Mr. BOURASSA:

Quite so. It is the same everywhere. And speech cannot altogether be free. I simply want to make it clear that if a member of parliament or a Canadian citizen believes there is a tendency in the application of the criminal or the civil law which will -be detrimental to the country, or work against the individual or political liberties of the subject, I fail to see any other means of arousing public opinion and of bringing parliaments and legislatures to the point of amending their laws than by denouncing such judgments as they deem wrong.

Now I admit it is a question of degree; it is a question of tact; it is a question of opportunity. It is very difficult to draw the line. The only point I want to make is this: in spite of any written rule of this parliament,

I lay down the broad principle that under the British system of government, and -preserving what is "best in -that system, you cannot accomplish anything unless you take some risks, personal and political, and appeal to public opinion as against set rules, as against systems of policy, and even at times as against the authority of judges. But-and I repeat it for the second or third time-it must be done with tact and discretion; nevertheless it is very often a duty to be performed, and as regards the views held -by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think that hon. gentleman did his duty when he pointed out the danger of certain jurisprudence which had its beginning in the days of the war and which threatens to perpetuate itself.

With regard to the use of foreign languages in publications or in public speech, I would point out that here again we have a very broad question of policy. I would -be the last man to charge the good people of Toronto with more narrowness of mind than others. In this respect, not belonging to the province of Ontario, I am happy to repeat, and from a -purely disinterested standpoint, what the hon. member for South Toronto has said. As an individual I can render testimony to the breadth of mind of a large proportion of the individuals of all classes inhabiting the city of Toronto. This may surprise my good neighbour (Mr. Neill), who seems horrified. I know some of my good Ontario Grit friends would not agree with that, but I claim to be a living -witness to the fact. I believe I have denounced the views, political and social, held by the majority of the people of Toronto, in the city of Toronto, and before various bodies-universities and clubs-more often perhaps than any other member of this house.

Freedom of Speech

Mr. MANION:

And were applauded.

Mr. BOURASSA:

Yes, and when I was not applauded I was listened to. In fact, all the broken sticks I have received in the varied course of my public life for saying just wlhat I thought, I have received in my native province and not in the city of Toronto.

Mr. MeGIBBON: They are generous

minded1 down there.

Mr. BOURASSA:

No, I will not say they

are generous; I want to say exactly what I think. I think the majority of the individuals in Toronto are broadminded. But I am afraid that the concern which they have as a community, a collectivity, to be known as the standard city of loyalty has developed among them a public spirit which is not airways in keeping with the breadth of mind, the intelligence and the culture of the im-dividuals. I am afraid that their manifestations of political thought and of public life are very often the cause of the bad reputation which that city enjoys. I believe that is a fair view to take of the city; at all events I say what I feel. There is not the slightest doubt that, having an eye to "French dominated" Quebec, another eye to these new provinces of the west where armies of "foreigners" are invading these sacred precincts of the British Empire, the people of Toronto feel that they have a greater responsibility laid upon them collectively to preserve the rights of the king and the integrity of the empire than the king himself feels, and certainly than all the millions of the people of England and Scotland assume. I have felt that every time I have had occasion-and I may say I chose the occasions-to go to Toronto; I felt it more vividly after I came back from London. I have never experienced a change of atmosphere so sudden and so powerful. What the hon. member for Comox-AJbemi has said I have experienced time and again. I remember going with the late Joe Martin to a public meeting in his constituency of St. Martin's, one of the London ridings. There a public orator began by stating quite frankly that he was neither communist nor socialist, but he denounced the naval policy of the then Liberal government-a Liberal government, mind you. Someone interrupted him: Well, we have need of a strong navy; to which he asked: Why?- Well, to defend our country.-Defend our country against whom?-Against the Germans. -Why defend us against the Germans?-To keep our king and parliament.-Why, our king is a German anyhow; why have two German kings, one in Potsdam and one in

Buckingham? Have only one in Potsdam and it would be less costly to us. And' so far as we labourers are concerned, the German labourers are far better treated than we are.

Mark you, these words were uttered in London in the presence of several policemen and about six weeks before the outbreak of the Great war. But no one felt hurt; no one was scandalized. There were a few people who heckled him but not in any bad spirit. They seem there to think that their loyalty to the king and their attachment to their institutions are solid and genuine enough to resist the effect of any word spoken or written to the contrary. Some of our good friends in Ontario, on the other hand, appear to be so little sure of their loyalty as to be afraid to have anyone challenge it.

Of course, when you come to the foreigner it is another question. I think the hon. member for South Timiskaming (Mr. Lang) has said the truth and the whole truth. I know a good deal about the various foreign elements which have come to our country in the last twenty-five years and are scattered throughout the western provinces and in northern Ontario, and comparing their state of mind with the state of mind of our own people in the province of Quebec, I think I can draw this conclusion: the more you attempt by force to make them British or even Canadian the less you will succeed. The French Canadians became thoroughly, and I might say radically, attached to British institutions the moment the British ceased to endeavour to make them British by force. So long as the representatives of the British crown and government endeavoured either by force or by diplomacy to impose the English language uipon them and to deprive them of their rights, or their undue privileges as the British called them, in matters of school, church organizations and civil law, the French maintained a spirit, I will not say of disloyalty, exactly, but of resentment towards British rule. They looked upon that rule as something imposed upon them. They were sceptical of every attempt on the part of some few representatives of the crown to smile upon them; they always thought that there was behind the screen something which meant either their absorption or the denial of some of their privileges. But the moment the British, after nearly a century of political and at times physical struggle, renounced the idea of imposing their views upon the French Canadians, that moment did the French Canadians become the staunchest upholders of British rule. Not because it was British; you could not

Freedom of Speech

expect that from them; but because British rule as applied in Canada, after it had been made adaptable to the needs of this country, contains a germ of liberty and equality which they prized. In that sense they became more British than they had been French in the past. It will operate in the same way in connection with the newcomer, provided you do not turn the whole machinery of parliamentary law, of judicial authority and police repression upon them and say, "You must be British; you must speak English; you must talk this way and not the other way." You will never make them British or Canadians in that way.

It may be said that it is an inconvenience for police officials not to understand the languages used in public papers or at public meetings. Of course there are inconveniences in all systems; but I claim that this inconvenience is less vital than the blunder and the crime of leaving aside those broad principles of liberty, including liberty of speech in any language, in order to enable a policeman to understand what has been said or written. Let us do what they did in Austria and in Russia; let us have interpreters who will tell us what has been written or said, and if anything really criminal has been stated in any publication or in any speech let the principles of law and order which are applied to English or French speaking citizens apply to these other Canadians who speak in their own language. To say that you are going to force a community to print a paper in English or in French and so prevent a Canadian citizen from using in public or private speech the language he has learned, the language he is entitled to use by natural law and by a broad application of the highest principles of British liberty, it is a mistake. If you encourage that kind of jurisprudence, if you encourage that sort of legislation, you should begin by erasing some of the finest and noblest pages of Canadian history, which have become engraved in the hearts and minds of all true sons of Canada, whether their origin be French, English, Scotch or Irish.

A few years ago I happened to be travelling in the hills of Wales, and there I found some of the old-timers, old shepherds and old farmers who remembered their school days when they had received strokes of the rule on their hands because they dared speak their native language in school. My hon. friend from Rosetown (Mr. Evans) will understand me. Their struggle for the right to speak their own language was maintained from the conquest of their country by the English

in the twelfth century down to the last years of last century; and finally, after six hundred years of stubbornness, the English understood that they had gained nothing by enforcing that rule. Now the Welsh people can use their own language in pleading before their courts, in their political or literary societies, and also in their municipal councils and so on. Have they become less devoted to the British crown? I do not think so.

To-day in that country of which my friend the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) is a worthy son there is a revival of the Scotch language and the Scotch nationality under way. Does that constitute a threat to the unity of the British empire? I do not think so. I 'believe that anything which gives greater opportunity and wider scope for the mental, intellectual or moral growth of a people and all its component elements is for the good of the country and for its political safety. For heaven's sake let us endeavour to be reasonable in this regard and let us not follow the narrow-minded policy which is in force on the other side of the line. Have they succeeded in furthering the moral unity of their country by imposing upon their children the most backward and narrow system of education in existence to-day throughout the civilized world? They have not. There is less moral unity in the American nation to-day than existed previous to the war, and the reason is that they endeavoured to get their people to become what they called one hundred per cent Americans. The people revolted mentally against that attempt. Today the German-Americans, the Italian-Americans, the Hungarian-Americans, the French-Americans and the Polish-Ameri-cans are less one hundred per cent Americans than they were before the war, because their understanding of the natural law and their sense of human dignity have revolted against this system.

This is a point which was brought out very well by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; and I think the hon. member for South Toronto, if he remembers his close personal contact with the French and other peoples during the war, must realize that if we want moral and political unity in this country it will not be achieved by making foreign-bom Canadians English-speaking or French-speaking by force; it will not be achieved by days of imprisonment, by fines or by threats of what may happen if they dare use this or the other language, or if they dare oppose a certain social or political theory which may be held by other people. If we impress upon them that this country

Freedom oj Speech

is more free than the country to the south, more free mentally, morally and intellectually; if we impress upon them that there is a place in Canada for every group of people to grow according to its racial or intellectual tendency provided the whole community is united in a few basic principles of national unity, we will get much further. Of course they must accept also the Canadian constitution, Canadian law and what I would call Canadian communal life; but if we take the broad attitude I have described, I think we will attain far better results than by letting it be known that such decisions as that rendered in the case brought up today by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre reflect the cool judgment and determination of either Canadian public bodies or the Canadian people at large.

Mr. GEARY:

I rise to a question of

privilege, not to object to what my hon. friend has said but rather to correct him, since I believe his impression is erroneous. In the action of the Board of Police Commissioners of Toronto I understand there is no condemnation of the use of any particular language. To my knowledge there are two excellent journals published in Toronto, one in the Yiddish language and the other in the Italian language, both weekly publications bearing very excellent reputations. With regard to the use of any particular language, a great body of respectable citizens in Toronto are of the Hebrew race; they use their language as they please without question, and so far as I know that point never has been raised. What my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre took issue with was an edict or order of the Board of Police Commissioners directed against communist meetings carried on in a foreign language, and made on the ground that they provoked disorder and the police could not understand what was going on. I neither condemn nor defend that action, because I do not know the circumstances. At this point I might say to my hon. friend from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) that perhaps she was right in her expression of surprise during the course of my previous remarks. As a matter of fact I did not know of the agitation to which she referred, but since then I have been informed by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) that a great deal of discussion pro and con has been carried on in Toronto. Meetings were held and it was a matter of some public interest. I suppose through absence I was unaware of that and so made the statement I did. The hon. member was probably right in correcting me; I should have known.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I understand

the hon. member has already spoken.

Mr. GEARY': I am speaking on a question of privilege.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

On a question of

privilege also; my information is quite different from that of the last speaker.

Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiskam-ing):

Mr. Speaker, as I represent the Porcupine district, I think it is my duty to say a few words. I intend to be very brief, but statements have been made this afternoon which I believe should be corrected. I have in mind more particularly some of the utterances made by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in referring to the contents of The Thunderer. As a Catholic, I say that this paper should be permitted to carry on its propaganda because I believe it will make people of that faith better Catholics than they were before, after reading such trash. I am convinced also that 99 per cent of the protestant population of Canada who happen to read that paper will become more broadminded on religious matters than they were previously.

I do not desire to make any extended comment upon the communistic paper which was published in the Sudbury district, but I believe that judgment has defeated its own ends; it has become a boomerang to communism. I feel sure that only a very few members of this house have read that little paper or knew about it before it was mentioned in this discussion.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned the lot of the miners in northern Ontario. As a citizen of the Porcupine district I know of the conditions there and I believe the lot of the miner will compare favourably with that of any other worker in the industrial life of this country. The minimum wage paid to the miner in that district ranges from $4.60 per eight hour shift upwards. Most of the Finnish people are working under contract and many of them make as much as $7 to $10 per day. Many of the miners in our section are directly or indirectly interested in the mine stocks, but that may not be a sign of prosperity; many of them own automobiles, which may not be a sign of prosperity; but in South Porcupine, Schumacher and Timmins a large proportion of the miners own their own homes, which is a sign of prosperity. The bank managers tell me that there are millions of dollars in savings deposits which belong to the miners, so I believe their lot is a pretty good one.

I agree with the statement made by the hon. member for South Timiskaming (Mr. MAY 8, 1929

Special War Revenue Act

Lang) that there would be no communism in our section of the country if labour were properly organized. The hon. member mentioned the word "capitalism". I hold no brief for the capitalist because I represent every section of the population of my constituency, but I must say in all sincerity that without capital our section of the country would not have the prosperity and advancement we are experiencing at the present time. Following the words of the hon. member I really believe that the miners themselves are to be blamed. We have found it almost impossible to organize them because the man working at the Hollinger mine does not want to be organized with the man working at the McIntyre mine, and so on. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was up in our section of the country a few years ago and he told the people at that time that organization was absolutely necessary. We have one organization in Iroquois Falls, and it is working quite well as the newsprint manufacturers in that section of the country are satisfied to work in cooperation with the labour element. The hon. member for South Timtskamiing said that it was raitiher surprising we had not more communism in our section of the country, and I believe that the proper way to counteract any activities of that kind would be through proper organization.

Mention has been made of the disaster which occurred at the Hollinger mine in February of last year. Judgment has been rendered and I believe every member of this house will bear me out when I say that it is a ipositive fact that the company was not responsible for that disaster and that it certainly was not premeditated. I happened to be in Timmins during that time and I heard many fiery utterances which were made against the management and against the government, but I feel sure that 95 per cent of the population of that section of the country were satisfied with the verdict which was rendered after the inquiry had been held. New legislation has been passed and new means afforded for preventing a similar disaster.

That is all I have to say about this matter, Mr.'Speaker, but I thought it was my duty to correct some of the statements which were made

Mr. SPENCER:

In view of the importance of the forty minute rule, and the statement made to the house with regard to the length of the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is the house to understand that Your Honour hqs given your decision or that you purpose making your ruling at a future time, as has been requested by several hon. members?

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have no doubt in my

own mind as to the correctness of the ruling itself, but in view of the .expressions of opinion of experienced members of the house, I am quite ready to consider the matter further.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

I was not here, but I

fully agree with Your Honour's ruling.

Mr. BENNETT:

I was here, and I wholly disagree with Your Honour's ruling.

The CHAIRMAN:

When the committee

rose last evening we were considering an amendment moved by the Minister of Finance to paragraph 4 of resolution, No. 3. The amendment reads:

That paragraph 4 be amended by striking out clause (e) and substituting therefor the following:

(e) one cent for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over one dollar per share, but not more than three dollars per share;

(f) one-fourth of one cent for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price over fifty cents per share, but not more than one dollar per share;

(g) one-tenth of one cent for every share of stock sold or transferred at a price of fifty cents or less per share.

Mr. LAWSON:

Mr. Chairman, immediately prior to the rising of the committee last evening I was endeavouring to point out that 74 per cent of all stocks traded in on the Standard mining exchange were stocks selling at. a price under $3; that the rate of taxation, even under the amended proposal made yesterday evening by the Minister of Finance, resulted in a rate of taxation varying from 10 iper cent to 3/100 Of one per cent; that the small investor was penalized by having to pay in tax to the government a much larger percentage on his investment than was the man of larger means, and that the new taxation as proposed, calculated on the basis of one day's trading on one exchange by eleven brokers, meant an increase in tax of $20,228.32.

I stated last night that I would endeavour to make a recapitulation in view of the suggested amendment of the Minister of Finance; but unfortunately the data from which such a recapitulation can be made is not available in this city, and hence I shall have to quote another figure which I do with the full realization that it will be to some extent reduced by the new proposal of the Minister of Finance. It has been conservatively esti-

Special War Revenue Act

mated that the imposition of this new tax would produce, on shares of Ontario mining companies alone, an annual amount of $5,000,000. That amount of $5,000,000 would equal approximately 40 per cent of all the dividends paid by all the silver and gold mines operating in Ontario last year. The result of the imposition of that tax will be, I believe, to drive the financing of all new mining properties into the hands of the organized concerns and to prevent the ordinary prospector and the small investor from sharing the profits which may accrue from such investment. I endeavoured to point out that its effect, by reason of curtailment of market, would 'be to curtail the mining industry, and I would call attention to the fact that if the mining industry is curtailed, the effects are wider than the results merely on that industry. Last year, in seven out of the twelve months, the mines produced the greatest amount of tonnage carried on our railways, and during the high peak in the month of October, they produced 5,426,255 tons. In most, if not all of the provinces of this Dominion, we have a Transfer Tax Act, but every one of them has been based upon the principle that there shall be the same per cent of investment paid in tax by the small investor who invests in the small priced issue as shall be paid by the large operators who can afford to invest in the higher priced issues, and that the same per cent of tax shall be applicable to mining stocks which are the lower priced, issues as is applicable to industrial stocks which are the higher priced issues.

The question whether there should be an increase in the amount of tax imposed by the Dominion upon the transfer of shares is one of individual opinion. At the moment I am not directing the attention of the committee so much to the quantum of the tax as to the inequality of the rate of tax in this proposal. To my mind it would be just as logical for the government to argue that the whole ascending scale of percentages imposed in connection with income tax should be reversed as it is to impose the scale of taxation now proposed, because in the result it would be exactly the same. In effect by this proposal the government says to the small investor who buys the cheap issues, the lower priced issues: You, by reason of purchasing that lower priced issue, should pay in tax to the government a larger proportion on your investment than should the large corporation. Last night we were treated to some vain boastings by hon. members opposite as to the advantages conferred on mining in this

country by this beneficent government. It will be interesting to observe by what argument the government will attempt to persuade the mining industry that it receives any benefit from the imposition of this unequal tax, or !by what reasoning it will endeavour to convince the small investor that he is not being discriminated against in favour of organized wealth. Surely this proposal has not had from the government the thoughtful consideration which it deserves. If it has had consideration, then one can only conclude that this is another evidence of an unfair burden of taxation being imposed upon the masses, and a remission of taxation upon the wealth of' this country. If it has been considered at all, this is further evidence of allegiance by the government to that modern and expressive, though ungrammatical plagiarism " Them that has, gits."

Mr. MANION:

I do not intend to delay

the passing of the resolution. I intended to stop in time to let it pass if I was the only speaker.

Mr. ROBB:

It is nearly six o'clock, and I

think other hon. members desire to speak. I believe I shall be able to show that the tax as now presented is reasonable to the nation as well as to those who speculate in these stocks. We can, however, discuss that later. I want to take advantage of the few moments that we have before six o'clock to say to the committee that I shall move to amend the Excise Act, being chapter 60 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, by repealing subsection (a) of section 219 and substituting therefor the following:

On every pound of malt manufactured in Canada, subject to excise regulations with respect to coomings and absorption of moisture in warehouse as provided by the order in council of the seventh day of February, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, three cents: Provided that malt may be removed from a malt-house to a distillery in bond, and the duty on such malt may be remitted upon proof satisfactory to the department that such malt has been used solely for the production of spirits, in which production no other material than malt is used; and provided further that malt used, in any licensed bonded manufactory, in the manufacture of malt extract or other similar medicinal preparation approved by the department or in the preparation of any malt food product approved by the governor in council may have duty thereon remitted under such regulations as the department establishes;

In this way it will appear in Hansard and the votes and proceedings. The object of the motion is this: in the manufacture of malted milk there is an excise tax on malt and as there is a considerable industry desir-

Special War Revenue Act

ing to establish itself in Canada to manufacture malted milk, they have represented to us that we should relieve them from this tax. We are therefore going to wipe out the tax for that purpose.