They could have libelled the ship; that is quite right but the owners would not consent to the bond. They said: No, you can libel our ship and we will wait till the case is tried but you must incur all the risk of demurrage. That is exactly the method employed by the owners of such vessels. They know that the average person will not libel a ship and incur the risk. Virtually there is no reasonable possibility of a shipper securing any-redress under the present law.
Now, it -may be claimed, and is claimed by many, that if we pass this amendment there will be a tendency to drive shipping away from our ports. I have under my hand a statement that several large importers in the United States who desired to foring shipments through Vancouver- and the same thing will apply to the eastern ports-refrained from doing so simply because they found they had no protection such -as that given to them by the Harter Act of the United States, and which I propose should be given to them under this Bill.
As I stalled at the outset, Mr. Speaker, 1 have no desire to labour the question or to argue it in detail, -but sim-ply to ask the House to accept this explanation and permit me to introduce the Bill. T'heQ I would suggest, if indeed it is open for me to do- so, that thp Bill should be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals -and Telegraph Lines, so that all-parties interested may ha-ve an opportunity to be heard. I- -merely wish to have a fair, frank -and -careful consideration of the question and the principle involved in the Bill which I desire to introduce.
Mr. Speaker, I have stated Ithat iit was necessary for me to precede the introduction of the Bill with this resolution. If the resolution does not pass, I cannot introduce the Bill, and I have asked the House to kindly pass the resolution so that I may proceed.
I must point out to the hon. member that in no case would it be proper to introduce a Bill under "Notices of Motion." I have not -seen the Bill, and the question arises-which I do not -no-w pass upon-as to whether his Bill may be one affecting trade. If so, under the rules, of the House it would of course have to-be preceded by a resolution and be consid-
ered in committee. But this resolution is no different from any other resolution which is moved under Notices of Motion and it merely calls for an expression of opinion of the House. But before passing an opinion on whether the Bill the hon. member has in mind is one affecting trade, I would point out to him that the only way in which he can introduce his Bill is by giving notice under "Introduction of Bills." .
have the privilege of a further remark? Before putting this motion on the Order Paper I consulted the Parliamentary Counsel, who advised me to take this course, which I have strictly followed.
Mr. iSPEAKEK: The hon. member is
entirely under a misapprehension as to the nature of the advice he received. In no case could he 'introduce the Bill under Notices of Motion. I have not passed a final opinion on the question whether this Bill is one affecting trade, for I have not seen it, but it would be necessary in any event to put his notice on the Order Paper under Introduction of Bills.
Mr. 'STEVENS: Might I ask, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution go into 'Committee of the Whole?
The object my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) has in view is a very meritorious one from some points of consideration, but no doubt there are interests which will run counter to the idea the hon. gentleman proposes to put into legislation if his Bill meets with the approval of the House. But in the endeavour to get his Bill where divergent views can be submitted and the whole matter fought out, it would he necessary fpr him to make his motion according to the rules of the House in the form of asking for leave to introduce a (Bill and to put it upon the Order Paper. So I think my hon. friend had better just simply let this motion drop and put the necessary and regular notice on the Order Paper. Then in the course of two or three days it will be reached and we can take it up in the regular form.
idea is to follow the rules, and that is exactly what I was trying to do. In view of the ruling of the Chair and the advice of the Acting Prime Minister, I will, with the permission of the House, withdraw this
motion and endeavour to bring it within the rules.
That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the reported statement by the Reverend Ben Spence, that another Prohibition Referendum in Ontario would cost the prohibitionists five million dollars ($5,000,000), and in view of the fact that such immense sums tend to the corruption by patronage, and otherwise, of press and people arid to the destruction of public liberty and public morals, and in view of the reported collection of party funds for the Farmers' Party and parties, and in view of the fact that a coming struggle in Canada will probably be between the owners of land and the employers of labour and in view of the charges made against other parties in respect of party funds, it is desirable that all campaign funds be prohibited and made a criminal offence and that an amendment of the Criminal Code be made to that effect.
He said. Mr. Speaker, it is altogether top common in matter of this kind, involving general principles such as this does, to meet them, not by argument but by scoffing or some other means of general entertainment, as laughter and sneers, and so to withdraw public attention from their serious nature, in due time this course being treated as a precedent to be followed when some serious business is before the country. It cannot be denied that at the present time there is very serious unrest and discontent in Canada. My charge involved in this resolution is that certain persons are stirring up discontent and apprehension in order to seize power and the advantages accruing therefrom to the detriment of a portion of Canada, chiefly the province of Ontario.
We are not accustomed to arguing things at large in this country or to dealing with them in that general way which is the practice in older countries. People are apt to hurry on without understanding the value of a basic general principle, not knowing, indeed, that a few general principles, especially in statecraft or public conduct, determine the whole principle of government. If they realized that, they would watch the general principles and pay correspondingly little attention to the details. But people are more .carried away in this country by notices they see in the newspapers of some particular details of matters or measures that are before the House or before the country than they are concerned
about the general principles to which these refer or which they trench upon. I assume it will not be denied-that all great movements against the welfare of the State are founded upon corruption and the means of corruption. The chief means of corruption is money, and the value of money in large sums is in the wholesale character of the assault upon the welfare of the State. There can be no objection to. a constituency's managing its own affairs and paying what it likes in the way of expenses of its members. But when that movement becomes national and interests of a wide and national and general character may combine and make assaults upon individual constituencies, it simply means that at some time or another they will gain control of the State for their own ends, all because the principles of a general and national campaign fund has been observed and has not been attacked. It is easy in that way, and it has been easy in the past, for those who have had designs upon the country to make their way. It only remains, as my hon. friend on my right did yesterday, to tsay that everybody knows, every member knows, that funds are spent illegitimately in constituencies, even without the candidate's knowledge. That, of course, I repudiated yesterday in rising to a point of order. But it involves the honour of every man in the House, and if it is true it shows a rottenness and corruption of mind in the average candidate which is beyond belief. It shows that he has a gateway through which this corruption to which I have referred may pass with ease into the general pockets of the country, with ruin to the country and to the people.
It is useless for any part of the population to set itself up above any other part and say, as was well pointed out by the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) yesterday, et we are holier than thou.
Order. The hon. member is not in order in referring to a previous debate during this session. I hope also that he will not go so far as to cover ground which has already been covered this session; his resolution trenches upon a subject which has already been before the House.
I withdraw the remark with reference to a speech made during this session, Mr. Speaker. I simply say that no one part of the population should use language such as " we are holier than thou" to any other part of the population. To presume that two great parties
in this country and all the people who belong to those two great parties are corrupt and willingly corrupt while a new party which has just arisen has come forward for the express purpose of doing away with corruption by the very same means with which they charge the other people with having incurred and enacted corruption, is something that only a very simple people and a very simple party would attempt or allow. The presumption that the old parties have in the past done things with the aid of money in a large fund which they should not have done applies equally to this new party. For them and others to say that a campaign fund is wrong and productive of great harm in one case but all right in the other is to beg the question and to show that they are more inclined to proceed by a policy of bluff than by one of reason and common sense. I myself think, as has been demonstrated historically in the past, that a great national fund is an impropriety. It is a wrong thing; it is unnecessary; it is a source of corruption and danger to the country. As I remarked a few minutes ago, there is no objection to the people of a constituency paying the expenses of their own member. But there is the very greatest possible objection, Mr. Speaker, to a nation-wide campaign fund. That is what I am objecting to; it is dangerous in the extreme.
, We have only to remember what happened in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. At that time, when Spain had determined to conquer England; when Spain had stirred up in the kingdom of Scotland great discontent; when Mary Queen of Scots was a prisoner in England and appealing for the fulfilment of certain rights which she said .she had to the Crown; when the Netherlands were at war with France and with (Spain and were being "assisted directly and indirectly by England; when Ireland was at war with England and had inflicted upon England in the battle of Blackwater the greatest defeat she had ever experienced in Ireland-how was it that the malcontents and those who sought to inspire England gathered themselves together and furthered their cause without incurring the punishment of treason? By means of lampoons; by moans of jokes and all sorts of scoffing and laugh? ter which were apparently intended as jokes, but which really covered up the malicious intent, the malignant intent, the corrupt intent, of those who circulated them. Burleigh, the chief minister of Elizabeth, was not, however, to be bluffed by these
tilings, and he said in some well-known instances that they might be jokes, but they would be provided ^gainst as if they were serious, and I think that advice was good. We know the possibilities of campaign funds, and it is for us as patriotic Canadians to provide against them as if they were serious. We know that few people, who have designs upon the liberties of a country or whose intention it is to possess themselves of the control of that country, would be 'So silly, or stupid, or short-sighted as to proceed directly to the object that they have in view. They would begin by a flank or indirect movement, as we see at the present time some of these flank and indirect movements producing in the minds of the people the first idea which they were intended to produce, namely, apprehension and discontent. I will proceed to illustrate how one of these movements is brought about. You are well aware, Sir, that if men have to withstand grave movements which they plainly see and have set themselves against and have prepared themselves in their own defence against, they will acquit themselves much better, much more amiably and consistently than they would if they were disturbed by some sudden pin-prick of which they had no notice or which they did not understand, but which had suddenly roused them to wrath and antagonism. That is just the artifice that has been adopted in Canada today, and we had an example of it here this last week. Miles Vokes, president of the Dominion Alliance, stated hat the policy of the Dominion Alliance was that it should be its brother's keeper, whether that brother wanted it or not. In other words, they, having made misuse of the voluntary and benevolent idea of sacrificing one's self in order to take care of the moral's good conduct and general benefit of somebody else, having sacrificed themselves to attain a certain end, and they intend to sacrifice the other man and seize power over him and make him do what they wish. That is to say, they are to be their brother's keeper in the sense of having him in jail, and once the people recognizes the fact that it is open to a party or a portion of the people to come forward and say: You have a right to be your
brother's keeper, and if he does not want you to be his keeper, you have a right to make him; that, of course, is slavery. That is the principle which this man and the Dominion Alliance have laid down. They are determined to seize power and to exercise their power, and they are just as treasonable in their intentions as any other body which wishes to overturn the constitution,
the general principle of Government, the general principles that safeguard the freedom and liberties of the people. It is idle to say that majorities rule.. The majority rules only just so long as it can rule, because where you have a large compaign fund, and an insidious minority and a designing leader and a so-called alliance, by means of false representations, misrepresentations, dangling before the public things that are not so, you can bedevil the situation and make the people believe anything. As a consequence, it is just like acting in a bargain, disingenuously, dishonestly and unfairly. These people say: We want these things; we have decided to have them; and they proceed by means of any method they can possibly conjure up. The honesty of the thing never appeals to them; they know nothing and they care nothing about that. A common dogfight, or a fight in the bear-pit, or a prizefight is a model of fair *play and virtue alongside the acts which these people will permit themselves to do and which they will do in order to gain their purposes, because they piously and sublimely smile and say that it is for the general benefit, without any regard to whether the other people want it or not. It becomes so far from the general benefit that it turns out to be chiefly for the benefit of the promoters; and when people having enormous campaign funds at the back of their efforts, it is the campaign fund and not the liberty and well-being of the people that they have chiefly in view.
The Rev. Ben Spence has announced that $5,000,000 will be the probable cost of a referendum in Ontario. $5,000,000 means over $60,000 for each constituency, and the man who says to the people of this country that the expenditure of that moneyJs to be legitimate, is telling what he knows to be a lie. A large portion of this money is to be distributed-and nobody c.ould convince me to the contrary-for the benefit of the distributors. $60,000 for each constituency. There never was a campaign fund in Canada that amounted to one-fifth of that for the whole of the Dominion. Yet these same pious frauds will tell us that all that has gone before has been covered with corruption ; they alone are the true, the really good and the beautiful, and they have the impudence to say: Since we know we are so and we are well provided with money, we will put it all over you and put you under our feet and make you do as we please. Therefore, I say that a great campaign fund such as this is against the good morals and the liberty of the people of this country, and I am well advised in saying so.
It is a well-known fact that for many years the Y.M.C.A gathered large sums for the purpose of extending its work as a branch of social service, and beginning, as the founder of that society did, by saying that it was for the furtherance of Christian work, it acquired the respect and support of the public at large. But any one who will follow it up will find that in the course of time the religious part sank into abeyance. The young people did not want too much religion, and they would not have it. You "will observe that religious teaching is away down in the list of the attractions of the Y.M.C.A., and anybody who knows much about the Y.M.C.A. would know that the Christian meetings, the Bible classes and prayer meetings, were attended by barely a corporal's guard, while the gymnasium, the basket-ball team and things of that kind were very well patron-' ized. Public lectures were not looked at. It was impossible to get the young men to attend them. They wanted to enjoy themselves, and nobody would blame them much. In course of time the Y.M.C.A extended the social service idea. After having pointed out how detrimental to the welfare of the country billiards and pool were, they adopted billiards and pool in their programme of attractions, and now you can play billiards and pool in the Y.M.C.A. It was pointed out that the Y.M.C.A. did not pay their full portion of the taxes, claiming that they were a religious institution and were therefore exempt. The people behind the Y.M.C.A were mean enough to profit by that exemption.
I prophesied that the time would come when that small, petty meanness of soul would eat into them and destroy them. It has destroyed them, because they found at their convention in Toronto last year that they could not get along "with social service as the chief end of it, and that they would have to found their future and their whole effort on something else than fees, and they then and there resolved and announced that in future the Y.M.C.A and its principles would be founded, not upon -fees, but upon service. In other words, these young men, instead of being brought up to believe that they were an example to all the Test of mankind, to the mass of the people, to the ragtag and bobtail, to the poor who play their little games in the ditches or any place they can find well, these young nabobs, maintained partly and very largely at public expense, and as objects of charity, had to give up those ideas.
The Y.M.C.A.'s, which were created for the money they could squeeze out of the public, ignored the fact that if they had been worth anything at all, and had had any manhood, they would have offered the advantages of their institutions to the poor who were not able to afford to pay for them. But no, their teaching had not been that. They had in their hearts that meanness and canker which would shrivel them up and destroy them, as it- did. Though millions had been collected, though to all intents and purposes the movement was increasing and becoming exceedingly strong, yet at their convention last year they changed the basis of their whole system, because one ounce of merited blame could blow the whole structure to pieces, and it did so.
Then take these pious and pretentious schemes in other directions for the welfare, say, of the farmer. The Farmers' Organization have adopted the rule that nobody who is not a farmer could join their organization, simply to protect their own interests. They do not say: Come along with us and seize the reins of government. No, they unfurl the flag of some benevolent scheme, some meriltricious humbug, and say: Subscribe largely to the great campaign against corruption, and by means of the campaign against corruption they will get into power, and then they will promote their own agricultural interests, and they will tell us all the time that it is for the benefit ot Canada, while at the same time they would not allow any one who is not a farmer .to join them lest some small portion of their effort might be for the general benefit of Canada, and the Farmers' party do not desire that. That is one of the singular things that is presented in this movement a!t the present day, but if anybody wants to get a nice little peep into the action of this kind of people, and see1 how ready they are to destroy the liberties of the people for their own ends, they have only to look at the Ontario Temperance Act, which is now being both promulgated and amended to perfection, and is double copper-bottomed and riveted so that there is no escape. Some benevolent people connected with the movement would even have flogging provided as a penalty, and I think it should be, because 'then some of these people would be the first to he flogged. Let me show the condition of society in the province of Ontario, a portion of ithe Dominion of Canada, by reading to you subsection
(2) of section 61 of the Ontario Temperance Act, Chap. 50, which say,s:
All information or complaints for the prosecution of any offence against any of the provisions of this Act may he made
without any oath or affirmation to the truth thereof.
Any mean sneaking informer, or other blackguard, is good enough to bring a complaint against the finest lady or gentleman in the land. * Any one who knows or cares about British liberty would not tolerate any such thing for a moment. While the people of Ontario do not understand it, by a sort of Nemesis Sir William Hearst met his fate and went down to that disgrace which he well deserved. After the case has been brought .to court on the information of somebody who need not say that he was speaking the truth, because ten to one he was not, 'there is no way of getting back at the wretch that gave the impious information. Section 83 provides that.
In proving the sale or disposal, giving, purchasing, or receiving gratuitously or otherwise, or consumption of liquor, for the purpose of any proceeding relative to any offence under this Act, it shall not he necessary to show that any money actually passed, or any liquor was actually consumed, if the magistrate or justice or justices hearing the case is or are satisfied that a transaction in the nature of a sale or other disposal, giving, purchasing or receiving, actually took place or that any consumption of liquor was about to take place.
Theire is no evidence required if the absolute judge on the bench in his serene majesty is satisfied that the party, if not guilty, would be guilty if he had a chance. Not in the whole history, I would not say of jurisprudence, because I do not wish to insult the history of law, but noit in the [whole history of informers from the beginning of the world was there any such contemptible camouflage as that, or such a piece of outrageous bluff. They are doing this in the very face of the people, who think, by reason of their protests and piety, that there is some little honour and decency and justice left in them, when there is not. The day will come when they will be thrown into the garbage can, but in the meantime they can do this country incalculable damage, and it is against that I wish to protest. Bolshevism in the same disregard of. the fundamentals of liberty and order. It is simply making up your mind that you wantsomething and you are going to have it; and as heretofore in the history of the world it has been wise for men to pretend that they were right whether they were or
not, since there was always something in the moral value and weight of such an assertion, so the Bolshevist pure and simple states that he will bring about what he desires by such means as he may care to use. And while he will make the rivers run with blood, he will point to the few goods things which he will do,-because, after all, it is only a great blackguard who cannot do some few good things. He will point to some of the few good things which he will have brought about, as, for instance, the overthrow of absolutism and autocracy. But he will have to admit, nevertheless, that he did not proceed according to any principle of justice or law except his own sweet will; and we have in Bolshevism precisely what we have in the actions of the Dominion Alliance, without any difference whatever. I say that they are creating in the minds of the people of the country an indifference to utterly irregular proceedings and principles, and when the people become accustomed-to disregard the fundamentals of law and justice and the ancient practice of these principles, they will throw them to one side; and from having become temperance fanatics, they will bloom forth as full-fledged Bolshevists, because they will have learned their lesson. They will have learned that it is not necessary to regard the present liberties of the people, or to consider the liberties that have been
Tu n past- Their attitude will be
this: \\hat we want is right; we-must have it, and we will have it;" and they will proceed to get it by great campaign funds or other means of corruption and by force Ihey will argue that the end justifies the means, especially if the end be what they want. This is the principle which will be inculcated and drilled into the minds of the people. At the present time the great complaint of the farming community is that labour is too expensive, and that it is so high that the cost of production has made farming a non-paying industry.
Mr. CALDWELL; We are objecting to farm machinery costing so much on account of the duty there is on it.