1933-02-23

Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: In the absence of the Prime Minister I beg to move:
That the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization be instructed to ascertain the facts connected with the production. collection, manufacture, distribution and marketing of milk and milk products throughout the Dominion of Canada, with power to examine and inquire into all aspects of the said questions and report their findings to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: I desire to lay on the table a
number of orders in council passed pursuant to the relief legislation.



NATIONAL RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved1:
That standing order 63 of the House of Commons, relating to the appointment of select standing committees of the house, be amended by adding to the select standing committees of the house for the present session a select
standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, to which will be referred the accounts and the estimates of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine for the present session, for consideration and report to the house; provided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to curtail in any way the full right of discussion in committee of supply, and that the said committee consist of: Messrs. Beaubien, Bell (St. Antoine), Bothwell, Cantley, Chaplin, Duff, Euler, Fiset, Fraser (Cariboo), Geary, Gobeil, Gray, Hanson (York-Sunbury), Heaps, Kennedy (Peace River), McGibbon, MacMillan (Saskatoon), Manion, Hanbury, Power, Rogers, Stewart (Lethbridge).
Mr. DUFF:: Should	not the Canadian
National Steamships be included in the motion as well as the Canadian Government Merchant Marine?


Mr. MANION:: The Canadian National
Steamships form part of the Canadian National Railways. They come in as part of the railways.


William Duff: I thought they formed a
separate entity.


Robert James Manion: No.


Mr. POULIOT:: I should like to ask the
minister if the legislation now before the Senate will be referred to this committee, or whether it will be sent to the railway committee.


Robert James Manion: It will be referred to the
railway committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: I should like to say
a word of explanation with respect to the question raised by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) the other day concerning the bounty paid fishing vessels during the years 1929, 1930, 1931 and
1932.	Sessional paper 115A which was laid on the table did not give the information for the year 1932, to which my hon. friend objected.
I should like to explain that we have not completed the payments of those bounties for 1932. I am told that these payments will be concluded about March 15, and then I will be pleased to complete the information requested by the hon. gentleman.


William Duff: It is quite possible that the payments have not been made, but the information is in the department. The applications for bounty are supposed to reach the departs ment by the end of November, I believe, and the department has had two and a half
Questions

months in which to obtain complete information. It may be quite true that the money has not been paid, but there is no doubt that the department can furnish the information for which I asked.


Alfred Duranleau: My information is that these payments are never completed before March 15. During January and February we were still receiving applications from these fishing companies, so we must wait until the claims are all in before we can adjust and pay them, since we have only a certain amount appropriated for the payment of these bounties.


Mr. NEILL:: Has the minister considered giving British Columbia and the Pacific coast its share of that fund?


Alfred Duranleau: The money will be divided according to the statute.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Margaret Bor-ham Willson.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine)-
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Clarence Eldon Durham.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Maurice Pash-link Simon, otherwise known as Maurice Simon Pashlinski.-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury).
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Marjorie Elizabeth Rae Dixon.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Joseph Adrien Desmarteau - Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Henry Norman Bethune.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).

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

Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	How many persons, if any, residing in the city of Hull and employed in the Department of Public Works, in any capacity whatever, were dismissed since August 7, 1930?
2.	What are the names of these persons?
3.	Have these employees been replaced?
4.	If so, who replaced them?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Workshop Staff
1.	Owing to reduction of appropriation the workshop staff at Ottawa was reduced March 31, 1932, by 82. The following are the names

of employees from Hull who were retired:- J. Normand, J. Marion, L. Pucard, A. Roy, D. Joanisse, J. Patry, A. Magnon, L. Labelle, W. Meloche, D. Dube, P. Canuel, G. Rochon, J. Lapierre, Z. Baudry. None of these have been replaced.
E. Larocque of the elevator staff was dismissed May 15, 1931, on account of misconduct after repeated warnings. The Civil Service Commission appointed J. St. Amour to replace him.
2 to 4. Answered by No. 1.
Char Service
1.	Five, who did not come under the regulations of the department as they had husbands to support them.
2.	Mrs. Florida Madore, Mrs. Oliva Paquette, Mrs. Valorie Demers, Mrs. V. Fournier, Mrs. Alexina Dupuis.
3.	Yes.
4.	The next five appointees to the char service from Hull were:	Mrs. Domina Hebert,
Mrs. Cordelia Geick, Mrs. Laura Lebrun, Mrs. R. A. Maisonneuve, Mrs. M. Doran.


MONTREAL INCOME TAX DIVISION
Mr. TETREAULT:: 1.	What is the total number of employees on the staff of the income tax division in Montreal?
2.	How many French-Ganadians are employed?
3.	How many employees are seventy years of age and over?
4.	Does the government intend retiring any such employees who are seventy years of age and over in accordance with the established practice in the other departments?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	238.
2.	Information is not available from departmental records.
3.	2.
4.	Matter is under consideration. There is statutory provision for an officer possessing peculiar fitness and efficiency for his position to be retained beyond the age of seventy.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TOTAL WAGES
Mr. COOTE:: What w'as the total amount of wages paid by the Canadian National Railways during each of the years 1920 to 1932, inclusive?


Robert James Manion: The Canadian National Railways as presently operated date from January 1, 1923. From 1923 to 1932, inclusive, the wages paid

Railway Act-Grain Rates
to Canadian National Railways employees have been as follows:
1923		$158,433,081
1924		 149,818,428
1925		 148,216,988
1926		 156,050,525
1927		 163,712,099
1928		 173,264,215
1929		 177,037,682
1930		 159,980,994
1931		 139,784,630
1932		 106,911,608
The foregoing wages include eastern lines, express, telegraphs and the Central Vermont Railway, but do not include hotels or separately operated properties.


PORTSMOUTH PENITENTIARY-PROSECUTION OF CONVICTS
Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Is the government retaining Colonel Keillor McKay to prosecute the convicts who are alleged to have been involved in the recent Kingston penitentiary riots?
2.	If so, when did he commence his duties and who recommended his appointment?
3.	What are the terms of his engagement?
4.	Will the government provide counsel for the prisoners?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	January 2, 1933-The Minister of Justice.
3.	$50 per day and expenses.
4.	No.


FISHERIES REGULATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Does the Acting Minister of Fisheries intend to refer to the committee on fisheries the orders in council that have been passed with regard to the regulations which have been put into force and against which some of us protested the other evening?


Alfred Duranleau: The matter is now
under consideration by the government.


CANADIAN MERCHANT MARINE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: May I ask
the Minister of Marine whether there is any truth in the rumour that three or four vessels of the Canadian merchant marine have been transferred to Japanese interests and that these boats are on their way now to Japan with a cargo of scrap iron and other materials.


Alfred Duranleau: That question should be directed to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion).


Robert James Manion: If I understood the question rightly
it was as to whether certain ships were being sold to Japan by the Canadian National Railways. I do not think that any ships have been sold directly to Japan by the Canadian National Railways. Within the last few years the Canadian National Railways have been selling off a number of ships that were lying at the dock going to pieces and it is quite possible that the Japanese government may have bought some of these vessels from the purchasers; but there has been no direct sale to that government of any of these ships.


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved the second reading of Bill No. 18, to amend the Railway Act (rates on grain).
He said: I may explain that there is quite a little difference between the bill now before the house and that which I introduced last year. In the bill I introduced last year there were three clauses proposing amendments to the Railway Aot, section 320. The first clause was by way of addition to subsection 3, giving power to the Board of Railway Commissioners to consider the question of tolls in the national interest. Section 2 of that bill sought to empower the board to put into existence such tolls as might have the effect of increasing traffic but which might not pay at that time. The third section in last year's bill had as its purpose the putting into effect of the provisions of the Crowsnest Pass agreement with respect to the rates of domestic grain to the province of British Columbia from points east, the same as has been in effect since 1897 and which were later reaffirmed, with some changes, in 1925.
In the bill which I am now introducing, sections 1 and 2 have been deleted and section 3 of last year's bill is now embodied in section 1, the only section in the bill at present before the house. This has been changed somewhat for the reason that when I introduced the bill last year objection was taken by the Minister of Railways and by some other members that if the bill passed the house in that form there was a retroactive clause which might have the effect of causing the railways to make back payments of rates right back to the year 1925. The present bill deletes that feature and asks that in respect of all grain and grain products moving westerly from Fort William and all eastern points into British Columbia particularly, the rates be the
Railway Act-Grain Rates
[Stage Direction]
same as in the case of all grain and grain products moving from points east of Fort William to Fort William, such rates having been enjoyed by the people of the eastern provinces since as far back as 1897, and which were later reaffirmed with some changes in 1925.
I have delayed somewhat putting the bill before the house. Earlier in this session the Minister of Railways had some statement to make; he had been negotiating with the four provinces regarding a suggested change in the domestic rate, and for that reason I did not proceed with the bill until we had some idea of the proposed change. I wish now to deal for a few moments with that suggested change and to indicate why I have decided at this time to go ahead with the bill which is now before the house, asking this government to extend to British Columbia the same rates as those enjoyed by the eastern provinces.
The only definite information that has come to me is that the suggested change as intimated by the Minister of Railways is to be on feed grain only. No other intimation has been given regarding mill feeds or any other commodity in the grain line with the exception of No. 6 mill feed. That information I am also taking from a statement made by the premier of one of the four provinces, namely, British Columbia. He said that the average rate on domestic grains to the Pacific from the prairies was going to be reduced from 41J to 31 cents, but there was a proviso that the reduction of 11-5 cents per hundred pounds would apply to Vancouver. Victoria would have the Vancouver rate plus 3 cents, with slight variations in connection with other points. The net rate to Vancouver would be thirty cents from Calgary and Edmonton instead of forty-one and a half cents from Medicine Hat. Before going into the matter I wish to voice one serious objection to this. It will be necessary for the consignees to surrender to the railway company a certificate from the deputy minister of agriculture to the effect that the grain is actually to be used for domestic purposes.
While we are pleased indeed to obtain any reduction in the rate on feed wheat we still think that this reduction is not even half a loaf, it is only a bite. It is to be granted only in connection with feed wheat No. 6. What about wheat No. 5 or No. 4? Both these wheats are recognized and are at times classified as tough wheat and used in the poultry industry. And what about bran, shorts, flour and the other commodities that are used? As is well known to many hon.

members, including some lawyers of course, the poultryman or the dairy farmer could not carry on business without bran, shorts and middlings, the mill feeds which are a byproduct in the manufacture of flour.
The bill now before the house asks that the Crowsnest pass rates shall apply. The Crows-nest pass rates cover not only wheat and flour but an extensive list of other articles as well. If this bill should pass we in British Columbia would enjoy not only the benefit of a cheap rate on feed wheat, bran and shorts and grains like that, but also on groats, oatmeal, pearl barley, wheat flour and barley sprouts. These commodities are all necessary in the operations of the poultryman, the dairyman and the stock breeder.
I would be very much surprised if the proposal offered by the Minister of Railways satisfied the people of British Columbia. I would be very much surprised if it satisfied the premier of that province. Undoubtedly we are all pleased to get reduction on feed wheat, but I have grave doubts that a reduction of fifty per cent of the export rate on feed wheat alone will please the people of my province, especially those engaged in the poultry, dairying and stock industries. If any reduction was warranted why did they not go the whole way and give us what we are asking for, namely, the same rate on both export and domestic grain? When grain leaves either Edmonton or Calgary for the east it has only one classification but when it goes west it is divided into export and domestic grain. The same train may be carrying wheat for export and wheat for use in British Columbia, but two different rates apply. I was informed the other day that the dairy farmers in Ontario could buy bran and shorts at around S14 per ton while those in British Columbia have to pay $28, just twice as much, and yet Ontario is farther removed from the grain fields than is British Columbia.
As I say, we are pleased at receiving any reduction but the injustice, the hardship and the burden placed upon the people of British Columbia because of the inequality of these rates are so striking and a reduction is so vitally needed that I feel I must press this bill. I know that the cry of sectionalism is sometimes raised, but if there ever was sectionalism it is contained in the acts of parliament concerning the provinces in the east. These provinces have received many more benefits than those granted to the Pacific coast. I sometimes wonder if British Columbia is not thought of by those in the eastern provinces as being peopled only with wild Indians and of course some wild Scotchmen.

Railway Act-Grain Rates
Last year when a similar bill was before the house the Minister of Railways stated that the railways in the United States charged more for taking grain to the Pacific coast than did the railways in Canada. I should like to point out to the minister that the railways in the United States have and use only one classification for grain while the Canadian railways use two from the prairies to Vancouver and charge double for grain for domestic use. This is an injustice which should be righted. The minister should remember also that the railways in the states take the products of the farmer east to New York or other points at a cheaper rate than do the railways in Canada. I could mention many instances, but I shall refer to only one, the shipment of eggs. The rate on eggs from Vancouver to Montreal is $2.50 per hundred pounds while the rate from Seattle to New York, a longer distance, is $255. The farmer in the state of Washington has a further advantage over the poultryman in British Columbia.
I expect that the minister will oppose this bill upon the ground that the railways are in such a deplorable condition and that we should be satisfied to get any reduction. I have one or two questions I should like the minister to answer when he does speak. The first is:	Are we in British Columbia entitled
to the same treatment in freight rates mile for mile, provided the grades are similar, as is given to the rest of Canada? That question I also put to the house. If the minister thinks we are not entitled to the same treatment, he can give me his reasons. There is one undisputed fact which has been reiterated time and again in this house; I do not like to take up the time of the house in repeating it but, like some sermons, it has to be repeated again and again before it will permeate the brains of many hon. members. That is, that the grade from Alberta over the Canadian National railways is undisputedly the easiest and the finest in the whole of Canada. Many people believe, because there is a mountain to be traversed, the grade from Vancouver to Edmonton is very steep. It is not; it is the lowest grade in the whole dominion, and by the way, it cost less to build than did many sections in both the prairies and eastern Canada. Let me ask the minister again: Are we not entitled, mile for mile and grades considered, to the same or as good treatment as that received by the rest of Canada? I maintain that we are and I leave that to the minister to answer.
The grade to Vancouver, as I have pointed out, is one of the best and easiest in Canada.
In 1925 or 1926 the Board of Railway Commissioners rendered a decision saying that Vancouver should have for export the same rate as the Crowsnest pass rate. Strange to say, that has not been carried out, because the rate from Calgary or Edmonton is twenty cents per 100 pounds for a computed distance of 642 miles. That is the distance that is computed, because from Calgary to Vancouver it is 642 miles and from Edmonton a greater distance. From Edmonton or Calgary going east, the distance is far greater, being over 1,200 miles and the rate is only some twenty-six cents. Thus the distance to Fort William is almost double that to Vancouver, but the cost is not double; it is only one-third more. Under such circumstances can we be blamed for being dissatisfied with getting only ten cents off the domestic rate, and that for feed wheat only, and which is still eleven cents higher than the export, the export rate, I might point out, being three or four cents higher than that on grain products going to eastern points? While naturally we are pleased with a reduction, we do not consider it sufficient.
There is another point I would draw to the attention of the minister, and perhaps he will also answer it. Last year more grain for export was shipped through Vancouver than through practically all the other Canadian ports. The quantity shipped through Van- * couver for export was over 104,000,000 bushels, and I would ask the minister: Did the railways haul that at a loss? If they did, what about the grain going east? If they hauled
104.000.	000 bushels going west at a loss, what must the loss have been when they were hauling grain east, because in some parts of Canada they are hauling grain twice the distance for a lower rate? I have under my hand some figures regarding haulage that were given to the house the other day. From Georgian bay ports to Halifax, a distance of 1,208 miles, the rate was only fifteen cents, whereas from Calgary to Vancouver, a distance of 642 miles, the rate is twenty cents. There is no comparison at all.
To go back however, if that quantity of
104.000.	000 bushels going west was hauled at a loss, what must the loss be in hauling grain east? I doubt very much however whether that grain is hauled at a loss. But even if it were, are the people of British. Columbia to be penalized to help make up any losses that may arise in that or any other way? I say that they should not be penalized. But I believe, Mr. Speaker, that grain was not hauled to Vancouver at a loss, and before any hon. member undertakes to say
Railway Act-Grain Rates
[Stage Direction]
that it was, I can tell him that the railways, when they were on the mat and examined and the chief engineers also in sworn evidence before the railway board, said that they had no men in either the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific who could tell just how much it cost to haul a ton of freight or a carload of wheat.
Last year the minister said that the government should not set rates. If there were no precedents for rate setting, that might be all right, but many precedents have been established for the setting of rates. For instance, a more favourable -rate has been set to Churchill-and some say that was to help build up business-but in 1887 a rate was set and later confirmed by this parliament. If it was good business for parliament in its wisdom or otherwise to set a rate to eastern points, surely it could set a rate to British Columbia as well. I need hardly go into the question of the encouragement which would be given to trade by a reduction in freight rates. We all know what the railways require now is more trade and more traffic, but trade has been going down in British Columbia; poultry farmers and dairy farmers there have been going out of business by the dozen owing to the fact that they could not pay the prices of grain in its relation to the cost of egg production. If the grain and grain products ' were transported west cheaper than at present, encouragement would be given to both the dairy and poultry industries, and this would also help the railways. Poultry and dairy farmers have at present enough to put up with without being penalized as they now are. Speaking of British Columbia in comparison with Ontario they are able in that province to procure feed for cattle and poultry at about half or a little more than half the cost of that in British Columbia. If we are to be on an export basis and so have a chance to compete, production costs must and should be reduced substantially. If this were effected, encouragement would be given to the trade and industries of British Columbia, not only poultry, dairying and stock, but others as well. Why should we not have flour mills on the Pacific coast? Why should we not manufacture macaroni and other flour products on the western seaboard instead of having them produced in central Canada or at eastern points. We have wonderful ports on the Pacific coast and the Orient is a market just opening up.
Another point I wish to bring to the attention of the house is this. We have heard members from the maritimes speak about injustices done there and members from Quebec and other provinces talk about injustices done

to them in respect of freight rates, but I want them to take note of this, because I am anxious for their support: If freight rates in Canada were equalized mile for mile, grade for grade, all being put on the same basis, the rates to points in those provinces would be considerably increased and just about double the rate to Vancouver, with its distance of 642 miles and the best grade in the whole of Canada. When I say the best grade, that is not just a mere statement or expression of my own personal view; it has been so stated since the railway transportation bill came before the Senate. Are we in British Columbia to be forever under the domination of the Canadian Pacific, because it is the one company which is preventing us in that province from receiving equal and just treatment as compared with the eastern provinces? If the matter were left to the Canadian National with its low grade, we would have had it satisfactorily settled long ago. That is why I fear the amalgamation, with the domination of the Canadian Pacific. Heaven help us in British Columbia if we do not get a reduction before the proposed amalgamation takes place!
Robert James Manion: What proposed amalgamation?


Thomas Reid: The amalgamation proposed by some hon. senators.
I am not going to go into the extensive history of the Orowsnest pass rate. That has been discussed many times since I first came here as a new member. I shall not weary the house with all the details which have been presented many times. British Columbia, I claim, has justice on its side; it has suffered long. The railways simply set this rate; they say: We will put on as much as the public will stand. But we have stood for this too long in British Columbia and the people are not going to Stand for it much longer because they are leaving the farms gradually. This is the time that encouragement and help should be given not only to stay on the land but also to enable them to compete at least on equal terms with the rest of the provinces.
That is all we are asking. We are not asking for any undue preference or for something which the other provinces have not got. We are not asking for a five cents a bushel bonus on wheat or for the grant of $890,000 to the railway companies of this country, as was done in 1931, to enable them to transport, at a cost of $6.98 a ton, coal that actually cost $13 or $14 to transport. Why should all these things be given to other sections of the country and denied to British Columbia

Railway Act-Grain Rates
when she asks for just and fair treatment in freight rates such as the other provinces have received and enjoy.
In closing, let me say that if amalgamation does take place, we cannot tell what may happen as to freight rates; and so at this particular time, with farming conditions as they are, I ask the house to give its wholehearted support to this bill on behalf of the people of British Columbia so that the people of that province may obtain just the same treatment as the other provinces have received.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I do not
intend to take up much of the time of the house on this question. Unfortunately I did not know that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid) had any intention of moving the second reading of this bill to-day, although the motion has been on the order paper for quite a long time. The fact is, however, that I had drawn to the hon. member's attention, not once, but a number of times, that a temporary arrangement had been made at the interprovincial conference which had been accepted as satisfactory for the time being at any rate by the four western provinces, in view of which I had hoped that the hon. gentleman would be at least patient enough to find out what the terms of that compromise agreement were before he decided to push his bill to a vote.
The hon. gentleman proposes by this bill that this House of Commons shall become a rate-making body. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that while the government is certainly not a rate-making body, the House of Commons, much more emphatically I submit, is not a rate-making body. We have had in this country for a great many years a Board of Railway Commissioners whose business it is to investigate and pass judgment on railway rates that are submitted to them in different portions of the country. That body was appointed for that very purpose, in order to take away from the government and parliament of Canada the need for going into such a technical question as rate-making, with whioh neither the government nor parliament is properly prepared to deal. On that ground alone I submit, without dealing with the merits of the question at all, this bill should not be accepted by the House of Commons.
The compromise agreement to which I have referred was accepted by telegram or letter to me by each of the four western provinces. When the agreement was made during the interprovincial conference there were present two representatives of each of the western
provinces, with the exception of British Columbia, which was represented by its Minister of Finance, Mr. Jones. The representatives of these four provinces expressed themselves as entirely satisfied with that compromise agreement, but its formal acceptance was postponed until the proposal should be submitted in writing to the provinces. That proposal was ultimately put in writing and submitted to the provinces, and I repeat that I have now received from each of the four western provinces their acceptance of that agreement as a satisfactory compromise at the present time. I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this house, whether I am to accept the opinions of the governing body in British Columbia and in the other western provinces, or the word of my hon. friend across the way. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) apparently has arrogated to himself the right to speak for the whole province of British Columbia. He is bringing up many very important questions and has apparently taken the position that his ipse dixit must be the last word on the subject and must be accepted by this government and by parliament and the country generally. Personally I refuse to accept it, and I do not think this house or the country is willing to accept his word as against that of the government in power in British Columbia and of the other governments of the three western provinces.
I should like also in this connection to point out to the hon. gentleman that the House of Commons has not been awaiting his arrival to see champions arise on behalf of British Columbia. I have been in this house seventeen years in the course of which at practically every session I have heard members on both sides of the house, notably my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and other hon. gentlemen from British Columbia on this side of the house and the other, all of them outstandingly able men at least comparable with my hon. friend, and I say that without offence, men who have studied these questions for many years, champion the rights of British Columbia and frequently win recognition from this house and parliament of those rights long before the hon. gentleman ever arrived here.
The hon. gentleman from New Westminster also spoke of No. 4 and No. 5 grades of wheat. It simply illustrates the fact that he should have waited until the terms of the compromise agreement had been settled and tabled in this house before he pressed his bill, because the very grades of wheat which he complains are not in the compromise agreement happen to be in that agreement. One of the repre-
Railway Act-Grain Rates

sentatives of the western provinces, it matters not which, telegraphed to me accepting the agreement as proposed during the interprovincial conference, but pointed out that grades No. 4 and No. 5 of wheat and some higher grades of barley should also be included in the agreement because, he said, the grades already provided for in the agreement were not sufficient to cover the grades of feed grain at the present time. I immediately took the matter up with the railway companies, and within twenty-four hours those grades were included in the agreement as proposed by a minister of one of the four western provinces. I merely mention that to show that the hon. gentleman might well have exercised patience until he knew the terms of the compromise agreement before pressing his bill to a vote in this house, because in view of the principle which his bill challenges, and in view of the further fact that he does not understand the compromise agreement, his bill could not possibly be accepted at the present time.
I might also point out to him that the arrangement which has been made is not am arrangement that forever closes the door to British Columbia or any other western province, or any of the eastern provinces for that matter. It does not preclude any of them from appealing to the Board of Railway Commissioners or to the railways for further concessions in rates. There is nothing in the agreement which will in any way prejudice the rights of British Columbia, or Manitoba, or Saskatchewan or Alberta, or any of the eastern provinces, in going before the Board of Railway Commissioners and, as a last resort, appealing from the board to the government af Canada, with representations as to any Dther section of the whole rate structure. So I say, without meaning any offence, that the hon. gentleman's impatience is carrying him along a little too rapidly. We have -heard the expression, an old man in a hurry, but I am afraid that my hon. friend is a young man in a hurry, and he might well stall his hurry just a little until he knows what has been done by his predecessors in this house and by the government of the day.
My hon. friend has asked me a number of questions in regard to rates. I do not intend to deal with the intricacies of the rate structure at the present time. Had he let me know the questions he was going to ask I should have come prepared with answers. Some of them I shall not attempt to answer here, because I do not choose to deal with the intricate question of rates. There is one rate, however, which he quoted, which I shall mention. He gave the rates on grain from Edmonton and Calgary to the head of the lakes, as

compared with the rates from Edmonton and Calgary to Vancouver. I should like to point out to him what should be recognized by all members, and from western Canada particularly, that these two rates are on two entirely different and distinct bases inasmuch as the head of the lakes is an internal port and Van-vouver is an ocean port. Once grain gets to the head of the lakes it has still a thousand miles further to travel to Montreal in the summer or to the maritime ports in winter before it is on the same basis as grain arriving at the port of Vancouver. The fact that the exports of wheat from Vancouver during the last two or three years have been rapidly gaining as compared with the exports from Montreal shows that Vancouver and British Columbia are not being too badly treated, or they would not be making these immense gains, upon which I heartily congratulate them.
I do not wish to delay the. house, Mr. Speaker. In view of the points I have indicated, I must say on behalf of the government that this bill cannot be accepted at this time, at any rate.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, it is always considered ungracious to look a gift horse in the mouth. I do not wish to be put into that position. If it was the minister who negotiated this agreement, I wish to give him full credit for what he has done. Sometimes however we must ask ourselves whether or not the gift horse is, in fact, a gift horse, or is but a very meagre measure of justice for which we have been waiting too long. If that be the case we might ask the question:	Why give us half a measure of
justice? Why not give it all to us? It is all very well for the minister to say that the matter can be reopened. I picture to myself any hon. member bringing up this subject next year. On such an occasion what would be the reply? We would hear the statement, "This was settled by agreement last year, and it is quite out of place to bring it up a second time."	_ _
Quite properly and accurately the minister has stated that among British Columbia members for many years this has been a subject of agitation. My own association with it goes back to 1923, and on many occasions since that time I have spoken in the house concerning it. Instead of seeking to belittle the efforts of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) by stating that the hon. member should be sitting in his seat waiting for older members to take action, I suggest that as in a political sense he is youthful, his enthusiasm and vigour are to his credit. We have rather to thank him for bringing the

Railway Act-Grain Rates
matter to the point where it has to be dealt with by the government. For that reason I believe he is entitled to credit. Another factor which I believe did a great deal towards persuading the railways to make the agreement, was that they realized that great basic truth of all railway rates, that you cannot charge more than the traffic will bear. That is what railways have been doing for years past. The records show that the number of carloads of eggs-and you can put a whale of a lot of eggs in a car-shipped out of British Columbia in 1920 was 389, and in 1931 only 221. That is a reduction of over 40 per cent, a 40 per cent drop. That means that there are 40 per cent less cars for the railway companies to handle, and 40 per cent less opportunity to take our lumber on the return trip. We people in British Columbia have lumber we are anxious to sell. The railways say they cannot take it at a cheap rate because they have no empty cars and no return traffic. Here is a chance to get some return traffic, and an opportunity for us to sell our cheap lumber to prairie points where it is needed, places where the people can afford to buy only cheap lumber.
As I have said, if it is right that we should have a reduction, now is the time to have it. So far as I can see it is a case of now or never. The minister has stated that the premier and government of British Columbia have approved the agreement. He asks who gave the hon. member for New Westminster the right or authority to differ from the government of British Columbia. I will change that question, and ask:	Who gave the government of British Columbia authority to agree to it? Let us go back to the country in British Columbia, and learn the views of the people. The government has to go there very soon, anyway. They are teetering on the edge of a landslide right now. When they go back to the people perhaps we will learn who gave them authority to sign away our rights in this matter. We hear talk about bringing the matter up at another session. How can we do that, when the government of British Columbia has stated the agreement is all right, and has placed its imprimatur on it?


Robert James Manion: I tried to make it clear
that there will be nothing in the agreement arrived at by the government which will interfere with British Columbia or any other part of the country bringing up any other portion of the appeal, with the exception of the rates on feed grain, at any other time. In fact, may I state that this very morning I took the matter up with the chairman of the 53719-152
Board of Railway Commissioners to make sure that in our decision we would do nothing in any way to prejudice the province of British Columbia.	[DOT]


Alan Webster Neill: I am perfectly aware that
there is no finality in the matter. Certainly it is open to us to bring the matter up another year. I was directing my remarks however to the mental or moral aspect of the situation. How would it be received? We would hear something like this, " The government agreed to it last year; here the British Columbia members are whining about it again; don't pay any attention." That would be the attitude. I do not say there would be any legal prohibition against us doing so; I am perfectly aware that there would not.
Now I approach the real crux of the situation, and that part of the subject which brought me to my feet. I rather think the bill might not have been pressed had we known what the deal is. We are getting a pig in a poke. We have never seen the pig, and have had but a very faint glimpse of the poke. What is the deal? The minister states that the hon. member for New Westminster is in too great a hurry,, and that he should have waited until he learned about the deal. Yes, but why do we not know what the deal is? We want to know.


Robert James Manion: Until the deal is closed
the hon. member cannot possibly know. The matter has to be closed before it is an agreement.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister told us yesterday or the day before that all the provinces had agreed.


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: And that all that had to be done was to take steps to put it into effect. If he had stated what the agreement was, and had given us that information yesterday, so far as I am concerned, I might not be pressing the matter at this time because, at least, we would have known what it is. However we are asked to give up an opportunity to secure the whole loaf, and in return to get something about which we know nothing. The minister said that the hon. member for New Westminster talked about grades four and five, but that those grades had been included. However we do not know that.


Robert James Manion: The bill could have waited until later.


Alan Webster Neill: There is such a thing as
waiting too long.

Railway Act-Grain Rates


Robert James Manion: The session is not yet
over.


Alan Webster Neill: This is probably the last
time the bill will come before the house. If we went back to British Columbia and stated, " We got something, we do not know what, but will be told later; in the meantime we let the chance slip by to bring before the house the bill, which would have finally settled the matter"-I do not believe we would receive many thanks. I have not heard the minister say a word about milled products. Are they contained in the arrangement? They certainly ought to be. He has made reference to grades numbers four, five and six, of wheat and to barley, but he must not ignore the dairy industry which, in the province of British Columbia is very important. Taking the dairy and poultry industry together I would make the rough guess that they use more bran, shorts, middlings and ground barley than they do wheat. I have been in the feed business, and I know that in the poultry business they use more wheat than they do bran and shorts, although they use large quantities of the latter. Taking the two industries together I am safe in saying that the demand for bran, shorts, middlings and ground barley is much greater than it is for whole grains. If we omit milled feeds from the agreement the dairy industry will say we have betrayed them.
If we were informed as to the arrangement, certainly it would influence my mind as to whether I would be content. But we do not know. Then, is the bill unjust? If it is unjust, let us condemn it; let us reject it. But the minister has not said that. He has simply said, "We have not a precedent; we are not a rate making body." We have a precedent, because the bill alludes to the Crowsnest agreement which, even within my knowledge, was amended once, if not twice, in this house. So far as I can read the bill, we are only asking to be put on the same level as other people.


Mr. McGIBBON:: That principle was
absolutely wrong.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member says the
principle was wrong. Well, if it was wrong, let us have two wrongs and see if it will make a right. At any rate, we want to be on the same level of wrongness or iniquity, if it may be so termed, as our fellow members. Why should we be singled out. If the railways got an unfair deal in the Crowsnest agreement, let them move to change it. Meantime we are entitled to be treated as the other provinces are treated. It may seem ungracious not to

accept the very sincere efforts, made by the minister, but when you think that you can land wheat in Great Britain for not a little but a good deal less than you can land it in British Columbia for domestic use it does seem that some bill such as this is needed. And remember; the wheat taken to Great Britain is No. 1 wheat, or at least wheat of milling quality, of a value at least one-third greater than that of the cheaper grades used for poultry. We cannot deliver that low grade wheat in British Columbia even at this moment without paying substantially more than it costs to ship wheat to England.
I cannot see why the minister should not allow this bill to go through. As I said before, at least we were entitled to be fully advised as to the nature and extent of this agreement before being asked to withdraw or postpone consideration of this bill. It is not too late yet; I think the house would grant the minister the opportunity of telling us what is contained in this agreement. Does it cover mill feeds or does it not? What grades of barley does it include? Does it include C.W. oats, for instance? These are matters of vital importance. It is no use waiting until we find by bitter experience that the agreement is not what we thought it was; we should know what it is now, and until I do know certainly I will vote for the bill.


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


Mr. GOLDING:: I was paired with the
hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Sproule). Had I voted I would have voted for the bill.


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


Mr. LUCAS:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Weese). Had I voted I would have voted for the bill.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford). 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. DUPRE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Joliette. (Mr. Ferland). Had I voted I would have voted against the bill.


Peter McGibbon: I was paired with the
hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted I would have voted against the bill.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted I would have voted against the bill.
2390	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawjul Associations


Mr. THOMPSON (Simcoe):: I was paired with the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Jean). Had I voted I would have voted against the bill.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). Had I voted I would have voted against the bill.


Mr. BELL (St. John-Albert):: I was paired with the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Dubois). Had I voted I would have voted against the bill.


Mr. PETTIT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had 1^ voted I would have voted against the bill.


Mr. BERTRAND (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted for the bill.
Mr. PERRA-S (Translation): I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted I would have voted for the bill.


Mr. LARUE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for VaudreuiUSoulanges (Mr. Thauvette). Had I voted I would have voted against the bill.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from February 22, 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.
Mr. ALFRED SPEARMAN (Red Deer):: Before the vote is taken I desire to state very briefly why I propose to vote for the motion and for the repeal of section 98 of the criminal code. In spite of what has been said by some hon. members in this house, I feel it is hardly necessary for me to say that I am in no way connected with Moscow or with the third international, and that I am not an emissary of the Soviet government. I think it is unnecessary because the majority of members in this house and the majority of the people of this country are prepared to extend to others the right of an honest and impartial opinion upon the various matters that come before this parliament, and to believe that other people express their own views as impartially and as honestly as are stated the views expressed by those who might criticize them.
It is true that I have not been twelve j'ears in this house without knowing that there are to be found everywhere, although not in

very large numbers, people who find it impossible to believe that those who differ from them on any matter can be actuated by any but foolish or sinister motives, and it is true that I have been accused of many things during those twelve years. For example, I have been accused, if you care to put it that way, of being pro-Liberal in the years I have endeavoured to cooperate with a Liberal administration and it has been asserted that I have Conservative leanings when I attempt to cooperate with the Conservative party in power; I have also been said to be radical when I have ventured to disagree with both of these parties and have suggested that there might be fundamental changes in a constitutional way to the advantage of all. It has been suggested at times that I might even be a clog on the wheel of progress. Notwithstanding all that however no one has so far accused me of being communist or anarchist, nor has it been said that I have advocated violence, bloodshed or unconstitutional methods in the obtaining of any end in this country, or that I have had any sympathy with those who do advocate such methods.
My reasons for opposing section 98 may briefly be summarized under three heads: That it is unsound in principle; that it is ineffective in its application; and that it is unnecessary for its purpose. As to its being unsound in principle, I have heard it suggested by speakers in this house, and particularly by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), that it has the semblance more of a czarist form of legislation than British. I agree with him. Indeed, I would go further; it savour's, in my opinion, more of a soviet than of a British form of legislation. In a word, it is the type of legislation that has been passed from time immemorial by governments who were not imbued to the full with that great British ideal of constitutional freedom and of freedom of speech. As a matter of fact, traces of that are seen throughout history. You will note that history records that in every civilized country at least there have been -revolutions of one sort or another during the past centuries, but it remained for Great Britain to accomplish a revolution with the minimum of bloodshed and the minimum of disorder; while those countries that had the most repressive legislation, so far as speech was concerned, were the countries where changes were carried out and put into effect with the maximum of disorder, the maximum of bloodshed and the maximum of human suffering.
There is a principle involved. It is true I cannot boa^i that I am Canadian bom; I am British bom and have spent almost the

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
whole of my lifetime in western Canada. And I have in my blood and in my instincts a reverence for British institutions, for constitutional freedom and for that orderly liberty which has been the greatest contribution made by the British people to the progress of this world; and nowhere do I find in British history, of late years at least, any legislation of this character. They have found by long experience that when error is mooted abroad, that when ideas that are foolish and destructive are discussed in the open light of day they are then branded and understood as the foolish and unnecessary proceedings which they are. Because of this, I oppose section 98.
Looking back over the past years I remember the discussions in the house and the votes cast time after time. The motion to repeal section 98 was carried by this house more than once either with a large majority on division or without opposition, but I am told that since that time great changes have occurred, that communism has become a menace and that poisonous doctrines have been spread throughout the land. What does this prove? It proves the absolute inadequacy of section 98 to repress the spread of opinions of any kind. Be if remembered that this development which has been referred to, this spreading of poisonous doctrines has taken place while the provisions of section 98 have been in full effect. It is quite obvious that this section has proved ineffective in preventing the spread of these doctrines. It might be said and it has been said: What would have happened had we not had section 98? That is an assumption and in answering it I will follow the position taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). He has denied the application of a hypothetical argument, he has stated that the mere assumption of what would be if something else had happened is no argument at all. I decline to accept this as an argument and in that respect I place myself beside the Prime Minister.
This section is unnecessary. In every part of the British commonwealth except in our own there are criminal laws which do not include a section such as we find here. In Great Britain and other parts of the empire the ordinary criminal code has proved itself wholly adequate to deal with any real menace to the public peace. I am not prepared to enter into any legal arguments as I know that you can obtain varying and conflicting legal opinions upon every piece of legislation, I intend to apply my own common sense, my own feeling of what is right and what is logical in considering the arguments which have been advanced. I find that the ordinary
sections of the criminal code dealing with sedition and the breaking of the peace are such as would effectively meet and effectively punish any attack upon public order or any utterances of a seditious character. Because I believe that the greatest contributions made by the British race to the progress of humanity has been that concept of freedom, of constitutional progress and of orderly reform, I disbelieve in a section which, to my mind, contradicts those great principles.
What is the greatest strength and the greatest beauty of the British constitution? It lies in its elasticity, in the fact that under that constitution the greatest improvements and fundamental changes in our customs, in our political systems and in our economic systems can be carried out legally, peacefully and beneficially. They can be carried out only when everyone is able to advance those doctrines, those suggestions and those ideas which he or she thinks may be beneficial, leaving it to the common sense of the average man and woman to judge of their worth. I have sufficient confidence in the people of Canada to believe that given a clear picture and given a clear statement of the views and ideals of communism as opposed to orderly and constitutional progress, the ideals of communism will be buried so deep that they will never be resurrected. I believe that the people of Canada will follow that orderly and constitutional path to a better, a sounder and happier system than we have at this time.


Mr. F. R. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take up the time of the house only for a moment or two. I have listened very patiently to the arguments brought forward in favour of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I was mayor of the city of Saskatoon in 1919 during the great Winnipeg strike. I was surprised at some of the statements made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in an effort to disabuse the minds of the people of the belief that he is in favour of the use of force. I should like to read an extract from The Canadian Annual Review of 1919, at page 476, as follows:
-on July 11 J. S. Woodsworth was reported as saying (Globe dispatch) that F. J. Dixon should be at Ottawa "because the federal authorities control the military and the courts, and labour is not going to get what it wants until it in some way gets control of the military and the courts";
That is how the hon. member is quoted by the Canadian Annual Review. I well recall what took place in my own city during that trying time. If hon. members will cast their
2392	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
memories back they will remember that that was the time the soldiers were returning from overseas and being demobilized. The minds of the people were a bit upset just as they are to-day and I believe that hon. members in the far corner of the house are simply capitalizing the people's adversity.
At that time there were no mails or telegraphs, the people were all out on strike largely because of the agitation and propaganda carried on by the O.B.U., and I might state that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was one of the editorial writers on the Labour News at Winnipeg.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: My connection with The Labour News was in the fifth week of the strike, I had nothing to do with the agitation during the earlier period.


Frank Roland MacMillan: I will refer to that
a little later.


Mr. IRVINE:: What has all this got to
do with the bill?


Frank Roland MacMillan: It has everything to
do with the bill. We do not intend to find ourselves in the position where we will have a lot of propaganda artists like you fellows going up and down the country disturbing the people's minds.
Before I was interrupted I was about to recite our experiences in. the city of Saskatoon during that strike brought about as a result of this propaganda.


Miss MACPHAIL:: What about the 1930
propaganda?


Frank Roland MacMillan: The hon. member can answer that, she knows all about it. I am not in the habit, of interrupting in the house and I would ask my hon. friends to possess themselves in patience.
I was about to say that the different organizations in my city took a strike vote. My people had no quarrel with our city; their wage schedules had all been settled. This was purely a sympathetic strike and was known as such. The popular phrase then was " collective bargaining." The various operators in the different city utilities had informed us that they were going out on strike the next morning, so I said to our commissioner that I thought it was our duty to call on those men at the change of shifts and just impress upon them the seriousness of the step they were taking. That we did. Might I say, however, at a council meeting prior to that, a suggestion was made that we should send labour representatives and alder-

men as a delegation to Winnipeg to inquire into strike conditions there and report back. The first place we went to was our electrical works and some man among the number present asked whether a suggestion of that kind had been made. Let me say at this point that among the employing class you will find hotheaded people just as you will find them in every other class. We told this gentleman that the suggestion had been made. We told him further that if they would appoint delegates, we would see that a delegation left for Winnipeg in the morning. The next morning these different labour organizations, having appointed their delegates, came to the council, and the delegation left our city for Winnipeg at noon that day. We arrived in that city and for all practical purposes the place was simply upside down, wagons going up and down the streets carrying great cards "By permission of the central strike committee." The authority of the city was in the hands of the so-called One Big Union soviet in which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre took a leading part.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I say that
that is absolutely erroneous and I ask that it be withdrawn.


Frank Roland MacMillan: It was my hon. friend's agitation throughout western Canada, coupled with that of others, which brought about the condition in Winnipeg to which I have just referred.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That statement is
untrue, and I ask that it be withdrawn.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: In the first
place the language used by the hon. member is not parliamentary, but in any case he must rise on a point of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I rise on a point
of order. I say that the statement made is not true and I ask that it be withdrawn.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is not
a point of order.


Frank Roland MacMillan: If my hon. friend
objects to the words I have used, I shall afford myself the opportunity of withdrawing them, but I shall read again from the Canadian Annual Review of 1919:
The Winnipeg Strike: The O.B.U. Defeated
This struggle was not an ordinary labour fight for better wages or improved conditions; it was a deliberate effort by an extremist element in the labour ranks to acquire control of labour organizations and capture the government of Winnipeg by means of a general strike, or series of sympathetic strikes, which would compel, by absolute force, the surrender

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
of the city into their hands and set loose elements which, it was hoped, would do the same thing elsewhere and, eventually, overthrow the existing system of national government.
Then I shall read from page 462 of the same review.


William Irvine: From whom is the hon. gentleman quoting


Frank Roland MacMillan: If my hon. friend
would just listen instead of interrupting, I think he could follow me all right; I believe I am speaking fairly loudly.


William Irvine: I want to know from whom the hon. member is quoting.


Frank Roland MacMillan: At page 462 of the
Canadian Annual Review, I find the statement continues:
.The Winnipeg strike was to be preliminary to the general strike proposed by the Calgary convention for June 1st, but afterwards postponed to July 1st; any others which could be arranged would be so much the more helpful, the dominant figure in the metal trades and council at this time was R. B. Russell whom the^ Winnipeg Free Press described (June 13) as an open, avowed and blatant revolutionist."
I was speaking of my experience as mayor of the city of Saskatoon and that of the delegation that we took to Winnipeg to look into the whole affair. We were anxious that our men should not go out on strike; that they should stay at work. As I said, they had no quarrel with our city. We went to Winnipeg. One or two of those labour men were, I may say, extremists; they arranged for us a meeting with the central strike committee and we finally reached the labour temple where that committee was holding forth. After going through a swirling mass of men, not knowing what they were talking about, because it was utterly impossible to understand the language spoken, we eventually came to the entrance of this great labour temple where the central strike committee were carrying on their work. We had the greatest difficulty in elbowing our way into the hall, but finally we got to the door of the sanctum sanctorum. There was a big fellow standing outside inquiring who everyone was that came up through the corridor. They opend the door about two inches and a big bruiser inside peeked through and inquired who was there. Eventually, when they were told who we were, they let us in. Here we found the friend of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-Mr. Pritchard. I forget whether Mr. Ivens was there or not, but I could name the whole box and dice of them. Here they were, with their coats, vests and even collars off, and some of them with their shirts off, with telephones jangling. They
were carrying on like crazy men who did not know what it was all about. We could not get very much information there because these men were not in any frame of mind to discuss anything.
We went from there to the citizens' committee which was an organization of ordinary citizens of Winnipeg who had banded together for the purpose of protecting themselves. Let it be remembered that there was no fire protection in that city at that time and I do not think there was any police protection either; the men were all called out on a sympathetic strike. We met at the citizens' committee old gentlemen who had retired from business for fifteen years. There these gentlemen were, with aprons on, serving meals to the fire brigade, police force and every other department composed of volunteers from all over the city. From there we went to the city hospital where we met the superintendent. We were told that the central strike committee had advised him that they were calling out the next morning all the union men connected with the hospital. If they had done that, no electric appliances could have been used in the hospital; there would have been no heat and none of the great services, such as elevator and the like, for an institution of that kind. The superintendent advised us that he had to go down himself to the central strike committee's office, get on his knees and beg of those people not to call out these men on strike, because if they did much suffering and even death would result to those who were sick and unable to take care of themselves.
We went over to the Winnipeg Free Press, with whose statements my hon. friends opposite will agree. There we were met by Mr. Macklin who, I believe, is and has been for many years manager of that great paper. When we arrived at the newspaper office we found it guarded by twelve men walking around outside with guns, picked men in the employ of the Winnipeg Free Press. We finally got our card in and Mr. Macklin had to come all the way down to the door to be sure it was not somebody coming in to blow up the building. However, we eventually got into Mr. Macklin's office, and there he told us that three days before three of his own employees had come down to his office and told him that they were going to take charge of the plant the next day. "Well," he said, "what are you going to do with me?" "Oh well," they said, "we will use you just as long as it takes to build up another man and educate him to the point in the operation of this business that you have reached now, and then you can go." "Well," he said, "aren't
2394	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
you going to consider at all the capital investment in this business? Aren't you going to give us anything at all for that?" "No," they said, "We are not going to do that at all. Out you go."	_
Now, Mr. (Speaker, what I am getting at is this. That was in 1919, when I understand that this section of the criminal code was made law, and if it was required then, it is required twenty times more to-day having regard to the activities of some of my friends-


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Your
friends, I should say so.


Frank Roland MacMillan: -in the corner to your left, Mr. Speaker. I am going to quote again from the Canadian Annual Review of 1919, at page 475:
In the Commons Sir R. Borden on June 20 stated that the men were arrested under the criminal law of the country, upon the charge that they had engaged in a seditious conspiracy, and they were placed under detention upon that charge.	_
In Calgary on the same day W. A. Pritchard of Vancouver was arrested on the same charge as the others. In Winnipeg on the twenty-third another O.B.U. leader, J. S. Woodsworth of Vancouver, a one-time Methodist minister who had taken Ivens' place on the Western Labour News, was also arrested and the journal itself suspended.
I think that confirms, Mr. Speaker, the statement I made a little while ago to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre objected. Again quoting the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg North Centre:
J. S. Woodsworth spoke at Calgary, on October 29, and declared that: "Although the British flag flies over this country, most of it is owned by Wall street financiers."


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If hon. members want to put a question, they must ask the permission of the speaker who has the floor.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would like to
know from what source the hon. gentleman is quoting.


Frank Roland MacMillan: Each time that I have quoted from this Review I have named it. It is the Canadian Annual Review for 1919. I think my hon. friend should recognize it by its colour. I wish to quote again from the same book, the Canadian Annual Review for 1919:
In Montreal on the same date J. S. Woodsworth denounced the verdict and sentence and described tihe O.B.U. as merely an industrial organization; stated that "the one compensation for being in gaol was that one acquired the trust of the labouring people."

I want to disagree with that statement right here. It is a reflection on the labouring people of this country. I have employed hundreds of them during the greater part of my life, and there is not a man in this house who can ever say or who will say that I have ever been unfair to the labouring men. When my hon. friend utters words like that, I say it is a reflection on the good Canadian working people of this country.
In closing, I just wish to state what the delegation which I had the honour of accompanying to Winnipeg from the city of Saskatoon said when they got home and reported1 to our council and the citizens generally. The labour men put the final clause into the resolution, and these labour men, as I told the house a moment ago, were, some of them, distinctly red, if you want to use the word, when they left Saskatoon, but when they came back, after seeing what they saw and hearing what they heard in the city of Winnipeg, they put into our resolution a clause to this effect:	They said that the
Winnipeg strike was nothing more and nothing less than an attempt at the overthrow of constituted authority and the establishment of a soviet government.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT:	Mr. Speaker, the first thing we have to do in this matter is to read the criminal code which, before section 98 was passed, contained provisions regarding rioting and sedition. Unfortunately the criminal code has been very badly drafted and a lot of definitions are missing. H the house will allow me I shall quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica a definition of the word "sedition":
Sedition, in law, an attempt to disturb the tranquility of the state. In English law it is a very elastic term, including offences ranging from libel to treason. It is rarely used except in its adjectival form, e.g., seditious libel, seditious meeting or seditious conspiracy. Sedition is a common law indictable misdemeanour, and embraces everything whether by word, deed or writing which is calculated to disturb the tranquility of the state, and lead ignorant persons to endeavour to subvert the government and laws of the empire.
That is the spirit of the law, and it is in that sense that it has been interpreted by all the courts of the country. Section 98 was probably inspired by the fear which the Union government had of the present member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). We have heard so much about him from the previous speaker (Mr. MacMillan) that I might be allowed to say a few words about him, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that if the hon. member for Winnipeg North

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
Centre had been treated more fairly by the Union government during and after the war, he would not despise some laws as he does now and confound abuses of the law with the law itself.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I rise to a point
of order, Mr. Speaker. Although the hon. member may be defending me for the moment, I think he has inadvertently suggested that I am guilty of something of which I am not guilty. I am not confounding any abuses with the law itself nor am I disregarding the law at all in my amendment.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think it is
not a question of order but a question of privilege, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is entitled to make his statement. I do not think the hon. member for Temiscouata is allowed to impute motives to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have never imputed
motives to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Speaker. I have much respect for him, as much respect, in fact, as I have for the Prime Minister himself. Both are respectable citizens and law-abiding people, and both can be put in the same category as good members of parliament. I do not see why anyone should impute motives to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We may differ from him at times.


Mr. COY  AN@Long Lake: The hon member-


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, is it the loon from
Long Lake? Mr. Chairman, the loon from Long Lake has answered.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member must be aware that the expression he is using is not parliamentary. Further, he must bear in mind that the House of Commons is a gentlemen's club.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was speaking of birds.
As I have been interrupted I shall have to begin the sentence again.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think the
hon. member should withdraw, because his language was not parliamentary and should not be used in the House of Commons.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will withdraw, and say
that the hon. member for Long Lake is not any more an angel than a bird, because he has no wings. Now, beginning my sentence for the third time, may I repeat that I was not imputing any motives to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because I respect him. I was trying to explain to the house
the way I understood his views in the matter, and if I have been mistaken I must be pardoned. I have endeavoured to tell the house my personal views concerning the whole matter.
Let us now go back to past history. Hon. members who live in the province of Quebec cannot have forgotten what has been done by Tinoir Desjardins when another gentleman was Minister of Justice under the Union government. I do not place the blame upon the present Minister of Justice, but upon one of his predecessors. Hon. members must recall that the man Tinoir Desjardins was paid by the Department of Justice for a conspiracy against French-Canadians during and after the war, and that that same man was paid by the Department of Justice to blow up the house of Lord Atholstan in Cartierville. That is what the Union government did. Those people because they were afraid of the retaliation passed the legislation. Why? Was it directed against the hon. gentleman who is now member for Winnipeg North Centre? Was it directed towards any one who is now a member of this House of Commons? It was directed towards any one who at that time was frightening them. They were acting through fear; fear was their inspiration. Would that be a good way to deal with communists?
No one should be crushed under the iron heel of ruthlessness. The Prime Minister should wear moccasins; if he wore moccasins instead of an iron heel I would not be afraid of the way he would deal with that legislation. However, I am strongly against the iron heel of ruthlessness. There was enough legislation in the criminal code, before the enactment of the legislation now in question, to see to it that order be maintained in Canada. You, Mr. Speaker, are a lawyer, and you know the criminal code as well as any lawyer knows it. You know the meaning of seditious conspiracy. You know that in accordance with section 133 of Chapter 36-the Criminal Code -seditious conspiracy is " an agreement between two or more persons to carry into execution a seditious intention." Seditious intention has several times been defined by the courts. Every hon. member familiar with the law knows the meaning of the term. It is not necessary for him to be a king's counsel; any justice of the peace knows it. They know the interpretation which has been given by Canadian courts.
What is the punishment for sedition? Section 134 states:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than twenty years who speaks any seditious -words or publishes any seditious libel or is a party to -any seditious conspiracy.
2396	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
Then, section 135 states:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment who, without lawful justification, publishes any libel tending to degrade, revile or expose to hatred and contempt in the estimation of the people of any foreign state, any prince or person exercising sovereign authority over such a state.
Then, section 136:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment who wilfully and knowingly publishes any false news or tale whereby injury or mischief is or is likely to be occasioned to any public interest.
Then, turning to section 131 we find the following:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to seven year's imprisonment who-
(a) administers or is present at and consenting to the administration of an oath or engagement purporting to bind the person taking the same-
(i)	to engage in any mutinous or seditious purpose;
(ii)	to disturb the public peace or commit or endeavour to commit any offence;
(iii)	not to inform and give evidence against any associate, confederate or other person;
(iv)	not to reveal or discover any unlawful combination or confederacy, or any illegal act done or to be done, or any illegal oath or obligation or engagement which may have been administered or tendered to or taken by any person, or the import of any such oath or obligation or engagement;
And so on. That is sedition. The act states seditious conspiracy can be an agreement between two or more persons. Now let us see about unlawful assemblies and riots. In subsection one of section 87 there is a definition of the term "unlawful assemblies." It is as ollows:
An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of such an assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that the persons so assembled will disturb the peace tumultuously, or will by such assembly needlessly and without any reasonable occasion provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.
It is not necessary that an assembly of three or more persons cause any tumult. All that is required is that people in the neighbourhood should have reasonable ground to complain that they fear certain persons will disturb the peace tumultuously. It is not necessary that there be any disturbance; fear of disturbance is all that is contemplated in the subsection. Subseotion 2 of section 87 provides:
Persons lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose in such a manner as would have made their assembling unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.
[Mr. Pouliot.l
There was enough protection in the criminal code as it was before section 98 was adopted, to maintain peace and order in the country, and I say section 98 is entirely unnecessary. The House of Commons more than once has voted for its repeal. I have nothing to complain about with regard to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I do not support him very often, but here is a case where the drastic and useless legislation of 1919 is supported in this house by extracts read from the Canadian Annual Review having to do with speeches delivered at one time by the hon. member. The hon. gentleman moved the bill, as he had a right to do. I was rather surprised that the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan), who imputed motives to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre just as much as I did, was not called to order.
As a Canadian citizen who has nothing to do with the C.C.F., I am against any abuse of authority. I am free; I enjoy my freedom, and I want it to be untouched. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say that this legislation will be used only against the C.C.F. or against the communists, but it is not in the law. Even before this provision was ineluded in the criminal code, the government of the day took advantage of the more ancient provisions of the law to abuse the people of my blood and race in my province by paying with public money a man who was hired to cause trouble, in order to cast a slur upon the whole French Canadian race. That was done by the Union government. I am not making a racial appeal now, but as a French Canadian I resented that action very much, and I know very well that if we had the same officials on duty to-day the same thing could happen again.
I will not discuss the matter further, Mr. Speaker, but before taking my seat let me repeat that we have enough legislation without section 98 to maintain social order in this country. That section is superfluous, and it may give to someone an opportunity to strike the spark which may lead to a huge conflagration in this country. I am against the use of force; I believe in reasoning things out. I am not impressed by loud speaking; any body of men meeting together can be reasoned with as man to man. It is not necessary to use force against anyone in this country, and for these reasons I support the bill.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I
had not intended to take part in this debate, but some remarks made by the Solicitor Gen-

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
eral (Mr. Dupre) the other evening render it necessary that at least I should emphatically deny the statements he made at that time. May I say that I agree with the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in all that he said as to his reasons for supporting the original motion and for opposing the amendment moved by my hon. friend who is at the moment leading the house (Mr. Guthrie). I will not, therefore, go into the question of why we of the Liberal party are supporting Bill No. 24, to amend the criminal code; the arguments have been made amply clear in the course of the debate. I do wish, however, most emphatically to deny what has been, not merely alleged, but actually stated as a matter of fact by the Solicitor General. I shall read that part of Hansard which contains the remarks to which I refer, so that I may reply to them in due order. I have in my hand Hansard for February 21, and I shall read from the remarks of the Solicitor General as reported at page 2334:
Section 98 was inserted in 1919 and up to 1926 there was no move on the part of my hon. friends, who were then in power, towards the repeal of that provision. Then came the elections of 1925 and both parties were returned with almost equal strength. Then followed the famous letter written by my hon. friends of the Labour party, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and the hon. member for Vancouver asking the then Prime Minister the price to be paid if he wanted the support of the two members.
Mr. Woodsworth:	May I say that there is
no member in this corner from Vancouver, and further that no letter such as described by the minister was signed by me. I ask that that statement be withdrawn.
Mr. Dupre:	Instead of withdrawing, I will
read the letter. It is quoted in Hansard of January 29. 1926, and reads:
Dear Mr. King:
As representatives of labour in the House of Commons, may we ask whether it is your intention to introduce at this session legislation with regard to-[DOT]
(a)	Provision for the unemployed;
(b)	Old age pensions.
We are venturing to send a similar inquiry to the leader of the opposition.
Yours sincerely,
J. S. Woodsworth,
A. A. Heaps.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre then went on to say-
Mr. Casgrain:	What about the letter?
Mr. Dupre:	He said:
We sent a similar letter to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and to the leader of the Progressives. Mr. Mackenzie King was good enough to give us the opportunity to present our case in detail, and to-day I received from him the following letter, which I should like to place on Hansard.
Then follows the letter of the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). As my time is short, I shall read only a portion of this letter.	_
An hon. Member:	Read it all.
Mr. Dupre:	It appears in Hansard and any
hon. member can read it. The second and third paragraphs read as follows:
You will observe that the statement made by Mr. Lapointe was in accordance with the intimation which I gave to Mr. Heaps and yourself at the time of our interview, following the receipt of the communication herein referred to.
With respect to amendments to:	(a) the
Immigration Act; (b) the Naturalization Act; and (c) the criminal code, which were referred to at the time of our interview, I would say that having since taken up the proposed amendments with the ministers concerned, I feel I am in a position to assure you that legislation on these matters will also be introduced in the course of the present session.
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
Mr. Casgrain:	Nothing wrong with that.
Mr. Dupre:	A few weeks after that letter
the then Minister of Justice introduced a bill to repeal section 98 because he and his leader wanted to pay the price for the support of the two lalxmr members.
Mr. Fafard:	That is the minister's own
conclusion.
Mr. Bell (Hamilton):	They would have
gone out of power if they had not had it. _
Mr. Dupre:	It was in the name of British
justice and British procedure that they asked for the repeal of section 98. My question at the present time is this: Is the Liberal party having recourse to the same tactics in 1932 that it had recourse to in 1926?
An hon. Member:	This is 1933.
Mr. Lapointe:	You are a year late.	<
Mr. Dupre:	Are they paying a second price?
That is my question.
Had that statement been made somewhere on the hustings or by a member of the House of Commons occupying a seat on the back benches I think I should have ignored it altogether, but, when a minister of the crown, from his seat in the house, charges the leader of a former administration with having sold his party to a group of individuals in the house, it calls, when untrue, not only for an emphatic denial, but also for the withdrawal of the statement the moment that denial is given.
May I point out first of all, as will be seen from the text, that the Solicitor General was asked to read the entire letter. He did not do so, but read only a part of it. He gave the following as his reason:
As my time is short, I shall read only a portion of this letter.
I have looked to see how much time the Solicitor General occupied in the course of his remarks. He had forty minutes in which to address the house. I find that what I have
2398	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
read takes up in reading about half the entire time of his speech; so that quite clearly that reason for not having read the letter in its entirety is hardly one which will appeal to any fair-minded member of the house.
The first part of the communication, I submit to anyone who reads it, was left out because it rather served the purpose of the Solicitor General to conclude, after having read the latter part of the communication, with these words:
_ A few weeks after that letter the then Minister of Justice introduced a bill to repeal section 98 because he and his leader wanted to pay the price for the support of the two Labour members.
Without knowing what was in the first paragraphs, it might be thought by one reading only the latter part of the letter that they justified this kind of comment. I wish to point ouit first of all that the Labour members presented at the time a communication not only to the leader of the government of the day, but also to the leader of the opposition; it was an identical communication and, as was pointed out by the Solicitor General himself, having regard to the constitution of the house at that moment, neither one of the historic political parties was altogether sure of its position, and the labour leaders were seeking to obtain from each of them a statement of attitude with respect to certain legislation.
Now I think the Solicitor General should have read in its entirety the letter which was sent in reply by myself, and he should also have read the whole of the letter which was sent in reply to these gentlemen by the then leader of the opposition. I propose first of all to read the whole of the letter which was sent by me, so that hon. members may see for themselves what is referred to in the first paragraphs which were omitted by the Solicitor General:
Ottawa, January 28, 1926.
J. S. Woodsworth, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Woodsworth:
Replying to the letter received from Mr. Heaps and yourself, dated January 7, in which you ask whether it is the intention of the pvernment to introduce at this session legislation with regard to: (a) provision for the unemployed; and (b) old age pensions, I would refer you, respecting provision for the unemployed, to the answer given in the House of Commons to-day by the Hon. Ernest Lapointe on behalf of the government in reply to a question by yourself, and which indicated the government's intention of carrying out with respect to emergency relief the practice adopted in cooperation with provinces and municipalities in the years immediately following the war. In answer to a question from Mr. Neill, Mr. 
Lapointe further intimated that it was the intention of the government to introduce at this session legislation with respect to old age pensions.
You will observe that the statement made by Mr. Lapointe was in accordance with the intimation-
I stop here to point out that the statement made by Mr. Lapointe had no reference to section 98 of the criminal code. It had reference to matters of old age pensions and unemployment relief. By omitting that part of my letter, the Solicitor General avoided making that particular point clear. I will repeat the words of the letter:
You will observe that the statement made by Mr. Lapointe was in accordance with the intimation which I gave to Mr. Heaps and yourself at the time of our interview, following the receipt of the communication herein referred to.
With respect to amendments to:	(a) the
Immigration Act; (b) the Naturalization Act; and (c) the Criminal Code, which were referred to at the time of our interview, I would say that having since taken up the proposed amendments with the ministers concerned, I feel I am in a position to assure you that legislation on these matters will also be introduced in the course of the present session.
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
You will observe, Mr. Speaker, with respect to these three matters, I pointed out that, before replying, I should wish to confer with my colleagues who were administering the particular departments to which these measures had reference, that I should be able to give an answer only after I had had an opportunity of consulting them. I mention that because it is rather significant in the light of the reply which the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen, who was leader of the opposition at the time, made to these same gentlemen. I would direct your attention to the fact that the same communication was apparently addressed to Mr. Meighen and myself. If the reply to that communication, indicating the respective attitudes of the parties they addressed, is to be regarded as a price that was paid for the political support of any group, that indictment should be directed a3 strongly against the then leader of the Conservative party as against the leader of the government which was in office. Mr. Meighen replied, on January 9, 1926, as follows:
Ottawa, January 9, 1926. Dear Mr. Woodsworth:
Answering letter of yourself and Mr. Heaps of the 7th, if you will observe my remarks in the House of Commons in the first session of the last parliament you will find my views clearly expressed on the subject of relief for unemployment. The thing to do for the unemployed is to get them work, and I have been often very disappointed that I have never been

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
able to secure your cooperation in the least degree in an effort to extend the area of employment in this country. Certainly, if after all efforts are made there should occur, owing to special circumstances, such a volume of unemployment at a particular place as could not be taken care of locally, then the federal government should help. We did so in the past and would be prepared in similar circumstances to do so again.
As to old age pensions, I stated my views to you on the date your letter was written. May I add that in a matter of this kind I would consult most carefully and in a spirit of the utmost sympathy with labour representatives and those most interested in labour questions. Senator Robertson, for example, has given this subject more attention than any single man I know of, and I would certainly receive most favourably any suggestion he would make thereon. As stated to you personally, while I feel there are other subjects demanding attention in more pressing form at the present time, I realize that this is one of importance and will always be regarded by me as such.
Yours very truly,
Arthur Meighen.
I submit that these two replies make it quite clear that the position which was being taken by the leaders of the two historic parties in the House of Commons at that time was to all intents and purposes precisely the same. In the first place, in regard to the question of unemployment, Mr. Meighen's reply as to federal aid was virtually the same as the reply which I gave. If anyone reads the statement made by the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), referred to in my communication, it will be seen to be the same. It was that the first obligation in the matter of unemployment relief was on the municipalities, then on the provinces, but that if a situation arose which was of an emergent character and the provinces were not in a position to grapple with it, then the Dominion government ought to assist in meeting that situation.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: So long as they
were not Conservative provinces.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope my hon. friend will allow me to make this statement without further interruption. What I am pointing out is that the leaders of the two political parties at that time gave, with respect to unemployment relief, which was a very important matter, almost exactly the same answer.
Now, with regard to the other question, Mr. Meighen said in his reply that he would wish to confer with certain of his colleagues before making a further statement; he would be guided in large measure by the advice which might be given to him by those who had the main responsibility in the matter. My reply was exactly the same-that until I had
had an opportunity of conferring with the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Immigration or other ministers concerned in the particular matters referred to in the interview, I could not give an answer; but I -would give the answer after I had had that opportunity. Replying to a communication of that character in the manner in which it was replied to was not different from answering a question upon the floor of the house as to the government's intention in the matter of legislation. As a matter of fact, the question was answered in the main upon the floor of the house before a formal answer was sent to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his colleagues. I think this is perfectly clear from the correspondence itself.
I wish ito say emphatically that at no time, while I was leader of the late Liberal government, did I enter into any kind of a bargain or agreement, either expressed or implied, direct or indirect with any group or with -any member or members of this House of Commons in connection with support to be given on account of any legislation. I make this statement to-day because we still have in this house the two Labour members who were here at that time, and we have also several members of the then Progressive party. The Labour members are here to-day, and I say^ in their presence that at no time did they indicate to me that their support would be given if certain legislation was introduced nor did I at any time ask their support of any legislation or promise any legislation as a condition thereof. The only questions which they ever asked me while I was leader of the government and which, I believe, they ever asked any member of the government, were questions similar to those they might have asked upon the floor of the house as to whether or not particular legislation was going to be introduced. I say this in the presence of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his colleague from North Winnipeg and, if I am wrong in my statement, I hope they will correct me immediately. As a matter of fact, they made no proposal of any kind offering their support to me in any particular any more than, I believe, they made any such proposal to -the then leader of the opposition.
May I say further that my remarks in these particulars apply equally to every member of the Progressive party as it was then or has since been constituted. If any member of the then Progressive party or of the party now in the corner of the chamber will say that at any time he approached me offering his support on condition that certain legislation be in-

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
troduced or that I approached him for like purpose, I will be prepared to say that the statement I now make is wholly incorrect. I again assert that at no time did I ever consent to discuss such matters with any member either as an individual or as a representative of a group. There was no occasion to consent to discuss such matters because a proposal was never made as to any basis upon which support would be given.
In the parliament of 1921 to 1925, as hon. members who were here at the time will recall, the government of the day had an actual official majority of only one. If the votes and proceedings of the house are consulted it will be found that that parliament was really a parliament of large majorities. I believe the government of that day had the largest majorities of any government that has held office in this country since confederation. That fact is not by virtue of any support that was sought or bought from the Conservative party of the day, nor was it due to any support sought or purchased from the Progressive or Labour parties. It is due to the fact that the government of the day, in bringing forth the legislation it did, sought to adopt what it believed to be a reasonable and moderate course and to avoid extreme. As a consequence it received support for many of its measures from members of all parties in the house. When extreme measures were proposed by members of the Progressive party and opposed by the government of the day, the government received the support of Conservative members. Similarly, when measures which were regarded as reactionary were proposed from the Conservative side, the government of the day in opposing them received the support of members of the Progressive and Labour groups. Our policy was, as the policy of every government ought to be, to endeavour to introduce legislation which would appeal to the House of Commons as reasonable and necessary and which we believed would receive the support of the house. Our support was obtained in that way.
Evidently, the Solicitor General has been told that I was speaking of his remarks, because he has just entered the chamber. I ask him as an honourable gentleman and as a minister of the crown, unless he is prepared to substantiate the statements he made the other evening, to do what I believe he is expected to do in an assembly such as this, retract those particular statements. One of the statements to which I take exception is this:
Then followed the famous letter written by my hon. friends of the Labour party, the hon.

member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and the hon. member for Vancouver asking the then Prime Minister the price to be paid if he wanted the support of the two members.
And more particularly the further statement:
A few weeks after that letter the then Minister of Justice introduced a bill to repeal section 98 because he and his leader wanted to pay the price for the support of the two Labour members.
And the further statement:
Are they paying a second price?
I repeat to my hon. friend the Solicitor General what I said before he came into tihe house. If he had made that statement, as he probably has, somewhere on the hustings in the back concessions before he came into the House of Commons, I should have taken no notice of it; if he had made it as a private newly elected member of this house, I should probably have allowed it to pass; but, when he speaks as a member of the government and makes a statement of the kind in this house, I tell him that it cannot be permitted to pass notice or to stand. I ask him as an honourable member to accept my word, as I have given it to this House of Commons this afternoon, that at no time did I make any bargain concerning legislation, or concerning political support with any party, group or individual in or outside this house while I was leader of the Liberal administration.
In order that this matter may be cleared up once and for all, I should like to refer to one other matter which possibly has a bearing upon this question, a matter which has been referred to in different public discussions. While the particular matter I have just been discussing refers to the time at which the Liberal government was continued in office in 1925, the incident to which I wish now to refer relates to the time immediately prior to the going out of office of the administration in 1926. It has been said by hon. gentlemen that the government of that day tendered its resignation because it was afraid of a vote of censure which was pending before this house. I remember distinctly-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member must not wander too far from the question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not
wandering.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I have allowed the leader of the opposition to answer the Solicitor General, but I do not think we should drift too far away from section 98.

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am making
the broad statement that at no time did I ever bargain for the support of any group in this house. I wish to make clear one incident which, while it is not capable of being so construed, I think ought to be known. At that time the house had before it a motion in the nature of a motion of censure. The government was contemplating moving an amendment to the effect that a royal commission, representative of all parties in the house, should foe appointed to inquire into all customs matters in question.


Mr. BURY:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, I submit that the matter into which the right hon. gentleman is now going is utterly out of order. He was speaking on a matter that arose out of the debate on the repeal of section 98, and that is the only matter in connection with which he has a right to address the house. He is now attempting to wander to a subject which has not the remotest connection with this debate.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I understand
that the right hon. the leader of the opposition intends to make only a brief statement. As far as I am concerned, I think the point of order is well taken; we should not wander away from the bill now before the house. If the statement of the leader of the opposition is only a short one, I shall not stop him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My statement is simply this: At that time I ascertained that an amendment of the kind would be acceptable to the Progressive party and that they would support it if it were brought into this house. For that reason members of the government of the day had cause to believe that if they desired to retain power, power was theirs by virtue of the fact that the amendment would have been accepted by this house and the original motion of censure would not have carried. My reason for making that point quite clear is this: That was not seeking to gain support of any group in the house for the sake of maintaining power, because, as a matter of fact, the government, though it had the knowledge that an amendment for a royal commission would carry, did not wait for the motion to be further considered or for the amendment to be proposed and passed; its request for a dissolution was made, and its advice in that particular not having been accepted its resignation was tendered prior to further consideration of the motion, for the simple reason that the government felt that with the parties balanced as they were, and an imperial conference scheduled for later in the fall, it was much better that a new house
should be returned in the interval in order that whatever government might be in power it would ibe in a position to carry on the work of parliament in a satisfactory manner and represent Canada with authority at the conference.
May I again say to the Solicitor General that I deny there was any effort to secure the support of any individual or group in any way by the promise of any legislation. There was nothing that at any time could be construed as a price at which support was obtained by the previous Liberal administration in its eight and a half years of office. In view of that statement, I ask him to withdraw the statement he made that the legislation to which he has referred was a price paid for political support.


Mr. DEPUTA SPEAKER:: Do I understand that the leader of the opposition is rising to a point of order or a question of privilege? The Solicitor General has already spoken on this question and may not speak again unless the leader of the opposition raises a point of order or question of privilege.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no desire to do other than permit the hon. member to put himself right in the eyes of his fellow members, if he so wishes.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: According to
the rules of the house he may not speak again.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the house
will agree, he may speak again. I am sure we on this side are prepared to allow him to do so.


Maurice Dupré: I am quite willing to answer if I have the right to do so.


Hugh Guthrie: There is another point of order. Any comments that were made by the Solicitor General in regard to statements or actions or letters of my right hon. friend were made in regard to one who was not a member of the house at the time and I think such comments were quite open to the Solicitor General.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As a matter
of privilege may I say that the Solicitor General, in the course of a debate that took place in the House of Commons two nights ago, made the statement that my colleague the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and I as leader of the Liberal Party had sought to obtain the support of certain Labour members at a price, the price being the introduction of legislation repealing section 98 of the criminal code. The Solicitor General went further-
Mr. BURY':	I rise to a point of order.
2402	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations


Armand Renaud La Vergne: There is already a point of order being stated by the leader of the opposition.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I take the point of order on his raising the point of order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The leader of
the opposition is speaking to a question of privilege.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am raising a point of order on the question of privilege.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I should like
to have an opportunity of saying something myself.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: My point of order is on the question of privilege.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The leader of the opposition is speaking to a question of privilege, which is always in order. The hon. member for East Edmonton is rising to a point of order on the1 question of privilege. I think I must hear the point of order first.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: My point of order is this, that the right hon. gentleman elected to make his statement to the house in the course of a debate on a motion for the repeal of section 9S. He was allowed by your honour and the house to make his full, free statement on that debate and in that form. I am raising the point of order that he cannot now repeat on a question of privilege what he has already stated to the house in his speech in the course of the debate. He is trying to do again on a question of privilege exactly what he has already done in his speech during the debate.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am afraid I sannot agree with the hon. member. If I lave to decide that members who repeat what ihey have already said are out of order, I shall not have much rest. As long as an hon. member has not spoken for forty minutes, he may use as much of that time as he wishes, but he will be stopped by the forty minute rule.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My further point is that no hon. member is permitted to impute motives to another hon. member. I think your honour has already so ruled this afternoon. The following statement in the speech of the Solicitor General imputes motives and carries an implication which is not warranted. He said:
My question at the present time is this: Is the Liberal party having recourse to the same tactics in 1932 that it had recourse to in 1923? Are they paying a second price? That is my question.
I ask the Solicitor General to withdraw that statement.


Maurice Dupré: I am quite willing to answer and I claim the right to answer.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The rule is clear that if an hon. member rises and says that some statement asserted against him by another hon. member is not correct, the other hon. member is bound to accept his word. The Solicitor General must accept the word of the leader of the opposition.


Maurice Dupré: This is the interpretation that I had given and I still maintain as to the attitude taken by the Liberal party-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: In all fairness, I think the Solicitor General should be allowed to explain what he meant, but I have ruled that he is bound to accept the word of the leader of the opposition.


Maurice Dupré: What I meant is very plain, and it is on Hansard. I do not think I have anything to withdraw. I have the right to put a question to the leader of the opposition or to any hon. member around him. I asked him to state whether this was the price or not. The leader of the opposition is quite at liberty to give whatever answer he wishes. May I draw his attention to page 2335 of Hansard?


Mr. OHEVRIER:: I rise to a point of order. I submit that the hon. gentleman has no more right to ask a question which imputes motives than to impute motives in a direct assertion.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: This seems to be a tempest in a teapot. The hon. member from Ottawa is right: the leader of the opposition has answered the statement made by the Solicitor General by saying that the assertions made by the Solicitor General are not correct, so far as the leader of the opposition is concerned, and one member must accept the word of another. Therefore I think the Solicitor General should gracefully withdraw the imputation he has made.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Maurice Dupré: I do not think I should withdraw. I believe I have a right to say what I think and I am not obliged to withdraw what I think.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not think we should make a big question of this. One hon. member says that what another hon. member states about him is not correct. Such a statement of an hon. member has always been accepted. I think the Solicitor General is bound to accept the statement of the leader of the opposition.

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations


Maurice Dupré: I should like to know what it is the Chair wants me to withdraw.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The leader of the opposition said, if I am right-and I may be wrong: "The Solicitor General accuses me of offering a price to the labour members for their support, and I say that this is not correct; I ask the Solicitor General to withdraw it." According to parliamentary custom and usage, the Solicitor General must withdraw.


Maurice Dupré: May I draw attention to what I said?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Maurice Dupré: This is what I said, at page 2500 of Hansard-
Mr. VALLAN'CE: The point of order has been settled.


Maurice Dupré: It seems to me my hon. friends opposite do not want light; they only want me to withdraw.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The Solicitor General has only to say this: I accept the word of the leader of the opposition.


Maurice Dupré: May I say, this Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. HANBURY:: There is a speaker in the chair, and he has given his ruling.


Maurice Dupré: I do not like my right hon.
friend to put words into my mouth that I did not use. This is the question I put, as it appears at page 2335 of Hansard:
My question at the present time is this: Is the Liberal party having recourse to the same tactics in 1932 that it had recourse to in 1926? An hon. Member: This is 1933.
Mr. Lapointe: You are a year late.
Mr. Dupre: Ale they paying a second price? That is my question.
That applies to the Liberal party.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is precisely the statement of which the right hon. leader of the opposition complains. He has said that that statement is not according to fact, and has asked the hon. Solicitor General to take his word. I think according to parliamentary rules the hon. member is bound to accept his word and take back his statement


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What my hon friend has just referred to is only one-third of what he said. If he will look at the earlier part of his speech, he will see that he used these words:
A few weeks after that letter the then Minister of Justice introduced a bill to repeal 53719-153
section 98 because he and his leader wanted to pay the price for the support of the two labour members.
I say to the Solicitor General that we had no price to pay, that we had never negotiated in any shape or form, directly or indirectly, with respect to the support of the labour members, and I ask my hon. friend in view of that statement to withdraw his statement.


Maurice Dupré: That was my interpretation, and it seems to me that I have a right to my own interpretation.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Not to prolong the discussion on the point of order, I have given my ruling, and it is this: that the hon. Solicitor General must acept the statement of the right hon. leader of the opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Maurice Dupré: I suppose I am bound by
the ruling of the Chair, but that does not prevent me from keeping my own opinion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Make him withdraw.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I submit, Mr. Speaker,
that under the rules and usages of this house an hon. gentleman must retract as a gentleman of this house has to. His withdrawal must be unqualified.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) is quite right.


Maurice Dupré: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to repeat the last words you said? With all this noise I did not catch them.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I said that the hon. member for Ottawa was right, that when an hon. member accepts the statement of another he must do so unqualifiedly. It is done every day. The hon. Solicitor General must accept the word of the right hon. leader of the opposition, and I am sure that he can do it very gracefully.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Name him.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I hope the hon. member will not force me to ask him to withdraw.


Maurice Dupré: Mr. Speaker, I shall abide
by the ruling of the Chair.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: And withdraw.


Maurice Dupré: And, Mr. Speaker, I shall
not qualify my statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.

2404	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The decision of the Chair is this: The hon. member must recognize that he must rise in his seat and say that he accepts the statement of the right hon. leader of the opposition-that and nothing else, and he must do it.


Maurice Dupré: Hon. gentlemen opposite
certainly seem to enjoy it. At all events, Mr. Speaker, under your ruling I shall accept what you have said, and I accept also the statement and declaration made by the right hon. leader of the opposition.


Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: I have two reasons, Mr. Speaker, for objecting to section 98 of the criminal code. The first is that it does noit do what it purports to do, and the second is that the section might be used to prosecute and persecute the innocent. I was not particularly interested in whether the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) was going to withdraw his statement or not, but I was interested in the statement he made a few days ago, that communism was spreading throughout the length and breadth of this land, and that it was necessary to retain this section in order to prevent the dissemination of the pernicious and seditious doctrines of communism. But I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether keeping this section on the statute books will do what the Solicitor General has suggested. It is my own opinion that nothing will keep extreme radicalism alive so much as the attempt forcibly to suppress it, and that is exactly what is being done by keeping this section on the statute books. I believe that communism thrives on hard times, and eveiy club used and every man put in gaol under this section is simply making martyrs out of communists, which is exactly what they are looking for. Communism has become a religion amongst a certain class of people; like all religions it needs saints and martyrs, and the greater the number of martyrs, the greater becomes the number of adherents to join the ranks. I believe that to make communism illegal will simply result in driving the communists underground, into the catacombs of this country, as it were.
I have been informed by many men in the west and in the big cities that agitators are now going from house to house advocating communism, and that this section has absolutely failed to stop the spread of the doctrine. I have wondered whether we could not follow the custom in England where they allow people the greatest freedom of speech as a sort of safety valve. It allows people to get rid of a lot of excess steam. I visited 
England in 1931, and I heard people uttering in public many seditious things against the king and the queen. There were a lot of bobbies standing around when they were saying these things, but nobody seemed to pay any attention to the speeches, and anyone who has studied the election results in. England a few years ago must come to the conclusion that after all the communists have not made much headway there, and why? Because, as I have already said, they have over there a safety valve which certainly has done much to prevent the spread of communism in that country. On the statute books in England there is no legislation such as that now under consideration identical with that on ours. I am of the opinion that Englishmen would look upon it as a source of weakness, not of strength, to have such laws on their statute books. Carl Axelson told me before he died that the reason he was so anxious to increase the number of communists among the foreign born was that he wished to follow the line of least resistance. They were the class that was the most discriminated against and would therefore listen to what he had to say.
I have heard a great deal said about foreigners in Canada. I should like to say that the spread of communism among them could easily be eradicated if they were met half way, given a helping hand and a square deal. A Czechoslovakian miner some time ago gave me the reasons why he had joined the communist party. His words were, "I joined the communist party because men of my type are the under dogs; the worst, least paid and most dangerous jobs are given to us. We are the goats of all the industrial trouble. That is the reason I have become a communist." I think we might do well to ponder the words of this so-called foreigner, because if we are to eradicate communism in Canada we will have to attack it at its source.
I do not think it will be destroyed simply by having section 98 on the statute books.
I believe it was an Irishman who, speaking of the foreigner said, "Don't worry about the foreigner; he's all right. All you need to do is to give him a square deal and a helping hand, -and as soon as he gets out of the skinned class into the skinners' class he will sing 'God save the King and heaven bless the maple leaf forever' as vociferously as do the rest of us."
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that I am in favour of the repeal of section 98 of the criminal code; in fact I never did think there was any necessity for it. I believe there is even less reason for having it now, because recently the government enacted a measure for the peace, order and good government of this country.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that in the discussion of this measure we have drifted away from the merits of the case. I think we might very well decide whether or not section 98 should remain on the statute book without making personal attacks on the hon. member who introduced the measure. We must remember that bills similar to this passed the House of Commons on five different occasions, and at one time, if my memory serves me aright, a similar bill failed to pass the Senate by only two or three votes. Many statements have been made with respect to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), all designed to make him appear more radical than other members of the house and attempting to connect him with some radical movement in this country. All I can say is that the hon. gentleman's constituents have answered such charges many times. They have shown the high esteem in. which he is held in the city in which he resides, and I have personal knowledge of the great support he receives from many labouring people throughout Canada. Any attacks such as have been made during this debate will not detract in the least from the regard held by many people throughout Canada for the hon. member.
I feel sure, Mr. Speaker, that the citizens of Winnipeg would much rather have the incident of 1919 considered closed. I do not believe they are desirous of having that deplorable strike, which we all regret, discussed at every opportunity, especially when it leads to so many hon. members expressing views which are entirely erroneous, with many of them founded on rumour rather than on fact. To-day the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan) read some quotations from a red covered book, and apparently he was quite satisfied that the statements he made were correct. If hon. members of this house wish to obtain accurate information -they can do so from the files of the government. I know there are a number of files in existence in the different departments; for instance, there is a very large file in the Department of Labour.
53719-153^
Reference has been made to 'the part played by the One Big Union in the Winnipeg strike.
I think I know something about that strike;
I happened to be running into Winnipeg at the time, and I used all my persuasive powers to keep the men whom I represented from going on strike. I was in close contact with the situation, and I know that the One Big Union was not in .existence at the time the Winnipeg strike occurred. I know the strike was the result of a dispute between the metal workers of Winnipeg and their employers. The dispute started in the first instance just as every other strike starts; the metal workers were denied the right of collective bargaining. Then, after the strike started, it spread until, as has been said, it became practically uncontrollable. The strike committee have been blamed for many things with which they had nothing to do. Servants in the hotels; domestic servants; the T. Eaton staff, and even policemen and firemen went on strike. This was no fault of the strike committee, which was merely endeavouring to maintain; the principle of collective bargaining, which principle had been advocated by the government of Canada in an order in council passed on May 1, 1919.
I think we should try to see the good points of hon. members of the house instead of trying to find out bad things about them. If hon. members look up the files they will find a telegram which was sent on June 21 by Mr. Andrews, who was representing the government in Winnipeg. That telegram was addressed to Mr. Meighen, then Minister of the Interior, and it stated that the strike committee did all they could to prevent the parade which led to the riot in which one man lost his life. The strike committee could not have been so very bad if the representative of the government could write such a eulogy as that. Hon. members will also find that the strike committee suggested terms of settlement which were regarded by the employers as very reasonable. These would have been accepted had it not been for a committee of citizens and representatives of the Dominion government who interfered because they did not want to see the strike settled; they wanted to see it broken. Everyone realizes why that was in their minds at the time.
Hon. members will find also that the government of the day managed to get along very well without section 98. A number of men were arrested, and when the then Minister of the Interior was acquainted with that fact he wired Winnipeg questioning the
2406	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
legality of their arrest. That was the cause of the famous telegram of which everyone has heard, which read:
Notwithstanding any doubt I have as to the technical legality of the arrest and the detention at Stony Mountain, I feel that rapid deportation is the best course now that the arrests are made, and later we can consider ratification.
So that the government have every power in their hands if they wish to exercise it, without resorting to section 98.
I will not discuss the Winnipeg strike in detail; I do not see what good purpose that would serve. I placed myself on record fully in 1926 and I have since then held a position of responsibility in relation to matters of this sort, so that I know that all strikes, big or little, are subsequently distasteful to those who participated in them, leaving a feeling of resentment among all parties to the dispute. There is another reason why I do not want to enter into details at this time, whether members of the government will give me credit for it or not. It is that at least one hon. gentleman who was very active in the Winnipeg strike is in bad health to-day and I do not wish to add to his trouble or make it more difficult. The 1919 strike was to be deplored, as are all strikes, and I thought we had heard the last of it. I do not think it is right to bring it up at this particular time because there is no reason for it. We can discuss the merits or demerits of section 98 without going back to the Winnipeg strike. I recall that when I had a more responsible position than I occupy to-day we satisfied or partly satisfied the postal workers in Winnipeg, and I believe that we removed the bitterness from that aspect of the trouble. Then we eliminated the necessity for what was known as the slave pact in Winnipeg. The city council permits its employees under certain conditions to become members of a union, and altogether the bitterness that characterized the Winnipeg affair has fast faded away.


Mr. SPENCE:: Why not let it die out
then?


Peter Heenan: My hon. friend is one of
those-


James Houston Spence: I say that in all sincerity; you are the only one who is talking about the Winnipeg strike.


Peter Heenan: It is dead now so far as
1 am concerned unless I am compelled to refer to the matter again. Let me say however
[Mr. Heenan.l
that there is no Conservative in this house or in Canada who ought to raise his voice in connection with the Winnipeg strike without hanging his head in shame.
In my opinion, section 98 is not the real cause of resentment; my personal opinion is that it is the manner in which it was enacted in this house. That is what has caused the suspicion with regard to it. All labour organizations I know of in Canada, whether national or international, Conservative or anything else, have put themselves on record time and again in favour of the repeal of section 98. We could do without it before we enacted it and we can do without it now. So far as I can see there is no necessity for it. I hope we shall not enter into any further discussion of the Winnipeg strike. If we do-I am not issuing this as a threat-I shall take some other occasion to go into the subject from A to Z and clean it up once for all. In the meantime I am in favour of the repeal of section 98, because I think we should remove this last cause for the feeling that exists in that part of the country.


Mr. P. A. SEGUIN (L'Assomption-Mont-calm) (Translation):: May I, sir, express my' views and set forth the reasons which will guide me in casting my vote. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) requests the repeal of section 98 of our Criminal Code, chapter 36 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. This section, in my opinion, aims at suppressing:
"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, advises or defends the use of force, violence, terrorism or physical injury to person or property, 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 association."
And the repeal of this section is requested by a member whose past record and principles laid down, on many occasions, lead us to believe that he might be associated with one of those societies which, perhaps, have not always in view peace and order in this country. That is my first apprehension. Moreover, it is undeniable that, at present, throughout the country, seditious doctrines are preached and might, perhaps, find adepts, seeing that the

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
ground is well prepared as a result of the crisis that our governments seem unable to control.
I therefore have no hesitation in stating that, in my humble opinion, it mattered little whether, in 1919, section 98 was placed on our Statutes; or whether in 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930 it could have been repealed without the slightest inconvenience, but, circumstances have changed, and I think that if to-day our Criminal Code did not include this provision, it would be necessary to provide for such a section, and a thousand reasons would prompt us to do so.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Hear,
hear!


Paul-Arthur Séguin: This is why I deem it necessary to vote against the bill of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and support the amendment of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie).


Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (Dorchester):: I will not detain the house very long. I rise to congratulate the hon. member who has just token his seat (Mr. Seguin) on opposing the bill proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). According to information I have recently received, his attitude will certainly be approved by the leader of his party in the province of Quebec, the Attorney General of that province, the Hon. Mr. Tasohereau.
Last week I had the pleasure of a conversation with one of the most important officials in the department of the Attorney General of Quebec. He said that on this point he disapproved absolutely of the attitude taken in this chamber by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) in approving of the legislation presented to this house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. This gentleman said that had it not been for this legislation the Attorney General of Quebec would not have been able last year to arrest, bring to trial, co,nvict and deport a great number of communists in Rouyn in Timiskaming county.


Mr. GIROUARD (Translation):: May I
ask the hon. member a question?


Onésime Gagnon: Certainly.


Wilfrid Girouard: Does not the section which refers to seditious acts cover the case the hon. member mentions?


Onésime Gagnon: The hon. member has spoken in French, but with the permission of the house I shall continue my remarks in English. I say to the hon. member that it has been recognized by leading advocates ait the bar in all the provinces of Canada that the article referred to by my hon. friend is not sufficient. It is the opinion of the Attorney General of Quebec that this section is absolutely essential for the preserving of order in his province.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Where has he given that opinion?


Onésime Gagnon: It was given just eight days ago to an hon. member of this house in my presence. That was the statement made by Mr. Lanetot, Deputy Attorney General. The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) is well known to the Hon. Mr. Taschereau, as they both represent the same county. The hon. member is also the official whip of the Liberal party and I challenge him to present a letter in this house from the Attorney General of Quebec showing approval of the stand taken by the hon. member for Quebec East.
This is all I have to say, because I do not think I could add anything to the eloquent words uttered by the hon. member for Mont-magny who has so well expressed the views of the whole province of Quebec.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I regret that
many of the hon. members who have participated in this debate have not seen fit to discuss the bill in question but have token the opportunity either to denounce the communists or to direct a personal attack against myself. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan) had a good deal to say about the Winnipeg strike, and during the course of his remarks he quoted from the Canadian Annual Review. May I state that the article from which he quoted is a most grotesque misrepresentation of what took place in Winnipeg.
It has been said that this strike was carried on by the One Big Union, but the fact is that that organization did not come into existence until after the strike was over. The strike was called after a vote by the Trades and Labour Council of the city of Winnipeg which is composed almost entirely of the international unions. I could give complete details of the vote, but a partial list was given on May 13 and it showed some 8,667 in favour of and 645 opposed to the strike. The strike was called by what are generally known as the
240S	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
legitimate labour unions. It 'has been stated on the floor of this house that the O.B.U. is a communist organization, when as a matter of fact the O.B.U. and the communists are bitterly opposed to one another. This fact can >be readily obtained from the files of The One Big Union Bulletin and The Worker, the organ of the communist party. Further, may I point out that so far as the citizens of Winnipeg are concerned, a very large number of them have expressed themselves again and again as wishing to let this incident in the life of our city be forgotten. I might point out that three of the men who were convicted because of the strike were elected to the provincial house while still in gaol. The day they left the gaol they took their places in the provincial house. My colleague, the late Mr. F. J. Dixon, member of the provincial house, was mentioned on the floor of this house. He was tried for sedition, was acquitted and then reelected to the provincial house with the largest majority Winnipeg has ever known. Upon our city council, our school boards and our university council are men who were closely connected with the Winnipeg strike. The last elections indicated fairly well the situation as it exists in Winnipeg. Mr. Webb was elected as mayor with 25,120 votes while Mr. Queen, M.L.A., who is one of the men convicted at the time of this strike, received 21,898 votes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does not
the hon. member mean the recent civic elections?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, the civic elections: Mr. Penner, the communist candidate, received 3,526 votes. We have a system of proportional representation, and a very considerable number of the second choice votes for the communist candidate went to swell the majority of Mr. Webb.


An hon. MEMBER:: How do you know
that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Because some of
our men were present at the counting of certain of the votes. The fact that Mayor Webb received 25,120 votes and Mr. Queen, 21,898 votes would seem to indicate that those who were connected with the Winnipeg strike are not the villains that in this house they are made out to be.
It has become a practice to quote extracts from newspapers which are not favourable to the labour and farmer members, and I want to take exception to this practice. I might very well charge the hon. member for Wey-

burn (Mr. Young) with advocating polygamy. If he ventured to object I could quote from Hansard of only a few days ago when he said:
[DOT]-the only solution that I can see is to allow every farmer three wives.
That is from the official record. As the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) very well said in objecting to isolated quotations, you can quote parts of paragraphs of a book and give them any meaning you like. Again and again I have heard quoted isolated passages from newspaper accounts and, at that, from newspapers known to be hostile to the labour movement. This is not fair argument.
Since the matter has been taken up so definitely, let me for a moment, revert to the question of the Winnipeg strike and my connection with it. While on a lecture tour I arrived at Winnipeg in the third week of the strike. I had nothing whatever to do with the calling or the conduct of the strike, but when the editor of the labour paper was arrested I took Charge of it and carried on for about a week, when I was arrested, charged with sedition, and the paper suppressed. The character of the prosecution may be judged from that of the charges brought against me. There were included three articles written by my friend, F. J. Dixon, who was afterwards acquitted when charged with sedition. With regard to my own three articles, one was conciliatory, published at the earnest request of some of the leading business men of Winnipeg whom I could easily have called as witnesses. The second article consisted very largely of quotations from the Right Hon. Arthur Henderson. The third consisted of two passages from the Book of Isaiah, put in at the bottom of an article to fill out the column. The other day the statement was made that no one had ever been arrested for having a Bible in his possession. Well, I do not know whether that may be true, but I, for one, was arrested for having quoted from the King James' version of the English Bible. I shall quote what I published, and any lawyer in the house knows each count stands by itself:
The jurors aforesaid do further present:
4. That J. S. Woodsworth, in or about the month of June, in the year of Our Lord 1919, at the city of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba, unlawfully and seditiously published seditious libels in the words and figures following:
Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; to turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!
Isaiah (10: 1-2).

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
I understand from some of those engaged in the prosecution that the ground was to be taken that this was directed against Ottawa. The second quotation is:
And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
Isaiah II (65: 21-22).
Those passages were credited to Isaiah and published without comment. I understand again from some of those engaged in the prosecution, who were very good friends of mine, they intended to take the ground that the second quotation was a sure indication of bolshevism and, further, that what was quite correct to be read in churches, was too serious to be uttered at the time of an industrial dispute. I am not going to continue on that, but it will afford the house some indication of the methods adopted at the time of the Winnipeg strike. I am not in the slightest degree ashamed of any part that I took at that time.
A great deal has been said about the communists. I .should like first of all to correct a slight misquotation which was made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) of what I said. He stated:
I was glad to hear my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre describe one organization, namely the Canadian Labour Defence League, as a subsidiary of the communist organization which has already been declared by the courts of Ontario to be an unlawful association under section 98.
As a matter of fact, I did not mention the name "Canadian Labour Defence League." I was trying to point out that under the section it was quite possible to charge subsidiary organizations with being illegal, and this is what I said:
It is not merely one particular organization that is declared to be unlawful; this subsection covers any subsidiary association or branch or committee thereof. As is well known to hon. members of this house, there are what are really subsidiaries of the communist party.
That wTas my judgment in the matter.
One branch devotes itself to the defence of its members who may be arrested, while another is engaged in the industrial fields in organizing the trades unions and so on.
That is what I said.


Hugh Guthrie: Did I misunderstand my
hon. friend to-night? I thought he said, in speaking of a newspaper, that The Worker is an organ of the communist party. Am I correct in that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think I did say
that, although I would not like to be expected to prove that it is; I take it for granted it is. Perhaps I should qualify that by saying it is considered to be such; I have always thought of it as such. I wanted to make that slight correction of the statement of the minister in order to be clear, because I have no knowledge of the details of the communist organization, but I know that these organizations are popularly supposed to be closely connected. My point was to indicate that subsidiaries of a parent organization may also be declared illegal.
May I say with regard to the communist party, that I am not here to defend that party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some hon. members may laugh, but I want to repeat that. I am not here to defend the communist party; I am not here to advocate force. I have been opposed to force for years.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Why the bill?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Never mind the
bill. The hon. member, of course, can make his inferences. The Deputy Speaker, who is now interrupting, took the ground to-day, while in the chair, that one hon. gentleman had to accept the statement of another hon. gentleman.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	On facts, on his own
declaration.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, and the fact
is that I am not a member of the communist party; that I never have been. The fact is that I have never advocated force.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Then why the bill?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall refer to
that, but the fact is that I have never advocated force.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some hon. members may laugh in derision, but they know they dare not rise and make a contrary statement. I had not thought to go into this question, but as a matter of fact, at the time of the last war I changed my whole career because I could not bring myself to advocate force; I refused in any way to associate myself wiith force at that time. If any serious hon. member present wants the proof of that, he can find it in the statement of my resignation from the Christian ministry at that time. I have since then consistently
2410	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
maintained that attitude, and although I have been associated with labour organizations some of whose members advocate force, I opposed their position. In turn I have been definitely opposed again and again by the communist party.
Someone said the other day that we need not oppose this legislation, if we were not intending to advocate force, since then the section would not affect us. I have never made it a practice to advocate only the abolition of those things which might hurt me. I think this legislation is unjust, and even although the communists have opposed me and will continue to oppose me, I think it is right to advocate the repeal of the section.
If anyone here wants further proof of the attitude of the communist party towards us I have a long string of quotations here that I could give. Here is one dating as far back as July 1930:
The Labour party is a third party of capitalism. It has gone completely over to the service of the capitalist class in deceiving the workers, in splitting the force of the workers, in attempting to suppress and break the struggles of the workers. In reality there is no difference between the platform of the labour parties and the other capitalist parties.
And so they go on. I think I heard someone say "at the present time." I will give a quotation dated February 4, 1933:
Other similar incidents can be recorded such as J. S. Woodsworth's refusal to sign the amnesty list demanding the release of Tim Buck and his seven fellow prisoners, Woodsworth's refusal to sign the amnesty demand exposes the hollowness of his criticism of section 98. Instead of demanding the unconditional and full repeal of section 98, he proposed harmless "amendments" and "deletions" which do not weaken but rather strengthen the key stone of government reaction. Woodsworth's amendment to section 98 proposed specifying in the code the words "physical force and violence" instead of just "force and violence"-so making section 98 more watertight and a more dangerous weapon against the workers.
These individuals are the bulwark of capitalist reaction. They are the first to disavow any revolutionary intentions and to dissociate themselves from militant workers attacked by police. They are the chief supporters of the.R.C.M.P. terror against the working class. They must be guarded against and exposed.
That is the attitude taken by The Worker, which I have always regarded as the official organ of the communist party in Canada.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: It sounds to me like a joke.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If you had the bitter opposition of these people in elections year after year, you would not think it was any joke.

Some of the speakers have taken up the question of the riots in Kingston penitentiary. Again I say I have nothing to do with those riots, nor has the bill; for the bill was introduced, or sought to be introduced, last year. I would say in passing, however, that the fact that we have had riots in Kingston and a number of other penitentiaries ought to indicate to us that we should have a thorough investigation into the conduct of all our penitentiaries and into the general question of the way in which we treat our prisoners.
May I go further and emphasize a point which was mentioned by my colleague from East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell), and that is the protest of the labour bodies against this section. As early as 1920 the Trades and Labour Congress protested against these sections. My colleague from East Hamilton read a part of the report which was made to the congress at that time, from which I quote: 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. The pressure or influence exerted by trade unions is the exercise of "force." That can be interpreted to come within the above section. Read the following extract from Judge Metcalfe's charge to the jury in the Russell case:
"Mr. Russell gave us his idea of a sympathetic strike. He said, 'When a dispute originates between an employer and his employees, and when the Labour organizations see that organization being beat, they come to their assistance by calling a strike to force their employers to bring force to bear upon the original disputants to make settlement.' That is Russell's definition given in the box. . . . Force, force, force." Any dietionary will show that "force" has a very wide meaning, covering "influence," "pressure," and the like. If the statute meant "physical force" it would not go on to enumerate "violence" and "physical injury." It must, therefore, have a different meaning from "violence" and "physical injury." A court would be quite justified in interpreting the word in its natural or dictionary sense.
As for the word "terrorism," some light can be thrown upon the interpretation of it by that given it in the Winnipeg case of Rex v. Russell. There Judge Metcalfe says:
"To walk around about, for instance, to a place where people are employed in large numbers, and to 'boo,' gentlemen of the jury, as much terror may be inspired through that as by two or three fighting chaps coming along with bludgeons. Take it from me in strikes you can incite terror without hitting a man over the head. You can incite terror of starvation; you can incite terror of thirst. Is not that quite as effective as inciting by bodily violence? Your stomach will bring you quicker than a crack on the head sometimes. If it is possible that picketing can be done in this country, then the lawful method of picketing is so ineffective that it is a reasonable inference that

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
in strikes of this class unlawful means would be intended to be applied. Sometimes it has a deterring effect upon people's minds by exposing them to have their motions watched, and to encounter black looks."
The last couple of lines show the possibilities of the word "terrorism."
The words "force" and "terrorism" should be struck out of the section.
That gives in brief form the basis of the objection of the trades union movement in this country.
May I call attention to one of the results of legislation of this character, and that is the panicky fear engendered in the minds of a good many of our officials placed in anything like a responsible position, and no doubt passed on to the general public. The hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor) the other night referred to an incident that occurred recently in Toronto in connection with one of the collegiate institutes, and in this connection I think it is worth while to read from a news item in the Toronto Star of February 17, 1933. It is headed:
Police end boys' meeting to discuss world crisis. Jarvis Collegiate Institute students tried to form group for economic study. Principal calls officers. Youths questioned on economic beliefs.
I give a few excerpts from the article:
For the second time in two weeks policemen have been pitted against school children. The latest victims of these tactics are Barney and John Meyers, 326 Queen St. E., pupils of Jarvis Collegiate, whose interest in current economic questions brought five plainclothesmen upon them when they attempted to organize a study group to discuss the subject _ of "The Student and His Importance in Solving the Economic Crisis."
The two brothers distributed circulars among their fellow students on Tuesday morning, inviting all those interested to attend an open forum the following night. For this purpose they had rented a hall at 177 Berkeley St.
"While I was handing out the cards," stated John Meyers to The Star, "Mr. Jeffries, who is principal of Jarvis Collegiate, came up to me, took one of the cards and said to me: 'You are treading on very dangerous ground.' But I couldn't see that I was doing wrong by getting together a bunch of young people to talk about the economic situation. Neither my brother nor I are communists, we are not affiliated with any party, but we are just interested in current events.
"I told the principal that I didn t think I was doing anything wrong and went on distributing the cards.'
Called from Classroom
"He didn't say anything, but shortly after I was called out of class and ordered to the principal's office, where two big men who seemed to be plainclothes policemen started to question me. They asked me if I was a communist, or if I was connected with any political organization and I told them I wasn't." . . .
" . . . After I had talked for a while the men seemed convinced that everything was all right,
and that there was nothing wrong with the meeting we wanted to call."
"After I went back to my room I thought the matter was closed and everything was all right for the meeting, because the men had seemed satisfied that we weren't intending to overthrow the government, by violent means." "Nothing else happened after that until Wednesday night about eight o'clock. As we were arranging the hall at 177 Berkeley St., for the meeting we heard some men talking to the caretaker outside. We heard just enough to know that they were talking about the meeting, so we went outside to speak to them. There were three of them altogether-one of them, who did most of the talking, said he was from the attorney-general's department, and the other two said they were city police pladn-clothesmen.
"We asked them what they were doing there, so the man from the attorney-general's department said: 'We got a 'phone call to come down here to-night because trouble was expected.' My brother Barney told them we were not trying to make trouble, but that we merely wanted to organize a study group to talk about economic questions. Barney quoted to them part of section 98, which says that no one must advocate the overthrow of the government by force and explained to the policemen that we weren't breaking the law.
"Barney told them that there was no possible chance of trouble, that we were opposed to any form of revolution, and that we did not have communistic ideals. Finally the plainclothesmen decided to let the metting proceed, but by this time the people who own the hall heard that policemen were on the premises and they were so frightened of trouble that they wouldn't let us go on with the meeting. . . .
" . . . It's a pretty sad state of affairs when young people, 15, 16 and 17 are not permitted to come together to discuss something of vital importance to them and their parents, without being suspected of communism."
I believe nothing could better indicate the situation in which we find ourselves because of this kind of legislation.
May I point out again, as I did on the introduction of the bill, that the men in Kingston penitentiary are not convicted of having advocated force; they are not convicted of having used force. They are convicted of belonging to an organization affiliated with certain organizations in Russia, and it is alleged that these organizations in Russia, according to the thesis given, are in favour of the use of force. It is not fair, then, in presenting the case before the House of Commons, to say that these men have been convicted because they advocated force. They were convicted because of certain beliefs they held; that is all. I would not have had a word to say, had they been convicted of using force-not a word. They are convicted under section 98 of the criminal code, which has reference to persons belonging to an organization which advocates the use of force. But I say these men, as individuals, were not convicted either of using force them-
Criminal Code-Unlawful

Associations
selves or of advocating the use of it. They were convicted simply of belonging to a party or organization affiliated with another organization in Russia which, according to the evidence, believed in the use of force.
Mr. MORAND; But they were prepared to use force.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I presume one
could draw that inference, but certainly nothing of the kind is shown in the evidence; it is not proven, and it was not charged. The objection I have to the section is that essentially it prohibits certain beliefs and, as I said the other day, if those beliefs were held alone by communists I would not feel so strongly in the matter. I think, however, we must confess that all modem states are built upon and maintained by force.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Further, all down
through history it has been generally admitted that under certain circumstances resort might be had to force. That being so, it seems to me it savours of persecution-


Mr. COTNAM:: You are an awful tail
twister.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -when one particular group of people holding a belief common to so many people in the country are sent to a penitentiary for holding it.
I believe it is quite the proper thing for anybody in Canada to protest against the extension of communism; that is quite proper. But I want it done through lawful means, through what I would term British means. If any man gets up in Canada and advocates the use of force he may be charged and convicted under certain sections of the criminal code. Certainly, if any man practices force he can be charged and convicted under some sections. What I am objecting to is simply this-, that because the members of a certain organization have certain beliefs they can be singled out, charged with a crime and convicted.
Mr. LaVERGNE : No man can be convicted under section 98 for only a belief.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I must differ in that regard. It is because I believe those men in Portsmouth to-day have been convicted in that way that I take this stand.
Mr. LaVERGNE: It is impossible.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sorry to differ. Mr. LaVERGNE: It cannot be done.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But it has happened.
I am not a lawyer, and perhaps I have misread the evidence. However, I have tried to

read it, and after reading it I have formed the conclusion that these men were convicted because of their beliefs, and not because of their actions.
Mr. LaVERGNE: No, it could not be done.


Leslie Gordon Bell: It was because of what they publicly advocated.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They are not charged with advocating force.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would ask hon. members who are lawyers to read the evidence. I repeat the men convicted are not charged with advocating force; there is nothing in the charge against them about advocating force.
Mr. LaVERGNE: They are charged with belonging to an association which resorts to force; that is what they are charged with.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But that is not the same as advocating force.


Mr. MORAND:: If they are true disciples of their organization, it is.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: You could fool the devil.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think hon. members in this chamber who have legal training should surely see my point.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Wo do.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Surely they can see the distinction I am trying to draw.
Mr. LaVERGNE: It is far worse to use force-


James Shaver Woodsworth: They have neither used nor advocated force, and yet they are convicted.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: May I ask a question?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Certainly.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If a man believing in force as a means to overthrow lawful institutions and lawful authorities gives overt expression to that belief by joining an association which professes that doctrine, would the hon. member say he was not guilty of more than mere belief?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let me point out that when there was trouble in Ireland a few
years ago-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer the question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I point out that when there was trouble in Ireland a few years ago there were a good many members of Irish-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer.

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: Answer the question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I point out that a few years ago when there was trouble in Ireland, when there were certain organizations which were bound to overturn the government by force, and when there were certain people, even in high places, who were actually advocating the overthrow, and other people drilling troops in order to effect the overthrow, there were sympathetic organizations in this country. There is no doubt about that.
Mr. LaVERGNE: The Irish took their
medicine.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In answer to the question I would say that there were people in this country who believed the Irish would have to resort to force in order to retain their rights.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon. member has not answered my question. It was this: If a man believed in force as a means of overthrowing lawful authority and institutions, and joined a society which held such beliefs as its professed and avowed object, w'ould he not be doing more than merely believing in force? Would he not be committing on overt act by associating himself with these doctrines, and by his membership would he not be doing his best to advocate and propagate those beliefs?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Personally I do not think so, and at the same time I say that so far as I am concerned I am opposed to force. On the very days that we have been considering this section of the criminal code, we have been considering at other times our national defence estimates. Some of the very men who have been urging the retention of this section have been very intent on keeping up our defence forces and even training our boys and girls in the use of arms in order that they may be prepared to defend their country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is training girls?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, there is some
training of girls going on along the same line even in this city. I think some of us may be permitted to take the other view, that after all trouble arises very largely because of certain maladjustments in our social structure, and that the way to deal with these things is not by repressive measures but rather by getting rid of the causes of the evils. Some of us honestly take that point of view. We take it in connection with international questions; we say that instead of maintaining standing armies we should adopt those methods that will bring about a larger measure of international amity and by removing those causes which everyone knows produce war.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: That is not contentious
at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Very well. Some
of us take that point of view in international affairs, and some of us take the same point of view in connection with the communists. There are certain injustices under our society to-day that so long as they continue inevitably will breed contempt of law. We take the ground that instead of trying to suppress these people in this way, by deporting those who are deportable and by putting the others in the penitentiary, we should be removing the causes of the injustice. In that way I think we will do away with the troubles we are experiencing at the present time. A good many hon. members seem to think that if they are only well enough guarded all this trouble will cease. I would point out to them that nearly all revolutions and civil wars of the past have been precipitated by those who have been closely associated with or trained by the military. It is doubtful whether we would have had the successful revolution in Russia, according to those who were there at the time, had it not been that a large number of soldiers were returning from the front, and they played a very prominent part at that time.
ME LaVERGNE: That is not very sound history.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
spoken for forty minutes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Perhaps I might
have just a moment more.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was interrupted
for nearly five minutes, so perhaps I might be given two or three minutes more. I was going to say that I have been in close contact with labour men, some of whom are very radical, and I believe there is a real danger if we allow force to be exerted along present lines. Perhaps I might take just one incident from the Winnipeg strike. I knew nothing of the details of the conduct of that strike until after I had acted as editor for a few days, when I was admitted to the committee. One day, I remember, a group of returned men came into the room and urged that the labour people should drop their policy of peace and "start something", as they put it. They said, "We are men of action. We have just got back from the front and we are tired of your policy of peace and inaction." I am very proud of the labour men who were present; they said, "No, that would be fatal to the conduct of our strike." The returned

Criminal Code-Unlawful Associations
men grumbled and went out of the room. They said, "This is your strike and we will do as you say, but when the next trouble comes we will take the lead."
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have not brought in this bill with the view of making it any easier for anyone to urge the use of force in this country. I will join with anyone in denouncing the use of force or the advocacy of force, but I do plead for the removal of this legislation, which is Objected to by important sections of our community, and which readily lends itself to abuse.


William Henry Golding: I was paired with the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Sproule). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr.   S@: I was paired with the hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BARBER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was paired
with the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. STEVENS:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Peter Heenan: I was paired with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


William Thomas Lucas: I was paired with the hon.
member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Weese). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I was paired with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Peter McGibbon: I was paired with the
hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Arza Clair Casselman: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard).
Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Goulet). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Eccles James Gott: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Lotlbiniere (Mr. Verville). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Maurice Dupré: I was paired with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Ferland). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John Iberville (Mr. Rheaume). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. PERRAS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Joseph-Ernest-Henri LaRue: I was paired with the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Thauvette). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Main motion (Mr. Woodsworth as amended agreed to on division.


COOPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. W oodsworth:
Whereas under our present economic arrangement large numbers of our people are unemployed and without the means of earning a livelihood for themselves and their dependents;
And whereas the prevalence of the present depression throughout the world indicates fundamental defects in the existing economic system;
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, the government should immediately take measures looking to the setting up of a cooperative commonwealth in which all natural resources and the socially necessary machinery of production will be used in the interests of the people and not for the benefit of the few.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	When your honour called it
eleven o'clock two weeks ago to-night, I was
2416	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. McIntosh
dealing with the structureless resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) which in my opinion is clearly indicative of what we might term wild or unbridled socialism, a resolution that is destructive in design and subversive of those individual and political liberties to which we have been accustomed in Canada. On that occasion I presented three points of view.
One was that I refused to accept the statement made in certain quarters that the financial, economic and industrial order of Canada was crumbling to pieces about our feet. I repudiated that statement then and I repudiate it again to-night as a Canadian. I also refused to accept the point of view that we have been hearing here and there in regard to the competitive and capitalistic system built up in Canada during the last hundred years, to the effect that that system is actually falling to pieces, tumbling to destruction, and would be ultimately if not immediately destroyed if we did not do something. I do not believe that our economic and industrial order is perfect; it is not flawless; it has its weaknesses. But I do not believe we ought to scrap the present system and institute a socialist state in Canada at the present time. I say therefore that what is being done and will be done, making a survey of that structure, finding out its weaknesses, getting at the facts and adjusting ourselves to the facts, continuously and aggressively, will save us from any impending danger. I believe that the resourcefulness, the ability and the determination of Canadians, as manifested in various ways in the past, will be equal to any occasion in the future and will place Canada once more on the highway to development and prosperity.
Another point of view I tried to make plain when this subject was last under discussion was that in the dilemma in which we find ourselves to-day in this depression we ought to stand on the rock of individual liberty, and I stressed the point that by standing on that rock we could work out our economic and industrial salvation. The moment we move off that rock we shall find ourselves in difficulties. It was pointed out that if we took any other position than that we would find ourselves in the miry clay of socialism, which would land us absolutely nowhere. I tried to make plain that we did not need to ape Russia at the present time nor follow the policy either of Mussolini in Italy or of Hitler in Germany. We can cope with our own difficulties provided Canadian democracy takes the stand suggested. If we do that we shall win out in the long run.

Thirdly, I tried to show that so far as the first part of the resolution was concerned it contained nothing new, and the second part of it was not in accordance with facts, while it was pointed out that the conclusion based upon these premises was untenable and should not be supported. In this connection I believe that the prayer of Canadians to-day ought to be for the deliverance of this dominion out of the fearful pit and muck of socialism, for the principle of the socialistic state is not and will not be acceptable to Canadians at all. It is unnecessary for us to have anything to do with it and Canadians need not put their faith in any form of socialism, because if we stand by our constitution and do our duty as Canadians we shall be able to emerge from our difficulties successfully.
May I say that in regard to socialism as a cult it falls far short of what it ought to be from the standpoint of three important principles of statesmanship. One important principle of statesmanship is to give security to possessors. Socialism will not do that; it will take away what the possessors have and give it to those who have not. That is not security and consquently socialism stands condemned from that point of view. Another aim of sound statesmanship is to afford facilities to those who have not to acquire. Socialism would not afford such facilities to those who have not because individuals under a socialist state would be simply chattels of the state and would own or control nothing. Socialism would also fall short of another recognized standard of statesmanship, namely, to give hope to all. It would give hope to none. Indeed as far as giving hope to the people of Canada is concerned, socialism would fail dismally.
I say therefore that although our social and business structure is not perfect, although we shall have to take recognition of its imperfections and remove them surely yet gradually, socialism is not the method whereby we can meet the grievances of our people at the present time or cure the national ills.
Let me traverse briefly the field of Canadian history. In years gone by when Canadians were fighting the battles of political liberty, there was no such thing as socialism. It was never heard of. They did not need any socialistic belief in order to win our political freedom in upper and lower Canada. The Liberals of that day courageously stood for political liberty, they won political liberty, and we have that liberty to-day. Further the Liberals of that day stood for the supremacy of parliament legislatively and commercially; they stood for a reformed coinage, for representation by population, for control of revenue, for

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. McIntosh
efficiency in the administration of government, for responsible government and the breaking up of the family compact; they stood for political reform and brought about that reform years before confederation was launched -brought it about without the aid of socialism.
But that is not all. At the present time the Liberals of Canada stand for economic as well as political reform. They are now fighting the many economic battles required to be fought to put Canada on its feet. The Liberal party of the present day stands for social justice, the one great end of government and society. Liberalism of to-day stands for freedom of trade, for the greater control of banking, currency and credit, for the development of our primary industries, for personal and human liberty, for complete responsible government, for a balanced budget, for the lifting of debt and taxation from the shoulders of our people, for greater government economy and for certain reforms in an electoral way. In this great fight for economic reform-I would term it economic liberalism- we can get along very well without accepting the indefinite resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We do not need it. Although we have difficulties to face, although our economic order is not perfect, it should not be scrapped and destroyed and something put in its place about which we know very little. Canada is not ready for anything like that. Although many people are willing to listen to a discussion of this " state over all " obsession, although in many places the meetings in its behalf are enthusiastic, I believe that upon reflection and through a test at the ballot box, socialism will land nowhere in Canada. As a member of this house and as a Canadian I am opposed to the resolution and I intend to vote against it.
If I understand the resolution correctly its purpose is to tear down and destroy. It states that a socialistic order must be set up, which means that our economic and political order must be torn to pieces, taken away and this socialistic order put in its place. May I say there are certain people in Canada and beyond our borders who stand for a policy of destruction. For instance, there are those who pin their faith to the social and political belief of nihilism. Nihilism is what? Nihilism believes in the tearing down and destroying of our social, our economic and political order. Nihilism was born in Russia as a reaction to czarist rule. It believes everything is bad and must be destroyed; there is no thought of political redemption or reform. The nihilist believes that everything should be destroyed but himself and when everything is destroyed but himself he will be free to go to work to build
up a nihilist state-a nihilist state on the ruins he has helped to bring about.
Nihilism is a policy of destruction something like the policy indicated in this resolution. I would say that a policy of destruction, whether nihilist or socialist, is absolutely wrong and ought to be voted down in this House of Commons.
There is another belief, also born in Russia, that of anarchism. What is anarchism? Anarchism is closely related to nihilism, nihilism and anarchism are closelly related to communism and they are all linked up to socialism. My reason for referring to these different beliefs is to show that they are nothing more or less than policies of destruction-not construction. Anarchism believes that all government and all law ought to be destroyed. The aim of anarchism is to set up the individual and make him supreme so that he will be able to ward off all opposition from government or tew. Anarchism does not believe in tew, moral, political or economic. The idea of the anarchist is to produce as he pleases and consume as he pleases; produce in accordance with his powers and receive in accordance with his needs. The policy of destruction is quite evident in anarchism and in that regard it is similar to the socialism being put forward by many people to-day throughout Canada. History has proven 'that there is no greater evil than anarchism, and history will prove too that there can be no greater evil forced upon the Canadian state or upon the free people of this country than socialism if we are foolish enough to accept it.
I am one who believes that the individual should be progressively restricted. I am quite willing to limit the liberty of the individual and to accept the policy of state control to a certain degree as long as that state control is compatible with the freedom of the individual who makes up the state. What about socialism? It stands for a superstate, a superstate represented by a highly organized and powerful central government. This central government will be made up of economic planners, economic dreamers, economic crusaders, and economic uplifters who are going to make Canada perfect under socialist rule. Now, what about this policy of socialism? It aims to control economic thought and the economic activity and collective effort of the individual, even cooperation itself. It means the control of the natural resources of the country, of the machinery of production, distribution and exchange. It means the control of the homes, the churches, the schools, the institutions, the property and the wealth of our nation. It can be readily understood that under any policy which sets
2418	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. McIntosh
out to tear down, every institution in the country, the individual will be a mere chattel.
Under socialism we would have uppermost at all times state paternalism, state diffusion of prosperity: taxation would be taken over, and since taxation has about arrived at its climax so far as the distribution of the income of the nation is concerned, socialism would take control of banking, currency and credit-also the investment resources of the people. It would scrap individual and human liberty; it would develop a rigid uniformity; there would be a dead level similarity, there would be no equality, no freedom of contract; there would be an excess of undeveloped potential talent, and individual talent would be standardized and repressed. We can easily see that under a system of this kind there would be no individual liberty, the only real foundation of national sovereignty and greatness. On this account socialism Which is known as nationalism, communism, collectivism, would 'be largely on a par with anarchism and nihilism, because they have as their common abjective an ideal 'cooperative state. They all stand for that, but beyond that we have no definite details. The very ideal of democracy is that the people must be distrustful of any power irrespective of the 'hands in which it is placed, and before we accept any socialist state, before we throw away the individual and collective liberty of the Canadian people, we must be very careful to know what we are to receive in lieu thereof.
If we vote down this resolution-as it will be voted down-and do not accept the principle of the resolution in regard to setting up a socialist state in Canada, we would naturally favour perfecting our own social and economic order and, if it is not functioning correctly, we should make it so function. When we take that attitude, we must realize that we are standing for the full and free development of the individual as the unit in our democracy. The individual is equipped with an intellect, an intellect that gives him an objective in life. Added to intellect there is that fire or sentiment which engenders enthusiasm to attain high ideals in life. Lastly, he has executive power, the mainspring of individual and national development. While the individual possesses these qualities, by developing them harmoniously, he can become what we might term a pillar of state-the individual or nation in miniature. Only in this way can the Canadian people achieve sovereign power nationally and internationally. As regards the development of the ideal individual, we must stand for the preservation of individual initiative, enterprise, property, profit, rivalry, and competition between one indi-

vidual and another, the right of inheritance, the right of bequeathment, the survival of the fittest and the building up of legislation that will reflect the power of the individual as a unit in the nation. Individual leadership is the very foundation of an ideal democratic state. In the words of the poet, may we say in this connection:
0, for a living man to lead!
That will not babble when we bleed;
0, for the silent doer of the deed!
One that is happy in his height,
And one that in a nation's night Hath solitary certitude of life.
Or quoting Emerson:
"Tis man and only man can make A nation great and strong Men who for truth and honour's sake Stand fast and suffer long.
Brave men who walk while others sleep Who dare while others fly,
They build a nation's pillars deep And lift them to the sky.
That is the only way in which we can build up a great democratic state, a great Dominion of Canada. If wTe sacrifice the individual; if we destroy him and build up a socialistic state, we can never expect to play the part we ought to play as a nation among the nations, not only of the British Commonwealth but of the world.
In concluding, may I say the aim of every Canadian ought to be to harmonize the development of individual life with national life. If we do that we need not be very much afraid of our future. The ideal state is simply the individual writ large-the people in their collective and corporate capacity. [DOT] In the great work of nation building:
A thousand years scarce serve to form a state;
An hour may lay it in the dust, and when Can man its shattered splendour renovate?
Again, what constitutes a state? A state is made up of:
Men, who their duties know,
But know their rights, and knowing, dare maintain.
If we in Canada will therefore follow along the line of sound individualism and build up a sound state based on that sound individualism, we can truthfully say of our dominion:
Thou, too. sail on, 0 Ship of State!
Sail on. 0 Union, strong and great! Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years.
Is hanging breathless on thy fate !
Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this motion in order that the voice of the conservative opinion in Saskatchewan may be heard, because Saskatchewan has been made the spearhead of the cooperative commonwealth attack.

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Turnbull
Because that province has suffered three crop failures in recent years and has been struggling with that difficulty and because of the incidence of low prices, it was perhaps thought that misery and unrest might be capitalized better there than in any other part of Canada. The people of Saskatchewan realize the causes of their trouble and that they do not lie in the direction suggested by my hon. friends of the cooperative commonwealth.
For my part I am not concerned with the name of the organization; not half as much concerned with it as are those hon. gentlemen themselves. I find in the cities of Saskatchewan they call themselves the Independent Labour party and in the rural parts of my province they call themselves the United Farmers of Canada. This was the case until they had a convention in Saskatoon. At that convention someone wanted to call them by their true name of socialists and be honest with the world, but others said that they would not catch as many votes as if they called themselves Farmer-Labour, so Farmer-Labour was the name, and is yet, so far as Saskatchewan is concerned. Then they held a convention at Calgary at which there were gentlemen who wished to call the organization socialistic, but that suggestion was not carried out for the very same reason that obtained in Saskatchewan, namely that they hoped to deceive the people as to their true aim by calling it the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I have under my hand what are reported to be the words of the leader of that party, as follows:
And the name? Ah! that was a bit of a. sticker. A conference less in earnest about fundamentals might have easily gone on the rocks over the name. "Socialist," suggested the Farmer-Labour group from Saskatchewan; "Socialist." urged the Labour group from B.C.. which now calls itself the Socialist Party of Canada. But socialism is so vague, including Mr. MacDonald. Mr. Herriot and the Nazis and Fascists, as well as the bolshevists.
It includes the bolshevists as well, although we have been hearing these days that the bolshevists and communists are quite different from socialists; but these are the reported words of the leader of that party:
Moreover, many people have been prejudiced against the word who might have otherwise accepted the idea.
Had I been a socialist I would have been quite conteht to use that name; I would not have tried to deceive the people as to the real object of my propaganda by adopting a name that was not true to the ideas I was endeavouring to inculcate.
I am not particularly concerned with whether this organization is Russian or other-53719- 154
wise, whether its aims and objects are the same as those of Russia, or whether they are successful there or not. What concerns me is whether it can be successful in Canada. If it would improve our conditions in this country to adopt socialism, and I thought it would, I would be a socialist to-morrow. The name has no terrors for me, although it seems to have had for the founders of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. These men say that they are not communists, that the communists hate them and have nothing to do with them, that they oppose them, and my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre to-day attempted to tell us that communist second choices in the election in Winnipeg went to Mayor Webb; but he did not tell us what proportion of those second choices went to Mayor Webb and what proportion went to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, or whatever name they give the party in Winnipeg.


Mr. HEAPS:: None.


Franklin White Turnbull: My hon. friend says
none. I will tell you what happened in Calgary, where we had an election not so very long ago. We had an independent running there representing the sane thought in that city, and the people evidently thought so because they elected him. We had several other candidates running in Calgary. We had a communist candidate running there as well, and although the electors had three or four other candidates to vote for, those who voted for the communist candidate gave their second choices to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidate in Calgary to the ratio of 74 to 1. That is the way the communists hate the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in that city.


Eccles James Gott: That ought to make an imprint.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Nothing registers.


Franklin White Turnbull: I am not particularly
concerned with what economists say about this new party. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said a few moments ago that anyone could quote a few sentences from a speech or writing and make them mean something entirely different from what the author intended. I will accept him as an authority on that. If the economists have been thus misquoted by anybody in this country, it is by the friends of the socialist party in Canada. They will quote Sir Josiah Stamp, Sir Arthur Salter and all the other economists you can name, but I defy the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation to put their whole program before

2420	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Turnbull
any of the economists they quote and get anything but a horse laugh for it. Nor can they put it before the good people of the province of Saskatchewan or the people of this country either without getting very much the same kind of answer as soon as the public realize the game is on.
I am not concerned whether they call this a new party or an old party, whether it has new ideas or old ideas. As a matter of fact, its ideas are a hundred years old. There is nothing in all this babble that we hear from day to day that was not heard throughout the country seventy-five or a hundred years ago. I can quote the very catchwords one after another which have been in use as far back as the day of the first internationale, let alone the third. Here is the program of the Socialist Democratic Federation.


Fizalam-William Perras: May I ask a question?


Franklin White Turnbull: Certainly.


Fizalam-William Perras: I just want to ask if the
leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation paid three-quarters of a million dollars for his party?


Franklin White Turnbull: I thought, Mr. Speaker, when I had the courtesy to give the hon. member the floor he would at least have the courtesy to ask a question relevant to the subject matter. When the question is relevant to the subject matter I shall be very happy to discuss it with him, and he will not be very happy over the result.
In 1884 the Socialist Democratic Federation established this formula as their theory of life, and see how the language compares with that of the resolutions we hear in this house:
The establishment of the socialist commonwealth on a democratic basis; the common ownership of the means of production and distribution; the production of wealth for the use and enjoyment of all, instead of the production of commodities for the profit of the few.
You would almost think, Mr. Speaker, that it was my hon. friend's resolution I was reading, instead of a platform of years and years ago.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What date was it?


Franklin White Turnbull: August 4, 1884. We are asked to take the administration of this country not only out of the hands of the present government but out of the present form of government, and to establish something new. We have heard considerable argument about capitalistic countries and socialistic countries. Those arguments are not applicable to this country because this is not a capitalistic country. Nor do I know of any part of the world

where there is a socialistic country in existence, not even in Russia. There is capitalism there, and there is socialism there, forced on the people by a dictatorship as ruthless as any exercised by any czar. There is also in this country capitalism and socialism, and a good mixture of it, and sometimes I think we have a little bit too much of it, and we might be better off with a little less. But certainly all the countries of the world that I know of are a mixture of capitalism and socialism. The difference is only a question of degree. So when you try to set the people of this country against one another as capitalists and socialists, you set each man against himself because each man is a capitalist in some things and a socialist in others.
Let us examine the organization of this body to which we are asked to entrust the affairs of state. The Independent Labour party is a part of it. They are the people who tell us that there is no difference of opinion between this body and organized labour. I have here the statement of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), as reported in the Regina Daily Star of October 13, 1931, in a speech he made in Montreal in the course of which he said in regard to trades unionism:
Trade unionism to-day is just a lobbying machine that must appeal to city councils, provincial governments and the Dominion government for legislation to cover their demands.
In the province of Quebec, labour unions had been more "backward" than anywhere else in Canada, Mr. Heaps said. He pictured Labour leaders waiting "cap-in-liand" upon parliamentary leaders to beg favours that they might well obtain for themselves if Labour controlled the governments.
That is his idea of the functions of organized labour in the community to-day.	[DOT]
We have also the United Farmers of Ontario, and we heard that they affiliated with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Toronto a few months ago, but we have not heard so much about the fact that they refused to be bound by the doctrines of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. They just affiliated for the form of it and out of courtesy,
I suppose, to one who urged affiliation upon them so strongly.
We have heard of the United Farmers of Alberta. As I understand the reports, and I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong, they did not accept the doctrines of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation when they affiliated with this new party at Calgary. Their attitude was: We are going to go along with you a little while and see what you have got
As far as the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, is concerned, they

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Turnbull
represent but a very small fraotion of the farmers of Saskatchewan, and their affiliation with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation does not matter very much as regards expressing the opinion of the organized farmers of that province.
With respect to their relations with the communists I am not particularly concerned, but this I do believe, that the object of the communists and of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is the same. Both hope to obtain a cooperative commonwealth. Their methods I believe are different. The communist says: I am prepared to do an overt act if necessary in order to get what I want. The socialist says: I am prepared only to egg on an overt act, and I want the statutes changed so that I shall be at liberty to do that, so that as long as I do not do anything overt I shall not get punished. That is what happens in strikes. The men who egg the strikers on are always in the back row when the bricks begin to fly. Their objects, I say, are the same, and as Russia has placed its hallmark of approval on the communists it means that it has at the sa,me time placed its hallmark of approval on the object of the socialists. And they may be right. Because Russia approves, it does not make them wrong at all. Some person in Russia appears to be taking an intelligent view of socialism and a very great interest in it, because the other day the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) expressed the great surprise that Mr. Stalin felt over the results of the election in Great Britain, in which he said Great Britain was hopeless because in spite of unrest and unemployment it had not adopted the socialist policies. If hon. members do not want to be associated with communists, and if they do not want to be ascociated with Russia they ought to be a little more careful of the company they keep. How about these ten-day Cook's tours taken to Russia by gentlemen, some of whom are in this house and some outside? A few evenings ago the hon. member for Mont-magny referred to Mr. George Williams who had taken a ten-day Cook's tour in Russia. He was sent by the agricultural institute to Rome. I hope this country did not pay his expenses. He came back with enough material for a book and a lecture tour, telling us about what he had seen.
If hon. members do not want to be confounded in the public mind with matters relating to Russia, they must come out from among them and be separate. Let us consider their attitude towards trade. We hear the continual cry that we should trade with Russia, whether she wants to trade with us or not. On the other hand there is the continual 53719-1541
cry not to trade with Great Britain because we have to bind ourselves for a period of five years. Only a few days ago we were urged to finance trade with Russia, although Russia was not sufficiently interested in it to allow the Canadian delegate to use a code telegram. However, we were to put up the money. They sound the praises of what is going on over there, telling what wonderful things Stalin is doing for Russia. But * Tolstoy's daughter is praying for her murdered fellow citizens in Russia, and asking the nations of the world if they cannot come to their rescue and stop the slaughter. Certainly it is no wonder there is no unemployment in Russia. So long as the munitions factories are turning out bullets, and the stone walls stand, they can take care of unemployment. As I say, if hon. members do not wish to be regarded as friends of communists they should cease being press agents for a revolution in which they do not wish to take part. If they had the courage of their convictions they should be willing to do anything that they-I shall not say urge-advertise so widely somebody else is going to do. Because talking of these things breeds familiarity, and after a while they have the state of mind indicated by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) when she is reported to have told her Toronto audience to say "revolution" a hundred times, until they got used to the idea.
The organization of hon. members opposite is a loosely flung together affiliation of bodies, none of whom will agree to accept the principles of this resolution; nevertheless their leader comes into this house and asks us to accept the principle rejected by his own followers. If there has been one thing more than another which has happened in the last three months which would lead me to oppose the establishment of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation it would be the speech made in this house to-night by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, wherein he told us that he could not recognize the difference between force used to maintain law and order, and force used to upset law and order. Further he argued that if the state had a right to use force to maintain law, other individuals surely had the right to use force to upset law.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I
made no such statement.


Franklin White Turnbull: Surely we should have
something in the nature of association of individuals who agree on a common policy before we ask the country to accept a common policy. But have these gentlemen a
2422	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Turnbull
policy? What is their policy? What are the details of it? Let us draw this animal out of the bag and have a look at it, if we are asked to support and adopt it as our own. Let us have a chance to see what it is. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has said:
With a new social order as its goal the *Cooperative Commonwealth Federation had not .worked out a definite plan of action, but a *committee was working on a program.
And, lo and behold, within a few days the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) came into the house and told us what the program was, although the committee was still working on it.


Edward Joseph Garland: If the hon. member would investigate carefully he would find that the hon. member for Battle River spoke of what is termed a tentative program. Of course the hon. gentleman does not want to read correctly.


Franklin White Turnbull: The last part of the
hon. member's remarks were unnecessary. Is it a tentative program? Are we asked tonight to adopt a tentative program? Are we to set up a tentative program in Canada, or are we to wait until these gentlemen hatch a real program before we are allowed to have a look at it?


William Irvine: Let us have a look at yours.


Mr. QUINN:: We are not discussing that.


William Irvine: We are.


Franklin White Turnbull: What about the program? These are the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
Now about a program? That was the last thing to be considered, and really we had not time to consider carefully a manifesto.
Purposely we have not defined closely the form that we expect the Cooperative Commonwealth will assume. It may involve a measure of state socialism; it may be based on cooperative producers' and consumers' organizations; it may be, probably will be, a combination of the two.
So long as it is a case of "may be" he can appeal to all people. No one will know whether it is right or wrong. Probably that is the object of leaving it in the vague condition in Which we now find it.
We are told some things in Saskatchewan. In that province we are told that it means taking all the basic industries into public ownership. Certainly if I have heard anything from that corner of the house in days gone by, it is that agriculture is the basic industry of Canada. Therefore it would seem that their program involves the nationalization of agriculture. Along with that, we have again the
IMr. Turnbull.]
declaration by the hon. member for Bow River that he will give a real, genuine, security of tenure to the home owner and farmer. W'hich of these things shall we have? Before we decide to adopt the platform we are entitled to know definitely from someone what the program is to be.


William Irvine: What have you got now?


Franklin White Turnbull: Too much noise.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Too much oil and gas.


Franklin White Turnbull: Another thing we are
to have out in Saskatchewan-a wonderful thing to have-is a new money policy. We are going to have a money policy in Saskatchewan which will give industrialists all the money they need for the purpose of manufacturing, and still give the purchasers and consumers all the money they require for purposes of buying. That is a wonderful policy; they should certainly get a lot of votes. I would vote for that myself, if the money was any good when I got it. But fancy a party coming before the sensible people of this country with a proposition to give them all the money they want to carry around in their pockets whether they earn it or not! Fancy giving the industrialists all the money they want for manufacturing purposes, and allowing the consumers sufficient to buy all the goods they wanted from those industrialists. But they say that is the way we will get rid of unemployment.
Then, we had another state of affairs out in our part of the country. The leader of the party in Saskatchewan was asked one evening what he would do if the banks did not finance him when he had his socialist government in operation. "Why," he said, "we will demand that the banks meet our request, the same as they do in the other provinces". He would give only two and a half or three per cent, but would demand that they treat him the same as they did the other provinces. Then he was asked: "What if the banks will not do that?" "We will demand that the Dominion government give us the same privileges as they give the banks-take our bonds, and give us dominion currency in place of them." In the same breath he states they are going to nationalize the farms and pay off all the mortgages; then they will issue thirty-year bonds without interest to mortgage companies to meet these lialibilities. I suppose they will bring these thirty-year noninterest-bearing bonds to Ottawa and demand dominion currency for them. He was then asked, "What will you do if the Dominion government is not agreeable to that?" "We do not expect the Dominion government to do

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Turnbull
it, but if they do not, we will defy the Bank Act and print our own currency, and if the Dominion government tries to enforce the Bank Act and puts our premier in gaol"-and "our premier," of course, would be the leader of the socialist party by that time-"that is just what we want." It will call the public's attention to the condition-the new Mahatma Gandhi of Saskatchewan.


Edward Joseph Garland: Who is that?


Franklin White Turnbull: The new Mahatma
Gandhi, the first lieutenant of the cooperative commonwealth in the province of Saskatchewan.


William Irvine: Who is that?


Franklin White Turnbull: I am not advertising him; you can do that. It is no wonder hon. members think this is incredible, but it happens to be in accordance with the facts. Here are the people who expect the voters of Saskatchewan to support them. That province depends upon the rest of Canada for its groceries, for they do not .produce them in Saskatchewan; it depends upon outside people for its clothes, for its building .material and in part for its fuel. The four essentials for life are procured from outside the province, yet this man who is the first lieutenant for the cooperative commonwealth in Saskatchewan says we must declare a moratorium on external obligations and print our own currency.


Edward Joseph Garland: I rise to a *point of order, Mr. Speaker. For some time the hon. gentleman has been talking about some unknown person who he Claims is a lieutenant of cure. This person may or may not be a lieutenant, but surely it is due this house that when the hon, gentleman quotes, as he says he is quoting, a gentleman in the province of Saskatchewan, the name of the person to whom he is referring should foe given.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The point of order is not a point of order at all. The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) is quite in order in his remarks.


Edward Joseph Garland: They may be quite imaginary.


Franklin White Turnbull: I almost overlooked
another example of how the policy of some hon. gentlemen opposite conforms to the policy followed in Russia, but the hon. member for Bow River has recalled it to my mind. The other day the hon. member abandoned the idea of inflation, but members of the cooperative commonwealth are still preaching inflation in western Canada. Why do they not harmonize
their views and preach the same thing once in a while? Inflation is only a palliative, says the hon. member for Bow River.


Edward Joseph Garland: Hear, hear.


Franklin White Turnbull: And the hon. gentleman says, "hear, hear." Everything is futile except the complete overthrow of the system, the hon. gentleman says. There is nothing new about that; it is not even original. Zinoviev, alias Apfelfoaum, alias Radomisilsky, alias Arono-vitch, wrote the I.W.W. in 1920 advising them that political campaigns provided an opportunity for revolutionists to speak to the working classes and show them the futility of reforms, and he pointed out to them why the entire capitalistic system must be overthrown.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have never used the word "overthrown" in my life in connection with capitalism. Quote me correctly, and I will be satisfied.


Franklin White Turnbull: I w'as quoting Mr. Zinoviev, but apparently it comes so close to my hon. friend that he takes it for his own.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. gentleman quoted Zinoviev later.


Franklin White Turnbull: After all, the whole question is this: Can such a change in our form of government cure our present ills? If it can I am for it; if it cannot I am against it. What are the causes of our ills? Hon. gentlemen in the southeast comer talk about our ills; they rave about them from every platform m the country. Why do they not come out and tell the people what are the causes of these ills?


Mr. SPEA CER:: The government.
Mr. TLfRNBULL: That is an intelligent answer. Those economists quoted so freely by my hon. friends are united on one thing at least; they say the cause of our present ills is the low prices of commodities.


William Irvine: Who caused that?


Franklin White Turnbull: If hon. members listen long enough they may get a liberal education. The low prices of commodities are said by those economists, who all agree on it, to be caused by the scarcity of gold in circulation, and the scarcity of gold in circulation is caused by the fact that for several years those countries which have been receiving gold in payment of obligations or in payment for goods have not been relending that gold to the world. They have been removing it from circulation just as much as though the gold had not been taken from the earth. So
2424	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Turnbull
much is that the case that one of these economists, I think it was Sir Arthur Salter, has propounded the idea of printing $5,000,000,000 in gold certificates to take the place of the gold removed from circulation, but you could not keep those certificates from going where the gold has gone. You cannot do that until you change the outlook of those countries now receiving gold.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the underlying causes of our present ills, and if I 'had time I could show 'that these are the causes of the so-called tariff barriers that are interfering with trade. It is nothing new to say that tariff barriers interfere with trade; everyone knows that to be true. As far as we are concerned, however, we are not leading 'the hunt; we are following it, and following it as far behind as the safety of this country will permit. Can Canada remain alone and unprotected in a world constituted like that? That is the question. If she cannot, 'then the fact that tariffs are high does not alter the situation at all. It is necessary to lower those barriers in order to revive trade, but even a journal such as 'the Western Retailer says that cannot be done by any one country alone; it would be suicide. It must be done by all countries acting together, and if we can get it done by international action we will get somewhere. If I am correct in my proposition, as I think I am, that our troubles are caused by matters outside our own country, then they cannot be cured by any action taken within our country, other than whatever action a country of this size may take in assisting to remove and cure the ills of the world at large. We must do what we can to maintain our position until the change in world conditions takes place, and that is as far as we can go.
We hear the phrase "want in 'the midst of plenty." We in western Canada are producing wheat for a world that does not want that wheat; we cannot export it. It is practically the only thing we produce in large quantities for export, but France, Germany and Italy, our former markets, say they do not want our wheat. It piles up; we cannot sell it, and since we cannot sell it we do not have the purchasing power to buy other goods. The result is that other goods pile up, and we have this want in the midst of plenty of which we have heard. Surely that is not surprising; there is no mystery about it. The difficulty is to remedy that condition, and that cannot be done by setting up a cooperative commonwealth. We must either find a market for our surplus or cease producing the commodities that are piling up. It is said in the resolution that our economic system 'has gone out of

gear, that there are fundamental defects in that system, indicated by the fact that people are out of employment and that there is hardship in the land. It is true that there is unemployment and hardship, but just because those two conditions exist it does not follow that the first thing you put your finger on will be the thing that caused that situation. If I go out to my tractor in the morning and find that someone has put a monkey wrench in the gears so that the tractor will not operate, I do not take a sledge hammer and smash the tractor and say I must get a new one. I take the monkey wrench out of the gears; that is all it is necessary to do. This system works all right under normal conditions and we have been getting along splendidly; but because of the abnormal condition created by the after-war situation, debts and reparation payments, we find that there is for the time being a monkey wrench in the gears, which eventually we shall have to remove. But that having been done, the machine will operate freely.
They say we should have cooperative farming, or national farming, or whatever they call it. Well, there is nothing in the world to prevent cooperative farming in Canada to-day; there are on the statute books all the laws that are necessary to bring about cooperative farming if people want to take advantage of those laws. It can be done without changing any law or upsetting any government or instituting any new system. You can also have cooperative banking if you want it. If my western friends will get out and persuade each farmer to take a cent a bushel less for his next year's crop they can get together $400,000 and start a bank and make all the money that the banks are making, loaning money for nothing if they can get away with it. They can enjoy all the advantages that the banks have to-day and get all the good that is going in the world. Why do they not do it? You can have cooperative selling if you want to have it. As a matter of fact we have had it in Saskatchewan before now. You can also have cooperative manufacturing. There is not a single thing in this dominion under our present laws which you cannot undertake cooperatively if you care to. You do not need to have any revolution; all you have to do is to persuade the hardheaded farmers of my province that they would be better off under a system of cooperative farming than they are to-day. But you cannot so persuade them; you cannot make the farmers believe for a moment that they would be better off under socialism. For that reason the cooperative

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Butcher
commonwealth cannot be put over in that country. If by persuasion they will not do it themselves, then they will not by persuasion vote to have it done; and to all this noise and disturbance and shouting and fanfare and talk of revolution that has been going on during the past four or five years, a great many people have been listening and a great many more are now laughing.
Out in Saskatchewan farmers have been devoting forty or fifty years to individual farming, men like my good friend the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). That hon. gentleman has gone through all the vicissitudes of life in western Canada. Catch him putting his farm into a cooperative institution or a nationalized farm and doning a pair of overhalls and working as a hired man for some sort of Stalin or somebody of that description. According to the census returns in Saskatchewan only 49 per cent of the farmers in that province have returned encumbrances on their land. There must be 25 per cent more whose heads are well above water, if not more than that. That is 75 per cent, and these men will stand for solid and sane thinking when election time comes around; they will not be led away by any talk of social ownership, social economics and things of that kind.
We have gone through the years and made our own way and we have pride of ownership. We love our own homes, we love freedom of action. We love the privileges of home ownership and we like to spend our own money in our own way-lots of it when we are prosperous and little when we have not so much; but we do not like to turn our money over to a common till and allow someone else to tell us how much to spend. And that is what the cooperative commonwealth means. That is why, so long as the individual Anglo Saxon stands in the west, so long as we have those pioneers from Europe, who left their native land because they were individualists and had the courage to start afresh in a new country, people who have learned our ways of doing things, the cooperative commonwealth will not be accepted there. If my hon friend thinks that that is fruitful soil in which to sow the seeds of socialism he is very badly mistaken.
I am here to-night to say that the province of Saskatchewan will not adopt the cooperative commonwealth. I should not be true to my own province if I did not stand up and give it a better bill of health than my hon. friends in the southeast comer of the house have given it. We are having hardships, it is true. Well, we have faced
hardships before and we can face them again, and I have no doubt whatever that we shall come through this period with our property our own, with our own ways of doing things, with our established rights and privileges. We shall make money again when times are better and we shall spend it for ourselves in our own way.
Our present system has brought us a long distance, whether you call it capitalism or anything else. It is one of the admirable features of the British system that it is susceptible to change, and being susceptible to change it adapts itself to the changing conditions from day to day. Undoubtedly there will be changes-not upsets but changes, which is an entirely different thing. Look back over the history of Canada; look back over the history of Great Britain and compare the condition of the masses in England fifty years ago with the condition of the masses to-day under our present system of government. Having taken that backward look you can then look forward and visualize the progress that we shall make in the next fifty years, not by sudden upsets of governments and systems, not by revolution and warfare and a lot of talk about the humanities, but by each individual doing his individual duty to himself and his country, and by gradually adapting ourselves to changing conditions. But we shall not make any progress by changing the whole system of government over night and placing in power gentlemen who have no experience in business.


Mr. HARRY BUTCHER (Last Mountain):: I have been somewhat reluctant to take part in this debate, for several reasons, three of which I now propose to enumerate. In the first place, I am one of that rapidly increasing number of persons who refuse to be frightened by the idea of a moderate socialism, and I firmly believe that we are approaching that kind of economic system by an evolutionary process, quite involuntarily on our own part. In the second place I am entirely at one with the hon. member who has moved this resolution (Mr. Woodsworth) and with his supporters in their desire for a more equitable distribution of wealth in this country, and in their wish to eliminate as far as possible poverty and distress from this favoured land. In the third place I am convinced of the sincerity of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in which respect I am quite plainly at variance with many hon. members to your right, Mr. Speaker. I am also convinced of the hon. gentleman's deep interest in the welfare of the less fortunate of our
2426	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Butcher
fellow citizens, and I feel sure he has the utmost confidence in his plan, that he is assured that the plan if adopted would cure our economic ills. Therefore I dislike to appear to oppose him. But on the other hand I do not want to be regarded as content with our present system while in its existing chaotic condition, for I most certainly am not.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre: has presented his resolution for the consideration of this house. I have considered it long and earnestly and have decided that though the time may conceivably come when I might vote for a similar resolution, that time has not yet arrived. Having intimated that I propose to vote against the resolution, I feel it my duty to give my reasons for so doing.
In common with the hon. member who preceded me (Mir. Turnbull), I have long realized that the machinery of state has not for some time been functioning perfectly. There are many indications of economic sickness in the body politic and I have given much thought to possible remedies for this condition. This was my reason for giving the closest attention to the resolution brought before this house by the hon. member and also to his introductory speech and the speeches of his lieutenants. So far as those speeches recite existing conditions, I am entirely in agreement; so far as they proclaim the necessity of remedying those conditions as soon as possible, I am also in .agreement, but when they say that socialism is the only or the best remedy, I must disagree. That there are many outstanding weaknesses and wrongs in our present system
1	think is undeniable. I also believe that these wrongs must be remedied at the first possible moment or the people themselves will step in and change the system, but I cannot admit that it is neither possible nor desirable to remedy them under the present system. Speaking to this resolution, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) is reported on page 1740 of Hansard of February
2	as follows:
It is no cause for fear when we say that capitalism cannot be reconstructed. The economic system known as capitalism is only one of a number of economic systems known to history. That known as slavery and that known as feudalism both preceded capitalism. They, like this system, made their contribution and passed out of human history, and out of their ashes grew the present system. It, too, is falling to pieces and cannot be resuscitated, cannot be repaired.
I cannot agree with the hon. member in those conclusions. I believe that the system can be repaired and made to function perfectly
[Mr. Buteher.l
again. In introducing his resolution the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said:
Great economists have pointed out that our present economic system could not last very long, but must give place to a different one. In more recent days we have the technicians pointing out not only the feasibility of fundamental changes in our social order, but the absolute necessity of such changes if our civilization is to persist.
No doubt that is true, but other equally great economists have denied that a change is necessary. There are as many economists who believe in the perpetuation of our present capitalist system as there are who believe in a change to a socialist system. Recently we have been hearing from a body of men known as technocrats who have made some most alarming predictions, but other men equally versed in technical knowledge say that the conclusions of the technocrats are absolutely wrong. They claim that to-day modernized machinery is so much needed that could business but revive it would take as many men to make the machines now needed to bring industry up to date as it took formerly to make the goods which would be made by the machines. It seems absurd to suggest that it would require as many men to make these machines as it formerly took to perform the labour to be done by the machines, but that is the statement they make. I must admit that personally I rather lean towards the economists quoted by my hon. friends in the southeast comer.
I had a rather amusing experience a few days before coming to Ottawa. I was in one of the smaller villages in my constituency and I came upon three of my constituents. One of them greeted me with this question: " What do you think of the money situation?" I responded by asking him: " What do you think about it?" He said: "Well, I read Mr. Young's speech in the House of Commons a while ago and I agreed entirely with him; then I read Mr. Coote's speech and I agreed with him." The second man said, " Well, I read Mr. MeGeer's article in MacLean's magazine and I agreed with him, then I read Mr. Plumptre's article and I agreed with him." The third man said: "Well, when I find two-professors of political economy who believe in the same thing I am going to agree with them." I think that is the true situation. I do not think the hon. member for AVinnipeg North Centre added force to his argument by quoting these great economists or technicians
I shall now direct my remarks to the resolution itself. The preamble reads:
Whereas under our present economic arrangement large numbers of our people are unemployed and without the means of earning a livelihood for themselves and their dependents;

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Butcher
I am entirely in agreement with the conclusions in that paragraph. Notwithstanding all the relief that has been afforded to the people of Canada there is still in some cases stark hunger, undernourishment, lack of clothing, homelessness and despair. I do not think anyone can deny the truth enunciated in this first paragraph of the preamble of this resolution. The second paragraph reads:
And whereas the prevalence of the present depression throughout the world indicates fundamental defects in the existing economic system;
I find myself largely but not wholly in agreement with the statement contained in that paragraph. I would amend it slightly to make it read as follows:
And whereas the prevalence of the present depression throughout the world indicates defects in the existing economic system or in the management and administration of the same;
With that amendment, I would find myself in agreement with my hon. friend.
Hon. members say that conditions in our country are no worse than in others and that we should not advertise our woes. I firmly believe that until every hon. member of this house is filled with a sense of horror at the injustice of the conditions to which I have just referred; until we rise up as one man and say that they shall end; until we realize that there is within this land sufficient to supply the necessaries of life to every man, woman and child, and affirm that the}' shall be supplied; until we rise up and say that the material needs of our people shall be met so that they may enjoy healthy bodies and contented minds, the story cannot be told too often. I believe that the defects to which I have referred are possible of remedy. If the members of this House of Commons and the legislatures of our land fail to do their very utmost to remedy these conditions, they cannot 'have any cause of complaint if they are replaced by others who may undertake to cure them even though they may later fail to carry out their undertaking.
There are three or four evils which must be faced. One of them is the unequal distribution of the proceeds of labour. Another the unequal distribution of wealth. Yet another is our failure to restrain the activities of great financiers and financial interests who have loaded industry with capital structures that have no relation at all to the value of the assets of the industries they control. These interests now call upon the government to raise duties, and upon management to make profits, in order that they may pay dividends to shareholders whom they have already despoiled of their capital. The
Premier of Quebec at a public meeting recently made the statement that the original capital invested in power, pulp and paper companies of eastern Canada did not exceed $30,000,000, but that this capital has been enlarged, watered, until to-day it amounts to $714,000,000, with assets worth less than $25,000,000. An hon. member in the house a few days ago referred to stock in a certain textile company which, he stated, originally cost 110 and had been inflated to a nominal value of $1,620. I am informed that stock in the Imperial Oil Company, originally worth $100, is now worth $1,200. It seems to me that this is one of the conditions that will have to be remedied. It will have to be made impossible for financiers to despoil the people to that extent.
Then there is the restraint that has been placed upon trade by high tariffs, resulting in each country endeavouring to constitute itself a self-sufficient economic unit, the impoverishing consequences of which are incalculable and finally we have a money system that is inadequate to the needs of the times, managed, and naturally so, under existing circumstances, with a view to profit for the shareholders instead of for the good of the people as a whole.
So far I find myself largely in agreement with the mover of the resolution and his lieutenants. This brings me to what the hon. member calls a "definite program." The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, after using the words I have just quoted, said:
It is only the newer groups, however, that have had the courage to set this before the country in the form of a definite program.
Is it definite? It is definite to this extent and this only: that it proposes that the system which we now have shall be replaced by another which has not been clearly defined. I wish the hon. member were in his seat at present, because I should like to criticize-and I shall do so in any case-one of the remarks he made. It is a little unfortunate that some of our friends in the southeast corner-and I know they will take this criticism kindly-will persist in declaring their superiority over the rest of us. They rejoice in and constantly proclaim their independence, their courage, their patriotism, their freedom from party control. In this case the hon. gentleman neither broadened nor strengthened his influence by emulating the renowned gentleman who went up into the temple to pray and who became so conscious of his moral rectitude that he ended, not by praying, but by thanking the Lord that he was not as other men. I feel also that those of his
2428	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Butcher
followers who so frequently tell the world they are not even as the members of the two old parties, really have no reason to congratulate themselves upon their humility, or to preen themselves in the belief that all the world takes them at their own valuation. That is intended in the very kindliest spirit, and I hope they will accept it as such.
This resolution proposes a complete change of system, but it is not definite; it does not define the capitalism it proposes to displace, or the socialism it would give us as a substitute, and it does not define the methods by which the change should be effected. There are various kinds of capitalism. In Russia, to which so many references have been made, the poor farmer who had one horse, one cow and one acre of land was a capitalist, and he had to have those wordly possessions taken away from him. We in Canada probably regard the millionaire who lends his money in hundreds of thousands or who finances large industrial enterprises, as a capitalist. Between these two there is a vast range of capitalists. And it should be noted that our friends have not defined the kind of capitalism they propose to displace.
Moreover, they do not define the kind of socialism in which they believe. There is the state socialism again referred to as the socialism of Russia, and there is the parlour socialism we hear of that is so popular with some of the aristocrats in the old country. Between those two extremes there are many varieties of socialism.
They do not tell us by what steps they propose to bring about this change, but they do
say:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should immediately take measures looking to the setting up of a cooperative comomnwealth in which all natural resources and the socially necessary machinery of production will be used in the interests of the people and not for the benefit of the few.
I admit that socialism is not mentioned in the resolution, and one of my friends who rather believes in the policy of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation said that I had no right to conclude that socialism was specially referred to in the resolution. Therefore I take the words of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) who said, as will be found on page 1744 of Hansard of February 2:
May I conclude by saying that the resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, clearly cuts the line between capitalism and socialism. There is no question about that. It places the issue where it ought to be placed. The next fight in Canada will be between socialism and capitalism, and if hon. gentlemen opposite and to my right do not

defend capitalism better in that election than they have done in this debate,-
The hon. member was just a little previous. -then it is going to be too bad for hon. gentlemen opposite. I believe the issue is what I have said it is. In the place of private ownership, competition, debts and unemployment, we advance cooperation, social ownership and the use of commodities instead of holding them for profit.
If the resources and the machinery of the country are to be under state control, then the men who work those machines must also be under state control. The hon. gentleman, in introducing his resolution, said that his party did not advocate bureaucratic state socialism, but they do advocate a planned system. I do not know how they are going to enforce state planning unless they have a form of dictatorship. There will be state autocracy and the state, so-called, will be a committee of men who have assumed control of the state. This means the establishment, if not at first, then most assuredly later on, of a dictatorship in almost every walk of life.
Already this afternoon attention has been called to the diversity of views held by the various units that will compose the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Farmers, labour, professional and business men, socialists of varying sorts, will all join together. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) said a few nights ago, all who are discontented will join together under this organization. What we are concerned with is which of these parties will control; whose views will prevail, in questions of the hours of labour, rates of wages, socialization of land. With regard to hours of labour a farmer member of this house recently pointed out that it was estimated that to-day a farmer had to do four days' work to receive one day's work from labour. The farmer is not interested in shortening the hours of labour; he is interested in the reduction of wages. On the other hand, labour is interested in shortening the hours of labour and increasing the rate of wages.
With regard to the socialization of land, a great variety of views is held by the various component parts of this federation. We were informed by the hon. member when introducing his resolution that the United Farmers of Alberta had passed a resolution calling for a community freed from the domination of irresponsible economic power in which all the social means of production and distribution, including land, are socially owned. In Manitoba last year I believe a similar resolution was introduced.
In the province of Saskatchewan we have a variety of opinions. The leader of the

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. BiUcher
Farmer-Labour party in Saskatchewan first came out with a policy of the socialization of all land. That, I imagine, met with protests from certain men who owned their land and wished to continue to own it, and so he modified his policy and said that they would socialize the land of the farmer who was burdened with debt and wished to have his land socialized. This was the policy for a little while, but in process of time a few farmers who are burdened with debt and are anxious to have their debts paid by the state said: "When our debts are paid by the state what is going to happen to our land? Our debts will be paid, but we shall have lost our land." So the latest suggestion is that when the debts have been repaid, the land will be returned by the state to the former owner in fee simple.
Then as to the proposed change of system, I would ask, can it be said with certainty that it offers a remedy? Are there no better ways of meeting the situation? If there is a better way, what is it? It seems to me that there are many conditions in this land to-day which are inexcusable. I admit that, and I think the time has come when we should unite our efforts to remedy the conditions to which I have referred.
One hon. member referred to the condition in which we find ourselves as a result of the machinery not functioning perfectly, and said it would be better to remedy the defects rather than scrap the machinery. I agree with him entirely. Shall we not first try to make the system work? I believe that that can be done.
Another hon. member a few days ago said that the ship of state was not on an even keel. I think that is rather a good illustration. Or perhaps one of the propellers is not working well, and it looks as though it were time for an overhauling. But we do not propose that the ship should be taken out to sea, scuttled and sunk simply because at the present time it is not functioning perfectly. What we do say is: Let us scrape off the barnacles and put in a new propeller, and so improve conditions that the ship will once again be entirely seaworthy.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin the other evening said, when 'he was asked for some details of the program of this new party: We will give you the details when we are called in; we are not on trial. I think he is .mistaken. No political party ever was more on trial than this new party to-day. They are not proposing to make slight changes in our present system; they are proposing to make an entirely new system. Referring again to the illustration I used just now, of a ship not on an even keel, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to imagine for a moment the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, who made the statement I have just quoted, going to the owners of this ship of state which is not functioning perfectly and saying to the executive of the owners, "I represent an organization that wishes to go into the shipbuilding business. My organization considers that your ship has outlived its usefulness. We suggest to you that you scuttle it where it floats or take it out to sea and sink it. Further, we suggest, (a) that you engage my organization to build a new ship of an entirely new design to replace the present one, and Ob) that you discharge your present crew and your spare crew also, and engage my organization to man your Ship after we have built it." Perhaps it would not be very difficult to imagine the owners or their executive in reply saying something like this: "We admit that our ship is not now in first-class condition. We know that there are grave defects that should, and must be, remedied, but we believe that they are not irremediable. This ship which you hold in such contempt has weathered many a storm and has brought into port many a valuable cargo to the advantage of all the shareholders. We believe that the hull is sound, that the damaged and imperfect parts can be replaced, that the barnacles can be scraped off, and that then the boat will be as seaworthy as ever. Nevertheless, we would like to hear your .proposition. We will ask you a few questions. You say that the ship you propose to build is of new design. Have you ever built one before?" The answer is: "No, but we have studied certain ideas promulgated by certain eminent theorists, and we have evolved some of our own also." Then the owners ask: "Do you know of anyone who has built a ship of the design you propose?" The reply is: "We do not know of any organization that has built and operated successfully a Ship of the design we propose." The next question is, "What are the outstand^ ing features of your proposed ship?" The answer is: "It will have an entirely new motive power. It will be motivated by 'use instead of profit.' Other outstanding features will be subsidiary to that."
Then another question: "Have you your plans and specifications with you? We should like to see them." The reply is: "We have not. It should be sufficient for you to know that the building will be planned. We will give you particulars, reveal the plans and specifications after you have given us the contract, first, to build the ship, and second, to man it; and the contract is to be irrevocable for five years." The owners then say: "But

Business of the House
we need full particulars of your plans before we can entrust you with such an important task. You propose four things: (a) That we sink our present ship; (b) that we discharge our existing crews; (c) that we employ you to build another ship; (d) that we engage you to man the ship when it is built. Therefore we think it is only reasonable that you should give us fairly full particulars of your plan." The salesman haughtily replies: "I would have you know, gentlemen, that I and my organization are not in the dock. It is your old ship that is on trial. We refuse to make any further explanations until the contract is signed and sealed."
Would he or should he get the order? I think not. Imagine awarding a contract to build a new ship to a company that discloses no plans!.
I see it is eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, February 24, 1933