Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina) presented the fourth report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations, as follows: Your committe has considered the following resolution as amended which has been referred to it and which is in the following terms: "Resolved, whereas great numbers of Canadian seamen on the Pacific coast of British Columbia are out of employment and in many cases destitute; and whereas owners of ships and vessels of Canadian registry on the Pacific coast of British Columbia give employment in large measure to seamen, cooks and engineers of Oriental origin; and whereas other countries give greater consideration to the employment of their own nationals on ships and vessels belonging to their own country; and whereas the Canadian government grant large sums of money to the owners of ships and vessels by way of subsidies; and whereas it is desirable that every encouragement be given for the employment of officers, seamen, cooks and Pacific Coast Shipping engineers of white Canadian citizenship in preference to those of Oriental origin on all Canadian owned and registered ships and vessels; therefore be it resolved that the question of employment of greater numbers of white Canadian citizens on all ships and vessels of Canadian ownership and registry, the owners of which receive grants of money from the public treasury of Canada, be referred to the standing committee on industrial and international relations." No evidence was submitted to the committee to indicate the numbers of Canadian seamen on the Pacific coast of British Columbia who were out of employment or destitute nor with respect to the consideration given by other countries to the employment of their own nationals on ships and vessels belonging to their own country. According to the evidence submitted to the committee, money is paid from the public treasury of Canada to owners of ships of Canadian ownership and registry in two ways -one by direct subsidy or grant and, second, for carriage of mails. Your committee is of opinion that the latter form of payment is pursuant to a contract for service and is not a grant and is therefore not within the terms of the reference. Again, according to the evidence, there are ships engaged in coastwise trade and others plying between Canadian and Oriental ports, some carrying freight and some carrying passengers as well. Some of these ships carry mail for the Post Office Department as a condition of receiving a subsidy from the Department of Trade and Commerce and some receive a subsidy from the latter department and are paid an additional amount for their services to the post office. With respect to subsidized trans-Pacific trade it appears from the evidence that there is no contract between any department of the government and the steamship lines engaged in such trade requiring the employment of any proportion of white Canadian citizens. It was represented by witnesses from the departments of government concerned that with respect to freight traffic, Canadian lumber is being carried into a highly competitive market in competition with subsidized American ships carrying American lumber, and that any change that might result in increased cost might endanger that portion of Canadian export trade; and that with respect to the passenger trade there is the additional difficulty in employment of white Canadian citizens where a substantial portion of the passengers are oriental. The evidence submitted establishes that the ships engaged in the coastwise trade, the owners of which receive subsidies, are required by contract to employ British subjects to the extent of two-thirds of their full personnel but these British subjects are not required by the contract to be white Canadian citizens. This term of the contract is being fully carried out in all cases and as a matter of fact it appears that more than the required two-thirds are white as well as British. The evidence established to the committee that no change in the contracts with respect to employees has been made in recent years. Your committee are of the opinion that while in view of economic conditions and the keen competition existing for international trade the carriage of freight and pasengers should not be unduly hampered and while it appears from the evidence that owners of ships referred to are making reasonable efforts to comply not only with their contracts but with the spirit of the resolution referred to the committee, nevertheless the departments of government concerned should be urged to continue to keep close check on the operations of such ships so as to secure the employment of as many white Canadian citizens as is reasonably possible. A copy of the minutes of proceedings and evidence is tabled herewith.
Mir. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):
Mr. Speaker, I desire to move that the third report of the standing committee on industrial iand international relations 'be concurred in. That is the report in regard to pensions for the blind.
Mr. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I ask that that motion stand.
Motion stands.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):
Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the situation with regard to the relief camp strikers now marching 'towards Ottawa and, according to reports, to be stopped by orders from Ottawa.
Mr. SPEAKER:
Is there any discussion
of the motion?
Hon, HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) : Mr. Speaker, I do not-
Mr. WOODSWORTH:
Mr. Speaker, I
think I have a right to discuss this motion unless there is an objection raised.
Mr. SPEAKER:
The hon. member may state the question but he cannot discuss the motion itself until after I have given my ruling whether it is in order.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:
Quite right, Mr. Speaker, but I do not see h-ow the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) can discuss the motion.
Mr. GUTHRIE:
I am raising the point of order that the subject matteT of the motion is not such as should under the rules be brought into this house on a motion to adjourn. This is a continuing grievance, if I
B.C. Relief Camp Strikers
may use the expression. It has been going on in British Columbia, where it originated, since the beginning of April, and the difficulty is now moving eastward to a point in Saskatchewan at the city of Regina. If we are to discuss this question at each of the points where these marchers may determine to halt I think we would interfere seriously with the business of this house. It has been decided on a similar motion, when these men were in Vancouver, that it was not a question which could foe discussed on a motion to adjourn the house, and I submit that the arguments then used still prevail and that the matter should not now be discussed.
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):
Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) I would rather be inclined to agree with him if this were a general discussion. I did not hear the exact terms of my hon. friend's motion, but if the press dispatches are correct there have been recent developments, and on1 the orders of the day I intended to ask a question in regard to the specific matter which is of recent occurrence, affecting the employment of the Canadian Mounted Police and the question of jurisdiction as between the dominion and the province of Saskatchewan.
Mr. GUTHRIE:
I expected that question and I was prepared to reply to it on the orders of the day.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):
In that respect I think the motion would be in order, but I think generally speaking if there were no recent occurrence, it would not.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:
On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, of course every event is connected in some way with all previous events; there is nothing new under the sun, but I do submit that there are aspects of this situation which are quite new. When the matter was discussed some weeks ago the men were in Vancouver; to-day they are on march to Ottawa. It is a different situation, entirely different, even although many of the men may be the same individuals.
In order that a matter may be discussed on a motion to adjourn the house there are two requirements that must be met under the rules. First, the matter must be recent, and secondly it must foe urgent. I think that both those conditions are clearly fulfilled in my motion. First of all, the situation which has arisen within the last twenty-four hours is a very serious one, so serious that we have a protest from the premier of the
[Mr. Guthrie. |
province of Saskatchewan asking that the Prime Minister of this country, to use the premier's own words, "should keep his hands off the policing of the province." Surely a charge of that kind from the premier of a province against the Prime Minister is a matter that should receive the attention of this house now assembled. The premier goes that far and deliberately protests against the interference of this government, especially after the statement of our own Prime Minister that he would not interfere unless requested to do so by the province. I think that is a very anomalous situation.
Mr. GUTHRIE:
Mr. Speaker, this is not a point of order. This is an argument of the case.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:
I am discussing the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I say that whether or not this motion should come before this house depends aocording to our rule on whether the matter is of recent occurrence and is urgent in character, and the Minister of Justice suggested that this was a matter that had been taken up before, a continuing matter. I am suggesting that it is altogether a new situation that faces us.
In the next place, according to the papers-
Mr. SPEAKER:
Order. I do not think the hon. member should go into the facts other than what is necessary to state the question.