Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. The hon. member is really discussing the motion itself. Will he confine himself to the point of order, whether this motion is in order?

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is an urgent matter. Only yesterday we heard from the Prime Minister's own lips that a large contingent of mounted police had been sent in, and if this situation continues there will be bloodshed. Surely, Mr. Speaker, when there is bloodshed threatened, when the mayor of Vancouver-

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have made it quite clear to the hon. member, and I am sure he is not desirous of evading my ruling, that he must confine himself to the point of order and not speak to the facts.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

My point of order Mr. Speaker, I repeat is that the urgency of the situation brings it within the rule. Only this morning I had a wire myself from the mayor of the city of Vancouver pointing out the seriousness of the situation, and on account of this urgency I submit that the motion of my hon. friend comes well within the rule. We cannot as a house now in session refuse to discuss a matter of such urgency without taking an enormous responsibility for anything that may transpire within the next few days. I think the motion is quite clearly within the rules. It was for just such emergencies as this that the rule was designed.

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

Mr. Speaker, on a question of this kind I submit that we are in this difficulty, that we do not yet know what the facts are and we have to be governed by what is contained in the motion moved by the hon. gentleman. In his motion he refers to the acute situation in the city of Vancouver, British Columbia, due to the presence in that city of a large number of men from the unemployment relief camps who are destitute and for whom the city authorities can make no provision, creating a situation which endangers the peace. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if that is so there you have the two conditions which are

Unemployment R'pliej Camps

required to make this motion one which might be discussed by the house, namely, the urgency and the importance of the situation. Those are the two conditions which are required by the rule. There is certainly great urgency and there is certainly considerable importance in the matter which is mentioned in the motion. I would refer Your Honour to section 249 of Beauehesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which says:

In doubtful cases, the question of urgency and of importance are left for the house to decide by giving or withholding its support.

I submit that this is a question as to which this house should decide whether it is urgent and important, in the language of the rule.

Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :

Mr. Speaker, there are just one or two matters I would like to point out in regard to this motion. The motion recites that there is an acute situation in the city of Vancouver due to the presence in that city of a large number of men from the unemployment relief camps who are destitute and for whom the city authorities can make no provision. That is the first point. Secondly, the motion says that that creates a situation which endangers the peace. Now7 this parliament has no control over either of these situations. Destitution in the city of Vancouver is not a matter within the jurisdiction of this parliament, and the peace and the maintenance of peace in the city of Vancouver is a matter for the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia.

My suggestion is that while this may be a very important question it should be presented and discussed in the parliament of the province of British Columbia rather than here.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I should like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) if it is not a fact that the present administration has taken to itself special powers to deal in these times with peace, order and good government?

Mr. BENNETT:

That is another thing

altogether.

Mr. MacINNIS:

Mr. Speaker, whether or

not this motion is in order depends upon two or three points. First of all, it must be a specific matter and of- recent occurrence. Second, it must be of such urgency that it would require to be dealt with immediately. I contend that this is a specific matter and of recent occurrence, it having developed within the last day or two. I contend also that it is of such importance that the government should deal with it at this particular time. The government may take the position that the main-

taining of order is a matter for the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia but the government has been asked for assistance in maintaining order and to that extent the government enters into the question. If further disturbances occur the government will be asked for further assistance and consequently this matter very definitely concerns the government. Outside of the broad implications of the whole question I believe that for these reasons the matter should be discussed in the house.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Before ruling on this matter I should like to thank the hon. member who is responsible for this motion for having the courtesy to let me have a copy of it prior to the opening of the house, thus affording me an opportunity of giving some consideration to this important matter. I only wish that my duties were so simple that I could leave the question of urgency to be settled by the house, but unfortunately the rules place the duty upon the Speaker of deciding this matter. The question of urgency is covered by subsection (3) of standing order 31, which reads:

He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.

The question of urgency must for the moment be settled by me, although according to a precedent established before the recess my decision in the matter can be overruled by the house. I agree that the matter is of tremendous importance and urgency but I cannot agree with the proposer, Mr. Maclnnis, that the matter dealt with has arisen within the last day or two. The gravity of the situation may have increased recently but the events referred to are not of recent origin. The events referred to in the motion first happened when the men left the relief camps some time around April 10th last. To bring this motion within standing order 31 the matter proposed to be discussed must be of recent origin. May, page 227, as quoted in paragraph 240 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms has this to say:

A motion under this standing order must be restricted to a single specific matter of recent occurrence;

I find that this motion does not come within that authority. All hon. members are aware that while this matter was not discussed formally in debate it was covered pretty fully by a statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I should like to quote one or two paragraphs from that state-

Unemployment Relief Camps

ment. I refer the house to page 2922 of Hansard of May 21 where the Prime Minister is quoted as follows:

I have drafted a communication to the premier of British Columbia in which I have endeavoured to point out that if the province fails in its duty to prevent a condition of chaos and anarchy arising, if they fail in their duty to maintain law and order in the province of British Columbia, it will only be because they have not availed themselves of the opportunity of requesting the federal government to lend them such assistance as may be required for that purpose, for until that is done any action on the part of this dominion would he wholly illegal and would be a compromising of our own position with those who may themselves be violating the law.

I direct the attention of the house to the last part of that statement. The Prime Minister continues:

The differences and difficulties, whatever they may be, the federal government will be glad to consider with the provincial government, but it is a condition precedent to any such action that law and order be maintained by those who are responsible for it, and if they are unable to do so that they call upon the federal government for such assistance as will enable them to do so.

I quote those particular paragraphs because of the following which appears at page 248 of May, Thirteenth Edition:

Motions have also been ruled out of order when it appeared that the administrative responsibility of the government was not involved, or that there had not been any departure from the ordinary administration of the law.

The precedents quoted at the bottom of the same page are as follows:

Motions have been held out of order as the subject sought to be raised was within the cognizance of the parliament of Northern Ireland. 154 H.C. Deb. 5 s 1894; the Irish Free State, 152 ib. 2435; 154 ib. 529; a matter for the local police, 120 ib. 261; a labour dispute in which the government was under no obligation to intervene, 162 ib. 33; 166 ib. 450.

The maintenance of law and order is admittedly a matter for the provincial and municipal authorities. The subject matter of this motion is therefore, in my opinion, provincial, not federal, and the motion is on the authority just referred to, not in order. I should have pointed out previously that the statement of the Prime Minister already referred to makes it quite clear that the government has been aware for some time of the matters referred to in the motion. For some weeks past the federal officials have been kept advised of the state of local affairs by the Mayor of Vancouver and the Premier of British Columbia. These are further facts which induce me to rule that this motion does not come within the authority first quoted. I

am also of the opinion that the matter is one of departmental administration and not one for legislative action by this parliament. For these various reasons and above authorities I am therefore constrained to rule that this motion is not in order.

Mr. MacINNIS:

I must appeal against Your Honour's ruling.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Having decided that the motion submitted by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) under standing order 31 is out of order, the hon. member appeals from that ruling.

Mr. RALSTON:

I was paired with the

Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.

Mr. McPHEE:

I was paired with the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling and to sustain the motion moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis).

Mr. GARDINER:

I was paired with the

hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.

Mr. ERNST:

I was paired with the hon

member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.

Mr. ROWE:

I was paired with the hon.

member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted. I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.

Mr. LUCAS:

I was paired with the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the

Speaker's ruling.

Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):

I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.

Mr. IRVINE:

I was paired with the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). Had I voted, I would have voted against the

Speaker's ruling.