1938-05-31

[Stage Direction]
Houst of
Commons Debates
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 31, 1938

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. Jacobs.
Seventh report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Sir Eugene Fiset (for Mr. Yien).


Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: 'Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I gave notice of a motion in regard to the Central Finance Corporation, which paid certain fees on its. application for an increase of capital last year, which increase was not granted. I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor):
That the Central Finance Corporation, having paid a fee of $1,400 on the introduction of a bill for increase of capital in the session of 1937, be not required to pay the fees chargeable on increase of capital, on the reintroduction of the same bill during the present session, notwithstanding standing order No. 93, paragraphs (3) and (4) of the standing orders of the House of Commons, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Dunning that this question be referred to the standing committee on standing orders.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


Mr. DUNNING:: The amendment.


Walter Edward Foster: Carried.


Mr. STEVENS:: What amendment was
carried. Mr. Speaker? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) suggested the words "the amendment." I ask what amendment.


Charles Avery Dunning: The amendment to the
motion of the hon. member for Brantford City.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No amendment was made.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I made an amendment, when the matter was last before the
house, that the subject matter of the resolution be referred to the committee on standing orders, that being the proper procedure under the rules.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit, Mr. Speaker,
that it is not in proper form. The motion reads: "notwithstanding standing order 93," and so on. If the minister has now made an amendment to refer the matter to the committee on standing orders, I have nothing further to say.


Charles Avery Dunning: I made it on a previous occasion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It should be made again
to-day.


William Ross Macdonald: The motion I made includes the amendment, and the latter part of the motion sets that forth.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Kathleen Barnsley Prichard Hartney.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Thomas Russell. -Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Marie Marguerite Agnes Marcelle Dupont Ross.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Wilfred Augustus Cottle Stead.-Mr. Lennard.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Celia Caplan Tucker.-Mr. Heaps.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. H. G. CLARKE (Rosedale):: It has come to my attention that the transfer of the wheel shops of the Canadian National Railways at Spadina avenue, Toronto, to London, will put a lot of men out of work in

Validity of Alberta Statutes

Toronto. I am therefore directing these questions to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe):
1.	Will the minister make a statement giving any information on this matter?
2.	Will the minister prevail on the Canadian National Railway authorities to abstain from transferring this work from Toronto?
3.	Could the minister give any reason for this proposed change?
4.	Are a number of men being laid off at the East Toronto yards on account of this transfer?
5.	What provision is being made for the men who are being laid off?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) :: My hon. friend gave me notice of this question a few moments ago. I have no information whatever on the subject, and in the ordinary course of events it is not a matter which would come to my attention. However, I shall be glad to direct the attention of the management of the railway to the inquiry of my hon. friend in this matter.



VALIDITY OF ALBERTA STATUTES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: In view of the discussion that took place last evening it occurred to me this morning that this is the 31st of May and that to-morrow a certain statute which was enacted by the legislature of the province of Alberta will, unless disallowed, come into force. Inasmuch as great injury would follow to those who accept the statute if it were subsequently disallowed, I should like to ask the minister whether or not it is proposed to take immediate action to disallow such legislation, on the theory that if it were done, then 'twere well it were done quickly.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Six of the statutes which were enacted by the legislature of Alberta at its recent session are actually being considered by the department, and a recommendation will be prepared in due time, because there have been petitions for their disallowance. I might add that petitions are still coming in in very large numbers. The six statutes are the following: the Debt Adjustment Act, 1937, Amendment Act, 1938; the Limitation of Actions, 1935, which has been amended at the session of 1938; the Home Owners' Security Act; the 1938 Securities Tax Act; the Banking Corporations Temporary Additional Taxation Act; the Debt Proceedings Suspension Act, and the

Tax Recovery Act, 1938. Requests for disallowance of these six statutes have been sent to the governor in council. Only one of them would come within the question that my right hon. friend has asked, namely, the 1938 Securities Tax Act, which compels every owner of a mortgage to pay a tax of two per cent on the principal of the mortgage on June 1 and to file a statement on the same day. There are penalties imposed-I think it is ten dollars a day-for failure to file the statement, and then an additional tax of five per cent of the tax of two per cent for every day of failure. This is really the only one in respect of which there is the urgency mentioned by my right hon. friend. I might say however that the question is a very difficult one, and there has not been any decision as yet.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Will the Minister of
Justice say whether there have been any petitions for the non-disallowance of these acts?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.
There have been a few letters and resolutions, rather than petitions, for the non-disallowance of these acts.



ANTICOSTI ISLAND '


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to direct
attention again to certain statements by one Karl R. Gerhard which appeared in the public press, in connection with his citizenship and his relations to the head of the German republic. I would ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) to ascertain whether or not Mr. Karl R. Gerhard or anyone with a similar name has been naturalized in this country in 1938, and whether or not the man who says that he is not Mr. Emil Karl Gerhardt is in fact the man who was part of the entourage of Mr. Hitler when he was visiting Rome a few weeks ago. I understand that the minister cannot answer now.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: This has been brought to my attention already. Perhaps it would be safer if I said to my right hon. friend that I will give him a fuller reply to-morrow; but my information so far is that they are two different men-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I heard.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: -and that the man to whom the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has alluded is not the gentleman who is a British citizen. However I will give a fuller reply to-morrow.

Municipal Improvements



MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider a proposed resolution to authorize loans not exceeding in the aggregate $30,000,000 to assist municipalities in making self-liquidating improvements.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: I think a statement is desirable at the outset of the discussion in committee on the resolution. The object of the bill to which this resolution is a preliminary is primarily to provide employment on self-liquidating works; secondly, it is for the purpose of enabling municipalities to finance on easier terms than ever before the erection, extension, renewal or improvement of income-producing or cost-reducing public services. It is an entirely new departure for the federal government to make loans generally direct to municipalities for municipal purposes, but I think it will be agreed that under the present conditions it is desirable that the credit of the dominion should be used wherever it can be used for the purpose of stimulating productive work.
On many occasions when the employment problem has been under discussion in the house there has been practical unanimity of opinion that it is desirable so far as possible to substitute work for relief, and I think I may say that there is practical unanimity of opinion also that the character of the work should be such as to produce revenue sufficient to take care of the cost; in other words, that it is not sound public policy to spend money on public works which do not of themselves earn a revenue wherewith to pay their carrying charges. The object of this -bill, therefore, is to extend to municipalities the credit of the dominion on the exceedingly low interest rate of two per cent to enable the municipalities to proceed, as I said before, with the erection, extension, renewal or improvement of self-liquidating municipal projects.
There may be an objection, which I will anticipate now, that the municipality has no constitutional relationship with the parliament of Canada; that the municipalities of Canada are altogether creatures of the provincial legislatures; that the provincial legislatures alone can make laws respecting the conduct of municipal affairs within their borders, To all these I assent. We cannot legislate for any municipality in the Dominion of Canada;
51952-215J
this parliament has no authority so to do. It may be urged that even by extending loans at a low rate of interest for the purpose indicated in this resolution we are interfering with the autonomy of the provinces. When the bill comes down it will be seen that the government seeks to guard against any suggestion of invasion of the autonomous rights of the provinces in this measure by providing that no project will be approved for the purpose of a federal loan unless the project itself has been approved by the government of the province, and secondly that the province guarantees to the dominion the repayment of the loan and the amortization charges by the municipality. There is therefore no compulsion in the law, no invasion of the autonomy of any province, but there is definitely a placing at the disposal of the municipalities of this dominion the credit of the dominion to enable them at lower rates than ever before to do works which in many cases are very much overdue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be the credit of the dominion and the province, on that statement.


Charles Avery Dunning: The credit of the dominion and the province, but the credit of the dominion is extended on terms which involve also a very definite contribution by the dominion to the cost of the enterprise itself. I will come to an estimate a little later of what the extent of the contribution of the dominion is in connection with the scheme. Many municipalities during the last few years have not been able to keep their income-producing services up to date, to make the necessary improvements, betterments, extensions and renewals. The public investment markets have not been available to many of them, partly because of the financial condition of the municipalities themselves, owing to existing high debts, high tax rates and tax arrears. These conditions have led in many cases to high operating and high maintenance charges simply because the money could not be provided for improvements and betterments which might have lowered and would in many cases have lowered costs of operation.
If the measure now proposed will enable productive undertakings to be carried on which, by increasing revenues from those benefiting from the services provided, or by decreasing costs of operation and maintenance, will pay for themselves without imposing an additional burden upon the general taxpayer, its justification, I submit, will be ample. I should emphasize that it is not the intention of the government in proposing this measure to tempt the municipalities into a type of
Municipal Improvements

debt which will involve higher general municipal taxation, but rather to assist the municipalities by means of an exceptionally low interest rate to provide those facilities either by means of service charges paid by those benefiting, or in the alternative, or possibly in addition, by the reduction in maintenance charges which are now very high on certain classes of obsolete municipal services in many municipalities.
The maximum amount of loan to be provided by legislation will be 330,000,000, but there will be a provision that the governor in council may fix a date after which no further loans will be made. The rate of interest on the loans will be two per cent, and the term of the loans will not be longer than the useful life of the project, with complete amortization during the life of the project. It is impossible, obviously, to give a definite term for the loan, because the life of one project will differ from the life of another; but the intention is to bring about self-liquidating undertakings.
I spoke of the purpose of the loans to finance the construction, improvements, extensions. or renewals of self-liquidating projects. A. self-liquidating project is one which will increase the net revenues of the municipality sufficiently to pay interest on the loan and amortize the principal during the useful life of the project. Net revenue may be increased either by increased receipts from those benefiting from the service, or by decreased operating and maintenance charges. Again there must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the government, first, the need for employment, and second, an urgent need for the project itself. The security taken by the government will be the debentures of the municipality. The loan, as I indicated before, must be guaranteed by the province in which the municipality is situated, and the project must be approved by the government of the province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will that constitute the determination of the question as to the work being necessary?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, not entirely. It will be one of the factors. The original consideration is the need for the work in the municipality.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who determines that?


Charles Avery Dunning: The information must come to the Minister of Finance with the information gathered from the provincial government indicating its approval and a confirmation of the facts therein stated. It is proposed in the bill-I do not think the

resolution deals with all phases of the bill, although I tried to make it as complete as possible-that the allocation of the $30,000,000 among the municipalities of the dominion shall bear the same relationship to $30,000,000 in each case that the population of the municipality bears to the population of the dominion as determined by the 1931 census. That is to say, the limit on the amount which may be lent to any one municipality under this act will be the proportion which the population of that municipality bore in the last census to the total population of the dominion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, shortly it is only S3 per head.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. That introduces a difficulty which faces one in devising legislation of this kind, namely, that the smaller municipalities obviously would not be able to borrow a sufficient amount to be of any use in attempting to meet the problem either of providing work or of providing municipal facilities of a self-liquidating kind.


Mr. HEAPS:: How about the larger ones?


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend let me make my statement?-and then of course I shall submit to questioning. I am trying to comprehend the whole thing in my mind at once.
As far as the smaller municipalities are concerned therefore it is hoped to overcome the problem represented by the statement I have just made by providing in the bill that notwithstanding the population provisions set out, a loan may be made to any municipality to the extent of $200,000. If hon. members will figure that out approximately on the basis indicated by the right hon. leader of the opposition it will be plain as to how that feature of the bill will work out.
As to the cost to the dominion, that of course will be represented by the difference between an interest rate of two per cent and the interest rate at which the dominion government is able to borrow from time to time for a length of time corresponding as nearly as possible to the term of the loan. It is however impossible to state positively just what the average term of these loans will be, based as they are upon the principle of selfliquidation within the useful life of the project. I can therefore give only an approximation of the cost to the government. The government actuaries have made certain estimates. Obviously if the loans on the average are for a term for which the dominion could borrow at a two per cent rate, then the cost to the dominion will be nil, provided no municipality defaults on its obligations.

Municipal Improvements


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about administrative charges?


Charles Avery Dunning: The administrative
charges from the dominion's point of view will of course be absorbed as part of the cost of operation. If the loans are, on an average for a term, for which the dominion could borrow on a two and a half per cent basis, say ten years, then each half-yearly payment of $1,704,000 would show a loss to the dominion of $42,000-I am using round figures-or a total during the ten year period of say $850,000.
Let me state that in another way. If the average length of loans under this act should turn out to be ten years, and if the dominion can borrow at two and a half per cent for a ten year period, then the contribution made by the dominion, if the whole sum went out on that basis, would be $850,000 over the ten years, plus the cost of administration, as the leader of the opposition has said. If we assume a twenty year period, then of course the cost to the dominion rises. We have recently sold an issue of 20-year dominion bonds on a 3-07 per cent basis of cost. Therefore if we assume that the average term of the loans made under this act will be twenty years, and that the dominion could borrow for that period on an average of three and one-eighth per cent, each half-yearly payment would be $1,014,000 and there would be a loss to the dominion of $100,000 a year, or a total during the twenty year period of $4,000,000 plus the cost of administration. If the average term of the loans were thirty years, and if we assume that for such a period the dominion could borrow on a three and a quarter per cent basis, each half-yearly payment of $786,000 would show a loss to the dominion of $119,000 or a total during the thirty year period of approximately $7,150,000 plus the cost of administration.
From the inquiries I have been able to make regarding the length of useful life of projects which might be constructed under this legislation, I am inclined to the view that around twenty years is likely to be the effective period of amortization. It is rather difficult to state that with any accuracy, but I thought that in proposing the measure to the house I should endeavour to give information regarding the cost to the dominion of the whole scheme for varying periods from ten to thirty years, assuming that the whole amount goes out for average terms equal to each of the steps I have been discussing.
Perhaps it would be clearer to take a single loan for a project costing $1,000,000.
On such a loan, if it were for ten years at two per cent, there would of course be no cost to the dominion other than cost of administration. If it were for ten years at two and a half per cent the total loss during the period to the dominion would be $28,000. If it were for twenty years, at three and one-eighth per cent, the total loss to the dominion on the $1,000,000 would be $134,000. If it were for thirty years the $1,000,000 at three and a quarter per cent would involve a loss to the dominion in addition to administration costs of $238,000.
I think I have covered all I desire to say at this stage of the proceedings. The dominion is satisfied, particularly as a result of information which has reached us following the announcement of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) that such a measure would be introduced, that there is a very definite need for just what this legislation proposes. There is no doubt that very many municipalities see in this proposal an opportunity of doing something really constructive for the people of the municipality, and really helpful from the standpoint of providing employment.


Mr. CAHAN:: I am expressing my own views, which are very clear and emphatic, and not the views of any party, that in the present condition of affairs in Canada this proposal is inopportune. As hon. members know, we have had an opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to the effect that expenditures made by vote of this parliament upon objects provincial or municipal, which are not within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of parliament, are illegal appropriations, and in view of that decision the government have instituted an investigation, more or less thorough, by means of the Rowell commission so-called, into the financial relations existing between the municipalities and the provinces on the one hand, and as between the municipalities and provinces and the dominion on the other.
We have been asked by the provinces time and again not to infringe upon the maintenance of their rights as provinces of this dominion, constituted by the British North America Act of 1867. In fact their insistence is so strong that more recently the idea is being propagated that Canada is but a name representing nine sovereign states which were created out of the British territory known a3 British North America by the British North America Act of 1867. While that contention no doubt is excessive and in my opinion unjustified, nevertheless it represents a growing sentiment in various parts of this dominion.
Municipal Improvements

This parliament has assisted somewhat in the propagation of that sentiment. In my own experience I remember that I investigated expenditures made under appropriations voted by parliament, in the time of the late Sir Robert Borden, for the construction of roads and bridges in some of the provinces, especially in the province of Nova Scotia; and I do say on my responsibility as a member of this parliament that the expenditures so made were profligate and excessive and brought no real return commensurate with such expenditures. Those who expend moneys, for the raising of which and the payment of interest on which they are not responsible, do not consider such expenditures as public trusts in respect of which they, as honourable men, are bound to exercise a due degree of care and thrift.
In my opinion, as I have expressed it here, the British North America Act would not require very much in the way of amendment or modification if it were construed, interpreted and applied according to the views expressed at the time by those who framed that great constitutional measure. But for the confusion which does exist, this parliament and previous parliaments in my opinion are to a large extent responsible, because these parliaments have undertaken to interfere with provincial matters and have accompanied that interference with solatiums, sometimes amounting almost to bribery, in the way of financial assistance given to purely provincial projects.
I think there is no doubt, in view of the final decisions of the courts, that such appropriations as we have made for old age pensions and the like are not appropriations for subjects which are within the legislative competence of parliament. Every time we have interfered, out of a desire to assist in ameliorating the condition of some portion of the population in the provinces, we have brought this federal government deeper and deeper into the difficulty with the constituent provinces, or at least with some of them. At the present time in Canada there are provinces which are boasting of surpluses in their revenues, some very considerable surpluses. Under those circumstances why should we not refrain from expending federal money upon objects which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of such provinces, more especially since those are the very provinces which indignantly deny our right to interfere by legislation, administration or otherwise with the sovereign constituent rights of those provinces? Therefore it seems to me that a measure such as this is likely to sink the parliament of Canada and the Dominion of Canada more

deeply into difficulties which should be solved before a large measure of financial relief to the municipalities, such as this, is enacted by the parliament of Canada.
The hon. gentleman has said-and I am merely summarizing his words-that this is to provide employment by enabling municipalities to construct income-iproducing municipal works. There are municipalities which will be entitled to come in and ask for relief and credit from the dominion treasury that are far more capable of providing such funds than the dominion government is capable. There are great cities in which there are great volumes of traffic and trade, large amounts of property, many men and corporations of wealth, which are able to provide for all the proper and serviceable municipal facilities required. There are provinces also which are able to provide not only for themselves as provinces but also for the municipalities under their care, supervision and keeping. Why should they not be called upon to provide such assistance?
We took over, first, temporary relief for unemployment. We have increased that in various ways by appropriations of various amounts for public works, some of which could not by any stretch of the imagination be included under the heading of federal public works. Then we have gone to the extreme in providing for the relief of the indigent and unemployed in provinces which boast of their surpluses and of the splendid state of their exchequers as compared with that of the dominion, until the idea seems to have permeated the minds of the whole population that the finance minister of Canada is in control of a money chest into which he may dip his arms to the elbows for the relief of every person, company, corporation or municipality that thinks it is in need of relief, utterly regardless of the fact that our condition as a dominion is. it seems to me, approaching a perilous point, where we are not able to provide, by revenues derived from federal taxation and from other proper sources, sufficient to pay our annual expenditures, much less to pay for the capital expenditures which we are making by appropriations of funds borrowed from time to time.
The important point at the present time is this: Until the Rowell commission, so-called, has reported-and I do not wish to discuss that commission or its work-and the government has decided as to the measures it will adopt in accordance with that report, this appropriation is ill-timed and inopportune. Because we must at a very early day come to a clear and definite understanding

Municipal Improvements
with the provincial governments and municipal authorities; and we shall not be in a position to come to a satisfactory understanding with them, an understanding which would be satisfactory to the whole of the dominion, until such time as we are resolved to maintain our federal services by our own taxation and to insist that they, by such taxation as they can impose at present or by such extended powers of taxation as may be granted to -them, will undertake the full duty and responsibility of administering the affairs of the provinces and municipalities which, under the constitution of Canada, have been committed to their care.
I could say more. Perhaps it would be inadvisable for me to do so. I am committing no person but myself, as I have been expressing my own personal views. But to one who has lived with this question for some years,, as I have, and had to do in the first years of my public life with provincial affairs and their administration, I am thoroughly convinced that, with the best of motives, parliament years ago took the wrong direction, and that by following along that wrong direction we will simply bring ourselves into graver and more complex difficulties.
The time has come when we should stop, look and listen, and consider and decide as to the future program of Canada in dealing with the provinces and municipalities, a program which must be initiated by the government of the day, but a program which I trust will be so broad, comprehensive, definite and satisfactory as to secure the approval of all parties in parliament.


Mr. McIVOR:: Mr. Chairman, I am not
a constitutional lawyer or a high financier, but this resolution looks like action to me. When I read about the municipalities meeting in Ottawa, in Toronto and other places, and sending their requests to the dominion government for relief, I think that this resolution is the answer to them. How are we going to cure unemployment if we do not provide productive work? As has been shown by conventions in municipalities, these municipalities have been in difficult times. If this is the father of assemblies in Canada, then certainly we should take the lead.
When I rose to speak I had intended asking the minister a question. In the event of the passage of the legislation taking over full control of the Bank of Canada could we borrow the money from that bank? In other words, could we take it out of one pocket, put it into another, and gain two per cent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: You do not have to put it back; you just take it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: All hon. members appreciate the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). That was the kind of talk one would expect from the hon. member, and I believe his viewpoint is appreciated. However I am always tempted to remark that I never heard him speak in that particular tone between the years 1930 and 1935, despite the fact that during that period vast sums of money were spent, probably not on projects exactly the same as those contemplated in the resolution, but on measures of a somewhat similar nature designed for the relief of unemployment.
In a sense I have been gratified by the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), but my gratification was somewhat tempered when I heard him give the details of the proposed scheme. I am pleased indeed to learn the government contemplates spending $30,000,000. But if the scheme is hedged in the manner indicated by the minister I do not think the whole of the $30,000,000 will be spent by the government.


Charles Avery Dunning: By the requests which are in now, I do not think there is much doubt about it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not going by requests which may come in; I base my statement on the remarks of the minister. He said that the money will be handed out on a basis of population, and if that is so we shall be faced with a difficult situation. That would apply particularly in the large industrial centres of western Canada where there is a great deal of unemployment. Let us take as an example the city of Winnipeg. Its population of approximately 200,000 is about one-fiftieth that of the population of Canada, and according to the statement of the minister, Winnipeg will be entitled to receive one-fiftieth of the $30,000,000. If I am wrong I hope he will correct me.


Charles Avery Dunning: The figures used by the right hon. the leader of the opposition will turn out to be approximately correct. If you allow approximately $3 per head of population you will not be far out.


Abraham Albert Heaps: As Winnipeg has one-fiftieth of the population of Canada it would be entitled to one-fiftieth of the $30,000,000, or $600,000. That works out at $3 per head of population.


Charles Avery Dunning: I hope the hon. member did not understand me as putting forward this measure as a complete cure for all the unemployment that exists. This one measure deals
Municipal Improvements

with a particular class of productive enterprise which we believe will contribute towards that end. But there are like measures to come.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I quite realize what the
minister has said; I understand him thoroughly. But on that basis the money will not be spent in the places where it is most needed. For instance if there is a severe unemployment problem in Winnipg, Vancouver or Edmonton, a problem much greater than that in other large industrial centres, those cities cannot get more than the amount to which they are entitled, despite the fact that some other city does not need assistance. For instance if Toronto or any of the other large industrial centres does not make a request for funds, still the municipalities needing assistance will be able to receive only their proportionate amount, according to population. For the city of Winnipeg under present circumstances $600,000 is a very small amount indeed, even to begin to take care of the unemployment problem. That is why I have a certain feeling of disappointment in the minister's statement this afternoon. I had expected he would outline a more comprehensive scheme. I am pleased to see that moneys are to be used for self-liquidating projects, but outside of housing I doubt if there are any schemes which could be styled as self-liquidating.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is not intended to
touch housing at all.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is moneys distinct and
apart from housing?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, absolutely.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And do I understand another bill will come down to deal with the housing problem?


Charles Avery Dunning: Absolutely; the Minister of Labour has so stated.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then if that measure is not now before the committee, I do not wish bo deal with it. If it is intended in the present instance to deal with problems other than housing, of course a great deal of my criticism is not valid on this particular occasion, and I will admit it right away.


Mr. THORSON:: The question raised by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) is one which the people of Canada must face. The sooner they do so the better for their welfare. It follows I think automatically from one of the recent decisions of the judicial committee of the privy council that this dominion parliament has no right- to spend money in respect of

any object which comes within the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces. It would seem that this consequence follows directly from the decision of the judicial committee of the privy council in the unemployment insurance reference. If that is so, the right of this parliament to spend any money for any object that falls within the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces is challenged; that challenge places before the people of Canada the necessity of deciding what objects of legislation are to be deemed national in their scope and what objects are truly of a provincial nature.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Hear, hear.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: And the sooner we face that question the better for the people of Canada.
There are a great many problems that were originally provincial in their scope and were within provincial jurisdiction, and are still regarded as such by the courts, although the nature of the problem has changed. Many of these problems that were originally provincial in their nature have now become national in their scope and importance; that brings squarely before us the necessity of recasting our constitution so that this parliament may be vested with the necessary jurisdiction to deal adequately with national problems.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If that is established under the language of Lord Haldane, -we might have jurisdiction.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It would be difficult to follow all the by-ways and by-paths through which Lord Haldane frequently travelled in dealing with constitutional problems.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had reference to his observation that an undertaking local in its character in the first instance might, by reason of changed conditions, become national in its scope.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Quite; it was once thought that we had an elastic constitution that would be self-adjusting and bring that about, but the latest decisions of the judicial committee of the privy council have removed that hope from our minds, so that we must recast the constitution in order to give parliament the necessary power to deal adequately with national problems.
Therefore it would seem to me that we should consider subjects of this sort first from the viewpoint of whether they, are really national or provincial in their scope. If they are national, then we should face these national problems squarely and make the necessary adjustments in our constitution so that this parliament may have the necessary power.

Municipal Improvements
I hope that this task will soon be undertaken by the people of Canada. We are in the position in this parliament of being continually held in contempt by reason of the fact that we have not in many cases the necessary legislative power to deal with problems that are truly national. We should acquire that power, and should do so in the interests not only of the dominion as a whole but of the individual provinces as well; for they have many duties now cast upon them which they cannot adequately discharge. The matter of unemployment relief and a program of works that will create employment is in my opinion a national one. I think this parliament is wise in bringing forward legislation such as this, because this is dealing with a national problem; if the validity of our act in so doing is challenged, we shall come to a solution of the problem all the sooner. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George served a useful purpose in directing our attention to this question.
Mr. SLAC.HT: Will the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) be good enough to supplement his very clear explanation of the proposed bill by giving us a list of the projects which a municipality might be 'expected to go on with under the loans they would receive under this measure, so that we may get a better idea of the type of project he has in mind?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is very difficult to give an answer to that, because of the variations that exist between the municipal laws in. force in the various provinces. In some municipalities the provisions with respect to certain types of public works base capitalization and amortization on a service charge, whereas in another province the same utility is dealt with on the basis of general taxation; it is absorbed into the general scheme of things. In some provinces institutions such as the local government board in Saskatchewan-I forget what they call the similar body in Ontario and Manitoba-have a degree of authority over capital expenditures which enables them to determine whether the projects shall be a charge against the general municipal levy or be developed upon the basis of a service charge. It is quite impossible, therefore, to give a categorical answer. Really, "self-liquidating project" is the only definition I could find which would embrace all that I had in mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Three illustrations are given-waterworks, electric light systems, and gas plants.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. They are given because in practically all provinces they are
dealt with on a service charge basis. But there is another type of case. There are waterworks already in existence, with old wooden stave pipes laid many years ago, and which involve at the present time a very high maintenance cost because of frequent breaks. The question then is, can that municipality, as a result of two per cent money and a low amortization, finance a new water main at less than or at approximately what it is now expending in trying to maintain an out-ofdate, obsolete and very expensive utility? That is another illustration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Plus possibly an additional charge.


Charles Avery Dunning: Plus possibly an additional service charge. I see no way of defining it at this stage any more closely than by laying down the principle that the project undertaken under the act shall be self-liquidating. Obviously we do not want to broaden it to a point where it would encourage municipalities to go into unproductive enterprises.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Self-liquidating" governs that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and I am quite sure from the representations received thus far from municipalities all over the dominion that there is ample demand for help of this sort for enterprises which will be self-liquidating.


Mr. WALSH:: I have a very complete and sympathetic understanding of the attitude assumed by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), and the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson). I do not wish to be understood as in any way opposing this resolution or offering anything in the way of destructive criticism of what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) proposes to do. I recognize the necessity of public works, particularly of the character which the minister has suggested, even in the resolution, but there is a question in my mind whether the works to be undertaken would continue to be for any length of time in the self-liquidating category. I am always distrustful of legislation which encourages public expenditure when the body making that expenditure is probably not in a position to bear the cost. This seems to be a measure which could be interpreted as encouaraging public expenditure on the part of municipalities even if it is placed in the category of self-liquidating assets of those municipalities. In many cases municipalities will seek to take advantage of what is offered in order to improve certain local conditions
Municipal Improvements

and will undertake public works to alleviate distress in their midst, although they can probably ill afford at the time to do so. That means a further increase of capital expenditure and of debt, even if the project for the time being is of a self-liquidating nature.
In the past we have had experience of similar enterprises and have, perhaps, spoken of them in terms which were rather gratifying; 1hey probably served for the time being a useful purpose, but in the end proved to be a very decided hardship. I am thinking of such legislation that gave certain municipalities an opportunity of undertaking public enterprises on the basis of the government of Canada paying fifty per cent and the balance being found either by the municipality or jointly by the province and municipality. Those public works have now to be paid for; they are a debt upon the municipality concerned; the result is that it finds itself in the embarrassing position of having to bear the consequences of the debt, to pay the interest and to repay the principal over a period of years. I recall also grants which were made by this parliament in days gone by for technical education in the various provinces, to encourage the building of technical schools, to the cost of which the federal government made considerable contributions. Two or three years ago, however, the government of Canada decided to withdraw contributions to technical education. The result is that the municipality finds itself saddled with the expense of the proposition which it was encouraged to go into through the offer of the dominion government to find a certain amount of money in connection with the enterprise.
I am not condemning it. It is all to the good. But in the end these municipalities find themselves with the obligation not only of providing interest on the debt and taking care of the sinking fund, but of defraying the cost of improvements and repairs of the buildings and paying the wages necessary in connection with upkeep.
Reverting to the matter of technical education, if the government had continued those grants the municipalities would have had no cause of complaint; but the government withdrew the grants. The result is that the municipalities find themseles burdened with the total cost instead of only a part of the cost of those enterprises. The buildings had to be maintained, and the purposes for which they were built had to be continued, and should be continued.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will
pardon me, but surely he is not implying that particular weakness is inherent in this legislation?


William Allen Walsh: No. I quite agree with the minister. That is why I prefaced my remarks by suggesting that from the present aspect these projects appear to be self-liquidating, and there are satisfactory guarantees surrounding them. But so did the other enterprises, at the beginning, seem to be in the same category. For instance, I know of a certain city in Ontario that built three technical schools, on the promise of certain grants which were made through the provinces to the maintenance of this class of school. They took advantage of the situation, and it seemed to be very satisfactory, and was so as long as the assistance was continued, but it was discontinued, and the result is that the municipality is faced with the obligation of paying for the total upkeep. That is what I am afraid of in connection with this, even with all these guarantees.


Charles Avery Dunning: But how could it be? The instance my hon. friend quotes rested upon the assumption that the federal government would continue annual grants from year to year forever or for a considerable period of time. No obligation under this legislation can arise upon an assumption of that sort. The municipality gets the money out and out; it knows that is all it will get. It must invest the money in a self-liquidating project; it must itself collect from the project the wherewithal to repay the federal government. It is not assuming that the federal government is going to continue to grant it money from year to year.


William Allen Walsh: Yes, I quite appreciate that the cases are not altogether analogous, but what I am trying to emphasize is that while we are starting out on this basis, I am not just sure where it may end. I am afraid that as a self-liquidating proposition, while it may be satisfactory for some years, over a period of time it is likely to become a liability; that is, we may be tempted to forget the circumstances surrounding the inauguration of such a grant as this. We all recognize the tremendous burden of taxation that rests upon municipalities at the present time. Many of them find themselves in difficult positions which are not of their own making but which were, so to speak, created for them. They undertook enterprises by way of relief measures during the past few years which have entailed upon them a tremendous debt,

Municipal Improvements
interest and sinking fund, all of which have to be met. In some cities over thirty per cent of the revenue has to be appropriated to sinking fund and interest. The result is that taxation is high, exceptionally so in many of our larger cities. The reaction is that building projects are at a standstill; heavy and necessary repairs to buildings cannot be made; yet if there is one branch of trade in Canada which should be improved, it is the building trade, particularly in the larger cities. They cannot be made unless there is building, and building will not be undertaken under present conditions, where the municipalities find themselves overburdened with debt and forced to raise a very considerable amount of money for the purpose of liquidating that debt or meeting interest and sinking fund charges from year to year. The only way in which we can encourage building operations in the larger cities is to lower taxation. Any measure that will tend towards lower taxation in those cities will tend to increase the business of the building trades; and any improvement that takes place will result in a general improvement in trade throughout Canada.
I emphasize that point and also the handicap under which the municipalities are working at the present time. I have every sympathy with the project in mind. I believe that the minister has surrounded it sufficiently with safeguards if they are maintained. We know governments and we know politics and we are rather afraid of legislation of this sort, but I should not like to see any legislation introduced which would encourage any municipality to enter upon a public works enterprise that will further increase the burden within that municipality and further delay the day when building operations can be carried out so that we can benefit thereby.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: In Toronto we are faced with a very serious situation in connection with the extension of the sewage disposal works of that city. I do not know whether that can be called a self-liquidating scheme, but it is something which is very necessary, and it is also important that work be provided in Toronto in view of the unemployment situation. The present sewage disposal plant there is entirely inadequate. Sewage is going into the lake untreated-well, it is treated but we do not know how much of it gets the benefit of the treatment. It is a large project, and one that will take a good deal of money, but it is very necessary. The city of Toronto does not wish to embark upon any work which is not useful. There are a
good many projects which people are talking about, but we want something which will be useful, something which will not represent a waste of money. Work in connection with sewage disposal in Toronto would benefit that city, and, more than that, it would benefit all those who are on the great waterways from that point down to the sea. That is something else to be considered. As it is now, sewage going into the lake not only affects the health of the people but kills fish. Would it be possible in order to undertake a project of that kind to guarantee the bonds of the city of Toronto, or would it be possible to let them have so much money to start with so that they might get a part of the work done? Certainly it is a very useful work, but the city needs assistance. I should like to see something done about it.


Charles Avery Dunning: In this legislation there
is no provision authorizing the dominion to guarantee the bonds of any municipality. I was under the impression that the credit of the city of Toronto stood very high, and I have no doubt that the city would be able to finance any undertaking of a general sort. But while possibly an enterprise of the kind mentioned by my hon. friend might not be self-liquidating, I have no doubt at all that there are many projects in Toronto which would be self-liquidating, and which, if financed under this scheme, would relieve the general credit of the city to such an extent as to enable them to do what they might wish to do with respect to other schemes that are not self-liquidating.


Mr. HARRIS:: Would any scheme in con. nection with hospital extension be self-liquidating?


Charles Avery Dunning: It depends entirely on the provincial law. In some cases hospitals are self-liquidating, while in others they are not.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: With further reference to the sewage disposal question, I do not know of any work that could be undertaken in Toronto which would furnish so much individual labour, but I do not believe that the city of Toronto could borrow money at two per cent. With the assistance of the dominion government, however, they could, and if they did have something done along that line, it would not cost the dominion anything at all.


Mr. ROGERS:: I wish only to emphasize one aspect of the resolution before the committee. Actually, although it does not so state, the proposed measure is presented as
Municipal Improvements

a very definite part of the program submitted by the government to deal with the unemployment situation, and we have to consider the legislation in that context. For some years past it has been accepted as an obligation of the dominion government that we should assist the provinces in dealing with unemployment. We have accepted that obligation and have discharged it in a number of different ways. We have assisted the provinces through contributions for what has been termed direct relief. For a number of years we have also assisted the provinces in what has been known as a joint works program. Under some of these programs we have actually made contributions to municipal projects. I might mention in that connection the Winnipeg sewage disposal plant which is now being completed. That work was commenced in 1935 under the preceding administration and the obligation was assumed by the present government when it came into office. That was a definite contribution by the dominion to a municipal project. It has seemed wise, however, and in this I am entirely in accord with what has been said by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), and the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) that we as a dominion government should confine so far as possible our own expenditures to projects that are definitely within federal jurisdiction.
As we look back over our past experience we must admit that much confusion has resulted from the policy of conditional subsidies and grants in aid for specific purposes, which has been followed in the post-war period. But in this legislation the dominion government is not making a definite contribution to municipal projects as such. We are rather giving the support of the credit of the national government to the municipalities in order that they may relieve unemployment and provide themselves as they see their need with these self-liquidating projects. That is the essential purpose of the legislation which will be founded upon this resolution. It is designed, with the housing legislation to be later presented, to assist in the revival of the construction industry in Canada. On the basis of authoritative information that comes to us from those engaged in the industry and also from the bureau of statistics, it can be said that there is no branch of employment in Canada that is more capable of rapid revival under proper stimulus than the construction industry. If we can through housing legislation and assistance of this land bring about a very considerable improvement in the construction industry, that will be of very great assistance I Mr. Rogers.]
in enabling municipalities across the country to reduce relief rolls and provide work as a substitute for the idleness in which, perhaps of necessity, so many of our people have been involved under the administration of direct relief. So that in the consideration which we give to this resolution it is important to keep before us at all times that the purpose of the legislation is to relieve the unemployment situation which now confronts the country.


Mr. LEADER:: I rise to support this resolution. I believe it should result in some very useful work and provide employment for great numbers of our workers. But the thought that strikes me now, as it has on former occasions, is that we are able to borrow money at such a low rate of interest compared with the rates now being paid for municipal undertakings and other works in this country. I believe I am justified in mentioning that fact again this afternoon, and pointing out to the minister and the government that they should undertake by some means to scale down interest rates now being paid. Let them attack the problem as they did in England and in Australia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Building loans are paying five per cent in England.


Harry Leader: This resolution proposes to lend money to the municipalities at two per cent. In comparison I want to take as an example my own municipality, the rural municipality of Portage la Prairie. We are paying six per cent on debentures, and have been for nearly twenty years. Furthermore the municipality has the money in the bank to discharge those obligations. I asked them last fall why they did not pay them off, and they said they had not the power. On account of the term of the agreement-which I do not wish to repudiate-they could not pay them off. It seems to me they should have power to pay off those debentures and save that six per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will permit me, that is a matter for the legislature of Manitoba. He cannot lay that condition at the door of this parliament. The provincial legislatures legislate for the municipalities; we cannot control that in this house.


Harry Leader: Well, I must repeat what I heard the premier of Manitoba say not two months ago, that if the dominion government does not scale down the interest rates of this country the province of Manitoba will undertake to do something in self-defence.

Municipal Improvements


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not the question with which my hon. friend was dealing and which caused me to interrupt him. The question my hon. friend raised was as to the terms of debentures issued by his municipality. The terms of those debentures are subject to the approval of the legislature and government of Manitoba; they are not within the control of this parliament. I was not dealing with the general question of interest rates, but with the specific statement my hon. friend just made.


Harry Leader: Yes, the finance minister is entirely right in that regard, but I was going on to say that our municipality has the money in the bank and could pay them off; in such circumstances I do no't consider it is much of a hardship to continue paying six per cent interest. I just gave that as an example. But there are millions of dollars of municipal obligations in this dominion in respect of which the municipalities cannot even pay the interest, yet the federal government refuses to give them the power to scale down their high interest rates.
I was going on to say that in Portage la Prairie last year the rink was burned down. I suppose a building such as that would come under this classification, because it is revenue-producing and would be self-liquidating. A vote was taken in the city and a by-law passed guaranteeing bonds, amounting to about 825,000, to build a rink. The city borrowed the money from a private individual and they are paying six per cent on it and were glad to get it. But it is too much in view of the fact that we can borrow money now at two per cent.
Let me give another example. The city made an extension of the waterworks system, expending 870,000 to $80,000 last year. I presume they borrowed that money, and I presume also that they are paying six per cent for it. The point I make is that there must be something this government can do to scale down these interest rates from six per cent-or perhaps more-which we are now paying, to two per cent. If that were done, out of the interest the municipalities would save they could themselves undertake many of these projects, and it would not be so necessary for the government to guarantee the bonds of the municipality as provided in this resolution.
I am not condemning the resolution; nevertheless it is an encouragement to municipalities to go further into debt. Under prevailing conditions I believe the resolution is in the interests of Canada, and I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance and
the Minister of Labour upon suggesting this plan. But I say again that I believe this government should undertake-and it has been too long delayed-to scale down the interest payable on the public debt, including municipal, provincial and dominion.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Would the expression "other self-liquidating municipal project" include a municipal market building and accommodations in which the city charges the farmers fees for their stands?


Charles Avery Dunning: That would depend on
whether the facility contemplated was being provided on a definitely self-liquidating basis -that is to say, whether on examination the scale of fees provided, a reasonably conservative estimate of the extent of the patronage, and the experience of the past, demonstrated to the satisfaction of the province and of the dominion that the project would be self-liquidating.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And whether they were
Liberals.


Charles Avery Dunning: But if it is a proposal
merely to erect a market building without any conditions at all with respect to the project paying for itself, the answer would be no. It would depend entirely on the set-up. It would not have anything to do with the political complexion of the municipal council, as suggested by the leader of the opposition.


Vincent Dupuis: I want to corroborate what the minister has said and relieve the mind of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett). The project I have in mind is a proposal to provide accommodation for a large group of vegetable producers around the city of Montreal, who for many years have been asking for it. At present they are confined in a very small space around Bonseeours market, so much so that they cannot approach the market with facility; if they do they are pushed back by the police, or fined. The consequence is that there has been established in Montreal a kind of trust which controls the whole vegetable market, to the detriment of producers and consumers. Some years ago I was asked by all the vegetable producers around Montreal to represent them before the legislature. The right hon. gentleman will see that I was not playing politics in that case at all; for the Liberal party was then in power in Quebec, and I fought that case on behalf of the vegetable producers. We could not obtain accommodation, owing to the objections of the municipal administration of Montreal at that time, unless the whole project were submitted to a referendum. It would appear
Municipal Improvements

as if this legislation would afford an opportunity to the farmers of that district and to the city of Montreal to avail themselves of this legislation and provide accommodation to the farmers and also the consumers of the city.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Before the
resolution is put to the vote I desire to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and the government upon having introduced this resolution. It marks a new era in our national economy, if I judge it rightly, and expresses a high point in our general attitude towards municipal, provincial and national development. Hitherto small municipalities had to go into the open market and pay high interest on the moneys they desired. We are now about to establish an entirely different condition, and I think in the very near future, if I am permitted the opportunity, I can show how we may scale down our national debt. We are not talking about that to-day, but I must express myself as pleased with this general resolution.
I have a feeling that political and economic sense should be taught in our schools as part of the curriculum. Too often municipalities do not hesitate to get all the money they need when markets are right, without considering the self-liquidating nature of the undertakings on which they are about to embark. I have in mind, however, in another connection the extraordinary advantage that this will be to a prominent community in British Columbia where last year the water was analysed and on six occasions discovered to be contaminated. The provincial government could do nothing; by itself the municipality could not raise the money without paying a high rate of interest. Here is an opportunity afforded that municipality to obtain money at a very reasonable rate of interest and so safeguard the health of its people and assist them to avoid disease. I am heartily in agreement with this project, and I hope others of a like nature are coming forward. According to the 1931 census, the population of Canada was approximately
11,300,000,	and if a per capita expenditure of only one cent per day was made in addition to what is now being expended we could increase the total industrial expenditure each year by $41,000,000. Those are staggering figures, when we consider that many of our people are living on the thin edge of the existence line. We must not only develop work at which these people can get higher wages; we must also discover some method by which each individual may get what he

desires in such a way that he can pay for it without being compelled to go to charity and be placed on relief.
To my mind this is an excellent step that is being taken by the government, and I congratulate them upon it.


Mr. BARBER:: I am in accord with this resolution, Mr. Chairman, but there is one question that occurs to me. A very large portion of British Columbia is not municipally organized. We have settlements springing up in unorganized districts which come directly under the government. I know of one or two points in particular where settlements have been considering the installation of water and light systems, and the nature of the industries surrounding them would indicate that there would be a good revenue from such systems. I was wondering if those settlements could be dealt with through the government, when they are not municipally organized.


Charles Avery Dunning: Provision will be made in the bill in respect of areas which, having no municipal organization, are dealt with directly by provincial governments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have just one word to add. The hon. members for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) raised a legal issue that may become of very great importance, but I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) was very wise in directing attention to the fact that the underlying policy in connection with this matter had to do with unemployment. Nothing will be easier than for this measure to be misunderstood. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Taylor) has just spoken of it as though it were something it is not at all. The hon. member dealt with something that this bill is not. This bill does not provide for municipal financing. This measure intends to do one thing, and one thing only. Where it will provide employment-the minister was very clear about that; that is the first-and second, where works are necessary works, then this measure becomes available.


James Samuel Taylor: That is it precisely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has nothing to do in any shape or form with municipal financing as such. It has to do with a broad general policy of national application in regard to unemployment; it must, or else it falls by the wayside. The minister says this is part of a program that will deal with that national issue. If that be so, then one approaches it very simply, and the difficulties to which

Municipal Improvements
reference was made-and the hon. member for Selkirk was fair about it-may vanish if you can assert beyond peradventure that this is a national measure; that is, that it deals with a measure of national importance within the language of the courts. Otherwise it may be that somebody will apply for an injunction when an application is made under the statute.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is why I made that my first word. Primarily it is to provide employment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite; I followed that
at once. The remarks of the Minister of Finance were supplemented by those of the Minister of Labour, to make it clear that the underlying purpose of the measure is to deal with the problem of unemployment within municipal areas. I asked the minister who was to determine that question and he said that obviously many authorities would be responsible for representations that would contribute to the ultimate determination of the question.
There is nothing new about one side of this resolution. During the days of the development of the automobile a grant of many millions of dollars was made by this parliament to assist in the construction of highways. As a result of inquiries that were made it became apparent that the money would have to be expended by the provinces and municipalities and that the dominion might exercise supervisory powers as to the character of the works to be constructed and the approving of the general plans. That was a recognition of the supremacy of the province with respect to property and civil rights within its boundaries and with respect to the municipalities, as creatures created by the legislature of the province. That ended any further effort on the part of the dominion to deal with the highway question as such, outside of questions that might arise in connection with an interprovincial or trans-Canada highway, over which this parliament might have jurisdiction.
The fact that we deal with the assessment of money on the basis of population makes it a matter of extreme difficulty, yet there is no other method by which it could be dealt with that would give any measure of satisfaction to every part of the dominion. Apparently a city of eighty thousand people would have a maximum available under this act of roughly a quarter of a million dollars. That would be a rather inadequate sum with which to approach some of the problems of which I have knowledge in some of these
communities. The point raised by one of the hon. members for Toronto, as to our being able to apply the principle of the proposed act to a portion of an undertaking, arises at once.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is provided.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it will be. It is open to that construction, and I apprehend that is what is intended.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is developed in the bill itself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the bill will naturally develop it. We will take for instance a city like greater Vancouver with a population of
250,000.	There you would have a maximum of $750,000. The sum of $750,000 in that city would probably go a very considerable distance, if used for self-liquidating projects, for the extension of waterworks, sewers and so on. They purchased their electric light and, I think, own their poles; they do not own their street railway system, I believe. But going to the prairie provinces we might take a town in which the maximum as provided by the resolution would be $200,000. That of course would be very helpful; but in connection with an almost worn out waterworks system it might be extremely difficult to carry on. I had in mind the sewage disposal plant in Winnipeg which we had to deal with. There is a case in which the application of the principle behind this measure would be wholly inadequate.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And as a matter of fact in my judgment at that time it was a case either of an epidemic or of going ahead with the sewage disposal plant, one or the other. We were forced by the circumstances to assist in the construction of that plant, which was a difficult and costly undertaking. The sum I have mentioned would not be any good at all.
The application of the general principle of a consideration of population in determining the amount to be distributed will create a situation which I fancy in many cases will be impossible of application, although it would be highly desirable.
There is, however, a method of disposing of this matter which will remove any possibility of the charge of its being illegal, which is the method which was adopted not by the former government, but by former governments, of placing the money under adequate supervision through provincial authorities.
Municipal Improvements

The reason that at the present time money is lent to the municipalities by the provinces and not by the dominion was so adequately dealt with by the Minister of Finance that I do not propose to repeat it. They are the creatures of the legislatures. We deal only with the entity called the province, and not with the entities created by the legislatures. We are now proposing to depart from that and deal with the entities created by the legislatures themselves. In so doing we did come in conflict with-it may be an obiter dictum of the privy council; but at least we ran against that in the last cases. We overcome that if all the preliminary steps are taken that the minister has suggested, and the ultimate distribution is a matter between the provinces and the dominion. For it will be remembered that the province is being asked to give its guarantee, and frankly I fancy some of the provinces will hesitate greatly to do it. Because the amount which would be available would be insignificant having regard to the requirements of what might be called medium-sized communities in some of the provinces. They might well hesitate to give their guarantee; I fancy some will hesitate to do so. I believe I should point out to the minister that it will require legislation to enable them to do so.


Charles Avery Dunning: In some cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In all cases, either legislation that is already existent or that will have to be enacted. And as this act is supposed to be of service in the immediate future it is quite clear that where the legislatures have risen for this year they cannot come within the provisions of the act.


Charles Avery Dunning: But there is an alternative.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The alternative is to
waive it, of course. The alternative is to take the promise of the government that it will do it, and then take a chance on it.
But I say as the resolution reads it is quite obvious that if the legislature of a province has met and risen for the year it cannot deal with the guarantee, which in most instances, is a statutory requirement. Although I am not quite sure, I will admit that there are about three provinces which have general statutes enabling them to give guarantees under certain very restrictive conditions. Whether this comes within any of them or not, I am not in a position to say. But I think it is well to mention to the minister that that guarantee must be provided for. How are we going to deal with Ontario, for instance? My memory is that there is no

general power of guarantee on the part of the government of Ontario for matters of this kind. Any guarantee given by the government without statutory authorization is invalid. There being therefore no authorization, this act cannot become effective in Ontario until the legislature meets, unless- and that is the reason I make the suggestion-we deal with it by some other method. The same applies equally to British Columbia. The legislature of that province has risen for the year.


Vincent Dupuis: Quebec is the same.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the same applies
to Quebec as the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville has indicated. Under these circumstances I think we should carefully consider whether or not we may not be enacting legislation which looks upon the face of it to be excellent, but which has imposed upon it the condition of a guarantee by a province and a municipality, and which may become abortive, and which would be absolutely useless from the standpoint of practical application until the legislatures met.
And what is more, I think I should say to the minister that in some of the provinces I know the municipalities have no power of guaranteeing unless they get the exact, specific legislation.


Charles Avery Dunning: No power to borrow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No power to guarantee.


Charles Avery Dunning: They do not guarantee
nothing; the municipality does not guarantee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought it was proposed that a municipality should give its guarantee for the payment of debentures, where they were issued on self-liquidating schemes by boards owned by the municipality, which, however, would guarantee the payment of debentures issued by the board.


Charles Avery Dunning: That of course would
come in in that sense.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; because the minister gave an illustration, and I thought I followed him accurately.


Charles Avery Dunning: But that is a rare case.
In most cases they are owned directly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but in one or two
instances of which the Minister of Finance has knowledge, they did set up by statute an independent body for the purpose of operating their utility; and as I followed his illustration it would be possible for this legislation to be made available to them, provided the city gave its guarantee as being the

Municipal Improvements
real owner of the utility, although the debentures would be the debentures not of the municipality but of the utility.


Charles Avery Dunning: The municipality would never have to obtain authorization from the province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is the point I make. Those are the two points I think we shall have to consider carefully when we come to the bill itself. For frankly I do not see how we are going to make this effective without the legislatures of the provinces taking steps to give their guarantees, or to authorize such guarantees to be given. I am not interposing this in any way as an obstruction, but rather as a suggestion which I think will have to be met before we can this year make it effective. The Minister of Labour has indicated how desirable it is that we should do so. That difficulty could be overcome in part by making the distribution a matter as between the provinces and the municipalities, provided the provinces would have the power they have heretofore enjoyed in that regard.
But a look at the orders in council downstairs does not induce one to believe that self-liquidation has been the sole determining factor in the granting of the aid to which reference has been made. Under the circumstances I think we will have to give the utmost consideration to the details of the measure. The minister has said that the resolution is as detailed as he thought he could make it. There are some details he has supplied in his very admirable explanation, but I am afraid that unless we go beyond the terms of the resolution, or if we follow strictly the terms of the resolution, we will find we have placed upon the statute book an act that provides for something being done next year, after the legislatures of the provinces have met and authorized their several governments to give the guarantees which, under the resolution, constitute an essential feature of the proposal.


Vincent Dupuis: Would the right hon. member permit a remark?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Vincent Dupuis: It occurs to me that in many legislatures statutes were passed concerning unemployment and relief acts. I am sure that in Quebec similar legislation was passed, stipulating that it was for unemployment or relief, and the municipality was not bound to obtain authorization from the province. Otherwise it would be necessary to have either a referendum or the authorization of the provincial government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What the hon. member has said is correct so far as the municipalities are concerned. But the point I was endeavouring to make was that unless and until the legislatures of the several provinces have authorized their governments to give guarantees for the repayment of the sums advanced by the dominion under this legislation, it cannot become workable under the terms of the resolution now before us. I think there is no doubt as to that, and as many of the legislatures have risen for the year 1938 it will be essential for us to consider, when the bill based on this resolution is before us, whether we are in a position to insist upon that guarantee being given. It would involve the minister ascertaining from the several provinces whether or not they have the authority to give the guarantees without further legislation.


Vincent Dupuis: The same difficulty will occur even if the distribution is made to the provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, because some of them have power to give promises to pay, which would be the same thing with respect to unemployment relief as a guarantee.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps I should at this stage indicate what is in the mind of the government regarding the point raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). Xn fact, I think I should apologize for not having anticipated it, but I overlooked it completely in making my statement.
The laws of the provinces relating to municipal expenditures vary very widely; the powers vested by the legislatures in the various lieutenant governors in council vary very widely as also do the powers extended to municipalities to do certain things involving capital expenditure. It is quite impossible to frame a measure which would meet all the varying conditions, and I was compelled therefore to visualize the possibility that this scheme might have a sufficient appeal to the various provincial authorities to warrant them even in calling the legislature together for a couple of days to make possible what might be required in their particular case, for the municipalities on the one hand and for themselves on the other, to enable them to come within the ambit of the legislation.
I will be perfectly frank, Mr. Chairman, and say that I do not think the dominion can extend this credit on any less secured terms than those involved in the bill. As the one charged with the guardianship of the treasury, I should say that I believe the security asked for by this legislation is reasonable and no more than adequate so far as

Municipal Improvements

the dominion is concerned, especially when we have in mind the fact that each legislature controls absolutely the municipalities within its borders. The municipalities are wholly the creatures at all times of the provincial legislatures. If we proceed to lend direct to the municipalities-and there is some question whether we could, as indicated by the leader of the opposition,-it would be open to any provincial legislature so to change the conditions under which its municipalities operate as to make it quite impossible for us to get the money back. We might as well face that. That being the case, seeing that we are rendering this assistance to institutions which are wholly the creatures of provincial legislatures, I think that when we are lending the money so cheaply, when we are taking the degree of loss on the loan which I indicated in my earlier remarks on the subject, the minimum security we should ask is that the province should guarantee that the municipality will keep the obligation it has incurred for a project; and remember, that the project must itself have the approval of the provincial government before it can become eligible for a loan under this statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And be self-liquidating.


Charles Avery Dunning: And be self-liquidating. I would not regard it as a hardship, and I am sure the provinces would not, for the legislatures, if necessary, to meet for the very short time required to enable such amendments to be made to their municipal laws as would enable them to take advantage of this legislation. Before this session is over there may be, there will be, other measures which may involve a similar principle. If we are to extend the credit of this dominion to our various self-governing bodies of one kind or another it seems to me that we must take the constitutional aspect sufficiently into account and that we must receive such security as the people of Canada have the right to expect us to take, especially when the expenditure involves a definite annual contribution by the people of the whole of Canada to the people of a particular part of Canada who are organized into a municipality.


James Samuel Taylor: In view of the earlier remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the remarks now made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), I should like to know specifically, Mr. Chairman, whether in your judgment I am misinterpreting this resolution. I had no idea that I had done so. I instanced a certain municipality in British Columbia which had a

faulty waterworks and desired to improve it; desired to take out the old wooden pipes and replace them with concrete pipes. That is all work which would involve labour, and it would, as I see it, come within the purview and under the provisions of this legislation. Am I correct in so interpreting it?


Charles Avery Dunning: You have omitted one essential qualification. The work must be self-liquidating.


James Samuel Taylor: Oh, yes. That was in my mind, although I did not state it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And one other qualification.


Charles Avery Dunning: The approval of the provincial government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One other.


Mr. EULER:: It has to provide employment.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the essential basis, yes. Might I ask my hon. friend if there is any unemployment in the municipality concerned?


James Samuel Taylor: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: A great deal? That would be an essential primary condition.


Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: Just to make the resolution unanimous, Mr. Chairman, I wish to endorse it for our group here. I can see that a great deal of credit will be derived from this resolution. I have in mind a problem in Edmonton which for a number of years has been debated, and which has been a financial issue; that is, the addition of another unit to the electric light plant of the city. I assume that would come under this resolution?


Charles Avery Dunning: Provided it comes within the scope of the conditions I have named, yes.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Will the minister tell us whether or not the federal government will accept the guarantee of the province of Alberta?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry that question was asked.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 143, to assist municipalities in making self-liquidating improvements.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Radio Broadcasting



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 52, respecting radio in Canada-Mr. Howe-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: Section 9.


Mr. LAWSON:: As some of the prior sections to section 9 were allowed to stand, because the minister was going to consider having certain amendments moved to those prior sections, may I suggest to him that it might facilitate our dealing with the subsequent clauses if he would go back to those which stood and deal first with the proposed amendments to them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
Frederick George Sanderson: Section 4, subsection
1,	paragraph (e).
Radio Broadcasting

Mr, LAWSON: Does the minister not mean that paragraph (c) remains in the bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what he says.


James Earl Lawson: He said "to stand," and confused the chairman and the committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Stands as part of the bill.


Frederick George Sanderson: When the committee were on this bill on May 11, an amendment was moved by Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) to section 4, subsection 1, paragraph (e) which was allowed to stand. The amendment is to amend section 4, subsection 1(e) by striking out the words "sold or serviced" in line 3 and substituting therefor the words "sold, repaired or maintained."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That passed, I think, did it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I think that amendment passed.


Frederick George Sanderson: The records are that it did not pass.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That should pass first.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the amendment to section 4, subsection 1(e) carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection 1 (e) as amended agreed to.
Section 4 as amended agreed to.
James Earl Lawson: If the minister will permit me, before he goes to section 5; I marked on my copy of the bill that paragraph (e) of section 3 stood, but it may be that there was an amendment. In other words, the idea was that it was to stand in order that the penalty might be prescribed by the law itself and not be left to be determined by order in council.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My recollection is that the amendment was at the time approved and the clause passed as amended.


James Earl Lawson: On section 3 paragraph (e) was there an amendment?


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes; that amendment was carried.


James Earl Lawson: Then section 5 is the next one.
On section 5-Station licences.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Section 5 is related to section 10 which is the penalty section for section 5, and we have suggested an amendment which was printed in the votes and proceedings. The amendment reads:
That Bill No. 52, clause 10 (1) be amended by inserting after the word "shall" in line 43 the following:
"Unless he satisfies the court or magistrate that the radio station or private receiving
FMr. Chairman.]
station or radio apparatus was not at the time of the alleged commission of the offence intended for or capable of being used for transmission or reception of radio."
And by striking out the words "not less than $5 nor exceeding $50" in lines 43 and 44 and substituting therefor the following "not exceeding $50" so that the said clause 10 (1) will read as follows:
"Any person who establishes a radio station or private receiving station or instals, operates or has in his possession any radio apparatus, in violation of the provisions of this act or any regulations made hereunder, shall unless he satisfies the court or magistrate that the radio station or private receiving station or radio apparatus was not at the time of the alleged commission of the offence intended for or capable of being used for the transmission or reception of radio, be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding $50 and on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding $500 and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, and in either case the aforesaid radio apparatus may be forfeited to his majesty by an order of the minister."
The larger fine mentioned is, of course, for private sending stations, the installation of which is a very serious offence and has always been so regarded. Private sending stations are installed from time to time, unauthorized broadcasts being sent therefrom. Heavy penalties up to $500 have been imposed, depending upon whether or not criminal intent can be proved in connection with the establishment of these sending stations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is the usual course that the forfeiture, or confiscation as it is sometimes called, of the apparatus should be by direction of the court or magistrate as the case may be and not of the minister.


Frederick George Sanderson: In order to clarify the record, I would point out that section 5 has not been carried.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We were discussing some changes in the act relating to section 5, and perhaps we were rather out of order. I suggest that it might be well for us to pass on to clauses 9 and 10 and then return to clause 5.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall section 5 carry?
Mr. LAW'SON: No amendment is proposed for section 5?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Frederick George Sanderson: Sections 7 and 8 are
carried; section 9 is not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has section 6 carried?


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes.

Radio Broadcasting
On section 9-Search warrant.


James Earl Lawson: I have no desire to repeat what I said when this clause was under consideration on a previous occasion. I rather thought the minister would give some consideration to the wide powers contained in this section with respect to the persons to whom search warrants may be issued. I do not know whether it is proposed to make any change in the section. If not, I shall not debate the matter again.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The section has been very carefully examined by the law officers, and it is felt that the powers are necessary. I brought down a return showing the number of searches made since 1932, the period during which this provision has been in effect. In 1937 there were fifteen unlicensed transmitting stations-and operating such stations is regarded as a very serious offence-and there were seven searches for private receiving stations. The latter take place only when there is absolute defiance of the law. The return indicates, therefore, that the power is not abused. I may say that my officers are of the opinion that it is absolutely necessary to have this provision in the act if the act is to be workable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The power should be
there; the question is, to whom should the authority be given?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Penalty for establishing stations without authority.
Clarence Decatur Howe: I would ask my colleague
the Minister of National Defence to move the amendment I have read. It is proposed in order to meet an objection from hon. gentlemen opposite, that the officers of the department shall not have discretion in deciding whether a prosecution will take place, the contention being that the judge should be the person to determine whether the apparatus was in use or capable of being used.


James Earl Lawson: This section stood when it was before the committee on a former occasion, as I understood it, by reason of two objections which I raised to the section and pointed out to the minister at that time. In the statement now made by the minister I am afraid he is confusing the two. The objections I made were these: Under this new legislation the mere possession of a radio receiving set constitutes an offence, irrespective of whether that radio receiving set was capable of being operated. I pointed out that when you consider the clause on the next
page, I think subsection 2, which puts the onus on the accused, once it was proven that a man was in possession he was automatically guilty of an offence and the magistrate could not relieve him. To meet that situation this amendment has been proposed, and I think it meets that situation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have two more amendments to this clause, which I think will meet the views of my hon. friend.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I move the amendment read by the Minister of Transport.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Earl Lawson: I should like the clause as amended not to be declared carried until I hear what the other amendments are.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would ask my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) to move the following amendment to section 10, subsection (2):
Amend clause 10 (2) of Bill 52 by striking out the words "the onus shall be upon the accused to prove that he had a licence at the time of the alleged commission of such an offence, and" in lines 2, 3 and 4 on page 5.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Earl Lawson: The amendment in fact does nothing except to remove redundant words from the section as it previously stood.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have other amendments. I will ask the Minister of National Defence to move to:
Amend Bill No. 52, clause 10, by striking out subsections (3) and (4) and inserting the following as clause 11:
(1)	No proceedings shall be taken against any person under this act except by order of the minister.
(2)	In every case of a summary conviction under this act the magistrate or justice of the peace shall, in addition to any other penalty imposed, award and order that the defendant shall pay to the prosecutor or complainant such proper costs as may be allowed under the provisions of part XV of the criminal code.
Renumber clauses 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 as numbers 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 respectively.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I so move.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister think it is really desirable to say that no proceedings of any kind under this act shall be taken except with the consent of the minister? It deprives the act of its public character and places in the hands of a political official the-administration of justice. That is really what
Radio Broadcasting

it means. It is legislation of a kind that is usually very much frowned upon, for reasons which I think are apparent. If that limitation were confined to certain sections, all right. But to say that all proceedings under the act shall be subject to the approval of the minister is going further than I can recall having been done in any similar situation; because it at once limits the administration of justice, prevents a person who has knowledge from laying a complaint before a justice of the peace, and makes the minister, who is a political officer, the preliminary judge in every case that is adjudicated upon by a magistrate. That is a wrong principle, and I think in practice it was abandoned a long time ago. Under the Lord's Day Act we have special provisions as to proceedings being taken only on the fiat of the attorney general, and it was held in an important case that that fiat had to be signed by the attorney general in person; that his deputy could not do it. The result is that, in a case of the slightest possible violation of the provisions of this very important statute, in a remote section of this country, the minister would have to give his consent, I take it in writing, before proceedings could be taken. I urge upon the minister reconsideration of the application of that very broad principle to this statute; for surely this statute, like all other public statutes, should be capable of enforcement, where there has been open breach, by any citizen laying a complaint before a justice, and proceedings being taken. There are other sections which I admit at once should not be enforced by the average citizen making a complaint, but should be subject entirely to the control of the minister. That would prevent many abuses which might otherwise arise. But I certainly think it is going a very long way to say that any proceedings under a public statute can be taken only with the consent of the minister.


Mr. FACTOR:: Is there not a similar provision in the Weights and Measures Act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think so. Under certain sections, yes; but this covers the whole act.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: It seems to me this section will conflict to some extent with section 9, under which information may be given to a justice of the peace to issue a search warrant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has to have consent.


Charles Edward Bothwell: If no proceedings can be taken without the approval of the minister,

then the minister would have to grant leave before even permission for a search warrant could be granted.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This has always been in the act. I think the original purpose was to temper justice with mercy. I know that since I have been minister I have had reports submitted on the circumstances of the people against whom actions were to be taken, and I have not authorized a search unless the people were able to pay. I think that is the purpose of this provision. Personally I should be very glad to be relieved of the responsibility. I have signed hundreds of these prosecutions since I have been in office and have received a good many complaints from people whose respect I value for having done so. I think every minister since this act has been in force has signed an authorization for every prosecution that has taken place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That may be, but the statute did not require the consent of the minister to all procedings. It simply required his consent to proceedings under certain sections. Now the consent of the minister must be obtained for the very simplest prosecution; a search warrant could not be issued in a remote section without the consent of the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In that event I suggest that the situation could be met by withdrawing the last amendment, which was made at the suggestion of the Department of Justice. In view of the discussion I think probably the proposed last amendment is a mistake. I think it was only intended that the prosecutions under section 10 should require direction from the minister. With the consent of the committee I will withdraw the last amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall section 10 as amended carry?


James Earl Lawson: No, Mr. Chairman; I want to go back to subsection 1 and remind the minister of the second point I raised when the section was reserved. That is, you have two procedures in the same section. A man may be prosecuted by summary procedure, in which event there is a penalty which would seem to be commensurate with the offence of failing to obtain a licence for a private receiving set; or he may be prosecuted by indictment, in which event the penalties are very heavy. The minister to-day admitted that the indictable offence is put there for the purpose of dealing with those who may

Radio Broadcasting
establish unauthorized private broadcasting stations, and I quite agree that there should be a more severe penalty for that offence. But as I pointed out when the section was under consideration previously, who is going to say whether some person who fails to take out a licence for a private radio receiving set is going to be prosecuted by summary procedure, or is going to be haled before a superior court and charged with an indictable offence?


Samuel Factor: The minister has to consent to a prosecution.


James Earl Lawson: The minister's reply was
that the departmental officials would make the determination. The minister will remember I pointed out that I did not think it was proper that a civil servant should have the right to determine whether I, as a citizen, should be prosecuted for a minor or a more serious offence arising out of the same set of facts and the same circumstances. Now the hon. member for Spadina says the minister may determine. I assume that is by reason of subsection 3, if subsection 3 is to stand.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


James Earl Lawson: Does not the minister
himself think, even if subsection 3 is to stand, in view of the statement he made to-day, that this clause should be clarified and that specific provision should be made whereby anyone who operates or has in his possession a private radio receiving set without a licence may, on summary conviction, be fined a minimum or a maximum amount? Then go on and say anyone guilty of establishing or having in his possession a private sending station shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to certain penalties, if that is the thought in the mind of the minister, urged upon him by the department. I do think it is a mistake to pass legislation giving discretionary power to Someone who is not a judicial or quasi-judicial official, to say that I may be prosecuted for an offence which may result in a minor or a major penalty. If there is to be a discretion of that kind, I think it should be exercised by a crown official such as the crown attorney.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My officers point out that
there may be a criminal offence in connection with a receiving station. That is, it is quite conceivable that a man could use a receiving station to tap an important source of information, such as a Marconi wireless beam, a transoceanic service, and to dispose of the messages in a criminal way. Then, of course,
there are two grades of offences even in connection with sending messages. We have several cases of this kind:	A boy will build
an amateur sending station in his basement. Of course he is simply taken before the judge and ordinarily fined from $2 to 85, whereas a big company might set up an illegal sending station and really do a great deal of damage with it. My officers believe that the section as it stands, administered with discretion, is the most effective way to handle the situation.


James Earl Lawson: In view of the minister's
information that a private receiving station could tap a radio beam and obtain secret information, of course my objection falls.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 11-His majesty may take possession of station.


James Earl Lawson: Does section 11 now consist of what was formerly subsection 4 of section 10?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; section 11 is just as it
appears. We withdrew the amendment changing the numbers of the sections.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
On section 13-Action for offence to be taken within two years.
Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to this section, Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest to the minister that the period should be one year instead of two years. I think two. years is rather a long time within which to maintain the right to take proceedings under a statute of this kind; I believe that will be agreed. I have noticed that in many of our quasi-criminal statutes this period of time has operated very greatly to the detriment of those who at one time had a good defence, which the lapse of time made it impossible for them to assert. I should think twelve months would be ample in a statute of this kind, and I suggest to the minister that this might be changed accordingly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am very glad to accept the suggestion of my right hon. friend, and I will ask my colleague to move that in line 4 of section 13 the words " two years " be changed to " one year."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Radio Broadcasting
[Stage Direction]
On section 14-Regulations to be published in Gazette.
Richard Bedford Bennett: As the section stands, it will be noted that the regulations shall, as from the date of publication or any later date mentioned therein, take effect as if they were enacted by parliament. That part of the section is quite understandable. But in view of the fact that it takes four or five days for a Gazette to 'be transmitted from one part of Canada to another, as a result of my own experience and observations I have concluded it would be desirable to say definitely that the regulations shall take effect, say ten days after the first publication in the Gazette. I am not mentioning ten days as a definitely suggested period, but am giving it simply as an example of a fixed date after the date of publication. The minister will see at once the difficulty which otherwise might arise.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, and I am glad to accept my right hon. friend's suggestion.


Charles Avery Dunning: I move:
That for the words "shall as from the date of publication" in the seventh line be substituted the words "shall ten days from the first date of publication."


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would seven days be a satisfactory period?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be hardly sufficient time for Vancouver island.


James Earl Lawson: No; seven is not enough.


Mr. FINN:: It seems to me the committee is giving very wide powers, almost dictatorial powers, to the Minister of Transport. Under another section he is the sole judge as to what the offences are, and they are to be laid by him. We find that the department in the right of the crown collects all the moneys, and nothing goes to the magistrates or justices of the peace.
We now come to the present section and must consider regulations which have almost force of law behind them. These regulations are made under statutory power given to the minister and his technical officers. How is anyone in Nova Scotia to know that regulations have appeared in the Canada Gazette? The broadcasting legislation is so broad in compass that I say the regulations should be published along with the statutory enactments; because it is now going to be impossible for a person in any part of Canada, whether he be in British Columbia or Nova Scotia, to know what regulations have been passed, or to know that a regulation has been in the Canada Gazette for seven days.
Such person may be guilty under the statute. As has been pointed out to the

minister, we are getting into a new field in which laws are enacted outside the criminal code and outside the powers given in connection with the laying of informations under this measure. Cases are placed in the hands of magistrates or justices of the peace for trial. I think in fairness to the hundreds of thousands of people in Canada who have radios in their homes, they should have greater opportunity of ascertaining what the regulations are. The suggestion of the right hon. the leader of the opposition is along the right lines, but I do not think it goes far enough. The regulations in my opinion should be embodied in the statute. Surely the Minister of Transport and his technical officers are in a position to say what the regulations are going to be and to put them in the statute, so that every one in Canada, no matter where he may live, may know whether or not he is guilty of an infringement of a regulation.
Very few people, with the exception of some in Ottawa, read the Canada Gazette. It is a publication which may go out to members of parliament; but those members are not going to make unpopular suggestions to their constituents; at least I should think they would not. I am asking the minister if there could not be some way in which the regulations would be made clear to the owners of radios, so that advantage would not be taken of them, and so that they would not be accused of being guilty of an offence under regulations of which they had no knowledge? An accused person might say he had no knowledge, and there was no manner in which he could receive it, unless he were a person who read the Canada Gazette.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has been a great improvement, and most cases which would arise are now covered in the statute.


Robert Emmett Finn: I am pleased to hear the
leader of the opposition say that. It gives me some balm of conscience to know he believes that the amendment suggested by the Minister of Transport is sufficient. I have no desire to have any difference with the Minister of Transport, but it is my hope that people using radio sets in far distant parts of Canada shall not be confronted with regulations of which they had no knowledge and about which they were not in a position to know. They may have had no intent to commit an offence under the regulations, because they would have no knowledge of those regulations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Apropos of *what the
hon. member has said I was going to say

Immigration Act
to the minister when I was speaking to section 14-and then I thought it might be absurd to suggest it in a statute-that it might be well for the minister to say: "The department will undertake that any important regulations are brought to the attention of the public through broadcasting." I thought that would be an easy way to deal with the matter, but I did not like to suggest it as part of the statute.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I assure my right hon. friend that that will be done. I would point out, however, that the important regulations are printed on the back of the broadcasting licence, itself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the statute is now more complete in that regard than it was before?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; in revising the act we have brought in most of the regulations.


James Earl Lawson: Printing regulations on the back of the licence will not help much, because the section is designed against people who have no licences.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. C. J. VENIOT (Gloucester) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house does not insist on its amendment to its Bill No. 66, respecting the Restigouche Log Driving and Boom Company, to which the Senate disagreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Paul Sanson White.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Louise Maud Thomas Gregory.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Emma Kathleen Lavery Forester.-Mr. Graydon.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Edith Margaret Campbell Quinn.-Mr. Hyndman.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Dorothy Maud Doran Gay.-Mr. White.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Neill for the second reading of Bill No. 112, to amend the Immigration Act.
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-AIberni):: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was last before the house I had risen to close the debate. I had intended to be brief; but when I was speaking it occurred to me that in view of the positive and definite statements made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), it would be well for me, not being a lawyer, to check up as to the accuracy of what he said. His statement was to the effect that the passage of this bill would make conditions in British Columbia many times worse than they were before, and would allow thousands and thousands of Japanese to enter provided they possessed the ability to learn English. I took up this matter with every legal expert I could find, and with one accord they said that this was not so. Most of them laughed; some of them swore, and others said, "How could it?" I showed them the Immigration Act and my bill and asked them if it was possible that any increased number of Japanese could come in, and with one accord they said it was impossible.
Section 3 of the Immigration Act contains a number of prohibited classes. People who come under those classes cannot enter Canada under any condition. There are twenty-one different classes set out, and I shall name one or two at random. Persons who are imbeciles, Persons afflicted with tuberculosis, persons who are alcoholics and so on are not allowed in. The twentieth prohibition has to do with people who cannot read any language. I am dealing with the Japanese at the moment, and they would be able to come in if they could read the Japanese language. I add to that prohibition by stating that in addition to any person being able to read their own language, they must be able to read either English, French or some language of Europe. How could that possibly let in more Japanese? They can come in now if they can read their own language. I simply superimpose on that the stipulation that they must be able to read English. Yet we are told that this will allow thousands and thousands of Japanese to come in.


Mr. CRERAR:: If my hon. friend will pardon me, I believe he is wrong there. The number is limited to-day by the gentleman's
Immigration Act

agreement under which so far as Japanese are concerned, the Immigration Act does not apply. If my hon. friend will permit me, I should like to point out that according to his bill, if a Japanese over a certain age can read English, French or any other European language, he would be permitted into the country.


Alan Webster Neill: If the hon. gentleman will excuse me, I shall apply to him the language he applied to me a few weeks ago and say that he is talking nonsense.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is not the opinion of the immigration officials.


Alan Webster Neill: Never mind. Do not make speeches. It does not matter whose opinion it is. My hon. friend says that they would be allowed to come in if they can speak English, but the gentleman's agreement restricts the number who may come in to 150. My bill does not do away with that restriction. If every Japanese in Japan was able to speak English, the gentleman's agreement would still exist and would permit only 150 to come in. I have the agreement before me; it states that hereafter immigrants from Japan will be subject to all the regulations of the Canadian Immigration Act-the minister evidently did not know that-and then there is the extra provision that the number coming in shall be limited to 150. I repeat that my bill does not repeal the gentleman's agreement that limits the number to 150, so how can thousands and thousands come in? The effect of my bill will be largely to cut down the 150. The classes that come in under the gentleman's agreement are mostly farm labourers and domestic servants, and it is seldom that they can speak anything but Japanese. The restriction imposed by this bill will probably restrict the number coming in to five or perhaps ten a year for some years to come. At most it will be a very small number.
Speaking of labourers reminds me of the interim report made by the committee which was sent out to investigate this matter. I think we should have had an opportunity of seeing that report. I have not seen it, but I believe if it had been presented to this house Bill No. 11 would be the law of the land to-day. I have not the interim report, but I have some of the information that was laid before that committee and I propose to give it to the house. The number of Japanese school children in British Columbia to-day is more than double, 110 per cent to be exact, what it was eleven years ago. The number of Japanese school children in Vancouver to-day is very close to the total number of Japanese school children in British Columbia

eleven years ago. Does this house know that in British Columbia to-day there are 1,000 Japanese on relief? They are not put to the trouble of seizing a public building to get it. They receive their relief as regularly as old age pensions. Yet we have all this quibbling between this government and the British Columbia government about the matter of domicile, and we have the spectacle of white men driven by despair to start what is practically a revolution. It is little better than a revolution even though it is a peaceful one. Yet these Japanese are receiving their relief as regularly as clockwork. These are the facts.
Does the house know that according to the records of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the deportation of forty-three Japanese was recommended in a given period? Deportation is not recommended unless a crime is committed, and yet these forty-three deportation orders were cancelled at Ottawa. It would appear that the Japanese have some friends at Ottawa. It is generally quite difficult to get a deportation order cancelled. I once tried to get one cancelled in connection with a solitary, lone Scotchman, and I had considerable trouble. Yet these forty-three orders were cancelled even though they had been recommended and appeared on the records of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
Here is the final thing. Notice was served on that committee by a Japanese official to the effect that if their investigation resulted in the deportation of not more than ten or fifteen Japanese there would be no serious trouble, but if thirty or forty Japanese were affected then there would be trouble. They were told that there would likely be repercussions in Japan. That was told the committee by a high Japanese official. The picture is this:	When we find men committing
crimes we must not find more than fifteen of them guilty or there will be trouble. It will be just too bad, or else. I believe if these facts had been laid before the house when we were considering Bill No. 11, the vote would have been different.
It is true that this bill does not provide for the total exclusion provided for by Bill No. 11, which should have been passed. The Minister of National Defence approved that bill, but he voted against it. His own national poet says:
He knows the right and doth approve it too,
Condemns the wrong but still the wrong pursues.
The government rejected Bill No. 11 because the Japanese might not like it, but this bill makes no reference to the Japanese by name. They are only one of many of the

Immigration Act
coloured nations of the world which make up three-quarters of the population of the world. The educational test has been in use against the Japanese for many years now,
I think thirty, or at least twenty, as regards Australia and New Zealand.
I object strongly to having it spread on the pages of Hansard and through the radio and the press that I have introduced in this house a bill which would make matters in British Columbia many times worse and allow thousands and thousands of Japanese to come in, when the facts are as I have stated, and they cannot be contradicted. I want to give hon. members a picture of this bill. It reached its second reading in the shape of Bill No. 38. I said what I could in favour of it. There was no objection made against it, no fault found with the matter of it, no comment upon it, no criticism of it. But a point of order was taken in connection with the printing of it, a point of order that has not been enforced for ten years, and had it been enforced impartially that day it would have thrown out nine other bills, six of them important government bills. However, it was thrown out; I brought it in again-the rules allowed it-and it came to the second reading the other night. The whole gamut of technicalities had been exhausted. Believe me, it was gone through with a tooth comb, and it could be attacked only on its merits. There are sixty-three lawyers sitting behind the leader of the government party. The massed intelligence of all that legal ability-for they are able men-would naturally be brought to bear on the subject, and what was the result? The mountain laboured and brought forth, not a mouse; it did not even bring forth the cheese to -bait the mouse. All the concentrated ability of those sixty-three lawyers could produce only this piffle about the thousands and thousands of Japanese. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Taylor) would, I am sure, call it an "emotional argument" which was used in that connection.
That having been disposed of, what is left of the argument against the bill? Nothing, because there were no other arguments put up. There cannot be much wrong with the bill when the only argument used against it is of such a puerile character. But it is going to be condemned. We remember that in the nursery tale we were told that the wolf said he was going to eat Little Red Riding Hood because she had done something against him. When she proved she had not done it, the wolf said, "Well, I am going to eat you because your grandmother did something." When she showed that her grandmother had not done it, the wolf said, "Well,
I am going to eat you, anyhow," and this government is going to kill this bill anyhow, although no argument has been advanced against it. This is not a nursery or a nursery tale; we are a legislative body of lawmakers; we have some privileges and rights, and we ought not to be asked to defeat a bill without some reason being given for doing so. The premier told us, very properly, what in his opinion was wrong with Bill No. 11; but no one on the government side has told us what is wrong with this bill, and yet it is going to be defeated.
If the government will not take the house into its confidence as to the reasons for this course, I am going to take the house into my confidence. I am going to make a diagnosis, as the doctors call it, founded upon the facts as we know them and as they seem to warrant, and suggest the reason why the government is determined to defeat this bill upon a party vote without any justification. The reason is twofold. First, there is nothing wrong with the bill; but, second, there has been an arrangement made with Japan that there will be no further restrictions on immigration for a given period. Not a treaty, of course not; no written agreement; no negotiations even, but just these mysterious diplomatic things they call, I believe, in the highest diplomatic circles, "conversations". If such an arrangement was made, I do not blame the government for living up to it; but I do blame them for making such an important arrangement without consulting this house, which alone has the power to make such an agreement; and still more, having made it, for not having told the house what it was. If that is the explanation, the bargain, not having been sanctioned by us, is not binding on us, and there is no reason why we should yield control over our domestic affairs.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Alan Webster Neill: No. For four months I have waited for this thing, and I am going to have my innings to-night.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is just this-


Alan Webster Neill: No!


Thomas Alexander Crerar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am entitled to say this. My hon. friend has said either too much or too little.


Alan Webster Neill: That is not a point of order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He has hinted that there is some arrangement, and he ascribes the opposition to his bill as being the result of an arrangement which must have recently been made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say "recently."
Immigration Act


Alan Webster Neill: That is not a point of order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I just want to say there is no-


Alan Webster Neill: I do not wish the minister to say it. He has had his opportunity. The bill has been up for second reading twice. He had all the time in the world. But I will answer him. I was going to answer him anyway if he had kept quiet. If that is not the explanation, I will furnish another. If he does not like the one horn of the dilemma he can take the other. Is it because the government get political hysterics every time the name of Japan is mentioned? We dare not deal with the strictly domestic matter of our own immigration for fear- and fear is an ugly word, Mr. Speaker-that an alien heathen nation, that has no claim whatever to a grievance, might not like it, a nation whose best claim to fame at the present moment is the fact that it is raping and ravaging a friendly nation whose territory it swore a few short years ago to protect and maintain.
Now, this thing is cumulative. Where is it going to stop? If we yield five per cent of our rights to-day for the sake of peace, six months hence we shall be required to surrender ten per cent, and a year afterwards they will want fifty per cent. Other nations will imitate this policy, and we shall lose their respect.
How did we get their respect? We became a nation, not by the Statute of Westminster that we hear so much about, but through the blood and treasure we spent in France to prevent Canada from becoming a German colony. The Statute of Westminster did something. It gave us power to make our own treaties. A lot of good that did us. If we set our feet on the fatal, bitter path 1 have outlined, soon we shall not be allowed to make our own treaties; we shall not even be allowed to make our own pyjamas, because Japan will discover that she can make them cheaper because of her low standard of living, and they will	be	sent to	Toronto	and soldbelow the cost	of	the raw	material	there. Ifthat is to be our policy, we had better tear up the Statute of Westminster and crawl back as a colony under the overburdened protection of	the	British	nation.	At leastwe would be	safe there;	yes, cheaply safe,
would we not? Britain would give it to us, give it to us to the last exhaustion of her strained powers, and she would not worry and fuss because every now and again we debate whether we would be at war when she is at war. But what a humiliation it would be for us as a nation and as individuals!

Mr. Speaker, it is more than forty-seven years since I came to this country. That is a longer time than the lives of many of the hon. members I see before me. I have married, brought up a family and buried our dead here. I have been a loyal and true Canadian in thought, word and deed. I have taught my children that they must not pay too much attention to the land of their parents, but that they must be true Canadians and bear faithful allegiance to Canada herself. For the first time in nearly half a century I have occasion to be ashamed of my adopted country. To-night we are at the fork of the road. We can say to Japan, "While you have not said you objected to this bill, we have not passed it because we thought you might not like it. We have not exactly cut loose from Britain, but we have indicated that there is no obligation, that there are no commitments if she is in trouble, and to that extent we have weakened her in the eyes of the world; you have our sympathy; we hope you will not be too hard on us." Shall we take that degrading and humiliating position, or shall we say to Japan and to the world, " When Britain is in trouble we are in trouble; when Britain is at war we are at war, and when Britain is in a war, while we cannot bind future parliaments as to the amount of participation, any more than the British parliament is bound, we will do our part; we are solidly behind Great Britain economically, financially and in every other way to the best of our ability." Then, let us say to Japan, "We are determined to run and control our own domestic affairs, of which immigration is one, and another is to decide whether people can be deported or not. That is another privilege and we are going to use it. We are solidly behind the British nation, and the British nation is solidly behind us." That would be the end of it. That would be a policy of courage, a policy of dignity and selfrespect, both for us and from the other nations, and one that would make for the preservation of peace, a bold policy which would put us in standing and reputation with all the nations of the world. Whether we take the short vision of the immediate future or the long vision down the vista of time, it would be a policy that would immediately and ultimately work for the benefit of British Columbia, of Canada and of the British empire in which we are all concerned. I think the first step towards the announcement and the initiation of such a policy would be for us to pass this bill which is before us to-night.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bertrand (Laurier) for the second reading of Bill No. 28, to amend the criminal code.
Mr. VITAL MALLETTE (Jacques Cartier):: There are so many public hospitals in the county of Jacques Cartier that I consider myself in duty bound to speak on this bill sponsored by the hon. member for Laurier which would permit the holding of sweepstakes under provincial regulations and supervision for the benefit of hospitals and legally constituted universities. No doubt hon. members will be interested to have a list of the hospitals which are in my county. In Lachine we have l'Hopital St. Joseph and the Lachine General Hospital. In Cartierville we have 1'Hopital du Sacre Coeur, better known throughout America as the Hospital for Incurables. At Cote de Neiges we have l'Asile Nazareth, St. Mary's and the Jewish hospital. At St. Laurent there is l'hopital de Notre Dame de l'Esperance.
It is well known that hospitals are having a hard time financially. In all the cities in Canada annual campaigns have to be held to support the hospitals. In many cases that is not sufficient, and provinces and cities have to guarantee their bonds, and not only the bonds but often the interest coupons as well. Therefore there is no doubt about hospitals being in need of financial support. Fortunately there is a large number of anonymous benefactors who help such institutions. Some generous people help them regularly, others at various times or upon special occasions. Some benefactors adopt a certain institution, sometimes because of religious reasons, sometimes because a hospital specializes in the treatment of diseases in which they take an interest. Hospitals devoted to the care of children seem to have a peculiarly strong attraction for good-hearted people, and derive great benefit from their interest. Leading" citizens of both sexes serve on the boards of administration of hospitals and charitable institutions of all kinds. Their services are, of course, given freely; they render them as a duty and often as a hobby as well. They are glad to help their fellow citizens to that extent. This is practical Christianity of a kind of which we are greatly in need. Leading business and professional men deem it an
Criminal Code-Sweepstakes


James Samuel Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I desire to express myself in favour of this bill, and I do so because it makes an attempt, although imperfectly, to remove from the criminal code the effort to regulate the moral and ethical expression of our people. I mean by that I am perfectly satisfied that we should control the abuses in our ethical relationships to each other, and in our moralf. as expressed in our economy. But when it comes to regulating and controlling the ordinary expressions of our thoughts, our ideas and our ideals, in ethics and morals, then I contend the criminal code is going altogether too far.
We have had representations from reverend and honourable members claiming that this was really a religious issue. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) brought out a novel interpretation of one of the commandment^, and attempted to make that which was really an ethical instruction a religious teaching. In addition, the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Rowe) made extravagant statements about what would occur in Canada if we permitted this bill to pass. I am not one who believes that the world is necessarily going to the dogs. We are really bettering all the time. Occasionally we have lapses-sometimes by individuals and sometimes in masses. But in the main our progress is forward. And because of that and because I have faith in our people and in ourselves, I am supporting this bill. If it were a question of national ethics, differing entirely from the individual expression, that might have been brought out by some of the speakers to the bill. But I have not discovered that any of them have found that fact.
Holy Writ has been invoked to show us that we would do wrong. But as I look through Holy Writ I cannot discover that it especially teaches us it is wrong to make a stake or to take a gamble. I have a distinct recollection of a celebrated parable:
Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the wayside, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
Criminal Code-Sweepstakes


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nine o'clock.



VALIDITY OP QUEBEC STATUTE-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON STATEMENT OF MR. WOODSWORTH

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dunning for committee of supply.
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, the discussion introduced yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) comes down to a discussion of ideology. It goes deeper than financial or even social matters, and involves principles in which the Canadian nation and also several foreign powers are interested.
It goes still deeper than that. We are compelled in such a discussion to mention internal and domestic policies of foreign nations, although in certain instances nations affected may resent our action. I intend to point out, however, in the few moments at my disposal that the purpose of the discussion is solely in order as forcibly as we can to bring before the house some of the new political philosophies, fallacies and demagogy which have been brought forth in the civilized world in the last fifteen or eighteen years.
In the discussion of the padlock law there is also the matter of internal administration, so far as Quebec is concerned. There is also the matter of morals of which perhaps the people living within the borders of that province are in the best position to judge. They know -best the mentality of their own people.
When we consider the Russian revolution we have to try to analyze the feelings, the inclinations, of the people of that nation.

Validity of Quebec Statute
We have to use metaphor. When we do that we realize that the Russian people are entirely different from Canadians. One of the primary results of that revolution was the decision that brains, intelligence and the faculty to manage and direct were not to be considered as being worth any more than common labour. Of course I realize that in suggesting such a philosophy of internal policy I may be opening up a very wide discussion. There is no doubt that in a democracy labour must of necessity have a primary place in the social functions of the nation. However, we must not forget that the Russian revolutionists practically swept away the intelligentzia of the Russian nation. Any one who possessed a university degree could not take part in the government of that country. There was to be only one class, the proletariat, the workers. I want just to leave this thought with the house to digest. We are all familiar with how soon they found that it was absolutely impossible to carry out these ideas.
Another idea, utterly contrary to western civilization, was that religion should not exist, should be destroyed. They contended that religion of any kind was simply an opiate to civilization. That proletariat government tried to erase religion from that great country. We can easily visualize how repulsive such a policy would be to a civilized Christian country. We must realize how foreign such a policy is to the mentality of Canadian people.
Another idea advanced by the Russian revolutionists was that the individual had no right to any personal gain. The individual lost his identity entirely. The only supreme being was the state under Lenin or Stalin who were practically deified. The individual existed purely and solely for the state. This is another philosophy that is absolutely foreign to Canadians and civilized peoples generally. No doubt this revolution was brought about by injustices suffered by the Russian people under the tzarist regime, but the leaders of that revolution were not content to apply the principles they advocated to Russia alone. To them it was more than a political philosophy; it became almost a religion. We saw the zeal generally connected with any new religion exerted on behalf of this philosophy. In their obsession they were not content to apply their ideas to Russia alone; they wanted to spread them all over the white and coloured world. In a few months after the revolution we saw soviet 51952-217
and bolshevist emissaries in China, India, Japan, Germany, Italy, England, Central America, South America and North America.
An immediate reaction set in in many of these nations when they found these missionaries in their midst. Many of the countries in Europe were still suffering from the results of the great war. The result was that we had the spectacle of communism actually being the parent of fascism and nazism. If communism was not the father of these last two isms, at least it was mainly responsible for the functioning of fascism in Italy and nazism in Germany.
We must be very careful in discussing a matter of this kind. ' We must realize the horizons we have to face. In a discussion of this kind we must visualize the different angles of the situation. You must envisage it within its proper perspective. When you have to deal with a ferocious animal you must take more precaution than when you are dealing with a domestic cat. When you have to dee' with a venomous reptile you must be mov

. careful than when you are handling a songbird. In this case we are dealing with something that is very dangerous, not only to the mentality but to the national life of this country. I well remember only three short years ago when I barely escaped with my life during the bushmen's strike in Cochrane. That strike was instigated by communist leaders, and I say with all the sincerity and knowledge I possess that they were in the pay of soviet Russia. There are some members in the house at the present time, these being known as labour leaders, to whom I went three, four or five years ago and told what had happened. They sympathized with me in my situation because they realized that these communist leaders did not desire a solution of our labour problems. They wanted to continue their agitations. They wanted to have sabotage in our mines, in our transportation systems and throughout our industries. They did not have a solution of our problem in their hearts.
I would be the last to say that the labouring people of this country are receiving the remuneration they should receive; that they are living and working under first class conditions. However, I maintain that our problems, especially our labour problems, will never be solved by these agitators in the pay of a foreign institution. I feel free to speak of this. I maintain that this country has no right to try to impose its political beliefs upon any other country; yet communist Russia has tried to spread its beliefs throughout every section of the civilized world. I intend

Validity of Quebec Statute

to employ all my energy and limited talents in the fight against this curse which has been undermining the population in certain sections of our dominion and has also tried to undermine our institutions.
Perhaps you will ask what this has to with the padlock law in Quebec. I know something of that province because I was bom there. While I owe my primary loyalty to Ontario, my forefathers for the last four centuries are sleeping their last sleep in the Laurentian hills in the riding of Charlevoix. I know the make-up and mentality of the people of Quebec. I know their fine traditions. I know it will be surprising to many people in Quebec to know there are a few sections in that province, especially in the city of Montreal, where communism seems to have found a fertile field.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, I now wish to direct my remarks more particularly to my compatriots from the province of Quebec, in order to tell them that many young French Canadians-fine specimens of manhood, and intelligent young men-have played the part of assistant communist leaders during the strikes that have taken place in the forests of northern Ontario and in our mines. I rose on several occasions to tell them that, being the descendants of the pioneers who settled on the shores of the St. Lawrence, and exhibiting all the traits of the French-Canadian race on the north American- continent, they should set a good example to the English speaking majority in this country. I told them that the part they were playing was unworthy of French-Canadians. I explained to them that they were submitting to the influence of a group of people who were not even naturalized, who had been in this country for five, ten or fifteen years only, and who had not yet managed to become naturalized; I told them that a French-Cana-dian was supposed to be a national leader and that he should not allow himself to be deceived by foreigners who were trampling upon his ideals and his principles.
Mr. Speaker, I was anxious to mention that episode in order to bring home to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) the fact that there are indeed communists in the province of Quebec.
I hold in my hand a document which other hon. members have no doubt received.
(Text) I believe that this would be the time and place to take up a few moments of the house to divulge some parts of a confidential report covering the pre-convention meeting of the U.L.F.T.A. provincial secretaries of the communist party, which was held at 300

Bathurst street, Toronto, Ontario, on Saturday and Sunday, August 18 and 19, 1934. I am not going to read all the minutes of that meeting, but I believe it would be a revelation to this house and to the whole country of the policies that were then propounded by the communist party, in trying to insinuate themselves into the ranks of labour, for the purposes of destruction and propaganda:
Sharabura recommended that in order to break up all the L.W.I.U. members must speak to the C.B.U. members urging them to join and to expose officials of the various lumber companies, and in the event of a strike, after two weeks if the companies refuse to recognize the demands of the L.W.I.U. trusted members only must be instructed to make efforts to damage the property of lumber companies in question by breaking up the camps, setting fire to the same, and other acts of sabotage.
Later on in the report, at page 4:
To popularize the next strike in each city in order to obtain accommodations for strikers, and mobilization of women and children to take an active part in the strike in collecting food and funds and participating in picket duty.
Later on:
Recommended by Huculak that the miners' local of Kirkland Lake and Sudbury send the L.W.I.U. a few cases of dynamite to be used to blow up the camps and other buildings in the case of prolonged strike. This recommendation was turned down as not practical. Kulik advised that it was an easy matter for the L.W.I.U. to obtain as much dynamite as necessary because this is kept in all lumber camps to be used for blowing up stumps and stone. In the event, however, the dynamite supply in lumber camp runs short, the miners will be notified.
I am not going to read any more of this report. It is in my possession and any member may have access to it. They went so far as to say that they were going to poison the food of the workers who would have the audacity to remain working. I am sorry to say that during the last strike we had. in my section, our population did not get the support they expected from some of the authorities in the province of Ontario, and we took upon ourselves to represent these authorities for the support of law and order to the full extent. Why? Because ninety-nine per cent of the strikers who were real Canadians and had been having conferences with the lumber companies at which the conditions were largely remedied, were ready and willing to go back to work; but these leaders did not want those young men to carry on fruitful work; they wanted them to carry on agitation, and you can see how far they wanted them to go. They did not want these workers to be satisfied, but they simply wanted radical agitations to be maintained.



193S

[Stage Direction]
Validity of Quebec Statute
We fed those people for three or four weeks; but still those strike leaders were not satisfied, and when they became extremely bold we took the law in our own hands and gaoled some of the communistic strike leaders because they would not allow men who wanted to work to go to work at fruitful employment.
Having made that statement, I can easily visualize how the province of Quebec reacted against the communist organization and propaganda. Let us never befool ourselves with the idea that communism is not dangerous. Was it a majority of the Russian people which brought about a revolution in that fine big country? It was not; it was an infinitesimal minority. The same applies to-day. Do all the Russian people belong to the communist party? Oh, no; the powers of the Russian state to-day are wielded by only a few men, and a very small percentage of the population belongs to the communist party of Russia. And yet we are invited to be tolerant as regards this new policy. I ask the house this question: How long would the Russian government be tolerant if any emissaries from the Social Credit or the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or the Conservative or the Liberal party went to Russia and told the people there that their government was not one they could support? What would the lives of those emissaries be worth?
It must be realized that a certain international political affiliation having its headquarters in Moscow is trying to bring into this country something absolutely foreign to our own mentality, eminently disruptive and destructive. We are asked to play with this fire, this dynamite, this disease. Only a few days ago the Department of National Revenue were able, I believe, to prevent admission to this country of a number of magazines of an immoral tendency. There was not a single protest from any section of this country; yet there are some who would like to keep our doors wide open to the admission of the poison which is trying to poison the minds of all nations to which it has had access.
I want to say a few words about the discussion which was started as to the padlock law in the province of Quebec. I have studied that law. Perhaps it is not elaborate enough as far as the definition of communism is concerned. Perhaps some of its features might lead to some abuse of power. On the other hand, as I said last night, in my view it does not in some respects go far enough. Although I might make a small, favourable distinction-a very small one indeed-between communism on the one hand and nazism and fascism on the other, in favour of the latter, 51952-217S
at the same time I believe these three isms are absolutely foreign to Canadian thought, and the population of Quebec particularly, and the law, if it was meant to be sincerely and honestly applied-I say this with all sincerity-should have included all the isma that exist in the province of Quebec.
An hon. MEMBER:: Liberalism?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It will never be as bad as that. I hold in my hand an article which appeared in Maclean's magazine only a few short weeks ago. In it you can see the swastika cross and the leaders of the nazi-fascist party in the province of Quebec. On the second page is a photograph of some nazist forum, attended by quite a number of young men-I notice at least fifty-who are giving the nazi salute and are taking military drill. This is just as foreign to our thought as even communism. I also find here an article in a newspaper called l'Unite, a newspaper in the province of Quebec, which appeared on Thursday, March 24, 1938, issued from Sainte-Therese de Blainville. I have not a translation, and I would not dare to translate it from French into English, but I am going to read it in French:
(Translation) What we want is a genuine revolution. A fierce upheaval that may destroy that impression of security which is still harboured, even in the midst of the vicissitudes which we are experiencing.
I shall not read the whole passage, Mr. Speaker, but this quotation shows where all that is liable to lead us.
Too many schemes are being planned stealthily or openly, and the plotters are so strongly entrenched that it would be impossible to storm their positions. In trying to correct what is wrong, in endeavouring to separate the wheat from the tares, we are liable to destroy what is good, for "so and so" may have a cousin, a friend, a relative who compels him to follow the antinational course he lias taken, and deeply-rooted feelings lead him toward the very things he is fighting against. That explains the inefficiency of the "buy home products" campaign. That explains also why political graft is ever flourishing.
A revolution will be like a huge blood-letting. All the impure blood will flow, as well as all purulent matter. What remains will be all the purer. And if, at that fateful moment, a leader can be found who will hold the reins with a firm hand, all will be well, for in that ease the nation will have survived the crisis and its power will again be in the ascendant.
These writings, Mr. Speaker, are just as foreign to the French-Canadian and Catholic mind in the province of Quebec as the claims of the communist party's followers.
(Text) No doubt the padlock law was passed because the premier of Quebec fully appreciated the fact that the population of that
Validity of Quebec Statute

province must be made to realize the seriousness of the situation. I have never had the pleasure of meeting the premier of that province personally, but I do not for one moment doubt his Canadianism. I am quite sure that when the great majority of the people of that province fully realize the communistic danger he will find it possible to amend the law which has been described as the padlock law of Quebec. May I point out to hon. members that this matter goes deeper than financial or personal considerations. There is a moral principle involved, and no member of this house, I venture to say, will ever have the audacity to suggest that Quebec has never been a true daughter of confederation. No one will ever doubt her loyalty, her great attachment to her loyal clergy who have so greatly helped to make and mould the people of that province what they are, and who are standing at their side to-day, as during all times of danger in the past, making them realize the danger of communism.
There is no danger of the people of Quebec not fully abiding by the law. There is no doubt as to their broadmindedness and tolerance. Take, for instance, the conference held the other day by some of the social credit members in that fine city of St. Hyacinthe. Social credit, to the people there, was a new theory; but when it was propounded it caused no disturbance; there was no threat to the Canadian democracy; there was no suggestion whatever that our institutions were in danger of destruction.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: May I make it very clear to the members of this house and to the people of the province of Quebec that social credit is in no way related to or akin to communism ?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I did not need to have the hon. gentleman's assurance of that; I fully realize it. I mentioned the incident merely to illustrate the hospitality of the people of Quebec and their essential and natural tolerance. Anyone who is worthy of the name Canadian and who has studied the history of Canada, especially of lower Canada, ever since it came into confederation, must know that the French Catholic majority in the province of Quebec have always been tolerant towards the Protestant minority there. Take, for example, this incident that took place in the province some years ago. It so happened, by force of circumstances, that there was no one to represent the English speaking Protestant minority on the municipal board of the city of Quebec, and

the premier of the province so amended the municipal act as to provide for such representation. I could cite hundreds of cases to illustrate the splendid calibre and the mentality of the people of that province.
The French-Canadians have made a valuable contribution to confederation. Indeed, it was a British statesman who said that if ever the day came when British civilization stood in need of some element to maintain it on the north American continent, that element would be the French-Canadians. Let me say to the hon. member who started this discussion that there are sixty-five worthy members in this house from Quebec. They know the situation exactly as it exists in that province of Quebec, and I submit that their views would prevail on that subject. I venture to say that if hon. gentlemen from any other province found themselves confronted with a situation such as that which exists in the province of Quebec to-day, they would resent the suggestion that they had not the right to express the views of the people they represent. I am sure they would be among the first to take steps to fight such a menace if it threatened them. I do not want to discipline the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), but I must say that he has not always been constructive in his utterances. During the last federal election-I am quoting from the newspapers-he told the people in western Canada that they ought to be careful how they voted in the election because in all probability a Liberal administration would be returned by reason of the strong Quebec representation and that there was danger of domination from the province of Quebec. I say that it ill becomes any hon member who aspires to the office of Prime Minister some day to make statements of that kind. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the authorities in that province of Quebec are fully competent to deal with the question that faces them.
In conclusion, may I say that I am all for freedom in the best sense of the word, but I am opposed to freedom when it comes to invading the rights and the liberties of others. When freedom becomes license of that sort, then I condemn it. I am in favour of the sort of freedom which was so well propounded by Garcio Moreno, that young man who was taken prematurely from this life, that splendid South American statesman. The freedom that he advocated might well find application not only in his own country but throughout the world-freedom everywhere and to everyone except to evil-doers and wrong-doers.

Validity of Quebec Statute


Mr. JOSEPH JEAN (Mercier) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I wonder what was the intention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) when he called the attention of the house, last evening, to the question of the disallowance of the so-called padlock act enacted by the Quebec legislature last year.
I have no right to impute motives to the hon. member, but he is not unaware that in raising this question he is lending himself to a political game that can easily be guessed. Should we remain silent, the hon. member knows full well that there are in the province of Quebec many persons who will blame us for not having replied to him. Should we speak in favour of disallowance, he knows that another group of people in Quebec will accuse us of favouring the expansion of communism. Should we mark our approval of the act in question, we will be taxed with inconsistency, in view of our attitude regarding Section 98 of the Criminal Code.
The hon. member must realize that a question of that kind transcends the bounds of political parties and that our conscience will not permit itself to be guided by any electoral advantage resulting from our attitude in the matter. It would be easy to reply to him in one way or another. At the elections of 1935 we received a definite mandate from the voters of the province of Quebec and we have acted in consequence.
If, in raising this question, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was thinking only of safeguarding the liberties of the people, as he said last evening, I could easily answer him that if there is in the dominion a province that respects the liberty of the citizen, that province is Quebec, and in spite of the existence of the so-called padlock act, I have no hesitation in stating that it is in Quebec province that Canadians enjoy the greatest measure of liberty, that minorities receive the best treatment and that the preachers of the most varied political doctrines are given the best reception, though the people may not accept their views.
My hon. friends of the C.C.F. as well as of the Social Credit group know full well, and all the more for having experienced it lately, that the citizens of the province of Quebec are ready to listen to them, and that if they have not made more recruits in that province, it is because they have not yet convinced us of the merits of their political system.
But what my hon. friend does not understand-and I wonder whether he ever will understand it-is the conception we in Quebec have of liberty. There may be, even among our own people, narrow minds who
seek for petty political purposes to confuse Canadian political liberalism with the libera-listic doctrines condemned by our spiritual leaders. It is possible that our tolerance, I might even say our goodwill towards minorities, is interpreted in some circles as concessions made to error. But such is not, Mr. Speaker, the opinion of the majority of the people of Quebec province.
I shall not undertake to give my own definition of the doctrine of liberty such as we conceive it, for fear of committing an error; I shall quote the opinion of the spiritual leader of the province of Quebec expressed in the now memorable speech which he delivered in Montreal on January 29th last.
Liberty, said he, is for man the voluntary domination of his talents in order to attain his end, his perfection, his happiness.
Natural liberty is the source from which flow all liberties and the principle at the base of all human rights.
Does it necessarily imply the liberty to do wrong? No, in spite of what is often thought and contended. Liberty is a faculty of the reasonable being. Its use can therefore only be reasonable. Otherwise, liberty is not used, but abused. The power to do right or wrong is certainly a mark of liberty, but it is not the sole mark or the most formal. It is the mark not of an ordered but of a disordered liberty. It is an imperfection, a disease.
We hear cries of liberty, liberty, equal liberty for everyone. Such cries are based on a lamentable, blind misunderstanding, having its source in absurdity. Those who clamour for that freedom are the first to deny it to others. Liberty for everyone to do good, of course. Equal liberty for the child and the grown-up, for the sane man and the mentally deficient, for the law-abiding citizen and the convict, for the defender of the state and the traitor-that is surely not what you want. Beware of any misunderstanding and say rather: Respect for the just liberties of all, and liberty of the individual consistent with his duties. That is better, because it is liberalism without licence. According to that doctrine, every citizen would be free to use his own judgment in his decisions relating to his personal conduct, his choice of a home, his actions, his daily routine, his friends, the use of his property, his right of association, his contracts, etc., but within the limit of what is right that is to say, of natural and divine law and of sound human laws which promote the common good.
And further:
In the light of such principles, we must
form our opinion of other modern liberties_______
freedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of teaching. Those are real, honest and precious liberties when they are used in matters where freedom is
Validity oj Quebec Statute

permissible and within the bounds of moral right, beyond which they become abuses, weaknesses and destructive principles.
It follows therefore that it is never permitted to request, defend or grant freedom to think,, to write or to teach, .nor indiscriminate freedom of worship, as so many rights which nature has given to man. . . .
It also follows nevertheless that these various species of freedom may be tolerated for reasonable causes, providing a proper temperament prevents them from degenerating into licence and disorder.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, we of the province of Quebec are in favour of liberty, but not of licence.
We believe that liberty is the natural condition in which man is called upon to fulfil his destiny, but that is a false conception of liberty to seek in its name to spread the most pernicious errors. And communism, I am sure every member of this house will admit, is an error that must be. condemned. It is the antithesis of liberty such as we conceive it.
It is possible that the means used by the Quebec government to combat communism are questionable; but, as the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) so judiciously stated last evening, it is not for the moment our business to make any decision in the matter.
The question is under consideration and will be decided, I am sure, in the best interests of the country.
I wished to make these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, so that our hon. friends of the different opposition groups may understand that we, Quebec Liberals, are not at variance with the spiritual and religious authorities of our province in matters of principle and that their directions on such issues will, in the future as in the past, guide our public actions.
Let me add that such a wholesome influence is not to be feared, for should our Christian civilization ever be attacked as it has been in other countries, it is the province of Quebec, its people, its clergy and its loyalty that would be called to its rescue. And should true liberty ever vanish from this land, we would be its last defenders.	.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I am sure the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Jean) will excuse me if I do not follow him in what he has said. I should like, however, to say a word concerning the speech made by the hon. member

for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette). I do not feel called upon to reply to him at length because I do not think anything he said has anything to do with the question under discussion. It is not necessary that I should defend the Russian revolution, if it needs any defence. I had the high distinction of being refused admission to that country to see how the revolution was progressing, so that I need not concern myself with defending it.
He referred to the hospitality with which the social credit party was received last Sunday in Quebec. In that connection I wouui like to point out that if the province of Quebec can enact legislation barring advocates of communism, there is nothing to prevent the province of Quebec from enacting legislation to keep social credit out. That is the danger in the legislation wTith which we are now dealing. That, however, seems to have been lost on the hon. member for Cochrane.
Before I touch upon the specific points on which I wish to speak, I will refer briefly to some remarks made last evening by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Tremblay). To me his statements were amazing. If the point of view he expressed were to be generally accepted and to become a guiding principle in Canadian affairs, we could say goodbye to confederation and to all hope of making this dominion a united nation. He said in effect that what was done in Quebec was exclusively the concern of the people of that province. In this parliament we cannot hold to that theory. If we accepted that doctrine, it could not stop with the province of Quebec. If it is a good principle for Quebec, it is equally good for Alberta or any other province. If the people of this dominion want unity of purpose in its affairs, that unity cannot be attained or maintained on that basis. The hon. member is reported at page 3379 of Hansard as saying:
If a majority of the citizens of my own province think they should oppose those who preach opinions which we do not approve in that province; if they think that we should have such a law, it is up to them, because we are still living in a democracy, and while I do not think the majority should dictate, at the same time the will of the majority should prevail.
I point out to the hon. member that to the extent that they have such legislation as the padlock law, to that extent they have not democracy. The democracy they have they have in spite of that act and not because of it. My understanding of the rights and privileges guaranteed to us by the constitution of

Validity of Quebec Statute
this country is that I may hold and preach whatever opinions I please, as long as I do so in accordance with the laws of the land. For the benefit of the hon. member I should like to quote a brief excerpt found in the Votes and Proceedings of this house of March 4 last, from the joint opinion of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and Mr. Justice Ii. H. Davis. The learned judges were giving their opinion in regard to Bill No. 9, an Alberta bill entitled, "An act to ensure the publication of accurate news and information," and they said:
Any attempt to abrogate this right of public debate or to suppress the traditional forms of the exercise of the right (in public meeting and through the press) would, in our opinion, be incompetent to the legislatures of the provinces or to the legislature of any one of the provinces, as repugnant to the provisions of the British North America Act, by which the parliament of Canada is established as the legislative organ of the people of Canada under the crown, and dominion legislation enacted pursuant to the legislative authority given by those provisions.
There is no ambiguity in that language; there can be no misunderstanding of the opinion of the learned judges in regard to the rights of the people, as to where the law begins and where it ends. Let me direct the attention of the house to the central thought in that quotation, which is:
Any attempt to abrogate this right of public debate or to suppress the traditional forms of the exercise of the right . . . would, in our opinion, be incompetent to the legislatures of the provinces or to the legislature of any one of the provinces.
The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Tremblay) continued:
In the province of Quebec we are different from our fellow citizens of the other provinces of this dominion. But surely no one in this house will forget that we love British institutions; we are attached to them; we owe our liberty to British institutions.
My hon. friend did not say whether he supported or opposed the "padlock" 'law, but after he made that statement I was wondering what British institutions were being conserved by that law. He did not tell us, and I am at a loss to know. I remember reading in the Manchester Guardian a short time ago that the padlock law was unique in British legislation; that there was nothing of the kind in any other British dominion. As a last word in regard to the remarks of the hon. member, I should like to say that every British institution which we hold dear to-day was dearly bought by people who dared to stand up against great odds and give expression to the faith that was theirs. These institutions were not won by people who were
afraid to express an opinion that at the time might be not only unpopular but dangerous. So the hon. member for Dorchester had better declare himself as to where he stands in regard to the padlock law.
This act was first brought to the attention of this house fourteen months ago yesterday, March 30, 1937, six days after it had been assented to by the lieutenant governor of Quebec. On that occasion the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) directed the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and also the attention of parliament, to the dangerous nature of this legislation. He pointed out that the "padlock" law seriously interfered with rights and privileges which the British people had won for themselves through centuries of struggle and sacrifice, rights and privileges now considered a part of our heritage. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out at that time, and he reiterated it last night, that Canadian citizens had rights as Canadians regardless of what province they might reside in, and I think that is amply proved by the quotation I read from the opinion of the chief justice and Mr. Justice Davis of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bra-dette) said quite a lot about communism. I have before me an editorial that appeared in Toronto Saturday Night of May 1, 1937, commenting on a speech delivered by Hon. T. J. Coonan, minister without portfolio in the Duplessis government. Among other things, Mr. Coonan said that communism was not defined in the "padlock" law because no half-dozen people in the country would be able to agree upon such a definition, and because many people are communistic and do not know it. He added that in passing this legislation the Duplessis government was taking a leaf out of the communist book. Let me direct the attention of the hon. member for Cochrane to that remark. I do not believe we can overcome obnoxious doctrines, doctrines that we do not like, by accepting them and incorporating them into our laws. I am afraid we shall have to find some other way, and if I were to choose a way I think I would adopt the suggestion olfered by the Minister of Justice in a speech delivered last year, I believe, in which he said that the way to.overcome communism was to improve the conditions under which people lived and to make those conditions better and easier. We cannot overcome such doctrines by suppression. Suppression led to the revolution in Russia, and suppression will lead to revolution everywhere, sooner or later.
Validity oj Quebec Statute

In commenting on the statement of Hon. Mr. Coonan, Toronto Saturday Night said:
Of the accuracy of this last statement there can be no doubt.
That is, the statement that the Duplessis government was taking a leaf out of the communist book.
In that one respect at least Mr. Duplessis and Mr. Coonan are "communistic," though not apparently without knowing it. But surely there are certain serious risks about undertaking to suppress a thing concerning which no half-dozen people agree as to what it is. We have had a large quantity of legislation of this sort in Germany, and it has been reflected in the kind of prosecutions from which many of Mr. Coonan's fellow-religionists in that country are now suffering. It is an accepted doctrine now, in both Germany and Russia, that a crime does not need to be defined in advance, does not need to be recognized as a crime by the person who commits it, does not need to be regarded as a crime by the mass of the citizens. All that is necessary is that the authorities should say it is a crime (after it has been committed), and it thereupon becomes one. That this power of determining what is a crime without reference to any statutory definitions is of the very essence of personal, autocratic government; that it was driven out of the British system after a tremendous struggle several hundred years ago; that it invariably leads to the deterioration of the authorities themselves, to the rise of tyranny in the rulers and the decline of spirit and independence in the ruled-these facts seem to have no weight in the minds of our modern advocates of the star chamber and the "preventive arrest."
I should like the hon. member for Cochrane to read that over, and think it over; and I have hopes that then he would deal with this question from an altogether different point of view from the one from which he considered it to-night. When my leader opened this discussion he, followed by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), demonstrated by evidence which has not been challenged that Canadian citizens are being denied their lawful, constitutional rights in the province of Quebec because of the operation of this act. In my opinion they have given ample reason why the government should act in the matter, and also why that action should be no longer delayed. According to the statistics of the Quebec government, from November 2, to the beginning of May, 124 raids have Deen made on offices and private homes. Let it be noted that most of these raids were on private homes. We find that 532 books dealing with communism have been seized, and that is not all the books which have been seized. These are books seized and not returned, books which have been confiscated.
Let me point this out: The decision as to whether a book deals with communism or is
[Mr. MacInnis.J
communistic in character is decided by a professor of the university of Montreal. How the professor became an expert in communism, we are not told. There does not seem to be any appeal from the professor's decision. If he says a book deals or books deal with communism, the book or books must be confiscated. If in the professor's opinion books do not deal with communism, they may be returned to the owner. It would seem that if the professor of the university of Montreal decided that Alice in Wonderland, the Pilgrim's Progress or Macaulay's History of England were communistic literature, that would be the end of them so far as the owner was concerned. There is no appeal. That is a state of affairs which the people of Canada should not be asked to tolerate, and which, if we are going to hold the freedom we now have, we cannot tolerate.
I noticed last night when speakers on this side were pointing out how the act was operating in Quebec, some hon. members opposite were smiling. I wonder if they would smile; I wonder how they would feel if in their own provinces their homes were raided, their books and papers taken away for examination by some professor, and only those books returned to them which, after examination, the professor decided they should have returned. Let me say that such a thing may happen. If it can happen in the province of Quebec; if we are content to let it happen in that province, is there any reason to believe it may not happen in other provinces? If we allow it to happen in Quebec, how can we prevent it in any other province? There is a principle involved here which this government dare not ignore. This is a matter in which a great principle is at stake, and it must be considered on the basis of principle if we are going to deal with it adequately.
I think it would be appropriate to bring to the attention of the house by way of comparison the expedition with which the Minister of Justice and the cabinet acted in another case respecting questionable provincial legislation. On August 6, 1937, the government of Alberta passed three acts, namely "An act to provide for the regulation of credit of the province of Alberta"; "An act to provide for the restriction of the civil rights of certain persons "; "An act to amend the judicature act."
These acts were assented to by the lieutenant governor of the province on August 6. On August 10 they were received by the Secretary of State at Ottawa. On the same date, August 10, the Minister of Justice prepared a long and elaborate report on these acts-on

Validity of Quebec Statute
the same day as they were received in Ottawa. That report contains almost five pages of typewritten foolscap, single spaced. The Minister of Justice recommended disallowance of the provincial legislation, a procedure which he stated less than six months earlier could not be easily exercised. But it did not seem very difficult to exercise, and certainly it did not take very much time in the Alberta case. Then seven days later, on August 17, the three Alberta acts were disallowed.
I draw attention to the fact that copies of the Alberta acts were received in Ottawa on August 10, according to sessional paper 221, and on the same date the statement of the Minister of Justice was prepared recommending to the governor in council that the acts be disallowed. I am not complaining about the haste; the minister thought it was justified.
I am not going to dispute the point with him. But compare the speed with which the Alberta acts were challenged with the slowness of action in the case of the padlock law.
This act was assented to by the lieutenant governor of Quebec on March 24, 1937. On March 30, six days later, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre brought the matter before parliament. The Minister of Justice said he had not seen the act, and that he could not make a statement in regard to it until he had seen it. We are told an authentic copy of the act reached Ottawa on July 8, three and a half months after it was assented to. This may have been the "first convenient opportunity" required by the British North America Act, but it is strange that an act could come from Edmonton, Alberta, in four days, whereas it took three and a half months to come from Quebec.
On January 28, the Canadian Civil Liberties Union, with the support of forty other organizations, presented a formal petition to the Minister of Justice for disallowance or for reference to the supreme court. Speaking in the house on February 4, seven days later, the Minister of Justice complained as to criticisms leveled at him because he had not dealt with the padlock legislation. He said it was unfair to ask him for a decision so soon, because he had had the petition before him for only a few days. But he prepared the report on the Alberta acts the day they were received in Ottawa. He prepared. that report and recommended disallowance without a petition. May I point out that he had the padlock law before him from July 8 until January 28, when the petition was presented for disallowance or reference to the supreme court.
Here is a comparison in reference to a serious matter about which we should have
some explanation. It took less than one day's consideration for the minister to recommend disallowance of the Alberta acts-just one day for the government to call for a reference before the supreme court. Only eleven days intervened between assent and disallowance of the Alberta acts, whereas with respect to the "padlock" law, fourteen months have passed since assent, and the minister promised that a reference to the supreme court would have his serious consideration.
I do not like to reflect on the phrase "serious consideration", but the lapse of time in the present instance is an added justification for the smile which comes to people's faces when "serious consideration" is mentioned. More than eight months have elapsed since the first request for disallowance, four months since the first formal petition and two months since hearing counsel in support of the petition. I do not think the minister can say we have been impatient; any more patience in the matter and it could surely be said that patience had ceased to be a virtue.
I have a great many resolutions before me asking either for disallowance or for a reference to the supreme court. As the minister has probably had more than I have had, I shall not take the trouble to read them to the house. May I conclude with only one or two further observations, which I make as seriously, sincerely and as kindly as possible. There are many reasons why the "padlock" law should be either disallowed or referred to the supreme court for a decision as to validity. These reasons have been explained time and again. There is one reason, however, which I believe should weigh heavily with this government. It claims it is anxious that the unity of the Canadian people be maintained. We are all anxious that national unity should be strengthened, but I say in all earnestness that unity in Canada cannot be maintained if one province is going to be treated differently from another.


Mr. P. J. ROWE (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it my inescapable moral and legal duty to join in the protest which has been made by some hon. members against this legislation. I regard it as an awful invasion of the age-old liberties which we of the Anglo-Saxon race have always referred to with justifiable pride and reverence. These liberties have been won as the result of a thousand years of struggle, and in my judgment they have been violated by this legislation, Those thousand years of struggle were marked by considerable personal sacrifice and risk on the part of those who won them for
Validity of Quebec Statute

us. We are the recipients and heirs of the results of those efforts and we are also the guardians for the future. We must pass on to those who come after us these liberties sound and intact.
It seems incredible that in the year 1938 it is possible that there should be upon the statute 'books of one of our great provinces a law that permits the encroachment upon and the setting aside of what we have always regarded as the elementary rights of ordinary citizens. Here is what is possible under this legislation. An executive officer is enabled to punish a man iby padlocking his house before a court has found him guilty. The burden of proof of innocence is placed upon the person thus attacked, and there is no appeal from the decision of a single judge of the superior court. Any peace officer is enabled to seize literature, not only of a communistic nature-the interpretation of what constitutes communism is left to the uncontrolled discretion of the party who pleases to decide the matter-but of any sort of literature tending to produce communism. I quote from the petition sent in from the. Canadian Civil Liberties Union:
This act violates fundamental principles of the Canadian constitution. The preamble to the British North America Act states that Canada is to have a "constitution similar in principle to that of Great Britain."	This
phrase is based on Quebec resolution No. 3, which speaks of following "the model of the British constitution." Elementary principles of British constitutional government are freedom of speech, of the press and of public meeting subject to the limitations of the criminal law; the right of a man to a fair trial in open court if charged with an offence; a presumption of innocence in the accused until he is proven guilty; and freedom of the home from arbitrary search and interference by executive officers acting without judicial warrant.
There can be no doubt that all of these principles have been violated by this act. It was with astonishment that I listened to an hon. member read a list of the books and periodicals which had been seized. The whole thing struck me as being absolutely ridiculous. It is almost unbelievable that the speeches of Lloyd George, the books of Charles Dickens and of Sidney and Beatrice Webb have been seized. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has often stated in this house that the way to stop subversive activities in this country is to remove the cause. Has it ever occurred to any hon. member that there may be very definite causes for what are loosely referred to as subversive activities? _ I should like to quote from an article which I read this morning in an Edmonton paper, the People's Weekly of

May 1938. The writer of this article is Mr. S. Lapedes, secretary and organizer of the United Garment Workers of America. He says:
* ^jlShty per cent of those gainfully employed m Quebec receive wages lower than the minimum required for a decent standard of existence. In a parish near Quebec city a firm employs seventy-five workers at a maximum wage of eight cents an hour and a minimum of five cents. The minimum wage in Quebec is forty per cent lower than in Ontario.


Ernest Lapointe: The
man who wrote that wrote a lie.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have given
the name and date of the periodical and the name of the writer.


Ernest Lapointe: It is
slander.


Percy John Rowe: The minister
may look it up in the reading room. If this article is not correct, he may take whatever action he deems advisable against one who has allegedly published an inaccurate statement.


Mr. HANSELL:: We should have a press
act to make them publish the truth.


Percy John Rowe: I have heard the Minister of Justice repeatedly make the statement in this house that the way to correct subversive activities is to remove the cause. It is our business to see that these inhumanities are removed. I cannot describe this legislation as other than frantic, hysterical and altogether outrageous. It is just another melancholy example of the utter and complete bankruptcy of ideas which characterizes present day government and leadership. The attempt is made to treat the symptom rather than the disease. The attempt is made to rearrange the consequences rather than to discover and remove the causes. I have said ov er and over in the house that the resources of labour and material in this country are capable of producing an abundant and happy living for all our citizens, provided we use sound, scientific principles of production and distribution. Yet we are clinging to the carcasses of a dead system and a dead policy.
_ I appeal to my French-Canadian colleagues in the house. Over a period of centuries old France has produced a great number of brilliant and courageous defenders of democracy and freedom, and so has French Quebec. I shall not name them because they are well known to every hon. member. How does this legislation square with the immortal words of that great Frenchman who said:
I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.

Unemployed Men m Vancouver
I suggest that we should keep those words in mind and try to square our legislative enactments with them. May I suggest that we turn our attention to the urgent problem of preserving our political and industrial democracy here in new France? The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) suggested in the house about ten days ago that we should be prepared to endure "sore travail" in order to defend the democracy of old France. Let us get firmly established the industrial democracy of new France. Let us work on the principle that democracy, like charity, begins at home.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) has referred to the alacrity with which the government proceeded to disallow certain legislation when the interests of rich and powerful people in this country were in jeopardy or were questioned. One cannot help contrasting that with the fact that fourteen months have gone by, and we heard last night a recital of the terrible injustices and the serious invasions of the elementary principles of the rights of the people that have been going on in that province for fourteen months, and apparently no attention is paid thereto. This inaction on the part of the government raises a question which one hears being asked all over this country. Is there one law for the rich and another for the poor? I am reminded of the satirical remark made by another illustrious Frenchman, Anatole France. He said in one of his books:
The law in its majesty equally forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges and steal bread.
It may be, and I believe it has been argued that the government should not exercise its powers of disallowance until an application seeking such action has been presented to it. But, I suggest, in the case of such gross, flagrant and palpable transgression of the elementary rights of private citizens the government should be empowered to act without unreasonable delay.



CONCENTRATION OF SINGLE UNEMPLOYED MEN IN VANCOUVER-RESPONSIBILITY ATTACHING TO HOLDERS OF NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATES

Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the house resolves itself into committee of supply, I desire to direct attention to a few matters which, I think, constitute grievances that the government should take early steps to remedy.
First, the public property of Canada is vested in the crown in right of the dominion. The post office property of Canada is vested
in the crown in right of the dominion, and
has been constructed by the taxpayers of Canada for public use.
Second, it is the duty of the government of Canada to see that the property owned by the Canadian people for Canadian purposes is available for the purposes for which it was provided.
Third, a post office is a public place under the provisions of the criminal code.
Fourth, during the last several days the entrance hall of the post office at Vancouver has been completely filled with large numbers of idle and unemployed persons. It may be true that there has been a failure on the part of the national government to take appropriate steps to provide for them. That, however, is entirely beside the question. It is not my purpose or intention to indulge in any discussion with respect to that matter, except to point out that there is a large measure of sympathy on the part of many citizens of Vancouver for those who thus find themselves unemployed.
Fifth, under the law of this country, when persons thus unemployed or persons who have nothing to do but loiter in a public place-* and under the code a post office is a public place-they are trespassers.
Sixth, the criminal code of this country has provided that it is the duty of the owner of property that is held, as a post office is, by the crown in right of the dominion, to remove with as much force as may be necessary those persons who are trespassing upon that property. Further, the criminal code has provided that in the event of trespassers resisting attempts to remove them, they are deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation. That is section 61 of the Canadian criminal code.
I should like you Mr. Speaker, to realize that this country is now being held up before the world as a country in which there is no longer respect for law and order. Blazoned upon the headlines of great journals throughout the American continent is the statement that sit-down strikes are now the order of the day in Canada, and that the public property held by the crown in right of this dominion, not of the province, is no longer available for the purposes for which it has been constructed, but that men by hundreds are sitting there, not for hours but for days. I have no suggestion to make as to the solution of the difficulty between these individuals and the crown as represented by either the province or the dominion, by the government of the one or the other, but as a

Unemployed Men in Vancouver
Canadian I protest against the continuance of public property being held by those who are trespassing upon it. I feel quite certain that if this matter were put before them as it should be, and they were asked to leave this property at once, as trespassers, this would have the desired result; for these men are not ignorant men. The evidence of the press indicates that, in many instances, they are men of education, understanding and appreciation, and yet to enforce their demands they are carrying on a sit-down strike in the post office at Vancouver. Last year the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) declared in this house in bold terms, as reported at page 2114 of Hansard, that sit-down strikes should not be tolerated in Canada. It is true that what he had reference to at that particular time were sit-down strikes in industrial and commercial properties; but whatever may be said with respect to sit-down strikes in commercial and industrial properties, however much you may declare and inveigh against them, you must realize that a sit-down strike by those who are trespassers upon public property is one of the most serious things that could happen in this dominion.
The press in Vancouver has been directing attention to this matter. As I say, it is now being blazoned in the public press of other countries. I ask the administration to take immediate steps, on behalf of the Canadian people, to vindicate the majesty and authority of the law and see to it that those who trespass upon public property in defiance of the laws of the country are requested peaceably, honourably and fairly to leave the public property upon which they are trespassers; failing which, the steps provided for by the criminal code should be taken without delay. It is that, Mr. Speaker, to which I wish to direct the attention of the house at this time. It is a real grievance which does not affect the community of Vancouver alone. It is a grievance that affects every Canadian, whoever he may be, who is interested in the fair name and fame of this dominion and has any respect for its reputation among the peoples of the world.
I now direct attention to the second grievance about which, I think, the people of this country are greatly concerned. I hold in my hand what I dare say has been seen by many people, namely, a statement made by a returned Italian named Vincent Scap-patura, in the North Bay Nugget on May 27, 1938, couched in terms which I think the right hon. the Minister of Justice will admit should not be permitted to be used by any man who is a naturalized British subject in Canada, in which statement he refers

to our institutions as being so lacking in vigour and strength as compared with the institutions that have been set up in Italy; that England had to back down; that Mussolini "just wont scare"; that when the British fleet was concentrated in the Mediterranean, Mussolini could have sunk it, and that the British navy was too weak and unorganized to do anything about it. And so far as Canada is concerned, he points out that Canada cannot do certain things in connection with certain matters with which we deal every day, because in this democracy we are unequal to it and the only way in which we-can deal with these matters is through the-application of certain principles. To quote the words attributed to him:
"When there was a lack of employment among farm workers, the fascists sent agents to survey the farms," related Mr. Scappatura. "Work and repairs that were needed were advised to be done. Not next week or when the farmer felt like it but now!"
And then he goes on to point to the regulations that are applied with reference to the life of the farmers and others in Italy. I am not going to take up the time of the house reading it, but there are nine proposals which he asserted in this country and which are not only a reflection upon this dominion but a reflection upon the British crown and upon British public men as well as upon our institutions and our form of government. This man is a naturalized Canadian. He has been absent from this country for several years, and he came back the other day. He says that he is going to get a passport to go back to Italy; that he will sell out his property there and then come back to this country.
I ask the government of the day to enforce the provisions of the statute which was placed upon the statute books by common consent-not by a party measure. I refer to the Naturalization Act, being chapter 138 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, the first subsection of section 9, which reads as follows:	[DOT]
Where the governor in council, upon the report of the minister, is satisfied that a certificate of naturalization granted by the minister under this act or granted under anj' Naturalization Act heretofore in force in Canada has been obtained by false representation or fraud, or by concealment of material circumstances, or that the person to whom the certificate was granted has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty, the governor in council shall by order revoke the certificate.


Ernest Lapointe: It is
done frequently.

Unemployed Men in Vancouver


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; that was what I was about to say in my next sentence. It is very frequently done, and I hope that as long as we have a country it will continue to be done on appropriate occasions, as I believe it will be by all governments and under all circumstances. I direct public attention to this matter rather than the attention of the Minister of Justice personally, in the first instance, because I think it is of the utmost importance that it should be known by those who have come to this country, who have made their homes here, who 'have secured naturalization certificates, who have received the benefits and advantages of our institutions, that it is to their advantage to realize that they must conduct themselves as citizens of this new country and not as citizens of the old. I know that the Minister of Justice not only holds that view but has had occasion frequently, very frequently, to exercise the power that is involved in the cancellation of certificates; and my grievance-I put it frankly, not on my own behalf-is that such a statement as I shall hand to the minister should be made by any man in this country and that he should come back to Canada after an absence and declare that he is going to get a passport for the purpose I have indicated. My suggestion is that a commission should at once issue for the purpose of investigating the matter which I thus bring to the attention of the government.
I shall not, of course, make any pronouncement as to . the authenticity or otherwise of the statements that appear in the public press. I saw them in the press and debated with myself as to what my duty was in the premises. I think, having regard to the troubled times in which we live, it is highly important that those who obtain naturalization certificates in Canada should realize that these certificates may for just reason and cause be cancelled. I was told only a few hays ago that if that were generally understood by some in this country, we would have less occasion for worry in connection with [DOT]certain types of unrest which manifest themselves in one or two sections of Canada.
These are the two matters to which I direct the attention of the government at this time before we go into supply, in order that the government may have timely notice of a situation which later undoubtedly will engage this house in debate. I have endeavoured not to make any statement that is controversial in the sense of not being strictly within the terms of the information which is in my possesion. Had I read from the public press *of Vancouver some of the statements which
have appeared there, the statement that I have made would be much stronger than it now is. I have not for many reasons read at length the statement that appears in the North Bay newspaper; for I might thereby be deemed to be accepting it as wholly accurate, when it might be that the naturalized Italian would say that it was an improper appreciation of what he meant to say. I do believe, however, that one of the best methods by which we can deal with this whole situation-the last one to which I have referred-is for an authoritative statement to be made at the appropriate time by the Minister of Justice as to the liability and responsibility attaching to those who have obtained naturalization certificates in this country through their residence and through their oath of allegiance which is, of course, a condition precedent to the certificates being issued under our statute.


William Daum Euler: I should like to make some reference to the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) with regard to the situation in the post office at Vancouver. He has described it as a sit-down strike.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said it was so described.


William Daum Euler: I am quite willing to accept the words of my right hon. friend, but I think that possibly it is not quite a parallel case to the so-called sit-down strikes in the United States, in that the sit-down strikes there were carried on by employees on property which was not their own. I am making no excuses whatever for what has taken place; but I might say that possibly the post office property being public property, unless extremes are resorted to, the public has a certain right to be in these lobbies. I am not saying for a moment that they are not trespassing and that (hey will not have to be dealt with, but I think hon. members will admit that the situation is a rather trying one. I dare say there is a certain amount of public sympathy, but it seems to me that cannot be permitted to interfere with the proper functions of the Post Office Department. We had hoped that, instead of perhaps playing into their hands by way of ejecting them by force, the common sense of these men would, after all, lead them to leave the premises voluntarily.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have been there for ten days now.


William Daum Euler: And perhaps by avoiding any violent action, the precipitation of something worse than has so far occurred may have been avoided. I am inclined to agree with the
312S

Unemployed Men in Vancouver
leader of the opposition that there is something due to the majesty of the crown; the property belongs to the crown, and nothing should be permitted to interfere with the normal use of that property. When I say that, I would also add that one of the reasons why no drastic action has been taken is that the service in the Vancouver post office has not been interfered with. I should like to refer to what was said here the other day, I think by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) who stated that there were being carried on in the post office lobby, games, races and activities of that kind, which I understood him to say were seriously interfering with the work of the post office. That is not the case. I stated at the time that I as acting Postmaster General had had no information to that effect but that I would make immediate inquiry. I did so, and the district director forwarded the following telegram on that point:
Activities are not indulged in during hours lobby open to public. On the evening of Victoria day concert held and foot-races run in lobby. This was done in orderly manner and no damage resulted. Wednesday men requested to keep quiet as possible during the evening to avoid distracting sorters. This request complied with and when lobby was closed unemployed clean out debris and assist washing floor.
I read that to indicate that during the post office business hours there was no interference whatsoever with the functions of the post office. I am also free to say that while I and the government had hoped that the whole matter would dispose of itself; that the men perhaps would come to more normal ideas of what is right and proper and vacate the premises, I am quite willing to say to the house that in my opinion, speaking for myself, the matter cannot continue indefinitely; and some action will have to be taken if the men do not vacate the post office property. I notice the right hon. leader of the opposition is shaking his head and indulging in a bit of merriment, I suppose at my expense.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, far be that from me, but I thought it rather strange that a property belonging to the crown should be converted into a theatre.


William Daum Euler: Well, it was after hours. But I admit he might take the view he does. While it was on a holiday, May 24, I admit it is not a proper place to carry on that sort of thing. But I also say that when he evidently makes the suggestion-I do not want to misinterpret what he said-that violence should immediately have been used in ejecting these men-
[Mr. Euler. J


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was very careful to say exactly the opposite. Why did my hon. friend say he endeavoured not to misconstrue? I said to request these men to withdraw quietly, and then if they did not do it, did not understand it, to use such force as might be necessary, under the criminal code.


William Daum Euler: That bears out exactly what I said. My right hon. friend used the word "force." These men have been asked to withdraw; they have not withdrawn; now my right hon. friend repeats himself; he advocates or suggests the use of force.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The criminal code provides for it.


William Daum Euler: The law provides for many things, and if we had proceeded as drastically as might be done under the law and immediately upon this thing taking place had proceeded to eject these men by force if they did not leave when asked it is just possible- without making any excuse for them-that such action would have precipitated a condition which later we might have had cause to regret. I am free to say again this thing cannot continue indefinitely, and so far as I am concerned I think some action will have to be taken to ensure that the lobbies of the Vancouver post office shall be used in a proper way for the carrying on of the post office business.


Angus MacInnis: I do not know whether I am entitled to speak again, this being a new subject, but if I am in order-


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member has spoken twice on the motion to go into supply.


Angus MacInnis: I have spoken only once on the motion to go into supply. If I am out of order-


Ernest Lapointe: You are.


Angus MacInnis: Then there is nothing I can do, but I would like to have said a few words which I think might be of interest.


Ernest Lapointe: As far as the matter mentioned by my right hon. friend is concerned, I shall see to it that this report is given to the Secretary of State, whose department deals with naturalization matters, and I have no doubt my right hon. friend will receive some report as a result of it.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: I should like to say a few words as a citizen of Vancouver, stressing more particularly the necessity for the government to do something



193S

[Stage Direction]
Unemployed Men in Vancouver
to place these men at work. That is a responsibility from which the government cannot escape. These men are single unemployed transients. I believe several thousand of the men of that class now in Vancouver do not even belong to British Columbia; they are men from the other provinces of Canada. The stand taken by this government and the provincial government is that they will ship back to their respective provinces those men who do not belong to British Columbia. But the difficulty is that when these men get back to their home provinces they are treated there as transients; they cannot establish any claim to relief, and so naturally enough they will not go. The men are not criminals in any sense of the word, although I think they are being wrongly led. Quite apart from the men who are in the post office and the art gallery, there have been some going out during the last week begging for money, shaking little tin cans before the citizens, whereupon the city police pick them up on a charge of obstructing the police. The reason that charge is laid is that it is an indictable offence and therefore the province has to pay for their keep. Actually they are not obstructing the police at all; they hop into the police wagon and go off with smiles on their faces.
That is the position in my city, and the sad part is that it is breaking down the spirit of the citizens, breaking the morale of the city. It is something they see every day, talk about every day; it is right there on their doorstep. The result is that business is slowed down; there is no chance for more jobs in the city; it will simply mean that there will be more unemployed. I suggest to the government that the main reason why this problem is not being dealt with, was not dealt with last week, is because Ottawa is 3,000 miles away from Vancouver; our people are out there over the mountains on the Pacific slope, out of touch, and the government here does not realize how serious this question is for the people of Vancouver. If the same situation existed in Toronto, with three times the population of Vancouver, you would have
15.000	single transient unemployed there, and you would have 3,000 men camped in the Toronto post office and the Royal Ontario museum. No one in this house can tell me that if that state of affairs existed, the government here would not have taken action a long time ago. If it were in Montreal, you would have 20,000 single unemployed, and
4.000	of these men parked in the post office there and the art gallery. Then the members of the government here would realize the seriousness of the situation.
I suggest to the government that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) should go to the coast at once, where he could see the situation for himself. I suggest also that some of the forestry camps be reopened until it is possible to give these men work on the works projects. Almost a month ago I told the minister this trouble was coming, and as I pointed out then, these men have been kept all. winter in forestry camps; they are not like the men on the prairies or in Ontario who have been kept on the farms, and can go on with farm work in the summer. These men have been in the forestry camps, which are closed each spring. The men are turned loose, and they all drift to the one city. That is how the trouble came about. We have had the same thing each year for the last two or three years, and I submit to the ministers who are here to-night that some action should be taken at once. I am not saying anything about using force, but I place emphasis on the need for giving these young men work. If you do that, there will be no trouble at all about getting them out of the post office and the art gallery.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, we are a long way from Vancouver, and in a matter of this kind I would far sooner let the officials of the government in that city look after matters than try to deal with the difficulty at such long range. So far as I know, and I think so far as the government have been informed, the men about whom we are speaking this evening have been fairly well behaved under the circumstances. They are not in exactly a normal frame of mind in a great many instances. If they had desired to do harm in that city, they were in an art gallery, where they could have done incalculable damage in a very short space of time, but the fact that they have kept discipline there and do not want to damage property at least speaks well for the behaviour of the men involved. It may sound almost humourous to think that on crown property these men were almost guilty of having a pleasant evening. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would far sooner find the men doing that and behaving with a sense of decency than attempt to remove them by force and possibly have them barricade themselves in these public buildings. Instead of condemning the government for the action they have taken, I think there is some commendation due them, particularly those officials in charge in Vancouver, for the patience that has been shown under the circumstances. Further, I think the people of

Unemployed, Men in Vancouver
Vancouver have shown a great deal of sympathy and have given a great deal of support to the men involved.
When a moment ago I said they were not entirely normal I meant that they were not leading entirely normal lives. For several months previously they were in camps in the country. Then they came to the city and found no one willing to assume responsibility for their maintenance or even to help them obtain work. I would suggest, following the last speaker, that the government should exert every possible endeavour to see that these men are given a guarantee of some kind in regard to food, clothing and shelter, and then they should be provided with work. I think, if they were given some assurance of work in the near future, the trouble in regard to these men would soon be ended.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Mr. Speaker, this is Canada, and day by day we are looking at and hearing about a most extraordinary state of affairs that exists in the Vancouver post office. I cannot listen to these stories without my mind going back again and again to the situation with which the late administration had to deal at a time when depression was much worse and unemployment far more widespread. At that time the government of the day had to handle matters as they found them, and in devising methods to meet the situation with which they were confronted the government met with nothing but remonstrance, criticism and obstacles on the part of the opposition of that day. I remember the methods employed by the late administration to deal with that portion of this problem which fell to the dominion through agreement with the provinces, that is. the care of the single, homeless unemployed; methods which gave satisfaction to a very considerable number of those men, who were glad to receive shelter from the storm and subsistence, and to do work which was laid out for them. But everything that was done by the late administration for this class of men was condemned and ridiculed by those then opposed to us.
How has the problem changed? Those camps were closed. It is true that some of the camps have been reopened by other organizations for this purpose. When the camps were closed, the numbers in them having been greatly reduced, an arrangement was made between the present government and the two railway companies to employ these men for a certain length of time. When we endeavoured to get information at the end of that period as to what had become of the men who had been in the camps, we found it extremely

difficult to find any trace of them. But they have turned up since in the persons of these single, homeless, unemployed still not dealt with by the dominion government. So we look on the situation in that province to the west, which has always had the most difficult part of this problem to look after, and which has had to handle it largely by itself, and we see a condition of affairs the news value of which is being exploited by the press of the world, with the result that the people of the world are smiling at Canada.


Mr. R. M. WARREN (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to tender any advice to the government on how to deal with this problem. There is only one angle of it that I propose to mention, and it is the manner in which we have educated numbers of our single men in this country in the idea that if they fail to find jobs for themselves, a generous government will turn in and provide them with a home, with food to eat and with raiment to wear. To my way of thinking that is one of the greatest injuries we have done to the young men of this country; we have robbed them of their initiative, destroyed their ambition to go out and find work, to do any job they can find. I am afraid it is only too true that once a young man works on a government job it is very hard to get him to work for a farmer or a contractor. If he gets work with the government one year, working eight hours a day and not being pushed too hard, he wants that job the next year, and if he does not get it then it is going to be just too bad for all concerned.
My suggestion is that some way be found of getting our young people away from this idea that they must eternally depend on some governing body to look after them. As I understand it, these young men in British Columbia were offered transportation back to their home provinces. They were taken into those camps under the youth training scheme, given employment during a time of stress, and then had the chance to go back to their own provinces where very likely they would have been able to find some kind of work.


Mr. MacNEIL:: Where is the work?


Ralph Melville Warren: I venture to say that many of these men, at all events, could find work on the farms of the different provinces if they wanted to; but that is the trouble; you cannot get them to take that work after they have been doing government jobs. They do not want that kind of work.


Angus MacInnis: Are there any unemployed in the other provinces?

Sup-ply-Post Office


Ralph Melville Warren: Not in the rural districts. There are plenty of farmers looking for men.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Is the fault that of the men who are in the post office and art gallery of Vancouver, or is it the fault of this nation which has not been able to meet their needs for work?


Ralph Melville Warren: I think it is greatly the fault of the young men there, that they did not get out of Vancouver when they had the money and the price to get out where work was to be found, and to. take on the work available.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Does that clear us of our responsibility?


Ralph Melville Warren: I do not see why any
governing body should have to take the responsibility for taking care of all of its citizens. If we are going to adopt that sort of attitude-well, what are we drifting to?-just a dictatorship; that is all.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is the hon. member aware that a large number of young men are from the drought areas and could not return to the conditions which obtained there without being a great burden upon those municipalities.


Ralph Melville Warren: I suppose they are putting in crops in the dried-out areas this year, and in doing that they require help. If they have moisture, they will naturally want to put in crops, and in doing that there would be employment for numbers of these men.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member says that he supposes; is there any indication that a person would get employment if he arrived there? You cannot go to the prairie provinces only on a presumption.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
Inspection and investigation, $1,046,840.
William Daum Euler: We discussed this item the other day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What changes have been made? I understand there is an increase in the inspection department in some of the 51952-218
provinces. Perhaps the minister would give us the information so that the item could be disposed of.


William Daum Euler: There has been one additional inspector of postal services.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where?


William Daum Euler: Stationed at Toronto district.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And that is the only
addition ?


William Daum Euler: Yes, and a superintendent
of the investigations division and another superintendent of the service division, both in Toronto, and one senior postal clerk at Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Ernest Lapointe: On May 28, the Secretary of State of the United States addressed a note to the Canadian Minister at Washington setting forth new proposals for the development of the great lakes-St. Lawrence system for navigation and power. That note was accompanied by a draft treaty, and the government of the United States, we are informed, desires to publish this to-morrow. So it is only fair to the house that I should lay on the table four copies of both the note of the United States Secretary of State and the proposed draft treaty. Of course we have not considered it yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I suggest it probably would be very much appreciated by every hon. member of the house if that could be printed in the votes and proceedings. I believe that would be desirable.


Ernest Lapointe: I have not the slightest objection, and I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 1, 1938