction complained of.
Through nearly all these matters of complaint, in my district at any rate, I find running the black thread of the abuse of government patronage; government patronage somewhat crudely manipulated through the agency of a gentleman who is euphemistically described as the government representative in the district of Comox-Albemi, in sharp contrast to the representative of the people, the man they elected to represent them in parliament. This system, or lack of system, is of course entirely subversive of the democratic form of government under which we are supposed to live. It leads to autocratic and almost despotic use of power for which there is no authority granted by any section of the people. We were told in bygone centuries that kings governed by divine right. But this is beyond that, they do not even pretend to have divine right, they derive this power, which is too often a temptation to abuse, from the mere fact that they are associated with some political party.
The instance to which I wish to draw attention centres around a man whom I am not going to name because I do not wish to hold him up to public obloquy too much. I will merely describe him as Mr. Man. He possesses a somewhat peculiar entity. A couple of generations ago theological circles were much exercised by consideration of the true meaning to be ascribed to the idea of the Trinity. Did it really mean what it said or was it a figure of speech, the idea of three in one and one in three, yet not three, but one and yet not one, but three? I am confronted with the extension of this puzzling doctrine to this gentleman because of the combination of identities. It is not only a case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, it is a sort of square-root problem because he possesses not one entity but four, yet he is not four men but only one.
The first official appearance, and in which he does not appear as a returned man, is that of mail carrier. This position was formerly held by a married man and was given to this man without advertising or without recourse to the Civil Service Commission. He draws only the sum of 810 per month, not a large amount but nevertheless there are thousands of single men to-day in British Columbia and probably in other parts of Canada upon relief who receive only S6 per month. I am sure that a man receiving S10 per month would have to have very strong political pull in order to obtain any relief.
53719-132%
One would think that this might suffice, but there is a second reincarnation in which he appears, and again not as a returned man- that of provincial road foreman on relief work. This is a sort of intermittent position, it runs on a sliding scale. If any other of his positions come into the landscape and he is afforded an opportunity of earning some money, the relief work is shut down and the mien sent home until he has completed the work upon his other position or positions, when he has nothing else to do he returns to the relief work.
His third identity, again not as a returned man, is as a patrolman. For some years he has he'd this position which operates for four months in the year and pays, I believe, $90 per month. I understand there is a section in the Civil Service Act which states that a man shall not hold two positions. I do not think it says a man shall not hold four positions, but apparently it was not contemplated that such a thing would happen. It might be thought that a man working four months in the year and receiving $90 per month might well be able to make way for someone harder up than himself. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that anyone in British Columbia would have to possess very strong political pull to be able to get any relief while holding a position bringing in S350 a year. I said he was not a returned man, but he displaced a returned man. This man had a particularly fine record both as a soldier and as a patrolman, so much so that the permanent officials complimented him upon his work. My statement can be checked up when I say that there was not the least tinge of suspicion of any political action on the part of this man which would justify his being let out or not being reappointed.
So there are three positions which we find Mr. Man occupying. One would think that that would suffice, but we find him, again not as a returned man, in another reincarnation, as contractor to the government of the day. Before I give the particulars of this position perhaps I should refer to another situation which may explain the other four. This man was prominent in politics and during one of his periods of employment as patrolman he took four days off in order to attend a political convention-the government paid him for those four days. Perhaps this political association explains in part the other four activities which providence has been so kind as to bestow upon him. Contractors have beer; known to lose money even when dealing with, a government but I do not think anyone
2092	COMMONS
Marine-Alleged Maladministration
would be so foolish or so ill-advised as to lose money when allowed to write his own ticket. This man was allowed to write his own contract which stated very definitely the money he was to receive and very indefinitely the work he was to perform in order to receive that money. The work he was to do consisted of repairing some five bridges on a trail, each one four to six feet wide. The usual method adopted in such a case by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) would be to have an engineer report upon the necessities and requirements of the work. The marine department has an engineer directly in charge of this work and located not very far away. One would suppose that specifications would be prepared by an engineer and tenders invited and that, all things being equal, the lowest tender would be accepted possibly with the requirement that a bond be furnished that the work would be carried out.


Mr. STEVENS:: Is the hon. gentleman
speaking of dominion work?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, these bridges are on a
life-saving trail managed by the Department of Marine and under direct charge of its engineer.


Alfred Duranleau: What trail is that?


Alan Webster Neill: On the trail between Bamfield and Pachena. One would have expected that all these reasonable and sensible regulations would have been carried out in disposing of this matter, but in fact none of them were-I am told that an estimate of a sort was made by a certain gentleman I have the very highest regard for this man in his own particular line of business, he is a man of outstanding ability in that regard but he is not an engineer; he is not qualified to do work of this kind, more especially when there is an engineer in charge of the work. One might appreciate very highly the abilities of an astronomer but one would not employ him to design a cathedral. I put small weight upon the estimate obtained in this regard; I think lam justified in saying that the principal criterion was the man's own tender.


Alfred Duranleau: Do I understand that my hon. friend does not want to mention the name of that contractor?


Alan Webster Neill: I do not want to do it in the house. The hon. minister is well aware of this matter, why bring this man before the public? I will name him if I am required to, but I have my file going back as far as last October. If the minister is not aware of this man's name, he should be. Here is my letter upon the subject two pages in length; have I got an answer to that? No, of course not.


Alfred Duranleau: Does not my hon.
friend think that he should give the name of that man? In fairness to the house I think my hon. friend should have told the minister concerned that he intended to bring up this matter to-day upon the motion to go into supply. I am sorry that he did not, because he knows very well that a minister cannot keep in his mind all the details of his department. Usually all communications go to the deputy minister, no't to the minister himself. Unless the minister is advised that a matter concerning his department will be brought before the house, it is very difficult for hon. members to get the whole story. Had I had at least an hour's notice, I could probably have given an answer to my hon. friend. In fairness to the house, he should have given that notice and at least he should give the name of that contractor.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister asks why I did not advise him that I was going to bring this up. I shall reply: Why should I? Perhaps he was not in the chamber when I explained that my policy was not to bring these matters up in the house, but after I have brought a case to the attention of the minister, without redress, as a last resort I introduce it here. When you cannot get replies to letters and representations, that is the time to bring a matter up in the house as the last court of resort.
He has said that I should give the man's name. I am not charging the man with anything; I am charging the department and I am giving the department's name and the minister's name. He knows the name; he has the correspondence. I have the file before me. I have been writing to the minister since October. If, sir, you rule that I should give the name, I shall do so; there is nothing in the world to prevent except that this man is a very faithful and loyal friend of the party opposite and I did not want to make unnecessary trouble. If the minister insists, I shall give it before I finish, but I cannot see what particular benefit there will be to anyone because I am not complaining of the man. He did what any man would do. You cannot expect a man to refuse to take four jobs if he can get them. I am complaining of the department that permitted this sort of thing. That is my grievance.
There were no specifications; there was only the contractor's own bid, very vaguely expressed in loose language. The price was an extravagant one. He stipulated, and quite properly, that all material for the job should be furnished by the government and delivered on the road. He also stipulated that he should

Marine-Alleged Maladministration
be paid half the price in the middle of the contract. Therefore he had absolutely no investment; he was out no money and certainly he took no risk. He did not have to buy material and he did not have to pay labour, because he stipulated that it should be paid when he was half through. There, is however, in the tender one provision that I should like to read. He says:
This figure $1,000 will mean contingent with good weather. That means the start must be made about the middle of August and that the work would be completed by November 1.
That, I bake it, is two and a half months which he thought would be about the time necessary in the middle of summer. The job was actually completed, not in two and a half months, but in one month, showing how much quicker he did it than he had anticipated. The best information I have-and I shall not be too definite on this point, but I believe it to be correct-is that he employed three men, one wf whom got about $80 out of it, another one somewhat less and a third about $60, making a total of $220. But to leave a wide margin for any doubt or error, let us say that it cost $300. This leaves him a clear profit of $700 on a $1,000 contract, not an investment of $1,000, because all he invested was his time for one month, or, say, $100. Thus, he makes a profit of something like 700 per cent. Seven hundred dollars a month comes to $8,400 a year, which is almost as good as being on the tariff board, and this in addition to these other side lines which also brought in their recompense in due or undue season.
The minister complains of my bringing this matter up at this time, but I am doing so before his estimates are reached. They are not going to be the first- ones taken, as I see the Minister of National Defence is ready to go on, so that the minister will have ample opportunity to secure his information and make such defence as he can. I shall anticipate some of it and also my answer. I shall be told that the contractor was a very nice man. I have been told that. I do not deny it; I never did deny it. Highwaymen have been known to be of jovial character. Bill Miner, who robbed the Canadian Pacific, was in private life a man of estimable repute, ind was teaching Sunday school a week before he robbed the train, so that a defence of that sort does not cut very much ice. Then we will be told that he is a very good bridge builder. That is nonsense. He is or was a fish buyer. The good bridge building that was done was done by one of his employees. Then we are told that he had to supply the tools and camp equipment. That
sounds as if he had to invest a great deal of money. Everybody who lives in the bush on the west coast of Vancouver island owns an axe and a cross-cut saw which, with perhaps the exception of a canthook, are about all the tools needed. But do not let it be forgotten that I pointed out earlier that this man was a provincial road foreman, so that he would have access to the road foreman's tools, and he would not be out of pocket a nickel for providing the tools for the job. As for the camp equipment, they lived in a government house rent free practically the whole time, so that the camp equipment did not cost him very much. As the house was empty, there was no reason why he should not live in it, but one does not need to put very much weight on the cost of camp equipment in his contract.
Then we are told the reason the man got the job in this way was that the department, animated by a very proper desire to deal with the local unemployment situation, stipulated that only local men should be employed. Well, I have the tender before me and it contains nothing about employing local men. But that argument falls to the ground because there were plenty of local men there. The job could have been put up to competition and local men could still have got it; it could still have been stipulated tliat local men should be employed. There was no reason that this particular man should get a contract at $1,000 when it was worth about $500, in order that local men should be employed. I guarantee that if this had been put up for tender locally, the government could have got it done for $500 and probably less.
It may be said that I am taking up the time of the house over what is, after all, a petty graft of $700. Yes, but it is illustrative. If the contract had been for a million dollars, the rake-off would have been $700,000 which is quite a large sum. If they do these things in the green tree, says Scripture, what shall be done in the dry? For days here we have sat and listened to comments made-and I joined in them, so I am not complaining of them-by hon. members on both sides, on what was termed the theories, the vague theories, if you like, of a body known as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. But if one hundred men had spoken for 100 days on that subject they would not have done the party to my left the harm that this incident has done them good. Or to put it another way, one hundred men talking for a hundred days cannot undo the harm to our political system which this incident has done in the minds of the people, because people are in a
2094	COMMONS
Marine-Alleged, Maladministration
touchy mood just now. Unfortunately the man who is hungry or on the verge of hunger, hard up, bitter with the loss of his money or position, does not reason with all the philosophy of a university professor, and cannot take his broadminded view of things. The man who has no work and who is told that he has to make S6 a month keep him, the married man who is told that he has to keep his wife on $3.50 a month-these are facts in British Columbia-the man who sees work left undone that ought to be done from every consideration, the man who sees no prospect of work either now or for some long time to come-these men I say are in no humour or mental condition to think it all out and apportion accurately the blame for such a deal. They will not entirely blame it, as perhaps they should, on the government representative who is primarily responsible, or on the minister or even on the government. But unfortunately they do ascribe it, not to the abuses of the system, but to the system itself, and they are very apt to say, and I know that they do say-"To perdition"-they use a shorter word-"with the whole system." But it is not the system that is at fault, but the abuses of it. The minds of these men form a very fertile seed-bed for doctrines, not of our friends to the left of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, but of a far more destructive character. They are ready to listen to any form of communistic ideas because they are so disgusted with that sort of thing.
That is but one instance, and a small one. Multiply it by a score for the district I represent, and then multiply that again by 244 for the other seats in this house, and can you wonder that there is discontent and unrest and dissatisfaction, and leanings towards communism, and people saying: "They are all rotten; let us wipe the whole lot out." They include me because these things cast discredit on us all, and the people do not discriminate. They do not say that this man is wrong and that man is right; they simply say, to h-* with the whole thing, and they are apt to fall into the clutches of people standing by who are only too ready to inject this bolshevist communist doctrine into their minds. That is one of the unfortunate features of this thing.
I have laid the matter before the house, and as I said in answer to the minister a moment ago, if he had replied to my letter on the subject and said that he would take steps to check it up-the thing is going on to-day, because this man has two jobs; he is a patrol man and a mail contractor-I should

not have had to bring it before the house, but the minister did not take that step, and now he protests because I bring the matter up here and says that I am unfair and that I did not tell him. I did tell him, and he might have known that if I did not get redress I would take the matter to the highest court. There is the situation, and I hope that the minister will reply. I shall be interested to hear his answer. He does not have to give it now. He will have time to communicate with his officials, and perhaps we shall be able to get the information later in the evening.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Civil pensions-life pension to Robert Allen, $269.52; life pension to Walter Pettipas, $515.90; life pension to Florence Walker and Children, $450; life pension to Arnold Truman Townsend, $420; life pension to Michael Mountain, $420.
Mr. GRAY:: Are there any new items here?


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: No, these are all old
items.


Mr. HANBURY:: I should like the minister to explain this vote.
Mr. SUTHERLAND; The pension to Robert Allen is for injuries received while a civilian employee awaiting enlistment in the mechanical transport in 1916. The life pension to Walter Pettipas is for loss of sight due to an explosion at Halifax in 1916. The life pension to Mrs. Florence Walker is for the death of her husband killed by an exploding shell in the performance of his duty at Fort Clarence, Halifax, in 1923. That pension had been higher, but has been cut down this year owing to one of the daughters having reached an age where she is not eligible for the allowance. The pension to Arnold Townsend is for injuries received on the Canadian Government Steamship Constance in 1917. The pension to Michael Mountain is for injuries sustained on His Majesty's Canadian ship Festubert in 1926. All these are cases which do not come under workmen's compensation because of the employees being in the government service, but the pensions are calculated at workmen's compensation rates for the province.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-National Defence
Adjustment of war claims-National Defence -militia services, $74,000; naval services, $500.
Pierre-François Casgrain: Will the minister explain
this item?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Ever since the war there have been a number of claims turning up from time to time which would have been settled immediately after the war had the claims then been presented; for instance, claims for separation allowance, war service gratuity, and pay and allowances. This vote also includes the upkeep of the historical section entrusted with the compiling of a history of the war; the supply of war medals, and so forth. There is also an item of $19,000 for war graves of men who die from war service but are not under the care, when they die, of the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Mr. COOTE:: What progress is being made with the preparation of the history of the war?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Very good progress is being made, and we expect that the first general volume will be published during the current year. This vote includes an item of $6,000 to pay for the publication of 5,000 copies of the first volume.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is mention in the vote of appropriations not required for 1933-34. What were those appropriations required for before?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: They do not have to do with this department, and never had to my knowledge.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Then why put them under this vote?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I could not tell you. They have nothing to do with this department. It is simply the way the estimates are compiled.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Appropriations that
appeared last year and are not required this year always are mentioned in this way in the estimates presented to parliament. It is in all our estimates, and has been for years. It is a matter of form followed by those who compile the item.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But we ought to know the details.


Henry Herbert Stevens: To show details would
only clog up the records.


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: I do not expect the details on the record; I want the minister to tell us what they are.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It has nothing to
do with the department.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Were they there last year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, for years and years.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I have not the information concerning last year's estimates before me.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Who is compiling the
history of the war?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It is under the
direction of Colonel Duguid, who is in charge of the historical section.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Has he an assistant, or is he doing the work alone?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: He obtains all
necessary assistance from the historical section.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Will the work be published in both English and French?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There is no provision in this vote for publication in both languages.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I should like to ask
the minister to see to it that when the history is completed it be printed in both languages.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That is a reasonable request, and I shall consider it.


Pierre-François Casgrain: When the publication is issued, will it appear in both languages?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I cannot promise it under this vote, but I can see the reasonableness of the hon. member's suggestion.


Peter McGibbon: When will the Book of
Remembrance be completed?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I should prefer to
answer that question under the next vote.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Under the vote now before
us there would appear to be a decrease of half a million dollars. In my view that is the net result of the figures shown in the item. In addition to the half a million dollars there is a further decrease of $8,000. In the estimates presented last year a decrease of $3,217,500 was shown. I may be dense, but I should like to know why this item is carried year after year.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: My only reply
would be that so far as this item was concerned only $82,500 was voted last year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was the
$500,000 required for use in the fiscal year 1932-33? If so, how was it spent? From the
Supply-National Defence

estimates we might be led to believe that the government is saving half a million dollars, whereas I believe the minister will admit that such is not the fact.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The $500,000 was
not voted for my department last year; there is no doubt about that. The fact is it was not voted at all in the main estimates.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Last year there was a decrease of $3,217,500.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: My impression is
that formerly the item concerning the adjustment of war claims had to do with some other departments which are not now interested, and that the Department of National Defence is the only department now needing the money.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I suggest the item be allowed to stand for further explanation.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I also am of that opinion,


George Gibson Coote: I should like to know whether since the war any publications have been made by the historical section?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, there have been some. It has been responsible for circulating to Canadian participants chapters of the British official history of the war, and for editing same. It has assisted regimental historians to write and publish acounts concerning individual units of the Canadian expeditionary force. It provides historical and biographical information as called for and is arranging material necessary for the completion of the Book of Remembrance. In addition to that it has published a number of historical monographs for official purposes.


George Gibson Coote: Is the first book to be published this year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, the first general volume this year.
Item stands.
Battlefields memorials, $76,500.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Would the minister
explain this item?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: This vote has
appeared in the estimates ever since the conclusion of the war, and concerns the money made available for the erection of memorials in France and Belgium, of which there are eight. Seven of them are now completed, the only one remaining for completion being the one at Vimy.


Pierre-François Casgrain: What is the reason for
the decrease?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The masonry work
on the Vimy memorial is entirely completed. All the stone is in place, so that the only further expense is that connected with finishing and sculpture work. The cost of the stone and of putting it in place is now paid for.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 24, to amend the criminal code (unlawful associations).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: As I stated when this bill was introduced, Mr. Speaker, it proposes to repeal section 98 of the criminal code, dealing with unlawful associations. Apparently there has been a very great deal of misapprehension with regard to the purpose of the bill; I think a good many people are not quite aware of the exact character and far-reaching extent of the section which it is proposed to repeal.
Let me say that a number of efforts have been made to have this section of the criminal code repealed. I introduced legislation along this line in 1922 and in 1923. Mr. McMaster, then the member for Brome, introduced a similar bill in 1925, and the Minister of Justice under the Liberal administration introduced bills repealing this section in 1926, 1928, 1929 and 1930. In 1929 the bill failed to pass the Senate by only three votes, so those who now speak so strongly against anyone who would venture to repeal this section of the criminal code must remember that the matter has been very fully discussed in this house again and again, and that it found favour with a majority of the members.
In the earlier days, when we sought to get rid of this piece of legislation we were told that it was a dead letter, that it never had been used and probably never would be used. As a matter of fact, however, there are now some eight communists in Kingston penitentiary who were convicted under this legislation. I should like to point out that these men did not commit any overt act whatever. They were not convicted of urging the, use of force, nor were they convicted of using force-

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
They were convicted of belonging to an association which was said to be affiliated with a body in Russia which did believe in the use of force; on that type of evidence they were convicted. If my understanding is correct the general spirit of British law is absolutely opposed to that kind of legislation. We have been taught that a man can be convicted only when he has actually committed some crime, but these men have not been convicted of any crime. They were convicted for holding a certain belief, and I say that is something quite new in British law.
The various labour bodies have protested from time to time against this legislation, not because they were favourable to communist doctrines but because they felt that the law could be used against trade unions; its terms are very broad indeed. I may say that they also feel that the legislation is wrong in itself. Not only the labour bodies have protested; other organizations have protested as well. In June of last year the Montreal and Ottawa conference of the United Church adopted a resolution in this connection, and I understand that the resolution was endorsed by the general council meeting at Hamilton, although I have not documentary proof in that regard. This is the resolution that was adopted at Montreal:
Concerning a communication from the Canadian Labour Defense League, complaining of police repression of freedom of speech; of the arrest of labour leaders, their transportation far from home to Halifax, and the attempt to deport them without trial; and of the harshness of the criminal code in relation to alleged unlawful associations.
Your committee would report that it has had no opportunity to investigate the cases alleged violence against workmen and labour organizers, cited by the Canadian Labour Defense League; nor does it think the conference the best body to undertake such investigation.
Your committee nevertheless recognizes;
First, that efforts of the working masses to improve their lot, and even to effect a different social order, are inevitable in the present situation.
Second, that the necessity for serious changes in the social structure is widely recognized in intellectual and professional circles everywhere, and in the commercial community itself.
Third, that the Christian church would be untrue to herself, a traitor to humanity, and an ally of reaction, if she were indifferent to the present tragic situation of the labouring masses, and their efforts after self-betterment.
Your committee therefore recommends that the Montreal and the Ottawa conference memorialize the general council and request its own presbyteries to make earnest efforts through their relevant boards and committees to secure:
1. That freedom of speech receive such safeguards in Canada as it has long received in Great Britain;
2.	That disturbance of the peace and other violations of law among the foreign born be dealt with as in the ease of the Canadian born; and that they be not made a pretext for the expulsion from Canada of people lawfully resident here, whose real offense is their social views;
3.	That representations be made to the government of Canada concerning the harsh and unreasonable features of the criminal code dealing with alleged unlawful associations, and especially concerning section 98, clause 3, which says:	_
"any person who wears, carries or causes to be displayed upon or about his person or elsewhere a badge, insignia, emblem, banner, motto, button, or other device whatsoever indicating or intending to show or suggest that he is a member of, or in any wise associated with, any such unlawful association, shall be guilty of an offense and liable to imprisonment for not more than twenty years."
4.	That efforts be made to secure that police authorities everywhere do not yield to panic, and the violence which panic produces, but that they recognize that firmness, with patience and understanding, are the qualities required in our distressed and critical days.
I submit that when such disinterested bodies as conferences of the United Church undertake to go that far in protest, it ill behooves any member of this chamber simply to brush aside such considerations. It seems to me that we must face the need for the revision of legislation that in its essence is opposed to the general principles of British freedom.
The legal aspect of this question is dealt with quite fully in the August 1932 number of the Queen's Quarterly, in an article by Mr. F. R. Scott, of the department of law of McGill University. Mr. Scott .points out that:
The communist party is a lawful and recognized political party in almost every civilized country to-day. Its members are sitting in parliaments in France, Germany and Czechoslovakia; it once had a member in the English House of Commons; in Canada, besides the fact that it has contested Dominion, provincial and municipal elections frequently, it rvas at one time represented on the Winnipeg city council. Only in Italy, Japan, Poland and some of the more reactionary Balkan states is the party completely outlawed. By the Toronto verdict Canada has allied herself with this group of select reactionaries. She is the only country amongst them which claims to be a democracy.
Mr. Scott then, goes on to discuss the legal aspects of the case. May I point out that it is not a novel thing for men to hold that under certain circumstances the use of force is justifiable? A great many writere on law have held that in certain instances the use of force is ethically justifiable, and is the last resort of every' free man. I am not taking that position; I simply point out that the use of force is frequently justified.
I should like to give an instance-If I remember aright, I cited it once before in

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
this house in another connection-that occurred in my own city of Winnipeg, as reported in the Manitoba Free Press. Mr. R. B. Graham, K.C., was proposing a toast to England, the occasion being the usual St. George's night dinner of the society over which the president, Mr. Jackson Dodds, O.B.E. presided as chairman. Music was furnished during and after the dinner by the regimental band of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. Mr. Graham is reported to have said in the course of his address:
No nation ever became truly great save by successful sedition and revolution. The lamp and the torch and the tumult have overcome tyranny. The signature of King John was placed to the Magna Charta, wrenched from him by the nobles; revolution led King Charles to the block; the corn law riots-7-these were crimes against the law and seditions, but no one hangs his head in shame because of them. "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," were no mere catchwords as in the French revolution, but the expression of the earnest striving for the substance that lies behind the words.
My point is that if the use of force under certain circumstances is so well recognized by our own leading men, and 'has been so generally recognized all down tihrougih the years, it seems very 'like persecution to set up a law that permits a certain grou,p of men whose opinions are . repugnant to the majority of people in Canada to be persecuted simply for holding that in certain contingencies resort must be had to force.
I should like to call attention to the very far-reaching character of the clauses of the act. Section 98 reads:
Any association, organization, society or corporation, whose professed purpose or one of whose purposes is to bring about any governmental, industrial or economic change within Canada by use of force . . .
I submit that that word "force" is altogether too broad in this connection. It may be that the government feels it necessary to take precautions against men who deliberately set aibout to organize military force or to bring about governmental changes by physical force. But, why not say so? This force may mean what is generally termed moral force. It may be used to cover What is often called intimidation. In connection with an historical trial in the west the judge took the ground that any group of people, such as trade unions, that attempted to force its opinions in any way upon the public would be guilty of the use of force; that is, the strength of trade unionism exercised in an ordinary strike, without any recourse to violence, would bring the people behind it under the terms of this act.

Again, the second Clause reads:
Any property, real or personal, belonging or suspected to belong to an unlawful association, or held or suspected to be held by any person for or on behalf thereof may, without warrant, be seized or taken possession of by any person thereunto authorized by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and may thereupon be forfeited to His Majesty.
There again I would call the attention of the house to the fact that it is not necessary that such property should actually belong to such an association; it is sufficient that certain people should think it belongs to the association. So long as somebody, the proper people, suspect that there is something wrong, suspicion becomes the ground upon which action may be taken, and then the property may be seized and confiscated. I submit that is contrary to the spirit of British law. We have always been told that men ought to be accused on certain definite grounds and regularly tried, and that it is only then that anything can be done with their property. But in this case their property can be seized without warrant and confiscated. It is a very far-reaching measure; it takes away anything like the liberties which we all thought we enjoyed.
Again, coming to subsection 4:
In any prosecution under this section, if it be proved that the person charged has-
(a) attended meetings of an unlawful association; or
(bl spoken publicly in advocacy of an unlawful association; or	[DOT]
(e) distributed literature of an unlawful association by circulation through the post office mails of Canada, or otherwise; it shall be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that he is a member of such unlawful association.
I am not a lawyer, but I have always been . taught that a man is considered innocent until he is proven guilty. Here he is considered to be guilty unless he himself can prove he is innocent. I cannot see how we can justify legislation of that kind.


Mr. GEARY:: May I ask the hon. member if he is aware that there is legislation of that sort upon the statute books of, I think, every province?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am aware it is
here in the code; I say I do not think it is justified.


George Reginald Geary: Liquor, motor vehicles.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope the hon.
member does not mean that this is justified because there is other vicious legislation. I am aware that in some cases the police are

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
given wide powers to act in case of suspicion. It may be that in liquor cases, it may be presumed, if a man has liquor, unless there is evidence to the contrary, that it is contraband or whatever it may be. There may be the possibility of justification in such cases as that. It is an altogether different matter when a man can be tried and held to be guilty of unlawful association simply because he has certain literature in his possession.


George Reginald Geary: I was wondering if my hon. friend knew how legislation similar to that had been interpreted in the courts? The burden of proof still lies where it was and the presumption of innocence is still the same.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not very
familiar with court procedure but I think it is clear that any magistrate who happened to be unfavourable or prejudiced could use this legislation in an unfair way. Subsection 5 reads:
Any owner, lessee, agent or superintendent of any building, room, premises or place, who knowingly permits therein any meeting of an unlawful association or any subsidiary association or branch or committee thereof, or any assemblage of persons who teach, advocate, advise or defend the use, without authority of the law, of force, violence or physical injury to person or property, or threats of such injury, shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for not more than five years, or to both fine and imprisonment.
It is quite true that the phrase "who knowingly permits" has a safeguarding effect, but on the other hand it might be very difficult for such an owner to prove that he did not know the character of the organization which was meeting in his hall. It is not merely one particular organization that is declared to be unlawful; this subsection covers any subsidiary association or branch or committee thereof. As is well known to hon. members of this house, there are what are really subsidiaries of the communist party. One branch devotes itself to the defence of its members who may be arrested, while another is engaged in the industrial fields in organizing the * trades unions and so on. It would be quite easy for such a subsidiary wishing to hold a meeting to represent itself as an independent organization and later on be charged with being a subsidiary of the communist party and hence an unlawful organization. The owner of a hall where such a meeting had been held would be liable to a heavy fine or imprisonment. As I stated last year, the police have attempted to frighten hall owners so that many of them will not take the risk of
permitting meetings to be held within their halls. When someone comes along and attempts to rent their halls, they say: "This may be unlawful; I will not take the risk." Many lawful organizations have found it impossible to find a hall wherein to hold a meeting. Subsection 6 reads:
If any judge or any superior or county court, police or stipendiary magistrate, or any justice of the peace, is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that any contravention of this section has been or is about to be committed, he may issue a search warrant under his hand, authorizing any peace officer, police officer, or constable with such assistance as he may require, to enter at any time any premises or place mentioned in the warrant, and to search such premises or place, and every person found therein, and to seize and carry away any books, periodicals, pamphlets, pictures, papers, circulars, cards, letters, writings, prints, handbills, posters, publications or documents which are found on or in such premises or place, or in the possession of any person therein at the time of such search, and the same, when so seized, may be carried away and may be forfeited to His Majesty.
Here we have what has generally been considered as a reprehensible practice, the general search warrant. The house will note that the grounds for issuing this search warrant are contained in the words "reasonable ground for suspecting." Who is to determine just when the ground is reasonable? I can well understand a magistrate thinking there was reasonable ground for suspecting any party which was not of his own faith. The section goes even further; it says: "reasonable ground for suspecting that any contravention of this section has been or is about to be committed." Such a clause to my mind is absolutely outrageous. If anyone suspects that a crime is to be committed, he can act forthwith. It is against everything we have been taught of British law and fair play.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wait until the house burns down, is that the idea?


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: You cannot convict a man of arson before the house has burned down. Certain religious bodies might be subject to the provisions of this subsection. If we may judge by certain publications of their critics, they suspect everybody of being guilty of the most fearful crimes. Subsection 8 reads:
Any person who prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells or offers for sale or distribution any book, newspaper, periodical, pamphlet, picture, paper circular, card, letter, writing, print, publication or document of any kind, in which is taught, advocated, advised or defended, or who shall in any manner teach, advocate, or advise or defend the use, without authority of law, of force, violence, terrorism, or physical injury to person or property, or
2100	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
threats of such injury, as a means of accomplishing any governmental, industrial, or economic change or otherwise, shall be guilty of an offence, and liable to imprisonment for not more than twenty years.
Here we have the law written in very wide and dangerous terms. If a bookseller should read the advertisement of a publisher in England and send for his book, not knowing just what was in it, and that book should advocate force, then he would be liable to twenty years in prison. There are scores of books in our parliamentary library of that very nature. I do not know what would happen to me if I should return some of them through the mails; I suppose I would be liable to a twenty year sentence. Subsections 9, 10 and 11 read:
9.	Any person who circulates or attempts to circulate or distribute any book, newspaper, periodical, pamphlet, picture, paper, circular, card, letter, writing, print, publication, or document of any kind, as described in this section, by mailing the same or causing the same to be mailed or posted in any post office, letter box, or other mail receptacle in Canada, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than twenty years.
10.	Any person who imports into Canada from any other country, or attempts to import by or through any means whatsoever, any book, newspaper, periodical, pamphlet, picture, paper, circular, card, letter, writing, print, publication or document of any kind as described in this section, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than twenty years.
11.	It shall be the duty of every person in the employment of His Majesty in respect of His Government of Canada, either in the Post Office Department, or in any other department to seize and take possession of any book, newspaper, periodical, pamphlet, picture, paper, circular, card, letter, writing, print, publication or document, as mentioned in this section, upon discovery of the same in the post office mails of Canada or in or upon any station, wharf, yard, car, track, motor or other vehicle, steamboat or other vessel upon which the same may be found and when so seized and taken, without delay to transmit the same, together with the envelopes, coverings and wrappings attached thereto, to the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The officials of the customs department and the post office are to be turned into a set of spies. Everybody is supposed to be on the lookout for anything that might come under the category herein enumerated. The reason I have been so urgent in my request that this legislation be repealed is that I believe it is un-British in character and may easily lead to very great abuses.
May I call attention to the sentence which, according to this legislation, may be imposed, that of twenty years. Several years ago in the case of sedition the term was lessened from twenty to two years. I fancy sedition is just as serious a crime as that of belonging to an 
unlawful association, but sedition is now punishable by only a two year penitentiary sentence, whereas this crime of unlawful association is still punishable by a twenty year penitentiary sentence. There does not seem to be any real reason for the difference in the length of sentences provided for these offences.
I do not know it is necessary for me to say that I am not an advocate of force. I have repeatedly in the house opposed the use of force and I shall continue to do so. But I do not believe we should be unfair even to those who hold the other view, and certainly I do not think we should proceed to convict men for simply holding certain beliefs, unless they commit some overt act.
One other word before I resume my seat. I have no interest whatever in the Communist party as such. In all our recent elections I have been opposed by the Communist party. Some of my colleagues think I am very stupid to do anything at all that would give the Communist party a chance of carrying on in this country. I am not urging the repeal of this legislation in order that there should be a free advocacy of the use of force in Canada.
I do say, however, that under other sections of the criminal code there is ample provision that if a man advocates the use of force, he may be arrested, tried and convicted, and then, if he is a foreigner, he may be deported. But I protest against designating a certain group as an unlawful association and I protest against this legislation which may so readily lead to serious abuses.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, on many occasions
during recent years the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has made an effort in this house to repeal the section of our criminal code known as section 98, which deals generally with the subject of sedition. If I remember correctly, the bill which he attempted to introduce into the house last year was a much more modest one than that which he now proposes.	,


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I correct the
hon. gentleman? I attempted to introduce this bill, but was not permitted. Later on I introduced another of a more moderate character.


Hugh Guthrie: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody would charge me with being a communist. I am opposed to communism, to its methods, to what it advocates and what it preaches. If I thought section 98 of the criminal code were necessary to prevent the advocacy of force, violence or intimidation, the things upon which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has expounded this evening, I should be in favour of it. I do not think, however, that such a provision was necessary in the Criminal Code of Canada. The minister has referred to petitions bearing foreign names which have been sent concerning certain people who have been convicted in the courts. May I tell him that the people who have been seeking the repeal of section 98 do not belong to any of those associations, and are not people with foreign names.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I have thousands of them.


Ernest Lapointe: During the time I was a member of the government of Canada I was present on numerous occasions when representatives of the Trades and Labour Congress and other labour associations and organizations, came to the government to submit their
programs. They were men devoted to law and order. They were men. like the President of the Trades and Labour Congress, Mr. Tom Moore, whom nobody would accuse of being a communist or even a socialist. These men have always asked the government for the repeal of section 98, because they were afraid that through certain interpretations of it their rights might be violated.


Peter McGibbon: You did not repeal it.


Ernest Lapointe: No; but on five occasions as Minister of Justice I introduced a bill which, after all, was the same in substance as the one introduced at this time by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I do not think I was a barbarian or a rebel or anything of that kind, but I did it. Further, the House of Commons always supported the bill, and during the session of 1930 nobody on the opposite side of the house opposed it; it was carried unanimously, with no objecting voice. If it is a crime to-night to favour the bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, all hon. members who sat opposite me in 1930 and supported the bill introduced at that time-because they did not oppose it-were guilty of a similar crime.
Sedition was crime prior to the amendment of 1919. Under common law sedition has always been a crime. In Great Britain on various occasions demands have been made to define sedition in the way it is done in section 98, or in some other way. But after debate in the British House of Commons, and after a commission had reported concerning the advisability of defining sedition, it was found better to leave it under the common law without arriving at a definite description of what it might be. The same thing happened in this country. The commissioners who prepared the criminal code had a section defining sedition, but after debate in this House of Commons it was found advisable and considered better for every purpose to leave sedition' as it had been under the common law. Many sections were inserted in the criminal code wbidh covered every circumstance. I refer the house to section 88, which deals with unlawful assemblies, although we have heard the Minister of Justice wax eloquent on the necessity for section 98, the purpose of which is the prevention of unlawful assemblies. Section 130 deals with seditious oaths, seotion 132 with seditious words, seditious libel or seditious conspiracy. Under section 135 we have provision with regard to libel of any foreign sovereign. In 136 there is provision against the publication o' false
2104	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
news. I blame more particularly the House of Commons of 1919 for having withdrawn the then section 133. That section, which no longer appears in the criminal code, read as follows:
133. No one shall be deemed to have a seditious intention only because be intends in good faith

(a)	to show that His Majesty has been misled or mistaken in his measures; or,
(b)	to point out errors or defects in the government or constitution of the United Kingdom, or of any part of it, or of Canada or any province thereof, or in either house of parliament of the United Kingdom or of Canada, or in any legislature, or in the administration of justice; or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure, by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in the state; or,
(c)	to point out, in order to their removal, matters which are producing or have a tendency to produce feelings of hatred and ill-will between different classes of His Majesty's subjects.
Surely any citizen, British or Canadian, has a right to do those things which are mentioned by the old section 133 as not being seditious. Unfortunately that section, was repealed in. 1919.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the hon. member whether or not that section was restored?


Ernest Lapointe: No, it was not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Unless I am mistaken, it was restored several years ago.


Ernest Lapointe: No, the hon. member is mistaken. It was not restored, but I tried to restore it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I regret interrupting the debate, but under standing order 15 the time for dealing with private and public bills is limited to the hour between eight and nine p.m. That time has now expired.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
National Defence-militia services, $74,000; naval services, $500-$74,500.
Donald Matheson Sutherland: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make an explanation concerning the item dealing with the adjustment of war claims to which reference was made prior to the adjournment. The S500,000 item was voted in the supplementary estimates of 1932-33, being vote No. 403 of those estimates, to provide for the payment of claims for compensation for losses sustained by civil

population and prisoners of war of Canada dining the late war, interest thereon, and cost of administration. That vote was brought forward and administered by the Secretary of State, and it is not required this year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Could the minister say whether any Armenian claims were paid out of that vote?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I should think bo, but as I say, this department had nothing whatever to do with the item. We did not bring it forward and did not administer it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Since the item appears in the estimates of my hon. friend, could lie give us some information with regard to the Armenian claims? If not, could he indioate when and where we could get that information?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: From the Secretary of State.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On his estimates?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Mr. ROSS:: I should like to ask the minister if the preparation of the official history of the war is in the hands of one officer, or if other persons are consulted.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, a number of other people are consulted. As a section is finished it is circulated and comments are requested from various people, including officers who ware in certain sectors, with regard to the disposition of their troops, their orders and various matters of that kind.
M,r. ROSS: Then may I ask if any objection has been taken to any part of the book by any officer? If objections are taken will corrections be made, or in what way will differences of opinion be dealt with?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Every possible care will be taken to see that nothing is included in the history that is not authentic. We welcome all advice on any point that comes up.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has any protest been made by any officer in regard to any item prepared so far?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I am told that exceptions have been taken to certain things, and that corrections have been made.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has any objection or criticism not been accepted?

Supply-National Defence


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Any criticism that is made is examined vary carefully, and all available files are consulted in order to ascertain the facts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the Book of Remembrance of members of the Canadian forces, and Canadians in the forces of the British Empire, who lost their lives in the great war, $7,500.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister state what progress has been made with this work?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: As I think I stated
when this item came up in the supplementary estimates last year, it was arranged that this book should cost $35,000. Of that total, $10,000 was voted in the supplementary estimates last year; $7,500 is in the estimates this year; it is intended to invite parliament to vote $7,500 next year and $5,000 the succeeding year, with a- final $5,000 in the estimates for 1936-37. Mr. James Purves, an artist, illuminator and designer, has been engaged to do this work for a fee of $35,000. Mr. Purves was exceedingly well recommended; samples of his work were examined together with samples of other work, and the committee in charge of the matter recommended that he be given the work. This committee consists of the Dominion Archivist as chairman, the chief architect of the Department of Public Works, the secretary of the Imperial War Graves Commission of Canada, the director of the historical section of the Department of National Defence, and the Clerk of the Privy Council, with the director of records as secretary.
The book will be made up in this way: The names of aill members of the Canadian forces, and of Canadians who served in the forces of the British Empire, who lost their lives from war causes between August 4, 1914, and April 30, 1922, will be inscribed in the book, each entry to consist of the surname, Christian names, rank, decorations and unit, the arrangement to be alphabetical by years of death. Then there will be a page without names dedicated to Canadians who have died or may die from war causes subsequent to the last mentioned date. There will be a page without names dedicated to those Canadians who died from war causes while serving in other allied or associated armies. The names are to be inscribed by hand on vellum pages. The title page, as well as certain . other pages, will be illuminated. The binding is under the direction of the chief binder of the public archives. The materials used are subject to the approval of the committee and 53719-133
are to be purchased within the British Empire, and when completed the book is not to be accepted without the approval of the committee.
The situation at present is this: The work is being carried on in a studio which has been set aside by the National Research Bureau. All essential material for the book, including vellum leaves, colour and gold leaf, has been bought and paid for. A model of the work, in actual size, has been constructed according to agreement and is in process of examination and review by the committee.


Peter McGibbon: I understand that some
difficulty either exists or is anticipated in preserving this vellum paper. Would the minister be good enough to tell me what steps are being taken and what methods are being used to preserve that paper?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The committee have consulted the Bureau of Research on that very question, and investigations are being carried on now as to the degree of humidity necessary in the atmosphere of the chamber in which the book will rest to best protect the vellum leaves. Everything is being done that can possibly be done along the research lines indicated by the hon. gentleman.


Peter McGibbon: Should not that be done
first?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It is 'being done on the vellum and materials that are going into the book.


Pierre-François Casgrain: May I ask if the same provision will be made for that book as for the other the 'hon. gentleman made reference to this afternoon, regarding publication in both languages?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There will be nothing in this book except the names and dedications. It is to rest in the memorial chamber.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government of the Northwest Territories- Department of National Defence-radio services -for maintenance and operation of the Northwest Territories radio system, $199,425.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: How was this saving made which is indicated in this item?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: In these various
depots in the north there is always a certain amount of building; some years less, some more. This year there is less building to be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]


Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
Cadet services, $300,000.
Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, the item of $300,000 under discussion refers to cadet training. At a time of depression, would it not have been more appropriate for the government to leave out this item instead of reducing it by $60, since the country has not the means, at present, to make such a large outlay for cadet services. The estimates of the National Defence were only reduced bj' $8,596.82, when those of Agriculture, Public Works and all other departments have been considerably cut down. The government should have spared the small wage earners and have further cut the estimates of National Defence.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I regret that I cannot answer the hon. gentleman in French this year. I hope to do so some time. This item, as I explained last year, is for the current school year; it is already committed and there is nothing that can be done about it. The greater part of the money is already committed to foe spent in the school year ending June next.


Charles Stephen Booth: Are we forever to go on with this vote on the ground that it is always voted a year late?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That was the
arrangement made a number of years ago.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What steps can be taken to alter that arrangement?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The hon. gentleman is an older parliamentarian than I am; possibly he can suggest some way.
Mr. CA8GRAIN: Make a motion.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The item is down $60,000. The principal reason for that is that during this year a number of cadet units have ceased to function, consequently we do not need that money.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not wish on this occasion to repeat what I have said on a number of previous occasions, because I do not think any good purpose is served by so doing. But I wish to protest on behalf of my own group and the people I represent against a continuance of this grant for cadets. It seems to me that for several reasons it is not necessary. At this particular time when there is very great need for food and clothing on the part of large numbers of people, when there are very great expenditures that should be made to meet the exigencies of the present depression, it is foolish to spend these large amounts on cadet practice. Further than that, we as a nation have declared our re-
nunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, yet we are deliberately maintaining policies of national defence. Our army and navy would not be so bad in themselves- we all recognize that they are not as expensive as are the armaments of some European countries-nevertheless they are a standing evidence of our suspicion of other nations, of the fact that we ourselves have not thoroughly agreed to give up war, that we expect that one of these days we may be forced to use these arms of the military and naval service. But more particularly I object to this grant to the cadets, because we proceed to teach the boys the use of force. Some people have been greatly exercised because there are certain people in our community who believe in the use of force in connection with class struggles. But I would point out to them that so long as the use of force is taught for the settlement of international questions there are many who will adopt the very logical conclusion that if it is necessary for the settlement of international disputes it may very well be adopted for the settlement of class disputes; and we are indoctrinating our boys in this way. I protest against it.
There is another point that I have urged before-I merely mention it again-I think this participation in the work of our schools is an invansion of our provincial rights. We have been told again and again that we ought not to contribute an3'thing to the provinces for the promotion of peace, yet in this case we contribute to and almost force upon the provinces grants for what is, in my opinion, the promotion of war. I know some take objection to that and say it is not for that purpose, but if it is not for that it is a waste of money. It does in effect promote war ideals among our boys. I personally object to it, and I think there is a growing body of public opinion across the country that objects to it. It seems to me we should give notice to the minister that we do not expect that this vote will be continued.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Recently the city of
Toronto abolished cadet training. The observation was made, although not officially, that intimation had been given by the government that they were going to cut off the grant for cadet training. Is this to be the policy of the government in connection with future estimates?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: As the result of a
cut in the estimates several years ago, no grant for clothing is made. No change is contemplated, although, as the hon. gentleman has said, the city of Toronto has discontinued its cadet corps and the vote next year will

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
not need to be as large. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) has spoken several times on this subject, but as yet he has not convinced me, and I do not think he has convinced the members of the committee, that the cadets are a military body. All that the cadet teachers seek to do is to instil discipline and cooperation, and it seems to me that at this time more than any other we should continue to do this work. Lack of discipline is largely accountable for some of our present difficulties.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The city of Winnipeg has a system of physical training for both boys and girls which is, I believe, far superior to that given in the cadet corps.


Mr. HEENAN:: As the government is now considering ways and means of saving money; as it is cutting down the wages of men who have families to keep, does not this vote, apart from all other considerations, afford an opportunity to effect a saving?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The amount of this vote is committed before the beginning of the school year which closes this coming June, and there is nothing that can be done about it.


Mr. GERSHAW:: Are rifles furnished to
the cadets?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The cadets are furnished with a limited number of 22 rifles.


Frederick William Gershaw: Is the shooting supervised by the ordinary teachers in the schools or by special officers?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: If this work is carried on by a member of the school staff he is given a course to familiarize himself with the subject; if it is carried on by a member of the permanent force, of course that would be part of his training. No instruction is given by anyone not qualified to do so.


Miss MACPHAIL:: How much will be saved next year because Toronto has decided not to continue cadet training in the public schools?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I could not give the exact amount, but undoubtedly there will be a considerable saving.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Does the minister mean to say that the total amount of this vote has been expended already?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Substantially it will have been expended by the end of the school year in June.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: If that is so, how can the thing be stopped? Must it be stopped on the initiative of the schools, as was done in 53719-133J
Toronto? Apparently on cadets we are always voting money which has been spent already. What would the minister recommend in this connection?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: This has been the procedure for the past few years. As we know, the school year differs from the fiscal year, and this method was adopted some time ago as being the only one suitable to carry on this work.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I think the deletion of this vote would meet with the approval of the country. Although the total amount is not very large, it would be a worth-while saving. Those who advocate cadet training do not do so upon the ground of discipline, they advocate it as a sort of physical drill. There is another point which I think should be drawn to the attention of the minister and the committee. This year the matter of the continuance of cadet training in the public and high schools was discussed by the Vancouver school board. The management committee before which the matter was first discussed decided that cadet training should be discontinued, but when the question came before the school board one of the trustees claimed that as this training was not costing the citizens anything, there was no reason why it should not be continued. That feeling is prevalent among school trustees; this is not a direct taxation upon the ratepayers of the particular municipality, consequently they assume that it does not cost anything. They do not realize that even though it comes from the Dominion government, it is a tax which must be paid. I believe that cadet training could be ve>ry well discontinued and a physical drill of some sort substituted; it would be better for all .purposes.
Mr. LaVERGNE : I hope the minister sees fit to continue a vote next year for cadet training, at least in the province of Quebec. We have more cadets in that province than in all the other provinces put together, and this year we carried off the trophy offered by the Governor General. I should like to know just why the members in the far comer object to the cadet movement. Is it because these boys wear a uniform and carry a rifle? Is it because they are taught to recognize their duty to their king and country? Is it because they are being taught discipline? One hon. member said a moment ago that the cadet movement has been dispensed with in Toronto, and I am sure the hon. members from Toronto have listened with sorrow to what has been said about their good city. Probably it is that same spirit of which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) spoke some time ago, that has

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
caused the discontinuance of the cadet movement in the city of Toronto. We in Quebec have recognized our duty to (Canada for more than three centuries and we claim that our youth must be educated not to live in a false paradise but to be prepared to serve some day in defence of their country. We are not afraid that the military spirit will be inculcated into the youth of our province; on the contrary we hope that the government will continue to vote this item and foster the cadet movement so that it may grow instead of diminish, to the betterment to the youth of Canada and probably for the safety of Canada. Speaking as a Canadian of nine generations, I a<m sorry to see those who have recently come to this country attempt to destroy, at least in the people of my race, a love of country which has lasted for over three hundred years. They have given their best in the past and are willing to do it again.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I have spoken so often against cadet training I do not think there is any use in repeating my arguments over and over again. If any hon. member wishes to know them, he can read them in Hansard. I am opposed to oadet training for various reasons. I am not, however, opposed to discipline if it is self-discipline. Everyone needs discipline, but if it is going to be of any real use, it must be the discipline of the individual over himself, and that is very different from regimentation. We have in this country altogether too much discipline of the sort that is not self-discipline but is the falling into rank. We have an educational system that is altogether too rigid, it does not encourage thinking-indeed discourages it -and cadet training carries this automatic system just one step further. I do not think it is any good from the point of view of military training; I cannot imagine what use it is from a military standpoint to have small boys or, at any rate, public school children lined up with rifles and wearing uniforms, except that it gives them certain thought forms, militarizes the spirit, but as regards training them to be soldiers, it is nonsensical, has no point. We need the money for the feeding of children of about the size of those on whom we are putting uniforms and to whom we are giving rifles. It would be much more sensible if this year we spent the money for food, clothing and medical and dental care of children rather than for cadet training. The fact that we are passing through the economic difficulties of which we are now in the midst is a strong additional argument against cadet training in both public and high schools, but particularly in the former. When the city of Toronto has come to realize 
that cadet training is ridiculous, that is the last thing 'that need be said about it. I believe Quebec is now likely to follow the good example set by Toronto. It is only in the last half dozen years that Quebec has taken an interest in cadet training and the number of cadets there has increased. In my opinion the reason is that the money being spent is federal.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Oh, no.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: That is my opinion, and I have as much a right to it as the Deputy Speaker has to his. If that is the reason, namely, that it is money that, so they suppose, does not come out of the immediate community-although in the last analysis it does-but comes from the federal treasury and therefore they try to get more and more of it, that is not a very sound argument in favour of cadet training. All the old arguments have been reviewed. It is a very good thing from a financial point of view for the teacher of cadet training, but from that of the boys themselves, from that of the financial condition of the country and from that of education, I think the argument is all against cadet training. While I am not going to move that the item be reduced, since the minister tells us that most of it is already spent, I should like to say once more that I am entirely opposed to cadet training in either public or high schools. I believe the tendency of public opinion is in that direction and the vote will decrease from year to year.
Mr. LaVERGNE : May I remind the hon. member, who holds such an opinion about Quebec, that she should travel through that province and she would find the money question is not the great object there. My people have been trained to believe that man does not live by bread alone.


Mr. SPENCE:: The hon. member for Southeast Grey keeps repeating that some of this money is for buying uniforms, yet the minister has stated two or three times that in the item there is no amount for uniforms. Cadet training is only voluntary in the city of Toronto and no boy has to train if he does not wish to do so. As regards Toronto stopping cadet training, this is only temporary because there is a diversity of opinion there. In the first place, it was thought, owing to the depression, it would be wise to cut down expenses to help out the government. Cadet training is the finest thing in the world for a boy. It brightens his intellect; it gives him good discipline and manhood. A man in the army who starts in the ranks as a private and continues until he becomes a captain, is

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
built up in manners and physique, and that is what cadet training does to the boy. I should have been glad if Toronto had not intervened; it was the biggest mistake they ever made, but the situation is only temporary and it will be changed later.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have listened to the observations of the Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether they were intended for me as a recent arrival in this country, but I should like to point out that I did my little bit so far as the past war is concerned and I think I can say without fear of contradiction I possibly served as long as did any other horn, member of this house.


Mr. JACOBS:: That is why the hon. gentleman is a member of parliament now; it is his reward.


Humphrey Mitchell: Possibly. I think anybody who passed through that war and Who would express the sentiments uttered by the Deputy Speaker, is a glutton for punishment.
I had an experience of my own, although I do not like to speak about these things, where I saw men walk through eight inches of blood and salt water of the good young chaps to whom he referred. That should be a lasting lesson against anyone trying to inculcate in the minds of boys and girls who are growing up the idea that war is absolutely necessary. The depression through which we are passing was, it is admitted on every hand, largely brought about by the great war that took place between 1914 and 1918. I am in full accord with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and by the 'hon. member for Southeast Grey. I believe war is absolutely unnecessary; I appreciate the fact that unless one passes through it, it is hard to understand the enormity of it, and unless those who went through the last great war preach its utter uselessness to the young people who are growing up and who have not had that experience, there is no reason why there should not be another war.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I want to say just a word to the hon. member for Montmagny, who wonders why some of us are opposed to this vote for cadet training. He rather intimated that he is of the older Canadian stock and that some of us are very new arrivals. Some of our ancestors may have come here a little bit more recently than his, but I am of the old Canadian stock, of three, four or five generations, and a number of my people came over after the revolutionary war in the United States; therefore I think I have just as much right to speak in the house as have some of the hon. members from Quebec. Further than
that, he suggested that we should have cadet training because of the virtue in being able to defend our country, to give our lives in the service of our country; and he went on to quote the Scripture, that man shall not live by bread alone. As the father of four boys I earnestly hope that not one of them will lift a sword or Shouldbr a gun. Some may laugh at that, but I have a right to my own opinion. I aim just as earnest and just as zealous as anybody in wishing to see my own boys develop all the virtues and all the patriotism and all the devotion to their country that anybody should have, but I think we have reached the point in our .civilization when we ought to teach our boys that they can Show their devotion, to their country in some better way than by fighting. I had hoped that that was the great lesson that was taught by the last war, and those of us Who feel that way have a perfect right to advocate another type of virtue rather than the military virtue. It is for that reason above everything else that I oppose this vote for the cadets.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a little too sensitive. We are all with 'him in being opposed to war. Nobody wants war, but I think that those who have kept their heads upon their shoulders know that the best way to prepare for peace is to be ready for war. That is a very old saying, and it is very well known to be true.


Mr. DUFF:: Keep your powder dtry.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Yes. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre is often quoting the example of Russia. He should take another trip to Russia-not as a tourist this time- Where he would see quite a number of .cadet corps in training, as any well informed magazine, English, French or Italian, will tell you. Just read the last issue of La Revue des Deux Mondes, of Paris, which quotes an agent of Moscow whom, my hon. friend knows well, Mr. George Williams of Saskatchewan, who I believe is very closely related to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let me reply briefly. It seems very strange that one cannot make a remark along this line without some hon. member immediately suggesting Russia. I have no objection; I intend to say what I want to say. One of the things in respect to which I have been most critical of Russia is that that country has depended upon force, and I have stated so frankly and openly ever since the Russian revolution. I am opposed to military force in Russia just as I am opposed to it in Canada. I know that the
Supply-Defence-Cadet Services

Russians are training, and I am very sorry for it. Were I in Russia I would try to assert my position, though it is likely I would have my head taken off. We are better off in that regard in Canada, and I am thankful as a Canadian that I can assert my position without being rushed off to Siberia or anything of that kind.
I challenge the main point of the last speaker, that the way to prepare for peace is to be ready to fight. This idea may have come down to us from antiquity, but I do not believe it is true. The fact that we have had so many wars proves, I think, that it is untrue, because all nations that have prepared for war in the past have found that such preparation inevitably led to war. I recall a very fine speech which the Prime Minister made a few years ago, in which he took the position I am taking to-night-that as long as men have the instruments of war in their hands they are likely to use them. I believe that is undoubtedly true. If it were not so, why should we be having a disarmament conference to-day through which we are trying to establish peace on a different [DOT]basis than that of armament? If indeed we are disappointed in the disarmament conference is it not because each man believes in his own heart that it will ultimately be necessary to fight?
Mr. POUIilOT: I am pleased indeed to note that this vote has been decreased by three-fourths, but there is still one-fourth left, which might better be nothing. I remember distinctly urging upon the house last year the desirability of giving footballs and baseball bats and boxing gloves to our young boys instead of guns and drums and other militaristic paraphernalia. We on this side are not to be insulted because we do not share the views of the government members. We are free to have our own views and to express them just as are the government members. I am opposed to cadet training. I thing it is most foolish to see young boys who are just growing up being trained in the militarist system. Do you not think it is foolish, Mr. Chairman? We advocate peace. We now have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police looking after those who shoot migratory birds; we have them acting also as truancy officers to look after Indian children, and now our young men are to be trained so that when they grow up they will be able to replace those who are not British-born in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have our boys in our colleges being trained as soldiers. It would be better for the government to subscribe $25 or so to the different schools for
fMr. Woodsworth.]
the purchase of footballs, baseball bats, and boxing gloves so that our young boys would get the benefit of the sport and physical exercise. Boxing would be a good thing for every member on the other side of the house, and it would be much better for us to box with them than to shoot at them because we might kill them. We do not want to kill them, because, in the words of the great St. Augustine, we seek, not the death, but the conversion of sinners.
My 'hon. friend from Montmagny said that he was in favour of cadet training. That is his own business, but he need not drag in anything about Russia just because some members of this house do not share his views. I have never been to Russia, and the hon. member knows as well as anyone in this house that I have nothing to do with communism or Russia or the Soviet or the U.S.S.R. I am not interested in them at all. I try to advocate common sense in this house, but unfortunately I am not very successful with hon. gentlemen opposite. The government subscribes hundreds of thousands of dollars to the League of Nations to prevent war, and at the same time trains our young boys in the warlike spirit, with instructors to shout at them, "Right, left, right, left!" They are being trained to be militarists. We hear a lot of drum-beating. I do not know whether my hon. friend from Long Lake is a bottle or a drum, but he makes a noise just the same. I am not surprised that he is in favour of the cadet system, but I am surprised that my hon. friend from Montmagny should share his views. They kiss each other. They should not. They should keep a certain distance.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Is my hon. friend
jealous?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not. I am not in
favour of it at all; in fact, I do not understand it. Is it not possible for the genial Minister of National Defence to appreciate that we wish to prevent war as much as anybody? I think he does too, and so much so that perhaps he would resign in favour of the hon. member for Southeast Grey, who everyone knows would abolish the Department of National Defence as soon as she became its minister. Would it not be possible for my good friend the Minister of National Defence to reconsider his decision concerning this vote? The children in Canada who are now in cadet corps would be just as healthy if the government would spend this amount in buying them footballs, bats, boxing gloves, hockey pucks, aind the like.


An hon. MEMBER:: And golf balls.

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, and golf balls, or
tennis racquets. The government would make the children happy, and would not instil into their minds that warlike spirit which cadet training engenders. I am sure if the minister would postpone his decision until to-morrow he would agree with me, because as we say in French, la nuit porte conseil.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: I am pleased
beyond measure to state that this is one of the happiest nights I have ever spent in this chamber. I have discovered that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is ashamed of being called a Russian, that he does not want to be a Russian, and that he does not want to live in Russia for fear they may cut his head off or transport him to the Arctic regions. Secondly, I have discovered that my good friend from Temis-couata is afraid to fight. He is scared of getting into a scrap for fear he may get a licking. At last I am safe. For my part I believe thoroughly in cadet training for our boys at school. During my term of office on the Regina collegiate board I found that the boys wanted to have that training; they wanted to learn how to defend themselves. They did not want to lick anybody, but they would be hanged if they were going to let anybody lick them. That is still their spirit.


Jean-François Pouliot: The chief difference
between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Long Lake is that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has a beard and the hon. member for Long Lake has not.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think it is
fair to state that hon. members who do not favour this item are following the example set by people in Russia. In my view the contrary is the case. The fact is that in Russia to-day there is more military training than in any other country of the world. Under ordinary circumstances I should be happy to agree with the hon. member for Montmagny, but during these times when so many children have no food I believe it would be better to use this $300,000 to provide food and shelter for them than to put arms or weapons in their hands.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Since the beginning
of the debate on this item I have noticed a full page advertisement in the Ottawa Journal headed by the words: " Share or children suffer," and then, in smaller print, the following:
When do we eat? That's the query expressed at regular intervals by the hungry youngster everywhere. Whether it is voiced in words or carried by a cry, it must be answered.
When it is found necessary in Ottawa, the city of Canada least touched by the depression, to insert a full page advertisement of the type I have described, surely it is nonsensical at the same time to be voting $300,000 for the military training of school children. I therefore move seconded by Mr. Maclnnis:
That vote No. 84 be reduced by the sum of $30,000.
which is the sum being asked for by the United Charities drive in Ottawa.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member for Southeast Grey apparently has a reason for her amendment concerning the reduction of this vote. It would seem that she has based it on an article appearing in an Ottawa newspaper. We know that there is a great deal of suffering throughout the country; no one denies that, and no one regrets it more than hon. members of this house. But the people of Ottawa will be able to handle any problem with which they may be confronted. The point made by the hon. members for Southeast Grey and Winnipeg North Centre is that the cadet movement is of a military nature. On that point I must differ from them, because in no sense is it military. The fact that young lads are given certain elementary drill which is given to soldiers does not indicate that they are receiving military training. There is no suggestion of military training unless in the minds of those taking part there is the object of defeating some enemy. In the cadet movement there is nothing of that kind.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Why carry rifles if
there is no idea of an enemy?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Rifle shooting is a
sport, the same as any other game in which young people take part. It develops precision of aim and steadiness of nerve, and is one of the best exercises for mind and body. The small rifles used by the cadets have no connection whatever with military training. When soldiers manoeuvre on drill parade they have in mind an enemy, and at that time and under such conditions they are under military training. But cadets may march along in fours with no idea of an enemy at all. They merely have setting up exercises, and are taught respect for authority and discipline. This government has never urged cadet training on any community. The hon. member for Vancouver South has told us that in Vancouver they took the stand that as they were getting their cadet training for nothing they might as well have it. Such an understanding would
Supply-Defence-Cadet Services

not be correct, because if Vancouver cadets are wearing uniforms they will have to pay for such uniforms themselves. The cost of uniforms is one of the greatest costs in the cadet movement. Owing to the difficult times through which some cities are passing the cadet movement has been temporarily shelved, as has been described by the hon. member for Park-dale. Well and good; we do not urge that other action be taken. However there is a demand on the part of many people and many schools to have the young people taught the elementary principles of discipline. The hon. member for Southeast Grey realizes the fact that for some considerable time there has been provision in the estimates for this expenditure, -and to cut it down as the hon. member has suggested-


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It cannot all have been expended if it carries on until June.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The cadet movement in Toronto will not be stopped until the end of the present term. In my view it would be a breach of faith on the part of hon. members to support the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Southeast Grey.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I should like to make just one or two observations in connection with this item. I understand that the greater part of this vote is already spent or has been promised. Is that correct?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: That being the case I suppose the house is bound to pass the item, but before that is done I should like to say this:	I am not opposed to cadet training
under normal conditions. I know something about cadet training, and I never have been opposed to it. But I would go so far as to say that if there is any item that should be curtailed under existing conditions it is an item such as this, representing something without which we can get along very well. We can take it up again when conditions throughout the country are normal. I would not go as far as my hon. friend from Southeast Grey has gone in her argument, but up to a certain point I support what she said. Under present conditions throughout the country, with a vast army of unemployed, with our basic industry having such a hard time, with this government as well as provincial and municipal governments endeavouring to economize in every possible way, this is one place where some curtailment could be made. The government would have been well advised had they taken the initiative and cut out this item for this year; I think they would have been supported by the majority of the people
(Mr. Sutherland.]
throughout the country. The very fact that in Toronto they have come to the conclusion that they can get along without cadet training for this year supports my statement, and the trustees of schools in many other places throughout Ontario and other parts of the country have decided that for this year at least, and until the depression is over and conditions get back to normal, this is an expenditure that can be very well diverted into other channels.
I should like to support the motion of my hon. friend from Southeast Grey, but since the government have made commitments I do not know that I can do so. As a matter of principle, however, I do say that whatever government is in power next year should see to it that if conditions have not improved throughout the country, the expenditure on cadet training is entirely wiped out.


Peter Heenan: I am glad to find that
other members of the house believe that under present conditions we could very well save this amount of money. I am reminded that under the peace, order and good government legislation passed by the government they have power to do almost everything except declare war, and I am not sure that they cannot take that step. I' do say that with present conditions throughout the country the government should have seen to it that no money should be spent in this way. They are dismissing civil servants, even in the Department of National Defence; they are reducing the wages and salaries of civil servants; they are giving large sums of money in direct relief, and I am sure this $300,000 would have gone a long way in other directions.
The other day I asked a question as to the amount of direct relief that had been granted by the government to certain towns and cities throughout Canada since the relief measures were first brought in. In round figures the town of Kenora has received $3,000; Fort Frances has received $6,000, and Dryden has received only $187. We could have done a great deal with this $300,000 in relieving distress in northern Ontario, and would it not have been better for the children in that part of the country to have the money spent in that way rather than on cadet training? I was glad to hear the hon. member for Parkdale tell us that Toronto has led the way, even though it is only a temporary measure, and I am disposed to support the motion of the hon. member for Southeast Grey. I think this money should be spent on relief, not in Toronto or Ottawa but in northern Ontario, where relief is carried on in such a parsimonious manner.

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
Mr. MaoINNIS:	I find it very difficult
to follow the logic of the hon. member for Montmagny. This afternoon he opposed a bill which gave the mounted police authority to act as truant officers in certain cases because it had to do with compulsory education, and the province of Quebec is opposed to compulsory education. I am in favour of compulsory education, but I am very strongly opposed to compulsory cadet training. The minister may say that this training is not compulsory, and in theory he is correct. Nevertheless it is compulsory because of the ostracism of those who do not take part in it. Now the minister tells us that this has nothing to do with military training, but the Deputy Speaker tells us that military training is its real purpose. I am at a loss to know which hon. gentleman to believe. I rather think I will accept the point of view of the Deputy Speaker rather than that of the minister, because it agrees with my own experience. The hon. member for Mont-magny sought to prove that this training is military by saying that the only way to have peace is to prepare for war. If that is so we should save the expense of sending delegates to the disarmament conference, in order that peace might come all the sooner. I am absolutely opposed to this item, particularly at the present time when so many children throughout Canada are going to school without having received enough nourishment even to enable them to carry a gun.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to ask to whom the commitments have been made with respect to cadet training, and what is the form of the commitment.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The arrangements
were made last September with the various school boards throughout the country. The government agreed that certain grants would be made to their cadet corps for the school year beginning in September last and ending next June.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then, as I
understand it, the government makes its contract with the school boards. Two or three years ago the present administration put through an act respecting technical education, by which provision was made for the granting of certain sums of money each year from the federal treasury for technical education. But the government has not allowed the provisions of the law to be given effect to, so I believe, since it was enacted, on the score that the times were difficult and) that it was not desirable to spend that money. The government I believe was wise in taking that step. I think the
government would have been still wiser if they had followed the advice given by the opposition at the time and not reintroduced the technical education grants. They have not been able to carry them out; they might just as well have left the matter where it was. But if the government have found it necessary to refrain from spending further money for technical education, I do not see what justification they have for continuing to spend money through agreement with school boards for cadet training. One has only to mention the two side by side, in order to disclose how strong the argument is for withdrawing this grant at the present time. I would like to ask the hon. minister, is he prepared to say that, with respect to next year, he will communicate with the school boards informing them that the government is considering withdrawing grants for this service for the next year? It is altogether probable that we will not be out of the present depression inside of a year, and one-third of a million dollars is worth saving. It may well be that many a school board would welcome the opportunity of being freed from additional outlays on this score. I would ask the minister if he is prepared to give the house an undertaking that he will take up that matter with the school boards with a view to seeing if this amount might not be dispensed with next year.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That of course is
not a departmental matter; it is a matter of government policy. The government knows the discussion that goes on and undoubtedly will consider it, but I am not in a position to give a declaration on a matter of government policy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, someone in the government must be able to give it. Perhaps the Prime Minister will give it. But I must say to the minister that I do not think he can hope to get his estimates through this house by seeking to evade all responsibility. Estimates are framed with a view of giving parliament control over public expenditure. Now he tells us we must vote this money because it is already expended according to the form in which he is presenting his estimates. The minister is asking for one-third of a million dollars to be spent in the next fiscal year, the year 1933-34, a year we have not yet entered upon. He cannot evade his responsibility by saying that the estimates are not in a form which permits him to give am undertaking to the house in regard to expenditures for the next fiscal year; nor can he evade it by saying he is not the

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
minister of the department. He is responsible for the department, and he is asking parliament now as part of his militia services to vote $300,000 for cadet service. He inserts the item in his estimates as part of the militia service; he must be responsible. Surely the minister is in a position, as head of the department, to say that he is able to negotiate with the school boards. Surely he does not have to go to the Prime Minister to get that authority, nor to the government as a whole. If he has to do so, I wish he would let the item stand until he can inform us what the policy of the government is in regard to the matter.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The right hon. gentleman has no reason to lose his temper on this. He knows very well indeed that he has taken up wrongly what I said, and he also knows that this item is not for the next year. It is the same practice that his own government followed during the years that they were in power. He knows very well that I cannot make a decision at this time as to the figures that would normally appear in next year's estimates. I think my explanation was very full and clear, and the interpretation the right hon. gentleman put upon it was entirely wrong.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I still wish to maintain the position I have taken. I do not think the hon. minister gains anything by saying I have lost my temper. I have not lost any temper; he knows that very well. He may think it will read well in Hansard to have it so appear, but that is a very trifling way to go about a matter of this kind. What I wish to repeat to the minister is this: He is now asking parliament for an appropriation for the fiscal year 1933-34. That is true, isn't it?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: As I have explained several times-and the right hon. gentleman is too astute a parliamentarian not to follow me-I have followed the practice that has been followed for a number of years, in saying that this item applies to the current school year, not to the current fiscal year. The time for which the greater part of this estimate applies expires at the end of June this year, when the school year finishes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then that is clear. Wihat the hon. minister is now asking for is enough to enable him to pay what will be outstanding at June of the present year.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Quite so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That will leave nine months of the next fiscal year for which no appropriations will have been voted by this parliament. I want next to ask the minister, so that we will know where we stand next year: is he prepared now to give the house the assurance, if we vote what is required to make good the commitments that expire in June of the present year, that between now and June he will take up with the school boards the advisability of the government discontinuing further grants from June, 1933, for at least another year, so as to save that amount out of expenditures in what will belong mostly to the fiscal year 1933-34?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the right hon. gentleman will realize that what is being done in this case is what has been done during the years he held office. The school year and the fiscal year do not end on the same date. Owing to the fact that the school year ends on the 30th of June, 1933, the part of the vote to make good that expenditure will naturally come in the fiscal year that ends 31st March, 1934, because March precedes June. March, 1933 will have ended before the obligation will have been completed to the end of the school year in June,
1933.	That is only a matter of accounting. But there is another phase of the question, that to which the right hon. gentleman has just now directed attention; that is, whether or not it might be possible for this government to undertake that it would not incur further responsibility with respect to the cadet service. Unfortunately, or fortunately-that is a question of opinion-the matter does not rest in just that way. As the right hon. gentleman knows, the school districts have had held out to them-shall I say by the governments of Canada-the promise that if they maintain certain services assistance will be given from the federal exchequer to enable it to be done. I dare say the right hon. gentleman recalls what was done by the late Lord Strathcona in connection with cadet services. There meets once a year a certain body of men appointed by the Strathcona trust for the purpose of dealing with cadet grants. We have undertaken-when I say "we" I do not mean this government; I mean this country-that in the event of the school districts concluding that they are in a position financially and otherwise to carry on a certain cadet service, we will supply them with certain sums of money that have a direct relation to the money they expend. I do not carry the exact figures in my mind; I doubt not some member of the committee has in his mind the

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
exact amount that we pay with respect to the amount expended by the school authorities. I should not be surprised if the hon. member for Perth would know whether or not it is dollar for dollar, or seventy-five cents to the dollar, whatever it may be. That is the position of this item at the moment; we have outstanding a promise on the part of the Dominion of Canada that under certain conditions it will pay certain sums of money. That is my understanding of the situation as I went into it some time ago. If for instance the authorities in Calgary conclude that they are unable financally to carry it on, and abandon the service, there is no longer any grant from this government for that service; it will end on the thirtieth of June this year; it is not being continued by Calgary, therefore there is no payment by this government to Calgary. There is one other city in which it was discontinued-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Toronto?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not sure; I thought it was one of the western cities. The same position obtains, that is, there is no longer an obligation to pay because the service has been discontinued. The grant now being sought is merely to implement obligations which have been incurred. I am satisfied that this is the same practice as prevailed during aLl the years the right hon. gentleman as minister was responsible for the passing through parliament of similar estimates. Undoubtedly in two cases no grant will have to be provided for another year, and although I am not sure I think there is another city in which the same position has been taken. In view of what has taken place in the past it would not be my judgment that the minister could ask the school districts to take a certain course. They are masters of the situation; they determine whether or not they will make any expenditure. When they determine that they will not, our obligation ceases. My understanding of the matter at the moment is that a very much lesser sum will be expended because of what has taken place this year. The vote which we are just passing deals with obligations which have been created; because of contractual relations between the dominion and the school districts, financial obligations have been created which must be discharged under the terms of our arrangements.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the right hon. gentleman came into the chamber I had made reference to the action taken by his government with respect to technical education. In 1931 the present government enacted a measure with respect to continuing grants for vocational training and technical education. That was done against the advice of hon. gentlemen on this side. When the government found they were going to be hard pressed for funds, they took up the matter with the provinces, and, as I understand it, arrived at an agreement whereby no payments whatever were to be made. Whether or not agreements were made, I do not know, but I know that the act has been a dead letter, and. that nothing has been paid out under its provisions. The government was justified in taking that step, as it saved a million or more dollars yearly, possibly considerably more than that when we consider payments which would also have had to be made from other treasuries. If the government thought it advisable to take that step with regard to technical education, surely the argument in favour of reduction is much stronger when applied to cadet services. I am not asking that the item before us should not be passed for this year, as anything for which commitment has been made up until June has to be paid, but I am suggesting to the government the advisability of discontinuing this grant for at least a year thereafter. I do not at the moment suggest its discontinuance for longer than a year. We are at the present time cutting down in as many directions as possible. As has been pointed out, ten per cent is being deducted from the salaries of civil servants and economies of every kind are being attempted if not in fact practised. Surely, when two school boards in large centres of population have found it desirable to discontinue cadet training, the minister could with advantage to all make arrangements which would save a third of a million dollars for an ensuing year. That is all I am asking, and I hope the government will consider this phase of the matter and advise that it is being done so that a year hence, we will not be told that commitments have been made for nine months and that therefore, we must carry them out.


Mr. BROWN:: Would the Prime Minister explain a little more fully his reference to Lord Strathcona? Is it a fact that because of some action of Lord Strathcona the government has been committed to a certain policy from which it cannot recede? If that is so, it would seem that we have started a machine which we cannot stop even if we want to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I had thought this matter would engage the attention of the committee I would have brought tihe necessary documents with me, although I would have expected that the hon. gentleman would be familiar with the so-called1 Strathcona trust with respect to cadets. The officials have been

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
able to furnish me with the constitution of the Strathcona trust for the encouragement of physical training and military drill in public schools. It reads:
The following shall be the officers of the trust:-
Patron-His Excellency the Governor General of Canada.
Vice-Patron-The	Right Honourable Sir
Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Premier.
President-The Honourable Sir F. W. Borden, K.C.M.G., or the Minister of Militia for the time being.
Vice-Presidents-The minister in charge of education in each province in the dominion which shall have notified its adhesion to the arrangements regarding physical training and military drill in public schools, sanctioned by orders in council of August 13, 1908.
Executive Council'-[DOT]
. (a) The Minister of Militia and Defence for the time being, chairman.
(b)	The members of the militia council for the time being.
(c)	Two representatives to be named by the minister in charge of education in Ontario. Two representatives to be named by the minister in charge of education in Quebec. One representative to be named by the ministers in charge of education in each of the remaining provinces.
Subject to the condition that the province represented must have notified its adhesion to the arrangements regarding physical training and military drill in public schools sanctioned by orders in council of August 13, 1908.
(d)	The military officers commanding commands and independent districts in Canada. With a secretary to be detailed by the chairman from the staff of the Department of Militia and Defence.
The trust is to be administered in the manner set forth in .paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 provides for rules and regulations and the constituting of a local committee for each province. Section 4 reads:
The local committees shall be charged with-
(a)	Ensuring that the means of instruction in physical and military training are available for both teachers and pupils, where required.
(b)	Division of the province into convenient districts for purposes of supervision and competition.
(c)	Arranging details of the training to be given, so as to suit local conditions.
(d)	The arrangement of competitions and inspections, and allotment of rewards, in accordance with the general instructions of the executive council.
Paragraph 5 reads:
The following are the general principles in accordance with which the trust shall be administered.
(a) His object being not only to improve the physical and intellectual capabilities of the children, by inculcating habits of alertness, orderliness and prompt obedience, but also to bring up the boys to patriotism, and to a realization that the first duty of a free citizen is to be prepared to defend his country, the intention of the founder is that, while physical training and elementary drill should be encouraged

for all children of both sexes attending public schools, especial importance is to be attached to the teaching of military drill generally to all boys, including rifle shooting for boys capable of using rifles. All boys should so far as possible be made to acquire a fair acquaintance while at school, with military drill and rifle shooting.
Then follows an extract from a letter from the Right Hon. Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal to the Hon. Sir F. W. Borden, K.C.M.G., Minister of Militia and Defence, dated April 17, 1909, reading:
It is not my desire to make any alteration in the trust deed, as formulated by you.
Order in council, P.C. 1766, dated August 13, 1908, reads in part as follows:
The Minister of Militia and Defence submits the following synopsis of proposals entered into between the educational authorities of the province of Nova Scotia and himself respecting physical training and military drill in all public schools of that province.
Then follows substantially a reproduction of what I have read already. That trust, I believe, is still being carried out under the arrangement provided for in the trust deed itself.


Albert Joseph Brown: What was the amount of
money mentioned?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Half a million dollars.
The note handed to me by the officials of the department reads as follows:
It will be seen that the original amounts placed wtih the Receiver General by Lord Strathcona were $300,009 and $200,000, respectively; and that these amounts may be withdrawn at the wish of the trustees only. These amounts have not been withdrawn to date.
The interest on this $500,000 fund is placed by the Receiver General to the credit of the trustees in an interest-bearing account at the Bank of Montreal, Wellington and O'Connor streets, in half-yearly instalments of $10,000 each, on or about May 15 and November 15 of each year.
The amount of the interest, $20,000, is distributed annually to the provinces on the basis of the number of school attendants as furnished by the department of education of each province.
The interest earned on the deposits of $10,000 half-yearly at the Bank of Montreal is used for expenses of the trustees, such as printing, postage, et cetera.
I merely mention the trust deed as I was dealing with the point raised by the right hon. gentleman. I am not able from memory to say whether the dominion would be in a position to approach the provinces, or whether, 'having regard to the terms of the existing arrangements, the approach would have to be made by the discontinuance of the grants for cadet services by the school district either in the municipalities or through the province

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
itself; for the Strathcona trust, as will be observed, is dealt with by the education authorities in all the provinces. But my memory is that the local advisory committee deals with the matter from the standpoint of the school districts or the board of education in the municipalities affected. My memory, for what it may be worth-and I do not pledge it as being accurate in the matter- is that until such time as the school authorities withdraw from it, the dominion would be bound to give effect to the arrangement under which we pay a certain proportion of the money thus expended. That is my recollection of the situation, but I would have to satisfy .myself as to its accuracy, and I regret I am not in a position to give any further information to the right hon. gentleman. I do not, however, think we are in a position to say we shall not do so and so with respect to expenditure, but the option rests with the school authorities and not with us, and if they persist-I shall use that word-in carrying on the services, we are bound by and could not in decency and honour withdraw from the obligation which we deliberately accepted. The option does not rest with us to say to them: We shall not pay. But if they make their arrangement and carry on for a time and then decide to discontinue it, we can also discontinue it. Toronto, the hon. gentleman stated, and certainly Calgary, said that they exercised their option and would no longer maintain the service, the automatic result being that the dominion was not called upon to make grants.


Albert Joseph Brown: It is quite evident from
the statement read by the Prime Minister that notwithstanding what the Minister of National Defence said, it is military training for which provision is made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; for both sexes.


Albert Joseph Brown: But special reference was
made to young men, and military training is distinctly mentioned in more than one place. So that the Minister of National Defence is entirely wrong in his statement that this does not provide for military training.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the training is for both
sexes, there will be no weaker sex.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Would the Minister
of National Defence mind reconciling before the committee the two positions taken tonight: that taken by the Strathcona trust, which definitely states that it is military training, and that taken by the Minister of National Defence, that cadet training is not military?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Undoubtedly in the cadet work there are drills used that are in the military book; you cannot get away from that, as I have already tried to make clear. Whatever the idea was that Lord Strathcona had in mind, I know how the movement has been administered during the last number of years, not only during my incumbency in office, but also during the last regime. There was no idea on the part of either government of inculcating militarism in the minds of those boys. I am just as firm in that now as I was before. I may say that the department realized last year the difficulty and since last March no new units have been authorized. This is carrying out the policy of retrenchment and of discouraging any new units at the present time.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Have any new units asked for the grant?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: And they have been
refused.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, and have been refused.


John Campbell Elliott: Then the minister has it in his power to refuse them?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: To refuse new units. It has been asked that new units be formed, but no units have been formed since March of last year.


John Campbell Elliott: Just a word as to the
situation as it appears to me from the discussion 'that has taken place. For a number of years there have been debates in the house as to the advisability of making these so-called grants for cadet training. If there is a doubt about whether the government can refuse to make the grants, of course all the discussion of those years has been useless. The answer would have been very simple: We cannot prevent it. That is, if that is the situation. Apparently neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of National Defence is in a position to say definitely that the government is or is not bound to go on with these grants. It seems to me it is a very remarkable position into which the government has got itself, and I am not referring particularly to this administration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am just now informed
that the option is exercisable by the education authorities and not by the government.


John Campbell Elliott: That means that it is only
by the education authorities that these grants, once they have been started, can be discontinued.

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but the government has to accept the unit in the first instance, and the minister has said that they are not accepting any more.


John Campbell Elliott: What strikes me as rather
remarkable about the explanation is that the government has power to refuse to make a grant in the first place, but once the grant is made, the government is helpless in the hands of the school authorities. I cannot for a moment imagine that is the position of the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is so about many things.


John Campbell Elliott: It may be so about many things, but I doubt very much if it is so in regard to this, because, if it had been so, that would have been such a simple answer to give years ago when criticism was made of continuance of the grant. The simple answer would have been: We are powerless to refuse to continue it. As regards the obligations so far incurred by the government, I am not prepared to vote against them, but I believe in the present state of the country's finances it should be made quite clear that, when cities like Toronto and Calgary, which perhaps are as much interested in military training or cadet training, whichever you choose to call it, as any other municipality in the dominion, have seen fit to discontinue it on account of the financial position in which they find themselves, no very great hardship would inure to other municipalities from one end of Canada to the other were they to follow the same course. If Toronto is unable financially to continue at the present time with cadet training, that is pretty strong evidence that it should be discontinued throughout the country. If notice were given now that after June of next year this government does not propose to continue the grants for the following year, surely no school authorities would insist upon the grants being continued. We have reached the time in the finances of Canada when they must be cut to the bone, and I believe this is a very good time to make it apparent that for the coming year, at any rate, this grant will have to be discontinued.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: 
Donald Matheson Sutherland: When this government came into power, the vote, if I remember correctly, was $500,000, and the cut was made by doing away with the grant towards uniforms.


Alfred Speakman: Was not that a part of the contractual obligation to the same extent as the rest of the vote?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, that was something which the government itself gave. There is one other point which has not been mentioned. Many of the school boards have engaged an instructor who is qualified to give this training. Also it must be remembered that there is a strong feeling in many parts of Canada in favour of the cadet movement. Many members have mentioned the feeling in Toronto. If Toronto gives a lead like that, I expect to hear of other cities doing the same thing, and if they do, there will certainly be no pressure on them to continue. On the other hand, wherever a school board feels that it has a just claim to the grant, built up during the years, I do not see how it is possible for us to tell them that the grant will be abruptly discontinued. But my own personal opinion is that there will be a cut in the vote for the reasons which have been given.


Alfred Speakman: One further question. I am not basing any argument upon the popular feeling in the country; I am con-

Supply-Dejence-Cadet Services
fining myself entirely to the question of our contractual obligations. As I understood from the minister, our contractual obligations do not cover that part of the grant which is expended on uniforms, and therefore the government had the right to take the initiative and withdraw that part of the grant. The minister did not quite answer my question as to whether the school boards had taken the initiative in the matter, although he did indicate that the government had the power to take the initiative in respect of that part of the grant which is expended on uniforms. Would the minister indicate that part of the grant which is under the control of the federal authorities, and also that part in respect of which initiative in the matter of reduction must be taken by the school authorities? Because it is obvious that the contractual obligations are not as great as they were originally, according to the minister himself.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The assistance which they are now getting is what I would call the contractual obligation of the government.


Angus MacInnis: Some attention has been given to our contractual obligations in this matter. I do not know for how many years the grant for cadet training has been made, but I notice that in 1928, owing to the cancellation of certain regulations for the cadet services, the grant was reduced considerably. For instance, there was a reduction in the grant caused by the cancellation of paragraph 63 of the regulations for the cadet services of Canada, which reads as follows:
A grant of one dollar towards the provision and upkeep of uniform and twenty-five cents towards the provision and upkeep of a suitable military head-dress will be paid annually for:
(a)	Each cadet inspected in a complete serviceable military uniform:
It is well to note the "suitable military headdress" and the "military uniform." The regulation continues:
(b)	Each cadet whose absence from the inspection parade the inspecting officer is satisfied is due to illness, or other unavoidable cause and whose uniform and head-dress have been produced for inspection by the inspecting officer.
If the department could cut down the grant by cancelling regulations in 1928, I would think that by cancelling all the regulations the entire grant might be done away with.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Before you put the question, Mr. Chairman, I feel it is my duty to join with those on this side of the house and to my left who are opposed to this vote. When this vote used to come up annually a few years ago I think that all the members on this side of the house who voted for it
did so reluctantly, and, particularly in view of the reasons which have been expressed here to-night, I think we should consider well before we pass this item. Under the conditions that obtain throughout this country to-day, when people in all parts of Canada are undergoing hardships and many of them are in dire necessity, I do not think the cause of military training in Canada will suffer if this grant is dropped for one year or reduced along the lines suggested by the amendment.
I do not agree with the views that have been expressed to-night by my hon. friend from Montmagny, who stated that this vote was very popular in the province of Quebec. So far as the district and county which I have the honour to represent in this house is concerned, it does not benefit one single cent by this vote. I do not believe that cadet training does so very much for the physique and disciplining of our young men, as has been suggested by my hon. friend from Montmagny. The young people in our colleges throughout the province get enough training and exercise in their ordinary school activities, and they do not need this military training of which we hear so much. Therefore I think we might well consider adopting the amendment and reducing this vote, if indeed we do not dispense with it entirely. I for one am not ready to vote the amount of money that is being asked for this year for this purpose, particularly when, as has been stated by the hon. member for Quebec East, a great many of our people are starving and a great many young children are in want of the necessaries of life. I think the vote should not pass; I think it should be dropped.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I am not so much concerned with what we do at the moment, in the matter of meeting obligations to which we are committed up to the present time; I think they should be paid. I am, however, very much concerned about entering into further obligations involving future commitments under conditions obtaining in Canada to-day. I anticipate that before long we may have a statement from the Prime Minister, and possibly one from the Minister of Finance, concerning financial conditions in Canada. That statement will no doubt contain reference to conditions as they are in the provinces and municipalities. Why, in the face of an approaching statement of the kind we have reason to expect, we should be absolutely oblivious to the possibility of cutting down further obligations which involve the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities alike, I fail to see. Personally, I wish to state clearly that I believe this

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
parliament has all the power it requires, if it wishes to exercise that power, to end any further commitments respecting cadet services. I am not asking that those services be discontinued for all time, but that they be discontinued during these hard times, and until conditions very materially improve.
I say to the hon. gentleman that, unless as minister of the department, he will give us an undertaking, or, unless the Prime Minister will give us an undertaking on behalf of the government, that the government is prepared to communicate with the provinces, municipalities or with whatever bodies they may have made commitments, expressing the hope that those bodies may see their way clear to forego further grants for the period of a year, I shall when it next comes up oppose the vote for this service. I am prepared to support the government with respect to its present obligations, but I want to make it perfectly clear at this time that, if it is possible to prevent it, I am not going to have the government enter into obligations for another year which we shall subsequently be called upon to meet. We do not want to be told a year hence that obligations have been entered into and that the government cannot, without default, forego payments. There is nothing in the Strathcona trust deed which obligates this parliament and the government. The minister knows that. Any obligation this parliament has, arises as the result of an act of this parliament; any act of this parliament can be repealed or amended. If in the light of present day conditions the minister does not wish to take the step of repealing or of amending the act, at least he can take a step similar to that the government has taken in respect to many other matters, and communicate to the interested parties the wishes of the administration. As for any obligation to wait for a lead from the municipalities or the provinces, my reply would be that the government did not wait for a lead from members of parliament before it deducted ten per cent from their salaries; it did not wait for a lead from civil servants before deducting ten per cent from their salaries; it did not wait for a lead from railway employees before it dismissed large numbers of them. The minister has made a long defence of this particular type of training, and has stated that it must be maintained so that some training master or teachers may be looked after and cared for. He did not show the same concern about the thousands of railway employees who, owing to pressure of the times, were dismissed.

I am asking only that, with respect to this particular service, the government exercise the same endeavour to effect economies as it has exercised in very large measure with respect to many other services. Any one who examines the estimates will appreciate the fact that in many cases the government has gone as far as it could be expected to go in the reduction of expenditures. Certainly the item now before us might well be reduced, and for a year hence could be omitted altogether. I ask the minister, before the item is allowed to pass, whether or not he is prepared to give an assurance that the government will consider the policy of discontinuing these grants for a year or, if not discontinuing them outright, at least expressing to the municipalities concerned the view that it is the wish of the administration that the grants should be discontinued for that period of time.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The department certainly signified its desire to economize in every possible way when it stopped the formation of any new cadet corps this year. I am firmly of the opinion that the government will look into the matter very carefully, and if anything can be done-and I am sure something can be done-towards a very material cut in the vote, without involving any direct breach of confidence with school boards, such action will be taken. I am seized of the views the right hon. gentleman has expressed concerning the necessity for economy. I can tell him the government will consider the matter carefully, and if without breaking any agreement something may be done, it will be done.


Vincent Dupuis: Out of the $300,000 included in the estimate, how much will be required to finish the school term up to June, 1933?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: All of it will be required to meet allowances due to cadet corps and for the pay of personnel employed as physical training instructors, and so forth.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: All those in favour of the amendment say "aye."


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me I should like to say a few words in French, because as a representative of a constituency in which there is more misery than need of cadet services, I feel bound to make a statement.
(Translation): Mr. Chairman, as you are aware I am the successor, in the house, of a man 'who represented the constituency of La-prairie-Napierville for a quarter of a century, and who, during the whole of his parliamentary life was strenuously opposed to military

Bank Act
service. It does not follow, however, that I should share, in all circumstances, the views he held on this subject, because I think that the training of cadets is useful both physically and from the viewpoint of discipline, and, is an excellent training for later on in life. However, I share the views of my leader, and state that in a period of hardships and want, when we are surrounded by friends, relatives and many others who are destitute, deprived of the necessities of life, even children actually in want, we should practice economy in our budget so as to permit the government to relieve those in such miserable circumstances. That is why I am strongly opposed to all new grants as long as this economic depression is with us.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, February 15, 1933