Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, March 28, 1934.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that Right Hon. Sir Lyman P. Duff, acting as the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day at 5 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
F. L. C. Pereira,
Deputy Assistant Secretary
to the Governor General.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MacLEAN:: 1.	How many seizures were made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Prince Edward Island under the Customs Act in the calendar year 1933?
2.	How many seizures were made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Prince Edward Island under the Excise or Inland Revenue Act in 1933?
3.	What kind of goods were seized, giving quantity and value of each?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: 1.	Seventy-nine (79).
2.	Thirty-one (31).
3. Customs Act-
	Quantity	Appraised Value
Vessels	.. 4	$1,250 00Automobiles.. .	.. 9	1,900 00Rum	.. 220 gallons	660 00Alcohol.. ..	..50 "	50 00Whiskey.. ..	..53 "	795 00Miscellaneous articles	. 1	5 00

Appraised
Excise Act-	Quantity	ValueBeer	150 gallons	$ 32 15Mash	. 132	it	15 70Rum	. 127	It	9 00Illicit Spirits.. .	. 20	it	554 00Alcohol	. 99	(C	126 00Whiskey	. 43	it	245 00Complete Stills. Miscellaneous	. 9	8 50articles	9	20 45


QUESTION STANDING AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. BRASSET:: 1.	Who is the chief of the office of the telephone service in the Magdalen islands at the present time?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	Is he under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission?
4.	What is his salary?
5.	What is the total number of telephone subscribers in the Magdalen islands?
6.	How many persons, if any, have not paid their telephone subscription for the past two years?
7.	What is the name of each such person?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of order in council, P.C. 2436, of November 29, 1933, respecting the appointment of Edgar Boutet as executive secretary in the office of the Postmaster General.


CARRIAGE OF MAIL-TEMISCOUATA COUNTY
Mr. POUDEOT:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between Mr. A. J. Morin and any other person on the one hand, and the Post Office Department as well as the office of the Prime Minister, on the other, respecting the carriage of the mail to Pied du Lac, Boisvert, Les Etroits and Belanger Siding, county of Temiscouata, since 1930.


PROVINCIAL SUBSIDIES-MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. ILSLEY:: For a copy of all correspondence since September 23, 1926, between any of the governments of the maritime provinces or any premiers, ministers or departments in such governments, and the government of the Dominion of Canada, or any prime minister, minister or department in such government, or any board of audit appointed by the dominion government, relating to revision of the financial arrangements between the dominion government and the maritime provinces and the reassessment of

Business oj the House
provincial subsidies mentioned in subsection 6 of section I of the report of the Royal Commission on Maritime Claims of which Sir Andrew R. Duncan was chairman.


RETAINING WALL-ABENAKIS VILLAGE
Mr. CHEVRIER (for Mr. Boucher):: For a copy of all contracts, letters, correspondence and paylists, respecting the construction work performed in 1930, and the reconstruction or repairing of the retaining wall opposite the convent of the Grey Nuns, in the Abenakis village, in the Indian reservation, county of Yamaska; also a copy of all reports of inspection respecting the acceptance, defects and renewal of such work.


SHIPS CLEARANCE PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PIERRE CASGRAIN (Charlovoix-Saguenay) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, has
the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) been able to obtain the information which I requested about ten days ago? Where can navigators and seamen, especially those of Quebec, obtain books in French relating to marine charts and clearance papers?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, so far as the last documents mentioned by my hon. friend, the question should be put to the Department of National Revenue. As to marine charts and tidal records, there are none at present in French, and there has never been any under whatever regime; however, for some time past, I have given instructions that they be issued in both languages.


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation) :: I wish to inquire of the government whether it is the intention to codify in the French language the acts dealing with criminal offences enacted from 1927 to 1933, the same as they have been codified in English. Quebec would be very grateful to the government.
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU, (Minister of Marine) (Translation): The question raised by my hon. friend is under consideration.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Will this take long?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker,
as we are about to enter on the Easter recess I should like to ask the Prime Minister if, when parliament reassembles, he will find it possible to inform the house as to what legislation, other than that which may appear upon the order paper at that time, the government is likely to bring down before the close of the session. Also I should like to know if it would be possible to have the major measures brought down as soon as possible after the recess.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour, as soon after the house reconvenes as possible, to make known to hon. members the measures the government will introduce. In the very nature of things there is no effort to delay the introduction of legislation, but the two bills now before the committee on banking and commerce involve legislation in connection with at least three other matters, and until such time as they are disposed of the legislation cannot be submitted to the house. There is legislation foreshadowed in the speech from the throne which has been delayed in preparation, because conferences with those interested have not always been easy to arrange. I have no doubt the right hon. gentleman knows how difficult it is to get all persons interested at one time to consider and to deal with matters of public importance. But every effort will be made to submit to the house as soon after we reconvene as possible a statement as to the major measures which will engage the attention of parliament during this session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank the Prime Minister for that assurance. My right hon. friend will appreciate that with so many committees sitting it is very difficult for those of us who have not seen the intended legislation to have a chance to study it, and particularly is that so with respect to amendments to the Dominion Elections Act. If we could have that bill at as early a date as possible that would be appreciated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact, that has been in preparation since we met. I indicated the other day that at one time we thought of leaving the whole matter to the committee, as was done on one previous occasion. But owing to the fact that so many members are engaged in the different committees it is difficult to get a sufficient number to meet in the committee on privileges and elections. With that in mind we have gone forward with the preparation of the bill, which I trust within a reasonable time after reconvening we will be able to submit to the house. After the measure is introduced
Tobacco Industry

it can lie on the table for a substantial length of time, so as to enable hon. members to study it.



TOBACCO INDUSTRY


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
there is a report which a number of hon. members would like to see, namely, the report of the Hon. Donald Sutherland on the tobacco inquiry of 1933. The hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) has a notice on the order paper under the heading of notices of motions for production of papers in which he asks for a copy of the report. The hon. member has been in his seat every time the order has been called, but on each occasion has allowed it to pass. It is difficult to understand what his motive may be.


Mr. GOTT:: That will be made known in due course.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Whatever that may be, I am going to ask the Minister of Labour, who has the report, whether he could not lay the report on the table of the house before the adjournment this afternoon. There seems to be no reason why the report should not be given to those of us who wish to see it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour
(Mr. Gordon) will make a statement with respect to the report, but because I must take some responsibility with respect to it may I say that when the member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) placed his motion on the order paper and, in due course, it was reached, he expected that there would be no difficulty about the motion being passed and the report brought down. The Minister of Labour mentioned the matter to me, and after looking into it it appears that the same difficulty arises as has arisen with respect to some other reports made in times past. The minister will give a more detailed explanation than I will, but the report is of such a character as does not contemplate presentation to the house. I may add that the hon. member for South Essex, to whom reference has been made, has been rather insistent that the statute should be disregarded. He has said he has a right to see the document and have it laid on the table of the house.

Those of us who know him know that he can express himself in a most insistent manner. It is only because of the conclusion about which the minister will speak, and which the law officers tell me is correct, that this document has not been tabled in compliance with the motion on the order paper.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: The report to which reference was made is the report of a commissioner-not a royal commissioner-made under the Combines Investigation Act. In the past it has not been the practice nor has it been considered advisable to make these reports public. Section 28 of the Combines Investigation Act which deals with the publicity which should be given to reports is as follows:
Any report of a commissioner, other than an interim report, shall within fifteen days after its receipt by the minister be made public, unless the commissioner is of the opinion that the public interest would be better served by withholding publication and so states in the report itself, in which case the minister may exercise his discretion as to the publicity to be given to the report in whole or in part.
2. The minister may publish and supply copies of any report in such manner and upon such terms as to him seems most desirable.
This section refers to a commissioner under the act. Then, section 27 deals with the report of the registrar, and is silent as to publication. However, heretofore the practice has been that those reports are not made public. The reason obviously is that when the registrar makes an investigation by himself or by one appointed for such purposes, all the persons or firms are inquired into ex parte, and the information is given in confidence. The act contemplates that any six persons, by signing an application and without stating anything further than that in their opinion a combine exists, may start the machinery in motion. This proceeding is not like other quasi criminal or criminal matters where informations are laid and where the informant must, as in the case of a search warrant, state the reasons upon which his belief is founded. Very frequently it happens, at least so I am told by those who have been associated with the operation of the act for years, that where the six persons sign the application they do not appear as witnesses at all. It is sufficient to start the law in motion merely to state that in the opinion of the six a combine exists. The registrar then investigates. The registrar on an ex parte investigation may conclude that a com-

Tobacco Industry
bine in restraint of trade, a combine as interpreted by the act, does exist, but up to that time the investigation is still ex parte in a sense, the persons being investigated giving the details of their business to the registrar. But, as in this case, where the registrar in the exercise of his discretion says that in his opinion a combine does not exist it would be unfair, and I think the practice heretofore followed is sound, that the confidential information incorporated in the report of the registrar should be made available to the competitors of the firm or firms whose business was being investigated.
The investigation by the registrar, if further proceedings are taken, becomes the foundation ultimately of a criminal prosecution. The nesxt step would be the review by the minister of the registrar's decision if he has declared that the act has been violated, and then those whose conduct is under review, so far as I have been able to learn, do not appear before the minister whether he may or may not agree with the registrar, although I think it has rarely happened that the minister has disagreed with the registrar.
If a combine is reported to be in existence, the record then goes to the appropriate attorney general, or it may be referred to a royal commission, and the royal commissioner may then conduct an inquiry in public. That is the publicity that is referred to in section 28. He may report that the firms have been guilty of an invasion of the act. But during all these various investigations there has been no charge laid. The people are not put upon their trial. Their business is simply being investigated. Ultimately, as I say, the report may be dispatched to the appropriate attorney general of the province in which the offence is said to have occurred, and it is there reviewed by the law officers of the province, because the province is charged, under our constitution, with the administration of these statutes. They may conclude that there is no offence. If they so conclude, in the face of the registrar's decision and possibly the decision of a royal commissioner, that a violation of the act has taken place, then after the lapse of three months a prosecution may take place at the instance of the attorney general for Canada. But up to that point the people whose conduct is under review have never been charged with an offence, and it is not until they come before a magistrate in the province and a charge is laid and a preliminary inquiry held that the
necessity for making out a prima facie case sufficient to put a person upon his trial arises. If a prima facie case is made out the person may be tried before the magistrate or, having the right of election, may go up for trial to the next court having competent jurisdiction, and in the usual course an indictment would be laid before the grand jury. There might even then be no bill found. If a true bill is found, then for the first time the person comes before the courts to have his conduct with respect to non-compliance with the provisions of the Combines Act brought under the review of the tribunal which would impose a penalty if a verdict of guilty was returned.
So it will be seen that during the course of the proceedings under the Combines Act, if the inquiries made by the registrar were made public, the person whose conduct was under review might suffer a very great injury, and particularly so when the registrar's report is to the effect that no combine within the meaning of the act exists, because it is obvious that the information gathered by him and by his officers, being in many instances of a confidential nature, would then immediately become known to the man's competitors. As I say, the practice in the past in this house, so far as I have been able to learn, has been not to make these reports public, and I agree with the established practice. If, for instance, the committee at present sitting on price spreads desires to have the position of the growers of tobacco spread upon the record-


Mr. SANDERSON:: Would the minister
permit a question? I would ask if the Hon. Donald Sutherland, the commissioner who investigated the tobacco industry, reported to the Minister of Labour that there was or was not a combine among the buyers?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is really what we
are discussing now.


Frederick George Sanderson: I thought so.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In order that the inquiring mind of the hon. member may be relieved, the Hon. Donald Sutherland made his report to the registrar and the registrar reported to me.


Eccles James Gott: Will the minister permit me
to make an interjection? These preliminary hearings have been taking place not only recently since 1930, but ever since 1922.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has the minister concluded his remarks?
Tobacco Industry


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know that this matter is not debatable but I should like to point out to the minister that his own words at the beginning of his remarks, and I think he was right, were to the effect that publicity was an important feature of the combines legislation, but that the law states that the report is not to be made public if the commissioner himself says that it is not to be made public. The minister has the discretion as to whether it shall be made public or not. Are we to understand that the commissioner in his report said that in his opinion it would not be in the public interest to have his report made public, because unless that statement is there, there is nothing to preclude the minister from making the report public?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think the right hon.
gentleman is confusing the registrar and the commissioner.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I read the section.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Please read
the section about the commissioner.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Section 28 reads:
Any report of a commissioner, other than an interim report, shall within fifteen days after its receipt by the minister be made public, unless the commissioner is of the opinion that the public interest v'ould be better served by withholding publication and so states in the report itself, . . .


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what I wanted to know, if the commissioner had stated in the report that it was not in the public interest to make it public.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There never was a commissioner in connection with the investigation into an alleged combine in tobacco. The registrar made the investigation and a commissioner was never appointed. With respect to the report of a registrar, the act is silent as to publicity but the practice has been not to make these reports public or to lay them upon the table of the house. Probably I should not make these observations, but I must say that it is competent to the committee now sitting to subpoena witnesses. These witnesses who were interviewed under the Combines Act are easily available and the committee could get their evidence first hand. I suggest respectfully that it would be infinitely better if these witnesses were available for cross examination. It would

not be an investigation such as the registrar makes ex parte and at which he very often gains information which is given to him in confidence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us forget all about the registrar; it is the report of the commissioner with which we are concerned. Mr. Sutherland was the commissioner.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: He was not the commissioner.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was he?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: He was appointed merely to gather this information for the registrar.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As commissioner.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No.


Pierre-François Casgrain: By what authority was
he appointed?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: By order in council.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Under your department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is my
understanding of a commissioner.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Might I point out that a
commissioner must be one who is appointed by the governor in council under section 2, subsection 2 of the act. Mr. Sutherland was a commissioner under the act.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Did he state that this
report should be withheld from publicity?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There is nothing before
the house to warrant a general discussion.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 27, consideration in committee of Bill No. 42, respecting relief measures-Mr. Gordon.-Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
On section 2-Agreements with provinces.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Last night I
asked the minister to give the committee full information as to the guarantees given to the banks under this legislation. He gave only one and I should like to have them all.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 
Mr. EULER:: Has that guarantee been
discharged?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No. P.C. 1577 of July 11, 1932, P.C. 213 of February 6, 1933, and P.C. 1101 of June 6, 1933, provided for guarantees to the banks against loss with respect to advances amounting to 815,538,500 secured by first mortgage bonds of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Corporation. P.C. 1078 of June 2, 1933, guaranteed the interest and principal of a treasury bill of the province of British Columbia in the amount of 8626,533.75 issued to the Canadian Bank of Commerce to meet New York maturities of the province. P.C. 1076 of June 2, 1933, guaranteed certain chartered banks for the repayment of an amount up to 81,100,000 advanced to the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation of Nova Scotia in connection with the production of 50,000 tons of steel rails and authorized the payment of interest at five per cent by the government on such guaranteed advances until the rails were paid for by the Canadian National Railways. P.C. 1077 of June 2, 1933, guaranteed the interest and principal of a treasury bill of the province of Manitoba in the amount of 85,894,127.49 issued to the Royal Bank of Canada to meet and retire maturities of the province in New York. P.C. 972 of April 28, 1932, and P.C. 318 of February 22, 1933, guaranteed the chartered banks in Winnipeg against loss due to the assumption of liabilities of the province of Manitoba savings office to. the amount of 812.108,301.63. P.C. 538 of March 22, 1933, guaranteed repayment to certain chartered banks of an advance of 8625,000 to Newfoundland. P.C. 2238, of September 12, 1931, P.C. 1576 of July 11, 1932, and P.C. 685 of April 12, 1933, guaranteed repayment of advances made by chartered banks to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited in connection with wheat or other grains grown in 1930 and purchases of wheat or other grains deemed necessary to secure the advantageous sale of such grains. P.C. 2239 of September 12, 1931, P.C. 2403 of September 28, 1931, and P.C. 2977 of November 30, 1931, guaranteed repayment of advances by chartered banks to marketing agencies in connection with the 1931 crop. P.C. 2077 of September 20, 1932, P.C. 508 of March 20, 1932, and P.C. 746 of April 20, 1933, guaranteed repaj'ment of advances by chartered banks to marketing agencies in connection with the 1932 crop.
P.C. 2490 of November 29, 1933, guaranteed repayment of loans made by chartered banks to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company totalling 860,000,000, with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent per annum payable half yearly, such loans to be repaid on or before December 1, 1938, and to be secured by deposit, as a pledge to the several banks, by the said railway company, of its perpetual four per cent consolidated debenture stock having a nominal or par value of 8100,000,000. In the event of the dominion being called upon to repay at maturity the whole or any part of such loans and interest, provision is made for transfer by the banks to the crown of the securities held. Those are the guarantees made in the legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the
minister was speaking of orders that had been passed under peace, order and good government, he stated that these were all the orders so far as they related to the Department of Labour. Were there any orders which related to other departments of government, passed under that provision?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I believe my statement
was that these were the three that the Department of Labour had knowledge of, but they sprang in fact from the Department of Finance, and I believe that these were the only ones passed under that part of the section.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
would have knowledge of all orders, I presume.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I presume I would.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Then, in
addition to this very extended list that the minister has given us for our information, there will be a much larger sum included in guarantees for which the government is responsible in the event of default. I heard for the first time about the guarantee of an advance to Newfoundland, under which the government of Canada became responsible for a certain amount, as well as the guarantees in respect of advances to the Beauharnois company, which involves a very large amount, all to be additional to the amounts we have here, namely, a sum computed at 8110,000,000, plus loans to provinces, which are direct loans of, I think, S52,000,000 in round figures. So that under the legislation for the purpose of unemployment relief the government seems to have covered an exceedingly wide field. These guarantees to wheat producers as well as for the purchase of
Relief Act, 1934

grain, all operating under this act, are to my mind entirely foreign to relief. It might be said that the loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the purpose of employing men might well be included. But surely where guarantees are of such a wide and varied character as those indicated by the minister in his report of the orders in council passed under the legislation, the government of Canada is becoming responsible for a staggering amount in the event of failure of payment; and, frankly, with respect to some of these investments the government will more than likely have to come to the rescue. There is one certainty about the matter, and that is that unless economic conditions change the government will be responsible. Taking the tremendous addition to the debt of the country, coupled with the guarantees, the matter assumes staggering proportions. It does seem to me that too wide powers are granted the government under the provisions of this act. I know it is the tendency of the present day for governments to take such powers, and while we are prohibited from discussing other acts that are being brought down, it does seem to me that we appear to be rushing headlong in this direction,


Wesley Ashton Gordon: These powers have been
deleted from the present bill,


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
so sure about that; one would have to look into the matter more carefully before admitting that they are. Indeed, the last section of the bill gives some wider powers. However, I do not propose to discuss that at the moment. After listening to the recital of these orders in council I must say, however, that the government seems to me to have included everything it deemed necessary, or everything it could include in the act. I knew that the provisions of the act were wide, but I confess at once that I did not think it had reached the point of the government becoming responsible for deficits of foreign governments and for any possible deficits that may occur so far as Beauhamois is concerned.


Mr. RHODES:: What foreign government
has my hon. friend in mind?


Charles A. Stewart: Well, I
suppose I was a little unfortunate in the expression I used, but the government of Newfoundland is included in one of the orders in council to the extent to which my hon. friend has guaranteed that government along with the British government. I confess at once that I was unfortunate in saying foreign

government; I should have said one of the governments of the empire. But even that, in my opinion, was surely never contemplated as coming within the four corners of this measure. That is the argument I make, and it shows, when you grant these wide powers, to wihat ecctent governments will exercise the privilege afforded under the provisions of such an act. We on this side have been protesting and protesting against these wide powers. I may say frankly to my hon. friend I do not think the guarantee to Beauhamois has any business to come under the provisions of this measure. The government knew what they were doing when they were guaranteeing Beauhamois; they knew what the amount would be. I am not going to elaborate now on the terrible mistake I think the government have made in connection with Beauhamois; perhaps some day we shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter, but under the provisions of this legislation the government have strained their powers tremendously in including a guarantee of that sort.
Mr. W'OODSWORTH: I should like to join with the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) in protesting against what seems to be an unwarrantable extension of the meaning of the act. I could understand how the government might have made grants to the Canadian Pacific for keeping their shops open in order that work might be given to certain of their employees, but it is an altogether unwarranted extension when the government guarantees loans to the Canadian Pacific. That has nothing to do with the immediate purposes of relief.
The hon. member for West Edmonton has made a similar statement on the action of the government towards Beauhamois. That is a private concern; it was not immediately giving work to large numbers of our Canadian people. The government's action was essentially a guarantee to the banks that were financing the enterprise, and I do not think that comes within the original meaning of the act.
The same thing applies to Newfoundland. I am not a lawyer, but it strikes me that it might very well be contested by almost any citizen of Canada whether an act for the relief of Canadians makes possible dealing with affairs entirely outside this country. The only possible argument that could be used would be that Canadian banks were concerned, and in this and many more cases we had to come to the relief of Canadian banks that had investments abroad.

Relief Act, 1934
Omnibus legislation of this kind is very unsatisfactory. If the government wants to take to itself power to help Canadian financial institutions it ought to bring in a measure taking power to help those institutions but it should not do so in this back door sort of way.
In connection with relief proper I have a suggestion to offer to the government. This is the last day before we adjourn for Easter recess. It is quite obvious that before we adjourn we cannot get very far in legislation of this kind. Further, as was announced yesterday, the meeting which was to have taken place between the provinces and the Dominion government has been postponed for some time. We cannot intelligently discuss this matter until we have the report as to the arrangements that are likely to be made between the provinces and the Dominion government. Members of every party in the house are quite willing that relief shall be granted and are anxious that a proper relief scheme should be inaugurated, but as matters stand now, we are inevitably thrown into hostile camps and either we have to defend a policy that is not very clear or oppose one about which we know and can know very little. My suggestion is that the government should not press this matter to-day, but rather, during the recess, should take into serious consideration the drafting of a constructive program designed to deal with the whole unemployment situation. We have been promised in the past that the government would seriously consider some sort of unemployment insurance scheme. We have been promised that they would inaugurate some sort of public works scheme. We have been told that the present scheme of the dole is very unsatisfactory. I think the Prime Minister believes that; I think we all believe it. It was initiated two years ago as a sort of stop-gap arrangement and it would seem as if we should not indefinitely carry on along this line.
I should like to give the government credit for two measures that they have brought down this session. First, the central bank arrangement, which, although I do not altogether like the details of it, is one that shows a great deal of boldness and imagination and marks a distinctly forward step. Again, while I do not wrant to anticipate the discussion on the marketing legislation, I concede that it also has boldness and imagination. The government in these two very important departments of our public life is preparing to take a really forward step. I would venture to suggest that they might very well bring forward a third measure dealing with unemployment. Then side by side with the central bank and marketing legislation, rounding out, as it were, their program we would have a well conceived and carefully drafted bill dealing with this important question of unemployment. It is quite obvious that the government have been influenced in their central bank legislation by some of the developments in Great Britain, the United States and elsewhere, and that also in their marketing legislation they have been influenced by developments in the United States, Great Britain and some of the other dominions. I cannot see why they should not receive whatever help they can from the NRA and from some of the schemes that have been put into operation in Great Britain, and bring in this session a carefully arranged scheme. I believe such a scheme would be fairly well assured of support on the part of this house. I cannot speak for the official opposition, but I think I can speak more or less for members in our own corner, and more than that, for a very large number of people throughout the country. If I read the press aright, I think the public generally expect the government to do something of this kind. I am not particularly concerned with the political future of the government, but even from that standpoint they would be well advised, when they are looking after the financial and commercial interests, not to neglect labour and those who at one time were in the ranks of labour but who to-day are in the ranks of the unemployed. This session would not be altogether barren if the government would carefully consider such a suggestion and bring in a definite scheme.


William Daum Euler: What is the total amount of the guarantee to the Beauharnois corporation? I think the initial amount was something like 830,000,000. Has any further guarantee been given?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No further guarantee has been given. The amount was 815,438,500.


William Daum Euler: Can the minister say what expectation they have as to the date upon which this guarantee may be discharged, I suppose by future financing directly on the part of the Beauharnois corporation? Has he any information on that point?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not any information on that point, but the loan was secured on major securities of the company-first mortgage bonds-and I have no doubt that is the method which will be employed to retire this loan.

Relief Act, 1934


William Daum Euler: One notices in the press that Beauharnois is making a new issue of bonds and I assumed the moneys were perhaps to be devoted towards discharging the liability to the banks by whom the money was advanced. I am not usually very critical of some of the acts of the government, perhaps not so much as I should be; I like to be on pretty safe ground when I do offer any criticism. Certainly no one on this side of the house, I believe, has any fault to find if the government uses the authority which it has for the purpose of relieving those who ire unemployed. But I cannot see how the government possibly can bring under the category of relief to the unemployed such matters as to the guarantee of $60,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific, for example. That has not the remotest connection with unemployment or unemployment relief. Neither, I think, has the making of loans to the various provinces to the extent of something like $52,000,000. Certainly it can have no possible connection with relief when we guarantee the debts of the Dominion of Newfoundland, or what now has become the colony of Newfoundland. As I recall it the only excuse given for joining with Great Britain in guaranteeing Newfoundland's debts was that it might tend to destroy or hurt the credit of Canada if Newfoundland went into default. I think that is so far fetched, Mr. Chairman, as not to be worth any consideration whatsoever. Thus, by way of guarantees to the Canadian Pacific and to the Beauharnois company; by way of gifts to certain industrial concerns such as the Dominion Steel, the Algoma Steel and the Canadian Pacific; by way of loans and guarantees and advances we have committed ourselves to something like $100,000,000 or $125,000,000, a tremendous sum.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I have no objection whatever to having those powers used for the legitimate purpose of relieving unemployment, but as I said before I do not see how you can possibly argue that such a thing as the guarantee of the loan to the Canadian Pacific or the guarantee of the. debts of the colony of Newfoundland possibly coidd come in that category. If these things are done-and in this connection I refer also to the loans made to the provinces, in connection with which I am not sure that we ought to go any further-is it not just conceivable that the credit of the Dominion of Canada will be affected fully as much as if some of these corporations or provinces were allowed to go into default?
I arose more particularly, perhaps, to criticize the method by which the government 
guaranteed the advance to the Canadian Pacific. I hope no one will think I have any particular prejudice towards that great company, but I do say, as the leader of the opposition said a few days ago, that it should not have been done under this aet; it has no connection whatever with relief. If it were thought desirable-and I think it is highly questionable whether or not it was desirable *-to guarantee the $60,000,000 loaned by the banks to the Canadian Pacific against the retirement of their bonds, it should not have been done in the way it was done. The matter should have been brought to parliament and parliament should have passed upon it. I think it was almost an affront to this house and to hon. members, in view of the fact that parliament was in session last year at the time negotiations were being carried on in connection with this guarantee of $60,000,000, that parliament was not advised of what was taking place. I will say this, also; when it was definitely decided that the guran-tee should be made, with this house in session I say it was almost an affront to this parliament that due notice was not given to that effect. If we are to continue in that way where in the world will we end? I leave it to the fair minded members on the other side of the house as to whether or not this sort of thing should be carried on indefinitely. If it was right to guarantee the $60,000,000 loan to the Canadian Pacific for the retirement of their obligations surely it was the privilege of hon. members of this house to know about it when we were actually in session at the time.
I rise now to make my protest against that sort of thing; I think it should not be countenanced, and I believe if hon. members opposite had their say they would disapprove of it also.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
William Daum Euler: 
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gagnon):: Shall the amendment carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, Mr. Chairman. Will the minister give us the total amount of the guarantees to the banks?


William Daum Euler: I should like to amend my statement again; I entirely omitted to speak of the guarantees given in connection with the wheat purchases. I do not know to how many millions or hundreds of millions that might run.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: That is being kept under their hats for the present.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Chairman, the guarantees to which reference has been made were given, of course, under the provisions of section 2 (a) of the act of 1933, by which this parliament gave this government the right to loan or advance money or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking. In the judgment of the government these guarantees were made; the government thought it wise to do so. In the bill presently before the committee, as hon. members will observe, the right to make such loans, advances or guarantees is deleted.
With respect to these guarantees-and I can only speak of some of them, because others come under different departments of the government, and the Prime Minister yesterday made very dear, I thought, the situation with respect to the wheat purchases -I might say this: In connection with the Algoma Steel Corporation, about a year ago a very large delegation saw me with respect to the condition of the working people. Perhaps I had better deal with Nova Scotia first.
74726-121J


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So that we
may not get away from this question, would the minister give us the total?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is being totalled now,
and I shall have the figures in a moment or two.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It seems to
me the minister is getting a long way from the point.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It has to be added up by the officers who are sitting in front of me. First I shall deal with the Nova Scotia steel situation. A very large delegation saw me and indicated that there was acute distress in that province. Workmen had not been drawing wages sufficient to maintain them, and that condition had been in existence for a number of years, probably beginning about-the first or the middle of 1929. In each succeeding year the situation had become more acute. The delegation was composed of representatives of municipalities, the clergy, boards of trade and, if my recollection serves me correctly, there was not a member of parliament with them. The government believed that no better method could be employed to relieve the unemployment situation in Nova Scotia than to guarantee one-half of the cost of a rail order of 50,000 tons, that one-half amounting to $1,100,000. Quite true, the Canadian National Railways might not need those rails for a year or two, but they are not destructible. I believe no better form of relief could have been granted than that of guaranteeing the banks in connection with that rail order. It provided work in the steel plants and in the coal mines, and I have been advised by representatives of the company and by other public men that those steel orders being given in Nova Scotia acted as a backlog for a considerable quantity of other iron and steel business. Orders were received from South Africa, Great Britain and Australia, and the president of the company told me that had that guarantee not been given and the work started so that the company could carry on at that time there was no question in his mind that the plant would have had to be shut down. I was informed by Mr. Kelly, the general manager, and by Sir Newton Moore, the president, that this action carried them oyer what had been probably the most acute time in the country's history. As a direct result they have got the business to which I have referred and expect other business which in all would be sufficient to keep the plant and the mines operating this sum-
Relief Act, 1934



CCMMOXS

[Stage Direction]
mer. We may have been wrong in giving that guarantee, but I have given the reason.
In connection with the Algoma steel works a similar condition arose. Men were on rekef, and the situation had become very acute. In that instance we guaranteed a rail order of 30,000 tons. Sault Ste. Marie depends to a great extent on the steel plants, and in January of this year Mr. W. C. Franz, apparently one of the receivers of the plant, wrote me as follows:
Our rail mill started on the 30.000 ton unemployment order December 4, and has been operating on single term in order to distribute the work as much as possible. The order is about one-half rolled and will run to the first week in March.
The operation of the roll mill on this unemployment order not only restored employment to roll mill employees but has enabled us to secure orders for ether material to operate the ' two merchant mills through the winter. We now have approximately 1,600 men employed, and a payroll of $150,000 per month. .
During the last summer we had at Sault Ste. Marie over 1.500 families on relief, and this would have been increased materially this winter had it not been for the steel plant operation. As a result about one-half cf these families have been taken off the relief list. We now hope to get some additional rail business on the completion of the present government order, and further reduce the number on relief between now and summer.
I want to express to you our appreciation-[DOT]
Probably I should not read this-
-and that of our employees for the great assistance given us in placing these rail orders, which enabled' us to start plant operation at a time when it seemed almost impossible to take ;are of the unemployed in this district during ,he winter months.
Yours truly,
W. C. Franz.
The total cost of these two guarantees to ;he federal treasury will be only the interest.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the
minister this question: He pointed out that the rails which were manufactured as a result of the order given to Nova Scotia might not be required for another two or three years. I presume that if that is the case the additional order given to the Algoma company would make still longer the time before those rails could be used. I presume they are being paid for by the Canadian National Railways, and the government is guaranteeing the railway company. Is that not robbing Peter to pay Paul? Is that not letting the national railways in for greater liability, and is not the liability of the Canadian National one of the chief objects of the government's criticism.: ?
[Mi. <CI jrdon.l


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The Canadian National
Railways will not be charged with these rails until they need them; when they need them they will pay for them. Whether or not it was a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, I believe it was good business for both those places in Canada when those guarantees were made. That was my belief, and the belief of the government. If we are mistaken we will be judged upon our mistake.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
has said that the Canadian National Railways will pay for the rails when they want them. To whom do the rails now belong? Has the government been buying rails, storing them and will it sell them to the Canadian National Railways later? If not to whom do those rails belong? What is to become of them?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The rails will of course
stay at Sydney and Sault Ste. Marie until the railways want them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To whom do
they belong?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In the meantime the rails were manufactured or rolled with the bank's money, and the loans made to the companies by the banks are guaranteed by the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to know this: To whom do the rails belong -to the banks or to the government?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They certainly will not belong to the government until they are paid for. The government merely guarantees advances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a matter of interest in connection with banking operations. I believe the committee on banking will be interested to learn that the banks have gone into the business of manufacturing rails, according to what the minister is saying.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It may be an interesting
feature for the banking committee to investigate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are to
understand the government does not own the rails, but the banks do. Do I gather that from the minister's statement? And the banks will not be paid for the rails until the Canadian National Railways order them, moreover that order may not be placed until two or three years hence. That is a curious position. "After me the deluge," would appear to be the principle on which the government have been acting.

Relief Act, 1934


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The time that may elapse before the Canadian National want them can perhaps only be determined in the mind of anybody by his outlook for the future. They may want them all this year; I do not know, but at any rate in the meantime the cost to the government is the interest on the loan.


William Daum Euler: I presume there must be some sort of contract or the company would not enter upon the rolling of these rails. The minister may not know the terms but there must be a contract between the Canadian National Railways, if you like, and the steel mills, and there must be something left to the discretion of the railway company as to delivery. There must be some termination to it. I can well understand why the banks would be asked to pay, and the government guarantee the banks, but again I say there must be some sort of contract under which the rails will be delivered at a specified period.


Mr. BRADETTE:: On Monday night of this week there was a matter brought to the attention of this house by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) on which I must dwell at some length on this occasion. If it had been only a personal matter I would have let it rest, but the hon. member for East Algoma tried to put into my mouth words that I did not use, and he tried to make this house bplieve that I was either a radical or a pretty bad man anyway. I want to state here that I have no personal grudge whatever against the hon. member for East Algoma. I will say more, that I fully realize the difficulties and handicaps under which the big corporations are carrying on their activities industrially and otherwise in these times. I also realize what the hon. member has to put up with in connection with his contracts and lumbering activities. I wish to make it clear that the statement I made previously in the house had nothing whatever to do with the hon. member personally.
But the hon. member challenged me the other night when I stated that the letter I was reading was signed by Mr. Ellard Connolly, one of the strike leaders in the Chapleau section, and he said that Mr Connolly had never written the letter from which I was quoting. I have dozens of letters here from Mr. Ellard Connolly, all duly signed by Mr. Ellard Connolly himself, and I am going to read most of them so as to put clearly before the house the circumstances of the strike in Chapleau. The case was very clear indeed.
Further I want to say that this correspondence was sent to me absolutely unsolicited. I never knew that such a man existed as Mr. Ellard Connolly, and I do not know why he sent these letters to me, but after I had received from him the information contained in these letters I wrote and asked him if he would give me permission to use the information he had given me regarding the strike in the Chapleau section, and in a few moments I shall read his letter giving me that permission.
The hon. member for East Algoma also stated on Monday last there were no strikes in the Chapleau district. I am going to read to this committee a proclamation that was issued by the federal government towards the latter end of last January recognizing that there was a strike in that section of the country.
There was also the matter of an inquiry regarding the statements of Mr. O'Hara, one of the strike leaders in the Chapleau section, against the insanitary conditions existing in the Austin and Nicholson Company's camps. Since I made that statement on Monday last I have received information that a second inspection of these camps was made by the Ontario government and that a report was made that was absolutely unfavourable regarding the hygienic conditions of the camps at that time; but on the promise before the magistrate in Chapleau that the situation would be remedied the complaint was withdrawn. But that does not alter the fact that O'Hara was absolutely within his rights during the strike in bringing to the attention of the province and of the country some of the conditions that existed in the camps above mentioned.
I have no excuse to offer, Mr. Chairman, for taking up the time of the house with this matter because I believe that when the welfare of the bushmen and the labouring classes of this country is concerned it is time well spent by this house. I also believe in having the records straight, in having the books balanced. Again, I repeat, this is not a personal matter between the hon. member for East Algoma and myself, but it is a matter in respect to which I want the house and the country to be fully seized of the actual facts.
I shall now read the first letter that I received from Mr. Ellard Connolly. It is a very long one but I believe it is my duty to read the whole of it, more especially as the hon. member for East Algoma stated that
Relief Act, 1984

there was no strike in his district, and further because he stated that the letter from which I was quoting was not signed by Mr. Ellard Connolly.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Mr. Chairman, what I stated was that the letter was not written by Mr. Ellard Connolly, and that is capable of absolute proof.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have here, Mr. Chairman, the letter written in longhand by Mr. Ellard Connolly and signed by Mr. Ellard Connolly himself.


Mr. BURY:: How do you know he wrote
it?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Because it is in the
same handwriting as all these other letters.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That does not prove that it
is Connolly's writing.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member must give me credit for a certain amount of intelligence. I have at least fifty letters written and signed by this same man, and I am willing to place them before the committee and leave it to their judgment whether they were not written and signed by the same man. How many members of this government are writing their letters in longhand, or how many members of this house? Everyone gets his secretary to typewrite his correspondence, business and private, and then he signs the letters and becomes responsible for them. The principle is the same here. So I dispute the statement of my hon. friend from East Algoma that these letters have not actually been written and signed by Mr. Ellard Connolly himself. I shall now read the first one:
Chapleau, Ontario,
February 10, 1934. Jos. A. Bradette, Esq., M.P.,'
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir,-
Your letter of the 9th was received to-day, tor which I thank you sincerely and appreciate yenr kindly interest.
The strike, which is directly responsible for the peculiar position of the striking bushmen here took place on the fifteenth of January. It was due to the unrest and dissatisfaction of years, culminating in the extremely bad conditions this year. The principal points of contention were low wages, long hours and unsanitary living conditions.
The monthly wage rate on the limits of Austin and Nicholson was on a sliding scale of $15 to $26 per month so that a man never could find out his rate until he was being paid off, and then it was at the discretion of the foreman. Work by the month was difficult to obtain because it was an advantage to the lumber company to have the men cutting on a

piecework basis. The price, per double cord of spruce pulp, varied from two dollars to three dollars, and again nothing was definite till the pay-off. The bush was exceedingly poor, for seven of the eight camps in operation on the Jack Pine river were working in old cuts, that had already been worked for three to five years previously. The bush was full of old jack pine slash and tops from previous log cutting operations and the men had to cut their way through this in order to clean out the spruce that was left. Very few spruce swamps remained that had not been cut through before. Only one new camp was in a fresh cut. The "cord" required was of oversize dimensions and measured 8 feet, 4 inches by 8 feet 4 inches by 4 feet 4 inches, and on the strips the cutter had to cut his orvn road ten to twelve feet wide. During the early part of the season the Department of Lands and Forests cut eighty cents per double cord off the timber dues, payable to the department by the company, for the express purpose of that eighty cents being passed on to the men in extra wages, but the men never received the eighty-cent increase, and therefore decided that the company kept the sum as found money. The most difficult sections of the bush were let out to sub-jobbers who erected miserable shacks and tried to grind a profit out of the hard-working pieceworkers by paying the wretched minimum wage.
The measuring and culling, according to which the men were paid, was done by the camp clerk though there were government scalers, Abitibi scalers and company sealers and cheek scalers in the camps. The men went out to their work in the dark of the morning and did not return to camp till the dusk of evening in a vain attempt to earn a living wage. In many of the camps the average walk to and from work was from one to three miles.
The food was comparatively abundant for the simple reason that even a steam boiler must be stoked with sufficient fuel to give pressure enough to do the job. It is the unwholesomeness of the food that is the chief complaint, for often the beans and potatoes are served sour, owing to being cooked over and over again. Another glaring example of the disregard for the men's stomachs is the fact that sugar was sent out to the bush for the noon lunch in an umvashed lye can as a container. All the grievances cannot be mentioned here but merely a few that are representative of the many.
Then comes the passage that I quoted in the house on Monday last regarding the deplorable conditions of the blankets issued to the men. The letter continues on page 5 as follows:
The law prescribes certain facilities for washing and drying of clothing. At Gray's camp the facilities provided consisted of two empty lard cans for heating of water and one washtub and washboard for over one hundred men, and the washing was done on the edge of the manure heap between the barn and the river. The men were not permitted to do washing in the camp, while the building constructed in lieu of a wash shack was converted into living quarters for the foreman and his wife.

Relief Act, 1934
Men arriving at Nicholson Siding to go into the camps slept over night in the bunkhouse there, which is under control of G. B. Nicholson, and required to sleep in dirty blankets there, invariably became infested with vermin and therefore carried vermin into the camps where, owing to the wooden construction of the bunks and unwashed blankets, conditions can only be described as terrible.
There were no dry rooms in the camps and as a result of wet shirts, socks and boots drying around the bunkhouse stoves at night, the breathing atmosphere was contaminated with steam and foul odour. The floors were not kept clean, no cuspidor of any type existed on the camp floors and the towelling was not sufficient nor kept in a sanitary condition. If only the existing sanitary law's were enforced all this could not be possible.
As a result of the foregoing genuine grievances a strike was organized with the assistance of some members of the Lumber Workers' Industrial Union of Canada who v'ere working in the camps at the time. The majority of the men in the camps quit work of their own free will on January 15 and walked to the headquarters camp where they congregated and held the first strike meeting. At this meeting a strike committee and executive were democratically elected from members of the camps present to represent all the different types of work and nationalities. The committee in session appointed Davis and Berry,-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Is Davis the man who
travelled under the alias of Wacku?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I think so although I
do not know. That is the impression I gathered from the hon. member for East Algoma last Monday. I will discuss that man later on. The letter continues:
-two union men, as president and secretary and myself, not a union man at that time, as picket captain. In this committee were discussed the grievances of the men and a list of demands were drawn up. William Austin, a junior member of the firm of Austin and Nicholson was at the camp that day so he was immediately approached by a delegation of three of the workers in an attempt on our part for strike settlement. William Austin claimed to have authority to settle the affair in the interests of the company, so he was presented with a list of the grievances and demands, and time was allowed him for consideration. In this interval two provincial police arrived at the headquarters camp. G. B. Nicholson had been informed of the impending strike on the previous day and had immediately gone to Toronto to interview the Attorney General and General Williams and, according to reports, had been promised there enough provincial police, man for man if necessary, to counterbalance the strikers. About four o'clock on the afternoon of January 15, William Austin came into the main bunkhouse of the headquarters camp, together with two Ontario provincial police, and told the men that he could not meet their demands, said the wage scale would remain the same as on January 1 and as for shorter hours and better conditions he said he would do his best, conceding that board charges and price of van goods were too high. This was considered as no strike
settlement, so the strikers were informed that they were fired and were asked to draw their time and leave the camps. The strikers decided then to make strike headquarters in Chapleau, where the only representative of law and order in the immediate unorganized district was stationed permanently, namely, the district provincial police officer, P. Boland. The strikers were advised by me, as picket captain, to conduct themselves as respectable citizens, to break none of the laws and to use no force in an attempt to have other workers join our cause, other than merely explaining the situation and asking them to join us. This has been the system of picketing to date, and as a result not one man, to my knowledge, has been arrested because of his strike activities. Approximately four hundred men came out on strike. Approximately one hundred remained in the camps as camp foremen, clerks, scalers, some teamsters and personal friends of the staff who were working in the camps.
In the thirty mile walk from the camps to the Canadian Pacific railroad at Nicholson Siding the men suffered hardship of cold and some walking through the night, but all arrived at the bunkhouse at the siding which was thrown open to us by the provincial police ais shelter. The police were fair in assuming a neutral position and also made arrangements to have our baggage safely transferred from headquarters camp to Chapleau. On January 17 about three hundred strikers bought tickets and travelled by train to Chapleau while a number walked the 22 miles in order to save the 85 cents for food when arrived in Chapleau. Several men remained at Nicholson Siding as a picket guard to explain the situation to any strike breakers that might be shipped in, but these men were forced to leave the siding owing to Nicholson enforcing a "no trespassing" order.
In Chapleau the strikers shared their meagre funds with each other, as the majority of them were figured out "in the hole" by the camp clerks. Also assistance in the way of cash came in from affiliated union organizations in Sudbury, Port Arthur, Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins, Toronto, and other centres where hushmen, miners and industrial workers were in sympathy with our clean fight for a living wage, shorter hours and sanitary living conditions. In these centres the workers established picket lines to page the employment offices and notify anyone hiring for jobs with Austin and Nicholson of the strike conditions that existed here. The strike received publicity in all the chief newspapers in Sudbury, Ottawa, Toronto and other centres.
We sent a deputation to the town council of Chapleau to explain our position in the municipality, as an organized body of citizens coming in from the unorganized districts in the vicinity in order to arrange for settlement of an industrial dispute or strike. We explained that as an organized body we were in a position to care for ourselves, keep order among our members and respect the rights of the citizens of the municipality. The town fathers offered us their cooperation on behalf of Chapleau, and we arranged to get the use of the municipal hall for a meeting place on January 18 in order to get all the strikers together from all the camps for the first time, and discuss the situation and grievances in order to draw up
Relief Act, 1934
("DM MON'S
a formal list of demands to be presented to G. B. Nicholson, the president of the firm of Austin and Nicholson Company.
The meeting was held on the 18th under the direction of the strike committee, and the town council and the provincial police were invited to be present, which they were. The meeting was orderly and everyone had a hearing.
On January 19, as a result, the following list of demands were drawn up in printed form, with two copies:
I shall not read the whole list of demands because I believe the committee is aware of these. They have been published in most of the daily papers, particularly those published in Ontario. Any hon. member will see that the demands were practical and since this time most of them have been met. The letter continues on page 11 as follows:
17. Van goods to be sold at retail prices and bill to be issued at time of buying, and list of prices to be posted in office.
18.	A balance statement to be issued at the end of every month and money if required.
19.	All men should have full settlement at the camp which they work.
20. The Board of Health Act of Ontario pertaining to lumber camps must be strictly enforced. Law to be posted in camp.
21.	Every man to get disinfected clean blankets on his arrival in camp.
22.	Wash-house, bathroom, drying room to be erected immediately.
23.	Single steel beds with mattress must replace wooden bunks.
24.	Toilet soap and mirrors to be supplied.
25.	Towels to be washed every day. One towel for every ten men.
20. Floors to be scrubbed twice a week.
27.	These provisions to apply to all camps.
28.	A transient camp to be built at Rebal's camp.
29.	The men in camps must have rights to have camp committees, hold meetings, elect officers and see foreman regarding any disagreement.
30.	No striker to be discriminated against on returning to camp.
This is the list of the demands made by the strikers in that particular section of the country but it is typical of the demands made in the remainder of northern Ontario and in Quebec. The letter continues:
This list of demands was handed to G. B. Nicholson on January 20 by myself together with two fellow strikers, Fred Wright and J. St. Micheal in the presence of two provincial police. Nicholson told us he would give us bis reply via provincial police at two p.m. that afternoon. At three p.m. the strikers assembled in the hall and considered Nicholson's declaration. He said, according to script transferred by him, that the wages would remain as on January I and that his camps would continue to be run in a clean and satisfactory manner as had always been their practice, at least this was the gist of it. Needles to say the assembled strikers voted unanimously to reject Nicholson's proposal as a strike settlement, as we con-
sidered it an insult to our intelligence. We decided to carry on the strike.
Nicholson was furious and called a meeting (public) in the town hall on January 22 where be reviled the town council for assisting a "soviet led group of people," as such he slanderously referred to we strikers in breaking down his ultra-honest business, and made personal remarks which he was forced to retract later in the press. His meeting was not an orderly one and instead of gaining public sympathy, the tendency was to destroy what little he had previously. It was merely a publicity stunt for his own publication in the press.
At this time Nicholson was resorting to despicable methods to break our strike. Men were forced off relief in outside centres of Ontario and shipped to Nicholson, being told the strike was settled. One of these men, Albert Viauzin of Blind River, told me personally of these conditions. Also a number of men from Gracefield, in the province of Quebec, were shipped in as strikebreakers under a heavy guard of C.R.R. and provincial police. Ihis, in my mind, is forced labour and synonymous with slavery, against which our ancestors fought and bled, and now it is here again in the year of 1934. The camps were filled by false pretences and force, and thereby our jobs were taken from us.
By January 24, our funds were depleted to such aii extent that we were unable to buy sufficient food supplies to furnish the two feed camps, which we had established to feed our men en masse, two meals a day. As a result we made application to T. H. Wolfe, District lyeliet Officer, tor relief in the matter of food, cioth:ng and shelter, which we claimed to be entitled to, as respectable citizens of Ontario, who had helped to build up the relief funds from which we wished to draw. On January 25 we made formal application and declared destitute in a registration the number of 251 men. Hie wage scale notice which accompmi s this letter was posted and some fifty-three men went back to the camp under the same old conditions, but this did not break the strike. On the 1st of February there appeared a notice in the "Chapleau Rost" that we remaining' strikers had been finally dismissed, and our names struck from the books of Austin and Nicholson, and that our places had been fi!led.	.
Lp to this time relief had been refused by the district relief officer on the grounds that there were still our old jobs open to us in the camps. On February 5th outside union assistance failed entirely and we were faced with starvation, so once again we approached the relief officer and he informed us that he had written the department in Toronto stating that we were no longer in the vicinity and that was the information they had to go by in Toronto, but I was able to inform Mr. Wo'fe that [ had taken a precaution against this by sending the Hon. Charles McCrea. representative of Sudbury district, the information by telegram on February 2nd that two hundred men were still on strike in Chapleau. destitute and forced to seek relief owing to their jobs being taken by strikebreakers shipped in from Quebec and that they had my information in Toronto to counteract h?s. He had sent in his report without consulting us, the principals, and his report was erroneous so we asked him to send in a true report and obtain the relief

Relief Act, 1934
to which we were entitled and which, in the face of starvation, was so sorely needed. Mr. Wolfe's voice failed him so that he was unable to phone the proper authorities. The sergeant of the provincial police took up our case in conjunction with the mayor of Chapleau, and as a result we were able to secure enough emergency supplies to carry us till the next dey. On the following day, February 6, Mr. Wolfe, the relief officer, was confined to bed and we were faced with a worse situation than before. for the relief officer could not be seen. Therefore I deemed it expedient to send the following telegram to Hon. Charles McCrea, to the Minister of Labour and also the Minister of Lands and Forests; "Bushmen still d statute in Chapleau. Situation critical. Relief formally app'ied for several days aeo. No action. District Relief Officer T. H. Wolfe sick abed to-day. Who is responsible? Reply at once." The following reply came back from Dr. Robb. February 7. 1934: "Relief officer Mr. Wolfe will handle your situation."
On presenting this telegram to Mr. Wolfe at his bedside he stated that anything he might do would relieve the situation till the next morning only. He asked me to leave the town at once, and stated that if the strikers broke down the organization he would deal with them individually and have them come in to him one by one. My reply was that I had been elected by the men to present their case for relief on their behalf, and that our intentions were to remain organized for the mutual benefit of all concerned. Since then Mr. Wolfe has remained confined to the house, and the provincial police have been handling the relief situation and procuring supplies for us, quite to the satisfaction of all of us. Mayor Edwards, on being approached as to whether the relief officer had any authority to ask me to leave town, stated that Mr. Wolfe had no authority to make the request, and the town council said they appreciated the value of our organized efforts in preventing trouble and extended to me their hearty cooperation and the freedom of the town. The provincial police came in on this strike, prepared to fight, but remained to play, so to speak, and they also appreciate the value of organized unity. As citizens we recognize the rights of others and only expect that our similar rights be respected in turn. The Minister of Lands and Forests asked to be advised of the number of men who desired to go to board camps, so we held another meeting and took a census of 130 destitute strikers, who all wished to remain in Chapleau as a unit, to press their claim to the proper government authorities in Toronto and Ottawa for a full investigation into the present existing conditions in the lumber camps, and also investigate discrepancies in the expenditure of the taxpayers" money for relief in the unorganized districts in the vicinity of Chapleau. The men appointed me, by election, at the meeting, to present the case on their behalf to the proper official authorities. The following telegram was therefore sent to Mr. Finlayson, the Minister of Lands and Forests, in reply to his. February 7. 1934: "Your wire received. Mr. Wolfe states that anything he might do will relieve situation until to-morrow morning only. Approximately one hundred and thirty men destitute and willing to work for relief here until strike settled, but require immediate and impartial inquiry into industrial dispute here. The situation is extremely critical to-night. Wire advice." The same wire was also sent to the Minister of Labour, Toronto, on that day, February 7, when the affair was also laid before the federal Minister of Labour, as you ha to confirmed. Our meeting was no communist affair, as some people in town have been led to believe, for there were two or three provincial police present at the meeting who were quite prepared to handle any eventuality of that sort. We are a lumber workers' organization. Nicholson says that our funds are backed from Moscow but we haven't seen any " Moscow gold " as yet nor do we expect to require it.
G. B. Nicholson made the statement from the public platform on the occasion of his meeting here on January 22nd that his camps conformed to the relief standards as to sanitary conditions. That is one point to be settled before the investigation committee which we require here, as to whether Nicholson's camps are relief camps or lumber camps. If the operation of the Austin & Nicholson Lumber Company is being assisted from the relief funds of the province and dominion, well it is a scandalous misuse of the taxpayers' money which will precipitate one of the biggest investigations in the north country. The district sanitary inspector, I). S. McKee of Sudbury made an aeroplane trip into the camps in the company of G. B. Nicholson, on a tour of inspection, after the strikers had left the camps. Consequently there appeared in the press an account of McKee's report as to sanitary conditions in the camps. This report I brand as false and have endeavoured to have the Ottawa Citizen publish a letter in our defence, for we made no unjustified complaints as to existing sanitary conditions in the camps.
There are three very good reasons why this Chapleau strike should be a federal issue.
1.	G. B. Nicholson represented the lumber men of Canada at the imperial conference in Ottawa last summer, and while there, I believe, a great fuss was made about Great Britain trading with countries that employed slave labour and had uncivilized living conditions. Well, this is the very mess which we have laid on Mr. Nicholson's doorstep here in Chapleau, and we are of the opinion that the cleaning-up should begin here at home.
2.	The corrupt method of breaking our lawful strike, by bringing in strikebreakers from the province of Quebec, to take our jobs in Ontario, is surely an interprovincial affair, to be investigated best by the federal government.
3.	As a direct result of the unscrupulous methods of strikebreaking used by Mr. Nicholson, we are forced to draw on relief funds which, in our case, I expect are 50 per cent federal and 50 per cent provincial, as we are from an unorganized district.
Those are the reasons, fairly put, why we require an industrial investigation, as provided already in the present session of parliament. The investigation should cover, in this Chapleau district, the lumber camps, sanitary conditions, workmen's compensation for bushmen. and the relief scandal that evidently exists here.
Our men intend to remain here as witnesses on their own behalf for the investigation
The time is now opportune to draft a clean labour code for the north, and the north is worthy of it, for we are now on the threshhold
Relief Act, 1934

of unprecedented development of natural resources in this district, as the mineral possibilities here are being probed deeply these days.
The situation here requires an investigation committee that will be able to investigate anything from a member of parliament's collar to the Royal Bank. At any rate, it will disclose present graft and corruption which dissipates the taxpayers' sweat-earned contribution to civilization. It is only fair to our imperial trade relations that such an abject condition here should be wiped out, for Britain has ever been averse to slavery, especially in 1934, when we should be marching onward rather than reverting to customs of the dark ages.
As enclosures herewith are copy of Chapleau Post. Sudbury Star, and a section of "The Toronto Star," which contain articles pertaining to the affair here, also one of the wage posters put out by Nicholson.
Personally, I am a Canadian citizen of British pioneer stock, born, reared and schooled in Bromley township, Renfrew county till January 1, 1927. when I came to the unorganized districts in the vicinity of Chapleau, where I have made my living since as bushman, track-worker, sawmill hand, river driver, trapper and prospector. At present I am a property holder in Sudbury district, as I hold a number of mining claims in the Swayze gold area, near here.
Strikers here want only a living wage and civilized living conditions. It is not our fault that the strike is still on, as we have done everything in our power to reach a settlement long ago. We were forced to seek relief as our jobs were filled by outsiders.
Ellard Connolly.
I believe that the Minister of Labour as well as the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario and the hon. members for the two Renfrews are familiar with the subject matter of this correspondence. On February 5, 1934, I received the following letter from Mr. Connolly, signed by himself:
You are quite at liberty to read any letters or documents which I may send you to any person whom you may desire, and make all possible use of them to your benefit, and have particular request to read the letter mentioned, to the House of Commons.
That will cover the matter so far as that letter is concerned. I have under my hand several other letters dealing with the situation and copies of letters sent to either the Minister of Labour at Ottawa or to the Minister of Lands and Forests at Toronto, or to some members of parliament. I also have some pay-roll lists showing the small amount received by some men after days and sometimes after months of work in certain camps. It is not my intention to read these documents to the house. I have also a copy of a letter sent to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon).
As to the statement made by the hon. member for East Algoma the other day that there was no strike in liis district, the

Chapleau section, I have in my hand a document emanating from the federal Department of Labour under date of January 19, 1934, and reading:
Re reported strike or lockout of pulpwood cutters employed by sub-jobbers on logging contracts for the firm of Austin-Nicholson, Chapleau district, Ont., commenced on or about January 15, 1934.
This statement was made by the Department of Labour on January 19, only four days after the strike had started in the Chapleau section, so that the statement made the other night by the hon. member cannot stand after the committee has taken cognizance of this document.
In a letter dated March 3, the same Mr. Connolly has this to say about the strikes.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I would like to ask the hon. member who Mr. Connolly is.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: He is one of the strike leaders in the Chapleau section. He is still at Chapleau leading the strikers who remain there.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not want to curtail the spreading on the record of any useful information, but I would like to suggest very respectfully to the hon. member that I am desirous if at all possible that this legislation go through before adjournment for the Easter recess. The seriousness of the situation I shall not dwell upon because I think it is well recognized by all hon. members. If there is any other time during the course of any debate that may arise on some other topic during this session of parliament, I would suggest, with great respect and with a good deal of diffidence, to the hon. member that he might postpone reading this letter until then; the Labour estimates are not through the house yet and it might be done at that time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
says that he would like to have this legislation go through before we adjourn for the Easter recess. I understood the Speaker to say that the deputy of the Governor General would arrive at five o'clock to assent to such legislation as was in readiness. It is now five minutes to five o'clock so that it is obviously quite impossible for this legislation to be assented to then. May I point out to the minister that so far as this side of the house is concerned there has been no delaying of the progress of the legislation; as a matter of fact we have been seeking to expedite it?
As regards what the minister said about the legislation going through before the Easter recess, I should like to point out that on two

Relief Act, 1934
-previous occasions relief measures expired some weeks before the new legislation came into force and the government, nothwithstand-ing that fact, found it possible to meet any obligations that arose. I would assume they would have the same power at the present moment, so there should be no reason why anyone should be embarrassed through a delay for which the opposition has certainly not been responsible. I have in my hand, for example, a memorandum which relates to the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, passed in the session of 1931. That act expired on March 1, 1932, and the relief legislation that followed did not receive the royal assent until April 4. As a matter of fact, the government introduced the resolution to renew this legislation under the title of The Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, on February 26, 1932. Nothing further was done until March, although the previous act expired on March 1. The following is the memorandum with regard to the dates:
Consideration of resolution in committee deferred to	 March 8
(Resolution debated March 8. 9, 10,
11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21. 22, 23.)
(House of Commons adjourned for
Easter	March 23)
(House of Commons reassembled.. March 29) Resolution adopted in committee, reported, read second time, and concurred in-under closure.. .. March 29 First reading, Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act,
1932	 March 29
Second reading	 March 30
(Considered in committee of whole,
March 30, 31.)
Third reading	 April 1
Royal Assent	 April 4
So that over a month elapsed between the expiry of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, and royal assent of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932.
In regard to the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, that expired on May 1, 1932, but it was not until May 13, that royal assent was given to the legislation making provision for relief subsequently to the expiration of that act. May I just give the
record there?
Introduction of resolution to renew legislation (under title " Relief
Act. 1932")	 April	26
(Resolution debated in committee April 28, May 3.)
Resolution adopted in committee, reported, read second time, and
concurred in	 May 4
First reading, Relief Act, 1932.. .. May 4
Second reading	 May 9
(Considered in committee of the whole, May 9, 11.)
Third reading	
May	12Royal assent	
May	13
Therefore thirteen days elapsed between the expiry of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, and royal assent of the Relief Act, 1932. The minister must not try to have the committee believe that any interest in regard to the unemployed is going to be prejudiced as a result of the delay over the Easter recess, and certainly if such were to be the case the minister would be wholly responsible for not having introduced the legislation until Thursday of last week, expecting it to be passed without any discussion whatever. I repeat that it is at five o'clock that the deputy of the Governor General is to come to parliament.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not want to appear
to be trying to place blame or anything of that character upon the opposition or upon any hon. member; I make just the plain statement that on March 31 any right that this government has to continue relief or, rather, to supplement the efforts of those primarily responsible for relief, ceases; and if there is a hiatus, it will result in at least a good deal of confusion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I make the
same statement now which I made on Thursday night, that such would be the case and notwithstanding the fact that I made that statement then, the ministry have gone on with other measures in the interval; they have not given the relief measure the right of way. They introduced supplementary estimates. The Prime Minister brought in the marketing legislation and we had a discussion on that. There have also been several other discussions. If the ministry were seeking to avoid any embarrassment, certainly those other measures should not have been permitted to interfere in view of the statement I made pointing out to the house just what the minister is admitting now, so the responsibility for any delay rests wholly and solely upon the minister and the government. Certainly, when the government have had from the time parliament assembled until this moment to deal with this matter, it is very singular that they should have introduced the legislation only on Thursday last. If the minister will look at Hansard he will see that the Prime Minister took good care to put on his shoulders the blame for the legislation not being proceeded with a week or two sooner than it was. I was rather surprised when I read the statement that it was made so obvious that it was because the minister was not in his seat we could not go on with the measure. When the minister seeks to have it appear that
Reliej Act, 1934

somebody else is responsible for the delay, the statement of the Prime Minister should be brought to his attention.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I should like to make just a short statement, and to repeat that so far as the right to grant relief or to help the provinces is concerned that right expires on March 31. I believe that measures have been put through in other countries, much more comprehensive than this measure is so far as their effect on the treasury was concerned, in the space of an hour or two. I am frank to confess that I think ample time has been given for any necessary discussion of this bill since its introduction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There has been very little time given; as a matter of fact the minister has not given us the information for which we asked in connection with many matters. The minister knows that when the legislation leaves this house it has to pass the Senate, and the Senate has finished its business for this term.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The Senate has been sitting this afternoon, awaiting this bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: According to the announcement made this afternoon the deputy of the Governor General was to give the royal assent at five o'clock, and when the deputy arrives to give the consent the business of the Senate is concluded. This measure is not through the committee stage as yet. Third reading can be granted only by unanimous consent of the house; and certainly we do not propose to allow this measure to be rushed through without the information being given that will enable us to say whether or not the legislation should go through. We have some very important amendments to move to this legislation both in committee and on the third reading, and certainly we are not going to be denied that privilege because of any effort the minister may make to stampede the committee.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There is nothing further from my mind than the belief that by any act or word of mine I could stampede this committee into any hurried action on anything. In regard to this legislation and the legislation passed last year, the government must table each day the orders in council passed thereunder. Each act reflected by an order in council under the legislation of last year was laid on the table of the house for the information of hon. members, as the records will shew. While parliament was not sitting those orders in council were synopsized and published in the Canada Gazette. It is

quite possible that there are other matters upon which argument and comment might very properly be made, but the information asked for since the introduction of this bill was contained, I think in its entirety, in the orders in council which have been either published in the Canada Gazette in a synopsized form or laid upon the table of the house daily for the information of the members.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to add to what I have just said that this long delay in introducing this measure this session, resulting in the legislation coming up just before an adjournment of parliament, is part of a deliberate policy on the part of the administration to put off at every session until the last moment any discussion with reference to labour matters. It was the same at the special session of 1930; very little time was given for the discussion of labour matters and all the time was taken up with questions of the tariff and national revenue. In the 1931 session the legislation was brought down in the very closing days of the session. It was the same during the following session; if one looks at the records I cited the other night it will be found that the deliberate attempt of the government with respect to this question of unemployment has been to delay until the last moment and then to try to crowd the legislation through because of some adjournment or because of prorogation. I think the minister will find that in 1934 he can do all that he did in 1932, with respect to these matters, notwithstanding that an adjournment may intervene. I think he will find himself able to do all that is necessary in the matter of meeting the situation.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Would the right hon.
gentleman suggest that the government could go ahead and authorize the expenditure of public money without statutory authority?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not
making any suggestions whatever; I am citing what the ministry have done before and what they know they are in a position to do to-day. They have their majority; I suppose they are going to stand or fall by this legislation, and I think they know what are their powers in this regard. The minister stated that he had supplied all the information that was requested. A few moments ago I asked him to give us the total of the guarantees given the banks by the government under these relief measures. We have not been given that information as yet. The minister started to talk about the coal mines of Nova Scotia; then he jumped to the Algoma Steel Corporation, and he has been taking up the time of the committee himself.

Relief Act, 1934


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I gave to the committee the amount of the guarantee in each case, with the exception of the figures in regard to wheat, which are not determinable by me. It is a simple matter of arithmetic, a sum as they used to call it when I was in Dublic school, to total those figures. However, I have added them up for the right hon. gentleman. The guarantees amount to 396.552,462.87. The loans to the provinces, including S2.000,C00 to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, total 852,927,267, making a grand total of $149,479,730.34.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To which, in estimating liabilities and expenditures, there shoud be added the SI 10,000,000 that has been actually disbursed in cash under the relief measures?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Quite.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the minister if the total of the guarantees he has given includes the guarantees given the banks in connection with wheat?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No; I made that plain, I thought. It does not include the guarantees given in connection with wheat.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Chairman-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order-


Onésime Gagnon: The hon. member for East Algoma has the floor.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I had the floor when I was interrupted by the Minister of Labour.
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Gagnon):	The
Minister of Labour was followed by the right hon. leader of the opposition, and I first saw the hon. member for East Algoma.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I had the floor when I was interrupted by the Minister of Labour, so when I sat down I did not lose my position in respect to the hon. gentleman.
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Gagnon):	Thehon. member has not	lost his right to	speak
again after the hon. member for East Algoma has concluded.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Surely, Mr. Chairman, you are not ruling that if the hon. member who has the floor sits down in courtesy to the minister, he thereby loses his right to continue his remarks.
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Gagnon):	The
hon. gentleman had the right to refuse to be interrupted by the minister, but he permitted the minister to interrupt him. He does not lose his right to speak after the hon. member for East Algoma has concluded.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Surely the committee
will not tolerate such a ruling by the chairman. I had the floor and I resumed my seat out of courtesy to the minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Who is calling order?
Who is asking me to sit down? I should like to see any man come and make me sit down. Out of respect to the minister I sat down when the hon. gentleman addressed a question to me, and that was the only reason I sat down. Otherwise I should have continued my remarks. Surely a member should not lose precedence simply because he is respectful to a minister or to any other hon. member.


Mr. BROWN:: If this ruling is sustained,
Hr. Chairman, the question will arise as to whether we should treat a minister with any respect whatever. If a member sits down out of courtesy to a minister lie should not lose his place.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think there is any need of any untoward incident arising at the moment. As a matter of fact I have no doubt the chairman was under the impression that I was under also, that my hon. friend from North Timiskaming had concluded his remarks for the moment. Inasmuch as my hon. friend has said that he had not concluded his remarks but that he yielded his place and sat down in order to permit the minister to ask him a question. I should think he would have a perfect right to continue for the remainder of his forty minutes. I think there is no doubt about that., and I am sure this whole difficulty has arisen due to a misapprehension on the part of the chairman, and on my own part as well. I think perhaps the simplest course to pursue is to accept the statement of the hon. member for North Timiskaming, and to allow him to conclude his remarks within the forty minute limit.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am perfectly satisfied to give place to the hon. member for North Timiskaming, on the understanding that he completes his original forty minutes, but does not begin on another.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: If that is the dictum
of the hon. member for East Algoma I shall accept it gracefully. I appreciate the opportunity of completing my remarks, and shall say only a few words more.
As has been said, on the estimates for the Department of Labour a further opportunity will be afforded to discuss this matter. I should like to mention one paragraph in a letter from Mr. Connolly dated March 3,
Relief Act, 1934

1934, and shall reserve my right to speak again when the estimates for the Department of Labour are under consideration. Speaking about the radical element leading the strike, Mr. Connolly states:
The bushmen were merely assisted by the Lumber Workers Industrial Union in organizing the strike and that union also helped to feed the strikers until February 5, when we went on government relief, and the union then lost any control or respect which they may have had up till that time. To illustrate this may I state that immediately after we were successful in obtaining government relief the district office of the union in Sudbury endeavoured, through their organizer Jim Davis here, to call off the strike and organize a retreat. As Davis had no control over the strikers here-
The name of Jim Davis was mentioned by the hon. member for East Algoma.-
-we told him that the strike was ours and we intended to carry on, as we did not come here to do any retreating and we therefore intended to remain on strike till we had obtained a settlement suitable to ourselves.
That is all I wish to say now. Again I wish to express my appreciation for the courtesy extended to me by' the Minister of Finance and by the Minister of Labour. I shall speak again when they are considering the estimates of the Department of Labour.


George Brecken Nicholson: It is a matter of regret to me, and I apologize to the committee for being forced to do so, to refer to a matter in which my name has been used so frequently. But as the hon. member for North Timiskaming has constituted himself parliamentary representative of the Canadian Labour Defence League, and


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I rise to a question of
privilege. I did not mention the labour defence league while I was on my feet. Not a single word about that organization was mentioned in my speeches either previously or at the present time. I resent the imputation made by the hon. member.


George Brecken Nicholson: My reason for making the statement is that the labour defence league, operating under a variety of names, are the people behind the difficulties in the lumber operations in northern Ontario. This is a statement which is capable of proof. Speaking on March 12 the hon. member for North Timiskaming made a very radical and drastic statement with regard to conditions in the lumber camps. He told the house that he knew the conditions from his own knowledge, and that he had visited the camps.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I never said I had visited the camps at Chapleau.


Mr. SPOTTON:: You are always talking.


George Brecken Nicholson: May I repeat that in
almost two columns of pages 1415 and 1416 of Hansard the hon. member referred to the Chapleau strike, as he called it. Because on two or three occasions the hon. member has denied his statements, and particularly the statement that he had visited the camps I shall take this opportunity to quote his words as they appear in Hansard. To begin with, he said:
With reference to the minister's allusions on February 26, to the effect that some of the leaders in the Chapleau strike were radicals. . ..
And so on. Later he stated:
. . . . these lumbering camps in northern Ontario. Talk of sweatshops and of people being underpaid.
Then, at the bottom of the second column of page 1415 he made this statement:
Some hon. members may object,-
That was in reference to the reading of a nineteen page letter.
-but these men have been suffering. They do not know just where to find a solution for their problem. It is stated in this letter that certain camps are absolutely filthy and not fit for human habitation.
Then, referring to himself, the hon. member said:
I know that no hon. member would live in them for even half a day.
How does he know?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: By the letter; the hon. member just mentioned it.


George Brecken Nicholson: The hon. member
knows it of his own knowledge, because of these letters. Then he continued all down the column in his references to the conditions at Chapleau.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
^ Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:

The Royal Assent
An Act to amend The Fisheries Act, 1932.
An Act to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the Corporation of the City of Ottawa.
An Act respecting the appointment of Auditors for National Railways.
An Act to amend the Technical Education Act.
An Act to ratify and confirm the agreement respecting the joint use by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company of certain tracks and premises of His Majesty at Saint John, N.B.
An Act to ratify and confirm an agreement made between The Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company and The Campbellford, Lake Ontario and Western Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
An Act respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1934.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1935.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 42, respecting relief measures.-Mr. Gordon.-Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
On section 2-Agreements with provinces.
George Brecken Nicholson: Just before hon. members were summoned to the senate I was referring to the statements which had been made on March 12 by the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette). I had pointed out that in his statement which covers two columns of Hansard on pages 1415 and 1416 the hon. member had discussed nothing else but the strike in the Chapleau district. He denies that he had visited these camps, but I should like to quote his remarks as follows:
Last fall I visited some of these lumbering camps. I found some of them to be all right but others were not. In certain camps a human being should not be allowed to live much less to sleep. There seemed to be no attempt at cleanliness, in fact, filthiness seemed to reign supreme. These camps I refer to are not in my riding-
I should like to ask the hon. member what camps are there in northern Ontario at which labour troubles have occurred this year except those in his own riding? There is no camp in northern Ontario at which labour troubles have occurred except the camps in the Chapleau area and perhaps some at the head of the lakes.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of personal privilege. My statement which appears in the last paragraph of
the first column of page 1416 of Hansard reads:
Last fall I visited some of these lumbering camps.
At that time the strikes were wholly in my riding and in northern Quebec, there was no strike in the Chapleau district. The hon. member is not right in trying to infer that I visited camps in his section.


George Brecken Nicholson: The hon. member was speaking on March 12 and he was referring to these camps in the Chapleau area.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Mr. Chairman, on a
question of personal privilege; the hon. member is not going to put words in my mouth which I did not say. I said that last fall there was no strike in the Chapleau district.


George Brecken Nicholson: If the hon. member
would only listen for a moment; I am referring to what he said on March 12.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: So am 1.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am referring to the
statement which commences in the second column of page 1415 of Hansard and continues to the bottom of the first column on page 1416. The hon. member was referring to the Chapleau area from beginning to end of his remarks and he stated he had visited these camps.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Mr. Chairman, again on a question of personal privilege. The hon. member is not going to put anything over on me. I stated that last fall the strikes were in my own section and in northern Quebec, while the new strike took place in the month of January. Is January in the fall or winter? Surely the hon. member has enough intelligence to know the difference between the two seasons.


George Brecken Nicholson: I challenge the hon. member to show me one word in Hansard of March 12 which refers to a strike in a district other than Chapleau.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I mentioned strikes-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: He challenged him.


George Brecken Nicholson: I challenge the hon. member-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On a question of personal privilege; I stated in the last paragraph of the first column of page 1416 that last fall-
Relief Act, 1934


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gobeil):: I cannot see any question of personal privilege.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Certainly there is.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: He was challenged to answer.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member is trying to put words in my mouth and insinuate that I am wrong.


Samuel Gobeil: The hon. member is quoting Hansard.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: He is quoting it his own way and not in the proper manner.


Samuel Gobeil: The hon. member should wait until the hon. member for East Algoma is finished before giving his answer.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am not going to waste any more time. As I stated on Monday evening, I will give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt. At that time I stated he was doing one of two things, he was making a statement about something as to which he knew absolutely nothing or he was deliberately misrepresenting facts. I will give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt and say that in his loose-lipped manner he is talking about things as to which he knows nothing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I want those words withdrawn by the hon. member.


George Brecken Nicholson: Now, sir -


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On a question of personal privilege; I want those words with-drawm. I can speak just as nicely as can my hon. friend and I want him to withdraw those words.


George Brecken Nicholson: Let me go on-


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Withdraw.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member must withdraw those words.


George Brecken Nicholson: I will withdraw anything to satisfy the constituted or self-constituted representative of the Canadian Labour Defence League and the Workers' Unity League in northern Ontario.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I want the hon. member to withdraw that. I am not the self-constituted representative of the Canadian Labour Defence League of Canada; I am the constituted representative of the people in the riding of North Timiskaming. I want the hon. member to withdraw that statement. He 
has no right to insinuate that I am the representative of an organization of which I know absolutely nothing, either directly or indirectly.


George Brecken Nicholson: The hon. member is willing to take up the time of this committee in reading documents written by the paid representatives of the Canadian Labour Defence League.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will have to withdraw those utterances.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Chairman. I understood that I had the floor and I am not going to allow the hon. member to prevent me from speaking.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am speaking to a
question of personal privilege.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) should realize that there are other members of the committee besides himself. This should not be a duel or vendetta between himself and the hon. member. The hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) has the floor. The hon. member for North Timiskaming took the better part of half an hour to make his remarks and he was not interrupted by the hon. member for East Algoma. Surely he can wait his turn to make a reply and not rise up every half second on a question of personal privilege which may or may not be a question of personal privilege. We never could proceed with the work of the committee if we adopted such debate rules as these. I will admit that the hon. member for East Algoma would have better left unsaid some of the things which he has said and that on occasion it might be quite proper for the hon. member to rise to a question of personal privilege, but he should not keep jumping up and down like a jack-in-the-box simply because he does not agree with the interpretation placed upon his remarks by the hon. member for East Algoma. He will have a full opportunity to make a reply.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I always appreciate the
judgment of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) but surely I do not have to stand for an hon. member stating that I am the self-constituted representative of the Canadian Labour Defence League. That is not a fair statement.


Samuel Gobeil: The hon. member for East Algoma has the floor.


George Brecken Nicholson: I will again give the
hon. member the benefit of the doubt and say

Relicj Act, 1934
that if he is not the constituted representative of the Canadian Labour Defence League and the Workers' Unity League in northern Ontario, he has used the time of this committee to read documents which were handed or sent to him by the paid agents of those associations.


Mr. NEILL:: I heard the hon. member
himself read one the other day; he read one from the Unity league, from a man named Davis.


George Brecken Nicholson: I may read one today and when I do I will tell the committee just who Davis is. However, having failed in the impression which he has tried to convey to this house and to the country at large- and the newspapers commented on the fact that the hon. member for North Timiskaming had been in the camps in the Chapleau area, and I have read Hansard myself-what does the hon. gentleman do? He reads a series of documents written by a paid agent of the labour defence league, which operates under divers hames in northern Ontario, these documents bearing the name of a man named Connolly whom I have known for years. His signature appears on these documents, or is authorized to appear thereon, and this man Connolly boasts openly that he is being paid $-1 a day with expenses for doing the work he is now engaged in. I can prove that he so boasts. When his fellow workers were going back to the woods, after having been brought out under false pretences by six communists who went to get them, Connolly stated to his fellow workers, "Why should I worry? Why should I go back to the woods when I am getting S4 a day for what I am doing?" If my hon. friend will go to the bottom of this matter he will find that it is just these communist organizations that are endeavouring to ensnare and entrap honest Canadian workmen. I will say frankly that Connolly was an honest working man, a good type of Canadian citizen without question, as are all the other men working there; but the fact is'that they have allowed themselves to be led into this trap.
Let me mention one other matter to which my hon. friend refers. The letter which he read made the statement that Nicholson was a member of the lumbermen's committee at the Ottawa conference. Well, I admit the accusation; I was a member of that committee, it having been my honour to have been selected as chairman. And let me say to you, Mr. Chairman, that it was because of the effort made by that committee, and the success it achieved, with the support of this government, in getting Canadian lumber into
the United Kingdom market that this attack is made on the industry not only in northern Ontario but as well in northwestern Quebec.
There has been organized in northern Ontario a group of Canadians, honest, earnest Canadian citizens of all nationalities, known as the Canadian Bushmen's Union. They are registered under the Trade Unions Act. In this regard, I wish to repeat what I said on a previous occasion. So far as I am concerned, I will do everything which it is humanly possible for any man to do, and to-day I am actively engaged, with other Canadian lumbermen, in an effort to bring about a condition whereby woodsmen operating in the Canadian provinces will be drawn together in a regularly constituted body of organized labour in which collective bargaining will be possible. It is not possible under present circumstances, and if my hon. friend will only survey conditions in his own riding he will realize that fact. Now what do these budimen say? Writing to the Minister of Labour they make this statement:
Press dispatches state that you informed the House of Commons on Friday last, the strike at Chapleau. Ontario, had been organized by the Canadian Labour Defence League according to information in your department. Another dispatch from Toronto quotes Rev. A. E. Smith as stating you were in error in making this claim. Rev. Smith claims that: "The league had nothing to do with that strike except to defend those who may be arrested."
Well, the defence of one arrested was not successful because he is back in gaol, out of which he broke in order to participate in these labour difficulties. The letter goes on:
This organization, the Canadian Bushmen's Union, registered under the Trade Unions Act, wishes to emphatically endorse the statement you made.
As the result of intense communistic activities in the timber industry, and the endless upheavals causing heavy losses to the workers ns well as subjecting them to constant agitation, the Canadian-minded workers determined to organize on the same basis as other Canadian labour unions. Close to six hundred men have joined the movement, which started the latter part of December.
We have plenty of evidence that the Canadian Labour Defence League is part and parcel of the general communistic move in Canada,-
Everyone who has endeavoured to ascertain the facts knows this to be true.
-which includes eighteen or more organizations. I have just rec.eived information that if the Conviction of Rev. Smith should result in the C.L.D.L. being outlawed, that the United Labour Farmers' Temple Association will immediately take over the activities of the C.L.D.L.
And so on. This organization makes other statements. It has been checking up on the labour defence league all through.

Relief Act, 1934

Over a period of years the timber and other basic industries and their labour have been harassed and penalized by the intolerant boorish and fanatical agitation of foreign semi-political organizations. And' all business, and labour dependent more or less on the industries affected, have suffered severe losses.
They realize that by reason of the fact that the labour difficulty in the Port Arthur district compelled pulpwood purchasers for the United States to go elsewhere for their products, between fifteen hundred and two thousand men were idle in that district this winter-men who otherwise would have been at work. The whole thing is a carefully planned scheme to prevent the forest products industry from continuing in successful operation in Canada. That is the whole point.
There are one or two other matters which I would refer to. My hon. friend, in reading from that letter which we have heard, took responsibility for it, and the letter stated that the operations in the Chapleau area were being assisted by relief funds. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that that statement is subject to one of two interpretations: Either it is a statement made without any knowledge whatever of the facts, or there was deliberate intention to mislead this committee and this country. No such thing has ever existed. The same applies to what I referred to on Monday night with regard to reduction on crown dues. No reduction was made on crown dues after these lumber difficulties occurred. It was agreed last year with the operators, the pulpwood companies and everyone else in New Brunswick. Nova Scotia, the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia that as a means of getting men back into the woods a reduction would be made in crown dues and stumpage. Every contract that was made either for logs or for pulpwood was based on that understanding, the increment arising from the reduction in dues being payable to the contracting firm or company, and the contractor having nothing to do with it. The question of wages was not included.
My hon. friend poses as an advocate of fair play and decent wages for woodsmen. He made the statement, in reading, that wages in these camps were from $15 to S26 per month. I say to this committee that the minimum wage paid in any one of these camps was S2G per month and up. The system of piece work has been followed in the lumbering industry of this country ever since I have known anything about it, because the men want piece work; they want an opportunity of working when they are in the woods and of deriving the advantage arising there-

from. I can say that there are men who are earning $100 a month and board on piece work.
My hon. friend makes another statement. He says that G. B. Nicholson went to Toronto, when this difficulty occurred, to interview the attorney general and the head of the provincial police. I say to him again that that is another statement either based on lack of knowledge or made with intent to deceive. G. B. Nicholson did nothing of the kind. He was in Toronto on a business trip when he received the telegram that some of the men were coming out of the woods. As I stated on Monday night, he immediately returned to his office in Chapleau and went into the woods to see what the difficulty was. My hon. friend stated that 400 men came out of those camps. I state to him now that 400 men did not come out of the camps. There were 561 men in the eight camps affected and 228 came out, leaving 333 in the camps.
The statement is again made that men were put into those camps under a heavy police guard. As occurs in every case in this province, in Iroquois Falls, Cochrane, Smooth Rock Falls and Kapuskasing, as soon as trouble develops wherever it may happen, the authorities take the precaution, on the request of the local police, to get some men in to see that peace is maintained. That is all there is to that. The men went through of their own volition; they were going all the time. Let me repeat what I said before: This trouble did not begin in January; it was not a strike in any sense whatever; it was just a continuation of men being agitated, disturbed and persuaded on a variety of pleas to leave their employment.
As regards the men who caused the trouble, my hon. friend says that they were not communists. Well, they demonstrated the fact that they were not very honest men in the first instance by going to an employment agent and hiring as pulpwood cutters, whereas not one of them, as they admitted, had ever cut a stick in his life before. Six of them hired under these names: MoMaster, Riley, alias Davis, alias Dacko, operating on the Transcontinental line in the Kapuskasing district under the last name; Doyle, alias Berry-and both of them ex-convicts sent there by the people financing Vapaus, the communist organ in the city of Sudbury- Menekin and Makela.
My hon. friend says that employees of Austin-Nicholson or Brownlee presented a demand for a change in conditions and an increase in wages. No employee of Austin-

Income War Tax Act
Nicholson ever presented a demand or a request for any changed conditions whatever until exactly one week from the day the men were induced to come out at Chapleau, three of them, Wright, Connolly and St. Michel, came to see me. I saw them, talked with them and stated exactly what we would do; I said: "There are the conditions; if you want to work, you are quite welcome." We kept the offer open for three long weeks and the 128 of the 228, leaving 100 all told-and a large number of them had gone to their homes in the meantime-went back to their work inside of ten days, glad to get the opportunity. They came to my house on the Monday evening, asking me how they could get on the train and out to their work without being molested by this communist organization. I undertook to look after them and they went back to work.
My hon. friend says that these men were destitute. Let me tell the committee exactly how destitute they were. Of the 228 that came out, 142 took settlements from the clerks in the camps and there was distributed amongst them in cash the sum of $6,000 odd for the time that they had worked in the woods. Forty of them never went near the camps before they came out. They were advised by Messrs. Davis, Daeko, etcetera, etcetera:	Do not take your time; just leave
what is coming to you there, and they walked out, some of them leaving their clothes behind them, under a promise that they would be paid $5 a day if they remained out in order to do what? Just as Mr. Berry, who is now in gaol, stated publicly in the town of Chapleau, their purpose was to destroy this industry and to make it impossible to carry it on.
It is approaching six o'clock. I do not know that I can add anything else except to say that as regards the men who came out, leaving their time behind them, there was still
83,000	due to them which was sent to them just as soon as we were able to find out where they were. My hon. friend says that there are still 200 strikers in Chapleau. He can send anyone there he likes and he cannot find amongst them ten men who have ever worked in those camps in their lives.
Let me in conclusion make this observation with regard to the letters. I have under my hand similar letters and I know the man who is writing them. Because of the sympathy I have for the poor fellow's family I am not going to say who he is although I may be forced to do so if my hon. friend continues the campaign he has undertaken to wage against me and the organization I 74726-1225
happen to represent. The letters are being written by a man who is being paid to write them and he is being paid by the communist organ known as Vapaus published at Sudbury. That covers part of the situation. I could spend the whole night reading documents that I have under my hand, to prove just what the situation is.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order, until Monday, April 9.
Monday, April 9, 1934