1934-07-03

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I understand that this is the Prime Minister's birthday. I should like to extend to my right hon. friend my best wishes for many happy returns of the day, and perhaps on this occasion he will allow me to speak for the house and to extend these wishes on behalf of us all.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: The very unusual and kindly act of the right hon. the leader of the opposition I shall not soon forget. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank him for having thought of so gracious an act as that which he has just now done and, more, for the felicitous terms in which he has expressed it. I have had a very interesting and very hardworking life; I have enjoyed the one and gained much experience from the other.



AUSTRALIAN WHEAT AND FLOUR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: On Saturday I directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in regard to Australian flour shipped from Southampton to Halifax. Has the minister any further information?


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: There is no further information. There are a few small shipments coming in but nothing out of the usual. The necessary and, I think, effective steps have been taken to deal with the whole question and I may say that in this respect we are receiving the reasonable cooperation of the *Australian authorities.


Frederick George Sanderson: My question was
directed to the minister in regard to this one shipment, which he said he would look into- a very large shipment from Southampton to Halifax.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sorry my hon. friend-


Frederick George Sanderson: Don't be sorry for me.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Pardon me. I say I am sorry that my hon. friend persists in stirring up this question. I have stated repeatedly that with the very kind cooperation of the
Australian government the whole matter is being satisfactorily dealt with. The shipments are not large when one considers the movement of goods. The shipment he refers to is three hundred tons, not a large one. The matter is well in hand and is being most satisfactorily dealt with, and I do not think there is any need or occasion for agitation or alarm.


Frederick George Sanderson: Does the minister suggest that I am agitating?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I said there was no need for agitation.


Mr. YOUNG:: I hope the minister will not take any action that would tend to jeopardize the market for our own flour and wheat in Britain and other countries.



CAUGHNAWAGA SANITARY CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of the Interior. Yesterday I had the honour to be invited to the ordination of the first Indian priest in Caughnawaga, and while we were there the authorities were very anxious to know whether something could be done in the interests of hygiene. There is a very high death rate in that reservation. In the province of Quebec there are sanitary units and it would cost the Department of Indian Affairs only $150 a year, and the Quebec government could take charge of this reservation. I should be very much obliged if the minister, from his general estimates, could devote the necessary sum for hygiene purposes in this district.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Vincent Dupuis: With the kind permission of my hon. friends opposite I should like to present this matter to the minister.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If the hon. member is going to ask a question he should ask it. There is no motion before the house to justify a debate.


Vincent Dupuis: This is not a debate.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member proceed to ask his question?


Vincent Dupuis: I have no wish to embarrass the government, and the question is not asked for political purposes. It is only from a sentiment of humanity that I am putting the question.

4590	COMMONS
Supply-International Wheat Agreement


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Put it.


Vincent Dupuis: I simply want to remind the minister that there is no sewer system there.
Hon. THOMAS G. MURPHY: (Minister of the Interior): I did not hear the question but I can only say that I shall be glad to give the hon. member's remarks consideration.



INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT-STATEMENT OF MR. MOTHERWELL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the Prime Minister whether we would have an opportunity on the supplementary estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) of discussing the international wheat agreement. If we would at that time, then I would not raise the question now, but if we shall not have that opportunity on the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, then I propose to take the matter up now although I would prefer to do so on the estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It had better be taken up now in view of the condition of the estimates.


William Richard Motherwell: As the house is aware, we have several times made the request from this side that we be given an opportunity of discussing the international wheat agreement, but the Prime Minister seemed to think we had already discussed it sufficiently in the interest of the question itself and of the country generally. Developments, however, have recently taken place in connection with the question, that render it necessary that we should have something to say about it before we prorogue. Because of that, rather than wanting to introduce the matter on going into supply, I thought maybe the Prime Minister would let it be discussed on the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I believe my right hon. friend's decision is correct that the matter should be taken up now rather than on the estimates because there is no estimate dealing directly with the question and therefore permission to deal with it then might be denied.
The first step looking toward the failure of the international wheat agreement was in 1930 at the special session when the government of the day authorized imposing of an embargo on six or seven of the major exportable commodities of Russia. They did this in

none too delicate a way and it was accompanied by remarks that a great country like Russia could not be expected to entertain without some resentment. It seems to me that anyone who had any knowledge of international matters would know even at that time that embargoing the major exportable commodities of that great country was the last thing to do if we ever wanted to enter into an international trade agreement with Russia in regard to the production of wheat or any other commodity.
In 1931, the year following, there was an international conference at Rome respecting wheat. Russia had again come into the picture by that time as an exporter of wheat and the whole world was agog as to what was going to happen with Russia again exporting wheat, and at prices that some people said constituted dumping. The assemblage at Rome was brought about apparently with the hope that something might be done in the way of an international understanding about wheat. My recollection is that the Hon. Howard Ferguson, then and now High Commissioner for Canada, was Canada's representative at Rome and I think Doctor Riddell from Geneva was also there. The wheat pool had a representative there. Mr. Williams was there; I do not know whether he represented the pool or what, but Mr. Robertson was there on behalf of the wheat pool, as I understood. The conference was not very long under way when it became quite evident that very little was going to be done in the way of an international agreement. Russia was also represented. My recollection is-and I am subject to correction-that before the conference was very long under way, the wheat exporting countries were lined up on one side and the importing countries were lined up on the other. The conference adjourned with that line-up, the different countries not feeling very well disposed toward each other, the importing countries decided to reassemble in Paris under the leadership of the late Premier Briand and the others-the exporting countries

to reassemble in London under the leadership of the Canadian High Commissioner. This latter assembly was appointed more or less as a continuing committee to deal with this question, to dig into the matter of statistics and all that sort of thing, until finally in the following year, 1932, the Ottawa Imperial conference met in this capital city. The question of an international agreement with respect to wheat did not come up very prominently at that conference but the question of British preference in regard to wheat did. We do not need to go into that matter; the Prime Minister took the ground at that

Supply-International Wheat Agreement
time that the preference was intended not to raise the price of wheat but rather to give Canada a sheltered or secured market in Great Britain which objective subsequent events do not seem to prove, has yet been attained.
In the year following that, the big world international conference at London was convened where sixty or more countries were represented. Surely something was now going to be done with regard to not only an international wheat agreement but many other matters. It was thought the world was ready for a rest in connection with tariff increases and the very knotty problem of exchange was also to the fore, Great Britain having gone off the gold standard in the meantime in September, 1931. I do not need to tell the house what happened at that great international London conference which was very imposing. It was thought there were great possibilities in it, but President Roosevelt apparently got a new light as to what his duties were and something suddenly arose with regard to the conference proper, that is so far as the two features I have mentioned were concerned. Out of that international conference proper, that is the one consisting of some sixty countries, was developed what might be called an auxiliary conference. It was practically the same conference but there was a subconference-I use that term for want of a better-comprising some twenty-one countries that were interested in either buying or selling wheat. According to my recollection my good friend the Prime Minister was chairman of that conference. I have no notes before me; I am speaking from memory and it will not aggrieve me at all if I run off the track and somebody sets me right; but I remember the right hon. gentleman was chairman; I may say that he was the head, the tail and the middle of that conference. We have just been passing felicitations about my good friend's birthday and this would be a nice time to make the remark that no matter whether it was a world conference or a smaller local one, my right hon. friend was never in it for ten minutes or at least half an hour before he was the centre of attraction and was pretty much in control of the conference especially when he was chairman. Naturally that would be the case. I can imagine him being there when he would be in the limelight, the central and the most brilliant member of that conference; I do not know anyone who would be more so. Had it not been for his great energy, personality and perseverance there would not on that occasion have been any international wheat agreement. But when we know him as we do and the masterful manner in which he 74726-290 i
takes up a question, especially one with which he was thought by the other countries to be pretty well familiar, there was nothing else to it but to go ahead with his great driving force behind the project and the conference. It has often been said that this was the one redeeming feature of the international conference consisting of sixty countries, that convened there some weeks or months previously. Therefore, when my right hon. friend returned from that conference in London with the laurels of what seemed to be a considerable victory on his brow, he might be pardoned for making some pretty strong claims on its behalf and at least he might have been expected to ask the concurrence and approval of this house in his wonderful achievement. But that has not been don^ yet. And we know why it has not been none. Anyhow the Prime Minister came back and made a very extraordinary speech in Winnipeg before a body of young business men, saying in regard to the agreement: What is there to do in this world regarding the increasing and embarrassing wheat carry-over? but just what business men are doing? When they found their shelves were full of goods for which there were not enough buyers they reduced their inventories, that is reduced orders for goods from the manufacturers until the shelves were lightened. We have to remember that that illustration was given before a body of business men; it was the sort of illustration that would appeal to them. It took like hot cakes, as the saying is, with them, and it seemed a reasonable thing to suggest that the farmers do the same in their wheat production policies. That was the way he put it-why should not farmers pursue the same method when they found they were overstocked with wheat or any commodity: reduce inventories and all will be well. I hope the Prime Minister will correct me if I am exaggerating in any way. To superficial hearers it seemed reasonable, but unfortunately it is not a parallel case at all. Business men can do that, even though it embarrasses the manufacturer, but when a farmer is invited to reduce his production of wheat there is a further question: what is he to do with his acreage? Either the Prime Minister did not think that a matter of concern or he overlooked it; at all events he did not enlighten the country or the farmers about it. That was an awful anti-climax to my right hon. friend's earlier dictum, when he said he was going to blast his way into the markets of the world. One could imagine all things that stood in the Prime Minister's way blowing up sky high. But now he says in effect: This blasting process has not worked out; the only way to meet the situation is not to
4592	COMMONS
Supply-International Wheat Agreement
have so much wheat to sell, and then I shall hot have to use so much powder in blasting. He said further: Would it not be better to sell one bushel of wheat at one dollar per bushel than two bushels at fifty cents each? That was intended to be a clincher. I was up in Mackenzie riding at the time-you heard about the Mackenzie by-election last fall no doubt, Mr. Speaker. When we arrived there it was terribly wet; all meetings were cancelled because of the condition of the roads. In Wadena we assembled in a room in the hotel where there was a radio and were entertained hearing this or another speech from Winnipeg by the Prime Minister. It was not a question whether he was reported properly or not; we were delighted to hear him, and we were almost convince! against our judgment that the Prime Minister had the remedy,-selling one bushel at one dollar instead of two at fifty cents each. If it were only as simple as that, wouldn't it be glorious? But there were one or two difficulties. To begin with, who was to give us the one dollar? And the statement was chock full of other economic blunders and fallacies, in addition to that vital defect. Mr. McFarland has never been able to dispose of his wheat at one dollar since then nor any one else in Canada that we have heard of. So the whole idea was just a dream and a mighty bad dream. Now what is the next move-the next part in the play? I have always believed that the Prime Minister himself never thought much of that wheat agreement. He has too good a business head to think that you can get prosperous by artificially reducing the world's production by practically endeavouring to shorten the arm of the Lord and reduce the abundance with which He has blessed this world. I could not imagine a man of parts like the Prime Minister preaching such a horrible, heathenish fallacy.
But, when we come to see who were his advisers on that occasion, then I am not so surprised at his blunder. Who were the Prime Minister's advisers at this international wheat conference and before? The three prairie premiers, Mr. Bracken on the east, Mr. Anderson in the centre and Mr. Brownlee on the western front. In addition he had Hon. Mr. MacPherson, a very fine and capable attorney general for Saskatchewan, who I remember went overseas with the Prime Minister. Then there was a gentleman familiarly known as Andy Cairns. He was there as a statistician. Those were the Prime Minister's advisers on this problem of an agreement to control the international marketing of wheat, restricting it to what were thought to be the consumpfMr. Motherwell.]
tive requirements of the world. Mr. Bracken made as good a case as could be made for an international agreement. He is the only farmer premier I know of in Canada,-I have not even that before me, because I did not know I would be speaking now. I followed him with a great deal of interest, particularly as Mr. Bracken was at one time a member of my own staff in Regina when I was a minister there. I knew him well; knew he was well informed, and his attitude had quite an effect upon me. I dug into the question further and further to see where he was wrong, if be were wrong, or if he were right wasn't it time I should get right and try to get behind this new theory of restricting our abundance in order that we might become wealthy. Might I point out incidentally that a while ago someone said that the man who could make two blades of grass grow where formerly there was one, such a one was the man of the hour, but now it seems that the man who would and could make one blade grow where formerly two grew is the boy from Galway. The latter was the Prime Minister's position. Well, I do not think much of that attitude. It is a new doctrine to me and I cannot get reconciled to it. Anyhow Mr. Bracken was behind it, Mr. Cairns was behind it; I understand it was he who gave Mr. Bracken the wrong slant. Mr. Cairns is a wizard with figures; he was adviser to the pool in the fall of 1929 as a statistician, but he is not an agricultural economist; that is something Mr. Cairns knew nothing about. But he can handle figures in a marvellous way; he seems to be able to mesmerize even those who should know better and convince them that he is also an authority on agricultural economics, which he is not. Consequently that adviser was never able to put my right hon. friend aright in the matter of what might come out of a world wheat agreement.
Then there was Mr. MacPherson, who went over with the Prime Minister. I know him very well; he was my opponent in the federal contest of 1921, when I got to know him very well and very favourably. But bless your heart, Mr. Speaker, what he did not know about wheat would fill a whole book and more. How could he possibly know anything about wheat? How could you expect to take a professional man, I don't care how high he is in his profession, and trot him off to a world conference expecting him to work out one of the biggest problems that was ever attempted to be worked out in connection with any farm commodity? Bread is spoken of as the staff of life, and here this uninitiated lawyer attempted to work out this great

Supply-International Wheat Agreement
problem. I am not saying anything disrespectfully of lawyers; I would say the same thing of myself if I were put into some job I knew nothing about and expected to make a good job of it. I did not expect him to be of much use to the Prime Minister, and he was not; it was a case of the blind leading the blind, because on that wheat question they were both as blind as bats.
Now we come to Doctor Anderson, also a man of parts. I suppose he had more of a cosmopolitan education than Mr. MacPherson had; he was also a lawyer and he held an honorary doctor's degree. He was some man, but he did not know very much about wheat either. It would be difficult for anyone to live in the west without knowing a field of wheat when it was growing, but I have seen men come from eastern Canada who did not know a field of wheat when it was growing. Certainly Doctor Anderson was not qualified to give much good advice to the Prime Minister. Then there was the third prairie premier, Hon. Mr. Brownlee, another gentleman of parts, another lawyer, head of the farmer's government out there for a long time. He was very acceptable in that capacity but, notwithstanding his many qualifications, no one ever dreamed that he knew much about an international wheat agreement. I realize that he has been mentioned in connection with many appointments, but he lacked the one thing that was necessary in an effective adviser to the Prime Minister of Canada on such an important errand.
With all those advisers, or misadvisers, is it any wonder that the thing did not go? It did go in a sense; it went from bad to worse, and now it is about on the scrap heap. A wheat agreement including certain quotas that did not include Russia was a very defective agreement. No matter how she talked how could you expect a great, proud nation like Russia to agree to any such thing? She was coming along with a constitution and form of government that many of us did not like, but it was her prerogative to have any kind of government she preferred so long as it did not interfere with other countries. They were building up their country and we slapped them bang in the face with these embargoes. Then we expected the representatives of that great country to play Canada's game in connection with an agreement concerning wheat, with Russia on the up grade, developing her wheat in order to feed her own people, who were increasing in number very rapidly due to the natural increase. It was an act of childish folly for anyone to expect Russia to sign that quota agreement; it was contrary
to the very nature of things. She was going onward and upward in wheat production and Canada was the last country that had any right to expect her to come down off her pedestal and adapt herself to our requirements with respect to wheat production.
That was the beginning of the let-down. It was true that the Danubian countries signed the quota agreement; Argentine signed, and Canada and the United States signed. Practically all the important countries signed with the exception of Russia, but it was not long before the Argentine showed signs of wanting to get out of it. Their crop was larger than they had expected; their quota was only something like 110,000,000 bushels, and it became rumoured that the Argentine had changed her mind, which might be expected in any democratic country. Sometimes governments are compelled to change their attitude. I am not criticising the Argentine; I have no doubt she changed her mind because her people changed their minds, but the result is that she is sailing ahead above her quota without regard to the wheat agreement at all. Sihe has exceeded her quota now by some six or seven million bushels, and by the end of the present grain year she is expected to be something like forty million bushels ahead of her quota. I understand that she entered into some negotiations with the continuing committee in London, but that she did not say one thing or the other; she just went on sawing wood, or in other words exporting wheat, and she is not under the agreement now either technically or otherwise.
May I ask who was the first defaulter? Did not Canada default the moment she neglected to have this parliament concur in that agreement? I am not an international diplomat or authority, but I have been in politics for some time, and I have never seen an agreement come back either to a legislature or to this parliament which was not presented for concurrence or disapproval, as might be thought best. Invariably it was the government of the day that negotiated the agreement; invariably the government of the day was supported, but this agreement has not been supported or concurred in nor has this house been asked to do so. We were asked to concur in the silver agreement arrived at during the course of the same conference; so that a less important agreement was concurred in by this parliament, yet until to-day we have not been given an opportunity of discussing the more important agreement, so far as I know. We set a day apart to discuss sweepstakes, which surely are not of as much importance as an international
4594	COMMONS
Supply-International Wheat Agreement
wheat agreement. We discussed that subject for a whole day, and I think to advantage, but we were not given a day to discuss this agreement. It is up to the right hon. Prime Minister to explain these things. It is just possible that there may be an alibi, and if there is I think it is the duty of the Prime Minister to seek an opportunity to explain that alibi instead of waiting for me to bring up and press the matter.
I want to be able to go home and either say that the wheat agreement was concurred in by the parliament of Canada or that there was some sound reason for not asking concurrence. I think I know the reason. It began to dawn upon the right hon. Prime Minister, as it has been dawning upon the rest of us, that he was wrongly advised, so what did he do? He said in effect to the prairie premiers. "You have shoved me into this thing; now I am just going to pass the buck back to you and 'let George do it.' " The three Georges have been trying to do it ever since; they passed an act in each province allocating this 200,000,000 bushel quota of ours. Well, we are away below even the quota now and the grasshoppers are making it appear that we will hardly require a quota this year or next. The only excuse the Argentine gives for default, so far as I have seen, is that Canada did not live up to her agreement to reduce acreage. I do not know that Canada ever agreed actually to reduce the acreage; I do not know. That has been said, and that inference has been drawn. When you , reduce exports however-and we have agreed to reduce exports-you must admit that inferentially it means a reduction of acreage. Otherwise you will have the excess production backed up on the hands of the farmers. Can the farmer pay his bills by looking at his wheat in rickety old granaries not fit to take care of it in the summer time, granaries in many instances with rats in the bottom and cracks in the sides?
That is the wonderful policy which the right hon. gentleman opposite evolved. I am looking forward to the Prime Minister telling me how he can justify not asking for concurrence, and still claiming that he played the game. As I see it, he was the first to default, on behalf of Canada-not counting Kussia. She did not default, because she never agreed to her quota. If the Prime Minister will show substantial reasons why he did not ask concurrence I shall remove that harsh word. If you like, I shall remove it now. Probably I should wait until he makes his presentation of the case, and probably I should not be so harsh as even to suggest that Canada defaulted in her interna-

tional obligations. But how can I get away from it? That is the excuse the Argentine gave; they said that Canada did not come to the scratch, and therefore they wanted to know why they should be expected to toe the mark. That is the way the matter stands. We will soon be out of the present crop year. The stabilization authority in Winnipeg has been very desirous of holding up the price, and for that attitude I must give him credit. I have pointed out on three or four occasions however that the moment you hold the price of a commodity out of line with those of your competitor, then your export sales weaken and dribble off. That is what happens and has happened in Canada. Apparently we are not going to get our quota of 200,000,000 bushels filled during the present year and with an estimated 160 millions or more of a carry-over on August next. It is a very laudable effort on the part of Mr. McFarland; He wants to get a price for the farmer, and I commend that attitude. We would certainly be glad to get a better price, but we would be gladder still to get more sales also. Are we going to be hamstrung like this in an agreement on which everybody else defaults even if I admit we may not have defaulted? As soon as it becomes embarrassing they say in effect, "Well, good-bye Mary Jane; I am off this quota business; anybody who likes can stay on." It is time we had a statement from the Prime Minister about this matter, and he should not have waited until the end of the session to make it. He looked as mad as a hatter or a March hare on Saturday night because some of us wanted to know a few things which we would not have known if prorogation had taken place then.
There is another phase of the matter about which I should like to make only a few observations. Who will say that even if we could have a practical international reduction wheat agreement, that is the right policy for us to persue. I put a resolution on the order paper a year ago last February asking this government to institute an inquiry into the possibility of selling more wheat and wheat flour in China. We were evidently being crowded out of Europe. The government were going to shut, indeed were shutting, their eyes to the possibilities of other markets. We could have looked for a market in China, and it was wrong, absolutely wrong before man and God, to try to reduce production when there were millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of people throughout the world going to bed hungry. Yet we did not even make an attempt to barter wheat with

Supply-International Wheat Agreement
thena for their goods. We did not send a commission, a committee or even a single minister to the orient to see what was going on, and to learn if something could not be done to sell our wheat. I would not be surprised if a famine visited this old world; it almost looks that way even now. If man is not ingenious enough, after the showers of food blessings which have been bestowed upon him, to make a better job of distributing than he is doing now, it will be like when the manna fell from heaven and a lot of those lazy old. Jews would, not even gather up enough on Saturday night to do them over Sunday. Do you think they deserved to have more manna, under the circumstances? No, let them starve someone avers; that would have been more like justice. If we always had full justice meted out to us I do not know whether we would even be here or not. We hope the justice will not be meted out to us that we sometimes bring down upon ourselves. But this government uses all the ingenuity at its command to lessen the abundance, to create artificially higher prices so that those who had abundance would get more therefor, and so that those who had little or nothing would not be able to buy that which was offering at even the low prices hitherto prevailing. What a great policy in a Christian country! Apparently there is no recognition of the fact that there is a Great Architect or Wheels* man at the helm of it all, but they-the twenty-one countries so engaged-just go along and say, "I will fix that up; I will artificially reduce the arm of the Lord in the matter of abundance." I can tell you it is being reduced all right, both in Europe and on this continent. But practically none of it is now going to China, as a result of the policies of my right hon. friend opposite.
I have been trying to learn what was done in the matter of wheat sales to China. For nearly five months I have been making constant inquiries. The government of my right hon. leader did not send the Hon. Mr. Marler to Tokyo as an ornament. He has been making reports, some of which I have seen. Of course I have not seen the inside of them. When officials representing the Hon. Mr. Stevens came to see me, to ascertain what would fill my order for a return, they showed me a number of documents, a whole lot of them, and they told me that two reports on wheat had been made by the Hon. Mr. Marler, respecting the possibilities of selling more wheat flour and wheat in China. I said that was all I wanted, and told them not to ask me to read the rest in order to get at those two. They went away quite happy.
I know those reports are in existence, and the Prime Minister has indicated that they are private. He did not say whether or not they were marked "private" by the Hon. Mr. Marler; I venture to say that they were not marked private, at all by him. No doubt those documents refer to one of the subjects uppermost in Mr. Marler's mind when he went to China. I happened to be in Vancouver immediately before he sailed, and having held conversation with him I know what was uppermost in his mind. He went to be a real emissary to get contacts with the eastern world whereby Canada would be able to sell more of her wheat, and other commodities. The Prime Minister-and I suppose he has a right to do so-has said that those reports cannot be tabled. I will go farther, and recognize his right to take that action, despite the fact that they may not have been sent as private and confidential; or that they may not have been marked "private." I recognize his right to make them private, and so to mark them. They could be considered private from his standpoint, and I am not finding any fault with him in that respect. He could mark them as being private information and then pass them on to the department interested, namely the Department of Trade and Commerce. Under instructions from his leader the Minister of Trade and Commerce could not, under the circumstances, table the reports, and that is the reason I have not been demanding them recently.
We have been kept in the dark long enough, and that is why I am availing myself of this opportunity of bringing the matter to the attention of the house and the country generally. I think it would have been better for the Prime Minister if he had brought down the return I asked for on February 9 last, and given the people an opportunity to see whether or not Mr. Marler was performing his duty, or whether the government had failed to carry out its duties. Then we want to know which should be dismissed, and if either had been negligent. That is all we want to know. We have not been given that opportunity. I have nothing more to say at this time, except to express the hope that this appeal, which I expect will be the last one this session, may be answered. I hope that even yet the Prime Minister will clear the skirts of Canada by taking the responsibility of either asking this house to concur in this quota agreement or at least showing mighty good cause why it should not be concurred in if it is to remain in effect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, when a week ago
4596	COMMONS
Supply-International Wheat Agreement
I asked this house whether or not it was thought to be desirable that we should have three sittings a day and close the business by sitting on Saturday, the house unanimously expressed the view that I should take the action which I subsequently did by preparing the motion which was submitted to this chamber and unanimously adopted. Had I thought for a single moment that matters such as the one now under consideration, were to be considered at this session I certainly should not have asked the house to sit three sittings a day and to sit on Saturday, for it was not at my instance that it was done but rather at the instance of the house whose will I endeavoured to reflect in the motion which was submitted to the chamber.
I do not propose to canvas this matter at this time; I only desire to correct one or two errors and then I shall be content.
First, Russia signed the agreement. That is number one.


William Richard Motherwell: Not the quota.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Excuse me; I said
Russia signed the agreement, and her signature will be found on the document submitted to the chamber.
Secondly, Russia was not mentioned in any legislation that was passed in 1930. It was not until 1931 that the embargo to which the hon. gentleman has referred was passed.
Thirdly, Russia at no time indicated any resentment with respect to the matter when dealing with the wheat quota. The question of the quota so far as Russia was concerned, was a matter to be arranged with the exporting countries when Russia knew something of the amount of wheat which would be produced in her country. There has never been difficulty with Russia except that the reports from time to time were out of line with wha.t was believed by those who have been investigating, to be the quantity produced. It has turned out in fact-in fact; it is not a question of discussion-that the Russian crop has been somewhat less than was anticipated at the time the discussion took place.
Next, the Argentine has not withdrawn from the agreement. The Argentine has had the largest crop she has had for some time, and she has suggested that inasmuch as the quota which was granted to other countries would not be exhausted owing to the large crops that were available in Europe, she should increase her quota under the agreement. The question has been discussed on more than one occasion, and proposals have been made by the United States and representations by France and Great Britain to the Argentine with respect to the matter, and the repre-
[Mr. Bennett.!
sentations of Great Britain, being an imparting country, have had some effect. The question is still under consideration.
So far as submitting the agreement to this house for consideration is concerned, no one knows better than the hon. gentleman that the question of enforcing or endeavouring to enforce the area that should be sown to wheat was a matter within the realm of provincial jurisdiction, and each of the three provinces passed the necessary legislation. So far as the dominion was concerned, it assumed responsibility for seeing that no more than a given quantity of wheat should leave these shores for the purpose of complying with the conditions with respect to the quota. Those conditions have been complied with. Canada has not been in default; Canada will not be in default. Canada has complied with all the obligations which she undertook to discharge, and I cannot understand a Canadian trying to assert that others in strange countries may read that this country has defaulted in the obligations that it undertook. It has not done so and it never will default so far as we are concerned, in any of its obligations.


William Richard Motherwell: May I ask the Prime Minister a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


William Richard Motherwell: It is not an embarrassing one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No question of the hon. gentleman embarrasses me.


William Richard Motherwell: I wonder how many other countries have first to default before we default. The Argentine has surely defaulted. Will all the other countries have to default and we be left standing alone like the boy on the burning deck, being the only one to carry out the agreement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The further question that has been raised as to the wisdom or unwisdom of there being a lessening in production is a matter that can always be discussed. It is a debatable question, and I am not going to say again what has been said so frequently, and what I did say in Winnipeg, that when a man finds himself producing in larger quantities than he is able to sell, and which he knows he cannot sell because the people who used to buy from him are supplying themselves, when fifty million acres that used to be sown to cereals were put out of production during the great war, and forty millions were added to production in the United States and ten millions in this country, it follows that as soon as the country that was out of production went back into production

Supply-International Wheat Agreement
there would be a corresponding loss of opportunity on the part of the United States and of Canada to sell their cereals where they had sold them during the war and immediately thereafter.
Just as soon as the devastation caused by the war was overcome and the communities . in question were able to sow and reap a harvest, just so soon was that market which Canada and the United States had theretofore enjoyed, limited to that extent.
So far as China is concerned we did have negotiations and we were offered, as I told this house many months ago, an opportunity to sell wheat to China on three-year terms,
I think it was; -but the conditions of government in China were such that we did not on that ground think it was desirable. But there was something more. They only desired to pay for the wheat a price equal to what our lowest grade of wheat would sell at, and we could not reduce the price of wheat in this country to less than forty cents a bushel in order to accept the Chinese offer, and we did not do so. The soft wheat of other countries found a more ready market than we were able to compete with. The price of wheat on the world market by reason of conditions that have been brought about partly by the agreement, partly by climatic conditions, partly by the acts of nature, and partly by grasshoppers, has been enhanced by these conditions, and I can only say to the hon. gentleman that it does appear to me to be-well, I shall not use the word I was going to use on this my birthday; I will only say that it does seem incredible that with knowledge of conditions as to the area that was put out of wheat raising and the increased areas that were put into wheat on the North American continent and in other parts of the world as well, when those countries went back to producing wheat to expect that we could sell them the wheat that we had been selling them while they were devastated.
In China the conditions of government are such that whether it is the government of Nanking or some other government that you are going to deal with you do not know what the conditions will be. Private purchasers have acquired wheat from Canada but the only offer which China made to this country in consequence of negotiations and inquiries and investigations was an offer to buy wheat at a price that we would not accept if we had the wheat to sell and at a price that we would not ask those who owned it to accept, and in addition they contemplated payment over a long term of years, necessitating that the dominion government finance the transaction in the meantime to provide the purchase price to those who sold. I am not unmindful that when the hon. gentleman first discussed a wheat conference at Regina he said, and the first literature that was prepared indicated, that all Canada had now to do was to produce, produce, produce, and many accepted his statement-


William Richard Motherwell: When did I make that statement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the hon. gentleman first started the discussion with respect to the world grain conference at Regina, and the first literature was withdrawn for that very reason, because there was such a lack of understanding and appreciation of the fact that the countries that had been devastated were now coming back into the production of grain. That was a very reasonable mistake to make, I suppose, but it was made. So far as we are concerned we have endeavoured by every means within our power to bring home to the Canadian people the fact that in the countries in which formerly they sold their product they can no longer sell it for the simple and obvious reason that those countries all over Europe-down the Danubian basin, in Hungary, France and elsewhere, and in the Czechoslovakian countries, in all that territory where grain was produced in such abundance before the war, and which with the war was devastated- once more began to produce: the hardy peasants, finding how few of them relatively were left, as compared with their numbers before the war, prepared the soil for wheat, with renewed energy, and reaped an abundant harvest by their labour. That has deprived us of our market, although in the meantime we increased our production by adding ten million and more acres to the area under wheat cultivation. And now, confronted with that situation, all that has been said is this: "You have no warrant to continue on such a large scale; you have no warrant to increase production"; and when the hon. gentleman referred to the Bible as an authority, I wondered whether he had read the Pentateuch. Does he realize that under the Jewish dispensation one of the first things taught was the necessity for lands to lie fallow? The husbandman was to leave his lands fallow for a time in order that there might be increased and improved production; and if you read the directions given in this regard- and no one knows this as well as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) does, who is a greater authority in this field than I am-you will find that ir
4598	COMMONS
Supply-International Wheat Agreement
those days there was a clear appreciation and understanding of the fact that they did not produce more than they needed.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: There was also a
jubilee in those days when all debtors were allowed to go free.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and if the hon.
gentleman lives for a hundred years he will have one too-we shall all have a jubilee together. I can only assure the hon. gentleman that the arrangement that was . made had met with great difficulty. The importing countries had urged upon the Argentine the necessity of doing nothing that would impair the value of the international arrangement, in the making of which so many countries had participated; and in view of the fact that the United States had the poorest crop it has had since, I believe, 1847-1 speak subject to correction on that point-and with the stricken areas in some parts of Europe, and the low crop in western Canada, particularly Saskatchewan and some parts of Alberta, and the relatively small crop which Manitoba produced compared with the large total crop produced in western Canada, the situation is such that there is rapidly coming an equilibrium between production and demand, and until that time does come it is perfectly obvious that a difficult situation will exist. Whether it is brought about by man's action, vision, prescience and foresight, or by natural conditions or the devastations of grasshoppers, it follows that as the demand is fairly constant and can only increase where there is a diminution of supply in what were formerly importing countries, this country and others similarly situated will be able to meet that situation and that the husbandman, when there is equilibrium between supply and demand, will receive a reasonable return for the labour of his hands. But there is no sale of wheat in China at a price that would not involve the Canadian producer in a loss of from ten to twenty cents a bushel. That is the position.


William Richard Motherwell: As far as I can understand the Prime Minister, he overlooked telling us why he did not ask the house to concur in this wonderful agreement. If we had concurred, other countries could not complain that we had not done this or the other.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman has exhausted his right to speak.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: I did not intend to say anything about this matter until the Prime Minister rose to address the house. Apparently all our troubles 
arise from the fact that Europe is now in production to a larger extent than before, or at least since the days of the great war. The amazing thing to me is that climatic conditions have played an important part in reduction in Canada and helped the situation tremendously. I wonder what would have happened to the Canadian farmer if we had produced at the same rate as we did in 1926, 1927 and 1928. Yet the right hon. gentleman seems to forget that the one country upon whom we could depend, or rather group of countries, Great Britain and the empire, for the absorption of our surplus wheat production, we have taken action against by way of tariffs, imposed in 1930 and 1931. The result is that to-day, even with depleted production, we are piling up surpluses every year. In view of the tariff increases against imports of British goods into Canada, can anyone blame Mr. Elliot and his propaganda for independence of any of the empire countries?" Not a particle, when the empire countries treat Great Britain in the manner this government has done. While we have no claim on European countries, any trading we have done with them has been largely due to the fact that they required our product; and when owing to climatic conditions, the very best quality of wheat produced in Canada has been almost nil during the past three years, this government finds itself in the unhappy position of having piled up a larger surplus than any other wheat exporting country in the world. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite will tell us and the electorate that there was nothing they could do. The thing is perfectly absurd. There is a great deal that this government could have done and has refused to do, and I want to make this statement now in the House of Commons because I am going to make it on a great many platforms in Canada; and I am serving notice on the government that it will be made in no uncertain terms. So far as the farmers of this country are concerned, apart from granting relief, which I admit the government has done in a generous way, my hon. friends have done nothing, which they can name, that has been of the slightest assistance in selling the export products of Canada.
Mr. THOMAS F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch): Three things are disturbing the farmers of western Canada: first, our climatic conditions; secondly, a market for our products; and thirdly, debt adjustment. We believe that this government has done much to injure the market for our products. The one thing we have to sell chiefly in the markets of the world is our wheat. When the Liberal

Supply-International Wheat Agreement
government came in in 1921 we were shipping between 200 and 300 million bushels, and in 1929 we were shipping 407 million bushels. Since that time the market for our wheat has gradually dwindled until this year, with a quota of 200 million bushels, we shall not be able to fill our quota. Year by year the market for our wheat has grown smaller and smaller, and the explanation is to be found in the trade policies of this government. Not long ago there was a conference at Rome attended by all the exporting countries and by practically all the importing countries, and one importing country which in the past has used a great deal of Canadian wheat gave us the answer then. France said: "We are willing to take off the restrictions we have imposed on Canadian wheat; we would like to take the duty off your wheat and are willing to buy it from you, but what will you buy from us in exchange for it"? Did we see a delegation set out from Canada to France to try to make arrangements to buy some of their products in order that they might buy our wheat? We did not; not a thing was done. The result is that the other day France doubled her duty on our wheat. When this government came into power her duty was eighty-five cents a bushel. It was increased to SI.44 and the other day it went up to $2.88 a bushel, making it absolutely impossible to sell any of our wheat in that country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We could not sell at $1.44
either.


Mr. DONNELLY:: We may not have been able but the price was high in France and it kept it up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: She was exporting.


James J. Donnelly: But she allowed the exchange.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the duty has nothing to do with it.


James J. Donnelly: The duty has something to do with it. Just the other day, during the time of the elections, a Japanese agent was at Regina. What did he say? He said: "We have been buying 24,000,000 bushels annually from Canada and now we are buying 4,000,000 bushels. Why? Because Canada is not buying goods from us and we are buying from those countries that are buying from us. We are buying from Australia."


Mr. BURY:: Are they buying wheat from countries that are buying from them?


James J. Donnelly: Yes. Why is Argentina able to fill her quota? Why are we not able
to fill ours when we have a carry-over of about 200,000,000 bushels? Why is Argentina selling more wheat in England than we are and able to fill her quota? It is because we are not buying from England and Argentina is. Why does Switzerland that used to buy from us 10,000,000 bushels of wheat buy now only 3,500,000 bushels? Let my hon. friend read the Commercial Intelligence Journal. What does Switzerland say? She says: "We have to cut off our imports from countries with which we have an unfavourable trade balance and to buy from countries that buy from us." The result is that Canada has a market there 6.500,000 bushels less than she used to have. That is the whole story. We are not buying in the outside world from those that buy wheat and the result is that they buy from other countries that buy from them. Unless there is some change in this policy with which this government is imbued, our market for wheat will continue to fall off from, year to year as it has been doing since this government came into power. The whole story is told, as the hon. member for East Edmonton said, in our high tariffs.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: May I correct the hon.
member? The hon. member for East Edmon-tion never said anything of the kind and hopes he will keep his brain sufficiently clear never to say that.


James J. Donnelly: I meant the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart).


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Donnelly) has referred to France. I sat down on one occasion with twelve or fifteen gentlemen representing four or five departments of the government of France, to negotiate a treaty with that country. When it came to the discussion of wheat I was pressing for the admission on favourable terms of Canadian wheat into the French market and I was very insistent. One gentleman, I think it was the representative of the Department of Agriculture asked: "Mr. Cahan, do you know anything of French history?" I said that I knew something of French history as a schoolboy and as a student at college, and I knew something of her later history. "Well," he said, "if you have studied French history you will know that for four and a half centuries no man in France has reached the age of sixty years and certainly not sixty-five years who has not seen this country overrun with foreign troops." He said: "We no longer are able to maintain a fleet that will safeguard the carrying of wheat to France from Argentina, Australia and Canada in case of war. We have learned
4600	v,	COMMONS
Supply-International Wheat Agreement
by experience, and the policy of the French government and of all governments in France will be to produce sufficient wheat in France to maintain its population in case another crisis should arise in Europe." He said: "It is useless to present to us any arguments to the contrary." Then as I proceeded to urge that the use of strong or hard wheat was necessary in that country for mixing purposes, one of his assistants said: "But we are producing all the hard wheat that is necessary for French consumption." I asked: "Where?" He said, "For some years we have been importing from Saskatchewan hard wheat, sowing it in our North African provinces and producing there as good quality of hard wheat as you produce in Saskatchewan." He said: "We had available last year of hard wheat from the North African colonies 25,000,000 bushels for sale in France, and we must give prior advantage in our market to our Algerian colonies." One gentleman sitting beside him, a more elderly man-I remember his name but I shall not repeat it-said: "Perhaps you are misleading Mr. Cahan in this discussion, because although we imported hard wheat from Saskatchewan and sowed it, in the first year we produced equally good wheat as that of Saskatchewan, and from the seed of that crop there was equally good wheat the following year, yet in the third or fourth years the wheat tends to deteriorate and become soft, and we may have to import hard wheat from your country for our sowing every third or fourth year. But outside that you cannot hope for any large market for your wheat in France." Then, turning to the statistics, he showed me that for the previous year they had produced in France alone outside its colonies within sixty million bushels of the total product of Canada from sea to sea, and that for that year, according to the returns which were in then, they were producing more wheat in France alone than we had produced in the whole of Canada in the previous year. Under those circumstances it does not become a question of tariffs; it becomes, on the part of France, a grave question of national policy, based upon a clear determination on the part of successive governments and of all parties in France to raise in that country, at no matter what cost, sufficient wheat to feed their own people.
In Switzerland much the same situation exists. The Swiss regulations against the importing of foreign wheat have absolutely nothing to do with the tariff in Canada on Swiss products, but are due to the demand of the Swiss agriculturists that they shall be so protected and bonused as to enable them to supply from their own cultivated lands the
[Mr. Donnelly.j
entire quantity of wheat required in Switzerland. That is with them also a matter of national policy.


James J. Donnelly: Will the hon. member say whether this report of the Commercial Intelligence Journal regarding Switzerland is wrong?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know anything
about the report of the Commercial Intelligence Journal and it is useless to ask me whether what somebody else says is wrong or right, but I know from personal experience that what the hon. gentleman has just said is not in accordance with the facts.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Lawson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
Penitentiaries-
Amount required to carry out agreement between His Majesty and the municipality of the village of St. Vincent de Paul for extension of the present water and sewer system connected with St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, $3,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: There was undoubtedly on Saturday night some natural resentment in our not getting away, but it was perhaps hardly fair that the Minister of Justice should blame us for holding the house over. The fact is that we had a great deal of work to do. The Prime Minister had taken a chance on business being through by ten o'clock. The Liberals took their full share in discussing various items before we reached the estimates for penitentiaries. Under the circumstances it seemed to me that the only thing to do was to insist on securing fuller information from the minister than had yet been given to the house. I recognize clearly that the minister is not personally to blame for what we believe to be the bad conditions in Kingston penitentiary. However, under our procedure there seems to be no other way of getting at the facts than by insisting that the minister give us fuller explanation than the house or the country have yet received. I would point out that the prisoners are the most defenceless class in the community. They have been deprived of the ordinary rights of citizenship. They have no means of making their grievances known to this house. They have even been deprived of the rights of normal ordinary human beings.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are not normal human beings.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is true, but I say, being deprived of the rights of normal human beings it seems to me .that that is

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
all the more reason why we should see that no injustice is done to them. I think every one recognizes the difficulty of getting at the facts in a matter of this kind. On the one hand there is not the slightest doubt that we must discount the statements that come from ex-convicts; they are likely to be biased. But on the other hand I am coming to believe that we must discount to a considerable extent the official statements, the official denials, because it seems to have been the policy more or less to whitewash underofficials. I hope that is not true, but again and again we have had statements made that everything was going very well, only to learn a few weeks later that things were not satisfactory at all. We were told a few days ago that the resignation of Colonel Megloughlin was enforced because he had not been doing satisfactory work. It seems to me that that is hardly sufficient in view of the long history of trouble that there has been at that penitentiary. There are many who feel that in this case Colonel Megloughlin has been made the goat for inefficiency on the part of other officials, or perhaps for the lack of proper policy on the part of the department. It is for these reasons that we in this corner urge the appointment of a royal commission. We believe that this situation ought to be cleaned up. We believe that the public have the right to know the actual situation. It is difficult, as I have said, for the public to get accurate knowledge either from those who have been in the penitentiary or on the other hand from officials whose positions may be at stake. It is only by sending in absolutely impartial investigators that we shall get satisfactory results. Furthermore we urge that the time has come when there should be general consideration of the whole question of prison administration and the treatment of criminals. Other countries in the past have treated criminals more or less as we are doing to-day. Great Britain is an outstanding example of a country which at last realized that something was necessary. A royal commission was appointed, following which certain definite lines of reform were introduced; it is not necessary to go into that now. But if Great Britain found it necessary to make a thorough investigation and to reform the whole policy of dealing with prisoners, I think it is high time that we in Canada should follow suit.
I take it that in a general way crime is the result either of heredity or of bad environment. If it is a result of heredity perhaps the time has come that we must consider whether we should go on producing criminals, whether there should not be some
effort made in the case of bad strains either to segregate or to sterilize those who may produce criminals-


Mr. BOUCHARD:: To apply quotas.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. My hon. friend behind me is making light of the question. I say that anyone who has made any study of heredity knows that there are people who are subnormal and some proportion of whose descendants will be subnormal. In that case it seems to me a crime that we should permit those people to propagate. Either they should be sterilized or segregated so that they could not produce children. I am not discussing to-day which course should be taken. But we have in our prisons large numbers of people who, if I may use the phrase, are bom criminals. It is high time to remedy that situation. When men are known to be criminal, incorrigible as the minister points out, it seems to me that these men ought not to be turned loose again in the community after a few years' sentence. It is not that I would make the punishment more severe, but I would provide more effectively for the protection of society. If they are really incorrigible they ought never to be released. They may be treated with kindness and fairness, but they should be kept always apart from other members of society and not allowed either to injure society or to reproduce their kind.
But I take it that the great majority of prisoners are criminals not because of bad heredity but because of certain bad influences and surroundings. There is no doubt that when we have a large volume of unemployment the curve of crime goes up. That indicates a close connection between unemployment and crime. It would seem to me that the thing for us to do is not to build bigger and better prisons but rather to study closely the conditions that produce crime. Then coming to the individual, I do not think the treatment for criminals should be the same in every case. I know of boys being sent to reformatories, without the superintendent in charge being given any indication at all by the judge as to the boy's background, but only the statement of the crime committed. In the case of one boy it might be a first offence, with another it might be the result of very bad environment, and with another almost a chance occurrence. The treatment should vary accordingly.
So I urge that we have a royal commission to study not merely the actual situation in Kingston penitentiary but also to put us in

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
the way of adopting more modern and humane and intelligent methods of dealing with criminals.
The minister the other day very definitely accepted responsibility for the recent punishment of a number of convicts. It seems that on the occasion of the visit of the Governor General to Kingston there was what the minister characterized as a noisy outbreak. As a result twenty-two men were awarded corporal punishment. Two of them, I think the minister said, were found to be medically unfit to sustain this punishment; the others got what is known as the paddle. I would submit that such severe punishment, if it is ever necessary, should be reserved for very serious crimes, and not be inflicted merely for breaches of prison discipline. I think if any of us were imprisoned and thus deprived of our liberty, and felt that there was a grievance-as these men felt there was a great grievance, and as it has been since acknowledged that there was a grievance,-we would take whatever means we had at our disposal to bring that grievance to the notice of the public. The fact that they beat some tin pans or did something of the sort when the Governor General was in Kingston was no very serious crime; it was merely a natural way of calling their grievances to the attention of the public, and I do submit that the very severe form of punishment known as paddling was altogether too drastic for such infringement of the prison regulations.
The minister told us that recently attempts were made to give the prisoners outdoor exercise. which developed into Sunday games to which the church goers took objection; they did not want to hear this noise on the Lord's day. It does occur to me, Mr. Chairman, that if people in the vicinity objected to the noise on the Lord's day the officers in charge very easily might have altered the time for these outdoor exercises or this recreation to some other day than Sunday. Most of the men are not. working steadily; it is merely a matter of adjustment of the ordinary routine of prison life, and to one on the outside it would seem that it might be possible to give reasonable outdoor exercise on some other day than Sunday. To me that little incident seems typical of the regimentation we have there, the inelasticity of the discipline, and the unnecessary harshness of prison routine.
Now I come to the charges made by Major Niclde which, since I read his letter the other day, he has said that he is quite ready to substantiate. The other day I suggested to the minister that these were so serious in their character that it seemed to me that if

any of them were untrue he ought to make a definite, categorical denial. Major Nickle says there is a form of punishment under which men have their hands raised about their heads; they are shackled to the bars, confined for seven or fourteen days and fed on bread and water.


Miss MACPHAIL:: That has been abolished.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
know if that punishment has been abolished, as my hon. friend from Southeast Grey suggests; if it has been abolished, I should like to know when that was done. Was it abolished because of the protests of the prisoners? If it was considered right to abolish this form of punishment had not the protests of the prisoners real, substantial grounds, and why should we inflict upon them such severe punishment for protesting against what is now considered to be an altogether unjustifiable form of punishment?
I have already referred to paddling, and the minister has said that paddling is not administered now except by order of the department. I should like to ask him whether there are very definite criteria by which he judges whether or not this punishment should be inflicted, or whether the appeal to Ottawa is a perfunctory matter, as is so often the case in such affairs.
Further with regard to sanitary matters there is a very serious charge that people who have active syphilis bathe in the same tubs as other prisoners. I should like to ask definitely whether this situation has been altered and, if so, when. I cannot see that there ever could have been any reason for allowing a practice of this kind.
Further than that, have any real attempts been made at segregating youthful offenders? Some years ago some of us understood, when Collins Bay was being established, that it was for youthful offenders. Later I believe the minister denied that this was really the purpose, and stated that it was for certain preferred classes. The house will recall that a year or two ago attention had to be directed to the fact that apparently brokers were among the preferred classes, since they were placed at Collins Bay. I want to know whether, after all these years, during which royal commissions from time to time have made their reports and there have been protests in this house, there is any definite program before the minister with regard to segregating youthful offenders. Again Major Nickle says that of the total number of prisoners only some 125 are given a chance to learn a trade. Again

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
and again it has been stated that at least one of the purposes of the penitentiary was to enable the criminal to become a respectable citizen once more. I wonder whether it is possible for men who are confined for several years, some of them for a greater number of years, to become respectable citizens and hope to again enter the normal life of the country if they are given no chance whatever to learn a trade while in the penitentiary. I know perfectly well that there are some difficulties in the way. A few years ago some of us were waited upon by some of the penitentiary officials asking that something should be done through which greater facilities for work might be afforded. I know there are certain difficulties in the way, but I do not think they are insuperable. With all the work that might be done in this country it seems to me some arrangement might be made under which the majority of the prisoners could learn trades or engage in suitable work. It may be that nothing could be done with the hundred in-corrigibles to whom the minister referred, but what about the other six or seven hundred prisoners, many of whom are young people, who to-day have no opportunity of fitting themselves for their future life outside the penitentiary walls?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: And that is just one penitentiary.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes; I am glad that my hon. friend reminds me that I am speaking of only one penitentiary. There are somewhat similar conditions existing in other penitentiaries, though I think in some of the others more has been done in the way of providing outdoor work.
Then there is another specific charge with regard to one John O'Brien. It was stated that he had been in solitary confinement since 1931. I think the house is entitled to know whether he is still in solitary confinement and, if not, when he was released, and in any case why he was kept there during those years. It is a very serious matter especially, as I say, for men who have no means of getting their grievances before the general public.
Then we come to another question, that of (political prisoners. The minister may say that we have no political prisoners in Canada, but I think that is a statement that can hardly be made good, because the seven communists who are in Kingston to-day, of whom I think two have been released recently because of poor health-
Mr. GUTHRIE; No, that is not so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will leave the minister to explain the reason; I was giving him credit for kindheartedness.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Their health is good.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In any case these communists are there because of their political beliefs. I am not going to deal with that clause of the criminal code under which they were arrested, except to say that under that clause a man need not be guilty of committing any overt crime. He need only belong to a party which advocates the use of force to bring about political change. These men were not convicted of any overt crime. They were not charged with an overt crime, but were charged simply with belonging to an association which in turn was affiliated with another association which believed in force as a means of bringing about political change. I quite recognize that in mentioning the communists I immediately lay myself open to the criticism of being in sympathy with them. I have stated again and again in this House of Commons, and I wish to state once more that I have no connection whatever with the communist party and no sympathy with the tactics they pursue. Further, let me point out that according to a report in the Toronto Daily Star of Monday, February 19, Mr. A. E. Smith stated at Massey Hall that representatives of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in the House of Commons were responsible for the charges of sedition against him, as they suggested to the Bennett government that by means of a charge of this nature they could dispose of their political enemies and not have to resort to section 98 of the criminal code. Needless to say, members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in this house never gave any such advice to the Minister of Justice, nor have I ever held that in any sense of the word the Minister of Justice was responsible for the shooting at the cell of Tim Buck. I read the statement from the Toronto Daily Star simply to point out that hon. members in this comer of the house have been charged by the communists with bringing about the shooting. In this connection perhaps I should say Mr. Smith has stated he did not put it just that way. Very well; the fact is he never repudiated it. But whatever Mr. Smith actually did say, the communists have denounced us most bitterly. Notwithstanding that bitter denunciation I urge that prisoners should not be treated as apparently the communists in Kingston have been treated. Unless we agree with the kind of thing Hitler has been doing in Germany within the last few days, I would say that political prisoners have a right to
Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries

be protected, and that all people in Canada- Conservatives, Liberals and members in this comer-should try to retain the institutions of democracy and to resist the inroads of anything like a dictatorship. If we are convinced that we must pursue democratic principles I think we must ask for the protection of political prisoners. Further than that we may very well consider whether or not it is wise to continue to have on our statute books laws under which men may be convicted merely for holding certain political opinions which are not generally accepted.
One of these communists, namely Tim Buck, had shots fired into his cell. There are nearly nine hundred prisoners in the penitentiary. How is it that the cell selected for the shooting was one in which there was a communist? That does look as if they have been singled out for this peculiar kind of treatment. The other day the minister admitted that eleven shots were fired into Buck's cell. I submit that that incident has a very ugly look. I believe our papers right across the country have expressed themselves as being definitely opposed to that kind of treatment, and they have urged that the situation be cleaned up.
The other day the minister gave us the impression-certainly he gave me the impression-that the shooting took place at the time of the riot on October 17. I understand-and I should like the minister to correct me if I am wrong-that the shots were not fired until October 20. There is a discrepancy which ought to be cleared up. If the big riot took place on October 17, it is very strange that a man should be shot at by the guards three days later.


Hugh Guthrie: There was a much bigger riot on October 20.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall be glad to hear about that. I thought there was a riot on the 17th.


Hugh Guthrie: That was the start of it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: From what place
were the shots fired? I am informed they were not fired from inside the penitentiary, but that they were fired from outside.


Hugh Guthrie: That is correct.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope the minister will clear up that matter. If there is a range of cells three stories high and there is one particular cell in which a prisoner is being confined, and if somebody outside marks that cell, and it is shot at, then I say that is a pretty deliberate act. It is a deliberate act, and requires some explanation. What was the

reason? The minister says the reason was to intimidate Tim Buck, and he states further that Tim Buck was exhorting the other prisoners to riot. I confess I am absolutely mystified by the contrast between the statement of the minister and the report of Judge Deroche, from which the hon. member for Southeast Grey read. In his judgment Judge Deroche said:
The men (meaning the inmates) had for months and possibly years been asking for the removal of certain grievances which were in their minds, with little or no response.
Then he goes on to say:
They now decided that on October 17, at three o'clock p.m. they would walk out of the shops and make a peaceful demonstration to impress the warden and through him Ottawa.
Then at page 7 he states:
Then to go back to the cause of the riot. This peaceful demonstration which developed into a riot, was for the purpose of emphasizing the demands of the men for redress of certain grievances which had been long and repeatedly denied them. Many of the grievances for which this demonstration was staged have already been granted to the men, proving conclusively to my mind that those demands must have been reasonable.
We have now from the Minister of Justice an entirely different view being conveyed to the house. At page 7 of the judgment Judge Deroche, with regard to Tim Buck, states as follows:
Buck told them-
That is the prisoners.

that the soldiers would not hurt them if they did no violence to person or injury to property.
Then again:
When it was announced that the soldiers were coming, one of the men, Tim Buck, advised the men that the soldiers could not or would not hurt them so long as they did no damage to property or violence to anyone, and instructed the men to gather pails of water and barricade the door, expecting to stand siege.
It is a very curious thing if, as is stated by the judge, Tim Buck took that stand and made those statements, that his cell should be selected three days later as the one into which were to be poured eleven shots. I remember in our childhood days we used to read the tales of Fenimore Cooper, and we learned it was the practice of the Indians in the olden days to tie a captured enemy to a tree and to fire arrows at him, seeing who could come nearest his head [DOT] without hitting him. It looks to me as if this practice has been translated into the more modern method of putting a man into a cell, caging him up and then firing at him. Surely human beings

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
are not animals. I do not think there is a single sportsman in this house who would undertake to shoot an animal by caging it up in a cell and then firing at it. There is something that needs explanation and I would ask the minister when he speaks to say very definitely who gave the order to fire. I do not think the minister himself did, but he is the responsible official, the head of the department, and it is possible for him to ascertain who gave the order. I think it is right that he should tell this house who gave the order to fire. If no such order was given I would ask, have the guards who fired those eleven shots been arrested and disciplined? Take the minister's own statement when he said that Tim Buck had been fired at. He said:
Buck was one of those who were encouraging the disorder. At the door of his cell he was making speeches and encouraging the rioters, and for the purpose of frightening him, I suppose, or cowing him, certain guards fired into the ceiling of his cell.
I suppose that somebody knowing he was at the door of his cell must have given the order to fire, and they chased away around outside the walls and then from outside the walls they fired up at him. I do not know very much about criminal trials but that does not seem to me a very natural sort of procedure. I could understand a guard in desperation perhaps firing into a crowd, but why some of the guards should go away around outside the walls and fire eleven shots into a prisoner's cell is an absolute mystery to me. The minister said:
At the door of his cell he was making speeches and encouraging the rioters, and for the purpose of frightening him, I suppose, or cowing him, certain guards fired into the ceiling of his cell. There can be no doubt that if any man had wanted to shoot Tim Buck he could have done so. The very fact that ten or eleven shots were fired and there was no harm to Tim Buck shows that they were not trying to hit him. He was there for anybody to shoot.
That is an astonishing statement for the minister to make, that a convict was in his cell for anybody to shoot.


Hugh Guthrie: If there had been any intention of doing so, and there was not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, I hope there was not, but the question still remains, who gave the order to fire? If the firing was done by the guards without orders, then I ask have those guards been disciplined? It would seem to me that when guards are sometimes dismissed for minor offences, or without reason given, it would surely be a reason for dismissal if guards in a responsible position should on 74728-291
their own responsibility fire into a cell. But if the orders to fire were given, I should like to know what official gave those orders and when it became the practice in our prisons to adopt this form of intimidation. It is bad enough to flog a man, but surely it is not, even in European prisons, a customary means of punishment that guards can go outside the prison walls and take pot shots at a cell in which a political prisoner is confined. The whole matter has a very ugly look, and I hope for the sake of his own department as well as for the credit of the institution and the man at the head of it, that the minister make a statement that will clear up this matter.
Before I sit down I once more want to appeal to the minister, and I wish the Prime Minister were in his seat so I might appeal to him, that on the grounds of humanity we should not longer delay having a very careful inquiry into the situation, and further than that, that the government appoint a board or commission of very able men, men of experience and humanitarian views, to inquire into the whole matter of prison reform.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Mr. Chairman, I want if
I may to say just a word on this matter. Having had some considerable experience in connection with matters of this kind as crown attorney and prosecuting attorney for the county in which I live, I know something of both sides of this very difficult question. On the one hand crime must be put down in this country, and the people are entitled to protection against it. It is a very difficult matter to know when prosecuting criminals and dealing with them just when you can apply mild methods and when you must resort to the most rigorous methods possible. I happen to come from a section of the country where unfortunately most of the men who are in the penitentiary cannot say they are there because I defended them. On the contrary, I contributed when I was doing that kind of work to a good number going to these institutions. I do not know the man in question in this particular case, but I do want to say to the minister that I know something of his difficulties, and yet there is throughout the section of the country in which I live a very strong feeling that perhaps the possibilities of saving some of those who are not past saving are not being utilized to the best advantage in Kingston at the present time.


Mr. CANTLEY:: How would you save
them?



Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries


John Campbell Elliott: I would say to my hon.
friend, because I know he is humane, that he is not anxious that the younger men particularly should lose all chance of again becoming good citizens. I am sure that no one in the house would regret that more than my hon. friend, and there are a good number of these young men who are sent to the penitentiary who I do not believe should be allowed to associate with the hardened criminals. I believe it is possible to reclaim them by giving them a chance again to become good citizens, and if we err I think we should err on that side. Just where to draw the line it is difficult to say. It is pretty hard to draw the line between being too lenient towards somebody who will afterwards turn out to be a murderer and those who will profit by the chance that is given them.
But I would say this to the minister in just the minute I intend to devote to the subject, that I do think that an investigation by a royal commission into this matter would do a great deal to clear the air and would be in the interests of everybody concerned, including the minister himself and those who are associated with him in the administration of that institution.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before we resume the work of the committee, I think that in fairness to those who are responsible for the conduct of government I should ask the house whether or not they believe it is possible to prorogue this house this afternoon. On the strength of last Monday's proceedings, by which we undertook to prorogue on Saturday, His Excellency made certain plans. He has intimated that any plans he makes must of course be subordinated to his duty with respect to prorogation; but the uncertainty that has now characterized our deliberations for so long should in some sense, it seems to me, be disposed of. I should like to know therefore whether in the opinion of the house it is possible to prorogue this afternoon; otherwise we will sit to-night at eight o'clock and presumably conclude by eleven, although I understand that one hon. member has said we cannot prorogue to-day. If that is in the mind of hon. members I should like to indicate to His Excellency that such is the opinion of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister has asked a word from those who are

responsible for the conduct of government; I rather hesitate to say anything in the circumstances. He is the one who has to do with that phase of affairs, but so far as we of the opposition are concerned I am not aware of any reason why the house should not prorogue this evening. I believe the ex-Minister of Agriculture wishes to speak when supply is taken up in connection with Trade and Commerce estimates, and I understand that there are two other hon. members to my right who have something in particular on which they wish to speak. Apart from that however I am not aware that it is the intention of any other hon. members to participate at any length in debate. There may be; I cannot say. I do think however that so far as we are concerned the purpose will be served by having the proceedings arranged for immediately after eight o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Could it not be done after six?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So far as we alone are concerned, I should hope it might be arranged for five.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Inasmuch as I had something to do with prolonging the business of the house I am glad to say now that I do not want more than ten or fifteen minutes, and if the statement made by the Minister of Justice is satisfactory from my point of view I shall not need that much time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Since I have to share the responsibility for holding up the proceedings on Saturday night, I must say distinctly that we cannot at this stage give guarantees as to how long things will take. It is not that we want to prolong the business of the house unnecessarily. We were prevented for nearly an hour from going on this morning and I am not blaming anyone, but that is the way it turned out, and I think we should have a full statement from the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member realizes that the penitentiary estimates were held up on four distinct occasions merely for the convenience of those opposite, and normally they would have been disposed of weeks ago. They were held up to meet the convenience of two members of the house on the opposite side.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not to meet my convenience.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You were not here when we were going on.

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries


James Shaver Woodsworth: It might have been brought on any time in the last two weeks but for some reason or other, in the judgment of the government, it was left until the last on Saturday night. A number of other contentious items were put before us and precluded the discussion of these estimates on that occasion, and I think we have a perfect right as members of the house, in view of the importance of the question, to ask that we be not limited as to the time which this discussion will take.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No one disputes that
right at all; it is merely a question of endeavouring to carry out what was a general understanding. If it cannot be done it cannot be done.


William Richard Motherwell: I was not anxious to stay here over Sunday nor am I anxious to stay a minute longer than necessary to complete what I conceive to be the business of the house from my point of view. I want to get home; I have not seen my home for nearly six months, and I have as much to go home to as the average person in the way of attachment to home. But take the question of the international wheat agreement that we discussed this morning. How could I go home without having discussed it? And take what I propose to discuss with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the lost Chinese market; I do not see how I can forego saying something in that regard. This is _ the occasion on which we ventilate the grievances of subjects whom we represent and serve; it is a privilege handed down to us by the mother of parliaments, and if we do not avail ourselves of it we neglect our duty. With these qualifications, I will expedite prorogation as far as I can; but if it has to go to six or seven or eight o'clock then it is not my fault. Prorogation does not come first; the business of the country does. The facilities for prorogation are ready for the purpose and it is when we want them as a parliament that they should be used.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is rather an unfair
observation. I intimated that His Excellency would come at any time he was asked to come but I was making a suggestion in view of certain arrangements that had been made. No complaints were being made.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not hear the beginning of the discussion and if I put a wrong construction on anything I am sorry. But I got the impression that the ministry wanted to crowd things, without discussion, as was done on Saturday night.
74728-291 i


Richard Bedford Bennett: We can just as soon
stay for a week.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not mean any reflection on Their Excellencies. The responsibility is with the government to call them, not with them. The king can do no wrong, as is well known. It is the government we [DOT] hold responsible and if they press us unduly they are wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not.


William Richard Motherwell: What is the use
of talking about five o'clock or any other hour? Call His Excellency when we are through.


John Campbell Elliott: In answer to the Prime
Minister, there is one item which seems to those of us who come from a certain district in Ontario to be of very great importance, and I assume that we can discuss it either under Agriculture, 293, 294 and 295, or Trade and Commerce, mail subsidies and steamship subventions, 316. There are a few members who I know desire to make representations to the government in this regard. I do not think they will be very long but they feel they must refer to the matter before the house closes.


Hugh Guthrie: Before entering into n discussion of penitentiary matters I want to correct one impression which I think was caused by my hon. friend from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) and also the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth), in the discussion Saturday night. The hon. member for Southeast Grey said:
Unfortunately it always happens that the penitentiary estimates come up at the very close of the session. I have sat through this session and listened to a good deal of good talk and' a good deal that might have been better left unsaid, and I intend to-night to take up as much time as I would two weeks before prorogation.
The penitentiary items were under discussion in this house in March and again in May for a short time, but my anxiety was to have these items discussed immediately after Easter, and on three occasions the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) came and asked me to postpone them as a matter of convenience to the hon. member for Southeast Grey, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross) and I agreed to do so. That is the reason they have been delayed, not with the idea of limiting or of avoiding discussion, because I am in the happy frame of mind that I invite discussion in regard to penitentiary matters and these estimates to the fullest extent.

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
Kirkland. The name of Murray Kirkland has been raised in this debate not by me, but of course his name became prominently mentioned in the newspapers last spring during the trial. Ordinarily I am not supposed to give publicly the names of convicts and particulars in regard to them, but as this case has been made the centre of a great deal of criticism I am going to give some particulars in regard to it.
Murray Kirkland is looked upon as one of the dangerous inmates of Kingston penitentiary, where we have a large number of very dangerous men. He seems to have been connected with the banks as a bank clerk in his early life-he is yet a comparatively young man. On August 16, 1930, he committed an armed hold-up of the Bank of Montreal at King City near Toronto. Perhaps some hon. members may recall the circumstances; he and his gang locked the bank staff in the safe, obtained $916 from the teller's cage and made away with it. He committed bank robbery while armed at the Bank of Nova Scotia at Agincourt, near Toronto, on October 2, 1930. This time they operated by the same method and obtained $846 from the teller's cage. On November 6, 1930, he and his gang robbed the Canadian Bank of Commerce, getting in that case over $6,000 by armed robbery. He was tried for and convicted of these three charges and sentenced to eighteen years' imprisonment and fifteen lashes. Since he has been in the penitentiary he has received the lashes. These are not by the paddle; these are the lashes that are imposed by the court, a mudh more severe punishment than anything connected with the paddle that has been so much spoken of. Since his arrival in the penitentiary he has been considered, and justly so, a very dangerous criminal. He has been specially looked after to see that he does not commit any deprecation there in the way of attempting to escape, or an assault upon any of his fellow prisoners. This man was engaged in the riot in 1932. Notwithstanding the tender manner in which Judge Deroche spoke of him at his trial he was convicted and sentenced by him to an additional nine months at the conclusion of his present sentence, which is a long way off. He was one of the leading rioters. During his trial when he was charged with riot and destruction of property, his counsel, Mr. Nickle of Kingston, in mitigation of his conduct introduced the evidence of a number of convicts to show what they said was ill-treatment of prisoners in Kingston penitentiary. The evidence was in mitigation of the crime, not relating to whether or not the prisoner was guilty, but merely in order to
(Mr. Guthrie.]
mitigate the sentence. Prisoner after prisoner was summoned by Mr. Nickle and put in the witness box and these prisoners told the most horrible and lurid tales of ill-treatment. But Mr. Nickle in his letter to which I am going to refer said, "And this evidence went uncontradicted." That is young Mr. Nickle to whom I am referring, not Mr. W. F. Nickle. But I cannot understand a man of the standing at the bar of Mr. W. M. Nickle making such a statement when he was fully aware of the circumstances. There were present a,t the trial the warden, the deputy warden, the superintendent and the guards. They were excluded from the court and not allowed to hear the evidence. Then, at the conclusion of the case, the crown attorney who conducted the case for the crown said that as these were matters which did not relate to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner on this charge but were merely in mitigation of sentence, no evidence could be called in reply. That was why these extraordinary statements went uncontradicted. Mr. Nickle must have known that evidence in rebuttal could not have been given. If evidence could have been given in contradiction of these statements it would have been given at the time; all the officials and guards were there for the purpose of giving evidence, but they did not have the opportunity.
I think next I should deal with Mr. Nickle's letter. Mr. Nickle, I suppose, was rather disappointed that after all his efforts and after a prolonged trial he was unsuccessful in his defence; the man Kirkland was convicted, and rightly so. Mr. Nickle's next step was to write a letter to Reverend Canon Scott of Quebec. The letter was read by the hon, member for Winnipeg North Centre on June 25, as reported in Hansard commencing at page 4293. My hon. friend has challenged me to make a categorical denial of the statements contained in this letter, and I propose to do so. These are the statements of riotous prisoners, which were made in court and were not contradicted at the time by reason of the facts I have just stated.
The first statement in this letter is as to the existence of the "hole." That term has been used by prisoners in Kingston for many years, and refers to the punishment cells under the keepers' hall, which are nine in number. There is no hole as one would understand it from reading this letter, but there are well ventilated, airy cells which are used only for the purpose of punishment. If a prisoner gets beyond control and has been tried and awarded punishment he is put in one of these

Supply-J ustice-Penitentiaries
cells, and if there is no other way of subduing him and keeping him quiet, an extra wooden door is placed over the steel door in order that he may not be permitted to disturb the rest of the prisoners. Murray Kirkland is not in the hole, and was not. The hole itself, or the so called hole constitutes the punishment cells. These cells have been examined by many competent and trustworthy people during the last twelve months, and I am going to state why this has been done.
The letter written by Mr. Nickle became public throughout Canada. Canon Scott preached a sermon on it a year ago. It was copied extensively in the newspapers, and in addition Mr. Nickle went to Toronto, appeared before the Social Service Council and laid his plea before them, repeating and elaborating the statements contained in his letter to Canon Scott so that the Social Service Council was made aware of all the allegations of Mr. Nickle. I mention that now; I will give my reasons for doing so a little later on.
The wooden door of which I speak has been closed I think only three times in six or eight months, and then only for ten, fifteen or twenty minutes at a time. It is only closed when the prisoner in the punishment cell is disturbing the rest of the prison by his shouts and noises. Let me tell you that in England they have the same system of extra doors; before I am through I am going to refer to the latest work upon English prisons. In the United States they have a more elaborate system, by which they can absolutely exclude both daylight and noise. In the cells at Kingston daylight is not excluded, but dim light is the result of the closing of the wooden door. I do not suppose you could read by it, but at other times one can read in these cells without difficulty. They are light, airy and well ventilated, but there is a bucket in these cells as they have no toilet arrangements. Neither are there any toilet arrangements in any of the best cells in the English prisons; the covered slop pail is adopted throughout all English prisons. In Kingston we have only these nine cells which, up to the present time, have not been equipped with the ordinary toilet requirements.
Now I should like to say a word in regard to the paddle. The paddle or leather strap is imposed as a last resort when prisoners become boisterous and unmanageable and defy the officers of the institution. We have a number of such prisoners. When they are sent to work they refuse to do so; any order given to them they resent, and in resenting
it their language sometimes is beyond description. Such prisoners must be brought under discipline in some way, and the last resort is an application of the leather strap commonly called the paddle. When this question was last up, one of these straps was exhibited in this house by the hon. member for Kingston city. I noticed that it received great prominence throughout the country; photographs appeared in the Toronto Star, and other papers. This paddle is a leather strap, as hon. members of the house who were present on that occasion were able to see. This punishment can be inflicted only after the man has been tried and permitted to enter his full defence and after the evidence has been submitted to the superintendent in Ottawa and finally to myself; I have to read it. If I am satisfied that the infliction of this punishment is proper I confirm it. It frequently happens that the warden's court imposes a sentence of from fifteen to twenty straps, but these are seldom given. Three to five strokes, or at most ten, is about the usual application of the paddle. The medical officer must examine the prisoner before the punishment is administered and pronounce him fit.
There is nothing brutal about it. What the prisoners resent is the indignity of it; they will tell you so. I have made a careful inquiry of the officials who would know about these things in every penitentiary in Canada and never, in a single case, has the skin been broken, nor had any wound resulted or any blood flowed, notwithstanding the statements made by Mr. Nickle in his letter to Canon Scott, Mr. Nickle does not state anything of his own knowledge but merely gives the statements related by prisoners in the Kirkland trial, and which are absolutely untrue. You strap children at school. My mother used to strap me at home-yes, and in the same place as they strap the prisoners. But the prison officials are very careful in the administration of this punishment, and in order that there may be no injury inflicted the man is securely fastened to a frame so that the strap may be applied in the proper place without injury to the individual. There is a certain indignity about the process which prisoners do resent, but so far as the records of Canadian penitentiaries disclose there is no record of any injury, any skin broken or any blood flowing. The warden and medical officer must be present upon all such occasions. I give that statement in Mr. Nickle's letter a categorical denial.

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
Now let me take the next paragraph, in regard to disease:
Syphilitic inmates with running sores and other such patients are admitted to the hospital.
That is where they should go. Every inmate who comes to any of our prisons undergoes a very critical examination as soon as he enters the institution. He is carefully examined for all kinds of disease, and a record of his condition is carefully kept. In addition he has to undergo another indignity by being plunged in a very strong disinfectant bath, which I think many prisoners resent very much. A great many of them are not in very cleanly condition when they come in, and this treatment is absolutely necessary as a preliminary to their entering the institution. Then, if there is the slightest sign of any communicable disease they are isolated. Whether there is any sign of disease or not they are immediately tested in the way prescribed by science to see if they have any syphilitic affection. Every modern method is used, and a professor of Queen's university, who will be well known to the hon. member for Kingston, is among the men who have prescribed the method of treating and isolating these patients. Until a man is absolutely safe to mingle .or communicate with others, until he is absolutely immune he is not allowed to communicate in any way with the other convicts. I am satisfied every precaution is taken, and that the system has worked well.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: At this point may I
ask is it true that the dishes of other convicts in the hospital are washed in the bath tub in which all inmates of the hospital bathe.


Hugh Guthrie: No, that is a statement of Doctor Withrow and by a prisoner at the Kirkland trial. My information is that it is absolutely untrue. That is another categorical denial. I will state further that with a prison population from 2,800 to 4,500, over the last fifteen years, there has not been one single instance of communicated syphilis in the penitentiaries of Canada, not one. I think that is probably more than one can say for the factories, the schools and hotels in Canada, because they do not take the special precautions that are taken in the penitentiary.
The fourth point in Mr. Nickle's letter is about the boy prisoners. He states:
Two or three boys who were sent to penitentiary at the age of fifteen for three to seven years-
And so on. I do not know what he refers to, unless it is the case mentioned by the hon. member for Kingston. We have no boys

of fifteen years in the penitentiary at the present time, and I do not think there have been for a long time-but there may have been. The paragraph goes on to state that these boys associate with lifers. If any boys are sentenced from those provinces where they have boys' reformatories they will be immediately returned to the provincial authorities.
Statement number five is to the effect that it was proved conclusively that there are only 125 men at work, out of a prison population of 900 inmates. Well, the reason for that was that up until the time of the trial we did not reestablish all the workshops; they were doing it by degrees. Subsequently they were all at work. In fairness I think Mr. Nickle should have said that while since the riot only 125 had been put to work in the shops up until the month of April 1933, the shops are now running full time, except in regard to the few prisoners who have been isolated. But apart from the shops there were those who were working on the farm, those who were cutting stone, those who were working on ordinary chores, and others working about the penitentiary- though, as a matter of fact, when the trial took place in Kingston I think approximately 125 would be about the correct number working in the shops. But the impression sought to be created by Mr. Nickle is that the other 875 had no work to do. I categorically deny that allegation.
Now I shall discuss the case of a man named O'Brien, which was also in the limelight and received a good deal of newspaper notoriety, again through the efforts of Mr. W. M. Nickle, who took the matter up with the Toronto Globe and the Toronto Star. In that way the matter was given greater prominence than otherwise it would have been given. The case has been brought up in a very pointed way owing to Mr. Nickle's letter in which he states:
There is an inmate by the name of John O'Brien who was suspected of conspiring to escape on the poor allegation of a letter sent by one inmate to a warden, implicating O'Brien. O'Brien has been in solitary confinement in the prison of isolation since August, 1931, and has never been charged or tried on the charge of conspiracy to escape.	_
O'Brien had on each side of him two raving inmates, one completely crazy and the other a drug addict. I subpoenaed the crazy man to try to show to the court what was going on, but the Department of Justice got rid of him three or four days before the trial.
I give a categorical denial to that statement. O'Brien claims to be an American citizen. He has a fairly long criminal record

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
in the United States and also a fairly long one in Canada. In the United States he is credited with two escapes from the penitentiary or prisons of that country, and he is looked upon as being a rather dangerous prisoner. I think that under all the circumstances careful watching is very justifiable. He was placed in the prison of isolation. That is not the keepers' hall; that is not a hole. The prison of isolation is composed of ninety-six cells which are the best cells in the prison. Probably they are the best cells on the continent of America, and they were favourably commented upon recently by a British prison commissioner. Ninety-six of those cells are segregated by themselves-larger cells, better light, fully equipped with running water, toilet arrangements and spring beds; but we keep prisoners there whom we consider dangerous. O'Brien was in the prison of isolation. There are six tiers to that prison, sixteen cells to a tier. He was in the lower tier, and at the time he was there I believe there was one occasion when there were only two or three other prisoners upon the same tier. But there is no such thing as solitary confinement in any penitentiary in Canada, and there has not been for at least thirty years. I do not know what there was in the last century.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: What did they mean
when they used that term again and again? Had he so much time out of the cells for exercise?
Mr. GUTHRIE; Yes, every day.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: How long?
Mr. GUTHRIE; Forty minutes.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Was he treated just
the same as other prisoners?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, just the same.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Why should the warden make the statement-because it was he who said it-that it appeared the men were going out to liberate O'Brien who was in solitary confinement for a year?


Hugh Guthrie: The warden made a mistake in using this phrase. In the isolation prison there would be ninety-six others when the cells are all filled. Another prisoner stated during the Kingston trial-and the Globe and other papers made a tremendous fuss about it-that he had been in solitary confinement for twenty-three years. He had never been in solitary confinement one day. What the poor fellow did mean was that he had served twenty-three years of imprisonment, and that was about his record-although not altogether
-in Canadian prisons. However he used the term "solitary confinement". "Solitary confinement" is a term that the prisoners use in regard to the prison of isolation, but there is nothing solitary about it.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am sorry to interrupt again, but does the minister mean it is not solitary inasmuch as there are other prisoners near them?


Hugh Guthrie: They mingle and they
mix. But there are times when it is quite possible that in a corridor with sixteen cells there may be only one man. That is uncommon, if it ever happened, but it is possible that it might happen.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I cannot understand
why the warden would say that this man had been in solitary confinement for a year if the treatment he was getting was just the same as the other prisoners got who were locked in their cells from four or five o'clock in the afternoon.


Hugh Guthrie: This case was investigated by the United States authorities because the man in question made the claim he was in solitary confinement and had not been tried. I think when the United States authorities went into the matter they were quite satisfied with the prisoner's treatment. I have heard nothing to the contrary.
This man O'Brien was implicated soon after he came to Kingston penitentiary in some breach of prison rules. He was punished for a few days by being sent to the punishment cells. I think he was there three days. That would be pretty solitary because I do not suppose there was anybody there at the time but himself. After that he was liberated from the punishment cells and at the end of July in 1931 he was one of the leaders in a very serious attempt to break prison. I did describe something of this on a former occasion in the House of Commons but I am going to repeat part of it again to-day.
There were six or seven men engaged working in one of the machine shops, and they contrived in some way to manufacture weapons which they hid in various places in the machine shop. It was arranged that on a certain hour on a certain day, I think the second of August was to be the day, when the prison truck came to that shop they were to seize the truck, do what they would with the two men who were on the truck, and take the truck and drive it as forcibly as possible against the prison gates with the idea of effecting a prison escape. One of those implicated evidently lost heart in the venture and told the penitentiary officers as to what

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
was proposed. These men were immediately locked up, among them being O'Brien. A search was made according to the information which had been supplied by one of the confederates and the weapons were discovered. During the last debate on this subject in this house my hon. friend from Kingston City produced some more or less inoffensive looking implements and said, "This is all they found; these are merely little tools for scraping the machinery, and for that," he says, "they were punished."
Well, these men were tried. The former Superintendent Hughes and the former warden Ponsford were then in office, and after the trial these men were convicted and sentenced to the prison of isolation, which I have described. But the little innocent inoffensive weapons produced by my hon. friend from Kingston City-I do not know who handed them to him-are not the exhibits in the case at all. I have here the actual articles which were found secluded in the shop and which were filed as exhibits in the trial. I think this one has been made from a file. It is a very dangerous looking weapon.
Here is one which certainly has been made from a file. This was hidden behind some of the heating radiators.
This third exhibit, marked exhibit B, is a broken one. This was hidden under the floor.
Here is another dangerous weapon, made I think from a file, and marked exhibit D. This also was hidden behind the woodwork.
This one looks as if it were made from polished steel.
Of these weapons which I have shown to the house the longest and the most desperate looking one is from eighteen to twenty inches long, is sharp and pointed, and is made of good steel.
The next longest has a blade over ten inches long and is sharpened to a point. I think it was made from a steel file.
The next one is between ten and eleven inches long, and is a vicious looking weapon.
The small one is also made from a file and is sharpened at the point.
The last one I do not know so much about except that it looks like the article that was produced by my hon. friend from Kingston City. It may be some part of the machinery, but it has been sharpened at the point too. These are the actual exhibits in connection with the trial of these convicts. O'Brien was tried; he was convicted, and because he was looked on as a very dangerous prisoner he was placed in the prison of isolation and kept there until some time this spring. He is

now freed from the prison of isolation. Perhaps he has learned his lesson; I hope he has. He is now engaged at the officers' mess in Kingston, and I think he has been placed in the ordinary cell block with the other convicts. He is one of those who were looked upon as dangerous, and he was certainly engaged in the effort to escape in August. 1931. He has to his credit two escapes from American penitentiaries; he is a long term prisoner. His sentence is for twenty years or for life, I am not sure which, but he requires very strict supervision. Such is my categorical statement in regard to the alleged ill treatment of O'Brien.
Next as to the silence rule.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Just to clear up one point., do I understand that Major Nickle is incorrect when he says that O'Brien has never been charged with or tried on the charge of conspiracy?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. I have a record of the trial before Superintendent Hughes and Warden Ponsford. O'Brien was found guilty of trying to escape.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: When?


Hugh Guthrie: August, 1931.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am not clear why it should be said he was in solitary confinement for two years or one year if the minister says there is no such thing.


Hugh Guthrie: I have described the confinement. I would like my hon. friend (Miss Macphail) to know that I have no reason for suggesting anything that did not happen. I want all the facts to come out and nothing will please me better than to have her visit the institution as she has on former occasions and see the actual cells and conditions. I make this further statement, that I would welcome a visit from the hon. member for Kingston City. I wish he would go through the institution with the most meticulous care, examine it from top to bottom, and hear stories and statements from prisoners, and I am satisfied that when he came away he would commend the institution. I would like my hon. friend from Southeast Grey to do the same thing.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: If it is as it was when I last visited the institution, the authorities will be very careful to see that no person makes a statement. They were not at that time even allowed to glance at visitors, much less to speak to them, except by permission of the warden.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the rule, and I will waive it in favour of my hon. friend for

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
Southeast Grey or any hon. member of this house. Members of this house are statutory visitors. They have the right to go there and the right to see everything and to speak to everybody. That is what a statutory visitor is for. So has a grand jury that right, and so has a judge. If any one desires to examine these institutions either at Kingston or any other part of this dominion I will give them the greatest freedom to do so, they may investigate to their heart's content, and all I ask them to give is an unbiased and unprejudiced account of what they do see, having regard to the fact that these institutions are not hotels or boarding-houses but penitentiaries.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Does the minister
wonder that it is confusing to the people of this country when the warden says that a man was in solitary confinement for a year and then the minister stands up and says there was no such thing? I want to ask this further question. In the case of O'Brien-I notice the minister takes great trouble to tell the committee how terrible these prisoners are, and I am not defending them, because I know a great many are vicious; on Saturday I placed the percentage of the total prison population as twenty per cent-I am not arguing for O'Brien or Kirkland or anybody, but was O'Brien put in for the two years in solitary confinement other than the forty minutes a day, or was he allowed the same liberty as any other prisoner? Just what does solitary confinement mean?


Hugh Guthrie: No. I believe he only got his daily exercise. Then he was offered work in his cell and he refused to do it. Subsequently I believe he asked for work in his cell and got it. His case I may say has been fully reported to the American prison authorities on O'Brien's representations that he was being discriminated against as an American citizen, and I think the American authorities are quite satisfied with regard to the matter. So far as I am aware, they are.
The next matter in the letter of Mr. Nickle is in regard to silence.
Prior to October 17 there was a silent rule for convicts which read as follows:
Every convict shall observe silence and shall not hold communication with another convict.
Mr. Nickle knew full well when he wrote that letter that the rule had been abrogated for a year or almost two years. It so happens that General Ormond, superintendent of penitentiaries, took office on the 1st of August 1932, and his first visit to Kingston was made on September 8, 1932. When he came back from Kingston he had a discussion with me.
He said he was going to visit other penitentiaries, but that there were certain recommendations which he had decided to make in regard to these institutions, and one of those he mentioned was the rule with respect to silence. Another one was in regard to cigarette papers and another in regard to exercise. Prior to General Ormond's appointment the exercise period was only ten minutes and it consisted in walking around a yard, a sort of military march. He said that method did not appeal to him, it was not a proper exercise, and he recommended a change. I think that would be probably the 10th or 11th of September, six weeks before any riot took place. I said, "Had you not 'better consult other wardens before we change the regulations?" He replied that he would, particularly in regard to cigarette smoking. Unfortunately or fortunately the disturbance took place on October 17th, before there was any change in the regulation, but the regulation was changed on December 31, 1932, and the silence rule was abolished. It had been the rule of all Canadian penitentiaries for forty years and until recently was the rule in English penitentiaries-I think it is still the rule in Dartmoor-and it is also the rule in many penitentiaries in the United States. In the penitentiaries in Canada the silence rule was abolished on 31st December, 1931, and Mr. Nickle should have known that when he wrote the letter to Canon Scott:
Let me say here, while it occurs to me, that the inmates were only given twenty minutes exercise a day, walking in a circle round the bull ring.
I thought it was ten minutes only of exercise that they were allowed before General Ormond took over as superintendent of the penitentiaries. Now it is forty minutes, and in Great Britain an hour. The kind of exercise is a matter on which there is some discussion and difference of opinion among prisoners. The exercise which has been prescribed by General Ormond for all penitentiaries in Canada consists for the most part of those exercises which you see in collegiate institutes and colleges, the Royal Military College and various places of that kind- rhythmic movement all under an instructor in the open air, and then a certain amount of walking exercise. Previously it had been merely walking exercise, but in Kingston unfortunately this additional exercise has developed into a kind of sporting contest which is not permitted under the present regulations. Instead of the regular exercise prescribed, baseball and the like has developed to a fairly alarming extent. Baseball has now

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
been stopped and the Kingston prison is new run under the regulation with regard to forty minutes' exercise.
Is it necessary for me to deal with anything else in Mr. Nickle's letter to Canon Scott? I have tried to give a categorical denial to every important statement in it. As I pointed out, the statements are founded not on the experience or knowledge of Mr. Nickle himself, but solely upon the lurid statements of prisoners. Before I discuss that point further, however, there is one thing I missed. There is a paragraph in the letter in regard to shackling of prisoners to the bars; Mr. Nickle says that men have been shackled with their hands above their heads and left for hours until they were exhausted. That is untrue and I give a categorical denial to that statement. For two years there has been no shackling. O'Brien may have been shackled two years ago

I am not sure-and I had better not make too broad a statement. It is, however, two years since there has been shackling to the bars in Canadian penitentiaries-that system has been abolished under the present superintendent. Again I say that Mr. Nickle in these statements is not speaking of his own knowledge, but he has accepted at one hundred per cent these terrible exaggerations and misstatements made by prisoners when trying to justify the riot in 1932, in order to mitigate sentence. It was upon such evidence, given before a judge of the county court, upon which Canon Scott addressed the people of Canada in his sermons. These were the statements which were also laid before the Social Service Council in Toronto, before the Prisoners' Welfare Society in Montreal and before the John Howard Society in British Columbia, all prisoners' welfare associations. These are the statements which disturbed them and caused them to come to Ottawa last August or September to see the Prime Minister and myself and to ask for the appointment of a royal commission, and we gave a categorical denial to these statements at the time of the interview. The Prime Minister also suggested that they immediately send deputations to visit the penitentiaries and be convinced by what they saw. These societies appointed their own committees and visited every penitentiary in Canada. They were accorded the fullest liberty and exercised their rights to the fullest. They discussed matters with prisoners and with officials as well as with outsiders and have made a report generally recommending the system and the administration of Canadian penitentiaries.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I have a copy of the
report-


Hugh Guthrie: Let me finish, please.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: -and I challenge the statement-


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend must not
butt in until I finish. They did make certain specific recommendations and we are endeavouring as rapidly as possible to carry them out. One of the most prominent of these recommendations is in regard to the question of segregation. We have advanced in that respect in the last year and a half not only perceptibly but very satisfactorily. In each penitentiary there is a segregation board consisting of the warden, the deputy warden, two chaplains, the medical officer, the school masters and the trade instructors in the various trades. They periodically sit as a board and examine each individual prisoner and pass upon him as to his fitness to learn a trade, to carry on work that he has been put to, and as to his adaptability. They examine into his criminal record, antecedents and the like, with the idea of putting him eventually among the class which will most benefit him and at the same time of keeping what you may call the dangerous ones, the old offenders, the hardened criminals, as far as possible to themselves. That system has been in force in all the penitentiaries of Canada for some time now, except Kingston. I am sorry to say that the warden at Kingston, perhaps through pressure of other work in the difficult situation in which he was placed, had not time to institute that system in Kingston as it was instituted in other penitentiaries, but since the fifteenth of June the system has been placed in full operation in Kingston penitentiary. I think this is the system recommended by the Social Service Council and other societies so far as we have been able to carry it out up to the present time. I am aware that the superintendent himself has recommended very definitely that a psychiatrist, also a psychologist, should be attached to the staff of each penitentiary. We have competent doctors there now and I believe they are highly qualified men. The physician at Kingston has been there a long time; he is not an appointee of mine in any sense, but I believe he is performing his duty. He is not, however, what is technically known as a psychiatrist. When any mental case is under consideration it is necessary to send out and secure the opinion of some alienist who is not on the prison staff at the present time. But it has been pointed out by writers on penology in this country, the United States and Great Britain, that it is almost essential

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
to have a psychiatrist connected with prisons for properly estimating the possibilities or the adaptability of the convict. We have no psychiatrists at present but it is quite possible that in the near future we will have them at the larger penitentiaries.
Another question that is very pressing is that of the segregation of the youthful prisoners. We have not as yet any system for youthful segregation nor so far as I am aware have they in any other country unless it be England. One cannot make a very fair comparison between the prison system in England and that of Canada. The best and most recent book on the English prison system is by one of the prison commissioners, Mr. L. W. Fox, a book published a few months ago and to be found in the library here. It brings the regulations up to date and explains the system concisely. But in England there is only one governing power. The British government or the Home Secretary has authority throughout the whole United Kingdom over all their prisons; in Canada we have a different system and the only prisons under the jurisdiction of the federal government are the penitentiaries. All the gaols, all the refuges, all the reformatories and all the provincial prisons are under the control of provincial authorities and the federal government has nothing to do with them. In England, where there is a single control, they are able to allocate their prisons to certain classes of prisoners, something which this department has no power to do, and they are allocating certain prisons for certain classes of prisoners. Of course in England they have a very large number of prisons at their disposal and they have instituted and are carrying out what is known as the Borstal system, a system which it is hoped will have the effect in many cases of reclaiming youthful offenders before they go too far in their careers of crime. The Borstal system applies in the first instance to those who are under twenty-four and afterwards there is a special period of application for those who are from twenty-four to twenty-eight. I believe from all I have read that the Borstal system has produced good results. We have, however, no experience in the dominion field in our penitentiaries of instituting a system of that kind. The youths and the young men do not and should not go to our penitentiaries. But it so happens that among our young offenders under twenty-one there are some very violent criminals with long criminal records and it is a very serious question whether they should be placed with other youths who may be in for a first offence.
I doubt very much whether to do so would have a good effect on first offenders. You cannot classify them very well by age. It is a problem that should be and is being studied by many people, but the chief work to be done in that respect is not in the penitentiaries but in the provincial prisons and common gaols. Some of the provinces have as yet no reformatories as we have them in Ontario. In some of the provinces the common gaols are very strongly condemned by those who have had reason to visit them. On the other hand let me say this; a comparison between the treatment of prisoners in Canada and in England so far as humanity goes, so far as lenient treatment goes, is entirely favourable to this country.
Perhaps just at .this moment I might refer to one other matter, and that is a letter which has been circulated throughout the House of Commons by Mr. A. E. Smith, Secretary of the Canadian Labour Defence League. I always refer to .this organization as the Communist league. It was the Communist league until the trial of the seven offenders took place, until the convictions were made against them a couple of years ago. Then, at the instigation or at the instance of A. E. Smith the name of the organization was changed and the same band of people now carry on under the name of the Canadian Labour Defence League, but the man who has instigated most of the unrest in Canada in regard to penitentiary matters is A. E. Smith. The hon. member for Southeast Grey said the other night: How is it that there were disturbances in penitentiaries before there were any communist activities in Canada? The history of the world has shown that there are periodical disturbances in penitentiaries and prisons where there were no communists at all. We have had prison riots in Canada as far back as fifty years ago, very serious ones where the troops were called out, where firing took place, where the warden and deputy warden were murdered as in St. Vincent de Paul. We have had them at Kingston and at other points. There have been innumerable serious revolts in the United States with great loss of life not due to the communists' activities at all and they have had them in England as the late insurrections at Dartmoor show. Riots must be expected in all penal institutions and one must be prepared for them with a special staff of guards and appliances to restrain them. But it is strange that ever since the seven communists were imprisoned in Kingston, the agitation has gone on; it started within two months after their incarceration. The first was the complaint about not supplying cigarette papers.
461S

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
That was reported to me by an ex-prisoner who told me that in the spring of that year there was very much dissatisfaction because they were not allowed to get cigarette papers. That dissatisfaction grew and culminated in the riot of October, 1922, but throughout the whole criticism has been in regard to Kingston. All the seven penitentiaries are run on the same principle, the same rules, the same regulations, but the criticism has all centred on Kingston where the seven communists are confined.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: What about St. Vincent de Paul? There are several communists there.


Hugh Guthrie: I am talking about communist activities.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: But there are communists at St. Vincent de Paul.


Hugh Guthrie: But the criticism has centred on Kingston. During all the discussion this session there has not been any mention of any other Canadian penitentiary than Kingston. All the letters that have been sent out; the fifty thousand odd messages I have received in the way of telegrams, letters, postal cards, insulting advertising in regard to myself, are all in regard to Kingston penitentiary and no other penitentiary in Canada is ever mentioned. All the agitation in the newspapers points to Kingston. I say to the hon. member for Southeast Grey: I give her the reason. It is on account of the communist prisoners who started some activities in Kingston but whose efforts have been from time to time aided by those of Smith and his so-called Canadian Labour Defence League. They are the chief agitators. He is the man who has sent this unfounded, lying document to members of the House of Commons. This document is dated June 18. I am not going to read it all. He says that 459,000 people have petitioned me; I would have said a couple of million, but he has got it down to 459,000. And he says:
To-day the condition of the seven is worse than ever.
That is a lie, that is the only word to use.
The Behan death has never been properly explained, and from authentic sources come stories that this was one of the cruelest since the Ormond regime of episodes that occurred there. But evidently this is not enough. For the last two weeks Ormond has been "reorganizing" things. Part of this reorganization has been to fling the seven communists again into the "hole."
That is an absolute lie. They are not in the hole and they never have been. The cells

under the keeper's room is what he refers to as the hole. The communists are not there and never have been there. He says:
Into the "hole," the prison of isolation,-
That is better.
-where they were kept five days locked up,-
That is not true.
-and where they are now sleeping on punishment beds,-
That is an absolute lie. I made special inquiry; they have steel spring beds and two mattresses on top of that, and also both summer and winter bedding. If Smith went to England he would find that in all English prisons the prisoners sleep on plank beds. We give them a proper spring bed and two mattresses on top of that, and that is what all these communists have. Smith has not been in the institution. This may have been reported to him, but this is just another of his reckless statements which constitutes a lie.
-and in the daytime doing heavy work in the coal and wood yard.
They have been working on the docks at the lightest work in the penitentiary, and are there at their own request. They wanted outside work; they asked for it and they got it. To all appearances they are happy and contented.
The cruelties have played havoc with the health of Tim Buck and his associates.
I have had their health watched very carefully, and they are all in excellent health. True, I will grant you there has been a great deal of worry and fretting; there must be, because I do not think penitentiary confinement is conducive to health and strength and vigour of body and mind, but that is part of the punishment. But as far as medical men can judge their health is excellent. Two of them were liberated last week by my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) who sees to that branch of the Department of Justice. They were treated just as the brokers were treated. They were liberated because on June 29, they had served half their time, and they were liberated on that date, on ticket of leave, which enables them to serve the remainder of their sentence outside of prison walls. If they comply with the conditions which are endorsed on the ticket of leave they will never be called upon to serve the remainder of the sentence. And when the other communist prisoners have served half their time they will be treated in precisely the same manner, without any variation. But there is a proviso which goes with this state-

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
ment; I stated it in the house on a former occasion. Provided that they are first effend-ers, that their prison conduct has been good, and that the crime was not one of violence or of assault on women, they will be given favourable consideration when half their time is served. I cannot speak as to the recent conduct of any of the five communists who are still there because I have not looked into it lately, but if they can meet that test the rest of them will be liberated when half their time is served.
Let me go on with this letter from Smith. The two men who were liberated last week were not liberated on account of ill health. Oh, they complain their health was bad. In one instance we allowed the man's own doctor to visit him; he gave me a certificate, as well as one I suppose to the prisoner's wife, and there was nothing to alarm me in that certificate; I could find no cause for releasing him on the ground of ill health. Representations were made in regard to another of them by an hon. member who is not here to-day. I could not find anything more than occurs to any person in an institution of that kind, but they were liberated because their conduct had been good, because they were first offenders and had served half their time. The letter continues :
Sam Carr is seriously ill.
That is not true. He was liberated last week.
But sick parole is denied him.
That also is untrue.
Popovich has been in the hospital some time.
Each of the prisoners has been in hospital, and under the statute hospital time is not computed in the days the prisoners are allowed for good conduct; however I waived Popovich's hospital time in this case and did not count it against him.
Tom Hill suffers from arthritis;
Not seriously; he seems happy.
Bruce is almost completely crippled with a broken back.
I believe he had some trouble with his back, and in this case I gave him a special hospital bed, as good as any you will find in the Ottawa hospital.
Tom Ewen complains of very bad headaches-
I fancy he may have had headaches; a good many of us have. But this letter would lead one to believe that we are keeping these men in there to their death, that although they were almost ready to go we would not hear the prayers of themselves or their wives for release before death was upon them.
That is the kind of letter that has been circulated by this man Smith throughout Canada. Based on that, petitions come to me, telegrams come to me; I got two to-day. Three hundred Ukrainians from Calgary sent me one, and a number of people from northern Ontario the other; I do not know what their nationality is. All there is in the petitions is a demand that at once I release the seven communists; they do not even know that two are out now. Well, they will be treated just as were the others.
One other matter mentioned particularly by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is that in regard to the shooting of Tim Buck. I made a statement on this in the house earlier in the session, and at that time I think perhaps I made a misstatement because I said that ten or eleven shots had been fired into his cell, into the celling. The truth is that there was a rifle shot and a pistol bullet fired there, and a shotgun containing buckshot; and the total number of bullets which made marks in the cell was eleven. I believe the evidence discloses that there were three shots. Tim Buck has made a statement, and I do not think he takes any exception to that in his statement. He was on the fourth tier in the prison, so that he would be about thirty-five to forty feet above the ground. The cells are arranged in tiers, back to back, and in front of each cell is a steel door or barrier, and . in front of that again across a narrow corridor is a window. During the riot which took place on the twenty-second of the month-not the first riot; we shall call it -the second-towards evening when it was growing dusk, about one hundred and fifty or one hundred and sixty convicts were not then in the cells-indeed we did not have cells for them and they were sleeping in dormitories. They congregated below the cell block, ripped up heavy planks from some building and started knocking off the locks of some of the cells with them. They had liberated quite a large number of prisoners. Buck was above this. He would come to his cell door and incite the prisoners to continue the riot "and get their rights." The guards had been armed with rifles and pistols for the purpose of meeting any emergency and suppressing it. The guards being on the ground, forty-five or fifty feet down, looking up could see Buck only when he came and shouted from his cell door. Shots were fired for the purpose of frightening him or stopping him, or, as I said when I was speaking on the matter before, cowing him-not with the idea of injuring him. As I said on a previous occasion, if anyone had wanted to shoot Tim Buck or to injure him it would not have

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
Megloughlin had a very very difficult task during his eighteen months at Kingston. It may be that on account of the peculiar situation there he used his own discretion, and thought it well not to put certain regulations into force. He did not institute a system of segregation such as I have described and such as was instituted in all the other penitentiaries in Canada. Perhaps he was not able to do so on account of the situation. He did not institute the training of staff officers and guards, as was ordered two years ago, and as has been carried on for at least eighteen months in all other Canadian penitentiaries. There were a number of regulations of that kind which were not put in force at Kingston, with the result that disorder broke out again. I described these disorders when I last spoke to the house concerning this matter, and I believe I need not repeat my observations.
I do not know that I can condemn Warden Megloughlin on account of his experience as warden in Kingston penitentiary. He had a most difficult time, but he did not bring the results which we anticipated. After a pretty full and careful inquiry I came to the conclusion that I would have to make a change. When I intimated my decision to the warden he told me after he had time to consider it he would prefer to resign. I accepted his resignation.
Unless some hon. member wishes to ask a question, that is all I have to say on the subject at the present time.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Mr. Chairman, I shall be through in the fifteen minutes I said I would take. I think anybody who has followed penitentiary conditions in Canada during the last three or four years must know that a great many if not all of the changes which have been made in penitentiary administration have come as a result of the uprisings or riots, or whatever they may be termed. I think at one point in his speech the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) said that the silence rule had been lifted some time previous to the riots, and then later, a few minutes ago, he said that it was-


Hugh Guthrie: No, I said it had been discussed with General Ormond on the 10th or 11th of September.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: But it was not lifted until after. I had intended to read on Saturday night, but found it difficult to proceed in the then temper of the house, the excellent changes which have been made in the administration of penitentiaries. Those changes have been made since and not before the riots, unless it is in the matter of shack-

ling to the bars. I have now come to the conclusion that very often ministers of justice are not aware of what is done. I believe the present minister (Mr. Guthrie) is now aware because there have been several disturbances as a result of which he has made careful inquiries. But they do not always know what is going on. I recall on one occasion asking about shackling to the bars and the then minister (Mr. Lapointe) said that the men were not shackled for any length of time, that their hands were never shackled higher than their waists, when the actual fact was they were shackled eight hours at a time to be let down only at noon, and their hands were placed high above their heads. I believe he did not know that, just as I believe that the present minister did not know about many of the things that were going on previous to the riots. But as I follow the whole thing through-statements in court, judgments rendered, newspaper accounts, and statements made in the house by the minister-I come to the conclusion that the changes which have been made have been made as a result of long, long unnecessary years of suffering which would not have occurred had the recommendations of Superintendent Hughes been carried out. Brigadier General Hughes made most excellent recommendations year after year, as appears in penitentiary reports, and had those recommendations been acted upon I am quite sure we would have avoided the greatest part of the difficulty, such as the great fires at St. Vincent de Paul and Kingston penitentiaries. Possibly the riots would have been avoided as well.
Let me now read to the house, in order to be perfectly fair, the changes which have taken place either very close to or since the time of the riots:
1.	No corporal punishment until after the evidence has been taken under oath and award approved by superintendent.
2.	Shackling to cellgate abolished.
3.	Standardization of a minimum period of exercise in the fresh air for convicts employed in shops or cells-half systematic and half free movement.
4.	Increased visits of relatives. Letters by convicts increased from one to three letters a month, but only to close relatives which shuts off many.
5.	Close cropping of hair abolished except in the case of convicts who had' previously escaped from a penal institution.
6.	Introduction of compulsory education for teachable illiterate convicts, school to be carried on during working hours.
7.	Silence rule broken-can talk from cell to cell until 7 p.m.
I notice that Superintendent Ormond recommends aga'inst the continuance of the talking principle. I read very carefully the list of

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
recommendations and reports of Superintendent Ormond, as well as his special report on the riots. He condemns almost wholly the conduct of Warden Smith and Deputy Warden Walsh. That is, he laid a very great deal of blame-whether the blame should have been laid there or not I do not know-upon Warden Smith and Deputy Warden Walsh. I recall that last winter when the Minister of Justice was talking on this subject he placed almost all the blame for the disturbances at the door of the communists. I dislike them intensely, probably more than the Minister of Justice does.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Oh yes, I do.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: What about this syphilitic fellow you are talking about?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I will let you deal with that. I dislike the philosophy and technique of communism, but because I do dislike it and because I never want communists to become a force in Canada I have always argued and voted in favour of eliminating section 98 of the criminal code, because I do think the way we are going about to get rid of communism is not British and is non-effective. It would not matter so much if it were not British, but it is non-effective. The first thing we know we will have Tim Buck associations all over the country. I disagree with the government, yes, but certainly not because I have any use for communism. I do feel that some of the methods used in dealing with communists were about the worst methods which could have been used under the circumstances.
I should like again to refer to the judgment of Judge Deroche, because after all it is as authentic as anything we can get. He says at the bottom of page six:
The crime of which I find Kirkland guilty is punishable with seven years' imprisonment. I do not intend to give him seven years. The riot itself was not as serious as it might have been. The men were in full charge that afternoon for some length of time. The warden and staff had lost control completely. The men could have destroyed property at will, and could have done personal violence to the warden officers and guards. They might, I think practically all have escaped if they had desired, but, generally speaking, no attempt was made to do any of these things as such. More than that, the leaders, or perhaps I should say the speakers, as they deny being leaders, the speakers at least restrained the men from doing any violence or injury, and so far as Kirkland is concerned, he obeyed that order, possibly gave the order himself.
He goes on to say, and I quoted this on Saturday night but quote it again in view of what has been said:
Then to go back to the cause of the riot. This peaceful demonstration which developed into a riot, was for the purpose of emphasizing the demands of the men for redress of certain grievances which had been long and repeatedly denied them.
This judgment was given on May 11, 1933, and the riots took place on October 17 and 20, 1932. Quoting again from the report:
Many of the grievances for which this demonstration was staged have already been granted to the men, proving conclusively to my mind that those demands must have been reasonable.
That is the statement I have always made. But it took all this, the riot, Major Nickle's letter, whether it is correct in every detail or not, and Canon Scott's preaching about it and our talking about it in the house to get to the stage where remedies were applied.


Hugh Guthrie: It was all done before
that-December 31, 1932.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: However, I have my
own opinion in regard to the matter and it is as I have stated. The minister has referred to the British system. I have been reading the book to which he referred, The Modem English Prison, and anyone who reads that book will see that in many ways the British system is severe, and I think severity is a very good thing. It is justice that matters, not severity. I think that prisoners as well as children and adults can stand a good deal of severity if it is justly administered and if they respect the people who administer it. In reading this book, as the minister no doubt has, he must have found that a great deal is done in the English prisons to counteract the deadly influence mentally and physically on the prisoner of the monotony and the fear and all that goes to makes up prison life. They have, for instance, approved visitors who are allowed to go to the cells in the evenings of very well behaved prisoners and help them in various ways, by conversation and planning for their future and all sorts of things.


Hugh Guthrie: We allow that.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Then at page 84, in
regard to discipline, I read this:
Reports for these offences can only be dealt with by the visiting committee, of whom not less than three, two being justices of the peace, must adjudicate, their inquiry being held on oath. If corporal punishment is ordered, the order must be submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation, with the evidence. The

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
committee may order other punishments within their powers in addition to or in lieu of the corporal punishment.
And then in relation to education the author goes on to show how much the British have improved their educational system within the prisons. I quote:
The prison authority still remains in a sense an educational authority; but the role it plays is not ambitious, and does not aim higher than to teach the illiterate to read and write, and in the small space an opportunity given, to raise to a higher standard those who are just a little better than illiterates.
He goes on to show that great change has been made. To quote further:
Five years later we read: "The adult education classes have shown some further development during the year under review. The number of classes held has increased and they have been attended by some 9,000 individual prisoners."
Quoting again:
This "Adult education scheme" was set up in 1923 with the advice and cooperation of the adult education committee of the board of education. Its aim is not, primarily to improve the "standard" of imperfectly educated prisoners, but to counteract the mental deterioration inevitably attendant on prison life, and to increase the prisoner's fitness for citizenship, by stimulating his mind and furnishing it with material for healthy activity in confinement, and of continuing value in after life. Evening classes are held in the prison after long hours of associated labour, and the subjects are chosen on the broadest basis to include not only "school" subjects such as history, mathematics, or modern languages, but "vocational" subjects such as shorthand, gardening, technical trade courses, or handicrafts,
And so on. In relation to care after discharge the author goes on to say that one of the greatest difficulties is the reestablishment of the man when he comes out of prison. No matter how much a man may want to learn a trade in prison, when he comes out he has not a trade at his finger ends that he has learned from beginning to end, and what knowledge the prisoner possesses of a trade is incomplete. The author goes on to say at pages 130 and 131 that in England they have set up a Federation of Northern and Midland Aid Societies which are partly voluntary organizations but partly governmental inasmuch as they receive a government grant for accepting responsibility for the prisoners returned to this area.
These are but three or four things from the British system which show how very much in advance they are to anything we have here.
I want to take one moment to speak of Lewis E. Lawes, warden of Sing Sing, who has written a very excellent book called Life and

Death in Sing Sing, and in that he says much of what we all want. He says that when prisoners come in they are very carefully examined by psychiatrists, psychologists and medical men. He says:
These prisoners will be subjected to a period of observation and' study by the administrative department in order that it may get a line on their general character, by the medical department for physical condition and disease, by the psychiatric clinic to ascertain their mentality, by the school for their education, by the industrial department for vocational ability, and by the chaplains for moral and religious ideas.
And further:
This work is now being done in part only, but each of the departments has been established and is now functioning. The last department, the psychiatric clinic, was started in 1927 and within a year was utilizing the services of a psychiatrist, assistant psychiatrist, psychologist, and -two field investigators.
And then I quote from the last paragraph of his book:
From personal experience it is my firm belief that much of the recidivism (crime repeating) is due to the fact that the ten dollars which the state pays a prisoner upon release is insufficient with his other handicaps to enable him to get a real start.
He goes on to tell that he has made it his business as warden to give the men who needed it small loans and that in almost every case they have repaid the loan. He thinks that some assistance -on the discharge of the prisoner is needed in order to get him reestablished again.
The minister has referred to the Canadian Prisoners Welfare Association, of which I am a -member, but whose meetings I may say, in order I may not prejudice the minister, I have never attended. They say in their report:
In our experience very few penitents emerge from our penitentiaries, a fact which shows how signally our penitive system fails to correct and discipline.
On top of that we can take it from the superintendent's report that seventy-five per cent of our prison population have had previous convictions and over fifty per cent have served previous terms in a penitentiary.
That shows that the system we are using has not been good enough. It is not reclaiming as many men as I feel should be reclaimed, granting that twenty per cent are in-corrigibles, using the superintendent's own figure, the highest figure that has been used by any investigating committee or royal commission report or penologist's statement I have read.
In closing I am going to make the following recommendations to the minister.

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
I think that the spirit of our penitentiaries should be one that seeks the reform of the convict rather than his punishment. The reform of the convict should be the aim of penitentiary administration, and to simplify this work the hardened, brutalized and dangerous prisoners, usually called incor-rigibles, should serve an indeterminate sentence in one prison. According to the figures given by the Minister of Justice, the superintendent of penitentiaries and the investigation committees, their numbers in no case exceed 20 per cent of the prison population and were quoted as low as 5 per cent by the royal commission in 1914. I am sure it is higher now. My second recommendation is the appointment of a superintendent trained in penology. There should be no more political or military appointments. Then there should be a system of adequate training for officials and guards, either a central one for all the penitentiaries or a smaller one in each. I would suggest also the classification and segregation of prisoners. Nothing more than an attempt has been made in that direction. We should have too a medical officer with some training in psychiatry and a travelling medical superintendent with psychiatric specialty. There should be no mental defectives or mentally diseased in the penitentiaries, and there should be work with pay, for good work, even if the pay is small, as a bit of encouragement. I submit that there should be properly supervised work by which the inmates are taught a trade from the beginning to the end of that trade, instead of such instruction being as now so small that the prisoner cannot find any work when he gets out. Every inmate should be in school part of the time, school sessions being held morning, afternoon and evening, if necessary, to accomplish this. Those who are learning shoe repairing, for instance, should be taught the whole business or their instruction will be useless. In regard to the question of inmates attending school, much more time should be devoted to this purpose than until recently has been the case, and certainly it should not be only during the noon hour. Until recently the only time during which prisoners could receive instruction or listen to lectures was between the time they had their lunch and the time they went to work again, which could never be more than forty minutes and usually less.
There should be properly supervised physical recreation. I do not see how keeping a man in solitary confinement, in a prison of isolation or whatever you like to call it, for two years,
with forty minutes out a day, will make a man of him. I do not think it will improve him. Then there should be non-compulsory church attendance but increased facilities for personal religious work for those who want it. It is contrary to the idea of religion to drive people to listen to sermons if they do not want to go, but under a proper policy in this regard, if they received the right sort of religious training, it is possible that after a while they would want to attend church services. At any rate, it would be better to have only those go to church who wanted to do so than to have them all go against their will.
Something is needed in the way of a sppervising travelling board for inspection and paroles, one of whom would be the travelling psychiatrist, as I have mentioned before. In this connection I wish to indicate the method used in New York state. The parole board there is composed of two prison officials, the state commissioner of correction and the warden of the prison in which the prisoner is confined, and a third man whose training and point of view are essentially social. This board, according to the laws of the state, is neither a political nor a philanthropic organization but is composed of practical men who understand the crime problem. Lastly, we shall never succeed in reclaiming prisoners until some assistance is given them on release, not necessarily monetary assistance, but aid through prisoners' welfare associations or a combination of voluntary and government bodies. There should be a group of citizens outside willing to give a helping hand, whether by way of a word of encouragement or a job or a loan or whatever it may be, to the man or woman who cannot get themselves reestablished in life. If we follow the constructive suggestions and undertake as rapidly as possible some of the things that are done in British prisons and in Sing Sing-and all these recommendations do not come from those two sources-we shall do a great deal to lessen the tremendous number who go back to penitentiary for a second, third and fourth term.
I do not want to say anything more now except that I feel that, all that has happened having happened, it is in the public interest to have an impartial investigation which in all probability will result in far-reaching recommendations that will change the spirit of our penitentiaries without necessarily lessening discipline. In the very nature of things discipline must be severe, but it can be just and I submit that it could be administered better than it has been up until nov

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries


Mr. MULLINS:: Inasmuch as my name was mentioned freely by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) and the Toronto Globe, I want to say a few words in regard to this matter. A headline in the Toronto Globe reads:
Niekle exposes "Cook's tour" prison visits.
Let me say to this committee that it was not two children who entered the prison gates but one was an outstanding clergyman of Toronto and myself, under an agreement to see whether the things that were mentioned in the letter read by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) existed or not. I said to my personal friend, the Rev. W. A. Cameron, "Let us go to this institution and see whether these things exist, and if they do I will let the ohips fall in the House of Commons wherever they may; I will spare no one." We entered that institution, and why the visit of that reverend gentleman and myself should be heralded in the front page of that newspaper by Mr. Niekle I do not know. I do not know this man, but he suggests that I am a relative of General Onmond. Let me quote what is reported:
Sometimes one wonders why Mr. Mullins takes such an interest in penitentiary^ affairs by publishing that ali is well at the Kingston penitentiary. Can it he that Mr. Daniel Ormond, by family ties, or otherwise, has an influence in Mr. Mullins' riding?
General Ormond has no relatives in my riding, nor am I in any way a relative of General Ormond, and that statement is like a lot of other statements made by this man Niekle from Kingston. On my visit to Kingston I said to the warden when I got inside the gate, "I want to see what I want to see, not what you want to show me," and he turned Mr. Cameron and myself loose in the penitentiary and said, "Go where you like, interview whom you like."
I came across several men there, men whom I happened to know from Manitoba, and one had been a school teacher; he had taught school in the northern part of Manitoba, I took him to one side and said to him, "I have known you a long time; can you give me some idea of what is going on in this institution? Is there anything wrong?" He replied that there was absolutely nothing wrong; there was the very best food and everything was all right. I went there entirely on behalf of the men who were incarcerated in that institution, and in the report I made to the Minister of Justice I asked him to substitute for the khaki uniform a blue suit, which might have a better effect on those inside the institution. I saw the best food
LMiss Macphail.]
that could be given any man on aluminum dishes that were afterwards washed. I asked the question particularly whether there were any contacts, whether the same dishes were used by men who were diseased. He told me positively no, and showed me the tub in which the dishes were washed and we satisfied ourselves along that line. We remained until supper time to see the men go by in cafeteria Style. One of them had a dish, nearly as large as the aluminum tray they give you in the House of Commons cafeteria. It had four partitions and in one comer there was a splendid piece of roast beef; in another, cabbage; in another potatoes, and in another, prunes. Then on top of that was a nice currant bun, a large mug of tea and three ears of corn. That was the supper, and I would like to ask hon, members if they would want any better food than that. The food supply was of the very best.
All these statements that were made were made for some purpose and I came to the conclusion that they were made for political purposes. I see now that since the Minister of Justice has made his statement my hon. friends are modifying their attitude. So far as I was concerned, if there was anything wrong or any ill treatment of them, I was prepared to take the matter up strongly on the floor of this house. The people that are in those institutions are not Sunday school teachers. One of them came to me and gave me a story. He said that he had seen me in the penitentiary; he gave me a line of talk and out of sympathy I tried to get him a position. At that time I was in Toronto. I gave him all the money I had in my pocket. When I came to look up his record I found that I was up against one of the worst crooks ever in a penitentiary; he had more than eight convictions against him. This same gentleman played the same game with one of my hon. friends in the house whom I can see from where I am speaking, and got money from him in the same way. I looked into every detail in that institution solely on behalf of the men, and I can say, having seen prisons in England, that our prisoners are fed and taken care of and treated as well as any prisoners that can be found in any paa-t of that country.


Frederick George Sanderson: I hope the Prime
Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) will not think I am endeavouring to delay prorogation. I would draw their attention to the fact that since three o'clock this afternoon I am the only member of the official opposition who has stood up to speak; the speaking has been

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
done from the group in the corner to my left and from the government benches, but I feel that on this matter I should like to go on record and I shall be only a few minutes.
This question of the administration of penal institutions is a very vital one in the constituency that I have the honour to represent in this house. Starting about a year ago and continuing all summer and into the fall, perhaps I had more visitors, requests and correspondence in regard to the condition at Kingston penitentiary than in regard to any other question that was put before me. In the town in which I live the whole population seemed to be very much stirred up in connection with not only penal institutions in the dominion generally, but especially Kingston penitentiary. As a matter of fact, one of our most prominent citizens in the town in which I reside addressed to me through the local newspaper an open letter to which he asked me to reply, requesting that I put myself on record as to what I knew about conditions in Kingston penitentiary. This gentleman, as I said, is a prominent citizen, prominent not only in business but in church and social welfare life. I want to say to the Minister of Justice-and I am sorry I have not before me a copy of this gentleman's letter and of my reply thereto- that this person was not at all critical of the Minister of Justice or of the department or of the government. He was seeking the light in regard to conditions in Kingston penitentiary; perhaps he thought I might be able to throw some light on the question and he asked that I reply to his letter.
I did so, but I said that I had no more knowledge than any other citizen, of conditions in Kingston penitentiary, with this one exception, that perhaps I had had the privilege of hearing the debates in the House of Commons; that I had followed carefully the debates to which I had listened here and that I had followed carefully the letters of Doctor Withrow which appeared in the Toronto Globe last summer for many days perhaps for two months almost daily, and also the letters of those who had been drawn into the controversy, sent to the Globe and to the newspapers generally.
Bon. members will remember that starting perhaps a year ago now and continuing all summer and fall, the newspapers, especially of Ontario, had huge headlines every edition in regard to conditions in Kingston penitentiary. I said in my letter that I thought conditions in that or any other penitentiary in the dominion were from the very nature of such institutions more or less of a closed book and that they had to be and that the public did
not know very much about them. In regard to the letters of Doctor Withrow I said that I did not know whether they were true or false, and the public would have to weigh the matter as carefully as they could, read the statements of Doctor Withrow and, if you like, of other ex-inmates of the penitentiary and compare them with reports of the superintendent and the warden at Kingston penitentiary and statements that had been made by the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross) in the house, by Mr. Nickle senior and Mr. Nickle junior. Even then I said-and I repeat it here this afternoon- that out of this conflict of opinion and of testimony or evidence, whatever you like to call it, nothing had come to clear the situation in regard to the administration of penal institutions in this country.
I claim that those who are unfortunate enough to commit a crime, are found guilty and are sent to a penal institution, are sent there for punishment and should be punished. On the other hand, what is done for them in the way of their daily routine, daily life and so on. should be humane. The great question is: Has any reform been instituted in our penitentiaries during the last few years? I am free to confess that after listening very carefully and with a good deal of interest to the statement made by the Minister of Justice this afternoon. I think it would have been better for him and the government and more satisfactory to the country if he had made that statement perhaps a year ago instead of delaying it to this late date. I do not want to go into the question of what happened on Saturday but I think it is a very fortunate thing for the Minister of Justice that the house did not prorogue on Saturday night and that he had the opportunity to make the statement he made this afternoon. However, I am not yet fully satisfied that the administration of the institution is as it should be. I have not much criticism of the superintendent, other than this, that it appears to me that if you get too many military men in control of the discipline in these institutions you have not always the right kind of men. Military discipline is all right during a war, but if you get certain types of officers and guards and wardens in attendance at these institutions, with the military system operating twentyifour hours a day, to my mind it is not the right system.
I do not want to detain the committee any longer. I would recommend to the Minister of Justice and to the government, as the hon. member for Southeast Grey and one or two others have said, and as I said in my letter

Supply-Justice-Penitentiaries
about a year ago to the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Deslauriers), that a royal commission or some sort of commission be appointed to investigate thoroughly, without bias or prejudice, no matter who was hurt by the evidence that came out, and go to the bottom of the whole matter of the administration of our penal institutions. I think the public want it; I think they are demanding it and will not be satisfied if they do not get it. In all seriousness I would recommend to the Minister of Justice that he take that matter into his serious consideration. We have had a lot of royal commissions; we have had them without any demand for thpm at all from the public, but very great numbers of mem and women in Canada have s>
suspicion that things are not right in these institutions, and the only way to set their minds at rest is by a thorough and honest investigation through a royal commission or some kind of commission that will go to the bottom of the matter without fear or favour.


Edward James Young: The minister's explanation has been satisfactory at many points. There is however, one matter that he has not properly cleared up, and that is the shooting into the cell of Tim Buck. If Tim Buck stood in the door of his cell, as the minister said, encouraging the rioters, it might have been possible to send a rifle bullet into the open door without touching Tim Buck. But I do not think that would have been possible with a shotgun. At that distance and that angle pellets from a shotgun would scatter sufficiently to make it almost impossible for any man to stand in the open door without being hit. The fact that Tim Buck was not hit indicates to me that he was not in the doorway. If he were in the doorway it was a very serious matter for anyone to attempt to shoot with a shotgun through that door to frighten or silence him. To my mind that is a serious matter that should be cleared up. No guard who would do that should be entrusted with firearms at all. While I am on this point may I say that in Montreal a year or two ago we had a case of a policeman shooting down a man without justification, and in Saskatchewan two or three years ago we had mounted policemen shooting over the heads of rioters to frighten them and sending bullets through the walls of houses and wounding an innocent person. It is time we were taking steps to be sure that firearms are not entrusted to those who are inclined to lose their heads.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Expenses of committees, etc.-further amount required, $140,000.
Clerical assistance, etc.-further amount required, $20,000.
Publishing debates, including salaries of amanuenses, etc.-further amount required, $20,000.
_ Estimates of the Sergeant-at-Arms-to provide for the appointment of J. A. MacKinnon as chief parliamentary messenger and housekeeper, at $2,220 per annum, from April 1, 1934, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, or amendments thereto, $1,998.
To provide for the full sessional indemnity to members of the House of Commons-days lost through absence caused by illness, official public business, or on account of death during the present session-notwithstanding anything to the contrary in chapter 147 of the revised statutes, 1927, an act respecting the Senate and House of Commons, or any amendment thereto. Payments to be made as the treasury board may direct, $21,000.
Mr. CHEVRIER:: Hon. members will
realize that I am not rising to object to expenses of committees or to clerical assistance for the publishing of debates, much less to that part of the item which provides for sessional indemnity to members of the House of Commons. My objection is directed to that part of the item which reads as follows:
Estimates of the Sergeant-at-Arms-to provide for the appointment of J. A. MacKinnon as chief parliamentary messenger and housekeeper, at $2,220 per annum, from April 1, 1934, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, or amendments thereto.
In the session of 1927 in the estimates of the House of Commons the chairman of the committee included this item in the estimates:
To hereby appoint ... notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act or amendments thereto.
Taking very strong objection to that, the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said as reported on page 2540 of Hansard, these words, which I wish to appropriate:
This is a disagreeable thing to stand up and speak about; yet in the very nature of things we must see to it that the House of Commons shall not become an instrument of injustice to its servants.
Those words I desire to appropriate as an introduction to the few remarks I have to make on this measure, reserving the quotation of further words from the speech that the hon. gentleman made at that time. Now this is a position which is classified under the Civil Service Act. I hold in my hand at the moment my draft copy of the report of the

Supply-House oj Commons
civil service committee of 1923 in which I find these words:
Your committee is of the opinion that the two fundamental principles of the Civil Service Act are the merit system and' the system of promotion by competitive examinations and that both those principles must be maintained.
This is the original draft that I handed to Mr. Malcolm at the time. I find these words reported verbatim in the report of the committee's deliberations. Therefore as one who was to some extent responsible for the introduction of those words into this report I cannot countenance the appointment of anyone either in the house or to any other public service without the application of the civil service law whenever that is possible. This position was filled for many years by a Mr. Boudreault. He was here from the time the house opened after confederation. He was superannuated some time ago. The position is one that is classified under the Civil Service Act; one will find it in the classification to the edition of 1930. He is called the chief parliamentary messenger and housekeeper. The description of the position is as follows:
Chief parliamentary messenger and housekeeper.
Definition of class:-
Under the Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Commons, to direct and supervise the work of employees in attendance during sessions on officers and members of the houses of parliament and also of carpenters, doorkeepers, charwomen, and other employees; for to be responsible for the moving and placing of furniture and fittings as directed by the Sergeant-at-Arms; to act as housekeeper for the House of Commons; to have charge of cleaning and other household supplies; during recess to supervise the work of parliamentary messengers engaged in simple routine clerical work; and to perform other related work as required.
Qualifications:	Primary school education;
some knowledge of parliamentary routine; preferably a knowledge of both English and French; supervisory ability; tact, discretion, and good address.
And the annual compensation is set out. The Civil Service Act is quite clear in regard to promotion. Section 49 says:
Promotion shall be made for merit by the commission upon such examination, reports, tests, records, ratings or recommendations as the commission may by regulation prescribe.
Subsection 3 of the same section says:
In making promotions, the commission may, by regulation restrict the competition by merit to all employees or to employees of certain class or classes of a specified seniority, and may prescribe the marks or ratings to be obtained by such employees for efficiency and seniority, such marks or ratings not to exceed one-half of the total marks required under any merit system or method adopted by the commission for promotion purposes.
Under the Civil Service Act certain regulations have been made, and I quote from one of these regulations appearing at page 16 of the Civil Service Regulations of Canada, 1934: Promotion is a change from one class to another class with a higher maximum compensation, and vacancies shall be filled, as far as is consistent with the best interests of the civil service, by promotion.
Promotions shall be made for merit by the commission upon such examination, reports, tests, records, ratings or recommendations as the commission may by regulation prescribe.
But rule 56 reads:
Requisitions for the filling of vacancies in permanent positions in the service shall include a statement from the deputy head' of the department as to whether or not, _ in his opinion, it is consistent with the best interests of the service that the vacancy in question should be filled by promotion, and, if so, to what groups or classes the competition should be restricted.
I submit that in this case Mr. Speaker has failed to follow the regulations of the civil service commission, particularly in that there has been no recommendation made as to whether or not in his opinion it is consistent with the best interests of the service that this position should be exempted from the operation of the civil service law. This position might well be filled through promotion. No one knows better than the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) that there are employees who have been here for twenty years or more, and who served as understudies to Mr. Boudreault before his retirement. I must protest most energetically against this further encroachment upon the merit system. This position is not such that it cannot be filled consistently from within the ranks. On many occasions I have unhesitatingly stated that it might be well to go outside a certain department at certain times to select men of certain high technical ability when such men cannot be found within the service, but here there was no need for Mr. Speaker to defeat the civil service law by endeavouring to appoint this man in a roundabout way, by putting this item in the estimates. I have no quarrel with this gentleman; I know nothing of his merits, but I say there is no defence for this action on the part of the Speaker. There are other people in the service whose merits ought to be recognized. I think it is a sad thing, after having made a law, that we should endeavour to break it as often as possible. It is quite true that parliament is supreme; we can do as we please

Supply-Home of Commons
with the Civil Service Act, but if we are to break that act at every opportunity why not be fair and say we will repeal it?
This session we had a civil service committee which sat for many days and laboured long and diligently. A report was presented. I was rather proud of that report, which received the encomiums of a number of newspapers, and with which the civil servants were highly pleased. Now, however, it appears that no action is to be taken on it. That is rather discouraging to those who have supported this act.
I do not think I can do better than quote the words of the right hon. Prime Minister of to-day, then the leader of the opposition, on April 14, 1927. He said:
We as law makers should not be law breakers. As those who framed the civil service law of the country we should not be the first to break it. Our right to ignore the act is undoubted, but the exercise of that power is injurious to the people of this country-
The right hon. gentleman used those words on an occasion absolutely on all fours with this occasion.
I do not believe the Prime Minister would consider that justice was being done by the selection of one or two of these officials to the exclusion of others who, to the certain knowledge of the oldest members of the house, have greater claims.
The right hon. member for Argenteuil knows what I mean.
This is a disagreeable thing to stand up and speak about: yet in the very nature of things we must see to it that the House of Commons shall not become an instrument of injustice to its servants. The Speaker may err in his selections, because we have striking evidence over his own signature of his strong partisanship in the removal of thirty-four postmasters in Gaspe.
With all due deference to His Honour let me say that if that statement was true he has followed nobly in the footsteps of his predecessor. Of all those whom I succeeded in having appointed when I came to the house, as vacancies occurred through illness or dismissals for cause, only a corporal's guard remain. I should say that Mr. Speaker has followed very well indeed in the footsteps of hb predecessor in this respect. The records will show that when the time came for me to make these appointments in 1926 I was not responsible for the removal of one man, one woman or one page boy. The replacements I had appointed filled vacancies created on the instructions of superior officers; as these men, women or boys became inefficient or died or were removed for cause, the vacancies were filled. Then I should like to 
quote the concluding words of the present Prime Minister:
Men in high, responsible positions may sometimes become partisans and it is because of that fact that I rise now, as my last act at this session-
See how history repeats itself.
-to protest against this injustice which is being done deserving public servants through discrimination. I ask the house, regardless of politics, to assert our ancient authority-which is ours, and not the Speaker's-and to determine that we who have made the laws will not break them. That is all I intend to say regarding this matter.
As a result Mr. Robb then said:
I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Dunning, that in item 452 all the words after "hereby appointed" down to and including "or amendments thereto" be struck out, and that 'the item be reduced by $13,509.
My advice to Mr. Speaker is that he would be well advised to follow the same line of conduct that was followed on that occasion.


Hon. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: As
Speaker of the house perhaps with propriety I may say a word or two on this item. It is true that the civil service commission has the power to make such an appointment, but it is also true that this house has power to make the appointment. By investing authority in the civil sendee commission the government is not divested of the power of making such appointments. The office of chief parliamentary messenger and housekeeper is one peculiarly under the House of Commons and under the Speaker. Under the Sergeant at Arms that officer is responsible for the furniture, fittings and movable property of the house. He oversees the parliamentary messengers and the char service. He sees that this chamber, the corridors and the peace tower are all kept clean and in order, giving particular attention to members' rooms. I am sure there is not a member of the house who will not acknowledge that they have had splendid service from the man who has been acting in this capacity for the last couple of years. On his staff as messengers he has upholsterers, carpenters, joiners, painters, paper-hangers and so on. The work of reupholstering the furniture of this house is done here,, on these premises, and is not sent out at very great expense as was the custom in former times. During the recess the walls and ceilings of many rooms are cleaned and retinted at very small expense. Close attention is paid to purchasing. Wholesale rates, with special discounts for the government, are arranged, and to my knowledge in the two or three years the man has been here he

Supply-Agriculture
has actually saved this government and country thousands of dollars, by handling the position in a businesslike way.
Speaking of the appointee, personally, may I say that he is a Nova Scotian. He is a returned soldier with a splendid war record. Enlisting as a private, he was promoted in France to the rank of captain, and went up to be a most efficient quartermaster. He was the quartermaster of the first machine gun brigade in France and went through some of the worst fighting of the war as one of the most efficient quartermasters in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. He has fulfilled the duties of his office most satisfactorily, and I am sure hon. members will agree with what I say. This is peculiarly an appointment by the House of Commons and I ask hon. members to support me and to make the appointment permanent, as this is a perfectly legal way of doing it. There are precedents for it. The matter might be referred to the civil service commission; they would set a written examination, the success of the applicant under which would in no respect be a definite indication of his fitness. You might get a round plug in a square hole; nine times out of ten you do, on civil service examinations.
We have here a practical and an efficient man who, as I say, has been fulfilling the duties of the position for a couple of years. * He is quite competent to fill the job, and I ask the house to support me in the appointment.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I move in amendment that item No. 291 be reduced by $1,997.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I should like to say a
few brief words in support of the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier). I listened to Mr. Speaker state the qualifications of the person appointed to this position. I do not know the individual, but assuming his qualifications are as good as has been stated by Mr. Speaker, I must add we have not heard the qualifications of individuals who because of seniority and equally faithful service may be entitled to this position. It is quite true that the civil service commission can make an appointment, and that the government has the right to proceed in the present manner. I suggest however we should not lose sight of the fact that the civil service commission was created to deal with matters of this kind, and it was found through experience that the civil service commission could deal with these matters better than the government. If it is true, as Mr. Speaker, suggests, that nine times out of ten the civil service commission make wrong appointments, then surely it is time the legislation creating
the commission was repealed, and the commission done away with. I do not think however that any member of the government would substantiate the statement made by Mr. Speaker. I think it has been shown on many occasions that the civil service commission is better qualified to make the appointments than is the government or the head of any governmental department. When discussing the central bank legislation the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) referred to the difficulty of carrying on the administration of the country without political interference.
I suggest that if we want to get away from political interference we should not put ourselves in the position of taking appointments away from a body in charge of that work, and doing it through political interference. We ought to try to impress upon the Canadian people that we want to administer our affairs without political bias. We cannot do that if we allow appointments of this kind to be made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The House of Commons claims the right to appoint its own housekeeper. As to whether or not that is sound I am not at the moment going to express an opinion, beyond this, that the Speaker of this chamber made a recommendation to the government as to who should be appointed housekeeper. The government assumes the responsibility for the item as it appears in the estimates.
Amendment (Mr. Chevrier) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
To provide for payment of compensation as listed below, to owners of animals affected with diseases coming under the operation of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, which have died or have been slaughtered under circumstances unprovided for under the above-mentioned act and regulations thereunder:
Boivin, Wilfred, R.R. 2, Compton, Que.. $22.
Lamy, W. B.. R.R. 2, Compton, Que., $16.
Mockler, Thos. F„ R.R. 2, Grand Falls,
[Stage Direction]
Giberson, Lewis A., Bath, N.B., $14.
Garlough, Simon and Feeley, Floyd, Winchester, Ont., $10.
Caswell, Wm. F., Bulwer, Que., $4.
Lapointe. Alamanzor, Bury. Que.. $16.
Berry, W. J., Kingston Mills, Ont., $10.
Davidson, Jos.. Westboro, Ont., $6.
Niles, John W., Wolfe Island. Ont., $18.
Moloughney, Michael, North Gower, Ont.. $16.
Lemelin, Eugene, Cookshire. R.R. 4. Que.. $24.
Dunfield, Fred, Sussex, R.R. 1, N.B., $16.
McAfee, John, Red Head, N.B., $10.
Young. John. Mansonville, Que., $16.
Alton, V. LeRov, R.R. 2. Guelph, Ont.. $30.
Davis, N. G., Glen Sutton, Que., $13.33.
Ruel, Fabien, L'Ange Gardien, Que 'Rou-ville Co.), $18.
[DOT]1632
Supply-Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
Fetch, D. C., Newmarket. Ont., $24.
Newman, N. J., Spencerville, Ont., $10.
Lemieux, Jos,, 214 McManamy St., Sherbrooke, Que., $16.66.
Mr. SEGUIN (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention to oppose this item of the estimates of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), which provides for the indemnifying of farmers or owners for the loss resulting from disease or death among their cattle. Nothing must be spared to help out our farmers, especially in this difficult period through which we are passing. I simply wish to express my regret that the government did not think fit to grant to the hon. Minister of Agriculture all the necessary funds to carry on the tuberculin test of herds especially in the sections set apart as restricted areas. For a few years past, the district of L'Assomption has been organized as a restricted area, however the work in connection with the test was not proceeded with, because the government did not place the necessary funds at the disposal of the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
However, I must complain of the fact that the test, which was neglected in L'Assomption, was carried out in other sections set apart as restricted areas, after that of my district. I refer to the districts of Argenteuil and Two Mountains. I admit that certain considera-* tions must have been invoked since both counties are represented by ministers of the crown. I do not envy them; though, on behalf of the farmers of my district, I cannot help protesting against the discrimination shown in favour of these two counties. I trust the government will welcome with the same good grace the hon. Postmaster General (Mr, Sauve), when he insists on having a deputy postmaster general of the same race appointed, as the one who retired recently.
I cannot too strongly insist that the utmost consideration be given to these good farmers which I represent and, particularly, to the milk producers of my county who cannot dispose of their dairy products in Montreal unless the test of their cattle has been carried out by the Department of Agriculture, according to the system known as the restricted area.
As I wish to have an immediate and precise reply from the hon. minister, I shall plainly put the following question in his own mother tongue, so as not to annoy him too much.
I desire to know from the honourable minister if I can be assured that the farmers in the zone of L'Assomption-Montcalm, at least

those who are prevented from carrying on their trade in milk products, in Montreal, on account of their herds not having been tested, will have their herds tested, on special request, and enjoy the benefits of the zone system?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: There have been
many requests to have herds tested which we have dealt with and we should be only too glad to take into consideration the request of my hon. friend.


William Richard Motherwell: Would the minister state what new cold storage plants he has in mind, if any, to warrant this additional outlay?


Robert Weir: The hon. member
will appreciate that we have a number of applications in but we are not in a position to say which ones will be approved. This estimate is to make provision for those that are approved.


James J. Donnelly: On March 28 last I
asked the minister a question with regard to his horse policy. My reason for asking the question was that I found in the Brandon Free Press of January 12, 1934, a report on the minister's horse club policy in which it is stated:
In addition a definite improvement scheme has already started and which is to be featured by the purchasing of as many young stallions of the three draught breeds as possible, which horses will be placed at the experimental farm stations or other selected institutions to breed, free of charge, mares of approved quality and conformation, the object being to get approved breeding stock in greater quantity.
There was no mention made of this in the answer which I received, and I would ask the minister if this policy has been put in operation.


Robert Weir: Yes it is in operation and will be extended to include other
purchases.


James J. Donnelly: Are any horses being
bought under that scheme?


Robert Weir: The horses that
have been purchased previously and are owned by the different stations are being used under this scheme, and in addition we have purchased four.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Referring to question
number eight standing on the order paper under the name of Mr. Boulanger, and in view of the dismissal of Doctor Auguste Pepin, and in view also of the constant rumour that the seed laboratory in Montreal will be transferred

Supply-M iscellaneous
to Ottawa or closed, would the minister be kind enough to assure us that this laboratory will be continued in Montreal because it is very useful to the farmers of the province of Quebec.


Robert Weir: There is no intention to move this laboratory from Montreal to Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for gratuities to former members of the pension tribunal and the federal appeal board, subject to allocation by the treasury board, £100.000.
Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I notice this is to provide for gratuities to former members of the pension tribunal and the federal appeal board, .subject to allocation by the treasury board. In the last pensions committee of which I have the honour to be a member I took a very strong view in regard to what would happen to the rest of the staff. I notice that the former members of the pension tribunal and the federal appeal board are receiving consideration and I would ask if some consideration is not to be given to the members of the staff who were not fortunate enough to be in the higher categories.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The whole matter has
received very careful consideration and the language of the privy council judgment in the Reilly case is the basis of this item. It is not probable that the whole of this item will be used but the suggestion on the other hand is that owiDg to the action taken by parliament there should be some compensation given to those who had an appointment for a given length of time and were deprived of it by the statute. The hon. gentleman has seen the judgment and realizes that it is the basis of this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Air Force
[Stage Direction]
Further amount required, $125,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: On May 22 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if any undertaking had been given by the Canadian government to the British government with regard generally to an empire defence policy and with regard particularly to aviation, and the Prime Minister replied, " The answer is no." I notice that a few days ago with regard to the breaking up of the disarmament conference Lord Londonderry said:
His Majesty's government therefore have [DOT]decided' they can no longer delay the steps that are necessary to provide adequately for the air defence of these shores.
He went on to say that there was the closest relationship as regards personnel between the air force and the sister services in the dominion; that exchanges of junior officers operated at present with Canada and Australia, and that both Canada and Australia maintain liaison officials in London who "had full access to all the information at the air ministry which might be of assistance to their respective governments." In view of the recent decision of the Secretary of State for air to increase the air force of Great Britain I would ask the Prime Minister if any commitments have been arrived at between this dominion and the motherland with regard to air defence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No commitments have
been made, but the statement made by Lord Londonderry is an absolutely accurate statement as I understand it. The great facilities and the wide knowledge and experience of the British air force have been made available for Canadians through the means he mentions, and our officers have been constantly in communication with the British air force and learning from them everything they were possessed of in the way of knowledge and information.
I should like to say, however, that we are engaged in looking very carefully into the question of the transport of mails in which it is obvious that both the British and Canadian governments have a very close and allied interest. The movement of mails from the northern part of Great Britain and Ireland to Newfoundland, and from Newfoundland across the northern half of this continent and thence to China and Japan, is a matter that has been engaging the attention of the officials of the air force for many months. I heard a very distinguished air man say in Great Britain a few months ago that he believed within the next five years there would be a regular air service. But the question to which the hon. gentleman is directing attention is not a question that has been the subject matter of discussion or arrangement further than what has been carried on in the past few years since we have been afforded the opportunity of securing training and an exchange of officers in the navy, the army, and the air.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The construction
of landing fields to which I made reference a year or so ago has no definite significance?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has definite significance, of course, as regards civil aviation, and I need hardly say to the hon. gentleman that such fields will always be available if the
Supply-Miscellaneous

necessity should arise for their use for any other purpose that might affect the defence of this country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
MAIL SUBSIDIES AND STEAMSHIP SUBVENTIONS Additional amount required to provide for ocean and coastal subsidies, and to assist in the carriage of lumber from Churchill to the United Kingdom, $209,036.
John Campbell Elliott: Can the minister tell me
what investigation is made into the financial standing of companies asking for steamship subventions?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In view of the circumstances obtaining at this stage of the session might I ask my hon. friend to be good enough to use the information we have placed at his disposal. I do not think it would be fair to the rest of the house for himself and me to discuss these questions back and forth, because I placed at his disposal all the information we had in the department, without reservation. I was in hopes that he could make his statement on the information supplied him. I am not inclined to refuse the fullest information but it would be better for him to make his statement on the basis of what we havp submitted to him.


John Campbell Elliott: There was no information placed before me as to the representations that were made to my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The whole file was placed before the hon. gentleman.


John Campbell Elliott: Am I to understand then
that there was no statement by anybody with regard to the financial standing of this particular company?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, my hon. friend knows that the contrary is true. The department did make some inquiries and I was under the impression that my hon. friend knew that fully. It was on the file and there was no hesitation in giving him the widest access to it.


John Campbell Elliott: What was the information as to the standing of the company?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am in a quandary how far I can quote. Any information we got from one of the mercantile companies is more or less confidential. There is no objection to giving it, but I question very frankly whether it is fair to Duns or Bradstreets or one of the commercial agencies to produce in the house statements made by them regarding the affairs of a private company. I do not think it is ever done in the house, nor do I think there is any object to be gained by reading it. I will send across to my hon. friend what I have here; it was on the files.
FMr. Bennett.J


John Campbell Elliott: Were any representations
made to my hon. friend, apart from this, as to the standing of the company?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I presume that what he is now asking about is a letter from one of the members of the house, but that also he knows about. I cannot recall any others.


Thomas Cantley: The important thing is
that the people have the facilities and the experience and are able to carry out the contract.


John Campbell Elliott: If that had been so it would have been important to the people I represent, but unfortunately nothing was further from the fact. What I want to call attention to is this. In February, 1931 a company known as the Richelieu Corporation was incorporated under letters patent, and a little later they had their provisional directors' meeting, when the setup of the company was made. Let me first of all point out who comprised the company. Mr. Richardson, who, at a meeting three days after the provisional directors' meeting, was made president of the company, was doing business in Montreal. He had formerly been unfortunate in business, was not successful, and had gone into bankruptcy some years before. Associated with him was Mr. James McDonnell, who ran a produce supply company. Mr. McDonnell was also somewhat known to the Department of Trade and Commerce, as I see by the file that he had taken part, not a creditable part, in some shipments of hay some years before and also in shipments of horses to Rotterdam in 1931. The records of the department show that he was not a man of standing in the department. The man associated with them and who apparently was the guiding spirit in the matter was Mr. E. A. D. Morgan, barrister. He apparently guided the company. When the set-up came it was this. Mr. Richardson had taken shares of the company for practically $20,000. In exchange for this he had shares in a concern known as Canadian International Corporation. I am told that these shares were worthless at the time. That is the finding of the auditors who have looked into the matter. So that we have Mr. Richardson owning all the company, with no investment except these worthless shares- that is, all the stock in one company that was of no value purchased by stock in another company which was of no value-and they started under their charter to do various things, such as dealing in live stock, canning operations and the operation of vessels. They

Supply-Subsidies and Subventions
carried on without much success, and I believe the auditor's report of September 30, 1932, shows that they had gone back S4,000 at that time from what they had when they started which was nothing. It is only fair to say that some money belonging to Mr. Richardson had been put in to keep the company going, but all the moneys received, including 813,000 from Mr. Richardson himself, 83,100 for sale of this stock, 31 shares, and what money had been paid out, left them at that time something like over 84,000 behind.
If one will look at the set-up of the company, it is quite apparent it never was one that was in a position to carry on business that needed any capital to carry it on. On September 30, 1933, they had gone behind about $9,000 more. In the meantime complaints had been made that they were dealing in cattle and a letter was sent by the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. Golding) to which he will himself refer, but I want to give just an extract from it. On October 12 the hon. member for South Huron sent to the minister a letter containing a paragraph which I shall read. It was with regard to a man by the name of Scotchmer who had been dealing with this company. He told of Mr. Scotchmer's difficulties; that they had agreed to transfer these cattle for $27 a head; that they were charging 832 a head, several dollars more than any one else in the business, for shipment to the old land, and when Mr. Scotchmer objected, apparently he received a threat of libel. This is one paragraph in the letter of the member for South Huron:
I believe Mr. Scotchmer when taking this matter up with this company, received a letter threatening him with libel, which would appear to be a pretty high-handed piece of work. If you desire, I will obtain a copy of this letter for you.
As far as I can learn Mr. Scotchmer estimates his loss on this shipment at around $800 or $900.
He says that there are a number of splendid cattle in the vicinity.
I will appreciate it very much if you could, through your department, make an investigation into this matter and advise me what action is being taken to protect the shipper in matters of this kind.
He also gave a summary of the case which was enclosed with that letter. That summary describes the boat Glentworth as a ship that was not seaworthy with its engines in the condition they were in, and after leaving Halifax on a trip which it made on May 5, 1933, it could proceed at only half speed and did not arrive at Birkenhead until May 24. He stated that the vessel should never have been permitted to leave Montreal, not being in seaworthy condition on the one hand, and the accommodation for cattle being badly arranged and much overcrowded on the other hand.
In final result, instead of the cost of freight, transportation, feed, commissions and so forth being $27 per head, they brought what the company sought to charge Mr. Scotchmer up to S32 a head.
That was on October 12, There was also in the department certain correspondence which I shall not at the present time take up the time of the committee by referring to at length, which indicated that Mr. McDonnell, who was managing director of the company, had had previous difficulties in connection with the shipment-it was only a small shipment, it is true-of some horses to Rotterdam and also in connection with some hay business in which he had been engaged. On October IS an amount of $7,000 was advanced to this company by the Department of Trade and Commerce to carry on the operations of the steamship Neiderholm.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is not stating that correctly. There was given to this company as to many others a grant for the installation of stalls for cattle in two ships- that is all; nothing more-on the condition that they make at least three trips, I think, in one case, and five in the other.


John Campbell Elliott: The grant was $7,000 on October 18 to the Neiderholm and on November 7, $5,004 to the Glentworth, the ship about which the hon. member for South Huron had complained. That was for fitting up stalls on the Glentworth and on the Neiderholm, but it seems to me rather remarkable because part of the complaint of the hon. member for South Huron in his letter of October 12th was that the fittings were not suitable, so I assume at that time there were fittings on the steamship Glentworth-


Henry Herbert Stevens: They were done under the British Board of Trade regulations.


John Campbell Elliott: 
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stirling):: Is the
hon. gentleman going to proceed much longer? If so I must call it six o'clock.


John Campbell Elliott: I am almost through, and
I will try to Conclude quickly. I would prefer to finish now, and I will be as brief as I can. This article tells what a wonderful institution this London cattle mart is and what it has

4638	COMMONS
Supply-Subsidies and Subventions
done for the Canadian cattle trade. It refers particularly to the Neiderholm shipment, as follows:
The steamer Neiderholm, sailing from Montreal on December 5 with 608 head of cattle, discharged the first cargo into the new lairages on December 25. Notwithstanding the close confinement during twenty days' ocean voyage 

the steamer being delayed by ice in the St. Lawrence river and rough weather on the Atlantic-the cattle arrived in a condition rather better than usual. The quality of the hay and grain selected for their feed during the voyage and the ability and care exercised by the foreman and his men in attending to their comfort with bedding, feed and water, contributed effectively to their appearance at the time of landing. Owing to their discharge at holiday time there was some inconvenience in getting an adequate staff organization in the lairages ... All other comforts were complete and the first effort in handling so large a shipment reflected the company's determination to fix and maintain efficient service.
That, is the shipment, Mr. Chairman, from vyhioh the greatest losses of these many losses resulted to the district to which I have referred. I realize how busy the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have been, and I want to thank them very much for what -they have done in the way of endeavouring to give us interviews in the last few days, and I thank the Minister of Justice for sending a representative of the Department of Justice to Montreal at the time this meeting took place. Some of these people lost only small amounts; others are in such circumstances that this will not bankrupt them,, but a number of these people are going to be put out of business, and they are almost out of their heads after worrying about it for the last few months. I should like the government to take into consideration the proposition of giving- immediate relief. In the last few years we have given relief for a great many things. There have been unemployment relief, farm relief and various other kinds of relief. We have tried to combat the grasshopper plague and every other plague that came along. I want to direct attention to the fact that in this case the money was taken after the crop was harvested and fed to the cattle and the cattle were marketed. Unless these people obtain some relief very quickly they will not be able to stand the pressure from the banks and their other creditors to whom they owe money.
As I say, mistakes are made by everybody. These farmers may have made a mistake as the government did; I do not think there is any doubt about that. The old way of shipping was to not let your cattle out of your charge without receiving a draft, and we usually got almost the price of the cattle

before the boat left the dock. But they answer, "We saw in the papers and we were told by these people, whom we believed"- and it was true-"that the government had assisted this concern, that the government tvas fitting out the ship and the government was back of them." -Of course the government was back of them, to the extent of fitting out these ships. A great deal of money has been expended in various kinds of relief in past years by every government. There never was a more deserving case than this, and I am asking the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture, as the head of the government and the minister of the departments most directly concerned, to see if it is not possible to find a way to at once assist these men who are in an extremely critical financial condition at the present time.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
SUPPLY *
The house again in committee of supply, Mr. Tummon in the chair.



MAIL SUBSIDIES AND STEAMSHIP SUBVENTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Additional amount required to provide for ocean and coastal subsidies, and to assist in the carriage of lumber from Churchill to the United Kingdom, $209,036.
lion. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Mr. Chairman, with all that the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) had to say before the dinner recess in regard to the unfortunate experience of a number of farmers in the western section of Ontario I am (Juite certain all hon. members of the committee will sympathize. Furthermore, speaking for myself, may I add that with what he had to say regarding those who were responsible for the losses made I can concur. The question of responsibility is one upon which, of course, as Minister of Trade and Commerce I must definitely take a stand. The facts are as follows.
During the past two or three years there have been persistent demands from exporters of cattle in Canada for additional space on ships. There was a hesitancy on the part of ship owners to equip their ships for the handling of cattle. They told me, and I presume others, that one of the reasons why they hesitated to equip their ships was that the initial cost was considerable, and that unless they were assured of a number of voyages

Supply-Subsidies and Subventions
they could not afford so to equip them. They further advised me that in the past they had been so frequently disappointed in continuity of exports that they would not take the risk. Consequently there was a very great shortage of cattle ships in the year 1931, and again later in the winter and spring of 1932-33. So, through a vote of this House of Commons and with the full knowledge of parliament, the Department of Trade and Commerce undertook to assist in the installation of cattle stalls in ships for the purpose of carrying cattle across the Atlantic; some sixteen ships in all were equipped. Some of these were done in 1931, and others in 1933. Thirteen or fourteen ships were equipped in 1933. The attitude of the government, as expressed through the Department of Trade and Commerce, was simply this: We would pay a certain sum towards the cost of the installation of stalls. Usually these would cost between $12 and $16. I think the average we paid was about $12 per stall towards the cost of. installation. The shipping company in practically every case undertook to make at least three trips. It worked out to about S4 per head per ship. We did that in a great many cases. The space on these ships, however, was to a large extent controlled by some cattle brokers in Montreal, and by some shippers in the west.
Last year representations were made to me to get some additional ships, after we had equipped a number. We thought at first a sufficient number had been equipped, but strong representations were made to the effect that additional ships were required. We looked about for ships, but found none available. Later, about the middle of the summer, the Richelieu Corporation, to which the hon. member has referred, asked for assistance to equip two ships. At first I believe they suggested they would equip three. I told them we would render them the same assistance we had rendered others, provided they could show that they were going to carry on the handling of cattle for a reasonable length of time. Meantime the Richelieu Corporation had sent a representative to London who had made contacts with the port authorities there and secured from them an agreement to open lairages in London. Canadians had been trying for a great many years to induce the port authorities of London to open that port for the landing of cattle, but until last year without success. The reason was there were no ships running direct, from Canada to London carrying cattle, and the port authorities did not wish to have cattle lairages in the centre of the port, contending that it was inconvenient. However representatives of this firm, without any authority or assistance from
the government and quite on their own responsibility, went to London and made arrangements with the port authorities of that great city for the opening of these lairages. From a Canadian standpoint the facility is certainly a desirable one, provided we could get the ships to run to that port. Those we had equipped were running to Glasgow, Cardiff and Liverpool; none were running to London. It was late in the summer of 1933 that I agreed to pay for the installation of stalls in two ships and, if they could secure them, in three, for the Richelieu Corporation. They put in the stalls.
It has been represented that these ships were not fitted for the carrying of cattle. That is the first time I have heard that claim advanced, because none of these ships was equipped until after inspection by experts in the Department of Marine who saw that they were equipped in accordance with British Board of Trade regulations. May I add that the regulations of the British Board of Trade are exceedingly drastic and exacting; in fact I sometimes think they are too exacting. The fact remains that we must comply with those regulations; otherwise the cattle would not be allowed to land in the ports of Great Britain. Representatives of the Department of Marine always assist us in this respect, and see that the ships are properly equipped in accordance with the British Board of Trade regulations. In this instance we did precisely what we had done with some fifteen or sixteen other ships. We paid for the cost of installing the stalls, in one instance in the sum of about S600 and in the other about $400, for the purpose of carrying cattle from Canadian ports to Great Britain.
I must point out to the committee that in no instance did we assume any responsibility, nor have we ever been asked to assume any regarding the shipping of the cattle. All we have done is to assist in providing facilities for the movement of the cattle from Canada to Great Britain. We did have a letter from the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. Golding), to which we replied. I have not the hon. member's letter before me at the moment, but part of it was read this afternoon. There was something in the nature of a complaint in his letter and, in part, my reply was as follows:
It is most unfortunate to receive a complaint of this nature, particularly as we wish to do everything to facilitate the exportation of live stock from Canada to Great Britain, and, as far as possible, reduce all handling, freight, and miscellaneous charges to a minimum so that the net return to the farmer can be increased.
The hon. member may have his letter before him and he will see that the complaint made
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Subsidies and Subventions
was in connection with the charges. The object we had in view, which I have not mentioned, was to keep the charges down. Before we undertook the equipping of these ships the charge made was $20 per head. We secured a reduction in 1931 to $15 per head, and I think in 1933 this charge was reduced to $12 per head except in the case of a few shipments in the autumn months. All of the steamship companies which made contracts with us in connection with having stalls installed observed their agreements and charged only $12 per head. Late last fall some of the companies which had fulfilled their obligations raised the price to $15 per head. My letter continues:
After reading your letter and its enclosure very carefully, I can only mention that this department can hardly interfere with the trading methods of private individuals and I think you will appreciate our position in this respect. If Canadian exporters are dissatisfied with their negotiations with this company, I suggest that they communicate with any of the following firms:
Donald Munro & Sons, Reg'd., Board of Trade Building, Montreal.
Alex. Muir, 902 Burnside Blvd., Montreal.
D. A. Campbell, Board of Trade Building, Montreal.
The reason I am mentioning these other agents is because I know from actual experience that each of them handles large numbers of live stock regularly and in a most satisfactory manner to all concerned.
We indicated the firms which could be retained for the handling of stock. I do not think there is any object in prolonging the discussion. As I have stated, our responsibility was one and one only, namely, assistance in the equipping of ships. We took no responsibility in any instance in connection with the movement of cattle, and knew nothing whatever about it.
One point further. The hon. member for West Middlesex in his closing remarks put forward a plea for the farmers who had suffered. We have examined into the situation to see if there was any way in which we could assist them. We find that there are no grounds upon which the government might properly be called upon to compensate those who lost. I may say that the Prime Minister, the Department of Justice and our department are ready to give every assistance in the working out of prosecutions or anything of that character which might . be necessary should the farmer shippers feel so inclined. I understand the Department of Justice sent a representative to Montreal, along with others who represented the fanner shippers, for the purpose of looking into the legal side of this matter. I may say to the hon. member for West Middlesex that if there is any service 
which the government of Canada can render to bring justice to those who are alleged to have been guilty of practices which would warrant their being brought to the courts, we are ready to render that service in order to give assistance to those who may desire to take action along that line. I am sorry to say that up to the present I can find no ground upon which we could be expected to take responsibility for the losses which have occurred. I close with the repetition of the statement I made a moment ago, that the only part we ever took in any of these matters was to give assistance in equipping the ships with stalls for the purpose of facilitating the movement of stock to the British market.
William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, I have only one or two remarks to make. I think this mistake which has occurred is due largely to the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) has once more been getting into Department of Agriculture business. As long as you have two ministers trying to administer one department you are going the have mixups like this. They will occur as long as the Minister of Trade and Commerce attempts to run every branch of the Department of Agriculture, such as milch cows, Yorkshire geldings, Percheron mares and now this putting of stalls into boats for the shipping of stockers and such like to the old country. We thought the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) was doing this as his friends indicated that he was. It seems to be a case of wanting to get the credit and passing it around as another government life saver. I suggest that the government come across and pay this bill. That is what should be done and I think that is what would have been done had the Department of Agriculture been handling this matter. The moment the government starts putting in stalls, it is almost an O.K. that the firm is at least solvent and worthy of being patronized. If the Department of Agriculture had been handling it these people would have been bonded under the terms and conditions of the live stock products act. Under that act no man can go into the market either on a home or export basis without being bonded. He must have a trading account established in what is known as the bank trust account. This policy has taken years to work out and if the Minister of Agriculture had been handling this matter I imagine he would at least have passed on the information to the farmers that the government were not taking any responsibility for this man's bona fides. They would have seen that he was bonded under the provisions of

Supply-Subsidies and Subventions
the act. I do not suppose the Minister of Trade and Commerce knew there were any such provisions in the live stock products act, and he certainly does not seem to have passed on this information to the unfortunate shippers. I think that either the Minister of Agriculture should hand over all the rest of the Department of Agriculture which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has not swiped off or else the Minister of Trade and Commerce should shake the dust of the Department of Agriculture off his feet and let the minister operate his own department. That is what caused this difficulty, and the only way I see out of it is for the government to cover up that loss, because certainly by their fooling around with this boat they left the impression on the shipper that all was well with regard to both the boat and the owner thereof, who was a cattle exporter as well. That is all I want to say in regard to that matter. I cannot understand any government for three years keeping these farmers out of their money. Dating back to Doctor Robertson's time, many years ago, every precaution has been taken to secure the farmers from loss through scallywagging dealers in cattle who were not worth the load of cattle and must be bonded before anybody would be justified in entrusting his property with them. But that was not done, and I would draw the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister. What is the use of haggling over technicalities? The Minister of Justice will tell them there is no obligation. He will be prepared possibly to tell them anything they want to be told. It is easy for him to ask them: What do you want? We think we are not responsible, the government say, and it is very easy for the minister to say: Well, you are not. That is the way it goes. But there is a question of equity in this at all events.
There is one thing sure. While the farmers have been almost giving their cattle away in the last four years, and in twenty months they were giving away one out of four on account of the adverse exchange, now these fellows are giving them all away, and I wonder if they had also to pay freight and insurance in advance? I do not suppose they did. Surely the cattle would be good enough to cover that.
It is just the same old story so far as this government is concerned. This may be their last session and the longer it goes the more it exposes their incompetency, hopelessness and helplessness. It shows at every turn of the tide as we find out more about these things. No wonder the government wanted to pro-74726-294
rogue last Saturday. I think they should have prorogued a month ago and saved us a lot of this blooming legislation which they have been trying to strangle the opposition with in the last thirty days.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Mr. Chairman, someone
has said "save us from our friends". The hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) and myself were called in some four months ago on this matter. We worked upon it as a business matter and I can say for him and his colleagues that they have kept anything savouring of politics absolutely out of the matter. I am very sorry that the last speaker (Mr. Motherwell) has striven to inject some political prejudice into it.
The facts as I see them are these. The farmers in the counties of Huron, Perth, Lambton and Middlesex had a meeting at Ailsa Craig or somewhere in the county of Middlesex and passed a resolution asking me to introduce a delegation to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). They came to Ottawa and the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave us a very kindly reception indeed. We presented this matter to him as best we could, and those farmers that night were abundantly fair. They gave the Department of Trade and Commerce a great deal of credit for fitting up ships to assist in the passage of cattle to England. I myself with other members have waited on the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) asking that some assistance be given by way of fitting up ships. The ex-Minister of Public Works and myself, instead of acting like children, stubbing our toes and running to a parent, decided that we would go in and try to clean up the matter first. This we did. We had a meeting in Montreal and this firm was taken into bankruptcy. Then we had the Clarkson firm, a reputable firm of auditors, go into their books. A padlock was put on the door and Clarkson's were put in charge.
We find that there are no assets. There never were any assets, and we are not trying to place blame upon the Department of Trade and Commerce particularly, but we would ask the Department of Trade and Commerce not to assume the attitude that they cannot make mistakes. While this government is as free from making mistakes as any government I have ever known, yet I have never known any men who were perfect, and my plea to-night with the administration is not to assume the attitude that these farmers are the men who made the whole mistake. I think that is most unfair.

4642	COMMONS
Supply-Subsidies and Subventions
I will ask the men from western Canada if they know Captain Robert Pearson, John Pearson whose two uncles were in the Ontario legislature, and men of no mean mentality. By the way I do not think we have any longer any supermen. To me in the future the opinion of the man on the street will be just as good as that of the superman because it was the supermen who led us into the depression and they were nowhere to be seen to lead us out of it. I would ask any people in western Canada if they know this man Pearson in my riding who has lost $2,000, and can afford to lose it, and who is now out west again to bring home more cattle and fatten them and pass them on to the old land. But Mr. Chairman, there are men who cannot afford to lose this money. Yesterday I drove around my county and it was borne in upon me that there was going to be a sad wreckage. I came upon the parish priest who had been cheering up two parishioners, urging them to hold on a little longer, that some relief might come. I was not able to say that there would be relief although I had been led to believe here and there that there might be a little ray of hope.
I had gone to the bank managers who loaned the money asking them to be patient and now to-night I am asking the government not to take any cold business attitude on tihis matter. It is the duty of the strong to protect the weak. To say that we fitted out sixteen ships and that fourteen were good and two were bad is a fair batting average, and the minister should be given credit that he selected fourteen out of sixteen that were good. I do not think he should be at all offended to be told that two of the sixteen which his department selected were tubs-and, if they had searched the great metropolis of Montreal they could not have found three greater crooks upon whom to confer a diploma to go out into my county than the men they selected. E. A. D. Morgan is consulting solicitor of the company. When I said to him, "Mr. Morgan, you are more than solicitor," he got angry. He was the promoter, the man who came with high pressure salesmanship and put the thing over. There might be a medical college that would grant a diploma to some man who never studied medicine a day in his life. They might give him a diploma to go out and operate on the people of this country. And here were people who, according to Clarkson's report, did not even have the proverbial shoestring to start on, not a shoestring, not a dollar. If the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce had
iMr. Spotton.]
asked to see this company's charter, they would have seen the most fourflushing document that ever decorated a page. This is what these men who had no capital proposed to do according to their charter:
To build, acquire, lease, or operate elevators, buildings, or wharves, for the handling or storage of grain.
To buy, sell, or deal in cattle, horses, hogs or any and every kind of live stock and poultry including feeding, fattening, and in connection with the business of the company to establish stores, agencies, depots and other markets for the sale of the products of the company, including the right to manufacture, ship, deal in and sell canned goods or prepared meats, or foods of all description.
I suppose the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce who were supposed to be a light unto the feet and a lamp unto the path of the farmers of this country asked these people to show their testimonials. Further, they were going-
To build, purchase, lease and operate vessels whether propelled by steam or otherwise, and to carry cargo of any description in connection therewith.
Nay, more:
To promote, organize, manage or develop or to assist in the promotion, organization, management or development of any corporation, company, syndicate, enterprise or undertaking and to do all acts necessary or incidental thereto.
This may be legal phraseology, but I call to my witness the wrecks that have been strewn over this country in the past ten years, financial wrecks aided by legal phraseology. Imagine this, Mr. Chairman:
To subscribe for, underwrite, buy, sell, exchange, hold, hypothecate or otherwise deal in the stock, bonds, debentures, and other securities of any municipal, industrial or financial corporations or companies.
To enter into any arrangement for sharing profits or union of interests with any person or company carrying on or engaged in or about to carry on or engage in and to take or otherwise acquire shares and securities of any such company; and to sell, hold, resell with or without guarantee or otherwise deal in the same.
A company that never had a dollar, did not have a dollar and, heaven knows, that will ever have a dollar! Two out of the three men bankrupt and the other a lawyer whose name is to-night a by-word in the city of Montreal! Those were the three men who were granted the diploma studded by thirteen thousand golden dollars, to go up into my county and say to my farmers: "We would like to buy your cattle." "Well, we do not know who you are." "Well, we are just this good that the Department of Trade and Commerce spent $13,000 to fit up boats to assist us to ship your cattle." That is a

Supply-Subsidies and Subventions
pretty fair testimonial. I can think of no finer diploma given to any body of people, no greater lioenoe to go out and do business among my farmers who feed a steer a thousand days at six cents a day, pay the freight to Montreal and give those steers to these Montreal scalawags.
I shall not trust myself further. If the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce are not going to take any blame in this matter and are going to lay the blame on my farmers that they are a bunch of dumbbells, and if the officials have been criminally negligent, then it is my duity as the representative of my farmers to say a word on their behalf. We thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce for his courtesy all through, and I do not think it would hurt him very much to-night to say that although the fanners perhaps did not use good business judgment, it is the duty of the strong to protect the weak, but inasmuch as we put stalls in boats that were not seaworthy-and if there is any doubt about that, with the knowledge I have I say: Give us an independent tribunal before whom we can place the faots-we are willing to assume the responsibility of proving our case. My attitude in this matter has been entirely changed within the last few days, when I learned of a brief that the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce had prepared in which they stated they took no blame in the matter, I claim that they are criminally negligent and I shall assume full responsibility in any capacity this house asks me, to prove my statement that this man McDonnell who was a bankrupt, this man Richardson who was a bankrupt and this man Morgan whose name is not sweet-scented at all in the city of Montreal, were granted a licence when they should not have been. We are all human; we all make mistakes and the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce, when their minister was very busy with other things-and bis name will go down in history for his present activity-when he could not oversee everything, must have been responsible. But do not let us wrap that cloak about us and say: We cannot make a mistake. I never yet knew a government that did not make an occasional mistake. Inasmuch as mistakes have perhaps been made on both sides of tins question; inasmuch as there are no newspaper reporters here and we are just gathered in this chamber in the closing days of the session I would suggest that he who gives quickly gives twice and I would say this: Halve the responsibility. Let my farmers stay on the land of their fathers and grand-74726-2941
*fathers and at least let the department admit that they endorsed unworthy men and fitted up unseaworthy ships and that they will halve this with my farmers.
Then, of course, the bugaboo is: There is no channel through whioh this can legitimately flow That is always the way with the old Ontario farmer; there is no room in the inn. If there is an explosion at Halifax or a Quebec bridge disaster or grasshoppers out west, or if the Rocky mountains started to erupt to-night and lava flowed down on the minister's side of the mountains, we would find a way; but the staid old Ontario farmer who toils from daylight until dark can be robbed by financial thugs in the city of Montreal, aided by a diploma granted by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and yet they say: There is nothing we can do for them.
Perhaps I have spoken a little heatedly in this matter, but my colleague the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. Golding) while there was yet time wrote a letter and the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce should then have taken cognizance of and looked into the matter. What are these high salaried men in England connected with the departments of Trade and Commerce and Agriculture for if it is not to be a lamp unto the path of our farmers? Why have them at all? You say:	There
is a precedent. I say: No, because in the future this situation cannot obtain. Through our marketing act such men will be bonded and there can be no further precedent. The department listened to me and others and fitted up boats. But they did not do my farmers any favour when they fitted up a couple of tubs and put them in charge of a crew headed by Morgan of Montreal. I submit this and stand by it, although there has been objection taken, that if this so called Richelieu Corporation, which did no.t put up a dollar, but just exchanged cheques, if this defunct company had never met with officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce the cattle would never have been stolen, because the farmers never would have dealt with men who could not show some kind of testimonial. I must express appreciation to the department for what they have done in opening that channel; under the British Empire trade agreement we are going tc have a channel there for years to come, and having made a little slip in this case let us admit it and let us go fifty-fifty. On behalf of my farmers who are being driven into bankruptcy through criminal negligence of the officials of the Department of Trade and
4644	COMMONS
Supply-Subsidies and Subventions
Commerce in giving credit to unworthy men who fitted out tubs that were entirely unseaworthy, I plead that they be given a little ray of hope, that the government will meet our people half way. That is what we are all doing, if a man owes us $100 we will take $50. Those are strenuous times. My farmers say there are millions for this and millions for that, but there is not a paltry $41,000 for the farmers in old Ontario. I would ask the administration to reconsider this matter on behalf of my farmers and the farmers throughout western Ontario.
Again I wish to pay tribute to my colleague from West Middlesex, the ex-Minister of Public Works. We have toiled for four months without money and without price, and it is hard for us to go home and face our people and tell them that while there are millions for railroads and millions for banks and millions for public buildings that may not be entirely necessary there is not the small sum of $41,000 for the old pioneer stock of western Ontario.


Mr. GOLDING:: I just wish to make a few observations in regard to this question. Last summer my attention was called to the operations of the Richelieu Corporation in my constituency. Some of the friends of Mr. Scotch-mer, about whom I wrote to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) came to me and told me the position he was in by reason of shipments of cattle made through this company. I told these people that if they would summarize the facts and give me a full statement I would see that it was forwarded to the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I had absolute faith that some action would be taken by the department to protect those farmers from further losses. Reference has been made to a letter I had written to Hon. Mr. Stevens. I think I should read that letter and also the statement that I had prepared in connection with the shipment to which it had reference, which was typical of other shipments that took place from Huron county at that time. We went to considerable trouble to get complete details. We endeavoured to get the log of the vessel and everything in order to lay all the cards on the table.
The statement is as follows:
L. W. Scotchmer is a farmer residing near Kippen, Ontario, in the county of Huron, and the Richelieu Corporation of Montreal is a shipping concern which has been securing shipments of cattle from farmers throughout Huron county for the purpose of sale in the British market.
The Richelieu Corporation chartered the ss. Glentworth for several trips, the first of which
iMr. Spotton.]
left Montreal, May 5, 1933. It is not known whether the Richelieu Corporation chartered the entire vessel or simply chartered space on the vessel, but at all events the corporation made structural changes in order to accommodate cattle on this boat. They own or lease accommodation on a pier in Montreal to which there is a siding so that they can unload from railway cars at the pier and load direct to the vessel without the necessity of taking the cattle to stockyards in and around Montreal. This should enable the Richelieu Corporation to eliminate considerable expense to its own and to the benefit of the persons dealing with them.
The program followed by the Richelieu Corporation apparently has been to send agents or representatives throughout the country to the farmers to book space on their boat according to the number of cattle the farmers are prepared to ship. It is represented to the farmer that the total cost of freight by rail, care, feed, water transportation and commission for selling the cattle in the British market is $27 per head.
That is what was told the farmers in our county.
When sufficient space has been booked a cattle train is arranged, the cattle are loaded and taken direct from shipping point to the corporations's pier at Montreal and there loaded on the boat.
Mr. Scotchmer, on the basis as represented to him, shipped cattle by the first boat this season, namely on May 5, 1933, there being twenty-six head. These were loaded on cattle cars at Brucefield, Ontario, and the Richelieu Corporation had' full control of them from shipment until the sale in the British market. Mr. Scotchmer accompanied the shipment, which was supposed to leave Montreal April 28 or 29, but the shipment did not leave until May 5, owing to the fact that arrangements for fitting the ship for the cattle had not been completed, and the boat's engines were being repaired. Mr. Scotchmer's cattle were fed grain and hay at home and were in good condition, averaging 1,409 pounds, but on arrival at Montreal they were given a poor grade of hay and no grain until they were put aboard the ship. On ship the hay fed was a clover mixture, badly weathered and with considerable mold. The grain was a mixture of uncrushed barley, 40 per cent; uncrushed oats, 40 per cent; and cracked corn, 20 per cent, which is not considered to be a very satisfactory feed.
The boat cleared Montreal 4.15 p.m. May 5, 1933; exchanged pilots at Quebec 4.20 a.m. May 6, 1933; discharged pilot at Father Point 6.25 p.m. May 6, and at 6.50 p.m. the vessel stopped for repairs to engine. The vessel moved next on May 7, at 4.40 a.m. and at 10.50 a.m. stopped again for repairs, moving again at 7 p.m. on May 7; arrived at Halifax May 10, at 2 p.m.; remained in Halifax 3 days repairing engines before proceeding to its destination at Birkenhead. The vessel was not seaworthy with its engines in the condition they were in, and after clearing Halifax could only proceed at half speed and did not arrive at Birkenhead until May 24. The boat cleared from Halifax without cleaning out the accumulated manure. The cattle were not given

Supply-Subsidies' and Subventions
enough room on the boat. For instance the spacing of Mr. Scotehmer's twenty-six head of cattle was forty-six feet, three inches.
Mr. Scotchmer and the other attendants had considerable trouble with cattle getting down and being trampled, until finally four of his cattle were moved to the centre of the ship where there was no protection against the sun or rain. With all the failure of feed and accommodation the cattle were badly shrunk on arrival, were in very poor condition and realized third grade instead of top prices. The ordinary experience in shipping cattle is that on ship they increase on an average, with good accommodation and good feed, about sixty pounds per head.
From what investigation it has been possible to make it is suspected that the vessel should never have been permitted to leave Montreal not being in seaworthy condition on the one hand and the accommodation for cattle being badly arranged and much overcrowded on the other hand.
In the final result instead of the cost of freight, transportation, feed, commissions and so forth being $27 per head, they have averaged more than $32 per head.
It seems that the Richelieu Corporation has secured shipments from a great number of farmers, particularly in this district, and that the general experience farmers have bad with this corporation, is very unsatisfactory, and quite similar to the treatment accorded Mr. Scotchmer. The obligations of the corporation to the shippers are not definitely understood as there has been no contract in writing in any case. Complaints to the corporation have brought no redress.
On this first shipment Mr. Scotchmer should have realized from his cattle at least $750 more than he did, but his complaints to the corporation have been treated with scant courtesy. It is very important that this matter be investigated fully. Huron county has a great surplus of exportable cattle and many farmers anxious to ship to Great Britain. But, if the export of cattle is to be fostered and made worth while to Canadian farmers, some protection must be given them against shipping corporations transacting business in the manner of the Richelieu Corporation.
That is the statement I had prepared, and this is the letter that accompanied that statement:
Hon. H. H. Stevens,
Minister of Trade and Commerce,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Stevens:
I am writing you regarding the operation of the shipping company named the Richelieu Corporation of Montreal.
I have had the facts summarized in the enclosed' statement.
The gentlemen who have shipped cattle through this company have stated their complaints to me, and I requested that they give me the facts, and I would then bring the whole question to your attention.
I assured them that I was satisfied that the department was anxious to promote this trade, and that I felt that any action taken by any company in this shipping business, which would deprive the shipper from receiving proper treatment, thereby causing him a loss, would certainly be frowned on by the government.
I am, therefore, bringing this matter to your attention, not in any critical way, but rather in a way that may be helpful, and that may prevent a recurrence if this man's experience.
I may say that Air. Scotchmer is not the only one who had complaints against this particular company.
I believe Mr. Scotchmer when taking this matter up with this company, received a letter threatening him with libel-
That is a fact; he did receive such a letter. -which would appear to be a pretty high handed piece of work. If you desire, I will obtain a copy of this letter for you.
As far as I can learn Mr. Scotchmer estimates his loss on this shipment at around $800 or $900.
There have been some splendid cattle shipped from this district, a load of seven cars went from this district. These cattle weighed around 1,500 to 1,700 pounds. I think, therefore, that we should do our best to see that the shipper receives proper treatment, as the farmer is certainly having a difficult time in making things go.
I will appreciate it very much if you could, through your department, make an investigation into this matter and advise me what action is being taken to protect the shipper in matters of this kind.
Thanking you for any information on this point, I remain,
Sincerely yours,
That is the letter and statement that were forwarded to the Department of Trade and Commerce, to which the minister replied very promptly. My letter was dated October 12 and this reply is dated October 13. The minister did not read the last paragraph, which is as follows:	*
In indicating the position of the department as I have done it is not my intention to consider the matter as closed, but on the contrary I intend bringing it to the attention of the minister on his return to Ottawa.
That paragraph led me to believe that some action would be taken by the department which, as I said in my letter, would prevent a recurrence of this man's experience. I may say very frankly that I was very much disappointed that the department did not take some definite action. I believe if they had done so the loss that was incurred in November need not have come about. It is all very well to say that we are not responsible for this or that, but I think hon. members of this house feel as at least I feel, that there is a responsibility on me as a member to do my utmost to see that the farmers are protected. I need hardly point out that under present conditions the farmers are absolutely unable to protect themselves. They are unable to enter into any litigation, and if we have men such as those described by the hon. member for North Huron going around the country swindling and defrauding the people I think it is the duty of the Min-
4646	COMMONS
Supply-Subsidies and Subventums
ister of Trade and Commerce or of the Minister of Agriculture or of somebody, at any rate, to try to prevent that sort of thing.
Now I should like to say a word in regard to the fitting out of those two vessels. I think it was clearly indicated in the statement sent to the department that the Glent-worth was not a fit boat to carry cattle across the ocean, and when they fitted up the Neiderholm I am perfectly satisfied that it was in worse condition than the Glentworth ever was. When we were discussing this question in Montreal we found from the Imperial Oil Company's statement that for three trips of that boat it cost over S18,000 for fuel. That will give you an idea of what sort of boat it was. It was chartered for three trips, and at the end of the three trips the boat was sold for junk. I do not want to play politics in connection with a matter of this kind; it is too serious to our farmers and those who are affected by these losses to do anything of the kind. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for North Huron, in many cases it means that if these men do not receive some remuneration they will be forced off their farms, which is a very serious thing in times like these. When members bring to the attention of the department a situation in connection with which farmers are being actually swindled, I cannot for the life of me see that they have not some responsibility in the matter.
This is not the only case that has been brought to my attention. This correspondence to which I have referred is in regard to the Richelieu Corporation, but I also had complaints in regard to some other shippers. Mr. Adams, near Seaforth, who has been in the cattle business for many years, shipped twenty-five head of cattle over there, and he was certainly disappointed with the price he received, as he and all the other cattlemen in that district assured me that they were choice cattle. We obtained a report on those cattle, as follows:
These cattle left Montreal on November 21. landed at Cardiff on December 10 after an ocean voyage of nineteen days.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins), who has shipped a great many cattle, made the statement in the house on one occasion that if cattle were on the water longer than twelve days they began to go back. This load of cattle was on the water for nineteen days. The report goes on to say:
The trip was said be very rough and the cattle were dirt from head to foot. These cattle had to be rested before they were in shape for sale. Apparently none were sold in Cardiff where they were landed, but had to be moved to Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham 
and York. This movement entailed additional expense. It is contended' that for some days the cattle were entirely out of feed, and as a result there was a very heavy shrinkage which meant of course instead of receiving top prices they were sold at a very much lower grade.
I just wish to bring these matters to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce in order, if possible, to avoid a repetition of the treatment our farmers have received. I agree entirely with what has been said by the hon. member for North Huron, namely that in discussing this matter all parties have endeavoured to keep the discussions free from politics. We are more concerned about helping our farmers. I too want to plead on behalf of those who have suffered such serious losses, and I trust that in some way or another the government may see its way clear at least to some extent to remunerate them.


Mr. BOYES:: I wish to make only a few observations on this occasion. At the outset may I say that a number of producers from the riding I have the honour to represent were, unfortunately, involved in this matter. They shipped their cattle through the Richelieu Corporation, and did not receive payment for them. I should be very sorry indeed to have this matter brought forward politically, as was attempted by the former Minister of Agriculture. I am deeply interested in the producers and would do anything within my power to see that they were compensated for their very severe losses. The producers in my constituency were not critical of the government, in fact, they were very thankful that the government had assisted by procuring a market for their cattle in the old country and also they were pleased that the government had equipped a number of boats for purposes of cattle shipment. Upon many occasions they have expressed themselves as being very much .pleased with the interest the government has taken.
As some hon. members have pointed out it is unfortunate that the Richelieu Corporation at no time had any finances. They were dealing in cattle before they came into western Ontario, and they reached western Ontario at a time when there were cattle for shipment. They received about six hundred cattle, a very large shipment, and according to the record they have been using the cash receiver from one shipment to pay for former shipments. On this particular occasion, however, they had a great number of cattle but did not pay the shippers. As a result of their

Supply-Subsidies and Subventions
operation. I believe a number of shippers in my constituency will become practically bankrupt.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did they make any down payment when they took the cattle?


Mr. BO YES:: None at all, I understand.
I have been interested in this matter to the extent of attending with a number of deputations before ministers, and going to Montreal in the interests of the shippers. Yet we have been unable so far to accomplish anything of real value. I know that the producers are unable to furnish sufficient funds to go ahead in a lawsuit, or to arrest the men at Montreal.
I suggest that the government should take some action along these lines. If after furnishing funds to take action against these men it is proven that they have stolen the cattle- and at the present time that seems evident- the men should be severely punished. It may be that the men involved have receipts from these cattle which would enable them to pay something on account. However, if the government were unsuccessful in procuring any funds, I suggest that action could be taken similar to that which on former occasions has been taken, when compensation has been made. We remember what happened after the great Halifax disaster. In recent years we remember that the farmers in the dried out areas in Saskatchewan were assisted when they were unable to produce wheat. If we are unsuccessful in gaining financial support from the men in Montreal, while I do not feel the government is financially responsible, as has been stated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, yet in the interest of those producers and farmers I appeal to the government seriously to look into the matter and, if possible, to give compensation, as has been done in other cases. I am sure the producers would greatly appreciate such action and certainly I should appreciate it.


Frederick George Sanderson: I wish merely to go on record as agreeing with the hon. members for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott), North Huron (Mr. Spotton), South Huron (Mr. Golding) and East Middlesex (Mr. Boyes). Two or three farmers in the constituency of South Perth, which I have the honour to represent in this house, unfortunately have lost their money through the shipment of cattle. I have not attended any conferences with any of the ministers. I have not given the matter the close attention which has been given it by the hon. members I have mentioned, because unfortunately when the deputation first came to Ottawa I had been called home. Nevertheless I am vitally interested in the matter and should like to place my remarks on record along with those of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr Weir).
I am pleased the discussion has been free from political bias. This is not a political question, but one of justice to farmers who have lest their money because, as the hon. member for North Huron has said, the Department of Trade and Commerce gave a diploma to the Richelieu Corporation to buy cattle and to ship them overseas. I have several reasons in mind as to why I believe the government should compensate the farmers. The Minister of Trade and Commerce admits that his department paid $13,000 to the Richelieu Corporation to equip two boats for the shipment of cattle to Great Britain. When that was done the officials of his department must have satisfied themselves and forwarded the information to the minister that these boats were seaworthy. If that was not done, then the minister made a grave mistake.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Obviously there is no official in my department who could pass judgment upon the seaworthiness of any ship. The vessels were equipped according to the British Board of Trade regulations and the overseeing was done by experts in shipping matters. We had the assistance of the Department of Marine in that respect.


Frederick George Sanderson: Surely the minister will admit responsibility in this matter, even if his experts did advise that these ships were seaworthy. I think he must shoulder the responsibility when they turned out not to be seaworthy.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That has not been asserted except in this chamber.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am now bringing the matter to the attention of the minister. I should like to know if the minister made any inquiry through his officials or through the officials of any other department as to the solvency of the Richelieu Corporation when they entered into an agreement to pay them $13,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The firm was shown ta have a capital of $20,000 and to be engaged in the exportation of cattle. I have the Dun and Bradstreet report here but I do not think it should be used in this house. However, I shall quote from the report in part. It states that the company is well spoken of in personal respects and that Mr. Richardson if
4648	COMMONS
Supply-Subsidies and Subventions
believed to have supplied the necessary capital for the conduct of the business. As far as it was reasonable for anyone to assure himself on the matter, the departmental officials did so.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister says that he has some confidential information from Bradstreets.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I said I had the report. I sent one copy across and I shall send another. I do not think it is fair to Dun and Bradstreet to bring their reports into the house. They are supposed to give a confidential service and I think hon. members will agree that it is scarcely fair to them to use their reports. Personally I have no scruples about using them.


Frederick George Sanderson: Speaking for myself only, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that there should be no secrets in connection with this matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are no secrets.


Frederick George Sanderson: A group of farmers in western Ontario have lost S40,000 because they sold their cattle to this Richelieu Corporation to be shipped overseas. Why was that loss sustained? Because it was represented to the producers of these cattle that the government was behind that corporation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was no justification for that statement.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am not quite so sure that there was not some justification for it. Surely the minister will not contend that the information he got as to these men being respectable and good citizens was sufficient to warrant the turning over to them of S13,000 of the taxpayers' money and practically giving them a licence from the government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I admit no such thing. As I have said already, all that the government or the department did in this or any other case was to assist in the equipping of ships for the movement of cattle. We gave no licence and we gave no certificate. Neither in this nor any other ease has the government taken part in the buying or selling of the stock that went on the ships.


Frederick George Sanderson: I want to be frank with the minister and I think he will be frank with me. Is he satisfied that he was justified or that 'his department or the government was justified in paying $13,000 to the Richelieu Corporation to equip these boats so that they 
would be suitable for the shipment of cattle? Is the minister satisfied that he did not make a mistake?


Henry Herbert Stevens: With the knowledge that we had I am satisfied that there was no other course which we could have adopted under the circumstances. Let me say to the hon. gentleman and to other hon. gentlemen who have spoken that very strong pressure was brought to bear for the opening up of traffic between Montreal and London.


Frederick George Sanderson: I will agree with that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This corporation had control of the lairage in London. They spent considerable on that and I suppose that is more or less the reason why they went bankrupt. Pressure was brought to bear upon me to assist in the equipping of ships on that particular route. None of the ships which had been equipped were running to London; they ran to Cardiff, to Birkenhead and to Glasgow. Hon. members of this committee and others pressed me to assist in obtaining ships which were not under the control of those in the business which I have mentioned already. It was represented to me that these people had such control of the space that shippers in western Ontario could not get their cattle on the boats.- I was urged to secure ships for this route and these two were secured. I had to leave the question of their seaworthiness to the insurance companies and to the inspectors. I could not assume responsibility for the seaworthiness of the ships. I know of nothing further which could have been done in connection with the securing of ships and the constructing of stalls for the movement of cattle to the London market.


Frederick George Sanderson: I should like to put another argument to the minister. I shall leave the question of the Richelieu Corporation for a moment. For some months the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been chairman of the special committee of this house which has been investigating the question of price spreads, fair wages, fair returns and all the rest of it, and I give him credit for starting that investigation. His object apparently is to investigate the question of undue profits. I put this question to him. Here is a matter affecting the farmers of western Ontario. They sold their cattle to this dummy company apparently under the endorsation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow that statement to go unchallenged. May I just intimate to my hon. friend this:

Supply-Subsidies and Subventions
Before this question came up in the house, so far as I am concerned and the members of the government we have been exceedingly anxious to find some way whereby assistance might be given to those who suffered, not because of having responsibility in any direct way at all, but because of the suffering of the farmers. But if my hon. friend is going to inject into this matter an alleged responsibility that is not ours, then in justice to myself, the department, and the government I shall certainly resist him to the limit. Let us be perfectly clear on that. My hon. friend cannot impose upon me responsibilities which are not mine. I take full responsibility for what has been done for which I am responsible.


Frederick George Sanderson: Let me say to the
minister that I have not gone nearly so far as one of his own supporters.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh yes, my hon. friend did.


Frederick George Sanderson: No, I have not, and I have been very patient and lenient with the minister in his interruptions. My good friend from North Huron went much farther than I have done, but I am not afraid of the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in what he said to me in the last few minutes before he sat down. I am pleading for the farmers in South Perth who have sold their cattle and have lost their money. I do not know whether the minister knows what a loss of $2,000 is to the average farmer in western Ontario to-day. Our farmers for the last four years have been plodding along and losing ground every day with the result that all of them are almost bankrupt.


Mr. ROBINSON:: Not at all.


Frederick George Sanderson: A great many of them are. My hon. friend may be able to speak for the farmers in Essex but I am speaking for the farmers of South Perth.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I meant the farmers of South Perth.


Frederick George Sanderson: I think I know them as well as my hon. friend from Essex does, and I want to say to the minister that I do not think he realizes the plight of the average farmer in South Perth or in any of the western counties of Ontario.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do, and I am just as anxious as my hon. friend to find ways and means of helping them.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am very glad to hear the minister say that. My object in getting up to-night is not to get into a controversy with the minister at all. I want to plead with him and with the Prime Minister and the
government to be fair in this matter. I do not think my good friend the Minister of Agriculture can escape some responsibility in this matter, because primarily the shipment of cattle comes under his department. What he had to do with making the arrangements with the Richelieu Corporation I do not know. He may not have had anything to do with it at all.


Robert Weir: Nothing whatever.


Frederick George Sanderson: But the minister will admit that propaganda went out through all this dominion that this government had at last found a market for Canadian cattle in Great Britain, and these shipments that went forward and were not paid for were part of the shipments for which the minister and his officials said they had found a market in Great Britain, and a market for large quantities of Canadian cattle. I do not charge the minister with any responsibility, but I do say to him that he should make some statement to this committee to-night in regard to this arrangement with the Richelieu Corporation. The Minister of Agriculture will perhaps understand me better than the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I plead with him for the farmers of western Ontario. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said to-night that he does not see how any compensation can be paid in this unfortunate matter. I do not want to take up the time of this committee, or to get into any political discussion, but I do want to point out to the minister, the Prime Minister and the government that under the legislation they have brought down in this chamber in the last four years they have found money for almost anything and everything in the way of relief-unemployment relief, and I do not criticize that at all, and farm relief. Well, here is an instance of a dead loss of $40,000 to farmers in western Ontario who already are so burdened that they really have not the money to pay their taxes. They got into this arrangement because it was represented to them that the government were behind it, and to a certain extent the government was behind this Richelieu Corporation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: Surely this government can find $40,000 to reimburse these unfortunate shippers of cattle who lost every dollar. They did not get a single solitary dollar back. It is all gone-a dead loss. Surely this government could do something in a case so extreme as that.
Supply-M iscellaneous

I do not want to enumerate what this government has done for the western farmers or the amount of bounties they have paid out, and so on a<nd so forth, but here is a concrete case where these farmers have been taken in, as my good friend from North Huron said, by financial crooks who represented to them that the government were behind them, and in that way the deal went through. I do not think I can put my case any stronger, Mr. Chairman. My hon. friend from North Huron said he thought the government should find some way of recompensing the farmers to the extent of fifty per cent.


George Spotton: Would the hon. member be willing to call the amount which the government is going to give a compassionate allowance? That would not involve accepting any responsibility.


Frederick George Sanderson: It does not make any difference to me what they call it as long as they pay it. If it is a compassionate allowance I should say the government should pay the whole hundred per cent, the $40,000, and not merely a portion of it. They should pay the whole loss of the farmers of western Ontario who were in this unfortunate affair, and not merely fifty per cent. Surely this government can do that. I know that the Prime Minister has been taking the matter into consideration. I do not suppose he is moved by anything I am saying to-night but I do know that in the bottom of his heart he believes that these farmers have a case which they can bring before this government and that they should be paid back the money they have lost. I hope that to-night before we prorogue the government will announce that they will find ways and means of paying this loss. It is not difficult for they have found ways and means of paying money for other purposes, and this is a just claim which should receive every consideration from this government. I hope before the house prorogues we will have a statement from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the government will recompense these farmers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I have
taken the trouble to read the papers in this matter and I have also had an interview with the former Minister of Public Works, the member for South Huron, the member for North Huron, and the member for the other Middlesex. The government could not under any circumstances be made primarily liable in' a matter of this kind. If the statement made by the former Minister of Public

Works is correct, and I accept it as such, it is perfectly obvious that there never was a company and that the three men in question are personally liable for this amount. That is, if they are directors of the company and the circumstances are as stated, their conduct has .been such as to make them personally liable. The government will take steps to investigate the matter thoroughly and will not mind expending some money if it is necessary for the purpose of prosecuting them for theft if the facts are as stated. But to ask the government to pay because men have made improvident bargains is something that will not be found in any of the relief acts and certainly has not been advanced in what has been said within the last few minutes. It is quite clear that there never has been a case with respect to any of these farmers where it is alleged that there was any failure to supply the equipment for carrying the cattle. The representations were that the government had supplied stalls and put them on the ships. It is admitted that these stalls were supplied. It is admitted further that the cattle were carried on the ships. The government assumed no responsibility for the ships. Lloyds, I assume, or some other firm, were the insurers and satisfied themselves because the work was done with the approval of the Board of Trade so far as the equipment was concerned. But if these men are worth the money they are liable civilly and they are liable criminally. The government will investigate both phases of the matter and if there is any assistance that can be given for the purpose of securing the return of the money stolen from these men under the circumstances as stated, we will give it. It will be time enough later to consider what the position of the government may be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-
Dominion Franchise Act, estimated expenditure for preparation and printing of basic lists of electors, $600,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: The vote of want of
confidence was in any dominion government the right hon. gentleman might form as well. It is observed he was pleading for a national government. Such a distinguished man as Sir Edward Peacock represents neither the right hon. gentleman nor myself. I knew nothing of his speech. When I saw in the newspaper that he was to speak I was awaiting the report of it in the daily press this morning.
So far as the other question is concerned I should like to inform the right hon. gentleman and the country that Sir Edward Peacock's commitments in London in the great position that he occupies would preclude the possibility of his accepting the position of governor of the Bank of Canada if he had been offered it. He has not been offered it either tentatively or otherwise, so I think I have answered all the questions the right hon. gentleman has suggested.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the Prime Minister approve what Sir Edward Peacock has said?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps I might ask the right hon. gentleman what he thinks about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think almost any government would be better than the present one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I fancy the right hon. gentleman means what he says, that in his opinion any government would be better than the present one. I can also say that I can conceive none that would be as bad as the one that he would create.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon. gentleman may have an opportunity of seeing the effect of a change before long.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trade and Commerce-
Commercial Intelligence Service, including miscellaneous expenditure in connection with Canada's trade - further amount required, $50,000.
William Richard Motherwell: This afternoon I told the Prime Minister that I was becoming so desirous of having prorogation that I was going to waive any discussion on this particular item under the heading of Commercial Intelligence Service. With the understanding that he will give me three minutes to correct two or three mistakes I thought he was correcting me in shortly after lunch, I will waive any claim here. He made what I thought were three corrections of mistakes I made, one with regard to the embargo on Russia being in 1931. Well, the order in council was. What I intended to say was that the legislation authorizing the embargo was passed at the special session in 1930 as it was. That was about when Russia got up in the air; it was not when the order in council went through; it was when the authority was passed by this parliament to impose an embargo on any country that was not a contracting party to the treaty of Versailles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But Russia signed the agreement.


William Richard Motherwell: Russia was not mentioned in this legislation, but everybody knew to whom it referred. We are getting bolder in these matters now. When we want to talk about the Doukhobors we say that the Doukhobors are to be disfranchised, so the government is getting worse instead of better in that respect. Russia signed the agreement but not the quota. Well, what was the agreement without the quota? The quota was the crux of the whole matter, so I think my statement was absolutely correct.
The next mistake mentioned by the Prime Minister was that any offer that China had made to sell wheat would have been at a loss to Canada of from ten to twenty cents a bushel. The government should not be waiting for people to come round to make offers to them at this time. They should be out merchandising wheat and even if they had lost ten or fifteen cents a bushel, they have lost more than that on the storage of this wheat in the last three years with the wheat still unsold.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I merely say that the government has substantial credit at present-day prices of wheat.


William Richard Motherwell: What is that-a
substantial credit?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.
Prorogation


William Richard Motherwell: That had nothing
to do with this agreement of McFarland's. My right hon. friend indicated that there would have been a loss of ten to twenty cents a bushel on accepting any offer that China may have made for a quantity of wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which the government
did not own. I tried to make it clear to the hon. gentleman-perhaps I did not Bpeak loud enough,-that the government owned no wheat that it had to sell. The Chinese proposals contemplated the purchase of wheat at a price that involved a loss of ten to twenty cents a bushel on the part of those who had it to sell.


William Richard Motherwell: That could easily
have been fixed up; it is only a technicality. Someone lost more than fifteen cents in carrying charges during the last three years; do not make any mistake about that. I think that as all I have to correct.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not very
much.


William Richard Motherwell: And the statement on the Chinese wheat situation can wait a little longer; after prorogation there will be opportunity of discussing it publicly.


Mr. GARDINER:: Before that item is
carried may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if there is any further information as to when it is intended to publish the Canada Year Book?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, it will be published, but two years will be carried as one. There was considerable delay in getting certain vital information for which the final figures were being worked out in connection with the census, and which it was desired to include. We are doing what was done I think in 1927-28, carry the two years into one, but the book will come out a little earlier in the following year.


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister give
any information as to the cost of the Canadian Annual Review which is sent to members annually? Who is responsible for sending that publication to the member?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I could not answer that
question this evening. I have not the information under my hand.


Robert Gardiner: May I suggest to the
minister that he look that matter up and compare the value of the information given in the Canada Year Book with that in the Canadian Annual Review. It seems to me it is money wasted to send such a publication to members of this house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall advise my hon.
friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bury in the chair.
Mr. RHODES:: moved:
Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1935, the sum of $8,274,739.72 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 129, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1935.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
In the Senate chamber, His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royial assent to the following bills:

[Stage Direction]
An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
An Act to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provision in connection therewith.
An Act to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
An Act to amend the Income War Tax Act.
An Act respecting the St. Clair Transit Company.
An Act respecting Shipping.

Governor General's Speech
An Act to facilitate Compromises and Arrangements between Farmers and their Creditors.
An Act for the relief of Eugenie Margaret O'Reilly Stavert.
An Act for the relief of George Harold Allen.
An Act for the relief of Ena Beatrice Duclos Boyd.
An Act for the relief of Paul Herbert Addy.
An Act to incorporate Security National Insurance Company.
An Act to amend an Act to incorporate The Discount and Loan Corporation of Canada.
An Act to incorporate Personal Finance Corporation.
An Act to amend and consolidate the Excise Act.
An Act to incorporate The Small Loan Company of Canada.
An Act to amend The Representation Act, 1933.
An Act to amend the Loan Companies Act.
An Act to amend the Customs Act.
An Act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An Act respecting Radio Broadcasting.
An Act to amend the Pension Act.
An Act to amend The Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
An Act to incorporate the Bank of Canada.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code.
An Act to provide for the construction and improvement of certain public works and undertakings throughout Canada.
An Act respecting the Franchise of Electors at Elections of Members of the House of Commons.
An Act respecting the Election of Members of the House of Commons.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1935.
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In His Majesty's name His Excellency the Governor General doth assent to these bills.
Then the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed His Excellency the Governor General as follows:
May it please Your Excellency:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service.
In the name of the Commons, I present to Your Excellency the following bill:-
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1935.
To which bill I humbly request Your Excellency's assent.
To this bill the Clerk of the Senate, by command of His Excellency the Governor General did thereupon say:
In His Majesty's name, His Excellency the Governor General thanks his loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to these bills.
After which His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to close the fifth session of the seventeenth parliament of the Dominion of Canada, with the following speech: Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
I desire to express my appreciation of the careful attention you have given to the various measures submitted to you for consideration during the present session, and to congratulate you upon the extent and importance of the legislation enacted which vitally affects the economic and social life of Canada. It is a source of profound satisfaction that the improvement in economic conditions in Canada which was in evidence when you commenced your sessional labours is still apparent. This improvement is reflected in substantially increased national revenues, a greater volume of inter-empire as well as foreign trade and a betterment in employment conditions throughout the country. Our favourable trade balances have strengthened our external exchange position and our national credit was never higher. The enactment of legislation incorporating the Bank of Canada to operate as a central bank will permit of the exercise of a sound measure of public control over credit and currency in the interests of the economic life of the nation and will secure to Canada a greater measure of freedom in the exchange markets of the world. The decennial revision of the Bank Act has been completed, and necessary amendments made to improve our monetary and banking institutions.
Legislation has been enacted to improve the methods and practices of the marketing of natural products. I express the confident hope that this legislaition will provide the means by which the producers of primary commodities in this country may exercise over the marketing of their products a degree of regulative control which will inure to the benefit alike of producer and consumer. The Companies Act will provide greater security for investors in Canadian enterprises. The decline in world commodity prices experienced in past years has borne heavily on the producers of primary products, and the farming population has been faced with a great burden of debt. By means of the legislation which has been enacted speedy adjustments without expense to the farmers may be made with creditors, and authority has been granted to the Canadian Farm Loan Board to extend its operations so as to provide the farmer with additional capital by advances on farm mortgages and also by providing intermediate credit. Under the provisions of the Statute of Westminster legislation has been enacted to make effective extra-terri tori ally the laws of Canada relating to navigation and shipping. The provision for the construction of public works and undertakings widely distributed throughout the country will, it is believed, further serve to stimulate economic recovery by providing employment in various lines of activity.
Among other important measures passed were: an act to provide for the franchise of electors at elections to the House of Commons, an act respecting the bureau for translations, a consolidation of the Excise act, measures
Governor General's Speech
[Stage Direction]
affecting fruit, dairy, live stock and live stock products industries, and an act affecting Canadian and British insurance companies.
The exploratory work of the committee on price spreads and mass buying has awakened public conscience to the need of preventing unfair trade practices and exploitation of workers and price manipulation which unfavourably affects the consumer. Legislation is necessarily deferred until the work of the committee has been concluded.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the provision you have made for the public service.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
The progressive improvement of general economic conditions in Canada which is presently much in evidence gives every indication of continuing in increasing measure. I commend the initiative, enterprise and indomitable spirit of the Canadian people and, for the many blessings that have been bestowed upon our dominion, I join with you in heartfelt thanks to Divine Providence.
This concluded the fifth session of the seventeenth parliament.