1933-02-16

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. H. STINSON (Victoria) presented the first report of the select standing committee on private bills.
Mr. Stinson moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 29, to amend and consolidate the several acts relating to the Board of Trade of the City of Toronto.-Mr. Geary.
214S
Customs Act

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. B. KYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 30, to amend the Customs Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is very simple in character as it involves only four technical or administrative amendments. There is no question of principle involved upon which I should imagine there would be any diversion of opinion. I could explain the bill further if necessary, but I would suggest that such explanation be left for the second reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. TETREAULT:: 1.	Was a post office erected at Waterloo, Quebec, in 1929?
2.	If so, from whom was lot purchased?
3.	What price did the government pay for the lot?
4.	Who recommended the purchase of the lot to the government?
5.	What was the total cost of building the said post office, including the purchase price of the land and the cost of grading?
6.	Did the government appoint an official to superintend the building operations?
7.	If so, who was this official?
8.	What was his occupation prior to his appointment as superintendent?
9.	Was he qualified to superintend and direct said building operations?
10.	By whom was he recommended?
11.	How long was he employed by the government in this capacity?
12.	What salary did he receive?
13.	Was a heating system installed in the said post office?
14.	If so, what was the total cost of installation?
15.	Who sold the heating system to the government ?	"


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. Part lots 469 and 470 from H Forand for $3,650. Part lot 470 and lot 471 from G. H. Whitehead and W. E. Hills for $7,500.
4.	Clerk of Works, Department of Public 1\ orks, Montreal, and Mr. P. E. Boivin, Granby, P.Q.
5.	$43,303.99.
6 and 7. Joseph Oscar Seguin was appointed by the Civil Service Commission as a result of a competition advertised locally.

8.	He had experience in building construction.
9.	Yes.
10.	Favourably reported on by the officer of the Department of Public Works as having ability in judging labour, material, reading of plans and understanding specifications, as well as ability to make rough sketches of progress of work.
11.	He reported for duty on December 4, 1928 and his certificate expired on December 4, 1929.
12.	$1,500.86.
13.	Yes, included in general contract for building. In 1929 an oil burner was installed.
14.	No information as to separate cost of heating in general contract. Cost of oil burner $800.
15.	Sub-contractor for heating in general contract was S. LeBrun, Waterloo, P.Q. Oil burner installed by A. J. Lemieux, Granby, P.Q.



RADIO COMMISSION STATEMENTS

Mr. CASGRAIN:: Are the statements issued by the radio commission at Ottawa published in French?
He said: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) stated that this question could not be answered because it was so indefinite. I had in mind the orders and directions issued by the radio commission in Ottawa to the various parts of the country, and I desire to know whether or not these were printed in the French language.


Mr. BENNETT:: Could the hon. gentleman reframe his question?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes, I will do that.
Question stands.



EXPORTS OF FOREST PRODUCTS

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	What amount of forest products were exported from Canada to the United States between the years 1922-1932, inclusive, viz.: (a) lumber and planks; (b) logs and pulp wood; (c) telegraph poles and pilings; (d) box shocks and shingles; (e) other forest products?
2.	What is the amount, in dollars and cents, for the same years?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1 and 2. Canada's domestic exports of forest products to the United States for the years ended March 31, 1922 to 1932, inclusive, were as under:

Questions
(a) Lumber and planks: 1. Planks and boards-
	M. ft.	$
1922	933,862	30,637,8301923	1,748,478	49,727,2191924	1,836,756	58,104,4591925	1,633,051	48,140,6071926	1,834,007	53,457,6551927	1.725.628	48,252,0341928	1,565,653	42,519,8841929	1,317,167	36,378,1681930	1,419,327	38,399,7851931	975,219	22,935,9281932	597,712	12,544,9212. Timber, square-	M. ft.	S1922	4,592	100,5651923	9,558	204,6241924	63,940	1,372,1451925	24,946	528,3701926	14,966	343,7791927	14.296	288,4891928	10,553	219,8201929	9.843	210,8311930	17,809	364,9081931	11,227	219,8441932	5,753	90,267(b) Logs and pulpwood:	1. Logs-	M. ft.	$1922	132,884	2,233,7411923	165,932	2,837,6351924	200,625	3,657,7321925	186,872	3,226,7881926	213,002	3,651,9041927	166,297	2,640,8211928	210.235	3,096,1171929	150,196	2.354,0821930	171,339	2,479,1101931	151,496	1,811,9391932	145,435	1,451,7452. Pulpwood-	Cords	%1922	825,967	9,789,1501923	1,096,462	10,755,6551924	1,444,693	14,322,7141925	1,398,237	14,137,7741926	1,310,760	13,056,0571927	1.536,485	15,400,3431928	1.501,612	15,182,8421929	1,406,583	14,187,1001930	1,345,692	13,860,2091931	1,164,555	12,040,4841932	
..	832,924	8,196,144
(c) Telegraph poles and pilings:
1. Telegraph and telephone poles-
	No.	$
1922	182,889	739,5851923	322,940	1,277,4561924	545,619	2,440,6811925	634,734	2,965,3511926	663,386	2,877,4671927	764,262	3,293,1281928	770,227	3,324,0071929	855,221	3,443,2831930	942,008	3,907,6491931	862,246	3,601,4641932	329,607	1,236,1122. Piling-	Lin. ft.	S1922	1,068,281	116,8841923	1,237,315	107,5351924	1,672,830	185,4021925	2,566,914	202,7741926	2,608,954	196,4111927	3,007,227	232,9501928	2,025,820	157,7921929	1,661,066	122,1841930	2,663,613	202,2951931	1.950,432	147,9131932	596,045	48,890(d) Box shooks and	shingles:	1. Shooks-	1922	$ 53.9741923	14,2071924	(Entered	8,3301925	14,9461926	at	26,8071927	41,1741928	value	20.8131929	
..	14,5081930	only)	13,7291931	8,8521932	8,2502. Shingles-	M.	$1922	2,217,474	7,592,1811923	2,599,691	10,463,9211924	2,484,757	9,104,3451925	2,557,898	9,322,8541926	2,403,657	9,466,8491927	2,434,242	8,324,3871928	2,035,510	6,712,6371929	2,005,589	7,663,4191930	1,668,858	6,599,3611931	1,143,477	3,429,1481932	1,024,764	2,358,671
Questions

(e) Other forest products:

1922		 7,147,582
1923		 9,395,590
1924		 (Entered	'	11,349,027
1925		 11,374,987
1926		 at	12,750,305
1927		 11,135,253
1928		 value	8,649,650
1929		 7,938,696
1930		 only)	5,120,914
1931		 2,923,732
1932		 2,492,487



PURCHASES OF GOLD

Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	How much gold did the Dominion of Canada buy last year?
2.	What did they pay per ounce?
3.	How much of this gold was mined in Ontario ?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	1,983,031 sss/moo ounces fine.
2.	Average net price per ounce fine, including premium, $22.61.
3.	1,642,725 30%ooo ounces fine.



CANADIAN CAR AND FOUNDRY COMPANY, LIMITED

Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: 1.	Did the Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Limited, of Montreal, apply to the government or the Minister of Railways and Canals for the purpose of securing a contract for the construction of two thousand freight cars to be used by the Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so, what was the answer of the government or of the Minister of Railways and Canals ?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Yes, application was made to the Minister of Railways and Canals.
2.	The matter was promised consideration.



EXPORT RATE ON GRAIN

Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What is the existing freight rate on grain for export from Georgian bay ports to Saint John or Halifax?
2.	What is the approximate mileage from Georgian bay ports to: (a) Saint John; (b) Halifax?
3.	What is the existing export rate on grain from Calgary to Vancouver?
4.	What is the mileage from Calgary to Vancouver?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	15-17 cents per 100 pounds.
2.	(a) 836 miles; (b) 1,208 miles.
3.	20 cents per 100 pounds.
4.	642 miles.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Have any rifles been sold or otherwise disposed of as to individuals or parties outside the service of the government of Canada since January 1, 1931?
2.	If so, to whom, in what quantities, on what terms and when?


Mr. CAHAN:: This return is tabled forthwith.


INTEREST PAYMENTS
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What was the amount of interest paid by each of the governments in 1932: (a) amount paid by the federal government; (b) amount paid by all provincial governments; (e) amount paid by all municipal governments both urban and rural?
2.	To what extent did any of the above default in their interest payments during 1932?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman must realize that this government is not in position to give accurate information in connection with all these questions. The information will have to be obtained from many sources and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. I am referring to that information which must be obtained outside of the governmental departments. It will take considerable time to obtain the information asked for in the second question as we shall first have to obtain from the different provinces just what the situation is. This question should stand as an order for return.


RELIEF FOR DISTRICT 18, ALBERTA
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What steps have been taken by the government to relieve distress in the coal mining area know-n as district 18, principally in the province of Alberta?
2.	In this regard, has any order in council
similar to P.C. 2534, November 25,	1932,
authorizing the issuance of a cheque in favour of the province of Alberta to facilitate the movement of ooal from Alberta to Ontario points, been passed?
3.	If so, when was such order in council passed?



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Mr. J. L. DUGUAY (Lake St, John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr,. Gordon). I am informed that in certain municipalities in my county instructions have been given to reduce the rates of direct relief, and it is reported also that these instructions were

Apple Shipments
issued by the federal government. Will the minister inform the house upon whose authority the rates for direct relief are fixed and if the federal government has issued instructions that these rates shall be reduced in the province of Quebec?


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to direct my attention to the questions he proposed to ask. In reply to the first two questions I would say that in the case of his district or any other district in the province of Quebec or elsewhere in Canada no instructions have been issued by the federal government to reduce the amount of direct relief to be granted to those in need. The only conditions which this government has at any time laid down with respect to direct relief have been to define direct relief as consisting of food, fuel, clothing and shelter or the equivalent thereof, and that there shall be no discrimination in the granting of relief to any applicant by reason of political, racial, religious or other considerations. No limit has ever been set by this government to the amount of relief which shall be granted to any applicant, this being constitutionally a matter wholly within the determination and judgment of the local authorities. It will also be obvious to members of the house that, even aside from the constitutional aspect, such matters are properly for the local authorities to determine.
Answering my hon. friend's third question, "On whose authority rates for direct relief axe fixed?" I would say that municipalities must determine, first, whether relief shall be granted and, second, to whom and in what amount it shall be granted. I also presume that such decisions on the part of municipalities receive provincial approval. As a matter of fact I am informed and understand that in Quebec the provincial govemmtemt determines the amount which may be expended in each municipality on direct relief.
Answering -the hon. member's last question, "Has the federal government issued instructions in the province of Quebec to reduce the amount of relief?" The answer is no. This government has been most careful never to invade in any manner the jurisdiction of either the provincial or municipal authorities either in our relief legislation or in the administration thereof.



APPLE SHIPMENTS TO GREAT BRITAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. ILSLEY (Hants-Kings):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. In view of newspaper statements in Nova Scotia to the effect that the British Ministry of Agriculture has no alarm about the pest known as the apple maggot, and in view of the fact that these statements may have created a wrong impression calculated to lead to efforts being relaxed in the extermination of this pest, will the minister state whether all danger of an embargo on the entry of Canadian apples into Great Britain is past?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: The hon. member for Hants-Kings gave notice that he was going to ask this question. It is very important that attention should be called to this matter. The apple maggot is quite common in a number of provinces in Canada. When the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries of the United Kingdom instructed Mr. Fryer to investigate the possibility of the Colorado beetle being imported into the old country if importation of potatoes were allowed, he also instructed him to go very carefully into the danger of the importation of the apple maggot in infested apples.
So far as the shipping of the 1932 crop of apples is concerned, due to the very close supervision of the fruit inspectors with the cooperation of the shippers in the applegrowing provinces, only one shipment consisting of about twelve barrels of infested apples has gone into the United Kingdom. It was learned that a number of barrels of infested apples were on the boat and every effort was made to catch those and have them removed before the boat left, but in the cargo there were some twelve barrels that were shipped to the old country.
The fact that in a letter that I put on Hansard on February 10 last, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries referred even to this small shipment, shows the great danger of an embargo being placed upon our apples if infested apples are shipped in any quantity to the United Kingdom. I do not think I can do better in this connection than read again the last paragraph of the letter of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries of the old land:
Mr. Fryer has also reported to me the measures which you contemplate in order to prevent the export to this country of apples infested with the apple fruit fly. Much to our pleasure, it has not so far been necessary for us to place any restrictions on apples imported from the dominion. The discovery of an infested consignment last October-
That is the one to which reference has been made.
-was, we hope, only an isolated case; and after considering Mr. Fryer's account of the steps you are taking, I have decided that it
Wentworth Milk Producers

will not be necessary to impose any restrictions during the 1933 season unless the sampling of consignments on arrival in this country reveals the presence of the pest.
I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance that every precaution should be taken in dealing with the situation so that there will be no danger of an embargo.



HOG CHOLERA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. EOCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): May I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture? Is there an outbreak of hog cholera in western Ontario, and if so, in what sections is it occurring and what steps is the government taking to combat it?
Robert Weir: I am not informed that there is such an outbreak. I shall be glad to make inquiries and give the hon. member a reply later.



TRADE RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: The other day an order of the house was passed for the tabling of all correspondence between one Serkau, and any members or officials of the government. Might I ask the government if they have any idea when we may expect that this return will be tabled?


Robert Weir: As regards any direct correspondence that has taken place between Mr. Serkau and myself, it is ready to be placed on the table at any time, but I believe a great number of resolutions, telegrams and letters have been received by various ministers and it will take some time before they can be collected.


John Vallance: On that point may I assure the minister that so far as the telegrams are concerned, we are not very anxious about them.
CANADA SHIPPING ACT On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MaoINNIS (South Vancouver) : May I ask the Minister of Marine if he intends to proceed this session with a bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: The answer is, yes, and the bill will go to the printer within a few days.


Mr. NEILL:: Will the bill be referred to a committee?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.

WENTWORTH MILK PRODUCERS On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. C. WILSON (Wentworth):: In view of the importance of the petition presented to the house by the milk producers of the county of Wentworth, is the government in a position to state what action will be taken regarding the same?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My attention was directed to the
petition to which the hon. gentleman refers. My view is that the matters therein mentioned should be taken up by the committee on agriculture and that they should call witnesses, hear evidence and arrive at conclusions based on that evidence, for I know of no method by which the ends sought can be as readily attained as by evidence being adduced before that committee and the matter being dealt with by them. I understand under the rules it is not necessary to make a reference, but any member of the committee may bring a matter before it and have it dealt with expeditiously and thoroughly. Every facility will be offered, so far as the government is concerned, to enable that end to be attained.
ANYOX DISTURBANCE On the orders of the day:


Mr. OLOF HANSON (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. What information has he in regard to the strike at Anyox, British Columbia. Have the men gone back to work and, if so, how many?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. member for Skeena was
good enough to intimate to me his intention of asking this question. On February 1, 1933, employees in the mine, smelter, coke ovens and shops ceased work, demanding increases in wages and reductions in rates for board and rent. From 800 to 1,000 workers are reported to be involved, from 400 to 500 having joined the Mine Workers' Union of Canada, affiliated with the Workers' Unity League.
It is not clear whether the other employees are on strike or merely deterred by pickets from working. A report from the union states that wages were as low as $2.75 a day, and an increase of fifty cents per day was desired ; that board was $1.10 per day and rent for a shack six by ten feet 16 per month. A decrease of twenty per cent in board and rent was demanded. Recognition of the union was also demanded.
It is reported in the press that a clash between the provincial police and the strikers

Second Narrows Bridge
occurred on February 4, and that several were injured and in hospital, while eight had been arrested.
The plant was closed down on February 4, and the company is reported to have stated that it had been operated at a loss for some time and would be closed permanently if the strike continued for any length of time. Hon. members will understand that this is a base metal mine, and of course the product from the mine is selling at a very low price at the present time, so much so that I have no doubt that not only this base metal mine but probably all others with very few exceptions on this continent are having a most difficult struggle to keep their plants operating.
On February 9 a dispatch from Victoria stated that 310 of the strikers had voted to return to work and that the company expected the dispute would terminate within a few days.
The men have not made any application to the department to intercede, so far as I am aware, unless it has come in to-day. If such an application is made the department will, of course, exercise what authority it has and do anything possible in order to bring about a satisfactory solution of the alleged trouble.



SECOND NARROWS BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: On behalf of the people of North Vancouver and Greater Vancouver who are very anxious to have repairs made to the second narrows bridge and cannot understand why there has been so much delay, I would ask the Prime Minister if he can give us any idea when the repairs will be started.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it must be within the
knowledge of the hon. gentleman that when this parliament was asked to reenact certain legislation and amend the then existing legislation with respect to the second narrows bridge, which, if I remember aright, had been destroyed in part and with respect to which destruction it was held that there was liability against the company, we were told by those who had the matter in hand, the undertaking being owned by corporations and municipalities, that nothing further was required. This government was told that distinctly and positively. Later it was sought to obtain assistance from the government for the construction of the bridge because the methods to which resort was had, had failed. Then the government discovered that a receiver had been appointed and that a contract was outstanding, 53719-136
and it was asked that the government should take over the contract; that is, afford the means for providing for the payment of the obligations under the contract.
The bridge involves the construction of a substructure and a superstructure. The construction of the substructure being under water, with a swift current flowing, is a matter of very great importance, and in order that the foundation might be properly determined it was necessary that divers should inspect the bottom of the stream and that borings should be made. As a result of all the representations that were made, the government took steps to enable the Vancouver harbour commissioners to take over the undertaking, but when the undertaking was taken over it was found that there were outstanding contracts which had not been let by tender, and that the bridge was to be constructed by arrangement between one producer of material and bridge-builder and the corporation. The contract, it is true, is approved by the court, but in consequence of representations that were made to the government from Vancouver itself that it was undesirable in the public interest that an undertaking of this character should be built without tenders being called, the government then instructed the harbour commissioners to ascertain what could be done in the way of having tenders called. It was then represented that it would take a very long time to prepare the plans for the superstructure as well as to determine with exactitude what would have to be done with respect to the substructure.
Be that as it may, the government determined that no opportunity should be given to those who were seeking so strongly to obtain their assistance, later to charge that the government had been a party to the letting of contracts without tenders, and accordingly instructions were given that steps be taken to prepare proper plans and specifications for the purpose of enabling tenders to be called for the construction of both the superstructure and the substructure. That we are told involves delay, but the delay is not the delay of this government. It is the delay of those who had control of the enterprise from the start, but who did not desire any assistance from us until later, and then when assistance was sought we were confronted with contracts which involved the expenditure of moneys to be found by this government for the purpose of constructing without tenders a work that would cost a large sum of money.
At the moment negotiations are pending, I am informed, between the constituted

C.NJi.-Annual Report

authority of the harbour and the bridge company for the acquisition of the plans prepared by the bridge company, and not by the public authority, to enable tenders to be called. Yesterday a telegram came indicating that possibly with the aid of another consulting engineer the plans might be much more rapidly prepared than was at first thought.
I may add that Mr. Monsarrat, one of the most eminent engineers in Canada, has been out upon the ground and has gone over the undertaking with great care and made a report, and intimated that if the present plans prepared by a private company are to be used for the purpose of constructing the bridge, much money will have to be paid for them and there might be difficulties in connection with other companies tendering on plans prepared by a rival or competing company.
I know of few matters which I have had occasion to investigate in which you find so many cross-currents of interest and of influence, and in the end we determined that there should be no opportunity given to say that the public moneys under the control of the harbour authority had been expended otherwise than through tenders being awarded to those who were able to build the work for the least money having regard to their fitness to undertake it.
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS On the orders of the day:


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The right hon. leader of the opposition a few days ago asked me when the annual report of the Canadian National Railways would be tabled, and I promised to make inquiry and give him an answer.
The management inform me that on no occasion except once within the last six or seven years has the report been tabled before the first of April, and that due to the immensity of the system and the necessity for the auditors completing their audit of the vast number of expenditures and accounts, they are afraid that the report cannot be tabled at the earliest until perhaps the middle of March.
NEW ZEALAND BUTTER On the orders of the day:


Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: I see by the press of last night that discussions are now taking place between this government and the government of New Zealand with regard to shipments of butter to this country. Could 
the minister of Trade and Commerce give us some information? It is stated that representations have been made by this government to the government of New Zealand looking towards the restriction of further shipments to Canada. I thought this matter of the shipment of butter to Canada was successfully settled when our friends opposite got into power.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member is out of order. Probably his real purpose in rising was to make the last statement.


Samuel William Jacobs: No, it was not. The fact is so well known that it is not necessary for me to rise to state it. It is a hard, hard fact. I should like to ask the minister, however, if he is in a position to give the house some information with regard to the representations made by this government to the government of New Zealand requesting the restriction of further shipments to this country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that at the moment the government cares to say on the subject.



EXPORT ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. C. ROBINSON (West Essex) moved the second reading of Bill No. 14, to amend the Export Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of the amendment to the Export Act passed in 1930 it is not my intention to go over the ground I covered on March 24, 1930, and on May 18, 1931. At the time the amendment was passed in 1930 I think hon. members on this and on the other side of the house were of the opinion that we were going to get something in return from the United States for our friendly gesture. As everyone knows we have received nothing. First there was the Hawley-Smoot tariff which was so disastrous to the farmers of this country. Secondly there were amendments to the Immigration Act which affected the commuters, and especially those living at border points. In 1927 over 15,000 people, working in Detriot and suburbs, were living in the border cities. A great many of them were Americans. Since that time the number has been reduced to between 1,000 and 1,500. Not only that, but Canadians working in Detroit or Americans residing in Windsor

Liquor Export-Mr. Robinson
were forced to move to Detroit to carry on their work in that city.
Restrictions are not the same on this side of the line. Americans are free to come and go as they please, and they hold high positions in the larger industries of the border cities. A great many Americans with whom I have talked have stated that in cutting off the export of good liquor and forcing the American people to buy moonshine and other concoctions Canada has been guilty of an unfriendly act towards her neighbour. There was never a better opportunity than that presented in 1930, at the time the restrictions were enforced, to make an arrangement with the United States whereby commuters on both sides of the line would be free to come and go as they pleased, as they had done until recent years.
The situation concerning exports of liquor differs greatly from that which obtained two years ago. The first cause of the change may be traced to the depressed conditions, and the second to the result of the United States election which took place on November 8, 1932. While some years ago the state of Michigan passed a prohibition act by an overwhelming majority, in the election held last fall prohibition legislation was defeated by a three to one vote. There can be no argument that Canada needs revenue. Probably I would do well at this time to place on Hansard figures showing our exports of whisky, spirits and beer for the year ending March 31, 1930, the last figures obtainable from the bureau of statistics, and the loss in revenue suffered by Canada as a result of the amendment to the Export Act:

Estimated Annual Loss to National Revenue and to Distilling, Brewing, and Other Industries as a Result of Amendment to Export Act, Prohibiting Exports of
. Intoxicating Liquors to United States
(Based on exports of liquor and beer (Duty Paid) from Canada to United States for year ended March 31, 1930. Figures as to quantities exported during that period obtained from statistics published by Dominion Bureau of Statistics)
Exports of Liquors and Beers (Duty Paid) from Canada to United States for Year Ended March 31, 1930
Equivalent (at average) strength,
17 under proof, to
Whisky, Gin and Other Spirits (Canadian Produce)	1,076,189 imp. gals. 893,236 pf. gals. Excise Duty-$7.00 per pf. gal. .$	6,252,652
Sales Tax on average selling price, say $20.00 per case, 538,094 cases	 645,712
Equivalent at average strength,
23 under proof, to
Ale, Beer and Porter	(Foreign Produce)	163,414 imp. gals. 125,828 pf. gals. Average Customs Duty
[Stage Direction]

per pf. gal	$	1,069,538
Sales tax on average selling price, say $20.00 per case, 81,707 cases. 98,048
(Canadian Produce)	1,449,122 imp. gals.	Excise Duty-12$c. per gal....$	181,140
Sales tax on average selling price, say $2.00 per case, 724,561 cases. 86,947
(Foreign Produce)	2,117 imp. gals.	Customs Duty-42c. per gal...$	889
Sales tax on average selling price, say $3.00 per case, 1,000 cases. 180
Amount Collected in Excise, Customs and Sales Taxes
$	6,898,364
1,167,586
268,087
1,069
$	8,335.106
[Stage Direction]

o
tz;
w
The cessation of the exports outlined in the above table represents the following losses to the Canadian distilling, brewing and other industries:
Distilling Industry	1,076,189 gals.
Brewing Industry	1,449,122 gals.
= 538,094 cases at $20.00	$	10,761,880
Less Excise Duty	 6,252,652
_______________
= 724,561 cases at $2.00	$	1,449,122
Less Excise Duty	 86,947
Glass Industry	1,262,655 doz. bottles at 50c
Boxes and Containers	
Labels, Wrappers, etc	
Grain	
Railway Freight	
4,509,228
1,362,175
631.327
200,000
175.000
400.000
225.000
Total
$	7,502,730
Liquor Export-Mr. Robinson

Liquor Export-Mr. Robinson
I should like the farmer members to note the amount lost in connection with grain. Then, I am informed regarding railway freights that the amount collected at Windsor and other border cities in 1928 from both railroads amounted to about $300,000. Of course at the present time that revenue is all lost. In addition to the loss of revenue there would be the loss of income tax, from
those in the business, which was very large. I have already mentioned the loss of freight.
It may seem strange to some hon. members that the United States can export liquors to Canada although we cannot export to the United States. I have the figures here from the bureau of statistics for the year 1930-31. I think you will find them interesting. They are as follows:
Exports of Distilled Liquors from the United States to British Countries (Calendar Years 1930 and 1931)
Exports to- United Kingdom	Proof G allons	1930 $	Proof Gallons 300 3,008 1,500 4,001	1931 $Canada	
Newfoundland	
British Malaya	1,230 1,232 562	1.175 596 1,4406,108	3,024	8,809	4,311
I draw the attention of the house to these figures to show how unreasonable it is for the United States to expect us to prohibit exports to their country when they are free to export to Canada.
The worst feature since this act went into force is that of the smuggling of alcohol into Canada which has increased by leaps and bounds. No service knows better what that amounts to than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I have here an extract from a report of Sir Henry Drayton, chairman of the liquor control board of the province of Ontario, for the year ending October 31, 1931. It says:
The smuggling of spurious liquor into Ontario, from the prohibited areas of the United States, at the first impression appears well nigh incredible. The reports, however, of commissions and inquiries, governnienitally constituted in the United States, establish, without doubt, that spurious liquor and alcohol are largely trafficked in that country. Further, spurious liquors can be manufactured very cheaply. The usual base is alcohol; sometimes pure, sometimes absolutely poisonous. The added water, colouring matter and flavouring cost but little. Sixty-five per cent over-proof alcohol can be readily produced for forty-five cents a gallon, but the dominion excise tax alone amounts to $14.85 a gallon. American alcohol pays no taxes and has been sold in Ontario as low as $3 a gallon.
As I said before, I am not going over any of the material I used in 1930 and 1931 but I am going to read some editorials or parts of editorials from the leading journals of this country that will indicate the state of public opinion.
The Toronto Telegram of November 19, 1932, said:
Most Canadians felt that Premier King had gone beyond the requirements of international courtesy in complying with the request to place a ban on the export of intoxicants. Canada
had no wish to interfere in the policy of the United States on the wet-dry question but it was felt that the Prime Minister of that day was asking too much when he called upon the taxpayers of Canada to spend $15,000,000 in helping to enforce the laws of another country. Liquor export, after all, was a legitimate enterprise so far as this country was concerned.
Here is one from the Monetary Times, Toronto, of February 12, 1932:
In the year ending March 31, 1931, we sent some 2,000,000 gallons of whiskey to the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, practically all of which was reshipped to the United States. We lost the excise tax of $9 per gallon and then had the trouble of seeing that the goods actually went to their destination. It was a beautiful gesture on the part of our previous government, blit it was of little value; for the thirsty American is still slaking his parched tongue and doing it more cheaply than before. From a sentimental standpoint it was supposed to earn us the undying gratitude of all our cousins to the south, but we find that many of our neighbours in the northern states are wet anyway while those in the dry regions are too far away to be affected.
May we repeat that the morals of the liquor business have nothing to do with the case. Any visitor to an American city can see, if he wishes, that the Volstead Act is as often honoured in the breach as otherwise. Spirituous liquors are^ being drunk and we are losing the revenue with no compensating benefit. The national strong-box in its present condition would be greatly helped by it.
Here is another, from the Financial Times of Montreal, dated November 18, 1932:
Though passed by an overwhelming house majority in 1930, the liquor export ban was never demanded by any substantial nation-wide body of opinion. In Ontario there was an outcry against the short-circuiting of supposed liquor exports but the provincial government effectively squashed that end of the bootlegging trade. In the face of these considerations, it
[Stage Direction]
Liquor Export-Mr. Robinson
may be asked: why was the law passed? The answer is that the law was one of those moves which few politicians actively support but which few dare openly oppose.
This is from the Montreal Gazette of December 10, 1932:
In pursuance of its policy of good will to the United States, at whatever cost to the Canadian people, the King government, in 1930, induced parliament to amend the Export Act to prohibit the granting of clearances to vessels carrying Canadian liquor to countries wherein the sale of such liquor was illegal. The amendment, though general in its terms, was designed admittedly to help the United States whose efforts at enforcing the prohibition law had failed. Parliament passed the amendment against its better judgment, the then opposition being unwilling to give the government the political advantage which, it was thought, might result from a division. It was an interesting exhibition of legislation based upon expediency rather than upon conviction.
The Border Cities Star of December 9, 1932, has this to say:
Public opinion on this subject has undergone a radical change. Public opinion favoured stopping export. But the public understood that Canada was going to get some worthwhile concession from the United States in return for this important favour. Canada got nothing. Consequently there is no longer much disposition here to assist the United States in the enforcement of its dry laws-particularly in view of the fact that the American voters have vigorously repudiated these laws themselves.
Here is one from the Ottawa Journal of February 2, 1933, headed:
May as Well Use the Front Door
Because, actually, all that the 1930 legislation did was to send our liquor to the United States by a more circuitous route. By the back door instead of the front door.
Last year our liquor exports to St. Pierre and Miquelon, which have a few hundred inhabitants, were 1,616,177 gallons. The liquor went to the United States.
We shipped 134,000 gallons to Bermuda; 106,000 gallons to British Honduras; 117,000 gallons to the West Indies. Most of this was for the United States.
We shipped 252,000 gallons to French Oceania, in the Pacific; and most of this went to the United States. French Oceania never bought a gallon of liquor from us until after the 1930 legislation.
In the circumstances, the 1930 law, under which we are supposed to protect good (but sometimes thirsty) Americans from our own sumptuary habits, seems to be little more than a nice bit of make-believe, or hypocrisy. And the worst of it is, it is costing us a lot of money.
Now I quote from the Border Cities Star of November 10, 1932:
Everyone seemed to take it for granted, at the time, that Mr. King had a formal agreement or at least a gentleman's understanding with the government at Washington by which this country would receive a substantial concession from the United States in return for

the favour we were doing Uncle Sam by cutting off the business of Canadian liquor exporters. No announcement along these lines was made, but most persons concluded that the lack of announcement was merely a matter^ of diplomatic policy, Washington, for domestic political purposes, not caring to reveal that concessions had been made to Canada. However, as we mentioned before, time passed and the cold truth finally came home to us all-the government had given everything and received nothing. We had something substantial to "trade" and we muffed the opportunity. .
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I ask from what my hon. friend is reading?


Mr. ROBINSON:: I am reading from an editorial appearing in the Border Cities Star of November 10, 1932.
Then and there, of course, enthusiasm for the ban on export started to wither and decay. And the withering and decaying process was intensified as politicians and officials in Washington continued to jack up the_ American tariff against our country and to devise further ways and means for keeping Canadians from crossing the boundary line in quest of employment or even, in some cases, for purely social purposes. Our people came to the bitter conclusion that they had been "let down" by their own leaders, that Mr. King and his associates had simply "missed the boat" in dealing with the boys at Washington.	_
A plebiscite on the question to-day would give Colonel Robinson a resounding majority for his proposal to end the export ban. No one familiar with public sentiment can doubt this. In addition, as we have said, the United States has "gone off the dry standard," thus destroying even anything in the shape of a moral argument, real or fancied, against the export of alcoholic beverages from Canada to that country.
Now I quote from the St. Thomas Times-Journal of November 16, 1932:
What has been the result? There has been no let-up in liquor violations in the United States. Liquor, good and bad, but mostly bad, flows more freely than ever in the "land of the free." And the reciprocal concessions, where are they? Nowhere. In place of them the United States has built higher tariff walls against our goods; tightened up its immigration laws to keep out Canadian labour and to prevent Canadians taking up residence there. Canada's gesture-well-meaning though it may have been-cost the dominion $15,000,000 a year in revenue, without our getting a single thing in return.
I quote now from the Montreal Gazette of February 1, 1933:
Since the November election in the United States, with its overwhelming repudiation of the eighteenth amendment and the v olstead law, the Canadian liquor embargo cannot be defended upon the pretence of cooperating to uphold the policy of a friendly country. Since the United States is no longer in favour of prohibition- if, indeed, it ever was-there oan be no reason in the world for withholding one of the few export commodities which finds a ready market in that country. Moreover, the

Liquor Export-Mr. Mackenzie King
Ottawa treasury stands in the utmost need of any and every increase in revenue that can be legitimately provided. As the Prime Minister has stated, and as every thoughtful citizen knows, Canada is dangerously near the limit of its capacity to pay taxes. By legalizing the export of liquor, however, a former source of income can be reopened without hardship to the public and to the advantage of an important industry. In these circumstances the embargo should be removed, and the sooner the better.
I hold in my hand a map of the city of Washington, which appeared in the Border Cities Star of February 18, 1932. Shown on this map are dots representing speakeasies which have been raided by the police, totalling 1,155 and of these three were located on government property close to the capitol.
I believe this is all I have to say at this time, Mr. Speaker. In my mind, and in the minds of those who have the interests of the country at heart, the repeal of this act will benefit this country in many ways. It will help labour; it will result in the purchase of supplies and material, and will aid the distilling and brewing industries. I hope this measure will receive the favourable consideration of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So far as I have heard, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Robinson), and who is the mover of this resolution, has not given a single reason why the legislation passed in 1930 should be repealed at the present time, if I confine that remark to arguments that really bear upon the essential features of the measure and the reason for its adoption in 1930.
My hon. friend spoke at some length about some quid pro quo which we should have received from the United States because of the passage of this measure. I never heard or thought of any such quid pro quo at the time or at any time. I do not think the bill was passed with any expectation that it would lead to other measures on the part of the United States. The bill was passed in the interests of Canada itself, in order .to maintain respect for our own laws and to fulfil our treaty obligations. While no doubt the legislation was of assistance to the United States, it was not a measure that had relation primarily to the United States; its primary relation was to Canada, to fulfilling our own obligations, maintaining the integrity of our own public services, and seeing to it that our own citizens, and particularly our own officials, did not become allied with smugglers and criminal gangsters in their efforts to violate the laws of another country.
This is 1933; it is three years since the bill which it is now sought to repeal passed the house, and I might remind hon. members that when the measure was adopted it passed both the house and the Senate without division, as I recall it. I do not know what circumstances have arisen in the interval which should cause the parliament of Canada to change its mind with regard to the purpose it was hoped would be fulfilled by the enactment of this legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman is wrong; there was a division on the third reading.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to be corrected if that is so. The vote against the measure was so small that I had forgotten it. Perhaps, I cannot do better than state to the house, in the terms of the explanatory note which accompanies the bill, the objects which according to that statement are sought to be effected. The explanation reads:
The object of this bill is, by repealing the above section, ito restore to the revenues of Canada the large amount of revenue lost by its enactment, and to open the way by international treaty or convention for reciprocal duties and obligations on the part of the two governments concerned. It is also an effort to help the serious unemployment situation in Canada, and to assist in the prevention of smuggling.
There are four alleged reasons given, and I shall deal with each in turn, taking the last first. It is stated that the enactment of this bill is to assist in the prevention of smuggling. My hon. friend seeks to repeal a section of an act which was passed for the purpose of assisting in the suppression of smuggling by a bill which he says is to assist in the suppression of smuggling. I fail to see how he can claim that the suppression of smuggling will be one of the effects of his measure. I regard his bill rather as a measure to assist smuggling.
I should like to point out how the law as it formerly stood aided smuggling and how smuggling will be again aided if the amendment passed in 1930 is repealed. Not only was smuggling aided, but it was aided at the instance of the government of Canada and with the direct assistance of government officials. I should like my hon. friend to realize that from my point of view that is the most serious objection to be made to his measure, apart from its violation of the principle on which the original measure is based. If the amendment of 1930 is repealed we will again (have the government of Canada,
2160	COMMONS
Liquor Export-Mr. Mackenzie Kino
through its officials, knowingly and openly aiding and abetting smuggling in the violation of the laws of a neighbouring and friendly country. What was the procedure before and what will it be again if the amendment proposed by my hon. friend is adopted?
In the first place, in order to take out liquor from a warehouse os' distillery for export it had to be entered for purposes of duty. If the liquor was going to a foreign country which did not prohibit the importation of liquor, no duty was paid but a bond amounting to twice the amount of the excise was exacted. When the Department of National Revenue received a certificate to the effect that the liquor had been successfully landed in that country, the bond was cancelled. In the case of the United States, which prohibited the importation of liquor, that process, namely the taking of a bond prior to export could not be followed by the department, so the department adopted the plan of requiring those who desired to ship liquor to the United States to paj7 on liquor so exported an amount equivalent to the excise duty.
My hon. friend says that his measure is intended for purposes of revenue, and I should like to show how this revenue would be collected. The duty would be paid at the time the liquor was taken out of the warehouse or distillery and whoever was shipping the liquor would have to state that it was going to the United States. The liquor would be entered in the books of the government of Canada as going to the United States, a country known to prohibit the importation of liquor and the customs officials would be obliged to make that entry knowing that they were assisting those who were desirous of smuggling and violating the laws of another country. That is the first step.
After the liquor had been entered in that manner, government assistance would be still necessary to get the liquor from the warehouse, brewery or distillery to the dock from which it was to clear for the United States. This step would be impossible without some cooperation upon the part of the officials of the Department of National Revenue. This cooperation would consist of giving a permit for the transportation of the liquor from the warehouse to the port from which it was to be cleared for the United States, and the permit would bear upon its face the statement that the liquor was going to the United States. Everyone having to do with the handling of that liquor, whether customs officials, train 'employees or others would know that that liquor was to be smuggled into the United States, they would all become 
parties to the smuggling. After the liquor, by virtue of this permit which had been granted by government officials or by the government of Canada-for after all it is the government; the government is responsible for the acts of its officials-had been transported from the distillery to the end of steel, it would have to be put on board a vessel for the United States. Before this vessel could be cleared for the United States another customs official would have to go on board to make sure, by examining the permit, that the liquor on board that vessel was the liquor that came from the distillery, that it had paid the excise duty and Was going to the United States.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: That is not required for vessels of five tons and under.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend will find that the vessels which would be engaged in rum running would require clearances.
A olearance would have to be obtained and I would point out that that clearance would have to be given by a government official. The olearance would state that the vessel had on board liquor destined for the United States notwithstanding it was known that liquor could not be lawfully imported into the United States. When a vessel known to everyone to be in the hands of rum runnere was thus cleared, it would be cleared by virtue of the authority of the government of Canada.
This is something which any country which has regard for its own laws and the integrity and probity of its own officials cannot afford to countenance for one moment. The feeling I had when I presented the amendment to the act was that this procedure not only was demoralizing as regards encouraging the practice of rum running, but that it was particularly demoralizing to the whole customs service of Canada. Our customs service is intended to safeguard the revenues of the country and to prevent anything in the nature of smuggling. We cannot expect it to be an honest service if its officials are expected knowingly to assist smuggling operations.
Another extraordinary thing in connection, with this whole business was the fact that at the time the excise duty was paid on liqour to be smuggled into the United States, not only were the officials of the federal government at Ottawa made aware of that fact but also the officials of the provincial government at Toronto. The control of the sale of liquor is a state monopoly in the province of Ontario, and it was alleged that- the giving of such information to the provincial authorities would!

Liquor Export-Mr. Mackenzie King
effectively safeguard against the liquor being taken off the trains and short circuited back into Ontario before being sent across the border. In other words, the officials of the Ontario liquor control department were expected to assume the attitude that by making sure that the laws of the United States were violated they would thereby be ensuring that the laws of the province of Ontario were not violated. I submit that as members of parliament we are here as law makers, and not as law breakers, or to assist in the breaking of the laws of our own or any other country. So far as the government officials are concerned, they are in a very difficult position; no matter what the conscience of an official may be, he is supposedly bound to carry out the instructions given to him by his superior officer. The only defence which it is possible for officials to make in performing duties of this bind in the light of the knowledge they have of existing conditions is that their business is simply to collect or to protect the revenue and nothing more. But, as I say, when they know that the effect of their action goes very much further than the collection of revenue; that it is a matter not merely of collecting revenue but of getting such revenue as can be secured, by becoming accomplices of rum runners and gangsters, a government that is responsible for placing on its officials an obligation of that kind, is assuming a very grave responsibility. That is the first objection I take to the bill of my hon. friend from West Essex. It is in the nature, not of a measure to help in the suppression of rum running, but rather of a measure to assist, and encourage rum running and the violation of the laws of another country. It makes of government officials a link between those who wish to make money by violating the laws of another country, and the bootleggers, rum runners and criminal gangsters who operate from a like aim.
The hon. member supported his bill by saying that this legislation will help to give revenue, and also that it will help to give employment. If we are reduced in this country to the position where the state can get its revenues and provide employment only by becoming partners in the rum running business, matters have come to a very strange pass. The less my hon. friend says about our attempting to get revenue in that way, and the less he tries to defend such action in the parliament of this country, the wiser he will be. I submit that anything of the kind is encouraging lawlessness generally; it is putting a premium on the direct violation of a country's laws. The hon. member must
surely have forgotten the condition we had along the southwest-Ontario frontier three years ago as a result of the bootlegging and rum running business, and the extent to which it was being carried on there. That part of our country was becoming a base for criminal operations, and criminal operations not confined to the business merely of rum running. We were getting into Canada professional gangsters in very considerable numbers, whose activities were finding expression in a number of directions. Having gotten successfully away from that state of affairs, we had better not seek to return to it by any measure that will have any such effect. If my hon. friend's bill were to be adopted and this parliament were to repeal the enactment of 1930, the effect would be that on the day after the repeal we should witness in and about the vicinity of the community in which my hon. friend lives, the reassembling of those classes of persons in large numbers, and heaven alone knows, with conditions what they are at present in different parts of this continent, what might result from such an association.
Let me mention the other factor that is set forth as a reason for passing this amendment:
To open a way by international treaty or convention for reciprocal duties and obligations on the part of the two governments concerned
I am afraid my hon. friend is not aware of the treaties that already bind us in the matter of assistance in the suppression of smuggling. This is not opening a way; it is destroying a way already provided. It is violating absolutely more than one treaty obligation. If this amendment should become law, we would be violating treaty obligations of the most important character.


Mr. ERNST:: What obligations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The first was a convention drawn up in 1924 between the United States and Great Britain, or rather, between the United States and Great Britain, and some other parts of the British Empire, because different parts of the empire approved it, whereby each of the parties to the convention undertook to assist the other party in matters pertaining to smuggling. More particularly, the different parts of the British Empire that became parties to the convention undertook to assist in connection with the laws of the United States regarding alcoholic beverages.


William Gordon Ernst: In what particular, might I ask the right hon. gentleman?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The agreement itself as worded was that it was a convention the parties had entered into being-I quote-
2162	COMMONS
Liquor Export-Mr. Mackenzie King
" desirous to avoid any difficulties which might arise between them in connection with the laws of the United States re alcoholic beverages." I know the point my hon. friend has in mind. That its provisions related to importations from the sea, and the nature of the agreement was amongst other things to extend the right of search to vessels that were believed to have liquor on board, from the three mile limit to a distance that would be equivalent to one hour's steaming from shore.


William Gordon Ernst: I am not criticizing the right hon. gentleman's argument, and I do not say I am not in sympathy with it, but if it is sound, why do the British crown colonies, such as the West Indies-I am not talking of the dominions-still allow clearances to the United States?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The crown colonies will have to answer for themselves. It is our duty as members of the Canadian parliament to answer for ourselves, and we in this parliament, both the House of Commons and the Senate, have approved that treaty. Both houses of parliament have approved a treaty which was expressly entered into in 1924 in the first instance by the British government, for the reason that the parties thereto were desirous of avoiding any difficulties which might arise between them in connection with the laws of the United States regarding alcoholic beverages. If differences were likely to arise on the high seas, I submit they are as nothing compared with those that are likely to arise where there are frontiers as immediate as the one between Canada and the United States, and where smuggling takes place not merely across the high seas but across river channels that are far from being wide. The reasons for that treaty are just as strong to-day as they were when it was entered into. I remember, when the matter came up before, mentioning how the late Lord Curzon, who at the time was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Great Britain, had pointed out, as the ground on which the convention should be entered into, that no country could afford to be indifferent to the domestic legislation of another country, that it was bound to have respect for its policies and the sentiment of its people, that it could not do otherwise and hope to maintain friendly relations with that other country. That is the principle I wish now to reaffirm and assert.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: What date was that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That convention was ratified in Washington on January 23, 1924. Ratifications were exchanged on May

22, 1924. The convention was approved by the House of Commons of Canada on March 21, 1924, and by the Senate of Canada on April 4, 1924.
As I was saying, the point that was stressed at the time and that in the main accounted for the action of the British government, was the recognition of the fact that where a country, for reasons of its own, enacts legislation which governs its entire people, it is not the business of another country to inquire whether the legislation is wise, whether it is being enforced or not; it is its business to inquire to what extent its own citizens axe respecting their obligations not to attempt to violate the laws of another country. Lord Curzon took very strongly the position that unless that position were maintained, if shipping or commercial interests in one state sought to further their business by running counter to the legislation and practice of another state, 'as, for example, by violating the laws of another country, "a very delicate and disagreeable situation would be produced" -ithat, I think, was the phrase he used

with which it would be extremely difficult for the country whose shipping was responsible for the violation of the laws of the other country to deal. I remember at the time of introducing the legislation of 1930, having then the responsibility of Minister of External Affairs, I felt, and had reason to feel, there was possibility of serious difficulty arising any day between this country and the United States by what might take place in connection with smuggling going on between the two countries. I felt that the really grave factor that would grow' out of the situation was not one so much pertaining to the individuals participating in the traffic, as the responsibility of the government of Canada itself for their illegal action, seeing that their illegal action could not possibly have been taken except for the government itself through its officials being a party to it.
So much for the convention between Britain and the United States which we approved and to which we are parties. In 1924 the government of Canada entered into a treaty of its own with the United States for the purpose of aiding in the suppression of smuggling between the two countries. My hon. friend and colleague, the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) was Minister of Justice at the time, and he is one of the signatories to that treaty. The treaty was approved by this parliament. Its object, as I have said, was to aid in the suppression of smuggling. Now if we amend the statute which has been enacted with the express pur-

Liquor Export-Mr. Mackenzie King
pose of suppressing smuggling by removing its effective clause we are thereby not only destroying the statute, but are absolutely violating the provisions of our own treaty with the United States.
Hon. members will recall an investigation that was made in 1926 into the administration of the customs service and the report which was presented t.o this house. That report was before the house prior to the dissolution of parliament in 1926. Hon. gentlemen opposite had a brief term of office, very brief, just prior and immediately subsequent to that dissolution, but during the time they were in office and before dissolution they introduced into this house a resolution that clearances should not be granted to vessels carrying liquor from Canada to the United States, and the resolution carried in this House of Commons. It was the resolution of hon. gentlemen opposite. They themselves supported it and were responsible for its passing through this house. That was in 1926.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: Is it not a fact that at that time the government was not getting excise duty on liquor exports to the United States, but that they were being shipped in bond?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Excise duty or no excise duty, what I am concerned about is the smuggling, and our being accomplices in the smuggling traffic. The select committee of the House of Commons in June, 1926, recommended that, by the extent to which the legislation prohibiting illegal export to the United States might be insufficient, it be amended, and also that regulations be made "to prohibit clearances being granted to vessels carrying liquor as cargo sailing from a Canadian to a United States port." That was adopted when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office in 1926. The bill of the hon. member for West Essex is contrary to that resolution of this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman will remember that that was a part of the report of the select committee; the report was made at a time when his government was in power, and its final adoption took place during those hectic days when he ceased to be in power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I fully expected that my right hon. friend would allude to that circumstance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a fact.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had not forgotten it at all. That is quite true as to this particular recommendation, and it only makes the stronger the point I am bringing out at the moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is that
all parties were of the opinion at that time that clearances should not be granted to vessels carrying liquor from Canada to the United States so long as the United States was under prohibition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point I desired to make.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In 1927 a royal commission investigated certain matters pertaining to the customs service, and again a recommendation was made that in all particulars the law should be made such that it would prevent the smuggling of liquor from Canada into the United States.
What was the position of the present prime minister and his supporters when this measure was introduced? I am perfectly frank to admit that the government of the day did not rush into action on the prohibition of liquor exports from Canada to the United States. We realized that to be at all effective any legislation would have to have back of it considerable public opinion not only as represented by hon. members in this house but throughout the country. There was doubt for a time as to whether the United States was seeking to enforce prohibition. It was not until we were perfectly sure that the government of the United States itself was doing everything in its power to enforce its own laws that we took the step which we did. But I remember very well, because I got most of the benefit of it, how my right hon. friend then leader Of the opposition waxed full of wrath against me and the government of the day for not having taken that step long before we did. That was the whole gravamen of his indictment. My right hon. friend took the view at that time, and I believe it is the view he will take to-day, having regard to his responsibility as prime minister of this country, that that step should have been taken sooner than it was. I shall be very much surprised if the prime minister to-day at the instance of any one or more of his followers reverses his own position now that he is responsible for any change in this legislation which may find its place on our statutes.
In conclusion, I should like to add that these are days when conditions are troublesome enough on this continent, and in all parts of
2164	COMMONS
Liquor Export-Mr. Bell (Hamilton)
the worlds to warrant us in being a little careful about taking any step which is going to make more difficult the relations that exist between countries, particularly between countries that are immediate neighbours. We have boasted a good deal on this continent that so far as our relations with the great country to the south are concerned we of the United States and Canada have a happier way of dealing with difficulties that may arise than have any other countries in their relations with their immediate neighbours. We speak much of the settlement of our differences by means of an international joint commission to which we can point with great pride. As a consequence we are in a position on this continent to set an example to the rest of the world as to how goodwill may be maintained on both sides of an international frontier. I hope that my hon. friend will not by pressing his measure seek to have what there is of virtue in that example destroyed not only as regards this country but as regards its effect upon the nations of the world generally.


Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton):: I
have listened, Mr. Speaker, with great interest, as I always am compelled to do, to the remarks of the right hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Mackenzie King) and I can at least pay him the compliment of entire consistency.


Mr. HANBURY:: As always.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: I should not like to go that far, but he is consistent at all events on the present occasion because, as I think we all remember, the remarks to which he has just given utterance are those which he uttered in defence and in support of the act of which he was the sponsor some three years ago. I can well remember, too, that the right hon. gentleman was consistent in that respect both outside and inside the house because I remember his propounding outside of the house to a few friends, myself among them, the very suggestion that he has now made to the effect that the government of this country became more or less a participant in the activities of those who sought . to smuggle liquor into the United States so ' long as Canada granted clearances, and I must confess that for my part I was very much impressed by that as an argument until my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) came along and punctured it neatly and completely by pointing out to this house that the government of the United States itself had seen fit to collect from those engaged in the illicit liquor traffic a very 
substantial portion of its gains from time to time, and was then still doing so. Because of the importance of that circumstance I made it my business to investigate the truth of the statement made by the hon. member for Labelle and I found it was abundantly borne out by the facts. If this house were to content itself at this present day and hour with the arguments that were made under the conditions obtaining in 1930, it might perhaps be said that those who did agree with the position taken by the hon. member for Labelle were in the wrong, and that my right hon. friend's earnest contention against smuggling, on principle, was something which might well be accepted. But, sir, the right hon. gentleman has unfortunately betrayed that same tendency that at times seems to oppress him in other respects: He is slow to appreciate the change in conditions which has taken place in this country and in other parts of the world. This house had an example of that when the empire pacts were laid before it, and we were compelled to realize that the right hon. gentleman opposite was dealing with the past. Again, in the remarks he addressed to the house to-day he is dealing in the past. Because when the bill of 1930 was passed, as the house knows there had been a very substantial majority in the congress of the United States which had declared itself in favour of the maintenance and support of the eighteenth amendment and the Volstead Act. But what has happened since that? If I am not entirely mistaken a gentleman who had the honour yesterday of being shot at in Miami was last fall a candidate for the presidency of the United States. If I am not mistaken in the speeches I heard directed by him to the electorate of the United States-not directly but over many a radio-there was one thing for which he stood, and demanded most emphatically, namely the repeal of the eighteenth amendment. He insisted upon it; there was nothing equivocal in what he said. He declared it was his positive intention at the earliest possible opportunity which should present itself to him to bring about the repeal of the eighteenth amendment. My right hon. friend has very properly quoted the remarks by Lord Curzon to the effect that no country should be indifferent to public opinion in another friendly country. To that, Mr, Speaker, I most, heartily subscribe. To that I subscribe, particularly at this very day when in the congress of the United States the very last ramparts of the eighteenth amendment are being torn down. I will not go back and live in the past as my right hon. friend did,

Liquor Export-Mr. Carmichael
when he endeavoured to have the house appreciate the situation, but I shall turn to a report appearing in the Toronto Mail and Empire of Thursday, February 16,	1933.
From page 2 of that issue I read the following:
Washington, February 15.-A victorious "wet" onslaught to-night bowled over Senate "drys" to force a vote at three pan. to-morrow on the revised Blaine eighteenth amendment repeal resolution, which more nearly conforms with the Democratic platform.
Victory for the Democrats and the "wets" came suddenly. The prohibition defense crumbled completely, their leader agreeing to a final vote to-morrow, after finding their fight against it in vain.
Democrats, under the guidance of their loader. Senator Joseph T. Robinson struck from the Blaine resolution the provision giving congress power to ban the saloon and voted to make ratification by state conventions instead of legislatures.
The powerful Robinson assumed leadership to-night, drove his Democrats into line and their "wet" adherents followed. "Drys" meekly acquiesced.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the present state of affairs in the friendly nation to the south of us with which I am sure every hon. member desires to be in complete accord. Let us put that into action; let us show that when we talk about our friendly disposition towards our neighbours we are prepared to back up what they are doing when, in no uncertain terms, they have shown officially their present position, whatever it may have been some three years ago.
The hon. member for West Essex (Mr. Robinson) has given to the house some very conclusive facts and figures in regard to the amount of revenue of which this country is to-day being deprived by the maintenance of the existing legislation upon our statute; books. I believe my right hon. friend from Prince Albert must have been smiling in his sleeve when he stated that the hon. member for West Essex had not given to the house any important reasons for changing the legislation, because those reasons seem to have appealed to many of the leading newspapers throughout this land. Newspaper extracts read by the hon. member for West Essex undoubtedly showed the consensus of opinion held by the leading journals of Canada, and my right hon. friend or any other hon. member cannot get up and ask this House of Commons to disregard the expression of opinion expressed so forcibly by those newspapers.
It is not my intention further to delay the house, but merely to place myself on record in support of the bill. For the reasons given by the hon. member for West Essex I hope
the house will see fit to accept the bill. I hope we will endeavour to put into action that amity for the United States which we have been so willing to express in words; I hope that this bill will be the means of striking from the statute books improper legislation, and that we will not find ourselves in the absurd position of maintaining such legislation ostensibly in order to conform to the wishes of the United States and having that country this afternoon or to-morrow destroy their own prohibitory legislation.


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kinderslcy):: Mir. Speaker, listening to the arguments put forward by the last speaker (Mr. Bell, Hamilton) and the hon. member for West Essex (Mr. Robinson), one would almost conclude that the estimable gentleman who was shot at recently was already seated in his place of power in the United States, and that under his supervision congress had taken action, legislation had been passed and the Volstead Act relegated to the scrap heap. As a matter of fact none of these things has yet happened. Mr. Roosevelt is still President-elect of the United States, and the Yoilstead Act is still in operation.
On second reading it is customary to discuss the principle of a bill, and at this time I wish to voice my very decided opposition to Bill No. 14, now appearing before us. I was in the house three years ago when the legislation with which this bill deals was passed, and I recall very clearly that such legislation was brought forward very, very slowly. I recall that it took several years of agitation, urging and petitioning from different public bodies, and more particularly from church bodies throughout Canada and especially throughout the province of Ontario, before this legislation was brought down. When in 1930 legislation was brought down under chapter 19 of the statutes of that year; provision was made for three points: First, that it would be unlawful to export intoxicating liquor for delivery in any country into which the importation of such liquor was prohibited by law. That condition obtained in regard to the United States at that time, and the same condition obtains to-day. The second point in the legislation was that it should be declared unlawful to grant a clearance to any vessel carrying such liquor, and the third point, that it should be declared unlawful to make any entry for exportation of such liquor. In the year 1930 that legislation was passed almost unanimously by the House of Commons. Although I have not been able to obtain the information from Hansard, owing to the in-

Liquor Export-Mr. Carmichael
ability of the Library to supply me with a copy, I believe the recorded division showed that there were only twelve or fourteen votes recorded in opposition to the legislation of that day.
Here are a few facts I would like to place before the house. Smuggling of liquor into the United States prior to 1930 was on an enormous scale. For the year ending March 31, 1926, that is four years before the legislation was passed, liquor smuggled into the United States totalled $12,572,011. For the year ending March 31, 1928, it had reached $18,380,070 an increase of almost fifty per cent. I have not got the increase for the years following that.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) says that this legislation as proposed in Bill No. 14, if enacted, would simply open the doors and start again those smuggling operations which had reached such proportions in the years prior to 1930.
On January the 8th, 9th and 10th, 1929, there was a conference held in the city of Ottawa between delegates to the number of twelve from the United States, and to the number of ten representing the Dominion of Canada. Those twenty-two persons met in this city and tried to come to an understanding as to what should be done to overcome the smuggling that then prevailed. Here is some information that was brought forth at that conference. 1 have a record of seizures made by United States customs officials for the two fiscal years ending June 30, 1928. In those two years there were 634 boats, 964 autos carrying liquor from boats on the United States side, 46,594 cases of beer, 6,644 barrels of beer and 16,360 cases of whisky confiscated. That is what the United States customs officials have a record of for those two years. But they also stated that this only represents from five to ten per cent of the total smuggling that was done during that two year period. If that is correct you will have to multiply those figures by about fifteen to twenty to get the total.
They also had on record at the conference the seizures made for the six month's period from July 1, to December 31, 1928, and they are very imposing indeed. There were 117 boats, 46,076 cases of beer, 4,576 cases of whisky, 375 autos in a total of 2,283 seizures. That is something of the history that we should go back to if we were to adopt this Bill No. 14.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: What government was in power in Canada at that time?


Archibald M. Carmichael: It so happens that smuggling and hijacking and rum-running and bootlegging prosper under any government if given the opportunity to do so.
A chief argument used in favour of this bill is that it would increase the national revenue. Well, I think any of us here will agree that we need national revenue, but we are not all going to agree that we need it at any price. If we can get national revenue legitimately, without prejudicing the morals or the lives of our citizens, well and good. But if we cannot, if we are going to weigh upon the one side a few millions of national revenue and on the other side the morals and the lives of part of our citizenry then I think it will not take any of us very long to decide what the verdict should be. The condition that prevailed, especially along the Detroit river, and to a degree also along the Niagara river in the years preceding the passing of this legislation of 1930 is common knowledge. Gangsters, rum-runners, hijackers and bootleggers flourished like the proverbial green bay tree. They were waxing fat and growing rich. Not only were they taking chances with their own lives, but they were endangering the lives of many private citizens. We were informed at that time that the clearance to those vessels would be given in the daytime, and then they would run the river at night, at a time in the summer season when such river was just throbbing with all kinds of pleasure craft. There would be hundreds of small motor boats, row boats and pleasure seekers lining the Detroit, St. Clair and Niagara rivers at the time when the rum-runners would be shooting across with their cargoes. The result was that if the customs officials sought to intercept them and used firearms for that purpose they were endangering the lives of many innocent citizens. Indeed, we do not need to go far back to find that some innocent citizens were injured in that way.
Another important feature that developed in connection with the smuggling to the United States was the fact that there was a return smuggling of materials from the United States to Canada. It was proven that silks, cigarettes and other commodities were brought back into Canada by the smugglers who took the liquor from Canada to the United States, and our customs officials found it almost impossible to stop such traffic.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that if this legislation were before the public long enough for them to get seized of its importance and to realize its effect, we would have a flow of resolutions in here similar to what we had in the years

Liquor Export-Mr. Morand
prior to 1930. Just this morning I received in the mail a resolution from the secretary of a presbytery of the United Church in my own constituency. I read this because it is typical of what many communities would express if they had time and opportunity to do so. It is from Elrose, Saskatchewan, dated February 13, 1933:
At the regular spring meeting of the Elrose presbytery of the United Church of Canada, held at Elrose on Thursday, February 9th, the following resolution was passed:
Whereas the parliament of the Dominion of Canada by a large majority in 1930 amended the export liquor law so as to forbid the release of liquor for export into a country where such liquor is by law prohibited;
And whereas the enactment of this legislation has tended to promote respect for law and to free our borders from growing disorders;
And whereas if and when change is made in the prohibitory laws of other countries such action automatically changes the application of this Canadian statute;
This Elrose presbytery of the United Church of Canada desires to express to the Premier, the Hon. R. B. Bennett, to the Hon. Mackenzie King, the Leader of the Opposition, to A. M. Carmichael, the member for the constituency of Kindersley, and to J. S. Woodsworth, its conviction that no change should be made in the statute touching liquor in this regard.
Signed on behalf of Elrose presbytery.
A. L. Sibbald,
Secretary of presbytery, Dinsmore, Sask.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that represents the sentiments of a very large proportion of the people of the Dominion of Canada, and I am quite confident that if we had an expression of opinion from the various church and social work organizations, even in the section of the province represented by the hon. member for West Essex (Mr. Robinson), it would be of similar character.
Hon RAYMOND D. MORAND (East Essex): Mr. Speaker, in supporting this bill the fact that I come from the same county as the mover has, I can assure you, no other significance than that we are in a better position than those in some other places to see the effect of the noble experiment of Mr. Hoover. Sometimes one has to go away from home to get a picture of home conditions, but while I certainly have a great deal of respect and admiration for the hon. member who spoke last, I cannot but feel that the picture he drew of conditions in our particular section of the country is not one that he has gained himself from his own observation but one gathered from magazines, some of which have a habit of picturing things to suit their own purposes.


Archibald M. Carmichael: No, not a magazine.


Mr. MORAND:: It must have been a
magazine, a newspaper or some other publication. The leader of the opposition gave two or three different reasons for his opposition to this measure, and I am not without some sympathy with the first of these reasons. The leader of the opposition stated that the original intention behind this legislation was to protect and maintain the integrity of officialdom within Canada, but that argument rather loses its force when we consider that the same thing goes on to-day. But it is covered up; instead of issuing permits for export to Detroit these permits are issued for export to St. Pierre, Miquelon, Jamaica, Cuba or some other place, though the officials know at the time the permits are issued that the liquor is on its way to the United States. So I do not see that this reason has any very great force. Undoubtedly when it is shipped to St. Pierre or some other destination the liquor is handled in the same way it was handled when it was exported to Detroit, and I think every official knows that when he signs these permits he is helping to get that liquor to the United States. There is another fact which is of some importance. When the liquor is shipped in this roundabout way it does not help swell the revenues of Canada. The liquor goes to the United States by a circuitous route, while Canada makes a noble gesture, pays dearly for the privilege and does not accomplish anything in the end.
The right hon. gentleman said very definitely that there never was any question of a quid pro quo, and that it was not intended that we should receive anything in return for our help in Mr. Hoover's noble experiment. Shortly after that, however, he took the attitude that this measure was passed in order to carry out the provisions of existing treaties with the United States. As I see it, there was only one reason for the adoption of this measure, and that was in order to assist the United States in maintaining the prohibition law. Those of us who have lived across from the United States for many years have seen the absolute farce, futility and failure of that method of trying to make people temperate, and surely to-day we should be prepared to listen to the voice of the greatest democracy in the world, which has definitely stated that the repeal of the prohibition act should be brought about. We did our part in the experiment; now the people of the United States have said they are through with prohibition and that they are going to enact such legislation as will
Liquor Export-Mr. Brown

permit the development of temperance by means of education. We cannot help them any longer.
The hon. member for KinTersley (Mr. Carmichael) referred to some of the abuses which undoubtedly existed previously. Does it necessarily follow that with proper regulation and supervision these abuses will develop again? The United States have said they desire the repeal of prohibition, so why should we go through the hypocrisy of sending liquor by the circuitous route which is followed at present? I am prepared to do my bit to see that they get the liquor they want; to see that they get good liquor and that they get it direct. Let our manufacturers and workmen benefit from the increased employment which will result, because we are in a position to secure a market which to-day is extremely difficult of access. I believe the country needs the revenue which will result from the export of liquor to the United States, and for all these reasons I am prepared to support the motion.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I cannot allow this motion to be voted upon without expressing my opinion in regard to it. The existing legislation was passed three years ago, in response to a very widespread demand on the part of the Canadian people, and by passing that legislation the government of the day recognized that the Canadian people were strongly in favour of that step being taken, not only in the interests of the United States but also because it was a duty we owed our own self respect.
One cannot help asking the hon. gentlemen who have supported this resolution the reason for all the hurry. If conditions in the United States are as they declare them to be what is the reason for all the haste? The hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) and the hon. member who seconded the resolution stated that the sentiment in the United States now is different from the sentiment which appeared to exist three years ago, and they said that Mr. Roosevelt's election, together with his promise to bring about the repeal of the eighteenth amendment, warrants us in repealing our own legislation. Well, it is not so perfectly certain that Mr. Roosevelt is going to be able to fulfil his promise. We have had abundant experience with men who have been elected because of great promises but who have not been able to fulfil those promises. It might very well be that Mr. Roosevelt will not be able to fulfil those promises. It must be pemembered that the system of government in

the United States is not the same as we have here. Mr. Roosevelt has only an indirect voice in legislation and before the eighteenth amendment can be officially repealed it will be necessary for three-quarters of the states to express themselves through their legislatures in favour of the repeal. I ask hon. gentlemen who are supporting this bill: What assurance can you give us that thirty-six out of the forty-eight states will vote for the repeal of the amendment? That in itself should be sufficient answer for the hon. member for Hamilton who is supporting this bill, but there seems to be another and if necessary a more conclusive argument to be offered.
The hon. member for Hamilton is a lawyer and lawyers are supposed to be well versed in the law and to be able to give an opinion as to its effect. As I recall the terms of the legislation it refers to any country into which the importation of liquor is forbidden, the United States not being specifically referred to. If this is true, the minute their proposed legislation becomes effective our legislation ceases to have any force. That seems to be a sound argument, so why the haste? Why cannot hon. gentlemen wait a little while?


An hon. MEMBER:: We need the money.
Mr, BROWN: If there was anything that ever brought a legislature into contempt it was the action of the United States congress just before Christmas in putting aside all questions of public importance and scrambling around to see how fast they could pass legislation with regard to liquor. I have often had to confront the inconsistent arguments of the *wets but I do not think I have ever heard more inconsistent and foolish arguments advanced than those advanced this afternoon. I do not think there is any need to say anything more, but before we take a vote upon this bill I think we should have a statement from the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) as to his attitude.


Mr. SPENCE:: Make your own statement.


John Livingstone Brown: I am making my own statement.


David Spence: Go ahead.


John Livingstone Brown: The legislation which it is now sought to repeal was introduced and passed as a government measure. With the exception of one hon. member, there was almost unanimous support from the government side and the total vote against the legislation was only eleven. While the pre-

Liquor Export-Mr. Bury
sent bill is being introduced by a private member, I do not think the government can remain silent upon the matter, especially in view of the statement made by the prime minister three years ago when the previous legislation was before the house. He is quoted on page 613 of Hansard of 1930 as follows:
And, sir, it is a matter of some satisfaction to some of us who sit to the left, who are on the special committee, which made that recommendation, to know that at least we can support that measure which we could not introduce under the rules of this parliament, but which we have waited four years to hear introduced.
I am quite satisfied that there are many hon. members opposite who are opposed to this bill and I am quite satisfied that the prime minister personally is opposed to it. We do not know whether or not it is a fact, but it has been intimated to us that the government supporters have been given a free hand on this ocassion.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is nothing new.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not the Three State agreement.


John Livingstone Brown: I do not think the prime
minister can escape his obligations in the matter. I hope that when the vote is taken hon. members on this side will oppose this bill just as consistently and as unanimously as they supported the legislation of three years ago. I believe there are many hon. members opposite-I see one-who would be disappointed if this bill was to pass the house.


Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the house at great length but I wish to put myself on record in connection with this bill which is now before us. May I say that I am almost in complete agreement with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Brown). I have listened very carefully to the arguments advanced from this side of the house and whether or not hon. members like it I am bound to say that I have not heard a single argument which had any cogency or logic. The only complaint I have to make against the hon. member for Lisgar is that he has to a large extent covered the ground which I intended myself to cover.
The act which it is proposed to repeal is not expressly directed against or in favour of the United States, although it is perfectly true that the general principle it embodies was enacted into law because of circumstances existing and reasons connected with conditions in the United States. All that the act does, however, is to lay down a broad principle, that it shall be illegal in Canada to export to a country any goods the importation of which 53719-137
is by its law prohibited. That is a clear principle and it does not matter whether it refers to the United States or to any other country. It is a sound principle which has been recognized over and over again as being legitimate in the enactment of laws by countries, that is to say, that the legislation of a country shall make it unlawful for its subjects to make use of the country itself for the purpose of plotting and carrying out illegal operations in another country. We should not allow the citizens of this country to take active measures and perform overt acts directed intentionally and with our knowledge to the breach of the laws of a friendly state. If that principle is correct, and surely it is, what force can lie in any of the arguments for repeal which have been adduced from this side of the house?
Let nae review them for just a few minutes. It is said that we should repeal the act and draw our pen through the broad principle which the act enunciates, because we are receiving or have received no corresponding benefits from the United States. Have we passed legislation of this nature because of considerations coming to us from any other state? Surely the principle on which we have acted is one that is either right or wrong. The matter is not one of money, nor of weighing the pros and cons of consideration; it is the broad general principle I have laid down, namely, that no state can knowingly allow its citizens within its territory to plot a breach of the laws of a friendly state and to use its territory for the purpose of launching an attack against the laws of such state.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: Why should the United States allow the export of alcohol to this side without any convention preventing it?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am not concerned with whether other states observe to the letter the principle that I have laid down. I do not think any hon. member can seriously question the accuracy of the statement that I have made. How then can the argument that in return for recognizing and observing this principle, we are not receiving any benefit from the United States, have any bearing on the question?
Then the argument has been advanced that there is a loss of revenue to Canada. If the principle be sound, surely that is not an argument against our observing it.
A third argument was used that our present act has in fact resulted in no benefit to the United States because that country has not effectually enforced its prohibition laws. What have we to do with that? That is the con-

Liquor Export-Mr. Bury

cern of the United States. That does not exonerate or relieve us from our responsibility; it does not make it right for us to countenance our own citizens in Canada plotting, planning, conniving and acting towards a breach of the laws of a friendly country.
Then there was a fourth argument, that payments have been taken by the United States authorities from violators of United States acts. The hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) stated that until he heard that argument, he was convinced of the cogency of the arguments advanced in favour of the act which it is now sought to repeal, but that a statement of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) that the United States federal authorities had been collecting money from violators of their country's law, effectually and neatly punctured all the force of the arguments which had been advanced and made him feel it was quite right then for us to connive at a breach of United States laws. I must say I am amazed at the hon. member for Labelle attaching any weight to that argument as an answer to the duty resting upon the Canadian government to see that its (citizens did not consciously and intentionally violate the laws of another friendly country.
Let me take another argument. It has been stated that there has come in United States sentiment a change which justifies the repeal of our present act. That also is quite immaterial. Whatever change there may be in United States sentiment, there is as yet no change in their law. We are dealing not with the nature of United States sentiment, but with breaches of United States law, and as long as their law remains what it is, that it shall be illegal to import liquor into their country, so long, whatever the sentiment of that country is or may become, we must observe that as being their law and honour it in our legislation. If we do anything else- there is no use blinking the fact or trying to hide the truth from ourselves-we are only dishonestly, hypocritically, for our own profit making use of a plea that has no legitimate force; we are dealing with a matter of change in United States sentiment of which we constitute ourselves the judges and are electing to act on a matter which is entirely outside our province. We are concerned with the law of the United States, and when the sentiment of the United States is sufficiently altered to take that law off the statute book or to change the constitution accordingly, it will be time enough for us to consider a repeal of our own law.

Indeed, may I point out that when the law of the United States is changed in this respect there will be no need to repeal this act. Our act states that what is illegal is the exportation from Canada of liquor into a country which prohibits its importation. The moment it has ceased to be the law of the United States that the importation of liquor is illegal and the moment such importation becomes legal, there will be no need to remove our present law from our statute book. As a matter of fact it should not be removed. As it stands it is the enunciation of a broad general principle which must remain true after the United States amend, if they ever do amend, their constitution so as to render legal the importation of liquor into their country.
It was stated-I do not know whether or not it was given as an argument for repeal- that vessels under a certain tonnage do not require clearance. What that has to do with the question, I cannot imagine. If you repeal this law it does not matter whether a vessel is over or under a certain tonnage, the illegality of importation is wiped out and vessels of all tonnages can take part in what is at present an illegal traffic.
The hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morand) referred to the noble experiment of President Hoover. We are not concerned with that, nor with any controversy between Mr. Hoover and Mr. Roosevelt. We are concerned only with the law of the United States as it is to-day. Whoever is responsible for it; and whether it is going to foe changed or not, or whether prohibition is a noble or ignoble experiment, or whether dt is going to be a successful experiment or not, has nothing to do with the matter.
Other arguments were adduced that the officials of this country at the time they give a ship a clearance of liquor from Canada to a foreign port or perhaps to one of the British possessions, know in reality it is ultimately coming back to America. What has that to do with the case? The officials of Canada are there to enforce the law of this country and our law says that there shall be no export of liquor from Canada to the United States so long as by the laws of that country its importation is prohibited. My hon. friend is surely not serious in suggesting that if a cargo of liquor is consigned from some part of Canada to Bermuda, the Canadian official would have a right to say: This is not going to Bermuda at all; it is going to New York or some other United States port and that he would have a right to set himself up as a judge to say whether a cargo consigned to' a specific port was or was not going to that

Liquor Export-Miss Macphail
port. He is not concerned with that, he is concerned with seeing that no liquor goes from Canadian ports consigned to United States ports, and he is doing his duty when he does that. If, because of some gerrymandering at such foreign port to which the ' liquor goes, or on the high seas, the law is broken, that is not his concern.
I do not think there is anything else I can add, except this, in reference to some statements made by the right hon. leader of the opposition. Had I been in the house in 1930 I should have taken precisely the same attitude as the right hon. the present prime minister then took. I should have expressed wonder why so many years had elapsed before this legislation was put on the statute books. I have listened to the right hon. leader of the opposition excusing the dilatoriness of his government on two grounds:	First, that it
was necessary to wait until a body of public opinion had formed in Canada of sufficient volume to justify the government in putting this legislation on the statute books. Mr. Speaker, the volume of public opinion in Canada has got nothing to do with this particular principle. This is a principle that is recognized and has been recognized for years. The present act should have been put on the statute books years before 1930, and for a government simply to sit still and wait till the pressure of public opinion forces it to put a law on the statute books is merely to play the part of a leader who leads in the same manneT as a man leads a wheelbarrow downhill, who is dragged or impelled forward by the force of public opinion so that he cannot do anything else.
Nor am I concerned with such expressions of opinion as have been referred to by my hon. friend from Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael). I am not concerned with waiting to hear what my constituents say on this matter. The principle is clear; the principle is broad; the principle is sound; the principle is true, and nobody can question it. Still less germane and relevant were the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition when he sought to excuse the dilatoriness of his government in 1930, and the years prior thereto, in putting the present law on the statute books on the ground that there was not till then a sufficient body of public opinion in the United States in favour of prohibition. What have we got to do with the body of opinion in the United States? We are concerned with the proper attitude of Canada in respect of the recognition of the laws of friendly countries beside
53719-137J
us or at a distance, and with seeing that our citizens do nothing, while we can prevent it, to break those laws.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I propose to vote against the bill if it comes to a vote.


Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: I agree entirely, Mr. Speaker, with
the argument that has been so very well put by the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury). I think that before 1930 Canada's action in allowing the shipment of liquor into the United States constituted an unfriendly act when the laws of the United States prohibited entry, and in 1930 when we had the opportunity I then supported the bill prohibiting the export of liquor to any country in which prohibition was the law. I still think that that was sound; and it was sound before 1930, and the same argument is sound to-day. Prohibition is still the law of the United States. It may or may not be their law for a very long time, but that is not our concern. The mover of the bill says that one reason why he wants it to pass is that it would relieve the unemployment situation, and then either he or some other supporter of the bill said that there was as much liquor exported out of Canada illegally as there was legally. So I do not see how it would relieve the unemployment situation. Surely as members of this House of Commons we do not support a principle only when it pays us to do so in dollars and cents. Rather we support a principle because it is a principle, and whether it pays us or not should not influence our action at all. I do think that in this case the honour of Canada is at stake. That was equally true before 1930, and it is true now when we are considering this bill. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against the bill.


Mr. W. J. LOUCKS (Rosetown):: I had
not intended to take any part in this debate. It has been my practice as a new member to sit and listen in this chamber with an open mind, and I think I have profited by so doing. The remarks of the leader of the opposition to-day as well as those of other hon. members who have spoken have convinced me, if I was ever in any doubt, as to what action I should take on this bill. I would refer particularly to the address made by the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury). I think we are all here to do the right thing, and I believe that there is nothing for us to do but to maintain legislation that was enacted a few years ago. The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) who is out of the chamber
Liquor Export-Mr. Spence

at the moment, referred to resolutions which he has received from his constituency. I have received none from mine, but I know my constituency pretty well, and I think I know what their sentiments would be on this particular question. I believe they would be behind me in my opposition to the bill which is now before the house. I shall not take up any further time, Mr. Speaker, than to say I am opposed to this bill.


David Spence: The
house has become so sentimental over this matter that it is time someone injected a little business into our discussion. I am not an advocate for the liquor trade at all, and never have been, nor on the other hand am I a believer in the Volstead Act or prohibition. I endorse everything that the sponsor of this bill has said, although I do not go so far as to endorse the quotations from newspapers that he gave to the house. After hearing my hon. friend from the border city, the hon. member for West Essex (Mr. Robinson), I made up my mind that I would say something on this bill.
I consider that prohibition is a perfect farce, and too much of the time of this house has been lost in discussing it. It does not matter what governments did in the past. We are bere to legislate for the future, and we want to help the business world rather than kill it. That is what I am interested in most-the business of the country. There has been altogether too much interference with the old channels in which business has been done for [DOT]centuries. The less interference there is by governments the better, but all governments have interfered with people who are doing business in their own way legitimately, because this stuff was being sold legitimately, although I do not argue that it was landed legitimately. I would be the last to allow liquor to go from Canada into the United States if the people of the United States did not want it, but I have never been convinced that they did not want it, and I am not now. When this matter was before us in 1930 I noted from an American newspaper which I got from a friend of mine giving prices on every brand of Scotch, Irish and Canadian whiskey sold in the United States. It proved that they were buying and selling liquor openly in the United States, and I knew that myself. I have been in Pittsburgh, and I have seen them making and selling whiskey every quarter of a mile. They were selling it for Sl -25 a quart. I never drank any of it because I would be afraid to

touch it. A great many members on this side of the house share my view on this question. They do not believe too much in temperance, but they are afraid to vote any other way lest they might lose a vote. I come from a temperance riding, but that does not hinder me expressing my views.
As I said before, I am not advocating the entrance of goods into the United States against the wish of that country; I would not do so if I thought they were really sincere and did not want liquor to come in. The right hon. gentleman opposite, the ex-prime minister, said the hon. member for West Essex, who sponsors the bill, had given no good reasons why the past legislation should be repealed. On the contrary I believe he gave many good reasons. The bill which passed the house in 1930 accomplished nothing. It simply drove liquor through a circuitous route into the United States. We lost money; many a man who had invested in stocks in the liquor business lost large sums of money. The past government was always killing the business men. They must realize that there was no sense killing him because to-day they are reaping the benefits of their folly of years past. Many men who bought liquor stocks legally on the stock market lost large sums of money. Those men as well as other people should receive fair consideration.
What is the use of a law which cannot be enforced? The legislation of 1930 has never been enforced. There are too many laws already on the statute books of the provinces and those of this federal government which cannot be enforced. Those laws are proving a farce, and by putting more and more on our statute books we would only be turning the public against us everywhere. When laws are impossible of enforcement it is only mockery to have them on our statute books, especially when we know they cannot be enforced.
I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman opposite was sincere when in 1930 he brought in this bill. I think he was looking for a nice moral question upon which he could go to the country-but he did not succeed in what he was attempting. He could have brought down that legislation years before, but he chose to wait for the psychological moment to pull a nice stunt. But the people were wise, and he did not accomplish his purpose. The great trouble in this house is that people do not speak their own minds, but speak the minds of some other people. They are not sincere. As far as I am

Liquor Export-Mr. Bennett
concerned, when I rise to my feet I am expressing my own views. I believe when I tell the people in Parkdale, the riding I have the honour to represent, that these are my views, they will at least thank me for being sincere. On one occasion when I was running for office in the city council a certain temperance bunch-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


David Spence: -I will not give their names, but people who belonged to all the churches imaginable, waited upon me as a deputation to ask me to vote against a measure which the party to which I belong was introducing in the House of Commons. I said I owed no allegiance to those people, but that I owed allegiance to my party, that I would vote with them always, but that I wanted them always to be right. As a matter of fact I think at least ninety-nine per cent of the time we are right.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


David Spence: On one occasion in the year 1910, I was running for alderman, and had the good fortune to beat a strong temperance opponent. After his defeat he circulated the rumour around the church that I was a drinking man, and for that reason that I should not be supported. The meetings which he addressed were held in a Methodist church in Park-dale. I am telling you the truth, gentlemen.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


David Spence: They said, "We cannot
support this man Spence, because he takes a drink." Fortunately I had a good friend at the meeting who said, "Well, the only difference between Mr. Spence and some of you gentlemen sitting in this room to-night is that if Dave wants it he goes in by the front door and gets it, and not by the side door." I will tell you frankly that I have no doubt there are a hundred hon. members in this house who take more than Dave Spence, but in order to hide it they go in by the side door.
Hon. members should attempt to be sincere. If we enact laws which cannot be enforced we are just asking people to become sinners. You cannot legislate a man to be good; you cannot legislate him to be sober. Even in the old country conditions are different today. Not long ago I was in Ireland, and I learned they are not drinking nearly as much as they used to drink. The same condition obtains in Scotland. I suggest that education has had a great deal to do with the change. I can remember that not far from my own home in an Irish town there were four public
houses at one street intersection. The market where the people sold their cattle and pigs was close to that comer. When I was a boy the men used to hang around the doors of those hotels, and passed out bottles of ale and Scotch whiskey. But when last I visited Ireland the people were out on the streets doing business, buying and selling. Education is responsible for the change. Law could not make such a change, no matter what my lawyer friends may say. Of course I cannot follow their arguments at all, because they are much too learned for me. I know only the business world.
I do trust this government will settle down and see to it that too many restrictions are not enforced, so that people will have difficulty in doing business. The people who are dealing in or buying stock in a liquor business are entitled to consideration. The production of liquor helps the farmers, because grain is required, and I am convinced it is a very bad thing to restrict business in any way, as long as that business is legally conducted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised that there should be any doubt concerning my position with respect to this legislation. I cannot but think that the experience of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) and others, as to the uncertainty of their own minds just before the past adjournment makes them suspicious of the opinions of others. We do not change our minds each minute; we are not prepared to support an agreement one minute and oppose it the next, just because somebody else does. I merely mention that, in passing, to the hon. member for Lisgar.
In 1930 I followed the then leader of the government, the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and, as strongly as it was possible for me to do, supported the legislation. I gave my reasons-not all of them. I still think there was a reason I might have given, a reason perhaps as powerful as any which could be advanced, namely, that I conceive it to be a principle of international law-true, it has been acted upon only in a limited number of cases-that where a friendly nation has knowledge of the fact that another nation has prohibited the importation into their country of commodities, it is a breach of good faith, of good neighbourliness and of international law, as I appreciate it, to aid, abet and succour the breach of that law.
There is one serious doubt, however, with respect to the application of it, which arises by reason of the fact that the late govern-

Liquor Export-Mr. Bemett
ment made a treaty with the United States of America. That treaty was made for Canada through its then minister of justice, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and on behalf of the United States through its secretary of state, Mr. Hughes. I have never been able to understand or appreciate -which does not in any sense indicate that the provision was not based upon sound ground-the reasons for the concluding portion of article II of that treaty. Article II says:
The high contracting parties agree that clearance from Canada or from the United States shall be denied to any vessel carrying cargo consisting of articles the importation of which into the territory of Canada or of the United States, as the case may be, is prohibited-
That is my appreciation of what should have been said, and in my view the article should have stopped there. But this is what follows:
-when it is evident from the tonnage, size and general character of the vessel, or the length of the voyage ar.d the perils or conditions of navigation attendant upon it, that the vessel will be unable to carry its cargo to the destination proposed in the application for clearance.
- It will be recalled that during the customs investigation of 1926-27, it was made apparent that ships cleared for ports which there was no possibility of their reaching. This article, for a reason to which I shall presently refer, provides that the prohibition of clearance shall be made effective only when it is apparent that the vessel is carrying such cargo, or when other circumstances indicate that the vessel will be unable to cany that cargo to the destination named in the application for clearance. There, you will observe, is a tacit recognition of the legality of clearances. It has always been difficult for me to understand why that tacit recognition of the legality of clearances was inserted in the treaty. The treaty was signed on the 6th of June, 1924, and I have never been able to understand, nor do I yet understand, why the article should not have ended at the word "prohibited," thus making it read:
The high contracting parties agree that clearance from Canada or from the United States shall be denied to any vessel carrying cargo consisting of articles the importation o-f which into the territory of Canada or of the United States, as the case may be, is prohibited.
But it will also be recalled that during the debate that took place in 1930 I presented to the house the correspondence and read extracts from the documents showing that an effort had been made by the United States 
to negotiate a treaty along those lines. That effort failed. It failed because no action was taken by the Dominion of Canada. Now we have this incontestable fact, that on the 6th of June, 1924, the Dominion of Canada signed a treaty with the United States that by implication, applying any rule that may be applied as to the construction of documents, gave to such a clearance, by its recognition, the colour of validity and legality, except it be a clearance for a vessel that came within the latter part of article II. As I say, that is the only difficulty I have with respect to this whole matter and the application of the principles of international law to which I shall presently refer.
I have always thought that the analogous case was the so-called Alabama case. It will be recalled that during the American civil war, complaint was made by the northern states that Great Britain had violated neutrality by permitting a ship built at the Cammell-Laird yards at Birkenhead to escape, after warning had been given by the representative of the northern states. She escaped in 1862 to Teneriffe, where she was fitted out with guns to prey upon the commerce of the northern states, as a result of which extensive losses were sustained and many vessels destroyed. The United States continued to complain; negotiations proceeded for several years. Finally, on the 8th of May, 1871, the parties entered into the treaty of Washington, which dealt with many questions in dispute between Great Britain and the United States. The then Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald, was one of the commissioners and plenipotentiaries for Great Britain who signed that treaty.
In that treaty three rules were agreed upon which should govern in determining the validity of the claims of the United States for damages for loss of its commerce. These three rules I submit have application to a case such as this. They are as follows:
A neutral government is bound

First.-To use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping within its jurisdiction of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or carry on war against a power with which it is at peace, and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to wrarlike use.
Secondly.-Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.

Liquor Export-Mr. Bennett
Thirdly.-To exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violations of the foregoing obligations and duties.
Although these principles were not adopted as rules of universal application in international law, these words appear in the treaty:
Her Britannic Majesty has commanded her High Commissioners and plenipotentiaries to declare that Her Majesty's government cannot assent to the foregoing rules as a statement of principles of international law which were in force at the time when the claims mentioned in article I arose, but that Her Majesty's government, in order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory provision for the future, agrees that, in deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of those claims, the arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in these rules.
Then follow these words:
And the high contracting parties agree to observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers and to invite them to accede to them.
It is perfectly true that these rules, which are now a part of international law as far as Great Britain and the Dominion of Canada and the rest of the British empire are concerned, applied only to the principles of neutrality when there was war between contending states. The state of civil war that existed between the southern and the northern states made it incumbent upon Great Britain to preserve neutrality. As a result of the escape of the Alabama and other ships Great Britain was called upon by the award of the arbitrators to pay fifteen and a half million dollars, which was distributed in part amongst those who had suffered losses.
My view has been that we have a similar case with respect to the countries that have passed prohibitory legislation with respect to any commodities if we give the sanction of this country by granting clearances into that country of such contraband commodities. The rules of blockade with respect to international law, the rules with respect to contraband of war, can obviously have no application in time of peace, but by analogy I submit it is fairly clear that liquor is a contraband of peace. I think I said that in this house in 1930, intoxicating liquor is contraband of peace. Why? Because the supreme legislature of the United States has declared that it shall not be imported into that country, and a prohibition exists against its importation. We too have passed prohibitory laws with respect to many commodities; you will find the names and descriptions in our customs legislation. My view is that wherever you have a prohibition of the importation into a country of that which thereby becomes contraband of peace, jt is a violation at least of those principles of friendly relationships that exist between peaceful countries to force or to aid or abet in the forcing of said prohibited goods or commodities into that country.
It is by that principle I stand. I oppose this bill because it is to my understanding a violation of the true principle that should govern the relations between friendly states. If in time of war two belligerents are entitled to demand from a neutral country the application of the rules that I have mentioned, it is equally true that in time of peace, where there is a prohibition that makes a commodity contraband of peace, the same rules should be applied. We should be astute enough to see that not only are we not partners, but that we do not aid or abet or assist or permit anything being done by our country that militates against the maintenance of friendly relations, by becoming parties, or partners if you will, or aiders or abettors, if you will, in or to a violation of the law of a friendly state. That in my judgment is the principle that governs. By the application of that principle this bill should not pass. The legislation that was passed in 1930 gave effect to that principle. It tardily gave effect to it, in my judgment, and the only difficulty I have ever had is with respect to article II of the treaty, which in itself is a tacit recognition of the validity and legality of a clearance except under conditions that do not apply in this case at all.
The desire on the part of many that legislation of this character no longer should be applicable if one of our friendly neighbours sees fit to pass legislation removing the prohibition is not pertinent to this discussion, for the simple reason that no such legislation has been passed. What is more, under the terms of the existing legislation-and the house will remember the discussion which took place in 1930-it will be recalled that if the prohibition of the friendly state against the importation of the commodity is removed, the right to grant clearances at once revives, because there is no legal prohibition and it is no longer a contraband of peace. In that case the clearances could be granted validly and legally, and no longer could the charge be made that the Dominion of Canada had aided, abetted, assisted or even connived, if you like, in the violation of the laws of a friendly state.

Liquor Export-Mr. Bennett
Without going into the matter at greater length it is on this ground that I am unable to support the motion. May I add that the only reason I did not think it desirable to participate in the debate at an earlier stage was that this is a private bill. Personally I have grave doubts as to the competency of a private member to introduce a bill of this character; I think I could show good reason for that statement, because in my judgment it conflicts with one of the rules of this house, but in any case the bill is here before us. I thought the right of every member freely to express his opinion with respect to a private bill thus introduced should be in no sense lessened by any observations which might be made by the leader of the government, because it might be supposed that he was speaking as such. Therefore I have listened to the observations of hon. members of the house both in opposition to and in support of the proposed bill which has for its object the repeal of the legislation of 1930. I oppose this bill even as I supported the bill of 1930. I supported that bill for the reasons I then gave and for the reason I ventured to express to-day, namely that this country cannot become a party to the passing of legislation which gives countenance to the export to a friendly country of that which is prohibited by that country as a contraband of peace.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I
much regret to have to admit that the position taken by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to my mind is technically correct. There is no doubt that the passing of this legislation in 1930 was intended to be a gesture of goodwill towards a friendly nation, and if that nation were still of the same mind there might be some force in that argument to-day. I opposed the bill in 1930 because I always have been opposed to anything in the nature of prohibitory legislation in this country or anywhere else. If the same condition existed to-day that existed then the argument of the right hon. Prime Minister might be sound, but as has been well said by the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell), the people of the United States of America have voted by a majority of more than 11,000,000 to repeal that prohibition law. We know that steps are being taken by the legislative bodies of the United States to bring about that repeal, but we also know that because of the defects of the American constitution in all probability it will be two or three years before that end is achieved. Then will it not be a gesture of friendship and goodwill on our part towards the United States to say; "We will help you when you cannot 
help yourself"? I contend that by voting for this resolution we will be doing far more to create goodwill between ourselves and our neighbour to the south than we will do by saying:	"We will wait until, with the
intricacies and complexities of your constitution, which we do not think is a free constitution, you get rid of this prohibition and at last show yourselves before the nations of the world as a free people."
Before taking my seat I cannot help but direct the attention of the house to something that amused me a great deal. I refer to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) appealing to the Prime Minister to help him out of his difficulty. That shows the condition of mind and the state of panic in which our prohibitionist friends find themselves-and I suppose under the circumstances I might have the right to say "I told you so." I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation of 1930 will be repealed by a majority equal to that with which it was passed. I see my friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) smiling. He was one of that brave band of eleven who voted against this legislation, and I know he will be consistent and vote for the bill now before the house. I was reading over the remarks made in 1930 by the present Prime Minister, then the leader of the opposition, in which he twitted the former Minister of National Revenue on his vote at that time. I sincerely hope that on this occasion the Minister of Railways will not leave himself open to the reproach from this side of the house that the former Minister of National Revenue received on that occasion.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. M. J. MALONEY (South Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the noble eleven who stood out in opposition to the act passed in 1930 prohibiting the export of liquor from this country to the United States, I deem it my duty at the present time to give my reasons for voting as I did upon that occasion.
I recall very well the speech delivered at that time by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), then minister of national revenue. He described a visit which he had made to the city of Detroit. After very careful observation he came to the conclusion that the government and the people of the United States were not sincere in their efforts to prohibit the importation of

Liquor Export-Mr. Maloney
liquor from this or any other country. He told us of having seen a boat loaded and unloaded with liquor under the eyes of the officers of the law of that great country. I felt at the time that we were being made nothing more or less than policemen to enforce the laws of a foreign country. I could not conceive it to be my duty to support such a bill, as I felt it was not our duty to enforce the laws of the United States of America. These are some of the reasons why I voted against the bill in 1930.
At that time the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), then leader of the government, made the statement that perhaps not more than two per cent of the spirits entering the United States illegally came from our country. It was a fact that a considerable quantity of alcohol and its allied products were being consumed by the people of the United States, but where did the other ninety-eight per cent come from? Part of it was home manufactured, but a large part came from foreign countries. I could not see where cutting off two per cent would have any considerable effect upon the people of that country, and I asked myself the question: Why Should the people of Italy, of France and of Great Britain be permitted to have their liquor released for export to the United States or any other country and a penalty be placed upon our doing the same thing?
I pictured to myself the loss of revenue which would occur. We had a vague idea of the quantity of liquor which was being exported from this country, but we knew' for a fact that at least $20,000,000 per year of good American cash was coming into this country as payment for the liquor that went out. It may have seemed sordid to look at the matter in that way, but the fact was that they were going to spend the money, so why should we not get our share when the money was good?
I do not believe that any hon. member who spoke this afternoon objected on moral grounds to the terms of the bill now before the house, nor was such the case in 1930. At that time the legislation was not framed for the purpose of uplifting the morals of the people of this country; it was put before this house as a political issue. I think the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) made that veiy clear this afternoon, and I need not elaborate. It was not a moral issue, it was an election issue. Even though it had been a moral issue, I was prepared to take the same action. As hon. gentlemen have mentioned this afternoon, many of us do not believe in prohibition of any kind. Prohibition means taking the people by the throat
and crushing them down; we believe in moderation, not in prohibition.
After hearing the arguments placed before the house this afternoon against this bill, I cannot feel that I was wrong in 1930. The arguments are based upon a treaty entered into some years ago between Great Britain and her dominions and the United States, a treaty which had to do with shipping and liquor. There was also a treaty entered into in 1924 between Canada and the United States dealing with the smuggling of all commodities. This treaty was considered lightly until suddenly in 1930, when an election was looming, the government felt it necessary to prohibit absolutely the shipment from Canada of anything contraband to the United States.
We have kept rigidly indeed our part of the treaty, but what have our neighbours to the south done? The government of that day passed an act binding us to prohibit the export of liquor from this country to the United States, but what did they get in return? Did they insist that the United States should control the export of contraband articles from that country to Canada? Not at all. The result is that while we are not allowed to export liquor to the United States, the United States is shipping into this country millions and millions of dollars' worth of contraband goods, consisting of silks, tobacco, cigarettes, and various other commodities. We have kept our faith; they have not kept theirs. We have been told to-day that a change of sentiment has taken place in the United States, and no man can deny that. The United States for several years have been labouring under a law which was not popular. In November last they voiced their opinion of that law, and three weeks or more from to-day the first move will be made to throw it into the discard and there will be substituted for it a law which will be entirely different from the Volstead Act which is at present in force in that country.
Much has been said of good will among nations; much has been said and well said by many on both sides who support this bill, about our duty to our neighbours. If we wish to show goodwill to our neighbours, now is the time. Let us pass this bill; let us allow the free exportation of liquor from this country and let the people of the United States keep it out if they so desire. Let us bring back to Canada the revenue which we have been denied for the last three years; a very conservative estimate of the amount we have lost by the passage of the act at present in force, is $60,030,000. The law has contributed nothing to Canada, nothing to the welfare

Liquor Export-Mr. Barrette
of the United States, nothing to the moral uplift of its people.
When I heard this afternoon the talk of gangsters and of the terrible conditions existing around Windsor and Detroit, from those who live perhaps thousands of miles away, and when I heard also hon. members who live in that particular locality tell us that those reports are entirely exaggerated, I prefer to take the word of hon. members from the counties of Essex who live on the ground. I prefer to take the word of the hon. member who was Minister of National Revenue in 1929 and who told the house that the people of the United States were not in favour of prohibiting the export of liquor from this country and that he saw nothing wrong on the part of Canada. I would rather take the word of those gentlemen, and for that reason, when the vote is taken on the second reading of this bill, I intend to vote for it.


Mr. J. A. BARRETTE (Bcrthier-Maskin-onge) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I shall
add a few remarks to this interesting debate, because the constituency which I represent possesses an industry which has been very successfully operated for quite a number of years: the Melchers Gin Company. I am aware that this industry is highly appreciated by our friends opposite because, each time we have an opportunity of sampling its products, it is always a source of pleasure.
I wish to congratulate the sponsors of this measure which, in my opinion, should be unanimously adopted by the house. After the statement made by the President of Melchers Gin Company-which in the past gave work to three hundred heads of families -that it had to close its doors owing to the act iprohibiting the export of alcoholic liquors which was passed by the previous regime, I cannot see why this government would not sanction this measure. I have never been able to understand why the right hon. leader of this government (Mr. Bennett) approved and still upholds this act to which I was apposed at the time, and to which I am still opposed.
I deem it my duty to appeal to hon. members to lend their support to the sponsors of this bill amending the Export Act so as to allow alcoholic industries to carry on their business as in the past.
Mr. Victor Marchand, the President of the Melchers Gin Company, recently informed me that, if this act was repealed, the company would immediately employ three hundred

heads of families. The question is therefore worthy of consideration and the house should approve of the motion introduced by the hon. member for West Essex (Mr. Robinson) and so well seconded by the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morand). I regret that I only took cognizance of this bill late this evening, otherwise, I would have submitted to the house convincing statistics that this measure should be adopted. I shall therefore vote in favour of the bill of the hon. member for West Essex.


Mr. J. H. MYERS (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, although the bill sponsored by the hon. member for West Essex (Mr. Robinson) deals with a question which concerns more particularly that part of Canada which lies quite near the United States, as a representative of the people of my province I should be remiss in my duty if I did not very shortly express to the house my opinion with regard to the bill. The house is aware of the fact that the province from which I come, rightly or wrongly- and that is its own business-has at the present time a prohibitory law on its statute book. Therefore I consider it my duty, no matter what my personal opinion in the matter may be, to express the views of the people I represent.
The United States for a number of years past-no matter what may happen a month or three months or a year from now-have had a prohibitory liquor law. It is true that one of the planks in the platform of the Democratic party which swept that country in November last, was that they would do away with the eighteenth amendment. But that promise has not so far been implemented, and until such a time comes, until they place on their statute book a law which will do away with the eighteenth amendment and with prohibition in their country, the matter is entirely in their hands, and in the meantime I consider that Canada would do very well to leave our law as it stands at present. When the United States do away with prohibition, if they do-and I have no doubt they will-then the law as we have it now on our statute book will became null and void and there will be no need of any discussion such as is now taking place here. For that reason, while I do not like to differ with some of my good friends on this side, I hold myself free to vote against the bill.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Is the house ready for the question?

Liquor Export-Mr. Motherwell


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Who seconds the motion?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, it is conceded by most hon. members that there were two major issues which led to the defeat of the government which preceded this one, one the export of liquor and the other the import of butter. Both were trade matters, and this side of the house felt it was particularly strong on trade policies generally, but evidently on these two trade issues the majority of the electors thought otherwise. I think it is quite consistent for the notable eleven who voted against the legislation of three years ago to vote for this bill which seeks to repeal it, but what are we to say of those other members who by voting for this bill are simply advertising to the country that they secured their seats largely by means of their disapproval of the old bill? That, of course, cannot be proved, but there is no other interpretation to put upon their action than to conclude that it indicates the support they received from the liquor interests. They know that this bill is not going to pass in face of the opposition of the leaders of the two major parties and of the leader of the other wing of the opposition, who, I feel sure, would also be opposed to it if he were present. I am surprised that any hon. gentleman would so advertise himself to tihe country, but possibly, it may be claimed that the distillery has as much right to be represented in this chamber as any other vocation. Besides, these hon. members are bravely attempting to kill something that will be automatically dead in a very short time anyway, just as soon as the eighteenth amendment is repealed by the United States congress. The whole thing is dead now so far as we are concerned, and it does not take very much courage on the part of hon. members supporting this bill to get up and attempt to kill a prohibition that is practically dead already. I really cannot understand them at all.
There is one other thing that causes me anxiety. This is the second or third occasion on which I find myself supporting the great majority of the government. But it is not my fault if they happen to be right two or three times. I am not going to go wrong just to take opposite sides from them. The other day when we were discussing the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation I found myself with every member on the other side of the
house who spoke against the resolution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). Hon. gentlemen know that it is not a very comfortable position sometimes to be voting with the' opposite party, nevertheless I faced the music on that occasion.


Robert James Manion: Worse for us.


William Richard Motherwell: Worse for me. Then to-day again I am with hon. gentlemen opposite who spoke against this bill because I believe they are right, particularly the prime minister (Mr. Bennett); and I am prouder still to follow my own leader and the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) in voting against this bill, which has been brought up simply for the purpose of showing certain vocational interests in this country which side certain hon. gentlemen are on. I am going to show which side I am on, and if it comes to a vote I am going to vote against the bill.


Robert King Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I again move the adjournment of the debate.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member has already spoken in moving the adjournment of the debate, when he had no seconder, and he cannot speak a second time.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: Am I not to be allowed to close the debate, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. DUFF:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith). Had I voted I would have voted against the bill.


Mr. SHORT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). Had I voted I would have voted against the bill.


Mr. MULLINS:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted I would have voted against the bill.


Mr. SPOTTON:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn). Had I voted I would have voted against the bill.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: I was paired with the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt). Had I voted I would have voted against the bill.



PENITENTIARY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved the second reading of Bill No. 25, to amend the Penitentiary Act (eight hour day).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the main object of this bill is to reduce the working hours of the guards and officials of the penitentiaries, who are now working from eleven hours in the day to thirteen hours at night. It is proposed in the bill that their hours of duty be reduced so that they will be the same as those of all other civil servants, namely for the period of eight hours each day. Penitentiary guards and officials are the only class of public servants who are compelled to work more than eight hours a day. It is not necessary for me to point out that there is no more exacting work than that of guard or instructor in a penitentiary. They have always to be on their guard and to exercise the utmost vigilance in handling men confined to the penitentiary, some at least of whom are scheming to escape.
It has always seemed strange to me that the guards and other officials employed in penitentiaries should be compelled to work such long hours, especially when all other classes of employees are employed only eight hours a day. I ask hon. members to compare them with the police forces and members of fire departments throughout the country. It is my understanding also that in provincial prisons the guards are asked to work only an eight hour day, and I am informed further that in mental hospitals that is the duration of their daily duty. Throughout Canada however we have here institutions in which men are compelled to work an eleven hour period in the day and a thirteen hour period at night. It may be argued that throughout the month their daily average is not more than eight hours, but I suggest that is not a fair way of looking at it. The fact is that in a twenty-four hour period two men are asked to do the work of three. Where there is so much responsibility, where constant vigilance is required, where instructors and guards must be on the alert every moment they are on duty, it is not in the best interests of the country to compel them to work eleven or thirteen hour periods. They are dealing with men whose liberty has been taken away from them, and some of whom are continually plotting escape as is well known. Some men in penitentiaries fear neither law nor mankind.

Penitentiary Act
At this time it is not my intention to discuss generally the conduct of affairs in penitentiaries; that phase of the matter may be discussed later. The purpose of the bill, with the exception of section 2, is confined wholly and solely to the hours of duty during which officers shall work. The purpose of section 2 is to reduce from ten to eight the working hours of prisoners. On one occasion at least when I raised the question of hours of duty to which officials were subjected the Minister of Justice replied that the hours of labour of prisoners had some material bearing on the matter. It is with that in mind that the second clause in which the hours of labour of prisoners are reduced from ten to eight, has been added to the bill. I may add that the provision for a ten hour labour period now contained in that section is a relic of by-gone days and when people worked much longer hours than they do to-day. As a matter of fact at the present time no prisoners work a ten hour day; they work eight hours and very often less than that.
There is a provision in the bill whereby the warden or deputy warden, if necessity should arise, may direct that the prisoners work longer hours. I believe the bill as it now stands should commend itself to all hon. members, and I ask favourable consideration by the minister and the government.
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, where practicable I am in favour of an eight hour day for all government employees. In our legislation concerning the eight hour day it will be found that the eight hour period now applies to almost all branches of the dominion public service, but there is in our law a saving clause under which any particular branch of the federal service may be excluded from the operation of the eight hour day provision. One of the branches of the public service which up to the present time has been excluded is the penitentiary service. Under the Penitentiary Act all convicts who are sent to penitentiaries are sent there to do hard labour; that is a provision of the act. Hard labour embraces within its definition a ten hour day.
In the bill before us I notice a proposal to reduoe the working hours of convicts to eight hours. The law has always contemplated ten hours as a proper day's work for convict labour. When one considers the proposal to reduoe hours of labour the question of the number of guards required for penitentiaries at once arises. I am informed by the departmental officials that with the exception of a single letter received from one guard, there have been no requests from the guards for
a reduction in their hours of duty. There have been many requests, however, by labour organizations asking that a reduction be made in respect of all members of staffs in our penitentiaries and particularly in respect of guards. I find also in the matter of guards that the Canadian penitentiaries are perhaps not as well staffed as prisons in other countries, notably in Great Britain and the United States. It may be that our staffs are a little limited in respect of the number of guards. In Great Britain I find that in the great prison of Dartmoor, where they had the serious revolt last spring, for 440 prisoners there was a staff of 96 guards, about one guard for every five prisoners. In the various prisons of the United States, while there is no uniform rule on the subject, the average is about one guard for every seven prisoners, while in the Canadian penitentiaries the average is approximately one guard for every ten prisoners. At the present time the number of guards employed in all penitentiaries of Canada is 598, but this has been increased within the last three months owing to disturbances which took place in three of the penitentiaries. At the time of the disturbance in the Kingston penitentiary there were 96 guards and 957 prisoners; at St. Vincent de Paul 115 guards and 1,115 prisoners; at Dorchester 47 guards and about 470 prisoners. The total number of prisoners in Canadian penitentiaries is in the neighbourhood of 5,000, including those at Piers Island, B.C., and the total number of guards at the present time is 598, so the proportion of one to ten is pretty fairly maintained. And that proportion has been maintained on the basis of a twelve or thirteen hour day on the part of these guards. It is quite true, as my hon. friend who moved the second reading of this bill has stated, that the average hours of work of a penitentiary guard throughout the whole year do not amount to eight hours per day, but that average is arrived at after computing certain leave and absences which the guard is permitted.


An hon. MEMBER:: Seven days a week.


Hugh Guthrie: I have had a report compiled upon the subject, and I find the matter has been under examination in the Department of Justice on several occasions during recent years. The average has been taken in respect to certain guards from actual time sheets. Their average for seven months is 203 hours and 50 minutes of service each per month. During the seven months the guards in question had 39 days' annual leave, two statutory holidays and 32 days' sick leave. The officers are paid for sick leave when they have sick
Penitentiary Act


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: He says;
The night staff would remain as at present, except for the alternation in the deputy warden and chief keeper visiting rounds. To assure full control it would be necessary to have an additional deputy warden or chief keeper. 1 think that it would be preferable to have an additional chief keeper; one assistant steward, one assistant engineer, one guard fireman, and three more keepers would also be necessary.
These are the higher paid officers of the staff. He goes on to say;
Only the guards taking over the duty from the night staff till the opening of the prison would report at 6 a.m., and would work from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m.; then at noon from 11.30 a.m. to 2 p.m., and from 5.30 p.m. until 10 p.m., thus making eight hours duty. The assistant chief keeper would relieve the deputy warden and the chief keeper two hours each during the day, and visiting rounds would require to be additional duty for this officer during the night.
He places the additional cost as far as the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary is concerned at the sum of $45,000 a year, including salaries and uniforms. The other wardens do not favour the change according to the records in the department. And they point out that the guards themselves have not asked for the change except in very few instances.
Now, guards who serve on night duty do, I believe, serve as long as thirteen hours. They tell me that it is not good policy to attempt to change guards during the night hours. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, if guards are to be changed more frequently, there will always ibe a certain amount of delay when the change takes place; there will be the checking over of the men, or, as they call it in the penitentiary, "the count;" the checking of the tools and other material which has been used by the preceding watch or preceding guard. All these things involve extra trouble, a certain amount of delay and a very substantial amount of expenditure in increased staff. I do not think that under present .conditions one would be warranted in proposing the additional expenditure in regard to penitentiaries of say a quarter of a million dollars for the purpose of introducing at this time the eight hour day system. I should like to see such a system introduced; I Shquld like to see eight hours made a day's labour throughout Canada in all federal departments if it were possible to do so, but I do not think it would prove to be a very workable system in the penitentiaries at the present time. Certainly the guards in penitentiaries have very responsible positions. This week I read in the report of Senate debates that it was suggested by a certain senator that guards should be in the nature of evangelists, missionaries -or teachers, who could improve the prisoners while they were

Penitentiary Act
serving their time. I can only say that if we introduced guards of this sort into our .penitentiaries, the guards themselves very soon would became convinced that they were misplaced.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our penitentiaries contain the most serious type of criminals to be found in the country. Of course .there is a distinction between a prison and a penitentiary. For the most part the prisons of Canada are under provincial jurisdiction, while the penitentiaries are under the Dominion government. Unless a man is sentenced to a term of two years or .more, and unless he is a criminal of the .more serious type he is not sent to a penitentiary. During the .past few years, however-perhaps since the war-we in Canada and perhaps the people of other countries as we'll have been invaded by a class of criminal, not all Canadians but from other countries as well, of a .more .desperate type than we ever experienced before. Some attribute this condition to the motor car. We know that the motor car bandit and the hold-up man are much in evidence in Canada to-day. Bank hold-ups are of almost daily occurrence; there have been no less than four in Toronto within the last ten days. These bandits are armed and do not hesitate to use their arms should occasion arise. As a result we have in the penitentiaries of Canada a very large proportion of desperate criminals serving very long terms. Of necessity the guards in these penitentiaries must be strong and courageous; they must be men of intelligence and judgment, and .they must be men who can be depended upon in any emergency. They have a very hard, reckless crowd with which to deal. Many of the prisoners seem to be entirely regardless of what may become of them individually; of course many are life prisoners, and they seem to be entirely careless of what may be done to them. They are desperate, and like necessity desperation knows no law.
We must have carefully selected guards, therefore, and in the future we will endeavour to pay more attention than has .been .paid in the past to the selection of guards. The position of guard is an important one, and to a large extent it is a dangerous one. If the guards themselves objected, to the hours of labour I think perhaps the matter might receive more .consideration but, as I have stated, I have found in the records only one case where a guard suggested the eight hour day, although during the past six or eight years many labour organizations have pressed for it.
What I take to be the most formidable objection to changing the system at present, however, is the actual money required to make
the change. With existing conditions in Canada I would not feel warranted in asking for the expenditure of an additional quarter of a million dollars, which would be necessary to put this change into effect, and I do not know that the change would produce any better results than we have experienced to-day. I should like to increase the number of guards in some of the penitentiaries, and as a matter of fact since the recent outbreaks this has been done. We have increased the number of guards at Kingston from 96 to 154, at St. Vincent de Paul from 115 to 140, and at Dorchester from 47 to 54. The staffs in the other penitentiaries remain unchanged. This was thought to be a wise precaution having regard to the conditions which undoubtedly existed in those institutions.
It must be remembered that at the moment we are faced with another rather heavy expenditure. We must take care of from five hundred to six hundred Doukhobor prisoners who are held at Piers island on the Pacific coast. That prison has been especially constructed for the purpose of looking after these prisoners, who have been sentenced to terms of three years imprisonment. A staff of guards had to be procured, I think in the ratio of about one to twelve, and the increase in expenditure occasioned thereby has been very considerable.
Under these .circumstances I would not feel warranted in recommending the change proposed by this bill at the present time. I do not commit myself or anyone else in regard to future policy in this respect, though personally I strongly favour the eight hour day upon government work.


Wilfred Hanbury: The minister stated that the increased cost would be about $250,000. I wonder if he cauld tell me just what percentage that is of the total cost of penitentiary services.


Hugh Guthrie: I could not answer that question unless I had the estimates before me. If my hon. friend will look at the penitentiary estimates he will find the total cost shown, and he .can make the calculation himself.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: I am in favour of the principle of this bill, especially since this country is committed to the eight hour day, but it seems to me that as this bill is drawn it is quite useless. The establishment of the eight hour day would depend upon the request of the warden or deputy warden, and we have just heard that only one warden is in favour of the principle, so this would not appear to be of very much use.
My second point in regard to this bill is that the penitentiarv system is undergoing
Penitentiary Act

reorganization, and it would be hardly fair for parliament to pass a bill such as this without giving the new organization sufficient time to consider the matter. So far as I am concerned I think eight hours is quite long enough for a guard to be on duty, but I believe we should allow this reorganization to take place before we consider any measure such as the one now proposed.
The second section of the bill is rather humorous; at present I think public opinion is rather changing with regard to the position of the convict. I have nothing to say with regard to the first offender; I always have been in favour of showing him every possible consideration. On the other hand, however, the second offender, the repeater, should receive no favour so far as this country is concerned unless we want to find ourselves, with regard to our penitentiaries and the whole question of crime, in a position similar to that in which our neighbour to the south finds itself to-day. It would not mean anything if we were to say the convicts should work only eight hours a day. Every prisoner has to be in his cell before dark, and that means that at no time do they work eight hours at a time. Then the suggestion is made that they should not be asked to work on fast days or thanksgiving days. I wonder what sort of thanksgiving day would appeal to a man in penitentiary. I do not think he would consider that thanksgiving day as anything worth having. Clause 2 is absolutely humorous; indeed it is ridiculous, especially to those who understand the present day conditions in the penitentiaries.
While I shall vote for the principle of the bill, I think it would be much better if this house reserved its opinion until we see how the new organization was working out. If the guards at Kingston penitentiary have been increased from 88 or 90 to 140, it may be that the superintendent and the new warden will be in favour of this bill. I think it would be unfair for the house to express or press its opinion before the new organization can get under way and express its views.
Mr. ANGUS MadNNIS (Vancouver South):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a
few words in support of this bill. During my experience with labour movements throughout the past year I have always found that when a shorter working day is asked for it is argued that such is not possible because of working conditions and costs. However, it has always been found to work very well when put into effect, and I am sure the same thing would apply in this instance.
The minister says that these guards are charged with very responsible duties. I have

no doubt that he is correct, but he should realize that a man charged with very responsible duties should not be asked to carry on with those duties for thirteen hours at a time. When a man has carried on very responsible duties for eight hours, I think it is time he should be relieved. Those of us who perform duties which take our attention for some considerable time know that as the hours wear on we get irritable and those with whom we are associated feel the effects of the long hours we have been at work.
Previously whenever the eight hour day question has been brought before the house we have been met with the argument that this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction and that this government could not do anything. In the present instance the Dominion government has full jurisdiction and the only obstacle in the way is that of organization and cost. Even with the additional, cost, there would be some saving 'because of the fact that a certain number of men would be taken off the unemployed list. The minister stated also that the guards themselves did not want this. The guards at Westminster penitentiary or others speaking for them have approached me on this matter to ask my support. The guards did not want their names made known hecause they were afraid it might jeopardize their positions. I am glad to know that the minister is favourable to an eight hour day and that this would be put into effect if times were different, but I do not think conditions could be more favourable than at the present time. Two or three years ago times were fairly good in this country and yet no effort was made to reduce the hours. I would suggest that this is as good a time as any to make this very desirable change.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is not the
time to go into the penal system of Canada in any detail, and I do not propose to do so at the moment. I have no objection at all to an eight hour day for the guards, but I do not think the working day of the inmates should be reduced to eight hours. Every-one knows that what the convict fears most is loneliness, he dreads being shut in a cell from the time he comes off work until the next morning. To add to that period of loneliness would be unnecessary and needless cruelty. I am hoping that some beneficial results will come out of the recent disturbances which have occurred and that lights will be put in the cells by which the prisoners can read. At the present time the lights provided make it almost impossible for the convict to read for any length of

Penitentiary Act
time. The statement is made that school teachers are provided and the prisoners have an opportunity of educating themselves. Those are just words without meaning. They have forty minutes immediately after they eat to attend the classes, the worst time possible to attempt to study. The blood supply cannot be in the stomach and the head at the same time.
May I be permitted to make the statement that in my opinion the recent disturbances were not due to certain prisoners who had been recently sent to the penitentiary. The government is to be congratulated in having communists in the penitentiaries on whom the blame for the disturbances can be placed. If the penal system of Canada had been reorganized according to the report of the royal commission which sat when Mr. Doherty was Minister of Justice there would not have been any disturbances. I should like to quote very briefly from the report of this commission which sat in 1914, as follows:
Speaking for themselves, the members of the committee would not before undertaking this investigation have believed that the penitentiary system could have been as needlessly cruel as it in fact is, and the absence of those features of the system which involve unnecessary mental or physical suffering would not to any of them make prison any the less abhorrent.
That is the commissioners speaking, not the convicts. This very excellent report was reinforced by another one in 1921 by a committee appointed to advise upon the supervision of petitentiary regulations. There was also a resolution moved by myself and adopted by the government but never acted upon. Since 1914 nothing has been done to bring the penitentiary system of Canada up to date.
Our present system is based upon revenge and not upon reform. I disagree altogether with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) who stated that we owed nothing to the repeater. The repeater is the result of poor environment, unsound heredity and an inefficient penal system. If there are a great many repeaters, then without going any further I think we can say that something radical is wrong with the penal system. Punishment should never be in the nature of revenge, it should always be with the idea of reforming the individual. At all times the state should be above the thought of wreaking vengeance on the individual.
Let me repeat what I said in the beginning. It would be the most cruel thing possible to limit the penitentiary working day to eight hours, because in that case the prisoners would be locked in their cells much longer than they are now. If the intention is that
the number of guards be doubled or increased,
I have no particular objection. So far as lack of money is concerned, we can take what we are spending on cadet training or the non-permanent force or some other source of useless expenditure, and put it to this use ' if it is needed. The very fact that the prison population has doubled in the last three or four years goes to show that the causes of crime lie outside the penitentiaries; they are at the moment largely, although not wholly, economic, and just to increase the supervision in penitentiaries will never lead to a change in the penal system or to a reformation of the prisoner. If this bill means an eight hour day for all, I am very much opposed to it. If it means increasing the number of the right type of guards, then I would be in favour of it.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, if there are no other speakers, I might be allowed to say a few words. In view of the minister's statements it is not my intention now to press this bill; my desire was to have the matter brought to the serious attention of the minister and the house.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If the hon. member is
speaking in reply on the motion, I would call the attention of the house to the fact that if he speaks now he will close the debate. If anyone else wishes to speak he should do so now.


Thomas Reid: I should like to say a few
words, however, in reply to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) who said that no guards had petitioned for this. The information given to me is that the guards are not allowed to organize and therefore they have no voice to present their petitions to the warden or the minister of justice. I do not know why they are not allowed to organize -that may be good business or otherwise- but I believe I am fully voicing the expressed opinions on behalf of the men who work in the penitentiaries when I propose reducing the hours, eleven to thirteen, to eight. I presume it is a serious matter at this time to ask for such a large increase in expenditure. As regards the remarks of the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross) he may refer to section 2 as foolish, but the present regulations call for ten hours of hard labour. The prisoners are not doing hard labour or working ten hours. Why 'he should call it humorous or ridiculous to reduce the prisoner's hours to eight, I am at a loss to understand.


Arthur Edward Ross: I will agree with the hon.
member that they have been shut in for about four months.

Penitentiary Act


Thomas Reid: Why did the hon. member
not oppose the present act instead of this bill?


Arthur Edward Ross: The present act does not allow shutting in of that kind.


Thomas Reid: I would ask the minister to
take this matter into serious consideration, because I am convinced that an eight hour day can be put into effect. I spent the greater part of a day in seeing how the guards operated and how the whole system worked. My real purpose in introducing the bill was to bring the matter to the serious attention of the minister and the house. That having been done, and on the assurance of the minister I am quite willing, after hearing his remarks, to withdraw the bill, and that this whole matter be again considered.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. gentleman have leave to withdraw his bill? In any event I have grave doubt whether it is in order. I am inclined to the opinion that it is contrary to Standing order 60, but as the hon. member is withdrawing the bill, the point need not be decided.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I was going to raise
a point of order, but inasmuch as the hon. gentleman could discuss the matter on a resolution, I thought it better before doing so, for him to conclude his observations. This constitutes a charge on the public revenue and will increase taxes, so that according to the rules of the house it is a money measure and it is not competent for a private member to introduce a measure that involves an additional charge upon the taxpayers. The hon. member of course could discuss it on a resolution, and in view of that fact I thought it well to let the discussion conclude before raising the point of order. If an hon. member, by introducing a bill to reduce hours of labour, can circumvent the general rule precluding private members from introducing money bills, obviously the procedure is open to question. It is an indirect way of trying to do something that could not be done directly, and I submit that for further guidance it would be well to have the matter disposed of.
Bill withdrawn.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from February 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Woodsworth for the second reading of - Bill No. 24, to

amend the criminal code (unlawful associations), and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I have very few words to add to what I said the other day in connection with this bill and the amendment of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). When the hour for public bills expired, I was referring to section 133 of the criminal code, which section had been repealed in 1919 at the same time that section 98 was enacted. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) called my attention to the fact that in 1930 the section was. reinserted, and he was right. On every occasion when a measure had passed this house to repeal section 98 and to reenact section 133, the repeal of section 98 as well as the reenactment of section 133 was rejected in the other chamber, but in 1930, though they voted against the repeal of section 98, they agreed to the reinsertion of section 133, which is an essential safeguard for free speech. But this only shows that parliament in 1919 went very far in enacting an exceptional piece of legislation.
I stated that the Minister of Justice was wrong in suggesting that all those who were asking for repeal of section 98 were extremists, belonged to special associations which were radical in their views. I said that every year I was a member of the government I attended interviews with the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and other labour associations, at which the repeal of this section was urged. Those associations are far from being radical in their views. I have taken the trouble to look into the report of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada for every year during at least the last six or seven years. In every one of their reports and at every one of their annual meetings they protested against this section and passed resolutions asking parliament to repeal it. Let me call attention more particularly to the report of the meeting of last year, 1932, held in Hamilton. What they did with regard to this section will be found on pages 222 and 223. In 1931 the Trades and Labour Congress, under the presidency of Mr. Tom Moore, met at Vancouver and there reiterated their objections to this section, as will be found on pages 19 and 185. In 1930 they held a meeting in Regina, where again the same resolutions were passed, and it is to be noted that at every one of those meetings the congress rejected motions advocating extreme measures; motions, for instance, asking for the liberation of prisoners who had been convicted for having taken part in riots. They showed themselves as being conservative

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
in the good sense of the word, but at the same time they insisted upon asking parliament to repeal this legislation which is obnoxious to the sane element of labour in all parts of Canada. It is a mistake, I respectfully submit, on the part of the Minister of Justice or of any hon. gentleman to represent as extremists or communists those who are asking for the repeal of this legislation of 1919. On the contrary, I believe that every sane labour leader in Canada will tell my hon. friend that section 98 is rather a weapon in the hands of agitators and gives them a chance to attack parliament and the law of Canada. It is not legislation that conforms to the ordinary rules of British justice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is nothing in the section to forbid the criticizing of the parliament of Canada; it is the destroying of it by force.


Ernest Lapointe: I say that the men who are asking for the repeal of this legislation are not the extremists such as have been described in this house. It is sufficient to call attention to one or two features of section 98. Subsection 2, for instance, says:
(2) 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.
Under that section any senseless person, anyone who was over-zealous, if he could persuade the commissioner of the mounted police, could be authorized to enter my own home if he said that I was suspected of having in my possession some documents or something else which was obnoxious. Now that is not ordinary British justice.


Hugh Guthrie: It has never been done except once.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been the law for thirteen years, and there has been no complaint.


Ernest Lapointe: I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to that retort, that it has been there for thirteen years and has not been used.


Hugh Guthrie: Except once.


Ernest Lapointe: Then why should it be there at all? I say it is contrary to all the ordinary rules of British justice. It is an axiom of British law and British justice that a man's home is his castle into which even the king of England cannot enter. This legislation is absolutely opposed to anything that 53719-13SJ
can be found in the statutes of any other British country. It is a product of the war. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) alluded to the fact that this legislation was enacted to embody tthe report of a committee which had been sitting in 1919, and of which he said I was a member. I was not a member of that committee.


Hugh Guthrie: I know the hon. gentleman sat in the old museum, and was there the day that Senator Copp voted for the proposal.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Hugh Guthrie: His was the one vote that carried it.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sure my hon. friend is wrong. I took the trouble to go to the library and consult the records because I knew I was not a member of that committee. The Hon. Charles Murphy was, and perfiaps it was of him my hon. friend was thinking.


Hugh Guthrie: And Senator Copp.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, he was there.


Hugh Guthrie: And his vote carried it.


Ernest Lapointe: The vote carried, yes.


Hugh Guthrie: His vote carried it.


Ernest Lapointe: It was far from being a unanimous vote.


Hugh Guthrie: It carried by Senator
Copp's vote.


Ernest Lapointe: I have here the Hansard of 1919, and at page 3291 the Hon. Charles Murphy is reported as follows:
There wras in the committee a very sharp division of opinion as to the necessity of amending the criminal code, and there was a further division of opinion whether, in the event of the committee being of opinion that the criminal code with reference to sedition and seditious propaganda should be amended-in view of the numerous strikes and the general unrest throughout the country-this was the proper time to make such a report to the house and induce a discussion of matters that would inevitably be discussed by reason of that report and of ony action that might follow the introduction of that report. It was on the latter ground principally-coupled with the fact that an opinion prevailed that the present criminal code was ample to cover the class of eases to which the attention of the committee was directed-that a portion of the committee, including myself, shared the view that this was not the proper time to introduce such a report as that, the adoption of which has now been moved by the Solicitor General.
I see that my hon. friend, who was I believe the chairman of that special committee, in the course of his speech in the house at that time
2188	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
intimated that this legislation was to put on the statute book what had been the law during the war by orders in council. During the war, of course, the government of the day had almost a blank cheque to do practically everything, and they passed orders in council dealing with sedition, unlawful meetings and unlawful associations. These orders in council lapsed after the war, and this particular legislation was enacted for the purpose of replacing them. Those of us who remember what happened at the time know how dangerous it was even during the war to have such wide powers given to the government. I remember a case where a man was prosecuted for having in his possession Plato's Republic! I think that the Labour people of Canada are right in asking that such a condition should not be made permanent in the statutes of this country. I have said that the other clauses of the criminal code are quite sufficient to deal with sedition. We are being told that these are restless days, dangerous times, that there is unemployment and that we must have all the power necessary to deal with these troubles when they occur. My answer is that under the other clauses of the criminal code we have that power.
I should like to refer hon. members to recent cases in three provinces of the dominion which have been taken to the appeal courts in those provinces. I refer first to the case of Rex vs. Jones, reported in Canadian Criminal Cases, 1-932,, page 81, where the appeal court upheld a conviction under section 87 made in pursuance of riots which had taken place on account of unemployment and trouble in Alberta. The same thing happened in Manitoba, as is shown in the case of Rex vs. Beattie, 55 Canadian Criminal Cases, page 380, where, again in the appeal court of Manitoba, Chief Justice Prendergast affirmed a conviction made under section 87. Again in Ontario, in the case of the King vs. Patterson, reported in Dominion Law Reports, volume 3, 1931, at page 267, the appeal court of that province affirmed and upheld a conviction made under section 89 of a man who had been found guilty of taking part in riots and unlawful meetings which arose through unemployment.
I am sorry to disagree with the Minister of Justice. I respect the opinions of those who do not share my views, but I would ask them to bear in mind that so far as communism is concerned I am quite ready to speak against it as violently as could any other hon. member. I repeat:	I am opposed to communism and
its methods, but I do not think that by enacting special or arbitrary legislation which is contrary to the ordinary rules of British

justice and British procedure we are adopting the best method of fighting it. Especially do I hold that view when I know that this legislation is resented by people who cannot be classified as agitators or extremists. I am deeply convinced that the enacting of section 98 was a mistake. I am sorry to disagree with hon. members opposite, and that my views do not meet with the approval of that great organ in Montreal, the Montreal Gazette. But on many occasions I have had the misfortune of not having the approval of the Gazette.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is there any legislation except the first part of section 98 which meets adequately the case against communism. That has been my difficulty.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, sedition, under the common law, and even other sections of the code.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They do not touch communism.


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely. I mentioned them the other day, but I am quite willing to repeat them. I hope hon. members will refer to the annotations in the criminal code showing that in England proposals to enact legislation of this kind have always been rejected, because in that country they preferred to remain under the common law. They always find a way of convicting under the ordinary rules of common law those who are guilty of fomenting trouble. Apart from that I am free to admit that temperamentally I do not like this kind of legislation. I do not believe that this is a good way to repress error. After all, to allow freedom is the best way of dealing with people in a democracy, and I am free to confess my belief that always when truth and error are given a fair field, truth ultimately prevails. That is one of the chief reasons for my opposition to this legislation.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Toronto Northwest) :: Mr. Speaker, the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is so emphatic in his arguments in favour of the repeal of section 98, and has quoted so widely from the reports of labour organizations, that I purpose taking a directly opposite view and quoting the opinions of many other organizations which doubtless also advocate the repeal of this section. At the outset of his remarks the exminister of justice stated that during his term of office on five different occasions he sponsored a bill in this House of Commons the substance of which was almost identical with that of the bill now before the house.

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
As I was not in the house on those occasions I do not know whether the government of that day had an absolute majority or whether it was necessary to obtain the support of the southeast corner of the house.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Nor do I know whether on any occasion such a bill went from this house to the Senate, and that body had a majority in support of the party then in office, the party of the ex-minister of justice. But if the Senate did have a Liberal majority at that time, or on any occasion to which the hon. member has referred, I should like to know how strong an effort he made to persuade his friends in the Senate to pass the bill instead of throwing it out. I can say this, that the party now in office will not ask the Senate to throw it out; we will throw it out ourselves and hope that it will not be resurrected. In spite of the credit the ex-Minister of Justice takes upon himself for supporting agitations in and out of this house for the repeal of this legislation, I am satisfied that within the house the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) must receive the major portion of credit, or censure, or whatever it may be, for the movement to repeal section 98. The militant part of the agitation is carried on by militant socialists and communists outside the house. I am going to connect it up, if I can, directly with Moscow and the communist international. I quite admit that the ex-Minister of Justice is sincere in all he said and likewise perhaps every one else in this house, and I will go further and say that many outside the house are sincere in their objections to the section and in their desire to have it repealed. But in my humble opinion a great many others appear to take their marching orders from the seat of the communist international whose headquarters are in Moscow. I will read from the Theses and Statutes what I believe are the marching orders:	*
For all countries, even for most free, "legal" and "peaceful" ones, in the sense of a lesser acuteness in the class struggle, the period has arrived when it has become absolutely necessary for every communist party to join systematically, lawful and unlawful work, lawful and unlawful organizations ... It is especially necessary to carry on unlawful work in the army, and navy, police-
This country is aware of the agitation that has been earned on in the last two or three months on many platforms to wreck institutions we stand for.
-and persistent and systematic propaganda and agitation is necessary in the army where communist groups should be formed in every military organization. . . .
The working class cannot achieve the victory over the bourgeoisie by means of the general strike alone and by the policy of folded arms. The proleteriat must resort to an armed uprising.
Now we have heard of on scores of platforms during the recess of this parliament of arguments advanced why an upheaval, a violent upheaval such as they had in Russia, might take place. I think it is about time those opposed to this propaganda-and I am one-should stand up and place themselves four-square against it instead of offering arguments in support of it.
The clause it is sought to have repealed is directed against unlawful organizations wlhose professed purpose is violence and so forth. I have read section 98 very carefully and I can see nothing in it that prevents anyone from going on any public platform and advocating almost anything he fancies provided he does not advocate violence and military uprising. When I was a young man I remember taking part in a debate on a resolution that Canada should be part of the United States. The negative side won-not that I was on it, but perhaps the judges were as much opposed to any such proposition as those on the negative side were. Had violence and militant action to achieve that end been advocated then it would have violated this section. But one can go on any platform and advocate anything within the law. Personally I am in favour of free speech, but I am opposed at all times to the advocacy of change by violence and the upsetting of our institutions by armed uprising.
I said at the beginning that I believe that this whole agitation has its origin in Moscow. I do not charge that anyone advocating these things in this house is associated in any way with Moscow, but the militant communists outside are, and they are the people responsible for the major part of the agitation. I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has spoken in many meetings and has been cheered to the echo for many statements he has made, but I know further that it is easy in any great city to pack a hall with sympathizers for what he advocates. It is not difficult to get an audience of 1,000 or 10,000 for meetings in Toronto.
I want to read out of these same statutes of the communist international what I believe shows the hook-up of this whole propaganda with the whole communistic agitation. I do not say, as I explained a moment ago, that those advocating the repeal of this section are hooked up with it, but the agitation is in my opinion:
2190	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
The class struggle in almost every country of Europe and America, is entering the phase of civil war.
Has it not been stated on our platforms in Canada during the last few months that we may have an upheaval, armed or otherwise? Did I not note a short time ago that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had said suoh and such must come, that is we must either take it or have it jammed down our throats?
Under such conditions the communists can have no confidence in bourgeois laws. They should create everywhere a parallel illegal apparatus which at the decisive moment should be of assistance to the party to do its duty toward the revolution.
We have heard a great deal about revolution lately; has repeal anything to do with revolution that has been advocated?
In every country where, in consequence of martial law or of other exceptional laws, the communists are unable to carry on their work legally, a combination of legal and illegal work is absolutely necessary.
This section is directly opposed to those who advocate violence or illegal work. No one else is interfered with; anyone who desires to effect change in a legal way need not fear section 98. I can go on any platform .and advocate what I believe to be for the best interests of Canada, but I may not .advocate with it violence and armed upheaval.
Persistent and systematic propaganda and agitation must be carried on in the army where communist groups should be formed in every military organization. Wherever, owing to the repressive legislation, agitation becomes impossible, it is necessary to carry on such agitation illegally.
That is what we are opposed to. We are opposed to illegal organization and armed upheaval, or the repeal of this section or the smashing of our institutions.
In countries where the power is in the hands of the bourgeoisie, or the counter-revolutionary social democrats, the communist party _ must learn to unite systematically legal with illegal work.
All we are opposed to now is illegal organizations, and before I sit down I am going to give quite a list of them said to be, and tell something about what they advocate. An illegal organization advocates violence and armed upheaval. The object of section 98 is to prevent violence and armed upheaval. What hon. member will stand up in this house and advocate violence and armed upheaval? I do not think there is one. Then why should any hon, member here or anyone outside the house who does not advocate violence and armed upheaval fear this act? I am not in accord with repressive measures; I do not

think repressive measures achieve their ends at all, and if any part of this act can be characterized as extremely repressive I would think that might be given consideration. On the other hand it should be sufficiently severe to prevent the advocacy of armed upheaval or violence. A great many organizations have been established in Canada and, in the opinion of those who have been carrying out law enforcement in this country, many of these organizations are unlawful. I am going to refer to two organizations. I do not say that they are unlawful; I do not know, and as a matter of fact I would rather admit that they are quite regular. On December 13 last, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke in a hall in East Toronto, and he is quoted as follows in the Mail and Empire of December 14, 1932:
J. S. Woodsworth, M.P., leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, declared last night at a meeting in Danforth Park school, before an audience of more than one thousand persons-
Before reading this quotation I should like to protest publicly against our public schools and certain of our churches in Ontario lending their platforms for the advocacy of all sorts of proposals calling for the destruction of our institutions as we know them.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I must object to any member of this house implying in any way that I used any public school for the purpose of advocating the destruction of any of our institutions. I ask that no such statement be made.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had heard me correctly he would have known that I did not say he had advocated anything of the kind. What I did say-and what I will say again-was that I publicly protest against school auditoriums in the province of Ontario-for the upkeep of which I pay large taxes-Jbeing used for the advocacy of political propaganda these times designed to destroy our institutions as we know them. Now if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wants to come within that class that is up to him.


James Shaver Woodsworth: On a point of order-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Continuing to quote-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, the rules of this house are designed to protect the members of this house. I object to any implication-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member state his point of order?

Cri?ninal Code-Unlawjul Associations


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 am doing so. I object to the implication that in any way wlhatever I attempted to advocate the destruction of any of our institutions.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is not in order in taking any such objection. I was listening attentively to the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol), and no suoh implication was made. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will have a right to reply, but that time has not come yet.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not a case of
having a right to reply.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will continue, because my time is limited.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not a question of the right to reply; it is a question of maintaining my honour at this time.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member's honour is not at stake and has not been questioned in this debate.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member is quoted as having made this statement during the course of the same address:
"It is absurd for the Senate, a body without responsibility, to veto measures passed by the elected representatives of the people," he declared. Assailing the capitalist system, he urged his hearers to be ready with practical solutions for some system to replace it as it crumbled.
Well, the capitalist system is not going to crumble; it is going to remain right in existence. Now I hope the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Maephail), whom I intend to quote next, will not challenge the statement I am about to make. The hon. member also went to East Toronto and spoke to the East York workers in the R. H. McGregor school on Saturday afternoon, February 11 of this year. According to the Mail and Empire of February 13, among other things the hon. member said:
The C.C.F. was trying to establish a new social order, she said.
The old one surely tvould have to be destroyed before a new one could take its place. I continue quoting:
The House of Commons is the place where we must enter-I almost said capture. If every member of the house were a free citizen

I suppose we must all be slaves.
-voting on what seemed to him best, we would not be in the mess we are in.
Now listen to this, Mr. Speaker:
Canada has the least liberty of speech and action of any country.
As a Canadian I am proud of Canada. People are as free in Canada as in any other country in the world, bar none.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: May I just say that up to this point the report-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am going to assist
the hon. member.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the hon. member for
Southeast Grey (Miss Maephail) raising a point of order? If not she has no right to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: There is one error-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must ask the hon. member for Southeast Grey to maintain order. She has no right to interrupt, unless it is to ask a question with the consent of the member who has the floor, or to raise a point of order.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I was just going to
say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Let me repeat what I
said before I was interrupted. As a Canadian I am convinced that Canada's institutions and our right of free speech are second to none, despite anything the hon. member for Southeast Grey has to say to the contrary. I am a Canadian of the fourth generation, and I am proud of it. I think it is a very strong statement to make to say that Canada has less freedom of speech than any other place in the world. I will quote the exact words again, so that I may not be called to order:
Canada has the least liberty of speech and action of any country.
That means that in Afghanistan, Baluchistan and all the other "stans" of Asia, as well as in Russia, there is greater freedom of speech and action than we have in Canada.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Mr. Speaker, may I
say-


John Ritchie MacNicol: I said a moment ago
that I was going to endeavour to link up this propaganda with Moscow.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, the last quotation given by the hon. member is inaccurate. I said the members of the House of Commons in Canada had less freedom than existed in any British parliament in the world.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
Southeast Grey is not in order in making that remark.
2192	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations


John Ritchie MacNicol: The newspaper report
does not agree with what the hon. member for Southeast Grey just stated. Let me repeat the last sentence quoted in the newspaper:
Canada has the least liberty of speech and action of any country.
Now I must hurry on, because I want to connect up these various organizations and I will leave it to the house to decide whether they are lawful or unlawful. I will leave it to the house to decide whether the speeches delivered before these organizations, some of which I am going to read, are lawful or unlawful. I will leave it to the house to decide also whether this propaganda is connected with the communist international in Moscow. The first is the Workers' Unity League, and in the worker's pamphlet No. 4 at page 15, I find this:
In conclusion, the party of the workers must be built up. The communist party stands today as the only party true to the principles of socialism and the class struggle. The duty of every worker and poor farmer who reads this pamphlet and who agrees with its political messages is to take his place in the ranks of the party and provide a leadership for the struggle for socialism.
Organization is the key to struggle. The building of unemployment councils, militant labour unions, opposition groups in the reformist unions-these are tasks that can only be carried out by an organization of the type of the Workers' Unity League.
This organization is associated with the communist international with headquarters at Moscow.
The Farmers' Unity League is hooked up in the last sentence of the same article, which reads:
The Farmers' Unity League stands as the militant leader of the poor farmers.
This organization is associated with the Workers' Unity League. The National Unemployed Workers' Association is referred to on page 6 of The Party Organizer, as follows:
One of the principal tasks facing the party at this time is to sink the roots of the party among the masses. In order to do this, we are confronted with building shop committees of the Workers' Unity League, the cores of the revolutionary industrial unions in the factories, and the organization of local councils of the National Unemployed Workers' Association.
This is a communist organization which according to this pamphlet, receives inspiration from the communist international at Moscow. The next is the Canadian Labour Defence League, which is referred to in The Frame-Up on Allan Campbell as follows:
The Canadian Labour Defence League issues this pamphlet, not only as an exposure of the sharpening terror in Vancouver, but also to inspire the workers generally with the courage

exhibited by comrade Allan Campbell and to serve as a lesson to revoluntionary workers how they can defend themselves in capitalist courts.
And on page 2:
-the "sedition" and "deportation" laws must be opposed by every worker and poor farmer.
That is what we are having, an agitation to change the law so that there will be an opportunity afforded to preach sedition and violence without obstruction. The next is the F.S.U., and I am sorry I cannot give the house the full name of this organization. It is referred on page 13 of The Party Organizer as follows:
The worker may be ready to join one of the mass organizations like the Canadian Labour Defence League or F.S.U.
I am informed that this means Friends of the Soviet Union. The next is the Mine Workers' Union, which is referred to as follows:
The results of the referendum, through which the miners of Alberta expressed their determination to join the fighting front of the Workers' Unity League is of tremendous importance. This decision makes possible to extend the revolutionary leadership among the Alberta miners, and through burning out in the fire of daily struggles the remnant of Wheatleyism make the Mine Workers' Union of Canada the base for the struggle for one allinclusive oil, mine and smelter workers union of Canada.
That is another communistic organization. Another is the Needle and Lumber Workers Union. I shall not quote the reference which is made here. The Christian Social Order, I believe I read, held a demonstration in Toronto quite some time ago. One of their beliefs is:
That the achieving of a Christian Social Order would entail the socializing of the organized agencies of production.
Then we have the W.E.C., FJB.L., R.I.U., and N.U-A.


An hon. MEMBER:: Any other combinations?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I think the minister should investigate the objective of these various organizations. The National Unemployed Workers' Association held a meeting in the Queen Street United Church. I might mention that the church was not associated with the meeting other than permitting the use of its hall. The report of the meeting does not associate the church with these activities. This meeting was reported in The AVcxrker of May 16, 1931, as follows:
Starting by singing tbe "International," Die meeting was thrown open to free discussion, and one speaker after another condemned the

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
church as an opium vendor, demanded noncontributory unemployment insurance and urged the workers present to join the National Unemployed Workers' Association. The first speaker declared, "what we want is an international soviet union."
It might be well to quote from some of the songs which were sung or distributed at that meeting. The first is the International, which goes as follows:
Arise, ye prisoners of starvation,
Imagine, this is in Canada.
Arise, ye wretched of the earth.
One would almost think they were speaking of some downtrodden, European country forty or fifty years ago.
For justice thunders condemnation,
A better world's in birth.
We have heard a good deal about that in the last two months.
No more tradition's chains shall bind us,
Arise, ye slaves, no more in thrall,
The earth shall rise on new foundations,
We have been not, we shall be all.
When it is all over, it will be found that the institutions of Canada will continue to go along just as usual. The chorus runs like this:
'Tis the final conflict,
Let each stand in his place,
The international soviet Shall be the human race.
The international soviet will never wave its flag over this grand old Canada. The next song was The Red Flag, which runs as follows:
The workers' flag is deepest red,
And shrouded oft our martyred dead,
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold, Their hearts blood dyed its every fold.
To hear this song, you would think that there was nothing but violence being carried on in this country. The chorus reads:
Then raise the scarlet banner high,
Within its shade we'll live and die,
The cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.
As yet it has not been up and I do not think it ever will be. The next, song is the Red Army March. It runs as follows: Comrades, the bugles are sounding, Shoulder your arms for the fray,
Boldly we'll fight for our freedom,
Bravely we'll hew out a way.
Born in the ranks of the workers,
Whose toil scanty wage must suffice, Brotherhood, unity, freedom,
This is our fighting device.
This is the type of song sung at these meetings.


An hon. MEMBER:: And in a church.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, but, as I pointed
out earlier, the church had nothing to do with it.
During the recent municipal contest in Toronto, several candidates were contesting the ward in which I live and part of which I have the honour to represent here. An article in the Toronto Telegram of December 29, 1932, refers to three of these candidates as follows:
Three of the candidates, members of the United Front Party and endorsed by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and selfavowed socialists, were the speakers most popular of the evening.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the hon. member
wishes to do me justice he will remain in his seat and allow me to finish my remarks.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Ritchie MacNicol: One of the candidates
was asked the following question:
Why is all the world in such a bad state of affairs?
And his reply was:
Because capitalism is in the saddle. We will have a revolution here as in Russia (I did not want to name Russia but I must), but I think it will come in a different way.
At many of those meetings in Toronto where these candidates were speaking, they were supported by groups of avowed socialists who, after these candidates had made their speeches, prevented other candidates for the city council or the Board of Control of Toronto, who wished to discuss the issues of the day, from speaking. In other words, the very advocates of free speech prevented free speech on many platforms during the municipal election in Toronto.
I should like to read what His Grace Archbishop McNeil says with reference to clean speech. His Grace, as reported in the Toronto Globe of June 22, 1931, spoke as follows:
The message given the Holy Name Society on Sunday by His Grace Archbishop McNeil is one which should cause people of all denominations to think. "If ever there was need for promoting reverence," be said, "it is in our day. To-day wide-spreading organizations exist in Canada, the United States and England to encourage atheism. There are even schools of atheism in this country. And the largest country in Europe has adopted atheism as its public policy."
It seems to be a fact that the forces operating against the spirit of reverence are more active and determined than those promoting it.

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
There are such organizations as the archbishop referred to, including the communistic schools, directly interested in wrecking the bulwarks of spiritual thought by spoken and written speech and evil example. In addition there is the insidious campaign of those who would give rein to atheistic doctrine in the name of "free speech." The former are conducting the "drive"; the latter is breaking down resistance. Where is the defence organization that has at its back the might of right, "the faith of the fathers," and the knowledge of a righteous cause?
I want to close just with this:	I am in
accord with maintaining on the statute book section 98 of the criminal code, and I shall support the amendment moved by the minister of justice. While I have been in the house I have heard those who assume that they represent labour, speak on many occasions. I have been associated with labour for twenty-five years and I yield to no one as regards the rights of the working man. I am convinced that organized labour in this country and in the United States deserves a great deal of credit for what it has done and what it proposes to do in the way of alleviating the condition of the working man, and on every occasion that organized labour advocates something for the betterment of the working man, I shall support it if I believe it is wise and just. Organized labour has been quoted as being in favour of the repeal of section 98. Let me say that organized labour is opposed with all its might to the preaching of violence and armed upheaval, because labour men would be the first to suffer and would suffer longest and hardest as a result of any armed upheaval. I would not be so much opposed to agitations of this kind if, when parades were organized and marshalled to bring about violence and armed uprisings, the paraders would seize the leaders who led them astray and would march them at the head of the procession, so that those leaders would be the first to suffer from the advocacy of violence and armed upheaval.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey): Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege a week ago to-morrow night to address a large congregation in Donlands church which is near the McGregor school in East York. I was invited by the Reverend Mr. Irwin, the pastor of the church, to give an address, I was introduced by Doctor Salem Bland.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I said there that I respected my colleagues in the house, but I am afraid, after the laughter at the mention of Doctor Bland's name, I shall have difficulty in doing so in future. As I said, I was intro-

duced by Doctor Salem Bland. I made practically the same speech as I made the following afternoon at McGregor school. The school, I may say, was crowded. I congratulated the school board in allowing, though I could never understand why it should be a case of allowing, the taxpayers in that school section to use the auditorium for public meetings and discussions. The minister of Donlands church, and the East York Workers' Association, almost all of whom were unemployed, could have selected their own member to address them. I did not ask them to invite me. Possibly their own member had better do some heart-searching to find out why he was not asked. I do not know why he was not.
As regards the subject to which the Mail and Empire was referring when I was reported to have said that there was less freedom of speech in Canada than anywhere else, the question I was discussing was freedom of action of elected members in the House of Commons, and I said that in the British House of Commons there was much greater freedom and that when a cabinet minister was not pleased with the action of his government, and when the action taken by his government was contrary to his personal convictions, he asserted his position as an indivdual, was true to his convictions and showed this by resigning from the cabinet, something that practically never happened in this country. I went on to say that what I believe constitutes one of the real difficulties of government in Canada is the slavish adherence in this house to parties. I said-and am afraid I cannot say it again-that I respected my colleagues in the House of Commons and that I believed if they were free individuals, free first to think, then to discuss and finally to vote on the merits of questions as they arose in this chamber, we would have very much better legislation than we now have and we would have avoided some of the great difficulties into which we have fallen. I still say that, and if the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol), who has just spoken, means that in our speeches we must defend everything as it is, may I say that I do not intend to do so. It is a long time since I decided that the upper house was of very little use to Canada. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat may disagree with me. That is his business, but I do not propose he shall tell me what I shall think, and for the hon. member to try to link up, as he did quite definitely in his speech, those of us who go out to speak in school houses, churches and public halls, on the economic

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
condition and the need of constitutional reform-radical and fundamental, but constitutional-with communists, that just brands him for the excellent Tory he is. We are not communists, and I may say that the heckling that we receive comes from the communists who hate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), myself and others associated with us more than they do anybody else, because we, by striving to bring about reforms constitutionally, stand between the communists and the violence they desire. The people who are aiding the communists most are the very ones who are afraid of them, and who will not consider any changes at all, but insist upon retaining such repressive measures as section 98 of the criminal code. They are the very ones who are helping, as I said in this house the other day, to bring about the thing they fear.
I am Canadian born, and I love Canada as much as any member who sits on the government side. My record of service in this country is as clean as that of any member in any part of this house, and I do not propose any longer to sit here and allow people to put into our mouths things that we have never said and attribute to us motives that we have never had. This business of continually trying to tie us up with Moscow is ridiculous; it is nonsense. It is a regular trick of the Conservative party. I remember when the Liberals were in power how the Conservatives were always saying that the fiscal policy of the Liberal government was dictated from Washington. Now if the financial policy of this government is not dictated by Wall street, New York, I should like to know who is dictating it. The Conservatives are always trying to tie up those opposed to them with dictation from some place outside of this country. I myself and the members of the United Farmers of Alberta and the Labour group in this house are Canadians. We are not tied up with Moscow, and never have been. We are taking no orders and no money from Moscow. May I say to the hon. member for Toronto Northwest that we are striving by constitutional methods, by the exercise of our intelligence, which thank God we possess-
[DOT]. Mr, MacNICOL:	You will never get any
money from me if you advocate that kind of stuff.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I would not want your money.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then why mention it?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I did not; I did not
know the hon. member had any money. We
are striving by the exercise of our intelligence to bring about by constitutional methods the very reforms that must come. You cannot stop reform. You can try. You can stupidly stand in the path of progress and do all you can to stop it, but all you can succeed in doing is to dam the thing back until it gets beyond control and then causes the very upheavals and difficulties which we all deplore and which none of us want. I hope we shall not again hear such statements as those made by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest. I have no objection to the government members and the Liberal members fighting us on the merits of any question, but to intimate, as the last speaker did all through his speech, that we are closely associated with communists in this country is simply laughable, and may I add that I think the hon. member is not doing himself or his party any good. The people of Canada know that the Conservative party has no corner on Canadian-ism, that it has no corner on loyalty to this country, that it has no comer on a desire to serve even though it means sacrifice, and it is about time the Conservative party realized that. They have waved the flag and prostituted patriotism as no other group in Canada ever has done-we have heard it until we are sick of it-and when the flag won't do they take the Bible and wrap their policies in both, hoping the people will then stomach them, and it is sometimes all they can do. We have listened to altogether too much of that sort of thing.
I am going next week-end to Toronto to address an audience in a school auditorium, having been invited by a man who has about ten letters after his name, whatever they stand for, and who is as good a citizen I presume as the member who has just sat down, and if you care to hear what I have to say, come if you want to. But do not quote a paper like the Mail and Empire, one of the most partisan papers in Toronto, and one that is now spending a great deal of money to try to increase its subscription list. I suppose as the number of Conservatives in the country declines, so do the subscriptions of the Mail and Empire.
I do not very often protest so heatedly, but this thing has gone so far that even respectable members of the house like the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) and the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) are getting up and seriously saying these things which men of their intelligence must know are not true. They are intelligent men; I will say that for them. Instead of abuse, why not meet the issue on its merits? I

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
think that this game of misrepresentation has been played too long in Canada, and I do not think that it will deceive the people again. That is all I care to say at the moment.


William John Loucks: I had not intended to take part in this debate, but some of us back benchers have been so frequently charged with being afraid to get up and express our views (that I feel I must say a few words in regard to section 98 of the criminal code.
I want to inform the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that it was my .privilege last summer on the twelfth of July to introduce a resolution approving of section 98. I suppose I shall be condemned as a loyalist for having introduced it on the twelfth of July, but I do not apologize for that. The resolution was presented at a picnic attended by at least three thousand people in the constituency of Rosetown, and most of them were farmers. The resolution endorsed the action of the government in retaining section 98 of the criminal code, and recommended that under present circumstances the section should be retained. That resolution was passed unanimously, with not a dissentient voice, and as I said, a large proportion of the people present were farmers. We are passing through a severe depression, and it is necessary that we meet in an orderly and. constitutional way, difficulties as they arise. I think that that is the attitude of the farmers not only of Rosetown constituency but of western Canada. I believe that if hon. members of the party in the far corner of the house would do a little more to help solve the problems of the farmers of western Canada and come to their relief instead of talking so much about the elimination of section 98 from the criminal code, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation might receive better support than it is getting. I am convinced that our friends in the far corner are doing themselves no good in western Canada.
I was in the court house at Kingston yesterday when four of the convicts from Portsmouth penitentiary were brought in for examination, and I notice that the Ottawa Journal of this evening has this to say:
Three more convicts of Portsmouth penitentiary, making 18 in all who have been sent up for trial, were committed by Magistrate J. M. Farrell in county police court to-day. All are charged in connection with the penitentiary riots of last October.
Further hearings were adjourned to-day until Monday. Prominent in the trio facing trial to-day was Albert Dorland, whose claim of being "framed" by Toronto police brought police commissioners from that city two weeks ago to interview him. Do-rland is serving a five-year term for possession of firearms.
r.Miss Macphail.]
Murray Kirkland, who figured in a sensational bank robbery in North Toronto three years ago, when $10,000 was dropped by the bandits and recovered by a child, was the second committed.
The third was Robert Spinks, sentenced in Sarnia in 1927 to a 20-year term for a serious offence.
The caretaker of the court house informed me that three of the men were born in Russia, and I presume from the names that it was these three Russians who were committed for trial.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) the other night, in addressing the house, said that if ever there was a time when we should retain section 98 in the criminal code, that time is now. As a member from western Canada I feel I am voicing accurately the sentiments of people in that part of Canada. It is alarming to me to hear some hon. members, and especially the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), who unfortunately has left the chamber, state that some of the back benchers dare not say a word for themselves. Last fall we were subjected to the same criticism. We came to parliament last fall to ratify treaties, and some hon. members made an effort to ecnomize and not to take up too much time in debate. That has been my attitude since my appearance in this House of Commons. I believe the pros and cons on each subject are placed fully before this chamber, and for that reason as a new member I hesitate to make lengthy statements. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre must be familiar with the resolution passed last July 12, because I met him on the same ground a few years ago. When I tell him it was passed at Crystal Beach, Saskatchewan, he will be familiar with part of the country to which I refer.
I do not wish to take up much of the time of the house, but I should like to add that the people in my part of the country are behind the government one hundred per cent, and we contend that section 98 should remain in the criminal code. Of course we have our troubles in that section of the country. I could mention other things I should like to have done, but at a later point in the session I shall outline them. I could not help but resent the challenges of the hon. member for Southeast Grey when she referred to the loyalty of our people. I have always boasted that I was of Empire Loyalist stock. I am proud to think that there were people who had the courage to come into this country, cut away the bush, build shanties, and, as their next move, put up little churches. That fairly well describes the type of people who

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
came out here, and it is characteristic still of the people of tihie west. I can only say that heredity must have something to do with the spirit of our people, and I could not sit in my seat in this House of Commons and hear criticism levelled at them of the kind that has been made to-day.
On December 28, a gentleman from Regina, a Mr. Coldwell, came to our constituency, and on that occasion he spoke in terms similar to those employed to-night by the faon. member for Southeast Grey. He intimated that last August he had occasion to travel through British Columbia, and that while his train was stopped at Banff he got out and ascended a certain hill. At that particular moment a short freight train was passing through a tunnel and as it emerged from the tunnel Mr. Coldwell counted 206 transients riding on it. When he had completed his remarks I got on the platform and asked this question: "Would you believe, sir, that those 206 men, or most of them, had probably got on that train before the harvest started; in other words, that they wanted to get out of our country before the work started?" I told him to go on to Rose-town and he would learn from the people of that place that when the harvest started men had jumped on a freight train and migrated to British Columbia. I am not suggesting that all labouring men are of that type, but I do want to say in all fairness that I cannot believe that labour and farmers can harmonize; they cannot do it.
Some years ago I employed some men on my farm who sat in their tents at nights and sang hymns out of red-backed hymn books. I would pass by their tents after the day's work was over, and after I as their employer had done as big a day's work as any of them. I would hear them saying in effect: "Isn't that farmer an awful fool?"-calling me by name -"Isn't he eager to get rich? Look at the way he works his wife to feed us." Then they would say: "Some day everything will be equal; we will all get the same. Some day we will visit his farm and take away his pigs and his steers." At that time I was paying some of those men as high as $7 a day. What happened? I was forced to buy combines because their wages were so high. I can remember one occasion when some of the men I had hired put a coil of soft wire in a stook, undoubtedly for the purpose of ruining some of my machinery.
Some such men are still travelling up and down this country on trains. Even to-day they try to hold us up for $5 a day when we are receiving only 25 cents a bushel for our wheat. I want hon. members to realize I am in sympathy with the labouring man. I know labourers are not all of the type I have described, but there is a certain element which would like very much to rule the country, and their attitude has been apparent for some years.
May I say again that while I have not spoken on many occasions in the house, certainly nobody has been restricting me. In this particular I believe I am speaking the minds of all back benchers. I am not anxious to have my name in Hansard; I am not looking for publicity. The people of my constituency were good enough to elect me to this House of Commons, and I am not worried about the future. I will stick to the people of Rose-town constituency who still have faith in me, whether or not I have my name in Hansard every day, or frequently take up several hours of the time of the house.


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I am not greatly interested in comic opeTa revolutionaries or would-be comic opera dictators. I intend to present what I consider to be a purely trade unionist viewpoint concerning the bill before this house. By heritage and conviction I am a trade unionist. Since my return from the war I have attended most of the conventions of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. Without equivocation I wish to state clearly that I am absolutely opposed to the philosophy and tactics of communism. I believe I can agree with some hon. members when they state that communism is absolutely foreign to the mental make-up of Canadians and the Anglo-Saxon people. I have always taken the stand that no person has a right to enter this or any other country where democratic institutions exist and preach the forceful overthrow of those institutions. It is pure logic that those democratic institutions should protect themselves, and I believe my views in this connection cannot well be controverted.
I listened with a great deal of attention to the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). It is my view that the present government is responsible more than any other force for the existence of the communist party in Canada. I make this statement because of my practical experience, and because of my knowledge of the methods used by the communist party in Canada in their effort to destroy the trade union movement. Men active in the labour movement have possibly received more criticism, I suppose, than the members of the government from that direction. They call us labour fakers and apply to us all the adjectives they so commonly use in respect to the responsible labour leaders
2198	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
not only in this country but in every country where the communist organization functions. I want to point out, in a very practical way, that the position taken by the government in declaring the communist party an unlawful organization has driven it underground; they have a different name almost every week for their different local organizations, and in my judgment this supports the contention of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) that in the final analysis the best attitude to adopt is absolute freedom of speech. I say that from my own practical observation. Last May day in Hamilton these chaps wanted to hold a meeting in one of the large parks. They were refused permission. Everyone was on hand to see the fun; there were about fifteen thousand people. The firemen turned out and laid the hose in case of emergency. Someone threw a brick at one of the firemen; the water started, and the fire and police departments made enemies of those innocent bystanders.
Not so long ago when I was in Detroit I saw an anarchist holding forth in what I think they call the grand circus there. He was raising eain about everything in general-the mayor of the city, the responsible government officials in the state and federal assemblies. About a thousand people were listening. So I say, as a result of my practical experience in contact with different individuals representing various viewpoints both on the left and the right in the labour movement of this country, that it is far better to have complete freedom of speech. Apart from the principle I think it is the most practical thing to do.
We of the trade union movement have taken the attitude that we are not interested in the expression of opinion or even the guarantees of members of parliament in this regard. They are not the ones who sit and interpret the law. We cannot rest content even with a guarantee from the Minister of Justice. Arising out of our struggle for existence, almost within the lifetime of some in this chamber men were deported simply for belonging to a trade union. The trade union movement has gone through a continuous struggle to maintain its existence as an instrument in the upbuilding of the social status of the great bulk of the working people that make up the industrial life of this country and of Great Britain where the movement had its inception.
The ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) quoted from the record of the Trades and Labour Congress at its last convention in the city of Hamilton. A resolution passed by that

body called for the repeal of section 98 of the criminal code. I was a member of a delegation which on January 27, in this city presented a brief through Mr. Moore, the president of the congress, stating that in their opinion section 98 of the criminal code is too wide in its application and unduly restricts freedom of speech. In 1920 the congress was so alarmed at the implications of this section that they went to the trouble of getting legal opinion. That position was unanimously adopted by the congress in session in Windsor, Ontario, on September 30, 1920. I would like to read this into the record, because it. gives clearly the attitude of the responsible trade union movement of this country towards this particular section. It says:
As to conspiracy itself, Wright in his book on Criminal Conspiracies, says: "No intelligible definition of conspiracy has yet been established.'' The Hon. Edward Blake, in 1890, while discussing, in the House of Commons, the subject of the protection of trade unions from prosecution as conspiracies in restraint of trade, called it the "obnoxious law of conspiracy."
A conspiracy is an agreement to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act in an unlawful way.
Before closing the subject, I should direct your attention to the amendments of 1919. I have already referred to the repeal of the provision declaring what was not to be deemed seditious. There has been added a section (97b) as follows:
"Any person who prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, or offers for sale .or distribution any book, newspaper, periodical, pamphlet, picture, 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, or force, violence, terrorism, or physical injury to person or property, or threat 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."
Further subsections deal with the circulation of such enumerated documents by mail and with the importation of them. While the word "seditious" does not appear in the section, the side note reads:	"publishing, etc., seditious
books, etc."
The penalty for speaking seditious words was, under section 134. limited to two years. The two years limitation has been done away with and the imprisonment may now be as high as twenty years.
I add. also, the new section with respect to "unlawful association."
"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, violence or physical injury to person or property, or by threats of such injury, or which teaches, advocates, advisee or defends the use of force, violence, terrorism or physical injury to person or property,

World Economic Conference
or threats of such injury, in order to accomplish such change, or for any other purpose, or which shall by any means prosecute or pursue such purpose or professed purpose, or shall so teach, advocate, advise or defend, shall be an unlawful associ ation."
Provision is then made for seizing the property of unlawful associations and for prosecuting its officers and members, and punishment is provided for wearing its badges etc.
The attention of the congress should be directed to the words "force" and "terrorism," in the above sections, coupled as they are with the words "industrial or economic change."
The use of these words leaves the door wide open for the prosecution of every trade union in Canada. If "force" is intended to mean "physical force" it should be so stated.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Richard Bedford Bennett: The business of the house to-morrow will be the items on the order paper, and supply, national defence, agriculture, railways, justice and trade and commerce.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the votes
and proceedings of February 15 there is an item at the bottom of page 227 under the heading "Erratum", with regard to adjustment of war claims. This item carried in committee on the fourteenth. My recollection is that in the course of discussion on the item I asked the Minister of National Defence where we could get the information we desired with respect to an appropriation of $500,000 in the previous year which was not to be renewed. The minister replied that we could obtain it from the Secretary of State when we came to his estimates, but there is no place in the estimates of the Secretary of State, so far as I can see, where we could bring up that item. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if it can be understood that we may return to that item for the purpose of getting any information we wish if we allow this matter to go as having been passed. Otherwise we shall have to get the information in some other way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was in the chamber
when the incident to which the right hon. gentleman refers took place, and I recall the reply of the Minister of National Defence to the question asked by the right hon. gentleman. It is true that the Minister of National Defence would not be in a position to deal with the particulars of that item, which would fall within the duties of the Secretary of State. If it will suit the convenience of the right hon. gentleman I will arrange that when the estimates of the Secretary of State are under consideration this item will be discussed. Will that be satisfactory?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wished to make sure that we would have that opportunity, because I could not find any place where this matter could be taken up under the estimates of the Secretary of State.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, February 17, 1933