Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that it has been arranged that during the absence of the clerk of the house, Mr. T. M. Fraser will act as clerk of the house, and that Mr. R. P. King, chief of English Journals, will act as assistant clerk of the house, for the remainder of the session.



CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) presented the second report of the special committee to which was referred Bill No. 98, to provide for the constitution and powers of the Canadian grain board, as follows:
Your committee has duly considered the said bill and begs leave to report the same, with amendments.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That order No. 12 be transferred from public bills and orders to government orders for consideration this day.
92582-261$
He said: It does not follow that it is to be considered to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was a motion by Mr. Harris respecting the operations of the British preference, and the right hon. leader of the opposition on February 22 pointed out that we had prevented the house from voting on that motion. The effect of this motion will be to place it upon the order paper so that the debate may be concluded and a vote taken.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: The effect of placing this motion upon the order paper at this time may be to prolong the session very materially. Certainly it will not afford the same opportunity for debate as if that opportunity had been given when the motion was properly before the house. Earlier in the session we repeatedly requested that we should have this opportunity but I find it very difficult to discover any reasonable ground for making the transfer at this time.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: I wish to add my own word on this. We have now been in session for six months. We have completed the fifth year of the duration of this parliament. We are here in the month of July, and now the government wants to take the time of parliament and of the members to discuss a motion to praise something they did three years ago. Of all the foolish things that have passed at this session this easily earns the palm.
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough) Under public bills and orders No. 16 stands in my name; I wonder if the Prime Minister would be good enough to treat my motion as he is treating that of the hon. member for Toronto-Searborough (Mr. Harris).


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, knows quite well why that resolution stood. It was the subject matter of negotiation with the government of the United States, and it was thought undesirable-


Mr. DUFF:: That was in regard to reciprocity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -in the public interest that that should be done.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: No. 11 is in the same category.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, there are three in the same category.
41 IS
Empire Trade Agreements


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say a word in protest against this motion. In my judgment there are other motions standing under public bills and orders far more important than the motion being moved forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett).


Mr. JEAN FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is taking down the old rusted gun which has been hanging over the fireplace for three years. This is most absurd, most ridiculous and most foolish, because nothing came out of the Ottawa agreements. The 1930 conference in London was a failure; it was the first failure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that this motion is not debatable.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Motions for or against the transfer of public bills and orders to government orders are not subject to debate.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then, speaking to the point of order, I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, if I will have a right to speak when the motion comes up on the order paper.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I will do so at that time.


Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto-High Park):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Alexander James Anderson: I did not vote, but my pair did vote. I wish to vote. When I was asked to vote my pair was not in the house; I refer to the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulook). He has come into the house since, and I wish to have my vote recorded as being in favour of the motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I regret that the Speaker cannot recognize pairs. The hon. member did not rise in his place when the vote was called.


Mr. MULOCK:: I was in my seat. Apparently there is some misunderstanding, which I regret but I was certainly in my seat.


Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Munn). Had I voted I would have voted! for the motion.


Mr. GOLDING:: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Wright). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CHARTERS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Blair). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Desroehers). Had1 I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. WHITE (London):: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw). Had I voted* I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. STEVENS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted I would have voted1 for the motion.


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


Mr. QASSELMAN:: I was paired with
the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BURNS:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GAGNON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. WEESE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Campbell). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Mr. ST-PERE:	I was paired with the hon.
member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. FACTOR:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


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


Mr. SPENCER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Davies). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I was paired with
the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. LUCAS:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Lethbridge (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Seguin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
B.C. Relief Camp Strikers


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. CHEVRIBR (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
Mr. Dubois (Translation): I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.



B. C. RELIEF CAMP STRIKERS   REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO MOVE ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 31 I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the serious situation in Regina accompanied by loss of life.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would permit me, may I say that we will move to go into supply to afford him an opportunity this afternoon to discuss the matter he desires to discuss.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When do we go into supply?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some time this afternoon we will make the motion. So far as that is concerned, we can make it the first order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That will be definitely this afternoon?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be the first order of business.



FREIGHT RATES REVISION

Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. On February 4 of this year on behalf of the government of British Columbia I lodged an appeal to the governor in council against the decision of the board of railway commissioners refusing to grant a reduction in freight rates on grain for feeding purposes from the prairie provinces to British Columbia. When may we expect the privy council to deal with the matter?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously very difficult to deal with matters of this kind when

the house is in session because arguments have to be heard. All appeals of this character have usually been sent back to the technical officers of the board of railway commissioners for a report.



EXPORT OF HAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) if the issuance of licences for the export of hay to the United States is a matter of political patronage or not?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: No.



NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson). On June 19 last the minister tabled the correspondence with regard to the retirement of Doctor H. M. Tory as president of the national research council. There was one letter which he did not table and if you will permit me, sir, I will quote what the minister said in respect to that:
I should like to say that in a letter to me dated March 7, Doctor Tory made certain representations. This letter was marked "personal," and for that reason it is not included in the file; otherwise it would be produced. I have not been able to get Doctor Tory to release the privilege as he is not in the city.
I would ask the minister if he has yet got the consent of Doctor Tory to release that letter.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the minister endeavouring to get it released?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: No the second time?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Twice.



CITY MAIL DELIVERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, on May 5 a letter
was addressed by myself to somebody in town. The address contained the name and number of the street, and below that there were in French the two words "en vil'le," which

Distribution oj Voters' Lists
means city. That 'letter has been returned to me by somebody at the post office because they said there was no such post office in Ottawa. This is not the first time because a letter thus addressed that was on its way to the west was stopped in Winnipeg. May I ask the Postmaster G-eneral, who calls himself the champion of the French language, if he would teach French to such employees of the Post Office Department.


Arthur Sauvé: When the member for Temiscouata
will ask something proper I shall answer.



BOARD OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGE W. McPHEE (Yorkton): Mr. Speaker, this morning's paper contains notice of the appointment of a secretary to the board of railway commissioners. As the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) is not in his seat I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Was this position filled by the civil service commission, and if so, how many applied)? If it was not filled by the civil service commission, by whose direction was the appointment made?
Richard Bedford Bennett: The position was filled by the governor in council, not by the civil service commission. The gentleman appointed secretary to the commission had been assistant secretary for some years, and with the falling off of work was released from his duties about two or three years ago. He is now appointed to the position of secretary, he having formerly been assistant secretary. The recommendation was made by the Minister of Railways, I think, in due course.
LOAN TO NEWFOUNDLAND On the orders of the day:


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes)? On April 10 the minister stated that the Canadian government had undertaken to guarantee the repayment to Canadian banks of a loan to Newfoundland. In the report of the dominion commissioner for unemployment relief, dated March 31, 1933, at page 11, a guarantee of $625,000 is mentioned. May I ask the minister first what he meant when he declared that the
government had undertaken to guarantee repayment; and secondly, if anything to that effect appears in the subsequent reports of the director of unemployment relief, and if so at -what page? If not, why?


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I may say with all deference to my hon. friend from Temiscouata that it is hardly within the purview of the rules of the house to put a minister under crossexamination on the orders of the day. So far as his question is a proper one I will take it as a notice and be pleased to answer it.



DISTRIBUTION OF VOTERS' LISTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, on Friday evening the hon. Secretary of State very kindly said that he would have a word with the franchise commissioner with respect to the desire of hon. members to obtain typewritten copies of revisions as made on the voters' lists. May I ask my hon. friend if he has had an opportunity to speak with the franchise officer, and can he give the house any information as to what will be done?


Hon. G. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: I have not had an opportunity of speaking to him. As far as I can ascertain from an examination of the statute the hon. member for Comox-Allberni (Mr. Neill) was under a misapprehension with regard to the law governing the previous distribution of electoral lists. The two extra lists to which he referred were only issued by the registrars in rural constituencies and in cases where there had been a redistribution of constituencies or of parts of constituencies. Nevertheless, I shall take an early opportunity of conveying to the dominion commissioner the views which were expressed on Friday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that apart altogether from what the 'law may have been or any misapprehension with regard to it, it would, I believe, meet the wishes of hon. members on both sides of the house to have the request which was made carried out if at all possible.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes. I was thinking afterwards that we would have to make some provision for the payment of registrars for this extra service, which would be a very considerable service.
B.C. Relief Camp Strikers



B.C. RELIEF CAMP STRIKERS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rhodes for committee .of supply.
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last when the motion was made for the house to go into supply I took the opportunity of drawing to the attention of the house the condition that was facing the government and the people of this country owing to the strike of men in the unemployment relief camps. I pointed out at that time that we had made an effort on two occasions to bring to the attention of the house the seriousness of that situation, but that we were unsuccessful. On a later occasion I again asked the Prime Minister if he would give an opportunity to discuss this matter in the house, and he promised that he would take it into consideration although he did not think it was worth while discussing. Now I am sure that not only the members of this house but the people of this dominion are shocked at the tragedy that took place in the city of Regina last evening. I believe the people of this country will lay the cause of that tragedy at the door of the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. SPENCE:: That is your own doing.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are responsible.


Angus MacInnis: I am ready to assume any responsibility that is coming to me. I not only pointed out in this house the serious condition with which we were confronted but some two months ago I went to the Minister of National Defence and pleaded that the government should take some action in order to meet the situation. I am convinced that the government could have done this. We are all human and we act and react to conditions in much the same way. The easiest way to provoke a person into taking action which possibly he should not take is to ignore his rightful claims. I contend that these men in the camps have rightful and just claims which have been ignored by this government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Communist claims.


Angus MacInnis: An hon. member says, "communist claims," but let me tell him that the way to make a communist is to act in the manner in which this government has been acting.


An hon. MEMBER:: You ought to know how to make them.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member ought to know how to make them because his leader is making them every day and there is no protest from that side of the house.


James Houston Spence: Shut up; they ought to hang you first.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Dit Spence!


Angus MacInnis: That is a communist tactic, hang those whom you do not like. Hon. members cannot do that just yet; although their leader is acting like a dictator; his dictatorship is nearly over. Perhaps they will keep quiet until I finish.
Last Wednesday I read from the report of the royal commission which investigated the relief camps in British Columbia. I shall not quote to-day from that report, but as hon. members opposite have shouted, "communist," I should like to quote some of the statements made by a man who lived in the camps before they were investigated by the royal commission. Although this man has been branded as an agitator the report is that he gave his evidence in a very intelligent manner. The report states:
Obviously intelligent and capable of taking a broad view of the situation, he drew praise from the commissioners for his testimony- and the manner in which he presented it.
The man is reported as saying:
They call me an agitator because I am trying to get better conditions for the men. It is not I or other men who are agitators, but the camps themselves.
That is what hon. gentlemen do not seem to want to understand. When this man was asked for suggestions as to what should be done he was again very reasonable. The report continues:
When asked for suggestions for improving camp conditions, Cumber stated bluntly that the men would not return to the camps "under the present setup" but admitted that he did "not see how it will be possible to eliminate the camps." "We will have to have camps of some sort, but they should be construction camps or lumber camps-where men work and are paid for it-not relief camps based on charity."
I maintain that that man who has been branded as an agitator was only voicing the sentiments which have been stated on the public platform by the Prime Minister of this country. The Prime Minister stated in 1930, that the unemployed wanted, not charity but work; not doles, but wages. The men are only asking what they asked for in 1930. W'hen these men came to put their just demands before constituted authority the first thing they were asked was, "where were you born?" That question was asked as though

B.C. Relief Camp Strikers
any man was responsible for where he was bom. I understand that our good friend Sir Herbert Holt is an Irishman but do hon. members suppose that when he comes to Ottawa he is asked where he was born? Are the members of other delegations which come to Ottawa asked where they were born? As a matter of fact we spent the good money of this country to bring those who are now in the camps into the country and when they come here to state their Claims we ask them where they were born.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why they were born.
Mr. MaeINNIS:	Yes, many of them are
wondering why they were born. On June 24 the Prime Minister stated in the house:
The government is prepared to maintain law and order by all the means within its power and calls upon all law abiding citizens to assist to that end.
One of the functions of a government is to maintain law and order but a government has also another function, to see,that justice prevails within the country and that every reason for disorder is removed. When a government has removed all the reasons for disorder then and not till then is it justified in asking the people to support it in maintaining law and order. This government has not removed the reasons for discontent nor has it met the just demands of the people. They have not met the just demands of the men who are in the camps and who want work to maintain themselves. These men want to live their lives again, they want to take part in the natural life of Canada but this government has not made it possible for -them to do so. On another occasion the Prime Minister stated in the house that there could be no trifling with anarchy, no playing with chaos. Could anything be more anarchic than an organization which forces young men in the prime of their physical manhood to live in such institutions as these unemployment relief camps? Could anything be more chaotic than the failure of our present social system, if we can call such an unplanned, anti-social organization a system, to distribute the abundance at its disposal in such a way as to permit everyone to live a full and natural life? To my mind that is the essence of anarchy and not the activities of anyone who has been denied his just rights by society and prevented from taking his rightful place in the life of the community.
What these men have said is only a repetition of what has been said in this country during the last five years. It is simply echoing what was said by the Prime Minister
during his radio talks at the end of 1934 and the beginning of 1935. Referring to youth, the Prime Minister stated in his first speech:
It is a tragedy of these times that men and women, boys and girls, whose minds should be given to constructive .pursuits, find themselves handicapped and harassed by the uncertainties of life, and -prevented by the anxieties of this, present situation, from giving their best to the things which are most worth while.
I ask hon. members opposite: How are these men in the camps going to give their best to themselves or to their country as long as they remain there? In his fourth address the Prime Minister said:
When I dwell upon these tragic consequences of the economic upheaval, I think more especially about the boys and the girls of the nation who were born in wartime or in the years after the war, who have never known the tranquility of the old days, who have, all of them, been born within sound of the drum. For, with brief, infrequent intervals,^ we have been in battle, one way or another, since 1914. A generation of strife; death in foreign lands, at home the furious struggle for wealth, the dreadful siege of adversity, the march of the bread lines, the resistance of brave hearts against the prospect of unchanging want.
Is not that a perfect picture of what the men in the camps have to put up with? Could anyone -except the Prime Minister put it so clearly? And yet when these men come before him with just demands all he can give them is the reply that all -the forces of the state will be used to com-pel them to go back to camps where they will still be faced with unchanging want. In the fifth speech he said, "I believe in the right of every man to state his case." I think that is the correct attitude to take, but I do not think he believed in the right to these men to state their case.
I suggest that there are -many things which this government could do to meet the present situation, even if it cannot provide work and wages for the twenty thousand men or so who are in. the relief cam-ps. And the first approach to the problem is to deal sympathetically with those who are in that condition-. As I said before, I pointed out the situation to the Minister of National Defence, who was kind enough to give me a half hour's interview in this matter on the last day of April or the first day of May, I forget which. I tried then to put before him the picture as I saw it after my return from Vancouver, but he did not see his way clear, evidently, to do anything. Let -me ask the house this question, is it yet too late to do something? Cannot all parties in the house get together and try to do something for these -men, -men who we are quite convinced are only objecting to the very conditions that we would object to ourselves.
B.C. Relief Camp Strikers


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the honi. member allow me to say that I made no such statement.


Hugh Guthrie: I am only judging by press reports.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I presume the men in the camps were judging also by press reports.


Hugh Guthrie: And no law nor any
order exists in any way, shape or form, to prevent actions of that kind by any person or body of persons who seem disposed so to treat these marchers. Until yesterday it looked as if an arrangement would be made whereby the marchers would go to the two camps I have named in order that final disposition might he arranged so that they might be sent back to their camps, or individual cases might be dealt with in any case in which a man had a home to which he could go. The government was prepared to expedite the movement to the individual homes or back to the camps. Negotiations took place yesterday forenoon with the strike leaders to see if an arrangement of that kind could not be made, but the leaders of the movement insisted' that it should be a mass

B.C. Relief Camp Strikers
movement, that they should be moved en bloc back to Vancouver or to British Columbia. The situation in British Columbia at the present moment is not as satisfactory as it might be, and I think it was very properly decided that such a movement of 2,000 men back there would not be a wise or safe thing at the present time. The negotiations were carried on throughout the day, but without result, and about four or five o'clock in the afternoon the officers of the mounted police, acting under instructions, visited a certain communist gathering held in Regina and there arrested a number of the leaders, charged with offences under section 98 of the criminal code. Later on that particular meeting seems to have dispersed and to have resulted in an open meeting held in the market square at eight o'clock last night. Prior to the opening of proceedings at the market1 square meeting a number of plainclothes men of the mounted police proceeded to the platform and1 arrested others of the leaders, making the total arrests on the two occasions about twenty-four. At the time these arrests were made the city police of Regina, who are under the control of the municipality, came up upon one side of the platform, and the mounted police on the other side. The crowd which had gathered, both strike marchers and onlookers from the city of Regina, on the arrival of the police immediately cleared the square or the space, and it was thought that the crowd had permanently dispersed. However, after the lapse of a few minutes the strikers, having armed themselves with stones, clubs and various kinds of missiles, returned to the scene and made an attack upon the city police. The attack was made in the first instance by the strike marchers, and the city police were called upon to defend themselves. Subsequently the mounted' police joined fo,r the purpose of maintaining order. Shots were exchanged. Shots were fired by the strikers, and the fire was replied to by shots from the city police. No shot whatever was fired by the mounted police. They were armed with batons. I regret to say that there were a number of casualties as a result of this fire. One city policeman was beaten to death by the strikers. Two members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been very seriously injured by missiles of some kind1 and, it is very doubtful whether either of them will recover. There were a number of minor casualties, probably forty or fifty, some as a result of bullet wounds, I am informed.
Peace and order was restored at about eleven o'clock last night, and the men were herded1 back to the exhibition grounds, where they now are. They are there, guarded by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and I think by the city police as well, and are only allowed to leave their present quarters in small contingents for necessary purposes. That is the situation as it existed last night, and as it exists to-day. Communications again have been sent forward to Regina informing the strikers that the former offer is still open to them; food, shelter and transportation are available to them the moment they will accept them-not as an organized revolutionary body-I think I may call them that-but if they disperse among the various camps to which they can appropriately go, or in the case of those men who have homes, direct to their homes, and the expense of that transportation will also be liquidated by the government. The men are not inclined to aeoept this offer. They are determined to have their own way. The government is just as determined to maintain peace and order in Regina, or any otheT part of Canada where disorder may break out.
Some hon. MEMBERS':	Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not going into the
question of whether these men had wrongs or grievances. Personally I do not think they had. I agreed with the statement made last week in the house that the movement was under communistic leadership. A very large proportion of the men now at Regina never were in the relief camps at all. It is stated that ouit of the 2,000 odd, over 800 were mere stragglers who joined in the march, who were never in relief camps and do not want to go into thjem now. I think I have given a fairly full statement of the situation as it now exists.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think one of the sentences that fell from the lips of the Minister of Justice towards the end of his speech is extremely characteristic of the attitude of the government. It was to the effect that he was not going into the question as to whether there were any wrongs of which these men complained, any evils in the camp. But that is the point at issue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not even fair that the Minister of Justice should seek to do to-day as the Prime Minister did the other day, divert the attention of the country from
B.C. Relief Camp Strikers

the real point at issue. We have had these camps now for nearly four years. A considerable number of young men have been interned during that period.


Mr. COTNAM:: Just two years.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Four years, a period as long as that of the war. It was bad to be in the war for those four years, but I submit that then the men had hopes and believed they were fighting for a cause, but these young men have been interned, some of them, for four years-


An hon. MEMBER:: They are not interned, they are there voluntarily.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -without hope, and with a sense of great injustice. Someone says Urey went there voluntarily. Technically that is true, but what was the alternative? As we have pointed out again and again, if they would not go into the camp they were on the streets, either to starve or become criminals. Those were the alternatives for the majority of those young men. Now conditions were bad. I am not going to repeat what I said here as late as Thursday evening last in connection with the supplementary estimate for an additional amount to be granted for national defence. I quoted from the report of the commissioners who were appointed to investigate these camps; briefly they pointed out that while on the whole conditions were not so bad, there were some very specific evils that had been rankling in the minds of the men, and they said, although it did not really come within the terms of their commission, that one of the greatest evils was that these men were required to work without wages and without hope, and they could not see how the men could maintain their morale under those circumstances. So in desperation the men started to go to Vancouver to call the attention of the public to their plight. Remember that these men have no hopes of remedying their condition even by the coming election, because if they return to their camps in practice they are prohibited from voting because no voting facilities are provided. A bill to give them such privileges, introduced from this comer, was refused by the house. That is the situation.
They came into Vancouver some months ago. At that time we tried to secure the opportunity of discussing the matter as one of urgent public importance. It was declared not urgent at that time. Later on, when they reached Regina, again we tried to discuss the matter. Again it was said that the matter was not urgent, and we ventured to say there 
was danger of a clash if the government persisted in its policy. Unfortunately that clash has come, and I want to warn this govern^ ment that if it maintains the attitude it has maintained during the last few weeks there is very great danger that future clashes may come. There is no doubt of that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You encourage it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I am not encouraging it. I think it is most unfortunate that we cannot rise in this house to advocate policies that we believe are in the interests of law and order without being accused of trying to discourage law and order. I firmly believe that I am advocating those policies which will ensure law and order in this country. I think it is a terrible tragedy that on July 1 of this year, a day that ought to be celebrated with rejoicing by all Canadians, some two thousand men should be forced into a position where they cannot very well maintain their respect for the government and where they are led to feel a sense of injustice, and further than that, where the twenty thousand young men like these, who are still in the camps, must be encouraged to feel that the government is indifferent to their situation.
That is the situation that has arisen. Now I come back to the alternative offered by the government. When the delegates of these men came here a few weeks ago each of their "demands" was refused. The proposals they made were not unreasonable. On Thursday evening last I took up this matter in detail; those demands were far more reasonable than I imagined they would be, yet the government turned them down flat and simply told them they must go back. Then the government made their counter-proposition; they proposed that the men should go to the camp at Lumsden and from there back to the camps, to the very conditions from which they had come, without the slightest indication on the part of the government that there Would be any improvement in those conditions or any change of policy. Do the members of this house realize how provocative action of that kind is? Surely it was no easy thing for them to come all the way down from Vancouver to Regina, hiking as they did, overcoming a great many discouragements and hardships, simply to be told to go back and forget all about it, which was practically what happened. It is quite true that at Lumsden they might have received food and clothing, but they had been getting that back where they had come from. It was against the kind of food and clothing they were getting and

B.C. Relief Camp Strikers
more than that against the lack of wages and the general policy of the government that they were making their protest.
I have no doubt the minister has put the best possible face on what happened yesterday; probably he is quoting from reports that have come to him. I have had reports from disinterested eye witnesses that do not correspond to the statements the minister made in the house to-day. I would say that these men were assembled in a perfectly peaceable way; there was no disorder whatever until the two forces of the police came upon them and ruthlessly drove into them. The minister gives us the impression that it was the strikers who started the difficulty. I say they were having a peaceable meeting, attempting to secure further funds with which to carry on their own work in their own way, because they were almost at the end of their resources, and at that legitimate meeting they had the police come upon them. That is not .altogether in keeping with the statement of the minister, and on this question I do not think we ought to take a mere departmental report. If ever there was a case for a thorough investigation by a royal commission surely it is in connection with a riot of this kind in which men lost their lives, men on the government side, the police side, who were ordered by their superiors to do this job, and a dirty job it W'as, while on the *other side some of these men were shot down.


Mr. BAKER:: We prefer the report of the minister to the report of your friends.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It may be quite true that the leadership of these men has largely come into the hands of communists. The other day I admitted, from the best information I could get, that this was true. I am sorry it is true; I think they would have been better led if they had followed other advice, but may I point out that only a comparatively small number of these people are communists. The great majority of the men. are not communists; only a small proportion of them are, and unless there were very great grievances on the part of the men it is inconceivable to me that some sixty or seventy leaders, as I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) put it, could .control these two thousand' men. That statement in itself is ridiculous. If a large number of the men wanted to return to their homes; if they found that they had been misled, they would throw overboard the sixty or seventy .men whom the Minister of Justice says are in a position of leadership. It is reasonable that men who endured all these hardships would allow their little bits of baggage to be kept from them by some sixty
or seventy men? I cannot conceive it for a moment. The fact is that whatever their leadership they have behind them a sense of injustice which has led them to follow almost any advice they have been offered. Unfortunately I think they are more inclined to follow advice which urges them to direct action or to radical action.
That is another point in my .mind, and I think this is a serious question. I should like to know how many of these so called leaders are government spies. I know enough about the labour movement to be able to say that whenever I have been making speeches among the miners of the west and so on, at which somebody has gotten up and urged violence, I have had these men come to me again, and again and say, "Beware of that man; he is a police stool." That, is what the men believe. We know what happened in Calgary years ago in the case of Corporal Zaneth, who sold literature which he knew to be banned and then, got the men into trouble. We know of a more recent instance, the case of Sergeant Leopold, who was the informer in the case against the communists not long ago. We know how these men wormed their way into the organization, and how they stood ready to play the part of the police if necessary. Only a few years ago in this house we had estimates-under a former government; I am not blamllig this government for it-covering moneys paid to American detective firms in the employ of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am told that that practice has been discontinued, but this practice of espionage has not been discontinued, and we cannot tell how many agents provocateur there have been among these so called leaders who are under communist domination. I do think the fact that lives have been lost and that a large number of people have been injured in itself is an indication that a thorough investigation into the situation should be made promptly by disinterested parties. I am not asking that my charges should 'be accepted, but I am not content that the departmental records should be taken as final. I urge there should be an independent investigation and, above all, I submit that the riots are a justification of the action hon. members in this corner have taken in condemning the present policy of dealing with these young men. I would like to know now who is responsible for the shooting. I think we ought to know that; who is responsible? I would like to know -under what authority this was done. This is only one series of a number of events which have taken place recently. Further, I would like to know from the
B.C. Relief Camp Strikers

government under what authority men were refused permission to move out of Regina. It is quite true that at least technically they were trespassers in their use of the railways. But it is common knowledge that throughout the past six or eight years men have been riding on freight trains, and only on occasions have they been checked up. It is common knowledge that these men came from Vancouver to Regina on freight trains, and that the government did not do anything to stop them. The Prime Minister may say that they had not the necessary force; that may have been the case, but the government connived at that kind of thing, or condoned-use the word you like. Then all of a sudden, when it suits the convenience of the government we are told we must preserve law and order and must prevent trespassing on railway property. That is the kind of arbitrary action which is undermining respect for law and government.
We were told that these communists who were arrested some years ago and sent to Kingston penitentiary were dangerous men, that communists were outlaws of society. Yet, in the name of the communist party newspapers have been published all along, communist candidates have stood for election, and no action has been taken by the government. Can they escape their responsibility? Personally, as every hon. member is aware, I am opposed to section 98 of the criminal code. As every hon. nfember knows this house has five times in succession expressed its disapproval of and voted to delete section 98. I am opposed to it, I say it is little less than a disgrace when we find that men who are not proven to have committed an overt act or to have incited to violence should be sent to the penitentiary. That is un-British legislation, but it is on the statute books, and in that regard probably the government is acting within its legal rights.
I want to say this however, that the government knowing that-knowing that they have the force-have not taken action. Personally I am glad that these communists are free, because although they are a dreadful embarrassment to us of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: Although they denounce us; although the leader of the communist party has gone into the constituency of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and has put the whole organization of the communist party behind an effort to defeat him-despite all that I say that the place to defeat communism in a democratic 
country is at the ballot box. That is the place to defeat the communists-and not by arresting people who do not agree with our political opinions.


Mr. ROWE:: Start it in your riding.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I can quite understand why some hon. members opposite seem incapable of understanding how I can plead for the rights of all men, and particularly when the liberty of communists happens to be the particular point at issue. I am pleading for their rights, not because I love communism or because I am cooperating with communism, but because I have at heart the old teaching of our childhood days, namely, that the British citizen has certain inalienable rights, and I believe that those rights should be preserved.
This has ceased to be a matter affecting only the communists, to-day it is becoming a fight for civil liberties. I am not a lawyer, I should like to know under what authority these relief camp strikers who refused to return are to be deemed communists. That is the story in the paper. I should like to know whether or not that story is true, namely, that the authorities have taken the ground that they are to be deemed as communists.


Mr. LOUCKS:: They have been led by them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: All right, but I would like to know upon what authority the government has taken its action. I am glad to learn there is no such secret order in council as that about which we read in the press. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) stated that according to press reports I had made that statement. The press is very often in error, and it was in error in that respect.
I never made the statement, although I knew certain reports appeared in the press. I tried to be sure of my ground. The first thing we did this morning was to see if we could get any track of that order in council.
But, supposing there was no order in council-and we have to accept the minister's word-then, by what authority was action of this kind taken? It is only a little more than a week ago since the premier of Saskatchewan urged that the dominion government should keep out of this business,'-hands off. Yet the dominion government has gone ahead.
A week or two ago the Prime Minister assured us that he could not interfere unless he were asked to do so by the province. That was when the men were in British Columbia.

B.C. Relief Camp Strikers
Now that they have reached Saskatchewan he has interfered, over the heads of that province. I should like to know by what authority he has acted. Is it the authority under the unemployment relief scheme through which the government were given broad powers to preserve peace, order and good government? If that is so I believe I am correct when I state that at the time the bill was passed we were given the assurance that action would be taken only in an emergency and only when parliament was not sitting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is so written in the statute.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well then, if that is in the statute I should like to know why action of this kind-action which I believe is quite arbitrary-should be taken while parliament is in session. Again and. again we asked that this matter be considered in parliament, but we were refused the opportunity to discuss it. Then, suddenly, the police presumably acting under the instructions of the government have taken very drastic action resulting in tragedy. Even if that action of the government is, in the narrow sense of the term, legal action, is it in harmony with the British constitution to find that with parliament in session the government should take action of this kind? I do not so understand it.
Communists may be a menace to democracy, but in all seriousness I submit that the arbitrary action of government is a greater menace to democracy. I repeat, it is a greater menace to democracy. Surely men have a right to meet in an assembly,-and apparently that is all they were doing the other day. They have a right to move freely up and down the country; apparently that is all they were attempting to do, but they were blocked in their efforts.
Apparently the people have a right to receive assistance. I do not know where the report in the press to the effect that they were to be given no help came from. I was not responsible for the action of the provincial council of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation which met in Ontario a few days ago, but I must confess that when they said they would forward a few dollars in defiance of any such action as that reported to have been taken I was not unsympathetic. We must maintain some rights in Canada. Above all, and more serious than anything else is the consideration that the people of Canada have a right not merely to freedom
of movement, freedom of action and freedom of association, but they have the right to live,-and to live decently. That right is not being accorded to these 20,000 young men who have been placed in military camps.


James Houston Spence: They were not forced to go there.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have answered that again and again. There is such a thing as legal compulsion, and there is such a thing as compulsion by hunger, which is much more serious. Gentlemen who are well fed have difficulty in understanding that kind of thing.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: You are not suffering yourself.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I am not suffering, and I am glad that there are some of us who are not suffering at present who are prepared to stand up for these people. I hope the time will never come when I shall be so well fed and comfortably placed that I shall refuse to fight for the under-dog. Some people say that this is poor politics. I do not care very much whether it is poor politics. I know there are gentlemen opposite who will go out on the hustings and say that we are allied to the communists. I know that we have to run the risk of that, but that does not matter. I intend to stand here and plead for the rights of these boys who are not given a fair chance in life.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Feed the hungry babies in Winnipeg?


James Shaver Woodsworth: What is that man talking about? The price spreads report brought to light some facts of the situation which some of us had been trying again and again to bring to the attention of the house and which unfortunately have been felt in the lives of tens of thousands of our citizens.
There is one other point. I still hear people say that these men do not want to work. There may be a few who do not want to work. I would not want to work under the conditions under which they are called upon to work-no wages, and with this condition going on year after year, with no hope in life. But I submit that the great majority of these men have been anxious to work all along, and what they are pleading for to-day is work and wages. That is a reasonable thing to ask for-it is fundamental. That is what they ask of this government.
B.C. Relief Camp Strikers

I would say in conclusion that there are two or three things I want specially to bring to the attention of the government. First of all I urge that the police should not be given instructions or permitted to ride down the people as they have been doing in the recent past. The mounted police force has either secured or is assuming to have power that ought not to be given to a civilian force. Further than that I ask of the government, because of the riots and the seriousness of the situation, that a commission be appointed to investigate the conditions that prevail to-day and the situation which cause the riot.
And thirdly, and more serious and more fundamental than all, I do again plead with the government that before this house prorogues, and I think they can do it with the support of every party of the house, they revise their scheme for dealing -with these unemployed young fellows and give them work and a place in life that will be worthy of young Canadian citizens.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister was wise to have afforded an opportunity for a discussion of this particular matter, and I believe he would have been equally wise had he afforded the opportunity on two previous occasions when there was a motion before the house for its adjournment in order to permit the discussion of the situation with respect to the condition of these homeless men who were still in Vancouver and were about to come here. That opportunity was requested in the manner which the rules of the house provide but it was refused on both occasions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By the Speaker.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister says it has been refused by the Speaker. May I point out to my right hon. friend that if he had had the same attitude then towards the situation which he has today he would have found it possible to accord the same method which he has permitted to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One was supply, the other was not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was easy for the Prime Minister to arrange for the house to be moved into supply to-day, and it would have been equally easy to have adopted the same course on the other occasions. I believe the Speaker was reflecting the attitude of mind of my right hon. friend at the time when he gave his decision that the matter was not of urgent public importance. Cer-

tainly those of us who supported the motion believed it was a matter of urgent public importance, and that unles some action were taken by the government of a conciliatory character it was almost inevitable that sooner or later something in the nature of a tragedy would be the outcome of the situation of these men moving in large numbers east, regardless of what their particular views on social questions may be.
As I say, no one can say whether or not the failure to have that discussion has been in any way a contributing factor to what has since taken place, but we do know that the situation at the moment is as serious as any with which this House of Commons could expect to foe faced at this particular time. I feel that something more is necessary at this moment than merely to discuss the question in the light of what we have in the way of newspaper reports and what we have by way of statement from the Minister of Justice of the government's position. I think the government should immediately bring down all correspondence that has taken place between the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan in regard to this matter.
The question has been raised, and properly raised, as to the authority of the two governments in the matter of maintaining law and order. I remember very well how emphatically the Prime Minister said at the beginning of the discussion of this question that the maintenance of law and order was a matter for the province and that the federal government could not intervene without the attorney general of the province in the first instance requesting the assistance of the police, and I have never been able to understand just how the government was able so completely to reverse its position in that matter. I recall what was said in connection with the protection of railways, namely, that there was a power given to the government in that connection which did not otherwise exist. But I have never quite been able to see just how it was that these unemployed men found it possible to leave Vancouver in such large numbers as trespassers on the trains and not be stopped before they left either Vancouver or some other part of British Columbia, not be stopped at Calgary in the province of Alberta, and then finally be stopped and landed in the city of Regina. I say I think something more in the way of explanation of that circumstance is necessary before the public mind will be satisfied that it was all just as represented by my right hon. friend and his friends opposite.

B.C. Relief Camp Strikers
I feel that what is most important at this stage, because I do not imagine for one moment that this is the last time that this subject is going to be discussed even in this session, is that we should have all the correspondence which has passed by telegram or letter between the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan in relation to the situation. That correspondence I would ask the Prime Minister to endeavour to have tabled to-day if possible. I make the request for to-day because all of us are anxious not to prolong the proceedings of this parliament to a later date than may be absolutely necessary, but I do not think this house Should be permitted to end its proceedings until we have before it all the correspondence that has passed between the two governments.
I think in addition, Mr. Speaker, the house should know from the government what instructions have been given to the police. This parliament represents the people of Canada. Every person in the Dominion of Canada is represented by this House of Commons. It is in the interests of all of us, in the interests of the country at large, that there should be the fullest publicity in regard to this matter. In that connection there should be no secret orders, no secret instructions whatever. Whatever instructions have been given to the police should also be tabled by the government at the earliest possible date. The advantage of discussion in a matter of this kind has been very clearly shown this afternoon by the denial of the Minister of Justice of the rumour that a secret order in council had 'been passed under which people, even those with the best of intentions, were forbidden to give any assistance to these homeless men whom we refer to as marching strikers, or assist in any way possible those whom they might see in the greatest need so long as they were members of that group. I am glad that no order in council of the kind has been passed. May I however direct attention to an article which appeared in the Toronto Star of Friday, June 28, and in connection with which it may be necessary to have further explanation. This is a special dispatch to the Star and is headed as follows:
R.C.M.P. to Prosecute Those Feeding Strikers.
Forbid "Lifts" as Well.
Police Halt Attempt to Leave City by Truck-
Report Treckers "Army."
Hint at Own Camp.
Regina, June 28.-Royal Canadian Mounted Police have clapped the lid down tighter on the "on to Ottawa relief strikers." Colonel S. T. Wood, assistant commissioner, has issued instructions that any person supplying the strikers with food or accommodation will be prosecuted.
There is nothing there which refers to a secret order in council or any other kind of order in council. The article simply states that the assistant commissioner had issued instructions that any person supplying the strikers with food or accommodation would be prosecuted. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) will be able to say immediately whether any instructions of that kind were issued by the commissioner.


Hugh Guthrie: No instructions of the kind were issued that I am aware of.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very glad to have that further assurance as it bears out what I have said as to the wisdom of getting the fullest information on all these matters which are likely to enter into a discussion of this question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the officer be disciplined?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that the article is true; I have no reason to believe that it is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It affords one more ground for an inquiry. There should be a full investigation into all the facts and circumstances surrounding the present situation. It is evident that at least one life has been taken as a consequence of what has already taken place and there surely is need for the fullest inquiry into circumstances which brought about a tragedy of the kind. I do not think the government can escape having a very full investigation into that particular incident and of the group of incidents associated with it. Apart altogether from what has happened up to the moment, if a worse situation is to be prevented within the course of the next few days or weeks, it is important that word should go out immediately that an inquiry is being instituted which will allow the public to have the fullest light possible on the whole situation.
In connection with this investigation I should like to point out that the government at Ottawa and the government of Saskatchewan are alike interested1 in having the fullest particulars given to the public. The government of Saskatchewan has its responsibility with respect to the maintaining of law and order just as much as the government at Ottawa, or, I should say, more, if the statute, which governs in these matters is to be observed. I think that the investigation which takes place might will be conducted by representatives of the government at Ottawa and the government of Saskatchewan. I do

B.C. Relief Camp Strikers

not believe that an investigation carried on at the instance of one government alone would be sufficient. There is no reason why in a matter of this grave importance and consequence there should not be an inquiry carried on jointly by eminent gentlemen appointed at the instance of both governments.
I should like to read two telegrams which I have received since coming into the chamber this afternoon. I hope that the reading of these telegrams will help to establish the necessity of much more in the way of explanation of the situation as it has arisen in Regina than has thus far been given in the house by the Minister of Justice. These two wires indicate very clearly that as between the authorities1 at Ottawa and the authorities at Regina there has been a distinct difference of view as to who was to exercise or be permitted to exercise full responsibility for dealing with the situation that has arisen. The first telegram is from the Hon. James G. Gardiner, the premier of Saskatchewan, and refers to a telegram sent to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). In reading this telegram I submit that the representations it contains are as much entitled to the acceptance of this house as are the representations of the Minister of Justice, especially where there is a conflict between the two. The sooner the apparent difference of view is cleared up and we get an accurate knowledge of the situation the better we will be able to proceed further with what will necessarily be a subject of discussion for some time to come. The wire is as follows:
Regina, Saskatchewan,
July 2, 11.25 a.m.
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Leader of the Opposition,
Ottawa, Ontario.
I have to-day wired Premier Bennett as follows: "Yesterday morning men indicated to your representative Mr. Burgess their willingness to disband the march and return to the Points from which they came. They repeated this to Mr. Burgess and representatives of the police at 2.30. Your representative refused to have provincial representation at that meeting. The men met us at five o'clock stating that since your representatives had refused to consider this the provincial government take responsibility for disbanding men to their original camps or homes and supply them with food in the interval. While we were considering this matter police raided public meeting to arrest leaders, precipitating a riot. Men at present in buildings at fair grounds completely surrounded by police who permit no one to enter and men to leave only in twos. Police intention to force these men to Lumsden camp or starving them into submission. This will eud in a worse riot than last night. These men should be fed where they are and immediately disbanded and sent back to camps and homes as they request without any attempt to force them into Lumsden and this should be done 
within next two hours. This government has a responsibility toward its citizens to provide them with ordinary protection against this imported trouble. We would ask you to immediately withdraw orders issued affecting the liberty of individuals within this province and affecting the law and order of this province. You might assume that we are as much concerned about law and order in this country as you can be and deal with the elected representatives of this province regarding matters concerning our people instead of through an appointed political representative. We are asking you if you are going to feed these men within the next two hours and are asking you to instruct us within two hours what plans are to be made for their disbandment."
James G. Gardiner.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) rose in his seat I was about to make an inquiry of the Prime Minister based on this telegram as I regarded it as a matter of great importance but when I saw the hon. member rising to speak I waited to hear what he had to say. What the Minister of Justice has since said has in part answered this telegram. I understand from the minister's remarks that the government is undertaking to feed the men but I have not got quite clearly the government's plans with respect to their disbandment and the government requiring that they should return to the camp at Lumsden.


Hugh Guthrie: To feed them, to provide shelter and transportation to Lumsden or Dundurn; to disband them and send them back to their camps or to their homes, but not as an organization such as they contemplated yesterday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to
have that further word of explanation from the minister. The other telegram which I received just a moment ago is from the Hon. T. C. Davis, attorney general of Saskatchewan. It refers to a wire sent to the Minister of Justice, and reads:
Regina, Saskatchewan,
July 2, 1935.	11.58 a.m.
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa.
I have just wired Minister of Justice as follows:
"In connection with strikers youT government instructed R.C.M.P. officials here direct from Ottawa without our knowledge or concurrence. Upon our protest you maintained you had right so to do because contemplated actions were being taken under the Railway Act, a dominion enactment. When it became apparent that men intended to proceed from province by highway police instructions indicated that again you were instructing police direct without our knowledge or concurrence. When I inquired from police authorities as to your right so to do I was advised that you

B.C. Relief Camp Strikers
were acting under relief measures act and order in council passed thereunder which had the effect of giving you control of the situation and the right to instruct police.
I have traced the history of this act and 1931 enactment expired in 1932 and 1934 enactment expired in March this year. I believe further act introduced this session but have no knowledge if it has become law and in any event if it is law as introduced it expressly rovides that the governor general in council as no authority to pass order in council thereunder when the House of Commons is in session. You then instructed police authorities without our knowledge or concurrence to proceed under section 98 of the criminal code. The duty of enforcing criminal law is upon the government of this province but you are instructing police in connection with the enforcement of the provisions of the criminal code. You have appointed lawyers to prosecute and you have entirely ignored regularly constituted provincial facilities for the conduct of the prosecutions. This action on your part has gone too far now.
I demand that I be advised forthwith as to whether you consider the enforcement of the criminal code in this province is your responsibility or ours and I demand that you forthwith instruct the police to take orders from me and from me alone in connection with the enforcement of the provisions of the code in Saskatchewan and I take this stand because of the provisions of the police agreement and the provisions of subsection fourteen section 92 of the Brtish North America Act_ which imposes the responsibility of the administration of justice in the province upon the provincial government.
That is the end of the quotation. The telegram goes on:
You will see that action of federal government up to a few days ago has been taken under alleged order in council passed under relief measures act which does not permit order in council while house in session. Federal government is absolutely usurping the powers of the province in connection with the administration of justice.
T. C. Davis,
Attorney General.
The reference to the act which that telegram contains, the act, respecting relief measures, which was passed at this session, is accurate in what it states as to the provsions of this measure not being applicable While parliament is in session, because section 3 reads:
In addition to the powers conferred under the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may, when parliament is not in session, take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to maintain, within the competence of parliament, peace, order and good government throughout Canada; and at all times take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect and maintain the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof.
It will be apparent from what I have read that a question which may give rise to conditions even more serious than that of the 92582-262J
manner in which the particular strike marchers have been dealt with is disclosed in the apparent conflict between the Dominion of Canada and the province of Saskatchewan as to their respective jurisdictions in the matter of maintaining laiw and order. I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether he has abandoned the view that the provinces are responsible for the maintenantee of law and order-that such is the primary responsibility of the province-and, if he has not, I would ask him how he or the Minister of Justice can justify the action which thus far has taken place and is taking place at the moment, of federal officials acting under directions from the federal government, taking in one of the provinces of the dominion a course of action which is contrary to that afforded by the authority given in the statutes, and which is provoking a serious difference between one of the provinces of the dominion and the dominion itself.
As I said at the outset, I do not wish to debate this subject at this stage because I do not believe it can be debated with fairness to all concerned without our having before us the documents and the records which will help to explain the situation fully. I repeat, however, that the matter is too serious not to be cleared up before this parliament prorogues, and I hope that my right hon. friend will agree to place on the table of the house within a few hours the entire correspondence that has passed between his office and that of the Premier of Saskatchewan and between the office of the Minister of Justice and the government of Saskatchewan, and also any instructions that have been given to the police, so that we may have them before us to read and consider, that later on we may be in a position to discuss this matter further. I should also be glad to hear what the Prime Minister has to say in reference to the representations made in the wires I have just read.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I deprecate very greatly the suggestion that those who for the moment are charged with responsibility are less considerate and thoughtful of the rights of individuals than others who happen to sit opposite. I do not believe that, man for man, the men who sit opposite to me have any greater heart or finer sympathies or a greater desire to serve their fellows than those who sit on this side, and I say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that when I read his speech-it may have been incorrectly reported-in which he said that we would welcome bloodshed and use force, he did violence to what I conceive to be the decencies
B.C. Relief Camp Strikers

of life. To suggest that anyone on this side of the house desired to cause bloodshed or to use force against individuals is as false as it is possible for a statement to be. But on the other hand it is equally true that so long as we are charged with responsibility, be it short or long, we will discharge it. And I think the most unkind suggestion contained in the opening observations of the right hon. gentleman opposite, that because this house did not afford a further discussion of this matter which was at the time in the condition in which it then was, because the Speaker said that it had been formerly discussed-to say that this was a cause contributing, to what extent the right hon. gentleman would not mention, to what had happened in Regina yesterday, is in my opinion an unworthy observation, an observation unworthy of any public man who has had responsibility.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said that no one could say whether or not it had been a contributing cause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was careful to listen
to what the right hon. gentleman said. Now what are the facts? The facts are that the Speaker ruled that the matter in question had been discussed in this house on previous occasions and there could be nothing urgent about the continuation of the same matter, and he ruled within the section, just as his predecessor had done, that this was not a matter that came within that provision. From that ruling a member appealed'. The right hon. gentleman voted to reverse the Speaker's ruling; we voted' to sustain it, and in my judgment the Speaker's ruling was correct. As a matter of principle it was correct; where in this house there had been a discussion of a matter which was prolonged, extending over many days, it would seem to me to be fairly reasonable to say that there was no such urgency as necessitated the adjournment of the house for its further discussion. And so far as I know-I have not been in the house every evening-when supply was taken there were opportunities to discuss these matters; and to-day when the hon. gentleman proposed the adjournment of the house I certainly believed that we should call supply to afford him an opportunity to discuss the matter. One cannot read what took plaoe without a feeling of deep regret,. One cannot read1 it without realizing that one who had sworn to protect the life and property of the city by which he was employed has lost his life, and lost it at the hands of others than the police. Two of the mounted police are lying at death's door, as a result of attacks upon them last

night in the city of Regina. The question of fixing responsibility is one which doubtless a coroner or icoroner'fe jury will inquire into; there must of necessity be an investigation. I am not in any sense going to endeavour to anticipate what the coroner may do or what the decision may be, but one thing I desire this house and this country to understand, that is that not a mounted policeman last night had a bullet in his holster; not one. The instructions were definite, having regard to what has transpired in various parts of the world in recent years, and they were obeyed. There were no cartridges in the hand's of any member of the mounted police last night. Yet this afternoon there are mounted policemen lying in the hospital shot with bullets. The Minister of Justice reminds me that the question of whether they were shot with bullets has not been determined. Well, there were men injured who were shot, I will put it that way. He says that it may be that these1 two men were not injured with bullets, but there were men injured with bullets. Those are the naked facts.
Was the assembly last night an unlawful assembly? What did the leaders say who travelled, west from here? What did Evans say? What did he say at Sudbury as reported in the public press? He said that blood would flow in the streets of Regina. What about the young men who have said they were invited into this movement as an adventure? They looked upon it as a great lark, and when they found what its true character was, they could not withdraw from it. Why? Because they were terrorized and controlled by these leaders. The Minister of Justice has mentioned the numbers of them, some seventy or so, but seventy leaders of the calibre of those who came here are1 capable of directing the activities of many hundreds of men, as every one knows. Let it be understood by this house this afternoon that these men, hundred's of them, were never in any camp in Canada, never received either clothing or food or shelter from this government or any other government, they were picked up as this crowd1 moved across the continent by appeals made to them, by men who declare openly that they are communists. They have seen fit to make known their demands to little lodges scattered throughout this country, which, in turn, send on the facts as they see them; telegrams pour in upon me by dozens and by hundreds, one from New York, demanding in the name of the United States that certain things should be done. I read you one from Paris the other

B.C. Relief Camp Strikers
day. All across this dominion are gathered together little bands, which demand that we do certain things.
I am informed and I believe that this movement is, as the Minister of Justice has said, not a mere uprising against law and order but a definite revolutionary effort on the part of a group of men to usurp authority and destroy government. Those who are familiar with what happened in one city of this dominion at one time will appreciate how there may be a partial realization of their hopes and expectations in that regard, for no one who has read of what took place at that time, of the taking possession of government, the endeavour to police the city and to order its activities, to control the feeding of the people with a system of cards under allotments, can fail to realize the danger that confronts us in such a revolutionary movement as that. Some of these telegrams that come are signed with very strange names, such as the Junior Band of Communists. They now openly call themselves communists, no longer disguising themselves under some fictitious name, but glory in calling themselves communists and indicate clearly what their purpose is. Declarations were made by the leaders of this group in Regina, gathered together in the manner I have stated. I have stated as clearly as possible that they were not only those who came from the camps, with them I shall' deal presently, but they were an aggregation of all those who had been attracted to this movement, some as a lark, an adventure, some for the purpose of finding opportunity to give effect to their opinions by the destruction of organized authority.	[DOT]
That was the position last night in Regina. Tear bombs were used in an endeavour to quiet the disturbance without injury to person. The city police were not under control of the federal power in any way, this government had no authority to direct their actions. They took their action I believe for the preservation of life and property in the city they had been sworn to protect, and one of them died in the discharge of his duty, killed by those who defy law and challenge authority. That is rather a solemn thing to contemplate. Now that a question has been asked I will ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) a question. I wonder if he has ever thought of the implied approbation of the action of these men that is involved in the speeches he has made. I wonder if he ever calmly paused to consider how much they have relied upon the voice in parliament of their spokesman to make known their opinions. And when they go to extreme
action to serve their ends I wonder if then it does not occur to him, as it did this afternoon when he was denouncing them for having made inroads in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, that it is far too late now to quell the monster, the Frankenstein he has invoked. He has conjured up a spirit that will not down. There is no thoughtful man in this country who does not know that you cannot go about Canada talking the loose sort of talk that has been going on during these months and years by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and by his colleague the hon. member for South Vancouver (Mr. Maclnnis)-


An hon. MEMBER:: And Bow River too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -without resulting outbreaks. One realizes the extent to which this incitement has carried these young men. Listen to them, hear what they say. Misled, misguided, easily influenced, not inmates of camps at all, never were, dragged out by this insidious propaganada to do what? To be in the forefront of the disturbance while those who led them were sitting quietly in the background seeing them suffer. That has been the history of it.
Now under these circumstances let us review the situation so far as Vancouver is concerned. Vancouver's mayor led the procession one day and headed the police the next-not literally the next day, but that was what happened. All the time we were crying aloud to the premier of British Columbia, saying that we were ready, willing and anxious to do anything that might be necessary, the cry that went forth was " work and wages," the incentive to further acts of disturbance and further efforts against constituted authority. That is a solemn thought, when you think of the easily impressionable minds of younger men, governed as they are by these leaders with treason in their hearts and the destruction of our institutions as their end, and when you find those who sit in high places, those who govern and control, not using their authority but tacitly, by the demands they make, giving them encouragement to seek the ends they have in mind. I say, sir, there is not a thoughtful man in this country who has read what has transpired in Canada during the last two months who does not realize that by resolutions passed by this body and that, by resolutions and telegrams of sympathy, by expressions of good will for those nursing what they regarded as a grievance, every day these people have become bolder in their conduct because of the reception they received from those they believed to be their friends.
-
B.C. Relief Camp Strikers

That is the fact. As I stated the other day, in some respects it does credit to human sympathy. Man is a sympathetic creature and when he sees his fellow less fortunate than he, if he has money he usually puts his hand into his pocket and gives him the price of a meal, as he calls it, though very often it is for a drink. He gives him assistance wherever it may be necessary for the purpose of providing him with comfort, we will say, when he lacks it, or with shelter when he lacks it. He makes contributions to organized institutions in the country, and what are the organized institutions? You can go into any great city and start with the Salvation Army, the homes of refuge, the homes maintained by the charitable organizations, 'the nuns and the churches of the country. Look at them; night after night they are open to receive those less fortunate than others, offering them solace, food, comfort and, if possible, some clothing; endeavouring to make life, shall we say, possible to those suffering misfortune. One of the things I sometimes feel, and that I think most men feel as they look about them, is that the effort to substitute governmental for human aids and efforts has had the effect of somewhat dampening human sympathy and the power of men to share the hardship of their fellows.
Those are the conditions to which I refer. Will anyone deny them? When the government of this country found that these young men without homes were drifting backward and forward across the country they organized these relief camps, not as long ago as the hon. member has said. These camps were organized as a temporary-and only a temporary-shelter to provide food and clothing and to enable the men to live in comfort at the expense of the state until the time should come when they could find profitable employment. Now let me read something. I sent for the report which I have on the operation of these camps, and I wish to direct attention this afternoon to a few words from that report. I have not time to deal with the matter at length; if the statements made were not so serious I should not think of dealing with them at all. Just listen to this:
Discipline
From the commencement of this scheme of relief, administered by the Department of National Defence, it has been the policy that personnel engaged on the relief projects should remain as civilians and be treated in a manner similar to that obtaining in ordinary camps such as those established by contractors for construction purposes, timber operations, etc.
A man is free to leave a project at any

time and in the case of a man who desires to leave a project to accept other employment and furnishes definite proof of the offer of a position, he is provided with free transportation for a distance not exceeding the distance from the project to the point of his engagement.
No powers of compulsion have been taken by the Department of National Defence and control of personnel is exercised by an appeal to their reason and intelligence, not to their fear of punishment. If a man refuses to comply with the simple regulations which are no more stringent than those of a well conducted construction or lumber camp, he is discharged. Any man who considers that he has been unjustly treated or has a legitimate complaint, may carry his complaint to higher authority provided he acts individually. It is a definite rule that committees, combinations, or mass protests, will not be received or considered. The method of dealing with complaints _ is receiving attention with a view to clarifying the procedure now in force. Note: Instructions were revised accordingly on May 4, 1935.
Then reference' is made to the questions of sabotage and the distribution of subversive literature throughout the camps. In other words the regulations endeavour to make it abundantly clear that the young man who behaves himself and conducts himself as he would in an ordinary camp receives every consideration that can be accorded him, and at the first opportunity for work he can go to that work and his transportation is paid. Let me go a step further. It was felt that education should not be neglected, and here are the regulations with respect to education:
When the scheme for the care of unemployed, single, homeless men in camps administered by the Department of National Defence was instituted it was realized that provision of facilities to enable these men to retain or improve their mental efficiency was of paramount importance. Steps were taken, soon after the camps were established, to provide teachers, either from the relief personnel themselves or through the Frontier College, an organization that is supported entirely by voluntary subscriptions from the public generally.
By arrangement with the Frontier College, selected men, who were taken on the strength of the projects, worked as labourers with the men during the day and held classes during the evenings. This system, within its defined scope, has produced satisfactory results but has suffered through the frequent changes in the labourer-teachers who either returned to universities to resume their own academic training, or who secured positions in industry at remunerative rates of wages.
Then I have here the number of those thus engaged, running up over one hundred at one time and lessening, of course, as the winter departed and the warmer weather began. Then take the provision made for their instruction in trades and crafts. In view of what has transpired to-day I want this house to understand something of what has been done by

B.C. Relief Camp Strikers
this country to deal with this problem. I have the regulations here with respect to every province:
Alberta:	The provincial department _ of
education authorized the director of technical education to place an educational supervisor on the projects located along, and in the vicinity of, the Calgary-Banff highway and are providing correspondence courses for other projects where desired....
British Columbia:	In continuation of the
system instituted in the winter of 1933-34 correspondence courses are now established under the provincial department of education in elementary, high school and technical subjects....
Instruction in Trades and Crafts
Belief personnel who so desire are encouraged and assisted to learn trades, as opportunities permit, or at least to become accustomed to the use of tools. Considerable construction of camp buildings, wood and concrete culverts, wooden bridges on highways, etc., calls for employment of men of the handy-man type. Men with no previous knowledge have gained instruction and experience in such work in considerable numbers, and to this extent are profiting by such knowledge and employment under the direction of skilled foremen. Men showing adaptability have been so trained and frequent promotions on subordinate and junior supervisory staffs of such men have been made.
Then there was a complaint with respect to compensation for injury. I wish to point out that provision was 'made to deal with that question in a manner that most people would regard as fair. Then I turn to the question of their spiritual welfare:
The spiritual welfare of the men engaged in the various projects is considered a responsibility of the church organizations.
Every facility and encouragement is afforded the clergy and church workers to hold services and make contact with the men on the projects. Clergymen posted to or visiting camps for the purpose of ministering to the spiritual welfare of the men are given board and lodgings in kind and are reimbursed reasonable out-of-pocket expenses necessarily incurred. Due to the location of many of the 'projects, distant by many miles from large, or any settlements, the visits by clergymen to those projects have not been frequent. Where urban centres are adjacent to the projects, the attention has been greater. In many of the camps, services of various denominations were held regularly, particularly in the ease of some of the larger projects to which certain denominations supplied resident chaplains. The men are permitted to attend church services at their own volition.
That is the provision for their welfare, their recreation, and their leisure time. I have mentioned these matters because I believe this house and country should understand that this was an effort made to care for those who had no homes during the time they were without profitable employment.
Now I turn to what perhaps is the most important point of all. I believe I should at once clear up a difficulty apparently existing in the minds of some hon. members, with regard to the numbers of men passing through these camps. When it is alleged that these men stay in the camps two, three or four years undoubtedly an erroneous impression is created. When I give figures, as I shall, as to the numbers of men who have passed through the camps I shall do no more than give them roughly. There may be many other matters to which I should refer, but this afternoon time does not permit my doing so.
I shall now read the table indicating the number of men who have gone into the camps and the number who have left, so that hon. members will realize that the turnover has been very rapid, that some have obtained permanent positions and others at least temporary (positions. I shall have to ask hon. members to pardon me for a few moments until I obtain the figures.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the
right hon. gentleman simply wish to put them on Hansard?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is important
that I give the number, because I believe the figures would destroy the idea that these men have been kept in the camps for long terms of years. I should like to make it clear as to what the movement has been. However, as I was not aware that this matter would be discussed and as the point in the document before me is not marked, I shall have to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) to consult the index and find the information for me. While that is being done I shall proceed to a discussion of the next point, namely, that being in these camps in the numbers I shall presently indicate, to my certain knowledge in many cases these men were happy and content. Who destroyed their contentment? That is the question for us to answer. Who destroyed the peace of mind and happiness of these men? Who interfered? Who must accept the ultimate responsibility for going into the camps and destroying the peace of mind and happiness of these men? It. is of no use to make the complaint that these camps were not first dlass hotels; they were not intended to be. But they were as good as many lumber camps in Canada-I say they were better, because they made provision for education, spiritual welfare and other matters which I shall not discuss at length. Who was it who became responsible for the destruction of the morale, peace and contentment of these men? That
413S
B.C. Relief Camp Strikers

is the real point. All the excuses and sophistry in the world do not get us away from the fact that from time to time emissaries of a destructive and subversive force in Canada went among these men. They admitted that to me the other day; Collins admitted it to me. Collins of Glasgow said, "That is what I have been doing in the last six months, and," he said, "I have a right to do it." What they were doing was organizing and agitating. First of all they were agitating against conditions and were telling the men in the camps how badly they were used and cared for, how recreant to its duty the government had been, and what an utter disregard of humanitarian instincts there had been. This is the tale they were told. Then they said, "We must organize; workers must organize; we must dictate to the government what it shall do; we must have wages on a basis we shall say-not what the capitalist shall say, not the country, not the government." I could give the particulars of the agitation, because I have them as they have been furnished from time to time. Many hon. members have seen them.
Let us be fair and frank about this matter this afternoon. First, these agitators went into the camps sowing seeds of discontent, disruption and rebellion in the minds of these men. It took a long time to do it. Why? Because the men realized that the turnover of labour in the camps was great, that changes were taking place rapidly, and that many were leaving to go out to profitable employment. They knew that was happening day after day and week after week. In the end however these agitators wore down that sense of contentment in British Columbia. As the minister has pointed out, we knew that they were going to move upon Vancouver at a given date. They deny that that is so-but in the end they moved in upon Vancouver. Did *they not receive succour and support in Vancouver and Victoria? By means of a tag day $6,000 was raised for them-$6,000. That was the humanitarian instinct, to which I referred a moment ago, expressing itself in terms of dollars.
Then when they found it was no longer possible to influence and to direct public opinion either through the mayor-who had ultimately to read the riot act; no longer heading parades, but reading the riot act-or any other body, they considered what they should do next. The point was how to get rid of them. I hope my information is not correct as to the means resorted to-but this government had no idea that they were going to leave Vancouver. No member of the government to whom I have spoken about the 
matter had -any knowledge of it. But at a given moment they boarded freight trains. The government were advised of that fact. They travelled foy fast freight, and we had no force to cope with them at Kamloops; we had no force to cope with them as they came down this side .of the mountains, nor had we any force at Calgary. I say to the right hon. gentleman, when he suggests that there was some ulterior purpose in. the fact that they were allowed to go east as far as Regina, that the question of dealing with them was taken up by the minister just as rapidly as possible, when the moment came that the railway companies complained of trespass upon their property endangering life and property. Of course under the Railway Act these men were trespassing. As hon. members have said, the fact that they were trespassers did not- constitute a very great offence. But when the numbers counted not tens or twenties but hundreds, then there was danger to life and to property and danger in the transportation of the .mails. Both railway companies complained.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The so-called marchers were then between Swift Current and Moose Jaw. On the day they reached Moose Jaw the railway companies told the government they could not longer deal with the situation.
Now I want to remind the house of something more. One of the reasons, and one of the very great reasons, why this matter was dealt with after they had come into Saskatchewan was that they had succeeded in taking out of other camps in Alberta a considerable number of men who prior to that date had been peaceably and happily employed in these camps. In other words, their propaganda was successful in taking men out of camps in Alberta on the Crowsnest line and on the main line of the Canadian Pacific, and these men attached themselves to the strikers at Medicine Hat and other points so that when they reached Moose Jaw their numbers were very much larger than they had been. Before they reached .Moose Jaw the minister had taken action in consequence of complaints made by the railway companies and their statement that they were unable to deal with the matter with the limited number of constables under their control, and that they required police assistance. That of course is the explanation of what was said the other day. Ordinarily with respect to the enforcement of law and order the province, of course, must determine what action shall be taken, and the province calls upon the federal

B.C. Relief Camp Strikers
power to give them assistance whenever it is desired. But in the agreement betweeen Saskatchewan and Canada, and it was an agreement that was consummated during the administration of the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), not by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), it is provided that the dominion reserves the right with respect to the police for a breach of federal statutes. Just as soon as these men reached Regina the premier of Saskatchewan, angered at their being in Saskatchewan and stopped there-and I appreciate his feelings- sent most violent messages to the government, and I think when the right hon. gentleman reads them he will not be so anxious to see them. We will produce them, of course. Message followed message. These people, he said-I	paraphrase-were	brought into
Saskatchewan with the connivance of the government and with the assistance of the railway companies, and therefore there was no right now to stop them in Regina.
Now I put it to the former Minister of Justice, who I see is no longer in his place: would he under that agreement of his decline to do just what the Minister of Justice did? The premier of Saskatchewan was advised of this. The legal representatives of both railways waited upon the attorney general. We were so advised by telephone-I do not think it is in writing-and what happened? No action. The Minister of Justice believed, as I believed, that this was no longer a sporadic or spasmodic uprising. This was a revolutionary movement, and as I said the other day the forces of government for the preservation of law and order must be used for that purpose, and they were. There is the story.
We have endeavoured by every means within our power to prevent just what happened yesterday. When it was suggested a few days ago that we were rather anxious to use force and that I might have been far more conciliatory with these eight men who came to me than I was, I would like to say this, and I will leave it to any person who was present: I declined to indicate the least show of temper, although heaven knows there had been good excuse for it, and I restrained myself from any violent statement of any kind despite the provocation. But when I heard Evans say what he said as to his purposes, and Collins make the statements he did, I felt I would be recreant to my duty if I did not say to them that law and order would be maintained in this country because it was the duty of the federal power to preserve peace, order and good government. I think if the hon. member
for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) had himself been present he would have been amazed at my moderation-amazed at it; for if it had been his case, in view of the condition into which he worked himself up in this house one evening about that time I do not know what would have happened. But I make that statement unhesitatingly and maintain that it cannot be contradicted.
We told them what? I am not going to go back and repeat it all, but we told them that we would provide them with a camp, and in order that it might be freed from the imputation of military discipline the Department of Labour, which had a representative at Regina, made the necessary arrangements for providing a camp at Lumsden. The water was laid on in a few hours, tents were provided and a commissariat to take care of the men. All this was done, and the worst of it is that some of those who had been picked up on the road, who had yielded to the solicitations of the propagandists and agitators, wanted to go to Lumsden. But could they go? Their baggage, their little dunnage bags, were taken and the pickets were reinforced to prevent them from going. A few found their way ultimately to Lumsden.
With respect to the unlawful assembly last night, I say "unlawful assembly" deliberately; for in Saskatchewan there was a decision-it is true, I believe, that it was by a county court judge-following the decision of the Supreme Court of Ontario, and may I remind this chamber that this great province dealt with this very subject. The evidence was given to a jury, defences were made by learned counsel and by the accused themselves, and they were found guilty. An appeal was taken to the supreme court, the highest court of appeal in the province of Ontario, and by unanimous judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Mulock, the court decided that there was no question in law upon the evidence adduced that these communists constituted an illegal association. That decision it is true is not binding on other courts of Canada except in the province of Ontario. Now look at what happened at Nipigon in defiance of that decision. Tim Buck said: I am a communist and I challenge the government. Yet Mr. Roebuck has done nothing and he is the attorney general of the province. I challenge, Tim Buck said; the government to proceed against me-this man who is out on ticket of leave, this man whom the highest court in this province had determined was properly convicted for promoting sedition-for that is practically what- it amounts to-and the destruction of our in-
4140	COMMONS
B.C. Relief Camp Strikers *
stitutions. They know about him carrying on his agitation, defying law and order, and no one says a word. There is a case in which the federal1 power has no authority to drop in and assist unless we have evidence of the revolutionary character of what is taking place. Attention is directed to these things, but no action is taken. There they are and there they remain.
*Let us go a step further. Mr. Buck is now running as a candidate against the bon. member for North 'Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). He has fourteen organization rooms in that constituency, and he is openly challenging authority-openly; he does not offer any apologies for it a.t all. Here I stand and scoff at you-that is his attitude. Look at the effect of that upon this country as a whole. Look at the result upon the body politic. Look a.t the result upon the morale of the people of this country. That is the thing we have to consider. We were on safe ground when the railway companies were being dealt with. That was a breach of a federal statute and not of the criminal code. That was a special statute in which iwe were interested in the transport of mail and the safety of passengers, a matter solely within federal jurisdiction. That is the reason why we took the position which we did. What did Grover Cleveland do when he was faced with a situation almost like this one in the state of Illinois when the mails were no longer being carried? He took federal power for the purpose of maintaining law and order, in order that the mails, which were of national concern, might be delivered. Our railroads are a subject solely of national concern and come under the jurisdiction only of this parliament. When we found that condition existing, we took the steps we did. Is there any hon. member of this house who, charged with responsibility, would have done less and maintained his oath of office? That is the question.


Charles Stephen Booth: Before the Prime Minister leaves that point, would he mind explaining how the assembly of last night was an illegal assembly?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Last night's assembly
was an unlawful assembly within the decision of the Supreme Court of Ontario. I shall not labour it at length but if the hon. gentleman desires to read the judgment, I shall send him a oopy. This judgment was circulated widely. The assembly last night was an unlawful association within the meaning of that judgment and I do not think anyone who is informed has any doubt about it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not quite
follow the right hon. gentleman. I understood that that did not apply in the case of Manitoba. Does it apply in the case of Saskatchewan?


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I tried to make clear was that it would be for the courts of Saskatchewan to decide. The leaders have been arrested and their trial will be held and I shall not comment on what the evidence will be. They have been charged and an opportunity will be afforded to them to make their defence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am just trying to clear up that point. I understood the Prime Minister to say that the dominion could not prosecute in Manitoba but apparently it is prosecuting in Saskatchewan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The prosecution has
arisen out of a breach of the Railway Act. I want to make that clear.
Leaving that for the moment, I must apologize to the house for the delay which has occurred in giving this information as it disrupts the natural flow of the argument. How many men does the house think have passed through these camps? The total number is 116,480, and 22,365 have left to take up profitable employment while 12,601 were let out for purposes of discipline. This gives some idea of the activities of the communists in these camps and gives some idea of the propaganda which has been carried on and the methods adopted. Others have left to take up employment where they thought they could find jobs, some 60,000 having gone to unknown jobs. The largest number of men ever at these camps was 25,500; last summer this number dropped about 12,000 and last winter it rose to 20,500. It stands now at 13,000. These figures give some idea of the nature, the character and the purpose of these camps and how well they have served that purpose. One of the most distinguished labour ministers of England, who has since passed to the great beyond, when on a visit to this country stated that this was one of the most amazing ventures from the standpoint of sound principle that he had ever seen. He was referring to the provision by which these men were given shelter, food and clothing, until the opportunity arose of being permitted to go to work. When I say that the number of men in the camps dropped last year to 9,000 from a maximum of 25,500 one is able to gain some idea of what the situation was. As I have said, the number of men have dropped to about 13,000 and that

B.C. Relief Camp Strikers
number will be decreasing steadily, as I explained to these men, because of the opportunities which will be offered of work on the highways and roads in the mountains of British Columbia which cannot be undertaken until late in June. When those opportunities for work are offered they can avail themselves of them, if they so desire.
As I said, I do not propose in any sense to anticipate what evidence will be given or what may be said with respect to the tragedy at Regina. This morning I received a telegram from Mr. Gardiner to which reference has been made by the right hon. leader of the opposition. This wire reads:
You have no doubt been advised of latest developments. We wish to state that men had interviewed us at five o'clock. They stated they had advised your government through your representative they were prepared to disband and go back to their camps or homes provided they were allowed to go under their own organization. They state this was denied them. They asked' our government to take responsibility for disbanding them to their own camps or homes. While we were meeting to consider their proposals and any suggestions we might make to you trouble started down town between the police and strikers without notification to us of police intentions which has resulted in at least one death in the police force and scores of citizens strikers and police wounded. We are nevertheless prepared to undertake this work of disbanding the men without sending them to Lumsden. Will you consider negotiations on basis of this proposal.
James G. Gardiner.
I replied as follows:
Your message received indicating your willingness to undertake work of disbanding strike marchers without sending them to Lumsden. Please indicate just what this means in order that there may be no misunderstanding.
That does not look like a desire not to cooperate with the provincial authorities. The premier of the province stated that these men demanded1 that they should be permitted to disperse but with their own organization. That is just exactly what we do not propose they shall do. We do not propose that they shall go to Vancouver, where we already have had communists taking part in activities on the waterfront, as referred to the other day by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). We do not propose that they shall go there to swell the ranks of the communists and add to the difficulties of that city. Their demand was not that they be permitted to disband and go to their homes where they had homes or go back to the camps, but, as Mr. Gardiner says, they demanded that they be permitted1 to disband under their own organization, and this we refuse to allow. Since I
came into the chamber I received another telegram from Mr. Gardiner which may be an answer to the one I sent. This telegram reads:
Yesterday morning men indicated to your representative Mr. Burgess their willingness to disband the march and return to the points from which they came. They repeated this to Mr. Burgess and representatives of the police at 2.30. Your representative refused to have provincial representation at that meeting. The men met us at five o'clock stating that since your representatives had refused to consider this the provincial government take responsibility for disbanding men to their original camps or homes and supply them with food in the interval. While we were considering this matter police raided public meeting to arrest leaders, precipitating a riot. Men at present in buildings at fair grounds completely surrounded by police who permit no one to enter and men to leave only in twos. Police intention to force these men to Lumsden camp or starving them into submission. This will end in a worse riot than last night. These men should be fed where they are and immediately disbanded and sent back to camps and homes as they request without any attempt to force them into Lumsden and this should be done within next two hours. This government has a responsibility toward its citizens to provide them with ordinary protection against this imported trouble. We would ask you to immediately withdraw orders issued affecting the liberty of individuals within this province and affecting the law and order of this province. You might assume that we are as much concerned about law and order in this country as you can be and deal with the elected representatives of this province regarding matters concerning our people instead of through an appointed political representative. We are asking you if you are going to feed these men within the next two hours and are asking you to instruct us within two hours what plans are to be made for their disbandment.
James G. Gardiner.
That is the -message to which the right hon. leader .of the opposition referred a moment ago. It will be observed (that Mr. Gardiner talks about disbandment but he leaves out that explanation which I requested ini connection with, their demands that they be allowed to go under their own organization. To -that we have not received any reply. As long as they stay together, as the Minister of Finance says, they will disband.
Now let me read the last answer which I wrote -while I was listening to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
Large number of so called strike marchers now at Regina have never been in relief camps and being homeless cannot be sent to any definite locality as being their homes. The federal government is ready and' willing - to feed these marchers at Lumsden and transport them to that point. Apparently leaders demand transportation to Vancouver as organized bands which we are not willing to do in
B.C. Relief Camp Strikers

view of the illegal character of their organization and avowed purposes of their leaders. Of course we have no intention of interfering with any action you may decide to take that does not involve these men in violation of the laws of the country.
That is the position we have outlined in the telegrams that have passed between us to-day. I am not going to do more than merely indicate that that being the situation we are faced with an- organized attempt against the national life of Canada. This is not sporadic; it extends from coast to coast. It is not dominion wide; it extends to other sections of this continent. They started to-day at noon at Valcartier. A happy contented group of men have been preyed upon by agitators, and at noon to-day they said they were going to strike. This uprising against authority, against law and order, is in our judgment a considered and deliberate attempt to carry into effect the known doctrines of the communists. We are not prepared to yield to it; and what is more, we believe that it is not a matter of a province; it is a matter of the nation as a whole.
I will not burden you with the sheaves of telegrams that have come to me along the line, especially in the northern parts of Ontario and other parts of Canada, where the population is far better informed with respect to communistic doctrines and tendencies than it is, for instance, in the city of Ottawa, and where they make bold to say that they demand-not request but demand-that these things shall be done. They demand that these men shall continue their march upon Ottawa, these strikers, and that the police be withdrawn-"We demand that the police be withdrawn." The similarity in the language of the telegrams would seem to indicate that there was one master mind somewhere behind this movement, or several. And even the one from New York was couched in terms so like some that we have received from Toronto and other parts of Canada as to make one believe that they had a common origin.
It is not easy for me to speak at such length about a matter of this kind1 to-day. If I say that my night has been saddened and my day as well by what transpired yesterday, I suppose that will afford an opportunity for jeers-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -from the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg North Centre. And when they talk about an order in council having

been passed by this government dealing with these matters, I say that any man who said that and who Was a member of parliament insulted his own intelligence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have already said that I did not-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say you; I said any member of parliament.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice made that statement with regard to me and I denied it. It is not worthy of the Prime Minister to try to leave that impression.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will put it this way. According to the hon. gentleman's own statement he was present at the C.C.F. provincial gathering at which a motion was made that a message be sent to the Prime Minister that help be sent to the strikers in Regina, and condemnation was made of the government of the day, naming the Prime Minister by name, for the passing of such an order in council.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was present at the meeting of the council, but I was not present at the time that motion was made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am very glad to hear the hon. gentleman say that. But I do say that when anyone suggests that an order in council could be passed by this government dealing with a matter of this kind, he does violence to his own intelligence. I do not think there is any doubt at all about that, because this house a few weeks ago passed a statute that provided it could not be done; and no one with intelligence would pass an order in Council knowing that- it had no value as such and1 would not be worth the paper it was written on and would not furnish a defence or excuse for any action that might be taken under it. That, I think, is so clear as not to call for comment. I repeat, I find it difficult to speak at all about this matter; but it is of such importance that even though- it has greatly inconvenienced me to do so, I have endeavoured to place some of the facts before the house and the country.
When I think of that courageous officer of the law who was employed by the city of Regina and who is now lying stark and dead in 'the city whose welfare he was interested in and whose safety he defended, I cannot but think of the tremendous responsibility that rests upon each of us lest it should be said that by the course we have pursued we have led men to believe that they might resort to the most violent means to accomplish their

Insurance Acts
ends and have with them the support of decent law-abiding citizens. I know it is not so. I know that the Canadian people do not believe that; and, weak as some of our institutions are, and failing, as they must have failed at times, to meet all the demands that might be made upon them, we are still convinced1 that the pe'ople of Canada are not prepared to substitute for those institutions the rule of the commune and the guidance of the soviet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to thank the Prime Minister for his undertaking to bring down the telegrams that have passed between the Prime Minister of Saskatchewan and himself. May I ask whether that assurance will include all the messages between the federal government and the government of Saskatchewan. May I also ask whether the right hon. gentleman will kindly consider the request that the instructions, if any, given to the police be tabled.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as correspondence is concerned, there is none except the telegrams; they will be produced. My present view is that it has never been the rule to permit instructions given by officers commanding to those charged with enforcing law and order to be brought down in the House of Commons. I will look into the matter further, but that is my present conviction.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



INSURANCE ACTS


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: If I may
have the unanimous consent of the house I should like to make a statement regarding two bills wdiich are on the order paper in my name, Nos. 13 and 14. Hon. members will remember that when Bill No. 13 was before the house the first time the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said he had received assurance from the Canadian Life Insurance Officers' Association, which includes Canadian, British and foreign companies, registered with the federal insurance department, that if these bills were not proceeded with they
would see that no rate of interest in excess of six per cent per annum was charged on any policy loan after the first of January, 1936, this to include automatic premium loans and all charges of every kind in connection with such loans or other loans. I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) since that time to confirm that by letter, and I have a letter from the Minister of Finance dated June 28, in which he says:
I have pleasure in writing to advise you that the department of insurance and the government will be at pains to see that the undertaking given iby the Hon. N. W. Rowell, K.C., counsel for the Canadian Life Insurance Officers' Association, as to the rate of interest that will be charged after January 1, 1936, will be carried out in strict conformity with the undertaking, the terms of which you have before you in the copy of Mr. Rowell's letter, dated the 24th of June, addressed to Mr. Finlayson, the superintendent of insurance.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to proceed further with these two bills at this time.



B.C. RELIEF CAMP STRIKERS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Rhodes for committee of supply.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I question very much indeed if there has been before parliament during this session a subject of greater importance or fraught with more serious possibilities than that which was under discussion this afternoon. I might remind you, sir, that the motion to go into supply has always been considered the most suitable oocasion for members of the House of Commons to place before the house any subject that is considered to be a grievance or is regarded by the people generally as containing the germs of a grievance. In other words it has been a time-honoured practice and habit, as well as a very high privilege, to use this opportunity to discuss matters of importance to any section or to the country as a whole. This subject which we have been discussing I choose to define as the plight of youth. The immediate matter, of course, that is of grave concern is certain outbreaks and disorders that have occurred in regard to the plight of youth.
This afternoon we had a number of addresses. It is not my intention to analyze or reply to them or deal with them to any great extent. I should, however, like to point out one or two things. We had an
B.C. Relief Camp Strikers

address by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King),, and the house will recall that he closed his remarks with the observation that perhaps the subject of gravest concern was whether or not the federal government had invaded the rights of the province. To me the statement of the right hon. gentleman seemed rather strange. I am not very much concerned about whether or not the government of Canada has infringed to a certain degree upon the narrowly interpreted constitutional rights of the provinces in this respect. The thing immediately before the government of course is the dis* turbance in Regina. Certainly the government ought to act constitutionally and carefully within its right. But after all the thing of immediate concern is that the government should discharge its duty, which according to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), it is amply demonstrated it has done. Therefore I could not understand the attitude of the right hon. gentleman, because to me the matter of supreme concern was not even the riots, although that certainly is of great importance, but rather what lies behind all this, what is the cause of all this. Is there anything that parliament can do to remove the causes of these disturbances and riots? I hope before I shall have finished, to indicate at least what in my opinion might be done to correct the situation. At the very outset, therefore, I suggest that we do not waste very much time discussing whether or not the government is doing its duty, because as far as I can gauge the matter the government had no choice. It had to preserve law and order within its constituted powers and rights. This at has done. But has it done in that respect any more than its duty? There is nothing about that which should call for either encomiums or condemnation; it is the plain simple duty of the government to maintain law and order in the country-of course I always interpolate this; subject to its constitutional right and power. So all I have to say on that subject is that apparently the government has done its duty, a distasteful duty. But there is another point that ought to be canvassed and canvassed carefully, that- is, what are the underlying causes of the disturbances that forced the government to discharge a most unpleasant duty? It is with that phase of the subject that I intend to deal.
Let me first ask what was the origin of all this trouble. It will be recalled that a few years ago, I would say from three to four years ago, we found literally hundreds, yes

thousands, of the youth of Canada wandering up and down, particularly in the summer time. As I went westward to my own province of British Columbia I counted on a single train one morning a hundred and twenty-seven of them. I have counted fifty and sixty just as trains were passing, young men riding to and fro on the freight trains. Sometimes I talked with these boys. I talked to one young chap who said he had made three cross-country trips in one season. I talked to others who boasted of how far they had travelled. That is a condition that prevailed three and four years ago this summer. The provinces told us, particularly the province from which I come, that young men were pouring in there from other parts of Canada, constituting for them a very serious problem in addition to their own local problem of relief. This complaint developed. The federal government offered, freely I think and of its own volition, to undertake the care of destitute, homeless, unemployed young men. I should like the house to bear that fact in mind, that the federal government undertook to care for that class of the unemployed. When they undertook to do so they laid down certain rules, certain principles if you like, one of which was that these young men had to foe healthy. I stand to be corrected by the minister who is in charge if I should inadvertently mistate the case, but I understand that one of the conditions was that they must be healthy; indeed, sir, I think they passed a physical examination before being admitted to 'camp. They had to be young; they had to be homeless; they had to be destitute and they had to be single.
Well, sir, that is rather a disturbing condition which I think should challenge the sympathetic consideration of every member of this house, as I am sure it does. But here is where I think we are somewhat failing: we are at the end of the session, and so far as parliament is concerned we have done little or practically nothing towards the solution of the problem of caring for this great number of young men. It is argued by some that by providing these camps we have discharged our duty. It must be borne in mind that when this was undertaken by the federal government it was not done as a permanent measure; it was looked upon as an emergency. That at least was the impression that was made on my own mind; I cannot speak for others. It was the expectation and hope that we would carry these young men through a winter and that probably in the following summer, or at least in the not too far distant future, they

B.C. Relief Camp Strikers
would be absorbed into the ordinary life of the country. Certainly no one to whom I mentioned the subject considered that it would go on for three years so far, and possibly for another year or two as well. It was never looked upon as a condition with which we should ask young men to bear a period of years.
Let me say further, Mr. Speaker, and I say this with great deliberation, that it is asking a great deal of youth to remain docile, in camps where they receive subsistence plus a very small remuneration in the nature of an honorarium of $5 a month. I say that is asking a great deal of youth. I do not wish to be told later that I am getting sentimental, because I do not think that can be said, but surely we are not going to ignore the fact that in the veins of the youth of Canada are still pulsating ambition and the desire to get somewhere and be something. To my mind parliament cannot consider that it has discharged its duty unless it has .made some provision for the satisfying of that very human and legitimate desire on the part of these young men.
Then, sir, what occurred next? There was a strike in some of the camps and the young men trekked into the city of Vancouver. I have resided in British Columbia now for forty-one years, with the exception of the unfortunate periods of time I have had to spend in this house during the last twenty-five years. Last summer and the summer before I personally visited many of these camps, and I should like to say a few words as to what I saw there and the impressions I received. I visited quite a number of the camps; on each of these visits I had several meals at different camps. Generally speaking I found the food to be good; I do not think there was very much to take objection to in connection with the food, so far as I could judge. It was plain; it was wholesome; there was a reasonable variety and on the whole I would say it could not be the ground for very much complaint. The clothing the men were given certainly was of a kind that should be satisfactory; on the whole I would say it was perhaps better than the men would obtain themselves if they were buying it. I do not think there could be any reasonable complaint in that connection. In regard to housing-outside of some possible inconveniences that might have crept into some of the -camps foy being brought in with the men themselves, in the way of vermin and so forth, which I think was rare-I should say it was quite in keeping with the normal camp life we have in British Columbia in the mining and logging camps. So on the whole I would
say the physeal convenience and comfort of the men was reasonably well looked after, and -as far as I was able to judge there were no sound grounds for complaint.
I saw something else, however, which impressed me tremendously. At one camp the young men were employed in the construction of or preparation of the ground for an airport. Hon. members know what that means; there was a considerable area of, I should say, sixty or seventy acres or thereabouts. The camp of which I was speaking was in a valley in the mountains, what we out there would call a "wash"; that is, a flat of the valley which had been filled up with the wash from mountain streams, consisting of great boulders some l^fger than a -man -could lift and others commonly called by the men working among them "niggerheads," large coarse gravel and boulders. When the discussion was taking place this afternoon I noticed that some hon. members referred to these young men as though they were all men who did not want to work, loafers and so on. Apparently that thought was seeping through the minds of some hon. members. I saw these young men in the month of August, working under a blistering sun with the temperature, I should imagine, -close to 100 in the shade. I observed them over a period in the neighbourhood of at least ten days, working away day after day at, perhaps, one of the hardest, -most- -discouraging and most disagreeable tasks that any man could undertake. I do not know of a harder or more disagreeable job than working under a blistering sun taking boulders out of a gravel wash. If anyone -can tell me of a more difficult or disagreeable task I should like to know what it is. The point is this: I visited that camp; I sat among the men at their meals; I talked to the .men, and I never heard a single word of complaint. I saw them working in the -middle of the morning and in the middle of the afternoon; apparently they were doing what would be normally expected of men, receiving a full wage. That made a very deep impression upon my mind, the fact that it was possible to get young men in an unemployment camp on a subsistence basis to do that sort of work.
I went to another camp that I recall; this one was in what we call the sand hills, in the dry belt district. These men were cutting the curves out of some of these mountain roads, faced with the blazing sun on the banks which they were cutting away. They were working in dry, dusty, fine silt, another very disagreeable job. These young men did splendid work. I had not an opportunity of measuring it in any way; they may not have done as
B.C. Relief Camp Strikers

B. C. Relief Camp Strikers

which I am now going to read. This business man says, and I attached it to my letter:
I am also enclosing you a copy of the Strike Bulletin, the first issued by the young men who are dn from the camps. They are tagging on the streets to-day. It is a sad situation. They are on the average bright, healthy, clean looking young boys, and might be either your sons or mine, and it is just too bad the buck is passed between the three governing bodies to the extent it has been. If something is not done, there is going to be trouble. These young men will not stay in camps and be deprived' of taking their share in work and wages with others.
That was the opinion of a sane business man, as I have indicated, and I passed that opinion on to the right hon. gentleman largely because this sane individual, and he is in every sense that, made this observation: "If something is not done, there is going to be trouble." I felt myself that he was right, and I felt so much concerned about it that I passed the information on. I received a brief answer from the right hon. gentleman which I will read:
I duly received your letter of April 30th, enclosing a telegram signed by the board of St. Giles United church and Chown United church. A similar message hiad already come to me and had been given careful consideration.	_
Although there is practically no trouble in the other relief camps, the only suggestion put forward by the British Columbia government is to provide "work and wages" for everyone. If this were done, it could not be confined to those now in the camps, but would bring in thousands of people who are not now on relief, and, in my opinion, it would be beyond the power of the people of Canada to support such a policy throughout the dominion.
Thanking you for writing me so fully and frankly,
And so forth. That was signed by the right hon. gentleman who was acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley). I thanked him for his courtesy, and I have no complaint to offer in that respect. But, sir, it strikes me that that is not good enough for the people cf this country. We are not going far enough in merely dismissing the matter in that way.
Well, the days passed and the trouble in Vancouver was quite serious at times. On one occasion these young men walked through one of the big department stores and destroyed considerable property, five or six thousand dollars' worth. There was a good deal of trouble but not nearly as much as one might expect when fifteen hundred men from the camps were gathered in a city where there were already a lot of idle men. But on the whole there was not very great trouble until

after the longshoremen's strike broke out, which was an entirely separate matter and had nothing to do with these young fellows.
On May 23, after the Prime Minister's return, I felt it was my duty to write again because in the meantime I had received a letter from the mayor. I therefore wrote to the right hon. the Prime Minister in these terms, and I ask hon. members of the house to do me the courtesy of listening to this because I make some suggestions in it which I wish to make again to-night. I wrote:
I received a copy of the letter of the mayor of Vancouver dated May 17th, which was sent to yourself, several others, and to myself.
It was a letter that was sent to a number of persons.
This is too serious a matter to allow personal criticisms of the method of approach by the mayor of Vancouver to interfere. _ May I therefore, with due respect but with great urgency, write you as follows.
First, will you kindly read a letter I submitted to Sir George Perley, Acting Prime Minister, on April 30 last (copy of which I attach hereto).
That is the letter I have just read.
Second, without labouring or arguing the matter, may I make the following suggestions toward the solution of this problem:
(a)	That the federal government immediately discharge its promises to complete the trans-Canada highway by energetically undertaking that work throughout British Columbia.
This in itself would absorb a large proportion of those young men who are now housed in these camps.
(b)	That the dominion government should institute a program of road construction from the great national parks in British Columbia and1 Alberta to the international boundary in cooperation with the provincial authorities.
At present you have many millions of dollars tied up in these parks with only the most atrocious roads approaching them from the international boundary. I have fully discussed this with several of your ministers, and urge it as a practical and ultimately remunerative program.
(c)	Many of the great watersheds of Canada are becoming rapidly denuded of their forests with danger firstly, to the watersheds, and secondly, the loss of timber without provision for reforestation.
I therefore suggest a program of reforestation which will take many years to complete, absorb a great many men, and will ultimately amply repay the country for the money expended. This would be healthy, useful work on a sound economic basis.
(d)	I suggest to you again, as I did more than two years ago, that you call a conference of those leaders in finance who control the credit of Canada and submit to them the fact that new housing and general construction in Canada (replacement, maintenance and repairs) is approximately three years behind normal.
There is an abundant supply of material, skilled workmen, engineers and architects.

B. C. Relief Camp Strikers
There is an absolute need of housing. The only thing lacking is an intelligent application of the credit of the country, now in private hands, to the solution of this problem. It is therefore not unreasonable to submit to those who control the private credit of the country this problem and require from them a declaration of their attitude toward the same.
It is my considered opinion that if they refuse to discharge this responsibility then the state is justified in stepping in and organizing a great building and construction corporation financed by a public issue of bonds and make these advances for construction purposes at a very low rate of interest. This whole matter would be self-sustaining and ultimately amortize itself.
I make these four suggestions to you because I am deeply concerned about the terrible seriousness of the situation and am convinced that adequate leadership can only emanate from the federal government.
I received no answer to that from the Prime Minister but I did receive the following letter from his secretary:
I have for acknowledgment your letter of 23rd May, and regret that owing to the fact that the pressure has been so great recently the opportunity of dealing with the matters therein set forth did not present itself until to-day.
The questions raised in your communication have been brought to the attention of the ministers, whose departments are affected thereby.
Yours faithfully,
A. W. Merriam.
I am reading these letters to place myself clearly before the house. Both letters were written before this difficulty arose and this trek to Ottawa commenced, the first letter on April 30 and the next on May 23. I wrote those letters because I was convinced that the situation was serious and I was mortally afraid that if these men started to move towards Ottawa, as they later did, there would be trouble and tragic results. It is a most disturbing thing that we are here in parliament while 2,000 men, not all of them from British Columbia by any means, are gathered in the very centre of the country. Yesterday there was bloodshed and trouble. I cannot press upon the attention of the house too strongly the solemn words uttered this afternoon by the Prime Minister when he referred to the officer who lost his life and the others who' are at death's door. This is a most serious thing. The lives of many of these young men are being risked in these disturbances and I am convinced that if parliament will frankly face the situation and give the government its unlimited support, a program of this kind can be adopted without impairing at all the financial structure of this country.
92582-263J


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


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was not nearly finished.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to add a few things if I might be permitted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member may
proceed with the unanimous consent of the house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I had not noticed the rapid passage of time. I believe that parliament could give the government its mandate, shall I say, to undertake something of this kind. I am not saying that this is the only way, but may I just refer to what I said? It is not very complex. First, I suggest utilizing the services of these men on the federal highway. A few moments ago I was figuring out what the demands of these young men amounted to. I am not going to split hairs over who made the demands or who drafted them. They ask for fifty cents an hour, and that is not an unreasonable thing to ask for. Six hours a day for five days a week amounts to $60 per month. I understand that it is now costing the government-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-somewhere between $45 to $48 per month to support these men.


Mr. STIRLING:: Thirty-nine dollars.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister says $39 but I do not know whether that covers all the police activities and the other expenses which are necessary; I doubt if it does. Suppose it is costing us $30 or $40 a month; for a difference of $20 a month we can secure from these young men a full day's work. lit is true that the day will be a short one of six hours, but these men will be given reasonable contentment and their self respect will be saved. At the same time parliament will be saved the terrible embarrassments to which it is now subjected. We can put thousands of these young men from British Columbia to work on the highway and the other roads to which I referred.
May I draw the attention of the house to the fact that we have invested millions in our national parks but we still have a barrage between the parks and the international boundary which prevents tourists from entering the parks. They can come up but when they go back they tell their friends about the awful roads in British Columbia. It is true the provincial government is trying to
B. C. Relief Camp Strikers

patch up these roads but they cannot do very much. If these roads were put in condition I venture the statement, with which I believe the minister will agree, that we would multiply the number of tourists 'by ten. Every tourist pays S2.50 to enter our park and our revenue would be increased which would salvage some of the cost.
I suggested reforestation also. I say to this parliament as earnestly as I can that there is an area of several thousand square miles north and west of here which will be a wilderness in a few years unless some authority takes hold of the question of reforestation. It is not sufficient to say that that is a provincial duty, the duty of parliament is first to formulate a national policy utilizing the national parks and other forest reserve areas and then enter into cooperation with the provinces for a reforestation scheme. We could thus absorb twenty or thirty thousand of these men quite easily. The other suggestion I made was in connection with housing; I think this offers wonderful possibilities, and there are other suggestions which could be made. I implore parliament to give consideration to the putting into force of constructive efforts to put these men to work.
I should like to conclude by making one or two references. This afternoon while listening to the debate there was brought to my memory an essay of Lord Bacon which I read many years ago. One of the most important things where seditious disturbances obtain is to remove the causes of sedition, and I think that was the view held by Lord Bacon a couple of centuries ago when he said:
Concerning the materials of seditions, it is a thing well to be considered; for the surest way to prevent seditions (if the times do bear it) is to take away the matter of them; for if there be fuel prepared, it is hard to tell whence the spark shall come that shall set it on fire. The matter of seditions is of two Kinds; much poverty and much discontentment.
I pause there for a moment to emphasize that seditious disturbances can arise only where there are underlying causes which form a fruitful ground for their growth. "For if there be fuel prepared, it is hard to tell whence the spark shall come that shall set it on fire." These young men have been labouring under a sense of injustice, not injustice from the government but injustice from the state and from society. As one young boy said to a lady who was interviewing him when he was asked what should be done to improve the camps, "I do not want to improve the camps; I want work." Was not that a reasonable request? Lord Bacon also said;

The first remedy or prevention is to remove, by all means possible, that material cause of sedition whereof we spake, which is, want and poverty in the estate; to which purpose serveth the opening and well-balancing of trade; the cherishing of manufactures; the banishing of idleness; the repressing of waste and excess by sumptuary laws; the improvement and husbanding of the soil: the regulating of prices of things bendible; the moderating of taxes and tributes; and the like.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the tariff.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Someone says to amend
the tariff, and it is quite possible that they might do that. But there are some very good suggestions there, and the point they demonstrate is that it is the duty of parliament within the next few days to address itself to the task of finding some remedy for the conditions which prevail.
I wish to quote briefly from Lord Bryce's work on Democracy, because it is well sometimes to keep in mind some of these old principles:
The earlier steps towards democracy came not from any doctrine that the people have a right to rule, but from the feeling that an end must be put to lawless oppression by a privileged class.
That is well worth conning over at the present time. Someone asked, what about the price spreads commission report? I submit to the house that if it wants to find, as Lord Bacon says, the causes of seditious utterances, if it wishes to find the causes of such utterances in this country it will have to find them in the evidence given before the price spreads commission of things that have developed and grown on the body politic, conditions that have grown up in the industrial and economic structure of the country which, to say the least, are inequitable and unjust. And it is the presence of these conditions in the state that has caused many to be resentful. The author continues:
No one is good enough to be trusted with unlimited power. Unless he be a saint-perhaps even if he be a saint-he is sure to abuse it.
The argument therefore is that it rests on parliament to administer the affairs of the country in the interests of all; and that is the ijeason I make this plea to-night-not that we should criticize the government for the difficult task it is now confronted with. Let us stand by the government. I noticed the other day that hon. gentlemen opposite applauded the Prime Minister when he described the difficulties and the manner in which the government was facing them. Hon. gentlemen did well.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was not here.

B. C. Relief Camp Strikers
Mr. STEVEN'S: No, my hon. friend was not here, but hon. gentlemen did well. But that does not discharge the duty of parliament; it is merely saying to the government that in so far as the discharge of its duty is concerned parliament is behind it. The other problem, however, the problem, namely, of removing the causes which have led up to the disturbances, is a responsibility still undischarged by parliament, and what I ask is that before this parliament prorogues we offer to the young men of this country who find it so difficult to get a job some hope for the future. Let me say to the Minister of Justice, who has left his place, that when he says, as he said this afternoon, that a camp has been opened for the marchers to go to and where they may obtain shelter and food, that is all very good. But would it not be infinitely better if we sent a messenger to these young men, offering them some hope for the future, some hope of getting employment and earning a living? If we did that we should quickly witness the dissipation of the seditious disturbances which have caused so much unrest and trouble and anxiety.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: were worn. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said this afternoon that the meeting was unlawful in its character. I would say that the proper way to have handled the situation last night, assuming that it was unlawful-and I am not sure whether it is unlawful to hold a public meeting in the market square in Regina-was to arrest those who were responsible for the calling of the meeting, but to allow the meeting to take place and to finish in a peaceful manner. The audience, consisting of two or three thousand men, women and) children, had assembled1 .believing that it would be a peaceful meeting. If the police were going to take action against those who were peacefully assembled there I think the least that might have been done was to give warning to these .people that they were in an unlawful assembly, and they should have been allowed to disperse quietly and peacefully. Evidently, according to the newspaper dispatches, this was not done.
Then may I go a step further. I do not like the use of force if it can be avoided. After all in circumstances such as these force is no remedy. Force never was and never will be a remedy so far as young people like these are concerned. I read in to-night's papers that these young men in the exhibition grounds at Regina are surrounded by mounted police who are armed; they are surrounded by an. armed force. I do not know why these young men should be made to feel the full effect of the force of law in this dominion. Both in my travels on the continent of Europe and in my early life in Great- Britain I learned the difference between the continental and the British attitude towards law. In Great Britain you find respect for the law; on the continent you find fear of the law. I would far rather see the British idea of respect for the law prevail in this country than to instil into the minds of our younger generation a fear of .the law which as they grow older will cause them to have a grudge .against the state, which they should not have if they are given a proper opportunity in life.
What do we find? These young men are described by the hon. member for East Kootenay as young men who might be our own sons. Through no fault of their own but owing .to economic conditions for which they have, of course, no responsibility, they are compelled to go into concentration camps. I know it has been said by hon. members opposite that they are not forced to go into these camps. But .may I inform the house that to my own. knowledge young men who were the recipients of civic relief were cut off

such relief and told to go into these work camps so that they would he less burden to the municipalities. If that was not forcing them into the .camps, I do not know what it was. With -the hon. member who has just spoken, I think that this parliament ought not to adjourn until something is done to deal with this problem. After all, if there is one thing that this parliament was elected to do almost five years ago it was to grapple with the .problem of unemployment; yet here we are further from a solution than when we met in September, 1930. In. July, 1935, we are facing one of the most difficult situations that the parliament of Canada has ever faced. I know we may all have our share of responsibility either individually or collectively for the lack of action by this parliament. It may be difficult for me to say at this moment and in the present discussion what we should do. I do not know whether what the hon. member for East Kootenay has proposed is a solution; I doubt very much .if it is. But so far as the young .men in the camps are concerned, either in the east or in the west, I would like to see the government adopt a far more sympathetic attitude towards them than they have shown in the past few weeks; for after all these young men are the rising generation. Some of them have recently left school; some are from the universities, and, as the hon. member who has just spoken said they are a fine, clean-cut body of young men. I know several who have been compelled by economic necessity to go into these camps to eke out an existence. Giving these young .men $40 or $50 or $60 a month for work in .the camps as proposed by the hon. member for East Kootenay would be a much better method of dealing with them than the subsistence measures adopted by the government. But there are other methods that could be followed for dealing with the situation. Personally I would like to see these camps abolished. Second, I would like to see them taken from under the control of the Department of National Defence, and the military character of the administration entirely done away with. If these young men were given an opportunity they might become men that the country could be proud of, but given the conditions under which they are living to-day there is no telling what their future may be.
I do not know that there is much more that I can say at this time. I have asked the government to deal more sympathetically with these men; in fact we in this comer have taken that stand for quite a length of time. I believe that these camps ought to come under the Department of Labour. This after-

B. C. Relief Camp Strikers
noon we heard statements in connection with conditions in these camps, taken from the official records of the government, which do not altogether tally with the report of the royal commission that investigated camp conditions in British Columbia. May I quote from page 12 of the report of the Macdonald commission, the section entitled Forgotten Men. It says:
A growing conviction seems to have entered the minds of most of the men that they are a forgotten group. The isolation of many of the camps renders it impossible for men to keep in touch personally with former employment or with new work opening up. It is true that the provincial labour bureau does seek to bring men in camps to the attention of employers, and that the department will furnish transportation to men going to bona fide positions, yet the employment of men from the relief camps is so rare that a fixed idea prevails among the men that they are deemed unsuitable f'or employment, and are shunned by those seeking workmen. We did not find evidence to substantiate this opinion, but are convinced that such a feeling exists in the minds of the men, and adds very greatly to their unrest and dissatisfaction.
And again, quoting a further section of the same report, at page 13:
When one remembers that during the long winter months most of the camps are almost completely isolated, and that weather conditions leave very many days with no possibility of work, it is easy to realize the large part that better recreation arrangements play in the contentment of the men. Some of the camps have radios-many have not. Some of these have been donated, but others have been bought by contributions from the men and canteen profits. Tubes and batteries wear out, and there are no funds to replace them. The installation and maintenance of a radio in each camp would be a worthy attainment. Lectures or entertainments, except in a very limited way, were not provided.
This goes to prove that everything is not quite as rosy in these camps as some hon. members who have spoken have attempted to make out. What I wish to impress upon the government is if only these young men who to-day find themselves the victims of economic conditions over which they have no control were given a decent opportunity they would grow up to be good and useful citizens. Under the present circumstances there is no saying what may happen to them. They find themselves the unwilling victims of a certain class of agitator for whom no hon. member of this house, I think, has very much use. Yet there is no more fertile field for the dissemination of communist propaganda than in those camps in which the outlook of the men for the future is so dark and hopeless. If the government want to stamp out that kind of propaganda let them do as the hon. member
for East Kootenay suggests; let them go to the root of the trouble, deal with causes and not so much with effects. If they do that, hon. members in all parts of this house will give support to any suggestion which the government have to make for dealing with this extremely difficult and complicated situation. Some few years ago we in this corner of the house suggested that the men who find themselves in these camps might be established in self-contained, self-sustaining units throughout this country. We believe that could be done. It has been attempted in some parts of the world with a certain amount of success, and there is no reason why the same thing should not be done right here in Canada.
In conclusion may I say that I do hope our government, instead of using force towards these young men, will show a more conciliatory spirit and do something which will allow them to become the type of Canadian citizen of which future generations may be proud.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (East Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, the riots and unrest in the west are bringing very vividly to this house and to the country the greatest problem Canada has to face, namely, that of unemployment. I agree with much of what was said by the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens) as to the immediate necessity for the adoption of a vast reconstruction, housing, building, land settlement and reforestation policy for the people of this country; the quicker it is done, the better.
What are the insurance companies doing about the unrest and unemployment that exists throughout the country? You must look at the causes and effects of the riots that have occurred in the west. There is unrest caused by unemployment all through the country. The universities have closed; the high schools are closing, and this is aggravating the unemployment situation in the industrial centres. In my opinion, the banks and insurance companies should do something in our support On the other side of the line the New York Life Insurance Company at Gravesend Beach, Brooklyn, has lent $25,000,000 for the construction of houses at cut rates in order to get people off the dole and back at work, and they have lent that money for reconstruction without municipal, state or federal aid, and have come to the support of the government. Why not- here? The insurance companies of Canada, which are hoarding a great deal of money, should do something for housing and reconstruction in this country. In addition, as I said the other day, the high interest rate*
B. C. Relief Camp Strikers


Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there is no hon. member who was not alarmed when he read the account of the riots in Regina last night. For some time many people have been asking themselves what right the federal government had to stop 'Canadian citizens riding in automobiles or trucks or walking along the highway. What right has a government to stop any group of Canadians from coming to Ottawa? In 1932, the year of the imperial conference, four thousand farmers came to Ottawa. It is true that no member of the government met them. That was an act of discourtesy which it is hard for the government to explain. But the fact remains that no attempt was made to stop their coming to this city.


An hon. MEMBER:: Law abiding citizens.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Someone says they were law abiding citizens. Certainly, but no proof has been offered that the twenty thousand men in the camps are not law abiding citizens. Then, during the war five thousand farmers came to Ottawa, and I am not so sure that they were particularly law abiding. I do not think angrier farmers ever went anywhere than those five thousand farmer's who came to Ottawa during the war, nor indeed the four thousand who came in 1932, after the very courteous invitation to any hon. member of the government to address them had been refused. They were angry enough to do anything. If they did not riot it was simply because leadership did not appear at the moment directing their actions in that particular line. Certainly their lack of action was not through their lack of disgust with the government.
Without even pretending to know anything abput constitutional law, a fact which probably places me in a position different from that occupied by some other hon. members, I question very much whether the federal government has the right to go to the city of Regina, take the attitude it has taken and act as it acted last night. I think we need not depend altogether on press reports, because some private messages have come through from middle class, highly educated people corroborating the stories carried in the press. The indications are that the meeting was being conducted in an orderly way, and that it was the police who broke it up. They were the instigators of rioting and disorder.


William John Loucks: It was the city police who did that.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I would not be so sure about that. I think the point raised by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) is an astute one. He points out that the police came out wearing steel helmets; people who come wearing steel helmets expect trouble. In all probability they knew what their part was to be, and expected that anything to be found would be thrown at them.
I believe the leaders who made their representations here in Ottawa are and were at that time communists; there is no doubt about it. But I believe it is also clear that the bulk of the men in camps are not communists, and I believe each one of us sitting in the House of Commons, regardless of politics, when he read of the interview between the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the eight delegates, felt that the right hon.
B. C. Relief Camp Strikers

gentleman had been particularly unfortunate in his treatment of them. I would say he is rather unfortunate in his treatment of most delegations. His treatment of the farmers in 1932 is something not easily forgotten. On this occasion he threw in the face of the man Evans the fact that he was a ticket-of-leave man, while Evans, communist that he is, had until that moment remained courteous. I am not so sure that anyone cou'ld justify that method of procedure, and the fact that he drew attention to the suits they were wearing and fountain pens. Have we ever asked ourselves why we can buy fairly good clothes and fountain pens? That did not seem to me to be a proper way to meet the delegates who came to Ottawa representing a very large body of men. I think each of us was struck by the orderly conduct of the men from the time they left Vancouver until the eight delegates left to come to Ottawa-and I am not condoning their conduct while in the presence of the Prime Minister. One could not do so any more than one could condone his conduct.
From the point of view of the future of Canada in my opinion it is much healthier to find that twenty thousand young men are restless to the point of revolt, after having been kept in camps from one to three years, than it would be if they were content. Why should we expect young, virile people, whether they be men or women, to he content with a life which at best gives food, provides work which may not be interesting and for which there is no pay, and houses them in camps where all natural living and interests are denied? It is not reasonable to expect that they would be content with such a life, nor would it be healthy for Canada if they were. What outlet is there for the ambition, imaginations and energies of these approximately twenty thousand young Canadians? What does the future offer them? What hope have they of founding a home and making the natural contacts with members of their own or opposite sexes, if they are to be kept in camps from year to year?
I think the exhibition offered by members on the government benches-not by all, it is true, but by many of them-when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) was speaking was one which should not have been made in the chamber of any governing body in at least an English speaking country. One member distinctly called out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre: "What are you grouching about? You have enough to eat." If that is not a low plane upon which to consider

this whole matter, then I have never heard of one. Surely we who have enough to eat, who have reasonably good clothes to wear and some security-at any rate until about September-should be willing to consider the well being of these young men who have not that which they as much as we deserve, but which we have and they have not.
Do hon. members in this chamber think they are better than these men? I think not. I do not think I am any better. I believe they have the same right as we have to Canadian life and the best that 'Canada can offer. If we are going to continue indefinitely keeping 1,350,000 people on relief and twenty thousand of them in relief camps we had better take turns. If we have not brains enough to distribute the plenty that exists, then I say that at any rate we should be sporty enough to take our turn at living the sterile life which these twenty thousand are called upon to live.
I think, and I have thought it a good while, that we could have a very extensive program of public works of one kind or another, and that if we were willing to think of money as an expression of wealth we could finance it. I do not know how long it will take us to get round to that, but surely some time we will get to it. Not because I am not a member of the government but because I am a Canadian, I resented the attitude shown this afternoon by government members. I resented, further, the exclamation hurled at the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I appreciate the speeches made by the hon. members for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens) and East Toronto (Mr. Church). The observations of these hon. members indicate that even in the government party there are people who realize the true facts and the possibility of very great trouble unless we come to our senses.
It is altogether too simple to say that this was a communist uprising. The government have played1 that little trick too often. Every time they get into a jam one of them, and particularly the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), begins to shout about the communists. But it is like the old story about crying "wolf, wolf!" after a time it becomes outworn and does not get the expected result. I felt sure when I heard that the explanation was to be given this afternoon by the Minister of Justice that the government were certainly in a tight comer because there is no one on the government benches who can sound so plausible as the Minister of Justice, and none who can so effectively raise the bogy of communism, with the possible excep-

B. C. Relief Camp Strikers
tion of the Prime Minister. Let ns admit that Evans is a communist; let us admit that Collins who came here is a communist; I think there as no doubt of it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Then why are they
leaders?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I do not know. They
are not my leaders; I did' not choose them.
I suppose they are leaders because no one on the government side or any members of the government offered any leadership to these twenty thousand young men, and they were desperate and1 were looking for leadership. Let us admit, I say, that these two young men are communists, but at -the same time let us be reasonable and sensible and admit that among these twenty thousand men who are in camps throughout Canada there are just as fine young men as are to be found anywhere; and1 if the present economic condition continues as it is, in another two or three years there will be turned out of our public schools, business colleges, high schools and universities another vast army that will have to go into these unemployment camps, or go on relief I was going to say, but it seems that it will be into the unemployment camps. So we might very seriously consider the matter, and no longer say over and over again the word communist, communist, communist, thinking we are forever going to frighten thinking people in Canada by such methods. I say that as creators of communism the Prime Minister takes the cake. I think he has done more to create communists in Canada than any other ten men, and that would include Evans and Buck and Collins1 or whoever they were. The one speech he made .the other day in meeting these men and the speech he made to-day will before to-morrow morning have created communists out of people who before have thought sympathetically with communists.


Mr. B. M. STITT (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker,
I have listened with a good deal of interest to the hon. member who has just taken her seat (Miss Maophail). It would seem that one of the purposes of her speech was to make it appear that the guilty parties in this riot at Regina were the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I did not mention them at all.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: You mentioned steel helmets, if I remember aright. I do not think the hon. member could have read her newspaper very closely to-day or she would have a different opinion from that. I hold in my hand a copy of the Ottawa Evening Joumal of July 2-


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I read the Citizen.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: All I can say in
reply to that is that the hon. member is misguided. On page 13 in the first column I read this:
First warning of the raid on the ^meeting called by the strike leaders to explain their negotiations with authorities and ask for funds for food was a quick rally of police from the vicinity of the police station.
That is the city police station:
The station abuts on the market square. Carrying batons, city police moved into the crowd' and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police followed. A few minutes later additional Royal Canadian Mounted Police were brought to the scene in trucks, and about fifty came on horses.
So the city police were the first to move into this crowd, not the mounted police at all.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Did they not have
steel helmets?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I think it is just
possible that in discussing this afternoon this tragedy at Regina some hon. members allowed themselves to be carried away. Some of the speeches certainly contained more heat than light. Some of them went so far as to attempt to make political capital out of what happened. So far as this party is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I think we are only doing our duty as we see it. That is what we were sent down here for, to maintain British institutions and to preserve this empire which I think we all love and revere, and so far as possible to better the conditions of our people. I ithink the people of this country, those whose minds and eyes are not blinded with prejudice, will admit that we have done a pretty fair job. It is true that we have not been able to keep all our political promises which were made in the heat of the election campaign.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is true.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: But that is not confined to the Conservative party. Let the Liberals go back and read their 1919 promises and they will see that they did not keep all of their promises either. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
I think that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is to be congratulated rather than condemned for the stand that he has taken on this question. Communism is running riot in
B. C. Relief Camp Strikers

this country. It has even gone so far, I think I am not unfair in saying, that it has almost gained control of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Explain.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I can do that too. I will explain it as-I know it. I had in my constituency last year one of the most serious industrial strikes that had occurred in this country for years. At Flin-Flon, Manitoba, fifteen hundred miners were called out by communists pure and simple. Communists like Ross, Mabel Marlowe, and Coleman, with a long criminal record, all out and out communists, were out there organizing that strike. Who was the leader? Alec Stewart of Flin-Flon. If he is not a communist he runs in very dangerous company. He was certainly running with these communists. What happened? Only a couple of short weeks ago Alec Stewart, the leader of the Flin-Flon strike, was nominated as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidate in my riding. If communists are not getting control of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation I miss my guess, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) had better look to his laurels. I believe he realizes that at the present moment.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party was elected to maintain our institutions, to endeavour to improve the conditions of our people, and to preserve our empire, but we have a further duty. As a matter of fact we have two duties to perform: (a) to honourably and courageously live up to our ideals and traditions, and (b) to fearlessly and earnestly tear the mask of moderation from the bolshevik features of some of these socialists organizations that are running around this country, and I am not excepting the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation when I say that, not as I know them in my constituency at any rate. As far as the Conservative party is concerned we intend to do our duty. At least I hope we do, and I certainly will press for it myself as long as I am in this party. Our party may be defeated at the polls, we may go down to defeat, but it will be with our flag flying, defeated but not dishonoured.
I have spoken on former occasions against these camps. I have expressed dissatisfaction with them. I remember that when the minimum wage act was introduced in this house I went so far as to say that I hoped the first place the government would apply it would be in these relief camps. I reiterate that statement. I am not in favour of these 
camps. I go still further. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Stirling) made the statement here to-night that it cost $39 a month to maintain the men in these camps. If that is so, I say there is something rotten in the state of Denmark; it is costing too much for administration. I am not saying there is anything dishonest about it, but it is costing too much for the value received. It would be far better for this country to give these men in the camps this $39 per month and take a day's work from them.
I wish in conclusion to congratulate the Prime Minister on the stand he has taken on this whole matter. We cannot let mob rule run riot in this country. I am one who went overseas in order that the peace, happiness and security of this country should be preserved. I am one returned soldier who-will again take up a rifle to defend my home in my own country.


George Gibson Coote: 

PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH

[Stage Direction]
Salaries-departmental staff-further amount required, $30,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would the minister explain this item?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: This to to provide a further amount required for departmental staff. It is to provide for more nurses for departmental hospitals, for orderlies and hospital utility men, for investigators and stenographers. Included in 'this item is an .amount of $9,000 to provide for the investigators recommended in the Hyndman report.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which portion of the Hyndman report refers to that matter?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The sixteenth recommendation in connection with the present staff of the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment relief - further amount required, $500,009.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How
much of this amount is to be used for the ordinary purposes of the department and how much to implement the recommendations of the Hyndman commission?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Practically the whole amount is to be used to implement the Hyndman report. Possibly a certain amount would have been provided for had that report not been issued, but practically the whole of this amount is to implement the report.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The minister will notice that practically all of page 15 and the first portion of page 16 of the report deals with the recommendation for the establishment of a commission. Is it the intention of the government to appoint this voluntary commission?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It is the intention
of -the government to appoint a commission to be known as the veterans' assistance commission, but the commission will not be named immediately. It is intended to leave this until the autumn when it is expected that the men to be appointed will be freer to serve.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The minister will notice that on page 16 of the report there are some 16 recommendations. The minister on- the previous item referred to recommendation No. 16, but I should like to know if he can allocate this amount to the various recommendations?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Paragraph 5 on page 16 deals with the basic rate. It is the intention to increase the basic rate for a single man from $15 to $18.75. This rate will be increased according to the size of family up to the point where in the case of a man with a wife and six children the rate will be increased from $42.50 to $51. It is expected that to effect that the sum of $180,000 will be required.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does
that mean that the recommendations are being more or less carried out?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How will the remainder of the $500,000 be expended?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: In connection with
paragraph 6, page 16, it is expected to implement (b). If a member of the veteran's family is employed only the earnings of such member in excess of $40 shall be considered

Supply-War Veterans' Allowances
as income. It is not a substantial amount involved. Under (c), cash earnings up to $10 shall not be considered income. That is not new. Under (d), with respect to the months erf December and January, cash earnings that also will ibe implemented. Altogether it is not a large sum, only $7,600.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is for (b), (c) and (d).


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes. Then on page 17, paragraph (8), with regard to the year in which dependent children come off pension, it is the intention that the age limit of dependent children shall be extended beyond that set forth in the Pension Act when deemed necessary. That is not taken in absolutely jvery case, but the department will have a good deal of leeway in dealing with it and it is expected it will require about $35,000. On page 17, paragraph (9), it is proposed to take all reasonable steps to obviate the possibility of unemployed pensioners who are home owners losing their homes through non-payment of mortgage interest or taxes where the owner has a reasonable equity in the property. It is proposed to allow in lieu of rental an amount to cover the current mortgage interest and taxes, and it is estimated that the amount will be about $20,000. Under paragraph (11) on page 17, with regard to clothing, it is intended to provide clothing for issue at the expense of the department to meet the increasing demand. During the first two or three years of this government the need for slothing had not become so acute; everyone had enough. It has been gradually increasing, however, so that more and more is necessary. We have been issuing a considerable amount and it will increase, and it is expected that this will take about $210,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: More or
less following the recommendations of the paragraph?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes. Under paragraph (12), which is part of the same thing, clothing, provision is also made. Altogether the amount will be $452,500-that is, the items I have mentioned-leaving what might be called a contingency amount of $47,500 which will be used to implement any particular cases in addition to any of the amounts I have indicated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
War veterans' allowances-further amount required, $300,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How much of this amount is to be used in the ordinary work of the committee under the existing [Mr. Sutherland.!
legislation, and how much will be used in connection with the work that will be necessary if the minister accepts the recommendations of the Hyndman commission?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The commission's
recommendation in that regard will be found on page 18, paragraph 13:
That the war veterans' allowance committee be requested to arrange for periodical visitation of various centres throughout Canada, by one or more members of the committee! in order personally to interview applicants for war veterans' allowance, who are under sixty years of age and who cannot be classified as permanently unemployable from a medical standpoint, but appear to be so from an industrial standpoint, in order to determine whether or not such applicants shall be awarded war veterans' allowance.
It will be noted that the Hyndman commission does not recommend legislation to change the age, but I have discussed this matter very thoroughly with Mr. Woods, chairman of the war veterans' allowance committee, and he is perfectly prepared, as is the department, to have this implemented in full as far as it goes, and the committee are prepared to accept that suggestion and move around the country more. They realize that it is possible that if they come in closer contact there may be some extra cases that will come under the act. It is impossible to segregate the items. They have gone into the matter pretty carefully and it is estimated that this amount of $300,000 will be used to take care of cases that automatically come in from the class of over sixty, and it will afford a rather more liberal interpretation in connection with the under sixty.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the committee have considerable discretion in regard to those, who are industrially unemployable?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes; they practically have control under the act and there has never been any interference with them. They have a free hand.
'Mr. GRAY:	I think we should commend
the minister, first, on the appointment of the Hyndman commission, which has done excellent wort and has brought down a splendid report, and secondly, because he has implemented the report as far as he has been able to do so at the present session.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Natural Products Marketing Act-further amount required, $1,000,000.
Jean-François Pouliot: This is a very large item. At Maisonneuve during the last campaign, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett)

spoke about his future plans, a lady asked him how he would pay for it all, and he replied, by taxation. That is how we shall have to pay for tihe operations of the marketing act. In the evening Journal of January 27, 1933, there appeared this large headline:
Tax Burden of Country Near Limit,
Says Bennett
And in the Montreal Gazette of Friday, February 9, 1934, another headline:
Credit of Canada Has Reached Limit, Premier Declares
There is another word which was said by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) in April, 1933, according to an article published by Mr. Olivar Asselin in Le Canada on April 24, 1933. The minister is quoted as having declared to a delegation of caterers: " The country itself is bankrupt." I wonder if a bankrupt country can spare a million dollars for a marketing act which is no good. But, sir, there is more-I will ask the hon. gentlemen to be so kind as to listen to what is going on, because if what I say does not interest them it may instruct them. The following information was given to the house
Year ended Sept. 1, 1930 Calendar year 1931.. .. Calendar year 1932.. .. Calendar year 1933.. .. Calendar year 1934.. ..
2, 1935	4161
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews) on April 3 of this year as reported on page 2375 of Hansard, and by the Minister of Finance on April 10 as reported on page 2595.
The total revenue of the Department of National Revenue for the twelve months ended September 1, 1930, the last year of the Mackenzie King government, was $369,194,448. For the succeeding years it showed decreases according to the figures 'below:
Calendar
year
1931	  $278,842,453
1932'	  253,453,619
19331	 262,778,442
1934	 303,471,091
There is a decrease each year in the gross revenue of the country since this government came into power as compared with the last year of the Mackenzie King government.
Now, sir, there are three classes of revenue collected by the Department of National Revenue, that from customs, that from excise tax and that from income tax. The respective proceeds since 1930 are shown by the following figures:
Customs	Excise and
revenue	Decrease	income tax$176,380,895	$	
$192,813,552120,192,964	56,187,930	158,649,48886,260,527	90,120,367	187,193,09169,042,222	107,338,672	193,736,21982,882,922	93,487,972	220,588,168
It means, sir, that when the revenue from customs decreases owing to the shrinkage in external trade there is an increase of taxation by means of the excise tax and the income tax. The private individual under the worst conditions has to suffer the burden of taxation on account of the decrease of trade owing to high tariff policies. I shall deal further with that later on. But now let me give you a summary of the taxation imposed by this government when the Prime Minister tried to implement the promises he made during the last campaign. Let us take first the year 1931. Sessional paper No. 277F, reference No. 214, April 1, 1935, shows:
1.	Sales tax increase from 1 per cent to 4
per cent.	,
Answer by Department of National Revenue: "Unable to state increase on sales tax collections."
2.	Postage, one cent more on all letters.
Answer by Post Office Department: "Figures
as to the revenue derived from the increase of 1 cent on letter postage are not available as letter postage is not segregated from other postal revenue in the department's accounting records."
3.	Half cent increase per pound postage on newspapers and periodicals.
Until February 28, 1935, increase in revenue: $952,251.	.
4.	Two cent tax stamp on all cheques irrespective of the amount.
Answer by the Department of National Revenue: "Information not available, as tax on sale of stamps for all purposes kept in one account, and the use of postage stamps is permitted for the same purpose."
5.	Two per cent increase of income tax on corporations.
Answer by Department of National Revenue: "Information not available."
6.	Special excise tax of one per cent imposed on all goods imported into Canada.
Answer by Department of National Revenue: "June 2, 1931, to March 31, 1932: $4,982,216.83. Unable to give up to date fiures as rate changed-April 7, 1932."
7.	One per cent tax on the net premiums received by insurance companies in Canada.
Answer by Department of Insurance: $2,273,034.86, including a small amount for a 2 per cent tax paid by certain mutual companies and exchanges, to February 28, 1935, inclusive.
8.	Fifteen per cent tax on Canadian property owners who have insured their property with British or foreign companies which are not licensed in Canada.
4162	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
Answer by Department of Insurance: "None, as this tax was never imposed."
9.	Increased duties on a number of agricultural and fruit products including live hogs, fresh meats, bacon and hams, shell eggs, cheese, hops, hay, seeds, canned fruit*, vegetables, and oranges.
Detail of revenue given by Department of National Revenue.
10.	Increased duties on automobiles priced at more than $1,200.
Fiscal	year	1932	
$354,807Fiscal	year	1933	
77,850Fiscal	year	1934	
55,108April	1, 1934, to F'eb. 28, 1935..	49.36111.	Increases on certain manufactured steel products.
a Answer by Department of National Revenue: "It is not possible to answer this question in its present form. Amount of duty collected under any particular item can be given, but not returns due to tariff changes."
12.	Specific duty of 15 per cent per pound on magazines and periodicals.
Answer	given	by	Department	of	National
Revenue.
13.	Increased duty on wood products, including furniture, veneers, golf clubs, tennis racquets, frames and baseball bats.
Answer	given	by	Department	of	National
Revenue.
14.	Increases on linen and pure silk fabrics, leather, watches and clocks, tea and other goods.
Answer	given	by	Department	of	National
Revenue. The tax on tea has averaged $1,500,000 per fiscal year.
15.	Imposition	of	excise duties upon the
products of a manufacturer who used the customs tariff rates to increase prices to the consumer.
"This question is not clearly understood, but if it refers to section 17 of the customs tariff, its provisions have not been invoked." (Answer by Department of National Revenue).
16.	For the forfeiture of goods imported from a country not a signatory to the Treaty of Versailles.
Answer by the Department of National Revenue: "Nil."
Sir, there were sixteen items for which taxation was provided in the 1931 budget speech in order to make both ends meet on account of the decrease in customs revenue resulting from the reduction in external' trade following the high tariff legislation. The year 1932 was not any brighter; that was the year of the Ottawa agreements. Here are the tax increases passed during the session of 1932, with the revenue derived therefrom; I read from sessional paper No. 277, reference No. 216, of March 25, 1935.
1.	Sales tax increase from 4 per cent to 6 per cent. Answer by Department of National Revenue: "Unable to state increase in sales tax."
2.	Increase by 2 per cent of excise tax on all goods imported into Canada. Answer by Department of National Revenue: "Special 3 per cent excise tax collection from April 1, 1932, to February 28, 1935-$41,530,871.47."
[Mr. Pouliot.j
3.	Reduction of personal income tax exemption for those with dependents, from $3,000 to $2,400, and those without dependents, from $1,500 to $1,200.
4.	Discontinuation of 20 per cent reduction until then allowed from tax payable under established schedule of rates.
5.	Five per cent surcharge on the amount of tax payable, imposed on all taxpayers, personal and corporate, with net incomes in excess of $5,000.
6.	Increase of corporation rate to 11 per cent. Answer by Department of National Revenue: 3, 4, 5 and 6: "Information not available inasmuch as while the tax changes and exemptions took place it was not possible to record statistically how much extra revenue was obtained by these changes, for the simple reason that the extra revenue in greater or lesser amounts was also affected by general business conditions as to profits and losses, likewise increases and decreases in salaries, professional incomes, etc."
That was the answer of the Department of National Revenue in the official return tabled in this house. Now I quote from sessional paper No. 277G, reference No. 217, April 1, 1935:
7.	Tax of one per cent on premiums received by insurance companies. Answer by Department of Insurance: "$2,273,034.86 including a small amount for a 2 per cent tax paid by certain mutual companies and exchanges, to February 28, 1935, inclusive."
8.	Tax of 15 per cent on gross premiums. Answer by Department of Insurance: "None, as there was no 15 per cent tax provided for under the Special War Revenue Act. 1932."
9.	Tax increase from 2 cents to 3 cents on cheques, money orders, and on promissory notes, bills of exchange, etc., on amounts up to $100 and 6 cents over $100. Answer by Department of National Revenue: "Information not available, as tax on sale of stamps for all purposes kept in one account, and the use of postage stamps is permitted for the same purpose."
Answer by the Post Office Department for money orders: $906,405.33. "Separate figures are not available for the extra revenue derived as a result of the increase from two to three cents."
10.	Five per cent tax placed on telegrams, cables and radio messages and long distance telephone calls. Answer by Department of National Revenue: "From May 2, 1932, to February 28, 1935, $2,737,810.83."
11.	Ten per cent tax on railway sleeping
car berths, with a minimum of 25 cents and 10 cents on chair car tickets. Answer by Department of National Revenue:	"From
May 2,	1932, to February 28,	1935,

These, sir, are the figures for 1931 and 1932. The most unpopular tax imposed on this country by this government was the tax on sugar.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Oumber-Tand):: Order. The item before the committee is a vote of $1,000,000, further amount required for the Natural Products Marketing Act.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act


Jean-François Pouliot: But can you say, sir, that this will not be paid out of the tax imposed on sugar, and all the other taxation that has been imposed by this government? I do not see how you can deny any member the right to give the history of taxation since this government has been in power, on any item in the estimates. If the minister tells me that he will not receive a cent-


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Just a moment; in my judgment the subject matter of the hon. gentleman's remarks is not related in any way to this item.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I explain?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I have no objection to an explanation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Sir, each member here takes his duties seriously and each of us is the guardian of the public exchequer. We must tell the people where the money comes from, and when I say that I only repeat what was said by the Prime Minister when- he was leader of the opposition and later from his place in this house as Prime Minister. If the Minister of Agriculture will give his word that he will not receive one cent from the Department of National Revenue to make up that million dollars, I will speak on another item. But the minister cannot give that assurance; he knows the money will come from the Department of National Revenue. That department is rightly named, because it supplies the money for most of the other departments of the government. I have a right to tell this committee where the money comes from when an expenditure is made, the more so, sir, because of the statements made by the Prime Minister to the effect that Canada had reached the limit of her credit and the further statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) quoted in Le Canada of Montreal, to the effect that two years ago Canada was bankrupt. Therefore, it is my right and privilege to tell the people of this country where the money comes from that is spent so carelessly by this government. As a man of learning and high attainments at the bar of vour province, sir, you cannot deny this right to any of your colleagues in this chamber.
I have given the figures for 1931 and 1932. Now let us come to 1933, one year after the Ottawa agreements were concluded; let us see the burden of taxation imposed on the people of this country because of the decrease in trade which resulted from the illogical, inconsequential, unwarranted and uncalled for changes made in the tariff by this govem-92582-264
ment. What was the revenue derived from the sugar tax, which was imposed in spite of many protests that came from all over the country? From March 22, 1933, to June 30,
1934,	the receipts were $17,149,159.85, and from July 1, 1934, to February 28, 1935, they were $7,517,851.39. There was a special excise tax of ten per cent imposed on cosmetics and toilet preparations which, from March 22, 1933, to February 28, 1934, brought in $1,561,926.72. The next is a special excise tax of five per cent on automobile tires and tubes, yielding $1,593,871.20 for the same period. Then we come to cigarette papers and tubes in connection with which there is a special excise tax of two cents per one hundred leaves of cigarette papers and five cents per fifty tubes of cigarette tubes, yielding $1,558,526.55. The next is a special excise tax of twenty-five cents per gallon of unfermented wort, yielding $3031546.15. Then there is a note attached to the return indicating that the tax was repealed on malt products and unfermented wort as from July 1, 1934. Then, we have indicated a special excise tax of fifty cents per pound on malt syrup or powder, extract of malt or other malt products for the brewing of beer, yielding $27,161.02. In connection with that item the same observation applies as in connection with the preceding one. These two returns to which I have been referring are sessional papers Nos. 277A and 277B, references 218 and 219 of March 25,
1935.
But that is not all. There were more taxes imposed upon the Canadian people. An order for return of March 20, 1935, contains the following:
What were, from 1933 to date, the total returns of each of the following changes of the 1933 budget to taxation:-
1.	(a) Increase to 121 per cent on incomes of corporations; (b) removal of $2,000 exemption; (c) 131 per cent tax on corporations filing consolidated returns;
2.	Reduction of personal income tax exemption:	(a) from $2,400 to $2,000;	(b) from
$1,200 to $1,000 and (c) in the case of dependent children, from $500 to $400;
3.	The new schedule of rates of taxation on personal incomes, commencing at three per cent on the first $1,000 of taxable income?
Here are the answers given by the department to questions 1, 2 and 3:
Information not available inasmuch as while the tax changes and exemptions took place it was not possible to record statistically how much extra revenue was obtained by these changes, for the simple reason that the extra revenue in greater or lesser amounts was also affected by general business conditions as to profits and losses, likewise increases and decreases in salaries, professional incomes, etc.



Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
But, sir, that is not all; there is more. I find another sessional paper before me containing this question:
What were from 1933 to date the total returns of each of the following changes of the 1933 budget to taxation:-
1.	Five per cent tax on non-residents;
2.	Five per cent tax on interest or dividends cashed at a premium.
The answer indicates that under the first item the amount is 89,236,957.70 as at March 19, 1935, and for the second item $1,326,386.66 as of the same date.
Then, turning to the last return I have in my hand I find that still further taxation was imposed. It is sufficient to show the burden of taxation placed on the shoulders of the Canadian people during the sessions of 1931, 1932 and 1933.	In this instance the
questions were:
What were, from 1933 to date, the total returns of each of the following changes of the 1933 budget:
(1) Removal of three cent stamp tax exemption on cheques of $5 or under.
In connection with that question there is no answer from the Post Office Department, and the Department of National Revenue states that it is unable to determine the amount. Then, the second question refers to the increase of tax on postal notes from one cent to three cents. The same answer is received from the Department of National Revenue, and the Post Office Department gives the following answer:
2. Fiscal year 1933-34	$143,712 46
Fiscal year 1934-35	 109,982 00
Note: It may be pointed out that the above figures represent the total amount collected as revenue tax on postal notes. Separate figures are not available for the extra revenue derived as a result of the increase from one to three cents.
Then, question No. 3:
3.	Increase to $2.50 per proof gallon of excise duty on distilled spirits used in the manufacture of proprietary medicine, extracts, essences, perfumed spirits and pharmaceutical preparations.
The Department of National Revenue answered: "Unable to determine the amount." Then, question No. 4:
4.	Excise duty of $1 per proof gallon on spirits used in the fortifying of native wines.
The answer indicates a return, of $38,66023 on that item. I have indicated the taxation for three years, and although it is not complete it is sufficient to give an idea of what has been going on. Trade has decreased and taxation has been increasing. What is the most noticeable factor? It is this, that the government is unable to say-not to figure out-unable to say or to declare what the revenue from certain taxes has been.
[Mr. Pouliot.l
Each year in his budget speech the Minister of Finance states that the revenue from a certain tax will be so and so. He makes a guess, but when we ask for figures in a return, there is no answer. Under the department's accounting system it is impossible for them to say how much money has been derived from certain impositions on the Canadian people. This is wrong. While acting as Minister of Finance in 1931 the Prime Minister told us that he would tell the House of Commons and country how a budget speech should be made. Now we find, however, that the government cannot tell us the returns from half of the taxes they have imposed since 1930. This is dll wrong, and a great mistake. Where does it lead? They do not know. It is about the same condition as we find in connection with the unemployed; they do not wish to know, and they close their eyes. They try to get all they can from the pockets of the people.
It is hard to play with millions of dollars. Of course the minister may feel like a million dollars because he is going to spend a million dollars in connection with the marketing act. Oh, it is sad when we think of the suffering of our poor people who have not enough to live on and who, in order to pay the taxation imposed by this government, have to take the bread from the mouths of their children and deprive them of sugar.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: And, sir, an hon. member laughs. Did he not have to pay a contribution of $400 a year towards the expenditures made by this government? If the government were thrifty I would not say anything about it; I should not mind if they tried to economize, and so on. But what silly expenditures they have made from coast to coast-millions of dollars for no one knows what. Over a million dollars for radio broadcasting. The salary of General McNaughton is increased, in defiance of the law of the land. Then, there is the scandal of the stove pipe letter boxes. Let us consider the expenditures in connection with the trip to Egypt, and the trip to Madrid which radio fans will not forget. Let us consider how the pets of this government are treated. When it comes to a consideration of tenders the highest is accepted, provided it comes from a pet of the government. We have an example of that in the Department of Marine where a tender of $30,000 was submitted, as my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Cas-grain) can bear witness, and yet the minister accepted a tender for $49,000 in order to give the contract to one of his pets at an

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
exorbitant price. That may 'be considered a trifle, but an accumulation of trifles makes a mountain of trouble.
I am opposed to this vote, Mr. Chairman, because it is just a bluff in view of the election in order to deceive the people of this country again as they were deceived in 1930. But, sir, they have had five years to think over that. When the people were promised that they would foe led into the garden of Eden they never thought that the so-called garden of Eden would be hell. Think of that guarantee that was given to Newfoundland and which was mentioned this afternoon. The government took advantage of the relief act, of the peace, order and good government clause to guarantee bonds for Newfoundland to the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and now that Newfoundland has a surplus over expenditure I wonder if this government will collect a cent of that money. The Prime Minister said that it was a guarantee. Yes, a guarantee that never will be paid. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) said one day that the sixty million dollars which was borrowed by the railways was not to be paid back. We heard that from a minister of the crown. Think of a guarantee of sixty million dollars to the Canadian Pacific Railway under the signature of the Prime Minister before he had consulted his colleagues or parliament! Think of all those concerns which have been favoured by this government at the expense of others.
One cannot be too careful about taxation. As I have already stated, the Minister of Finance in his budget speech spoke of the possible revenue from taxation, but far from being comforting the returns which have been tabled in this house by the government show that the government are unable to say how much they have got from the Canadian people in taxation. It is unbelievable. What kind of accounting system do they have under the treasury board this so-called efficient treasury board, this brain trust which is supposed to control expenditure and to tell the government what they are to do with regard to estimates? Is the treasury board so efficient after all? No other prime minister would tolerate such a state of affairs in this country. I am sorry that the hon. gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches cannot enjoy my freedom to tell whom it may concern what I have already stated to this committee. But I shall not insist in the matter because what I say goes into deaf ears on the other side of the house. In the country, however, it is different, and from the records that have been tabled in this house the people of this 92582-204 i
country will know the real story about taxation, not the story told by the Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition or when he was Minister of Finance, but the true story as told in the official returns tabled by this government in the house.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the eloquent oration by my colleague from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) I shall bring this discussion down to a more commonplace basis by asking the minister if he will kindly break down this item of $1,000,000, being the further amount required for the administration of the Natural Products Marketing Act, bearing in mind that a few days ago we were asked to vote $500,000 to take care of the expenses of different schemes under that act. I think we are justified, when asked to vote this $1,000,000, in wishing to know exactly how the minister contemplates that this money shall be spent.


Robert Weir: As hon. members
of the committee will know, the most complicated branch of the whole industry of agriculture perhaps is that of the dairy industry. The value of the dairy industry from year to year has 'been roughly estimated1 to run from $175,000,000 to $200,000,000. There are three or four features in which the greater part of this industry finds itself in operation. First we have butter. That takes perhaps the leading place. Then we have the fluid milk market of the great cities; then evaporated and- condensed milk factories. But next to butter perhaps should rightly be placed' cheese. One of our difficulties has been this, especially during recent years. Because of the fact that we have been able to hold the price of butter above the world market price there has been a greater tendency to send the milk or the fat from the milk from the cheese factories to the creameries. If that continues at the same rate as during the past number of years, even as far back as 1920, the result will be such an increase in the production of butter that we shall be on the world1 market with reference to 'butter. That is to say, our farmers will have to compete on an equal footing with the farmers of New Zealand and other countries which have very great natural advantages.
In April, 1933, the world price of butter was a little over eleven cents a pound. That was the price in London, which is taken as the world price. That is comparatively the same as the price would be at Montreal if it were not for the tariffs that we have

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
against butter entering Canada from other countries because the cost of laying down butter from New Zealand and Australia at London is practically the same as laying butter down at Montreal. Had we been on the world! price at that time the dairy farmers of this country would have received only about half the amount they did receive for their butter fat.
How can this great dairy industry with all its complications that arise from the flow between one product and another be equalized to give a greater assurance that butter will not find itself, over a long period at least, on .the world market with the disastrous effects that would have for our dairy farmers? The purpose is that the greater part of this vote shall be used to equalize the dairy industry by giving assistance to the farmers who are having their milk processed into cheese to prevent .them as far as possible from sending more and more of this milk to be made into butter, which would thereby bring us more and more on to a world market basis with reference to our butter. As I have stated, for a number of years there has been a decrease in .the production of cheese and an increase in the production of butter. In 1925 we manufactured in Canada 177,139,113 pounds of cheese. The next year there was a drop of almost six million pounds;	in	1928	it	went up	to	144,000,000pounds;	in	1929	it	dropped	to	118,000,000pounds;	in	1930	it	went up	to	119,000,000pounds;	in	1931	it	dropped	to	113,000,000pounds	and in	1934 it went	down to
99,754,500 pounds. From. 1920 on there was a regular increase in the production of butter. Those interested in the dairy industry anxiously awaited the publication of the figures to see if this increase would continue. The first information we have had completed is for the month of May and .it shows that there has been a decrease of a little over 18 per cent in the .production of cheese with an almost corresponding increase in the production of butter. The result is that in pounds of butter fat there have been 57,000 odd pounds more go into the manufacture of butter than has come from the manufacture of cheese. Farmers who are vitally interested realize the danger if this is allowed to continue.
As I mentioned at the outset by means of the tariff we are able to keep the price of our butter above the world market. By means of milk boards which have been established in the different provinces we have been able to stabilize to a certain extent the price of fluid milk going into the markets in the large
'Mr. R. Weir.]
cities and keep it above the price to which it might have dropped had these markets been utilized by all the producers. Those who are interested have been viewing the situation with alarm and have been trying to discover some means of stabilizing the dairy industry. It was thought that while this was being worked out the duty of the government was to take what steps it could to equalize this industry and it was proposed to use the greater part of this sum of 81,000,000 in order to make payments to the farmers who send their milk to the cheese factories in order that they may continue to do so rather than to flood our butter markets.


William Alexander Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I have listened very attentively to the minister's explanation of the purpose of this vote of $1,000,000. Before asking the minister one or two questions I should like to point out to him that he is departing on a course fraught with endless danger to the Canadian taxpayer. The minister has said that part of this vote is to be used in. an attempt to equalize the price of cheese with the price of butter, but, as he says, he is only making a start. This $1,000,000 will not be sufficient to equalize these prices; it will be like the little boy who has told his first lie and is forced to follow it up with about fifteen others. I suggest that the committee consider this vote very carefully, not only because it is to cost the taxpayers $1,000,000 but because it is the second, the third or the fourth step towards creating in this country an1 impossible position whereby ten and a half million people are to be taxed in order to help the British consumer of Canadian cheese .pay for an article produced in the cheese factories of- this country. May I repeat that this is a beginning of a policy of taxation of the consumers and producers in all branches of Canadian industry and consumption in order to bonus or to equalize the price of an export article which is consumed by the people of another country. We are going to pay part of the price which the Englishman pays for Canadian cheese.


Mr. MYERS:: No.


William Alexander Fraser: Who
said, "no"?


John Howard Myers: I did.


William Alexander Fraser: You do not know what you are talking about.


John Howard Myers: Certainly I do.


William Alexander Fraser: 
William Alexander Fraser: No. My statement was that the Canadian taxpayer,
through the export bounty, would be paying part of the price which the British consumer of Canadian cheese would pay for Canadian cheese. In other words, as I have said1 repeatedly with all the vigour of language at my command, we are departing from an economically sound policy, and this is about the fourth dangerous step. Indeed, it is the most drastic step taken up to the present time, and if this policy continues-and I expect to see mere of the same sort of thing if I come back here and this government happens to be in power -it will simply mean disaster to our lumbermen, our fishermen, our fruit growers and every other branch of Canadian industry. The benefit- will not be derived by Canadian industry or the Canadian consumer, because what we are doing here is assisting the British consumer, through Canadian taxation, to pay for the Canadian cheese he eats. Let me say to the minister that this is all wrong; it will not work and it has never worked. It is economically unsound.
May I deviate here to advise the Minister of Agriculture to take a rainy Sunday afternoon off and read the history of the scheme whereby the British people were going to pay off the war debt to the United States through the control of raw rubber. Through the control of rubber production they were going to pay off the war debt to the United States,, and rubber dropped from 18 cents to li cents a pound. Once again I plead with the minister, whoever his advisers may be, to consider this question from the practical standpoint, to read1 the history of similar attempts in other countries, and to realize that it can only end in an additional burden of taxation on the Canadian people, with only an infinitesimal benefit, if any benefit at all, to the dairy industry of this country. I would ask the minister to take his mind back to the election campaign of 1930-and I assure the committee I do not want to interject politics here-and to a period before that, regardless of the government that was in power, when we were importing a large tonnage of New Zealand butter. I am not going to go into the ramifications of reciprocal trade or the results that followed from our financial and economic capability of absorbing that butter, but the reason that butter came into Canada was the fact that Canada, through the ability of the Canadian people to consume enormous amounts of foreign butter during a period of prosperity, was able to import butter from New Zealand . That is why Canadians could consume New Zealand butter at a higher price than butter sold on the British market.
Prime Minister's Birthday


Robert Weir: The statement which the hon. member has made, that we were able, because of our prosperity as a people, to consume large quantities of butter from outside Canada, is not really correct. The reason we did eat butter from outside Canada was that our production at that time was not nearly as high as it is at the present time. There is one other point. We are in no way, in this scheme, paying for any cheese consumed by the British consumer. The question is simply one with regard to the price of our dairy product?, butter and cheese, * butter particularly; and this plan we have in contemplation means as much to the butter manufacturer as it does to the cheese manufacturer, if not more.


William Alexander Fraser: It goes a little further than that. We consumed imported butter because the production of our dairy products was being consumed in this country, in other ways, at higher prices.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hugh Guthrie: By unanimous consent of the house I beg to move that when the house adjourns to-night it do stand adjourned until eleven o'clock to-morrow morning and that it continue to meet, until the end of the session, at eleven a.m. each day, but that there be no sitting to-morrow night, it being Wednesday night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. members on this side are wholly agreeable to morning sittings, with the understanding that we shall not have a lot of new legislation introduced as a consequence of our endeavour to bring the session to a close. I assume that the house will adjourn from one to three o'clock to-morrow, and that to-morrow being Wednesday the house will not sit in the evening.


Hugh Guthrie: There are objections to sitting to-morrow night on account of some engagements made by my hon. friends in the southeast corner of the house. We will sit every day from eleven to one, from three to six and from eight to eleven.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope we shall not see new measures on the order paper or some measures transferred from the end of the order paper to the front page.


Hugh Guthrie: The order paper is pretty complete now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What shall we start with to-morrow?


Hugh Guthrie: The fisheries bill or supply.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, July 3, 1935