1922-06-12

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 134 (from the Senate), for the relief of Roy Wilbert Shaver.-Mr. Wilson.
Bill No. 135 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Henry Boyd.-Mr. Boys.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN(Leader of the Opposition):: In the budget speech the Finance Minister referred to negotiations for reciprocity with Australia commenced by the late government and prosecuted further by this Government, but mentioned that no progress had been made since the refusal of a certain proposal advanced by Canada. I read in the London Times of date June 2, a Melbourne despatch of June 1, as follows:
The government has submitted to the government of Canada proposals for tariff reciprocity.
The Times adds:
This is a sequel to the recent arrangements between Australia and New Zealand reported by our correspondent in the Times on April 8.
May I ask the government if this report is correct, and if so are they in a position to state what advance has been made since Australia's proposal was presented?

Questions


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that the Australian and Canadian governments are at the present time in correspondence by cable respecting reciprocal tariff arrangements between the two countries. I do not think it would be in the public interest to disclose at this particular moment the nature of the proposals.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask if it is correct that the proposal has been made as stated on June 1, by the Australian government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to its being a sequel to the arrangement with New Zealand?


Arthur Meighen: The Times says that the Australian government has forwarded to the Government of Canada proposals for tariff reciprocity, is that correct?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the other way round. Our Government made proposals; those now alluded to are modifications of an original proposal that was not accepted.


Arthur Meighen: But the present proposals are from Australia?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.



UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: I believe that the Unemployment Service Council of Canada has recently been meeting and has brought in some recommendations in regard to unemployment. Would it be possible to furnish these recommendations to members of the House, or will they be at all available? I think, in view of the unemployment situation and the fact that we shall shortly have a report from the committee dealing with Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, it would be wise to have these recommendations before us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that the council referred to by my hon. friend is in the nature of an advisory council to the Minister of Labour. Whether the minister will think it wise to make public the recommendations made to him I am, of course, unable to say, but I shall have pleasure in bringing the question of my hon. friend to his attention.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. BLACK (Yukon) :: 1.	Is the total amount of expenditure in connection with the House of Commons as shown on page sixteen of the main estimates, without taking into account any amounts that may be supplementary estimates, $1,703,390, and the expenditure for the Senate as shown on the same page the sum of $561,205?
2.	Why is the Chief Accountant of the Senate, as shown on page seventeen of the main estimates, paid $4,020, and the Chief Accountant of the House of Commons paid only $3,450 as shown on page nineteen of the estimates?
3.	How are these officers classified to make this difference in salary?
4.	Does the Chief Accountant of the Senate hlave to furnish bonds in connection with his office?
5.	Does the Chief Accountant of the House of Commons have to furnish bonds in connection with his office?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Yes, in so far as the House of Commons is concerned.
2.	The Chief Accountant of the House of Commons was classified in 1908 as Accountant and Chief of Miscellaneous Branch with a salary range of $2,800-$4,000, annual increases of $100 per annum. The annual increase of present incumbent starts 1st October in each year, therefore $3,450 is voted in the estimates to complete the year ending 31st March, 1923.
3.	The position of Accountant of the House of Commons has been classified by the Civil Service Commission with a salary range of $2,100-$2,700, increasing at the rate of $120 yearly.
4.	No information.
5.	Yes.


IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to take part, during the present year, in an Imperial Conference in which amendments to the British North America Act will be discussed?
2.	If so, will Parliament have an opportunity of discussing this question before the departure of the Canadian representatives?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The Government has not received any intimation of an. Imperial Conference being held this year.
2.	Answered by No. 1.

Questions


ST. VINCENT DE PAUL. PENITENTIARY
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	How many men are employed at the S-t.
Vincent de Paul Penitentiary?
2.	What are their names and nationality?
3.	How many convicts are actually in said
penitentiary?


Hon. Sir LOMER GOUIN:: 1. 120.
2.
Nominal roll of permanent officers employed at St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary as on June 8th, 1922.
Name-	Nationality
Girouard, Col.	de la B	 British
Ahier, E. H	 44
Allen, E	 44
Aube, Z	 "
Aube, W	 "
Barbeau, E	 44
Belanger, W	 "
Berube, J	 44
Bolduc, M	 44
Briere, A	   "
Byrne, J	 "
Cardinal, J. A	 44
Caron, C.R. L'Abbe	 44
Cheesman, A. W	 "
Clark, D	 "
Cliche, L. P	 "
Champagne, P.	E	
"Charbonneau,	A	
"Chateauvert, A. P	
44Clermont, F	
44Connelly, A	
[DOT][DOT]Cormier, A	
"C.ousineau, H	
44Crandall, A. H	
44Daly, J. L	
44Delorme, A	
44Deschambault,	W. A	
"Desrochers, J	
44Donnelly, H	
44Doran, S	
44Dube, W	
44Dufresne, A	
"Dupuis, D	
"Filiatrault, A	
"Filiatrauilt, N	
"Fitzgibbon, J.	D	
44Forest, G	
44Galarneau, 1	
44Garceau, E	
44Gau-thier, A	
44Girard, R	
44Godard, H. Revd	
44Godin, F. X	
44Go-din, L. P	
44Godin, H	
44Grece, W	
44Hamil, N	
44Henaul-t, R	
44Hugg, J. J	
44Jette, U	
44Jobin, E	
44Johnson, C	
44Jubinville, A	
44Kellett, G	
44Labrecque, J.	E	
44Lambert, E	
44Lamer, E	
44Lapierre, R	
44
TMr. Mackenzie King.]
Name-	Nationality
Lapointe, J. A	 British
Leacock, G	
Lefebvre, A	
Lenden, A	
Leontieff, E	
Leroux, O	
Lesage, R	
Michaud, A	
Miron, A	
Montbriand, E	
Morrot, P	
Murphy, J M. R	
Nadeau, J. N	
Pare, A	
Payne, P. F	
Pepin, J. E	
Pigeon, R	
Pilotte, G	
Poirier, D	
Poirier, I.A	
Prefontaine, A	
Proulx, M	
Riendeau, J.B	
Robert, L	
Roy, D	
Sibbald, W	
Sigouin, A	
Sproston, E	
St. Aubin, E	
Steben, G	
Thibaudean, R	
Timlin, C	
Trudeau, A	
Vibert, S. J	
White, J. J	
Nominal roll of temporary officers
Boisvert, A. E	
Bottinig, J	
Bouthiliette, J	
Brault, G	
Broui-llete, E	
Caron, P. E	
Chartre, E	
Conway, G. J	
DesLlets, A	
Duhamel, P	
Farrow, J	
Gauthier, C	
Gendron, W	
Gibson, A. K	
Haile, J. F. X	
JoHicceur, H	
Juteau, F	
Nadeau, A. E	
O'Hara, R. H	
Rheaume, J. E	
Robichand, F	
Robillard, T. J	
Sabourin, J. A	
Sisson, G. E	
St. Germain, A	
Vervrogen, F	
Vezina, J. R	
3.	686.


McLEOD POST OFFICE
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the gross revenue of the post office at Macleod for the last two fiscal years?
2.	Has the Government any idea of the unsuitability and the inadequacy oi the present
Canadian
British

Questions
post office building at that point to serve the needs of the community?
3.	Does the Government pay rental for the building now used as a post office?
4.	If so, what amount, and to whom paid?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Year ended 31 March, 1921, $11,027.75; year ended 31 March, 1922, $10,091.24.
2.	The Public Works Department is endeavouring to obtain more adequate accomodation.
3.	and 4. The postmaster provides his own building for which he receives the usual allowance based on the revenue, covering rent, etc. This allowance amounted to $750 for the last fiscal year.
Mr. DUNCAN McPHERSON


Mr. BLACK (Yukon) :: 1.	Was there in the Internment Operations Branch, Department of Justice, an official named Duncan McPherson?
2.	Is he still employed by the Government?
3.	Has he been offered superannuation under what is known as the Calder Act?
4.	If so, has he accepted same?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Duncan MacPherson is employed in the Internment Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State.
2.	Yes.
3.	Mr. MacPherson has applied for superannuation under The Calder Act, and his application is now pending before the Treasury Board.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


MAIL SERVICE-LACHENAIE, QUE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton) .
1.	Was J. Z. Tisdale, of Lachenaie, County of l'Assomption, Quebec, awarded a contract on October 8th. 1919, for the carriage of mails?
2.	If so, has this contract been cancelled and when will it be terminated?
3.	What is the reason for the cancellation of the said contract? [DOT]
Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The contract will be terminated on 4th August, 1922.
3.	The reason for the action taken is contained in the following clause in the contract:-
"Le Ministre des Postes se reserve aussi le droit d'annuler le present contrat lorsqu'il sera d'opinion que Tinteret du public Tex-ige, en donnant trois mois d'avance avis par ecrit a ^entrepreneur."
178 h



QUESTIONS TO BE REDRAFTED

[Stage Direction]
On the questions being called:
Mr. CHURCH:: What action does the Government intend to take to disallow am act and schedule agreement of the Province of Ontario for the alienation of 3,000 square miles of Ontario's Resources to an American citizen, E. W. Backus, without any tender whatsoever or adequate survey of this English River Limit and to see that the interests of the Dominion are safeguarded and protected and to protect the exploitation of the Public Domain without tender?


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the Government of Canada agreed with the Government of Ontario to appoint a Joint Board consisting of four Members to regulate and control the outflow of the waters of the Lake of the Woods so as to maintain the levefl of the lake and also of the waters of Lac Seul and of the Winnipeg River?
2.	Has the Government decided to introduce legislation this session to repeal an act of the Parliament of Canada " The Lake of the Woods Regulation Act, 1921, being Chapter 38 R.S.C. 1921," and at whose request?
3.	Will the Government lay on the table all documents, letters, correspondence, and any other material dealing with this matter with the Government of Ontario, or any other person or persons?
4.	Why has the Government agreed to a political settlement of this question which should be settled by engineers?
5.	What International Treaty, if any, is there covering this question or will the Act introduced by the Government of the Province of Ontario not interfere with the consummation of such an International Treaty?
6.	What Interprovincial and International Legislation is there in existence at present on this subject and why should the Dominion surrender its rights at the behest of the Province of Ontario?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) to redraft the first question in accordance with Rule 37. In this connection I would draw the hon. member's attention to Bour-inot, page 313. The same remark applies to the second question, particularly to paragraph No. 4. I would remind the hon. member that according to Bourinot no question of an argumentative nature can be placed on the Order Paper.
On the question being called:


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	Why did the Government grant the increase of $1,000 to Deputy Ministers?
2.	Why does the Government propose to cut off the bonus from all civil servants receiving $2,400 or over, and from many single persons under that amount?
3.	Does the Government intend to grant more equitable salaries to the Civil Service?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if this question
Questions

does not come within the scope of the ruling you have just given, particularly paragraph No. 3?


Hewitt Bostock: I would not think that it was so much against Rule 37 as question No. 7. At all events I will let the question stand and examine the point.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN

Mr. COOTE:: 1.	How many hotels are owned by the Canadian Government Railways?
2.	Are each of these hotels being operated by the Railway?
3.	What was the cost of construction and equipment of each of these hotels?
4.	What is the present value of each hotel and equipment?
5.	How much fire insurance is carried on. each hotel and equipment?
6.	What was the revenue of each of these hotels in each of the last three fiscal years?
7.	What was the expenditure in connection with each of these hotels in each of the last three fiscal years?
S.	In each of said hotels what was the not profit or loss in connection with the operation, including all charges such as insurance, interest on investment, and allowances for depreciation on building and equipment?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS

Mr. STEVENS:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and documents or correspondence passing between the Order of Grain Buyers and the Board of Grain Commissioners or passing between the Order of Grain Buyers and the Government or between the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Government or officials thereof respecting the said Order of Grain Buyers.
Mr. 'HUMPHREY:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, memoranda, Orders in Council, Minutes of Council, and other documents in the possession, or under the control of the Government of Canada or of any department thereof, of date subsequent to April 30th, 1920, relating to the proposed reclamation of the area in the Province of British Columbia and the State of Idaho known as the Kootenay Flats.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 62, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1,-compensation.
Hon. WILLIAM R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) :	When this
Bill was under consideration by the committee last week, the committee seemed to agree with the schedule of indemnities, with the exception of that relating to pure-bred cattle. Since then I have looked up the

list of pure-bred cattle, as compared with the list before the war, and I feel that I would be justified in agreeing to the representations made by a number of hon. members in the committee, with respect to this indemnity of $150, and, in moving that this indemnity be raised to $200. The former indemnity, at the high water mark, was $250. The proposal in the bill was to make it $150; my suggestion is to make it a straight $200 for pure-bred cattle, and, if it is agreeable, 1 will move the amendment.
Mr. SALES:: I would second the amendment.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: A number of
hon. members are particularly interested in this matter, and seem to be all agreeable to this. I, therefore, move that the words "One hundred and fifty dollars" in line 18, section 1, be struck out, and the words "Two hundred dollars" be substituted therefore.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. KELLNER:: I wish to call attention to what I consider an unfair basis of valuation for cattle. Evidently the question whether an animal is pure-bred is the only thing that determines the valuation of a cow. I think a hand-milked cow, especially one that has a production record, should receive some special consideration in the valuation, and if the valuation of a pure-bred cow is increased to $200, I would suggest that milch cows be raised to $125, especially in the West. In British Columbia the average price of milch cows, according to the report from the Government, is $85, whereas in Alberta it is $48, in Saskatchewan $49 and in Ontario $59. The only source we have for obtaining milch cows in Alberta is from Ontario, and a $59 cow in Ontario, after paying the cost of freight and so on, is only a $49 cow in Alberta. I therefore request that the Government raise the price of a milch cow to $125 in the province of Ontario.
Bill, as amended, reported, read the third time and passed.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Militia and Defence) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 27 respecting the Department of National Defence.

Defence Bill
Arthur Meighen: We should have a statement from the minister on this bill.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I wish to be absolutely
complimentary and to say that the other chamber has made several sweeping amendments to this bill as passed by this House. In one portion of the bill, where it was intended to have the reorganization made by statute, the bill has been amended so that it will be necessary to make that reorganization by Order in Council. I believe it can be made by Order in Council. In another part, what was intended to be done by Order in Council, the Senate has amended to make statutory. Let me make the explanations. Section 5, subsection (3) reads:
The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the minister, may appoint an officer who shall, in reflation to the Naval Service, administer, exercise and perform all the powers, duties and functions vested in or exercisable by the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service by or under the Naval Service Act, and who shall have the rank and salary of a deputy head of a department and shall be a member of the Defence Council.
The Senate -amendment is to insert, after the word "appoint" in line 2 of subsection (3), the words "for a period not exceeding six months." I have no objection to that amendment.


Arthur Meighen: What I should like
the minister to have given is a statement of what is in the bill, even after the Senate amendments, which the Government is not fully empowered to do now under the statute of 1919. I do not see why the bill is introduced -at all except for purposes that the Senate has now eliminated. I merely ask the minister to be good enough to make clear to the House why the Government asks for the bill any longer-what there is in it that the Government would not be empowered to do without the bill passing at all.


George Perry Graham: I cannot speak from technical legal knowledge; but the Government's object in this is to establish a new department, called the Department of National Defence. The establishment of that new department, as I understand the matter, could not be made by Order in Council. It is true, as the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) says, there is a provision by which you can send departments or portions of departments from one department to another; but in this instance we are doing more than that, we are establishing a new department and making provision that this department shall include the Departments of Naval Service, Aviation and Militia. It will not continue to be a Militia Department; it will be a department of a broader scope, called National Defence. This bill changes the title of the minister, and there is another amendment which has been introduced which will enable the minister to be paid under this new arrangement. While many of the things that were in this bill in the first place could have been done by Order in Council, it was the desire of the Government that it should be made clear that what we were doing was by statute and to make the rearrangement of this department statutory. The Senate has made some changes; but it has not changed the important features of the bill, and the amendments that they have made will not prevent the minister from carrying out, by Order in Council, what he intended to do by statute. But I maintain that the bill is necessary if practically a new department is to be established.


Arthur Meighen: I have not yet succeeded in turning up the statute; but having read it some weeks ago, I can speak from memory until I can get the statute before me that I may read it. I am not arguing that the Government, under the statute that now exists, can create a new department; but the Government can unite departments, amalgamate them, and there is no limit to the amalgamation which the Government has power to make. It may be that the department so formed by the union of other departments would require to be called by the name of one of the other departments. It would not be a very serious matter if this department were to continue to be known as the Department of Militia and Defence instead of the Department of National Defence, and it would scarcely be worth while passing a new statute to alter the name. The old name is just as significant as this, and this one has no advantage except, perhaps, that of brevity. Naval Service would be included under the title of Defence; but the old title is just as embracive as is the present one. Consequently, the Government was able, under the statute as it was, to do what it seeks to do by this bill. The minister says: "Oh, under the old statute we acted by Order in Council; we want to act by statute." Under this statute the minister must act by Order in Council, just as under the old.


George Perry Graham: Now.


Arthur Meighen: Undoubtedly. Statutes determine the will of Parliament. Statutes enable the Government to do certain things.
Defence Bill

The old statute determined the will of Parliament and enabled the Government to do this work of amalgamation as it might see fit. This new bill does just the same thing; it is coming back to Parliament, I fear, merely for purposes of advertisement, in order to enable the Government to do what it already could do. Of course, I know that under the original bill the Government was able to do what it could not do under the old statute; that is to say, under the original bill, it was virtually able to take the whole Department of Defence, the Departments of Militia, Naval Service and Aviation, out of the operation of the Civil Service Act. Now, under the amendments of the Senate, I understand, the Government cannot do that,-all credit to those instrumental in protecting the public to that extent. But now we have this bill, and the minister has not made clear what he can do under this bill that he could not have done without the bill. Let me read the former statute, which was assented to on the 12th April, 1918:
His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-
1. (1) The Governor in Council shall have power,-
(a)	to transfer any powers, duties or functions or the control or supervision of any part of the public service from one minister of the Crown to any other minister of the Crown or from one department or portion of the public service to any other department of portion of the public service; or,
(b)	to amalgamate and combine any two or more departments under one minister of the Crown and under one deputy minister,
(2) All orders made by the Governor in Council under the provisions of this act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within fifteen days after they are made if Parliament is then sitting, and if not, then within fifteen days from the commencement of the next ensuing session of Parliament.
This was a bill passed by the late government without any sounding of trumpets.


Mr. BUREAU:: In 1919?


Arthur Meighen: In 1918. Under this act the minister could do all he set out to do under the original legislation, save the evasion of the Civil Service Act and the holding of two deputies instead of one. Consequently, all the minister really set out to do by the new legislation was, first, to evade the Civil Service Act and, second, to preserve two deputies instead of one. Now, why does the minister withdraw this bill and act under the legislation that is already on the statute books?
(.Mr. Meighen 1


Jacques Bureau: In 1921 there was a fusion of the Inland Revenue Department and the Customs Department, and my right hon. friend passed legislation covering the matter, because he had to amend certain statutes. Certain words had to be changed to authorize the proceedings under the new Customs and Excise Act, and legislation was therefore necessary.


Arthur Meighen: What was the subsequent act?


Jacques Bureau: I cannot give the
chapter.


George Perry Graham: I do not think hon. members have a right to make half a dozen speeches at this stage.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If hon. gentlemen desire to discuss the matter in detail we had better go into committee.


George Perry Graham: I move, Mr. Speaker, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the proposed amendments.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On Amendment 5, page 2, line 12-Leave out sub-clauses (5) and (6) of clause 5.
Mr. JOHNSON (Moosejaw) :: Do I
understand the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) to say that it is not necessary to pass legislation, because the object in view could be secured by Order in Council, but that such Order in Council would have to come before Parliament for ratification?


Arthur Meighen: The statute reads, like all others of the kind, that the regulations passed by the Governor in Council under the authority of the act must be laid on the Table of the House within fifteen days, if the House is sitting, or within fifteen days of its next ensuing session.


George Perry Graham: The statute gives certain powers, but not all the powers which the present situation demands. My right hon. friend says that we could, without additional legislation, bring other departments into the Department of Militia. I should like him to try to bring the Naval Service under the Militia Department. Possibly it may be a small thing, but the Government decided to follow the practice that obtains in several of the other overseas dominions and call the defence department the Department of National Defence, which would include the militia and the navy. It will be conceded, I think,

Defence Bill
that this is wise, and hon. gentlemen will agree that it becomes necessary, if we are to do that, to have this legislation in order to create that new department. The object is not, as my right hon. friend suggests, to get around the Civil Service Commission. That is all imaginary. Correspondence passed between the commission and myself and they thoroughly understand the object of the Government, which is not as my right hon. friend indicates. Owing to the amendments a classification will have to be made before clerks from other branches are taken in. Under the terms of the original bill we could have taken them in and then they would have been classified, but it would take three or four weeks longer to make the amalgamation, That is the only difference; but there is no attempt to get around the Civil Service Commission.


Jacques Bureau: The same procedure was followed by my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) when he was in power. Last year he amalgamated the departments of Inland Revenue and Customs, under Chapter 26, 11-12 George V, in exactly the same way as we propose here. And it is only natural that legislation should be passed, because you have to amend certain sections of the existing act. This act is cited as "the Department of Customs and Excise Act". Section 2 reads:
The Minister of Customs and Excise shall be substituted for the Minister of Customs and for the Minister of Inland Revenue, etc.
The change is made by statute.


Arthur Meighen: The act to which my hon. friend refers undoubtedly was passed, but he will find that it was composed practically entirely of amendments to the old act, entirely aside from the question of amalgamation. Certainly if the amalgamated departments are to be known by a new name legislation is necessary, if it is considered important enough. And there may be one or two other things in the present case that make legislation indispensable. I do not know what they are, and I ask the minister to point out what there is in the new legislation that he could not do under the existing statute.


George Perry Graham: I have pointed out one very important thing, and that is the necessity for changing the name. At least, we think it is better to have the department called the Department of National Defence, and the change therefore necessitates new legislation. Let me quote a part of section 7:
7.	(1) All the powers, duties and functions vested in any minister or deputy minister by The Naval Service Act, chapter forty-three of the statutes of 1910; the Militia Act, chapter forty-one of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906 ; the Militia Pension Act, chapter forty-two of the said Revised Statutes; the Royal Military College Act, chapter forty-three of the said Revised Statutes, and all Acts in amendment of any of the said acts, shall be vested in and performed and exercised by the Minister and Deputy Minister of National Defence respectively, and wherever the terms "Department" "Minister", anid "Deputy Minister" appear or are referred to in any of the said acts, or in any order or regulation made under any of the said Acts, the same shall, after the passing of this act, mean the Department of National Defence, the Minister of National Defence, and the Deputy Minister of National Defence respectively.
It seems to me that this plan is so plain that there can be no reasonable objection. The right hon. gentleman said that the statute which he cited gave the Government the right to make the amalgamation in the way it chose. That being the case, we choose to make it this way, by statute, which is the simpler and better way.


Mr. BAXTER:: If the minister only
wants to change the name, I do not see why we should not get together and assist him. In view of the reduction in the estimates for the militia and naval defence, why not call the new department the Department of National Pretence?


George Perry Graham: You	need legislation
to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 9-act to come into force on proclamation by the Governor-in-Council:
George Perry Graham: Owing to the amendments it appears necessary that this clause be inserted to enable the act to come into force, not when signed, but by proclamation after reclassification of the department is completed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Senate Amendments reported, read the second time, and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. D. D. McKenzie (Solicitor General) Bill No. 92 to amend the Dominion Elections Act was read the second time, land the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On Suib-section 2 of Section 1-Change of elector's residence, etc.
Dominion Elections Act
Robert Milton Johnson: I have no fault to find with this subsection, but I do not think it makes clear whether the elector so referred to shall vote in the constituency which he has left or in that to which he has gone. It merely says that he may vote.


Mr. McKENZIE:: It is clearly the intention that the elector shall vote in the district in which he resided immediately before the election.


Mr. HANSON:: I agree with the intention, but it does strike me that the hon. member for Moosejaw has clearly stated wherein the subsection is insufficient. There should be some words of limitation. I am afraid that as the subsection now stands many a man might think he was qualified to vote in two places.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Suppose you insert
after the word "qualified" in the tenth line, the words "to vote in such electoral district"? Then the subsection would read:
At a general election, any person who would have heen qualified to vote in an electoral district it he had continued to reside therein, shall remain so qualified to vote in such electoral district, notwithstanding that he has, within two months-
And so on.


Jacques Bureau: That is, he would have to go back to his former place of residence. That is hardly right.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I think the sub-section as drafted is perfectly clear, but I see some difficulty as to its utility. If a man has simply moved, we will say, from one district in the city of Montreal to another, the amendment will be practically helpful to him; but suppose a man moves from Vancouver to Winnipeg, you are giving him no vote at all by this legislation because the cost of travelling back to Vancouver is prohibitive to him. Would it not be possible to devise ample yet well-guarded means by which a man's vote will really be transferred? I know we spend a great deal of time trying to get votes for people who do not bother to go to the poll. The usual experience is that you have to chase your man and find out where he came from and that he is entitled to vote, and then get him on the list. But that does not end your troubles. After having taken those steps you very often have to see that he goes to the poll, and to do this without violating the law is not at all an easy matter. Unfortunately, some electors will not take the

trouble to look after themselves. But if we are going to try to make this legislation absolutely perfect so that no one will be without opportunity to cast his vote, why not have a system) that will meet all cases, instead of a system that will meet only a very small percentage of cases?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As far as I am concerned, I am merely implementing the will of the House which passed the two resolutions asking that an amendment along this line be made. This amendment is recommended by the officers whose business it is to see to the proper drafting of legislation of this kind. Under the present law a man ^can vote only in the district in which he resided at the time the writs were issued; if he moves one hundred yards away to another street in the same city- even if he moves across the street-he is deprived of his vote. The amendment is to provide that if he wishes to get back to the place where he lived when the writs were issued, he shall have the right to vote. My own view was that a man who moved away should have the right to vote where he went, but after a good deal of consideration we have reached the conclusion that it is better perhaps to leave the law as it is in that respect. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) says that there is a great deal of difficulty in getting people to vote. There is no doubt about that. Sometimes, coming pretty close to the borders of the law, we have to go to some expense in getting people to the polls, and I do not want to put any further temptation in the way of my hon. friend by making it possible for him to bring a man back from Vancouver to vote in St. John. Of course, if any further words are necessary to make the law clear, I shall not object to adding them.


Hugh Guthrie: Without doubt the proposed amendment will cure by far the greatest number of difficulties which arises in regard to the votes of people who have changed their residences immediately prior to an election. There will be odd cases where men will go long distances and it will be impossible to give them votes. In going those great distances they must forfeit something, and for the time being they will forfeit their votes. But in seventy-five per cent of the cases the changes take place either in the large cities, through the voter moving from one riding to another, or on account of his moving from one part of the province to another, from one constituency to another-very often adjoining

Dominion Elections Act
constituencies. All such persons will be relieved from disqualification by this amendment. I do not think we should go further. If you attempt to frame legislation to give the elector the right to vote in the constituency to which he goes, you will make it possible to colonize votes, should any one be inclined to go to that extent. I am satisfied that the section as now drafted carries out the will of Parliament as expressed in the resolutions. On reading it over I think the clause was well enough drafted in the first instance, but the addition of a few words would no doubt make it clearer. I therefore move that after the word "qualified" in the tenth line, the following words be added:
To vote in such electoral district.


Mr. NEILL:: I think this amendment is worse than the evil which it seeks to remedy. The result will be that these men who are entitled to vote in another district may be paid to come back and vote in the original district. They will have lost all interest in the place which they left, and it will be in the interests of those who have ample campaign funds at their disposal to bring them back. That is not desirable. Moreover, it will lead to the possibility of personation, because when there are on the roll, especially in a rural district, a number of names of persons who are not in that district, there will be greater temptation to others to vote under their names, and greater possibility of their doing so. In British Columbia provincial elections we have a very excellent regulation which almost entirely prevents personation. Every man, when he goes to vote, has to sign his name, and that is compared with his original registration. Apart from that, men who are away are dealt with in this manner. By what is called the absentee vote, a man who is entitled to vote in Vancouver may vote in any district in British Columbia by signing a certain form; the vote is then put into an envelope, marked with the name of his riding, and is in due course forwarded to the returning officer of that riding. This enables any man in British Columbia to vote in any riding in which he is entitled to vote, and it also entirely prevents personation. The only objection to it is that it delays a little the final returns, because you have to wait until letters can reach the returning officer of the riding in question from some other portion of British Columbia. If the system followed in British Columbia cannot be adopted here, I suggest that instead of putting a man back to where he was originally,
his vote be taken in the district to which he has moved. An hon. member has suggested that that might lead to colonization of votes, but that might easily be prevented. Under the present arrangement, a man has to be two months in the riding prior to the date of the issuing of the writ. In the case of the last elction, which was held on the 6th of December, the writ was issued, I believe, about the 13th of October. That means that a man must be in the district about four months before the election in order to be entitled to vote, and hardship results in the case of people who have been less than four months in the district. It is the object of the present amendment to remedy that. I submit that the difficulty would be just as easily remedied by reducing that period of two months to one month prior to the date of the issuing of the writ. That would still provide for three months' residence before election day in the district in which the elector would be entitled to vote. It would be a preventive of colonization, a preventive of personation, and enable a man to vote where his interests are more likely to lie than in a district with which he has, perhaps, entirely severed his connection.


Mr. HOCKEN:: When the hon. member (Mr. Guthrie) says that it would facilitate colonization of votes to allow a man to vote in the constituency that he has left, I do not agree with him. I am satisfied that to allow the man to vote in the constituency that he left within the two months is more likely to result in an honest vote
4 p.m. than to allow him to vote In the constituency to which he has gone. As I have stated before in the House, it was discovered that almost twenty per cent of the voters in about half of my constituency had during the two months left that riding-at least, they were not to be found in it-and gone to another riding. Now their names are on the voters' lists, you cannot get lists prepared on which such names will not appear. If any person felt disposed to canvass the district and find out how many persons were away at election time those voters could be personated; it would be almost impossible, at any rate it would require a tremendous organization, to prevent very wide personation. I have said I believe this difficulty exists almost entirely in the cities, and it certainly prevails there to a very great extent. In saying that I know I can speak for the city of Toronto; but I believe it will be found that in Montreal the removals
Dominion Elections Act

are quite as numerous especially at certain times of the year. Then the removals would be greater, perhaps, than in any other city in the Dominion. I think the way in which the minister has framed the bill makes the very best provision for overcoming the difficulty.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: I think the addition of the words suggested by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) should probably cover the point. A new contention seems to have arisen but this matter is not entirely confined to the cities -in fact that is not the case to nearly as large an extent as members from the cities may think. I would be quite prepared, if time permitted, to show that this condition has existed in rural constituencies. However, there are two classes of voters dealt with here. Take a Canadian citizen who has resided in, let us say if you like, a Toronto riding. He has moved some distance away but he has still the right to vote although not in the constituency to which he has gone because he is a Canadian citizen; he could go back to the constituency in which he formerly resided. The other case is where the voter has been three months in a constituency, and might not have been entitled to vote at all but nevertheless did vote.


Alan Webster Neill: I could point out one large class of people that were disfranchised last year by this practice, and that is the school teachers of British Columbia. School begins about the first of September and practically ninety-five per cent of them were unable to vote at the last election because they had not qualified; they had been away for their holidays, or had gone to their homes, and they were not back before August 13, and consequently were all disfranchised. One hon. member said it is easy for them to go back. I would like to ask, how many school teachers in country districts have facilities for going back to the districts from which they came? The same can be said of other people who in many cases are not able to go back either on account of business conditions, or because they feel they cannot afford the expense.


Mr. CARROLL:: I fail to see the necessity of discussing the merits of this amendment to the Dominion Elections Act. It was debated at very considerable length some weeks ago, and the unanimous opinion of the House at that time was that such an amendment should be made

to the law. There can be no doubt as to the meaning of the amendment in view of the words placed in sub-section 2 of the act on the motion of the hon. member for South Wellington. No doubt there are difficulties in connection with the working of the act, and difficulties will arise so long as elections are run, but the Solicitor General, or the Justice Department, is doing no more or less than to put into effect the unanimous recommendation of this House as passed some weeks ago, and I fail to see why, at this particular juncture, the merits of the bill should be discussed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN:: Is sub-clause 2 as amended carried?


Alan Webster Neill: I have an amendment to move, to be known as clause 2:
That in rural subdivisions election day should be a public holiday.
That amendment does not require any explanation. It is a well-known feature of several of the political platforms in this country to-day, and it is a very necessary thing. Large numbers of rural electors were disqualified at the last election because they had only two hours in which to vote. Now two hours in a city is ample; you have only got to go a few blocks in order to vote, but two hours in rural districts is absolutely prohibitive. A man lives five or ten miles from the polling division and he has to go by water or by road. He is allowed off, we will say, at four o'clock in the afternoon, he has got to get his supper, and drive ten miles. Which of us is able to do that in a couple of hours? It is not a case of one or two men losing their votes, but upwards of fifty, sixty and eighty votes in a polling subdivision were lost at the last election, because two hours is not sufficient time in the remote rural districts to allow men to go to the polling station. I think that must be known to many of the members of ' this House. It is no great concession to allow this privilege once every four years.
I do not suggest that the employers should be compelled to pay their employees for that day off. Let the men take the day off at their own expense. Surely the individual voter has enough interest in the affairs of his country to be willing to take a day off at his own expense once in a period of four years. I have heard the workers themselves express their opinions on this point. They are quite favourable to it, their only

Dominion Elections Act
fear being that if a man took a day off he would lose his job. It is for that reason I move the amendment. I am asking that it be confined to rural constituencies, not that it be applied to polling divisions in urban constituencies.


Hugh Guthrie: According to the Election Act an urban polling division is one where there is a population of not less than 2,500; all others are rural polls. Hitherto in this House a demand that polling day should be made a holiday has always come from the urban centres; this is the first time I have heard the suggestion that polling day should be made a public holiday so far as rural sections are concerned. When the act was under discussion and was brought into effect a couple of years ago, this question was pretty fully discussed and it was the sense of the House that polling day should not be made a public holiday in Canada, on the ground that we already had a great many public holidays by statute. And, as the demand then came exclusively, I think, from urban centres, it was felt that the two hours granted for polling in those centres and in other centres too, was ample for the purpose. My hon. friend who is moving this amendment would, I think, agree in that view-that two hours is sufficient in urban centres. Now I have never heard any demand, apart from the motion moved to-day, that polling day In rural sections be declared a public holiday. Personally I do not think it is necessary at all. I think we should have evidence, in the shape of some general demand in that respect, before we agree to this proposal.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I want to support
very strongly the amendment by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I know that in my own riding there are a number of employers who employ a large amount of labour, such as lumbermen, mill workers and others; and if the men vote right they are given a holiday at election time, if they do not vote right they are absolutely forbidden to attend the election, and if they do so will be dismissed. I think it is only proper that such an amendment as this should be carried into effect, but only as to rural constituencies. I think myself that in the urban centres especially, the advance poll that is now provided for commercial travellers, railway men, and others, who cannot attend at the usual hour of polling, meets the case. At any rate I would be inclined to allow the members
representing urban constituencies to be the best judges as to that. But certainly in the rural polling districts election day should be declared a public holiday.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I dissent emphatically from the statement made by the hon. member from Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell). I am astonished to hear him say that such a state of things prevails in his constituency. I do not think that sort of thing prevails in the province of New Brunswick generally. I would like to be furnished with the names of the employers. Things are not in such a state, in any of the rural parts of the province of New Brunswick, that the free expresssion of opinion on the part of employees is interfered with in any way by employers. I think the hon. member has done a grave injustice to a certain class of men in his constituency. Furthermore, elections now as a rule, occur in the summer season, when the people in the rural communities can get to the polls.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, they should be in a summer season. Any political party that brings on an election in mid-winter ought, in my .opinion, to be assasinated.


An hon. MEMBER:: Well, they were.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would like to say, that being the case, the farming community, except a few, come out and vote, and go back to work as quickly as they can, and they would be the last to ask that it be made a public holiday. In my opinion, there are too many public holidays.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: I see no advantage in having election day a public holiday, and no necessity for it. For the last six general elections in which I have been a candidate, the most inclement season of the year has been chosen for holding the election. I have never been in an election except in the end of November or the beginning of December. That places the people in these rural parts at a great disadvantage. On account of the very bad roads, they have great trouble in reaching the polling boothes in their constituencies. Owing to lumbering operations hundreds of men lose their vote at the general election because they are absent, probably camping hundreds of miles away. These men never vote. For years they have not been able to cast a vote.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Then why not have a holiday?
Dominion Elections Act


Mr.   M ARGIL@Bonaventure: Because they cannot get to the poll. Some of them work for $15 or $18 a month. Those who could secure employment in my constituency were paid that wage. They cannot afford to take three or four days to go back to cast their vote. If the elections were held in the proper season, in the fall of the year, or at some propitious time, a much larger vote would be cast than the vote which is now recorded. In my constituency the advance polls were an utter failure. In one poll one vote was cast, and in another poll two votes were cast. It was entirely unnecessary to hold those advance polls. Therefore, I think there is no necessity for a holiday.


Mr. GOULD:: So far as the vision of the members of the House is concerned, it would not be, very difficult for them to realize conditions similar to those I shall refer to. On our plains, with an election coming on in the winter time, as occurred last year, many of our residents were, at least, fourteen miles from the polls. Again, perhaps a man had in his employ one or two men who were diametrically opposed to him in political ideas, and this employer prevented those men going to the polls, to express their wishes. Such cases did occur, not only in my district, but in many districts throughout Canada, and the resolution proposed by the hon. member from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has in view eliminating those conditions. I know that there are provisions made whereby we can have polls located more conveniently. I did succeed, in a measure, in having some more polls in my district, but not sufficient to meet the requirements. People simply could not come out to the polls. Fortunately, we had a very good day on the 6th of December last, and that, of itself, induced many of our women to come out. So far as the holiday is concerned, I think, for the rural districts, as expressed in the resolution, it is not going to work any hardship upon any one. While the hon. member from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) never had a request from the rural districts, he -has likewise never heard any condemnation, and if we in the rural districts express ourselves in favour of it, I am sure the hon. member will approve of our stand.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: I desire to support the proposition submitted by the hon. member from Oomox-Aflberni. In our part of the country, fortunately, the good people take such a keen interest in political matters that we always have a holiday,

even if it is not in the statutes. In the United States, the first Tuesday in November, their election day, is always a holiday. I see no valid reason that can be urged against putting it in the statutes, and providing that one day out of every four years, when there is a general election, when our people want to determine which party is going to govern the country in the next parliament, should be a holiday. I think it is of sufficient importance that they should take the whole day off in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is only for rural polls-not for urban polls.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the circumstances. The amendment we are discussing is one that passed the House in the form of a resolution which was carefully debated. The Government had not thought of opening up the Dominion Elections Act for general discussion at this time. Doubtless the act will require to be gone over before another election and possibly several amendments made. I would submit to my hon. friend that, inasmuch as his proposed amendment has a good deal to be said in its favour, and against it, perhaps, this would not be the best time to press it for a vote. I am drawing his attention to the fact that the only amendments that are suggested here are amendments that were carried at an earlier stage in the session, and I think it would be better to consider the amendment that my hon. friend has made some time when the Elections Act itself is before the House.


Alan Webster Neill: In deference to the suggestion of the Prime Minister, I am willing to withdraw the amendment. But I wish to point out, as he truly says, that this act is the result of two resolutions debated in this House, I suppose, for six or eight hours at very considerable expense. I had, at that time, the same amendment that I wish to move now, but I did not conceive it was my duty to introduce a resolution on the subject. It appears to me that we have gone in too much this session for government by resolution. Everybody who wanted something passed introduced a resolution, and wasted, or spent, a day on it. I thought I would wait until the Act was being amended and then introduce it at the proper time. That is the reason I did not propose it. But in view of the lateness of the session, and, let us hope, the impossibility of an election

Dominion Elections Act
for a long time, I would be willing to withdraw my amendment.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I have no objection to the hon. member withdrawing the amendment. But has the Government any intention this session, or at a future session, of basing any resolution on the report of the chief electoral officer? He is required to make a report for the purpose of calling our attention to the difficulties which may arise in working out of the act. Some difficulties have arisen. I confess that I have only partly read the report. If my hon. friend had pressed this motion, I would have followed it up by another one, to meet one of the real difficulties with regard to the advance polls. Some things have been said in this chamber-more, I think, in private conversation on this side of the House than for all members to hear; but I noticed a remark of one of my hon. friends that in the advance polls where the people had not voted, they would not get a chance to do so again, because, automatically, under the act, the chief electoral officer must cut them out. I have an instance in my constituency- which I shall call that of St. John and suburbs, as the name is a long one-where, through a peculiar description in the schedule, it is practically impossible to get the right for the railwaymen, of whom there are a considerable number in that constituency, to vote at an advance poll. The chief electoral officer has held that the elector must be resident within the limits of the place named in the schedule. As a matter of fact, they have named Fairville in the schedule for New Brunswick. Fairville is not a place at all; it is simply the name of a locality; it has no boundaries; it is not incorporated; no one can say where it begins or where it ends; it is a portion of the parish of Lancaster, and that is all you can say about it. But both the chief electoral officer and the returning officer refused to take a broad view of this matter, and held that men could not vote who were outside of what is popularly recognized as Fairville. They could not vote even though they were railwaymen and even though the intention of the act was undoubtedly to assist them in that regard. I was going to ask for a change in the schedule because, undoubtedly, I think the people in this particular locality, by not getting the advantage of the act in this instance, have probably lost the right to the benefit of it in the future. They ought not to lose that right; it is a wise convenience if it is properly made use of; but I think it should not be read in such a restricted manner as it was by the chief electoral officer. If the Government is going to consider the matter later on, I will not bother moving an amendment at the present time.
Subclause, as amended, agreed to.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have another
amendment which I should like to offer and it is this:
Where any new polls are established, they shaJll be established not less than two months prior to polling day.
I want to give my reasons for moving this amendment. Last fall, I learned quite accidentally one evening, just two weeks prior to the election, that six new polls had been established in my riding. Last session there was an amendment passed that there shall be a registrar or enumerator for each polling division; that he shall prepare a copy of the lists, and that the candidates shall be furnished with a copy of the lists for each polling division and the name of the registrar two weeks prior to polling day. I went to the returning officer to inquire if it was a fact that those new polls had been established, because I had no notice of the enumerators, and he said that it was. I asked him if he had his enumerators or registrars appointed for the polls and who they were: He said: "No, and I do not propose to appoint any." I asked him how he proposed to get a list of those polls and to furnish it to the candidate on nomination day. He said that he did not propose to have a list for each polling division. He was subdividing one polling division into four. He said that he was going to have them all prepared as one list and revised as that. He said: "We will provide a copy of each poll for the deputy returning officer on election day, but no lists will be prepared for the candidates." This would mean that the elector would not know at which of the four polls he was entitled to vote. Neither the candidate nor the elector would know this; nobody but the deputy returning officer would have a copy of the list on election day. To make a long story short, I had to employ a lawyer and to threaten an injunction to stop the election in order to get those lists, and I got them two days after I should have had them. Had I not found this out accidentally, I would not have had them at all. When we got the lists, we found as many as forty names left off lists in one or other of these polling divisions.
Dominion Elections Act

Every one of these new divisions- had a very badly prepared list, a list that would have worked to my disadvantage. On one list there were names on, that should not have been on, that we probably would not have been able to detect until election day, and this would have meant that electors who had resided in that district for years would have been deprived of their franchise.


Hugh Guthrie: In what way?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The polling district
was very large-*


Hugh Guthrie: An elector is entitled
to go and vote in the district in which he resides.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not wish to be interrupted. The polling district was large enough that a man might go to, say, Holmesville. He would be told: "Your name is not here." He might then go to Upper Kent and he would be told: "Your name is not on this list." He might then go to Bath and be told: "Your name is not here." By the time he got to the fourth poll, it might be too late for him to vote. The electors have a right to know before polling day at what poll they are entitled to vote; they should not be compelled to travel from one poll to another to find that out. Had I not found this out through an accident and threatened an injunction to stop the election, nobody outside of the deputy returning officer would have known where these electors were to vote. There was no boundary given, and we had absolutely no way of telling where any man should vote in that very large section of country.


Hugh Guthrie: No elector would be disqualified, even on the statement of my hon. friend. They could vote where they could swear that they were resident. We put that in this law expressly for all rural polls to enable a man to vote where he had a right to vote, whether he was on the list or whether there was a list or not.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I understand that perfectly, but I think I pointed out plainly to the hon. gentleman that we did not know which poll they had a right to vote in. We had no definition of the boundaries of those new polling divisions and no lists for them. At least, we would not have had, had I not taken the steps that I took, and this put me to some bother and expense. We compelled the returning officer to provide the lists for us before election day. Moreover,
[Mr. CaldwelLl
I think there should be a provision in the act-I am not sure that there is not-that where there is a sheriff in a riding, he should be the returning officer. In my riding, there are two sheriffs as it comprises two counties. One sheriff is a Liberal and the other a Conservative, both very estimable men. I do not know whether they were not selected as returning officers because they were too honest, but they were not selected. The then government selected as returning officer a man for whom I have a great regard; but many things occurred in this election that would not have occurred if one of those sheriffs had been returning officer. I do not think I would have had to put an injunction on the election had either of these sheriffs been returning officer. They have both been returning officers in elections time and again, and they have discharged their duties satisfactorily. This was what we were up against last fall when the government passed over the heads of these two men to select another man, on I do not know what qualifications.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The remarks which I made to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) apply equally to the hon. member for Victoria and Carle-ton (Mr. Caldwell). There is no doubt that the Dominion Act will need some revision, a number of amendments will have to be made; but I think the House will be well advised not to attempt to-day to consider any amendments other than those we are discussing in the form of resolutions in this House.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I should like to ask the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton if he brought those circumstances which he related to the attention of the Chief Electoral Officer.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I did not have time. The time was so short.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Since?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: No, I did not.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I only ask the question for the purpose of trying to emphasize something that I consider is of a great deal of value to us all, because I think our aim ought to be to have the people treated fairly in the matter of an election, utterly regardless of what party they intend to support

that is their right. ' There is no more valuable provision in this election act than the one by which anybody, especially a member of Parliament, is invited to communicate to the Chief Electoral Officer any ir-

Fisheries Act Amdt.
regularities, defaults, or improper conduct on the part of any one in connection with an election. If hon. members would do that it would save us a lot of time spent in debating matters here. I know that if we went into the past electoral history of my hon. friend's constituency we could be very acrimonious, but we should not get very far. There are many people in that constituency that neither of us would trust in connection with an election. But if an officer has, in the opinion of my hon. friend, misunderstood or failed to do his duty, there is the place to make the report; and if legislative intervention is necessary, the Chief Electoral Officer, before Parliament meets, can not only make his report but'draft adequate legislation to protect the interests of the people. We should get very much further ahead by such a method, and I would suggest that that be done. I might say that in regard to the very matter I spoke of a few moments ago, as well as touching several other matters that came under my observation, I made a report to the electoral officer. Fortunately, in my constituency I did not have a single complaint to make in regard to any one, and I was very glad of the fact. I trust that when the time comes the Government will keep the electoral officer working and let him submit a bill, the Government acting merely as sponsor, so that the legislation might be as non-partisan and as useful as possible.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The hon. senior member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter), said that I should have made a report to the Chief Electoral Officer, as he did. Well, I do not see any amendments in acordance with the recommendations he made to him. The amendment which is before the committee I moved for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of the Government in order that it might receive their consideration, and perhaps might impress upon them the necessity for a great number of changes in the Election Act. However, I am perfectly willing to withdraw the amendment in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister that an opportunity will be given to amend that act.
Bill, as amended, reported, read the third time, and passed.



THE FISHERIES ACT, 1914, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 70, to amend The Fisheries Act, 1914.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1.-Penalty for leaving any port in Canada with intent to fish for salmon or lobsters in sea beyond territorial waters.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: What changes are contemplated?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: There are no changes; the section is merely to confirm by statute regulations that already exist. Both lobster and salmon fishing are carried on not only inside territorial waters, but outside as well, and if there were no regulations with regard to fishing outside, the fisheries would undoubtedly be depleted within a short time. There is nothing new in the principle; it has always been understood, and up to the present time there has been no attempt to violate the intention of the regulation. It has come to the notice of the department, however, that in some sections of the country people who are not given licenses are prepared to challenge the authority of the Government restraining them from fishing outside territorial waters. As a matter of fact the lobster fisheries regulations have always contained a provision of this kind, as do the British Columbia salmon regulations. It is the opinion of the Department of Justice that it is better for us to have this regulation enacted in legislation instead of merely being enforced as at present. I may add that the United States have a similar provision in their fisheries law.


Henry Lumley Drayton: All that is being done, therefore, is to enact in the form of a statute regulations that are already in force.


Ernest Lapointe: Exactly.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2.-Burden of proof.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Does the minister not think that perhaps, in view of the fact that the magistracy of the country is not always of the calibre that one would like to see, it is going a little too far to place the burden of proof in this matter on the accused? If such an accused were tried before a jury he would have more chances of getting off, even if the burden of proof were put upon him, than he would have before a magistrate when that burden rests upon him. The magistrates, somehow, especially the less business they have, seem
281S
Fisheries Act Amdt.

to think that it is their duty to convict a man who is brought before them; the assumption seems to be that he must be guilty if he comes before them. The burden of proving absence of intent or knowledge lies with the person accused, and I should be sorry indeed to be called upon to prove that on behalf of the most worthy client I ever had, before a certain species of magistrate with whom I have come in contact. The section goes rather too far; it should be enough if there is at least a prima facie case made against the accused. But to have imposed upon one the absolute burden of proving innocence is further than our laws go, except with regard to whiskey.


Mr. MARTELL:: I appreciate what the minister is endeavouring to get at. The regulations apply practically only to our own Canadian people, and they cover fishing in extra-territorial waters as well as in the territorial area. I presume these regulations are intended to apply particularly to lobster fishing. There is a section of the Fisheries Act that provides that no person shall offer for sale, or have in his posession, lobsters caught in a manner or at a time prohibited by law. Prior to amendment the act contained a clause to the effect that:
No one shall without lawful excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, have in his possession fish caught at a time or in a manner prohibited by law.
It was found very difficult to prove that the fish were caught "at a time or in a manner prohibited by law." Now that the act is being amended, the minister undoubtedly wants the amendment to apply to extraterritorial waters. But I quite agree with my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Baxter) that it is almost an outrage to place this burden of proof in all cases upon the defendant. In my short experience as a legal practitioner in Nova Scotia, I regret to say, usually I have found the magistrates are not fit persons to administer justice. As the hon. member for St. John says, the mere fact that a person is brought before the court is usually regarded as conclusive evidence that he should be convicted. If cases were dealt with by a court of competent jurisdiction, you would feel that justice would be administered; but to cast the burden of proof upon the accused who is at the mercy of the magistrate is, I think, going too far. In fact, the whole tenor of criminal and quasi-criminal legislation seems to be to

cast on the accused the burden of proving himself innocent rather than that the prosecution should prove him guilty. I do not believe this sub-section is necessary at all, and I would urge the minister to strike it from the bill, because there is ample provision to deal with these cases under our present law. Do not compel a man to prove himself innocent who is charged by some officious officer or half detective on very slight evidence perhaps of some such offence as this subsection is intended to cover. I move that section 2 of the bill be struck out.


Mr. LADNER:: This affects British
Columbia as well as the other maritime provinces, and if this clause is struck out I know that the effect of the bill will be vitiated entirely in British Columbia. It is extremely difficult in cases of this kind to prove intent, especially among certain. classes of foreigners. Therefore I submit that, with all due regard to our legal tradition, which place the onus of proof upon the prosecution, there are some circumstances, as in the present case, where that tradition may safely be departed from. In this case the fine is not very burdensome, and the purpose is to aid an important industry. The bill as drafted is intended to meet special circumstances, all of which are not before the House. I think the clause should be accepted.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I cannot help but
think that it is setting a dangerous precedent to say that a man accused of crime must prove himself innocent. It is contrary to British justice, and I know the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) is pretty good at quoting British precedents. One can imagine a case, an extreme one it may be, where a fishery inspector having a grudge against a certain man could put him to all sorts of expense and annoyance by accusing him of intent to break the law as set forth in this section. I do not think you should prosecute a man before he puts his intentions into execution. Therefore, I think that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) is sound.
I do not think we should pass special legislation to meet the very lawless condition in British Columbia referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) , and so put in jeopardy the law-abiding citizens of the eastern maritime provinces.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would suggest to the minister that he report progress on this

Canada Shipping Act
bill and have the clause redrafted along the lines of making the possession of certain things or the doing of certain acts prima facie evidence of guilt, rather than require the accused to absolutely prove his innocence. No doubt the officers in this department will advise my hon. friend as to what could be fairly taken as prima facie evidence of intent. The difficulty is that the penalty does not stop even at $1,000, but that the whole catch, the vessel itself, the gear and everything may be forfeited. That may be done by one justice of the peace, and he may be very much prejudiced against the accused. At first I was inclined to agree with the suggestion of my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Martell), but on further consideration I think that if adopted it might be going a little too far in the other direction. I can see the difficulties in the minds of other members. There should be what I might term a half-way house, by which, while the accused would not be able to escape the law too easily, yet at the same time he would not be absolutely ruined through perhaps not even a feeling of spite, hut an ignorant desire on the part of some official to do what he thinks is right.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree that on general principles it is dangerous to put the burden of proof of his innocence on the accused party; but, as my hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) said, this is a special law intended to meet special conditions, and if this provision, or one of a similar nature, is not inserted in the bill perhaps the purpose of this legislation would not be achieved. I do not see that the section as drafted would work any great hardship, because after all a person cannot go fishing without a license, and the moment a man is caught fishing without a license, the purport of the law is accomplished and it should be for him to prove that he does not come within its provisions. However, I am willing to accept the suggestion of my jion. friend from St. John (Mr. Baxter) and will ask that the committee rise and report progress so that the clause can be redrafted to meet the objections raised.


Mr. DUFF:: There is nothing wrong with the clause. Let us go ahead and put it through.


Lewis Herbert Martell: There is something
wrong with it.
Progress reported.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT (PILOTAGE)

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) Bill No. 79, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Pilotage) was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon Mr. Gordon in the Chair.	*
On section 1-Foreign ships of war and hospital ships may be made exempt ships.
Ernest Lapointe: Under the Pilotage
Act all ships have to pay pilotage dues whether or not they require the services of a pilot. There are some exceptions, and this bill is for the purpose of adding to those exceptions., The first amendment exempts from the payment of pilotage dues the ships of war and hospi-5.p.m. tal ships belonging to such fore-eign nations as may be specified by the. Governor in Council. The idea is to extend that privilege to those nations which grant a similar privilege to British warships. As a matter of fact, in practice they never have been required to pay the dues; the amendment is to bring the law into accord with recognized practice. The second exception excludes ships registered in Canada which are engaged exclusively in fishing. These ships have not been compelled to pay the pilotage dues in the past. The amendment is to prevent any difficulties which might arise from the fact that under the law as it now stands these vessels could be compelled to pay such dues.


William Duff: I am quite in accord with
these amendments, especially the first, which says that ships of war and hospital ships belonging to such foreign nation or nations as may be specified by the Governor in Council shall be exempt from the payment of pilotage dues. If only as a matter of courtesy, Canada should be quite willing to pilot ships of war of other nations, so long as they are friendly nations, into our ports without asking them to pay pilotage dues. Everybody will agree that so far as hospital ships are concerned .the amendment is a good one. Subsection (j) however, provides that the following ships shall also be exempt:
*Ships registered in Canada engaged exclusively in fishing.
I suggest that the word "exclusively" be struck out. A great many fishing vessels, after they put dn the season's fishing from, say, January until October, go coasting or

Canada Shipping Act

freighting, and you are going to have a mix-up if you leave the word "exclusively" in.	*


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Why not make it read, " while engaged exclusively in fishing "?


William Duff: No; that would not serve my purpose. These fishing vessels are small schooners; they are not really coasting or freighting vessels. They are not engaged all the time in coasting or freighting, but if they can enter a harbour while engaged in the fishing business without paying these dues, they should be able to do so while engaged in coasting or freighting in the fall.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is it not a fact that these vessels never employ a pilot?


William Duff: They do not; the captains of these vessels are as good men as the pilots themselves.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Under the present
act they could be compelled to pay pilotage dues, although they never avail themselves of the pilotage?


William Duff: Exactly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are they ever charged pilotage?


William Duff: Oh, yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Those engaged in fishing are not.


William Duff: Yes, those over a certain number of tons, I think.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not object to the striking out of the word " exclusively


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Ernest Lapointe: I move that the following subclause be added to clause 1 of the bill:
2.	Subparagraph (1) of paragraph (c) of the said subsection one is repealed, and the following is substituted in lieu thereof:
"(i) employed in trading from port to port in the same province, or employed in any one port or harbour, or
As the law is to-day the exception reads as follows:
(i) employed in trading from port to port in the same province.
A case arose the other day of a ship which was engaged in trading, not from one port to another port in the province, but from one part of a port to another part of the same port. As the law stands, that ship was not exempt and the amendment is to cover cases of that kind.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Where you
have coastal business going on between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia why should you discriminate at all?


Ernest Lapointe: There is a special provision for that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are you going to look after that?


Ernest Lapointe: There is a provision already in the bill dealing with trading between any or all of the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island. I move, also, Mr. Chairman, that the following be added to clause 1 of the bill as subsection "k".
Vessels engaged in salvage or towing operations.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. G. P. Graham (Minister of Militia and Defence) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Air Board Act, chapter 11 of the statutes of 1919 (1st Session), to provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the compensation to be paid, the persons to whom, and the manner in which, such compensation shall be payable, for the death or injury resulting directly from a flight undertaken in the course of duty in the public service of Canada of any person employed in the public service of Canada, or employed under the direction of any department of the public service of Canada: Provided, however, that such regulations shall mot extend to the payment of compensation for any death, or injury in respect of which provision for the payment of compensation, or a gratuity or pension is made by any other act.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Explain.
Mr. GRAHAM. In chapter 11 of the statutes of 1919, will be found the following section:
It shall be the duty of the Air Board,-
(l)	to consider, draft, and prepare for approval by the Governor in Council such regulations as may be considered necessary for the control or operation of aeronautics in Canada or within the limit of the territorial waters of Canada, and,
(m)	to perform such other duties as the Governor in Council may from time to time impose.
Section 5 provides that:
The Air Board shall have power to employ such officers and men under this act-

Air Board Act Amdt.
That is the Air Board Act-
-as may be authorized by the Governor in Council, under such conditions as to discipline and pay as the Governor in Council may determine,-
And so on. Under the provisions of that act an Order in Council was passed on May 29, 1920, setting out what should be paid to the dependents of an aviator in case he was killed, also the amounts that would be paid in case he was injured. Now the question has arisen whether the statute really gave such full authority, and this is to make it clear that that authority does exist. That is to say, the authority may exist but it has been questioned. The existing legislation would only apply to the civil aviator, but, in carrying on the operations of the air force, employees of the Forestry branch of the Interior Department sometimes accompany the aviators in order to make explorations and observatons of forest lands. Under the old Order in Council such persons would not be covered by any provision for a gratuity in case of injury. The legislation to be founded on this resolution will enable the Governor in Council to make regulations that will include any employee of the government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In other words what you did in the past was merely to look after the pilot and not his passenger?


George Perry Graham: Not the other civil employee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who was also engaged upon your work?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It seems to be proper expenditure. What do you seek to prevent by your proviso? Give the committee a concrete case.


George Perry Graham: Let us say that the Forestry branch of the Department of the Interior wishes to send a man up with the aviator. That man, who is employed by another department, and is not in the civil . aviation force, would not, under the Order in Council, be eligible for a gratuity.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You have already explained that point. What I want to know is why the resolution contains the proviso which says:
Provided, however, that such regulations shall not extend to the payment of compensation for any death, or injury in respect of which provision for the payment of compensation, or a gratuity or pension is made by any other act.
What is the precise matter in view there?
179i


George Perry Graham: A man who is entitled
to a gratuity under the Military Pensions' Act cannot draw two gratuities, or his dependents cannot draw both the gratuity under this act, and under the Military Pensions' Act as well.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there any
reason why, if this is the greater, he should not get it? If you provide, as a matter of fairness, a greater gratuity-as you very likely will-for accidents occuring from aeronautics, should not the party have the right to get whichever was the greater?


George Perry Graham: It might work out that way. It is possible that, on entering the Air Service, he might give up his right to the gratuity under the Military Pensions' Act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suggest that whichever is the greater should be given.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does this bill cover
the case where a man might be part of the time engaged in military service and part of the time in some other department of the service? I have in mind a case which came before our committee regarding a man named Holland.


George Perry Graham: I might say that the
wife of Major Holland was paid $7,500 under the Order in Council, and she also gets paid, not under the Military Pensions' Act or anything of that kind but under the Soldiers' Insurance Act she also gets, I think, $5,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am drafting a proposed amendment to read something like this:
Unless the compensation otherwise payable hereunder be in excess of such gratuity or pension payable under such other act, and in such case only to the extent of such excess.


George Perry Graham: I have no objection to the principle. My hon. friend might move that amendment to the bill.
Resolution reported, read the second time and cohcurred in. Mr. Graham, thereupon, moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 136 to amend the Air Board Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) Bill 106, to amend the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners Act, was read the second
Vancouver Harbour Bill
[Stage Direction]
time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-Section amended so as to repeal power to appoint port warden and deputy.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the change?


Ernest Lapointe: Under the Harbour Commissioners' Act, 1913, the corporation of the harbour commissioners may appoint a harbour master, deputy harbour master, port warden, deputy port warden, shipping master and deputy shipping masters. This bill is to strike out the words "port warden, deputy port warden, shipping master and deputy shipping master." Under the Shipping Act, those officers are under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Such a provision does not exist with regard to the port warden and shipping masters in the other harbours, for the very reason that it is the duty of those officers to see that the provisions of the act and the regulations of the department are complied with. None of their powers or duties has any relation to or connection with the powers of the harbour commissioners. They are officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and it is an anomaly that, in the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners Act, the harbour commissioners should have the right to control, to appoint, or to supervise the acts or duties of those officers. It is to make the act apply to Vancouver as it applies to the other harbours of the country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the hon. minister tells us how the matter comes up? Has any inefficient work been done at Vancouver recently? Have any men been got rid of?


Ernest Lapointe: No, nothing of the
kind. This is suggested by officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, in order that the law may be uniform anywhere.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When was
this difficulty discovered? there is usually some reason for a provision of this kind?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know. I was not the discoverer of that anomaly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps you can find out from the deputy?


Ernest Lapointe: I am informed that this difficulty has been noticed many times during the last few years, but especially 
last year the shipping master got into difficulties with the British Board of Trade with regard to certain funds and the Board of Trade at Vancouver, of course, reported and applied to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, which, under the law as it is, had no control over that officer, although he is the officer who applies the laws and regulations of the department.


Leon Johnson Ladner: There must be some reason why the act was framed in the way in which it now exists.


Ernest Lapointe: So far as is known in the department, there never was any reason for it. I may assure my hon. friend that there is no ultimate or secret reason.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: No "joker".


Ernest Lapointe: No "joker". This is merely and simply to make the law as it should be.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understand, from what the minister says, that he is following precisely what is done at Montreal, Quebec, Toronto and everywhere else.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like the list to be clearly defined, of appointments to be made by the Government under this. What are they?


Ernest Lapointe: The shipping master and the port warden are the only ones.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The only two?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there a vacancy in the positions of shipping master and port warden at the moment?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will there be?


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot speak for the future. Not that I know of presently.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. D. D. McKenzie (Solicitor General) Bill No. 123, to amend the Admiralty Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Governor in Council may appoint a deputy registrar for any district or registry division.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the object of this?

Admiralty ist Amdt.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As regards clause 1, under the old act, the Governor in Council appointed a registrar and the deputy registrar was appointed by the registrar. It was thought best that the governor in Council, who had authority to appoint a registrar, should also have power to appoint a deputy registrar. To make the change it is necessary only to insert the words "a deputy registrar." '


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why is it that the man who ought to know best should not appoint the deputy registrar?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In our own case, in the province of Nova Scotia, we have an admiralty division in the city of Halifax, where the registrar is appointed. We have also an admiralty division at Sydney in the island of Cape Breton. The registrar who resides at Halifax, some three hundred miles away, does not know the kind of man that should be deputy registrar in the city of Sydney nearly as well as the Bar Association, for instance, in that city. I think the Governor in Council who appoints the registrar should also have power to appoint the deputy registrar who, to all intents and purposes, is a separate officer, over whom the registrar has no control at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there a deputy registrar there now? How has the business been carried on in the past?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The business has been carried on in the past by a deputy who was appointed by Order in Council some years ago; but that Order in Council gave him jurisdiction over only four counties instead of sixteen counties. At Halifax, the registrar has full sway over the province; but while we have a court in the Cape Breton end of the province, we have a deputy registrar having jurisdiction over only four counties, and it would appear that the registrar at Halifax is not willing to give him any more jurisdiction as it might possibly be interfering with his territory. We think that our authorities ought to have power to deal with ships arriving in iSydney harbour, from whatever quarter they may come, and in regard to which proceedings in Admiralty are necessary, and not be confined entirely to something that might arise in the four counties of Cape Breton. We want the power to be vested in the Governor in Council to give us a deputy who will have jurisdiction all over the province.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If I understand my hon. friend aright, this is not
necessary for the purpose of a new appointment. It is not proposed to get rid of the present registrar in Cape Breton.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have no intention of getting rid of him; I intend to reappoint him.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The intention seems to be to enlarge his jurisdiction at the expense of the jurisdiction of the registrar at Halifax.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is really no such trouble at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If there is no trouble, why the Bill?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The appointment of a deputy registrar in the Admiralty Court in Nova Scotia or in any other province should not be left in the hands of the irresponsible person who happens to be registrar. The position is an important one, and as the registrar himself is responsible to the government of the country, so should be the deputy, but he is responsible only to the registrar. I can assure my hon. friend that there is no intention at all of making a change in the personnel of the office. The same man will be reappointed, but his jurisdiction will be wider.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2

Appointment of deputy judge.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the effect of this section?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is nothing new in it. The late government passed a similar section in 1920, and we are amending that law so as to leave the sole power with the Governor in Council. Under the law passed in 1920 the jurisdiction in the matter of the appointment of the deputy, was left either with the Governor in Council or with the local judge. We are abolishing the jurisdiction of the judge and leaving it entirely with the Governor in Council. That is the only difference between this legislation and the act of 1920.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. H. S. Beland (Minister of Health) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Gordon in the Chair:
[Stage Direction]
Opium and Narcotic Drugs
That it is expedient to amend The Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, chapter 17 of the statutes of 1911, as amended by chapter 31 of the statutes of 1920 and chapter 42 of the statutes of 1921, and to provide:-
1.	That subsection one of section five of the said act be amended so as to provide that a written order shall be required in connection with all sales of narcotics to druggists and others, and that it shall be unlawful to refiill narcotic prescriptions except where the preparation might lawfully have been sold in the first instance.
2. That subsection two of section five be amended so as to provide that it shall be unlawful for any physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist to prescribe, administer, give, sell or furnish any drug to any person except for medicinal purposes, or as may be prescribed for the medical treatment of a person who is under professional treatment.
3. That subsection two of section 5A be amended to prescribe heavier penalties for manufacturing, selling, giving away or distributing drugs without license, ana for neglect-;ng or refusing to keep the record required by the regulations.
4.	That section 7 be amended to empower any constable or other peace officer who has reasonable cause to suspect that any drug is kept or concealed upon any premises to search for the same, and bring it before a magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter.
5.	That no person shall, without lawful authority or without a permit signed by the Minister of Health or some person authorized by him in that behalf, import or have in his possession any opium pipe, opium lamp or other device or apparatus designed or generally used for the purpose of preparing opium for smoking, or smoking or inhaling opium.
6.	That penalties be prescribed for violation of the provisions of the proposed legislation.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Section 5 of the resolution provides that no person shall import or have in his possession any opium pipe, opium lamp or other device used for the preparing of opium for smoking, without lawful authority or without a permit from the Minister of Health. What legal purpose can there be in the importation of such apparatus? What has the minister in mind in contemplating their importation?


Mr. BELAND:: If these devices for the consumption of op him are found in the possession of any person that person shall be subject to a penalty.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister has not my point. We all know what a terribly dangerous thing opium is in itself, and I was wondering if it is possible that any useful purpose could be found for these appliances.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Not that I know of.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then why is the minister reserving the power provided for in this paragraph?


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: Section 6 provides:
That penalties be prescribed for violation of the provisions of the proposed legislation.
In view of the fact that of 835 convictions last year 634 were of Chinese, would it not be advisable to incorporate, as a penalty, that all orientals found trafficking in drugs shall be deported? This would help to some extent to solve the oriental question in this country.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Such a provision would naturally have to be incorporated in the Immigration Act. As to the other penalties, they are fully described in the bill which will be introduced, based on this resolution. When the bill is before the House my hon. friend will see the penalties in each case. I shall be glad to explain the provisions in regard to the penalties because they vary, as applying to persons who have received a license, and to others who have not. So far as a provision for deportation is concerned, the committee will realize that it could not very well apply to Canadians. Only to Chinese, who have not been naturalized, could it apply. Personally, I have no objection to such a provision being incorporated in the Immigration Act, because I do not think that the country is profiting in any degree whatever by the presence of foreigners who administer, sell, or distribute narcotic drugs, especially to the younger people.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I happen to have some knowledge in regard to investigations carried on into the illegal sale of narcotic drugs, both in Vancouver and in Winnipeg, and I know that the investigators were in all cases people of the highest responsibility in their respective communities. I understand that an investigation was also held in Quebec, and even in Ottawa. There is a certain psychological aspect to any legislation that will be effective in deterring men from carrying on this illegal sale. One effective deterrent is deportation, and I would urge upon the minister the wisdom of inserting in the bill a provision empowering the authorities to deport men or women convicted of the illegal sale of drugs or of the commission of other serious offences under the act. I would also strongly urge upon him the necessity of giving discretionary power to magistrates to order the lash in those cases where it is proved that the accused deliberately and cold-bloodedly induced young people to become drug addicts. This is neither the time nor the occasion to go fully into the matter, but there is

Opium and Narcotic Drugs
an appalling traffic in drugs. The addict must be treated as a patient. The trafficker, generally an oriental, a cool, calculating person, does not take the drug himself because he knows its terrible effects on those who become its slaves, but he ingeniously inveigles innocent people into the habit. He has a well-planned system of business, covering importation, wholesaling and retailing, and hon. members would be amazed if they knew what was disclosed to a representative committee which investigated conditions in Vancouver. The lash would be the most effective deterrent you could possibly apply, because one thing these traffickers do fear is corporal punishment. And surely a man or woman, white, brown or yellow, who deliberately induces young girls to become addicts is guilty of a more serious crime against society than robbery with violence. Scores of associations throughout Canada have passed resolutions most emphatically favouring the infliction of the lash upon these nefarious traffickers, and I hope the minister will see that the bill contains the necessary provision to this end.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I heartily endorse what
the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) has just stated. We find that this traffic is increasing very rapidly in British Columbia, and is becoming a serious menace there, being largely, though not exclusively, engaged in by orientals. We feel that the penalities cannot be made too severe against those who profit from this nefarious traffic. Apparently the penalties now in force are inadequate, for they have not resulted in stopping the traffic. I would suggest that there be a much more vigorous application of the law by our police forces, and that they be made to realize the seriousness of this traffic, so that increased vigilance on their part will produce better results. I agree with my hon. friend that while many men will take chances of a heavy fine or imprisonment, they are fearful of receiving the lash, and that the prospect of such punishment and subsequent deportation would make them think twice before breaking the law. In a word, the deterrent effect of such penalties would be very helpful in putting down this traffic.


Henri Sévérin Béland: To a very large extent
I share the views that have been expressed as to the proper punishment of those engaged in illicit drug traffic. Heretofore the infliction of the lash has been confined mainly to the punishment of physical crimes. But we are only considering the
principle at present, and after the bill has been given its second reading and is in committee, we can go over it clause by clause, and whatever course is agreeable I am willing to carry out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When this
bill was up about two years ago we had the same question raised which is covered, as I recollect, by the first paragraph, which renders it unlawful for any chemist to refill a narcotic prescription. At that time representations were made, particularly by hon. members from the prairies, that in the West where many people lived great distances from doctors they very often could not get to the doctors in time to have their prescriptions refilled just when it might he absolutely necessary, to say nothing of the expense involved. It was thought that some degree of latitude should be given to druggists and a certain number of refills allowed. I wonder if my hon. friend has considered the objections raised at that time, and which must still obtain. I would also ask him what narcotic drugs can be supplied except under prescription. I thought we had stopped them all. This clause has an exception covering narcotic prescriptions which might have been "lawfully sold in the first instance." What is meant by that?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The law permits of certain preparations being sold which contain narcotic drugs in very small quantities. I have not in mind at the present moment what the exact quantity is for each teaspoonful, but it is so small that it was considered advisable that such prescriptions should be permitted, largely on the suggestion, I think, of some of the western members. It is felt that some relief should be afforded in cases where necessary without a prescription, and the law has been framed so as to permit the refilling by druggists of prescriptions containing certain small proportions of narcotics. It is these preparations that the present law refers to when it provides that they could be lawfully refilled as if they were ordinary prescriptions. But I can give my hon. friend further details when the bill is in committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think tie exception refers to prescriptions at all; it refers merely to preparations which druggists themselves put up without the intervention of a doctor.
Mr. BELAND. That is what I have in m ind-preparations.
Opium and Narcotic Drugs


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understand
my hon. friend to say however, that in these cases the drugs are present in such small quantities that they could not hurt anybody. What does my hon. friend think of those cases where prescriptions of a perfectly proper character and for a perfectly proper purpose required to be refilled? Has he considered whether they might be refilled once or twice before the persons to whom they are issued are penalized to the extent of another visit to the doctor? Then there are the distances to be considered in the country districts.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not believe that
any hardship is incurred in that respect. It is always possible for the patient or the mother of, say, the young sick person to make an arrangement with the physician as to the number of times that the prescription can be refilled by the local druggist. Or, in the case where such an agreement is not reached, it is always possible within a day or two to communicate by mail with a doctor and ask permission to have the prescription refilled.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Would that apply also
to veterinary prescriptions?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It would.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I would point out in that connection that these narcotics are used for the relief of acute pains suffered by horses and other animals. It is necessary that this relief be administered quickly, and if the veterinary is ten or fifteen miles out in the country the animal might die before his return. This provision would seem to be quite inconvenient so far as the treatment of animals is concerned.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. BELAND moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 137 to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. He said:
I would like to say that it is my intention to add a clause to this bill limiting the right of appeal. I will explain it later in committee.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AIR HOARD ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. George P. Graham (Minister of Militia and Defence) Bill No. 136, to amend the Air Board Act, was read the second time, and the House went into

committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1:
George Perry Graham: I move that the following words be added to clause 1:

unless the claimant elects to accept such
compensation, gratuity or pension under any-such other act.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



ESCHEATS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. D. D. McKenzie (Solicitor General) Bill No. 124 to amend the Escheats Act was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-Escheat extended to property of defunct corporations.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What has led to the necessity for legislation of this character? I presume that it can only be applicable to land and only in those provinces of Canada which have not, as yet, been entrusted with their natural resources. Am I right or wrong in that presumption?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Evidently this refers to personal property which becomes the subject of escheat in the right of the Crown and the right of the Dominion. The present bill does not materially change the character of the Escheats Act as passed by this parliament in 1910, except that the original act contains no provision as to the period within which actions must be brought for or on behalf of the Crown. The present bill simply fixes the time within which action must be brought. I may say to the committee frankly that I am not very familiar with the act, never having conducted any proceedings under it. This bill comes to me from the Department of Justice, and it appears that in the working out of the act they have found it necessary to have such a provision.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Under section 2 an action must be brought against the government within two years. Now I know of no such limitation in actions except in civil proceedings for some form of violence, as in cases of assault, slander, or like

Escheats Act Amdt.
actions that everybody wants to see disposed of. In the province of New Brunswick an action for the recovery of land may be brought within twenty years, and under certain circumstances within forty years, so that it takes forty years to establish proscription in that province. The period may be less in some of the rest of the provinces; I think it is less in the province of Ontario. That is between party and party-between one subject and another subject-but here we are asked to say that action must be taken in the short space of twenty-four months. People may be absent and not aware of their rights; but, unless they approach the Crown and ask leave to sue within that short period, they are forever debarred. There must be some extraordinary reason moving the Department of Justice to ask for such legislation. I do not wonder the Solicitor General cannot comprehend it, and it is a most unfortunate thing that the Department of Justice did not furnish him with some memorandum showing the difficulties which had arisen and the need for action in this way. The only thing I can conceive is that possibly it is in aid of the Soldiers' Settlement Board. But if so, let him give the facts, and if the reasons appeal to us, we may he justified putting it through. I cannot justify a vote to destroy the right of heirs on a two years' limitation.
The first section is aimed at corporations. I can conceive that in those provinces where the title of the land is in the Crown in the right of the Dominion of Canada, and only in such cases, there may be a way in common law called escheat. That, simply, means that, in the failure of any heirs appearing, the Crown steps in and takes the property. The Crown has the power, and generally exercises it, of granting that land to the parties who are morally, though perhaps not legally, entitled to possession. The Crown meets cases of illegitimacy in that way, and it is quite right and proper that that should be done, but, with regard to land in the other provinces, I do not see that it can have any possible effect. Yet the language is very broad. Now, the attempt is to extend this to corporations. A corporation in one sense cannot die; in another sense it can, but if a corporation ceases to function legally, the people who are interested in that corporation have always a right to get the property by some process. It does not go to the Crown. I cannot think of a case where the property of a corporation
went to the Crown at common law, unless the corporation had forfeited its title in some way by some misconduct, but I cannot conceive of a case where a corporation can so utterly die that no person will be entitled to claim the estate. Suppose it was a company of five men; you have to presume that they are all deceased and that none of them has left any heirs. That is a very large assumption. Some extraordinary case must have occurred to cause the Department of Justice to ask the Solicitor General to introduce a bill of this kind, and why does the department not furnish him with the information, so that we can know the reason for passing this legislation? Until I have some such mandate before me, I am sure the Solicitor General will excuse me if I say it is not such legislation as, at first blush, commends itself sufficiently to warrant my support.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I might say that this measure comes from the Department of Justice. This bill was presented to me with the intention that I should introduce it, and I did so. A request was made that I should call on the deputy minister and get some further history in regard to it. I have been so busy with other matters that I have not found time to do that. The bill is here now, and I have to deal with it. We are not bound hard and fast to any number of years, and if we can agree upon any number of years-say four years if that would be satisfactory to hon. members opposite-I am sure the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) and the department have no particular purpose in placing the time at two years. The idea is to take hold of these properties and prevent them from lying idle and going to waste, where there are no heirs to take possession. The department has decided, in the shortest possible time, to put an end to these conditions. That is why it fixed this comparatively short period of time within which parties would have a right to bring action. In many cases the property is going to waste, falling to pieces, and nothing is to be gained by delay. It is rather hard to he waiting for many years, without closing the matter and disposing of the property. If we leave it open for any great length of time for anybody to step in and, rightly or wrongly, make a claim to the property, of course it affects the sale and final disposition of the property. These are the reasons that moved the department to provide a means of closing up the matter as quickly as possible, or to give the property to those who are entitled to it, if an action
Escheats Act Amdt.

is brought and somebody is found to be entitled to it. The department wants to make as^ short a job of it as possible, and not let it run from year to year. If my hon. friend from St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter) thinks we ought to extend the time, under the circumstance, the Department of Justice has no purpose in view, except to do what is absolutely right, but it is not desirable that matters of this kind should remain open too long.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I hope that nothing I have said would intimate in any way that I thought my hon. friend was trying to obtain any advantage, because I have no such thought in my mind, but his explanation, or want of explanation, if he will pardon me for saying so, convinces me I am right in the conjecture I formed but had not expressed. The moment he said the bill had come from the Department of Justice, I came to the conclusion that this was a very bureaucratic measure and not needed, and that some over zealous official was asking for legislation, without thinking seriously of the consequences. The explanation, or want of explanation, convinces me that I was perfectly right. I do not think the change from two to four years is going to help much. As a lawyer, the Solicitor General must appreciate that he will not, by a bill imposing a limitation of two years or four years or any other short space of time, prevent the making of claims by people who have no claim. It is not the people who have no rights he is cutting off; it is the people who have rights. Suppose a man comes from England, gets a farm out West in one of the provinces where the Crown owns the soil, and he has a regular title to that farm. He is not married, so far as any one knows, and has no family. He is working alone, and some years elapse. He dies. How does the Crown know that there are no legitimate relatives somewhere? How do the relatives know this man	has died, if he is a man
who has, perhaps, not kept up very much correspondence with his family? My hon. friend will hardly expect that he should write a letter telling of his premeditated demise, or that his spirit should write a letter telling that he has actually passed out of this sphere. How do they know whether he is dead or not. But we pass this bill, and if claimants do not appear within two years, their title is dead. What right has the Crown in respect of Canada to that property? Somebody else paid for it; somebody else worked on it; somebody else earned it; and even if his 	'
relatives are somewhat remote in degree, they and not the people of Canada are entitled to that property. If that man's property has been invaded by some trespasser who had acquired a footing upon it, and if the man was away and did not know that, he would have, under the law of the western provinces, I think, twelve years in which to vindicate his rights. If it was in my province of New Brunswick, he would have twenty years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In Ontario, ten years.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If he died before that term was up and his children were under age, a further time would be allowed to enable them to reach their majority and to vindicate their title. Why should the Crown ask for such a right as this, not a right to deny the title of a man who has no title, but a right to deny and extinguish the title of people who have good title? That is what it is. I cannot understand the mind of the man who drafted this bill. He cannot have thought of the consequences; he probably was thinking only of squatters coming in on the property; and if they were going to assert title, he wanted them to do that properly. I am in entire sympathy with that; but the Crown did not need the help of any new legislation for that; under the common law, the Crown could have taken that property and held it against the world except the rightful owner. The Crown does not need this bill to-day to do that. What is the emergency? What is the reason? I would feel much more content if my hon. friend would kindly consent to get the names of individual cases and mention them in this Chamber. There will surely 'be in the representation of this House some hon. members from the West who will recognize the cases if they are mentioned. Such cases are rare. In my province, a province of something less than half a million population, I can recall three instances in the last fifty years, and the province of New Brunswick has a general escheat law, but no such legislation as this, where grants are made when it is found that people are morally, although not legally, entitled. There can be no great number of cases and no great hardship. Would it not be better to bring us all the information, so that we might know why some official in the department got so exercised as to think it necessary to draft a law that would cut away, upon a two years' proscription, the rights of people lawfully entitled to property?

Escheats Act Amdt.


Mr. McRENZIE:: There is hardly a legal case or a case of law in regard to property, either real or personal, hut would be placed by my hon. friend in the extreme position which he has described. It would appear, according to his contention, that by reason of this legislation, severe hardships are to be inflicted upon certain individuals. It is a well-established principle that the Crown can do no wrong. On the Crown bringing this action, there must be service on somebody; there must be service of some kind or information that must be exhibited in connection with this action. The Crown cannot go on without somebody representing the supposed heir or whoever is supposed to have a right to this property. He must be represented before the court. Are we to take it for granted that the party who is appointed to represent the alleged heirs; or if there are heirs, after the service of these papers or their advertisement in the newspapers, in the Canada Gazette and in whatever other way the practice of the court and the order of the judge may direct-


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Will my hon. friend permit me to interrupt him for a moment? There is no need for our having a misunderstanding of the plain wording of the law:
Where His Majesty the King, in his right of Canada, is entitled to any land or other real or personal property by reason of the person last seised or entitled thereto having died intestate and without lawful heirs the Attorney General of Canada may cause possession thereof to be taken in the name of His Majesty, or if possession is withheld may exhibit an information in the Exchequer Court for the recovery thereof.
There is no need to advertise for heirs or anything else. You simply take possession.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Supposing the Crown takes possession; the Crown holds possession; but before the Crown can part with the property, or pass it over to anybody else, there must be a judgment of a competent court to enable the Crown to do so. It is a well-established principle of British law that no person's right can be affected without notice; there must be notice. My learned friend will find, in the very early cases of the Supreme Court of Canada, that the principle was established, that no man's right to property, or any other tangible right, can be affected without notice. Courts can go on giving titles and judgments as much as they like; but while that decision in the Supreme Court of Canada holds, notice must be given
before anybody's rights can be affected by those performances at all. Therefore, the greater part of what my hon. friend has pictured cannot happen at all. I wish simply to point out that this is property which nobody claims. It stands there for two years. The Crown has possibly taken possession ten days after the man has died; the Crown has possession; it holds possession for two years. No heir appears or there is no claimant to the property, and it is found desirable to sell it. Then the Crown, within those two years, will put itself in a position, by judgment of a competent court, to dispose of the property, and it is for the Exchequer Court to say what provision should be made. Supposing a man has made improvements worth $2,000 to a property; the Exchequer Court will say to the Crown: "You may sell this property provided that, before you dispose of it or alienate the title, you must get that $2,000 and put it into the bank and leave it there awaiting any claimant ". All those rights will be preserved by the judge. All that we say is that these steps must be taken. We have a court to deal with these matters, and we have every reason to believe that, if there is no real, proper defendant before the court, a judge will be even more careful about what becomes of the property than if there was a real live defendant and claimant represented by counsel before him. I have no desire to appear solicitous in regard to this matter; I am quite willing that the committee rise and report progress on this bill and ask leave to sit again. In the meantime, possibly I can find out the real facts that have moved the department or some important official of it to ask for this legislation.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I thank my hon. friend for taking this course. I think it will clear the air. If the minister will give the House the information which I have requested, I think the House will be better satisfied.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not disposed to
take much exception to the bill or the object which it is sought to obtain by it. I do take exception to the very limited term, two years, which the bill proposes to fix as against any claim that may be made against the Crown. In my view, there should be some finality in all these matters. I agree also that the law of escheat is not so common in this country, and the ordinary practitioner has not had a great deal of experience of it. It is in-
Escheats Act Amdt.

voked only at odd intervals; and I think I am right when I say that in respect of personal property this bill will be of exceedingly limited application. It could only possibly apply to personal property in unorganized districts or territories of Canada. I think the law was settled as far back as the year 1883 in a case which went to the Privy Council from the province of Ontario. By the judgment of the Privy Council in that case-I think, the Attorney General of Ori-tario against the Attorney-General of Canada-it was settled that escheated estates became the property of the province and not of the Dominion of Canada. The application of this bill will be limited to real estate in those provinces where the Dominion still owns land, and to personal property only in the unorganized districts of Canada. So that in regard to personal property the application of the bill will be extremely limited. Practically, the bill deals only with real estate, and I for one think that in the case of a man dying without a will and without heirs there should be some finality in the matter of his estate, some final method of disposal. If it goes eventually to the Dominion of Canada, the right of the Dominion should at the earliest convenient time become absolute and action should be barred. I do think that the period of two years proposed in the bill is entirely too restrictive. If the Solicitor-General will recommend a period of six years, which is the usual term of limitation in respect of ordinary actions in law, or even longer, in regard to land, I personally do not see any great objection to the bill passing the House. Perhaps, in the interval, as the bill is not to be proceeded with to-night, the Solicitor-General could think out the question of a more extended limitation, and if he will submit a bill providing a period of six or even ten years, speaking for myself alone, I do not see any objection to the bill. I think it is a bill that should be passed.
Progress reported.



THE JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Lomer Gouin (Minister of Justice) the House went into committee to consider the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 19, to amend the Judges Act, Mr. Gordon in the Ch~ir.
Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps the minister
will explain the amendments.


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: The amendments provide that whenever a judge, by reason

of age or infirmity, becomes incapacitated for the due execution of his duties, he shall cease to receive his salary, but this shall be done only on report of the Minister of Justice to the Governor in Council after an inquiry has been held by one or two judges or more of the Supreme Court, or a judge of the Exchequer Court, or one or more judges of the highest court of the province concerned, after notice has been given to the judge in the matter. If it is established that such a judge is incapacitated by age or infirmity to perform his duties, on the report of the Minister of Justice his salary ceases. Subsection 3, however, provides that, nevertheless, even after such procedure has been decided upon it shall be possible for the Government to pension the judge. Moreover, the Minister of Justice has power to grant leave, for good cause to such a judge.


Hugh Guthrie: Does the minister himself approve of the amendments?


Lomer Gouin: I have read them carefully and I approve of them.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Lomer Gouin (Minister of Justice) Bill No. 93 to amend the Criminal Code was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On Section 1-Offence for police commissioner to take bribe or for person to offer him bribe.
Lomer Gouin: We propose to amend Section 157 of the criminal code to cover police commissioners.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 2-Reference to numbers of sections, etc.
Lomer Gouin: Since the "three preceding sections" were passed an amendment has been inserted between Sections 242 and 243, and therefore it becomes necessary to amend Section 244 as in this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 3-Age of consent.
Lomer Gouin: This section was passed by this House last year but was rejected by the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Criminal Code Amdt.
On Section 7-Penalty of seven years or ten years for subsequent offence.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the penalty under the act?


Lomer Gouin: This prescribes the maximum penalty for stealing automobiles.


Henry Lumley Drayton: For the first offence?


Lomer Gouin: Yes; but it is the maximum.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have heard a great deal of comiplaint that the minimum penalty below which the judge has no right to exercise discretion is too high.


Lomer Gouin: The minimum is one year.


Mr. SHAW:: I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that some of us in this end of the Chamber who are interested in this particular bill cannot hear a single word that the minister has said.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 8-Conveyance of cattle without proper rest, etc.-Carriage of calves under three weeks old.
Alan Webster Neill: Why is it an offence to carry a calf under the age of three weeks by boat or rail? I understand the object, but let me point out that a calf one week old is perfectly old enough to be shipped ten or twenty miles by boat or rail, and it is being done every day of the week. Why make it a criminal offence?


Lomer Gouin: That is the old law. The only amendment is to strike out the necessary consent by the owner to keep the animals in any car or vessel for more than thirty-six hours.


Alan Webster Neill: That amendment may or may not be desirable, but what I am asking is why it is illegal for a common carrier to transport a calf less than three weeks old, when it is not harmful and is being done every day of the week. What is the use of having laws which are unreasonable, and are not being observed?


Lomer Gouin: If there is any good ground to amend the law I shall be willing to consider it.


Hugh Guthrie: My recollection is that this clause was inserted owing to representations made by very worthy citizens who constitute the Humane Society. It was represented that it was an act of cruelty
to ship calves under three weeks old without their dam.


Alan Webster Neill: I have always observed,
Mr. Chairman, that people who know most about farming are those who live in cities. It is not a cruelty to a calf to ship it when it is three weeks old unless it is shipped a very long journey without nourishment. A distance of twenty or thirty miles can be covered by boat or rail within four or five hours, and it does not injure the calf to have it go without nourishment for that length of time. Many of these societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals are very admirable societies, kept up largely by ladies who cannot be expected to be familiar with the intricacies of agricultural life. In the state of nature, which is supposed to be the nearest we can get to proper conditions, a cow will leave its calf cached somewhere for nearly a whole day while it goes out for food, and will come back and nurse the calf at night, with no resulting injury to the calf. As a matter cf fact, I am told that this section was introduced with some vague idea of restricting the shipping of calves which are not pure-bred, but I do not know about that. I think this is an unreasonable provision.


Oliver Robert Gould: With regard to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, some hon. members will recall that three sessions ago there emanated from the same society the suggestion that it would be unholy or criminal to use poison gas on grasshoppers because it might injure without killing them. It seems to me that the sentiment expressed in this present provision is similar to the sentiment which was expressed on that occasion. What the hon. member (Mr. Neill) says concerning the feeding of calves is quite right; I have known the dam to leave her young for twenty-four hours without causing the slightest injury. As a matter of fact, if you tried to catch the calf during that period you would find it a very strong youngster and quite capable of keeping out of the way. I think that this is an unwarranted intervention.


Alan Webster Neill: The section says that it shall be illegal to ship calves under three weeks of age other than calves at foot of milch cows, or purebred calves. In other words, if a calf is under three weeks old it must not be shipped unless it is purebred. What peculiar quality is there in a purebred animals which enables it to do without nourishment longer than one which is not purebred?
Criminal Code Arndt.


Lomer Gouin: In order to make this amendment complete I think it will be necessary to strike out the word "is" after "1921" in line three of the section and to substitute therefore the following words: -and section 544A as enacted by chapter 9 of the statutes of 1909 are-
As to that part of the section which has reference to calves, I would ask hon. members to let it pass for this year and next year we may consider it.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 11-certain fines in Ontario to be paid to the municipalities.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Why does this apply
only to Ontario?


Lomer Gouin: Representations have been made by the province of Ontario on this point, and they seem to be unanimous. That is why the amendment is made in relation to Ontario.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The distinction is quite clear. In Quebec the provincial government provides for the building of the court houses and the like, as well as all the machinery for the administration of justice. In Ontario the municipalities build the court houses and maintain them. It seems right, therefore, that the municipality should get this very small recompense arising out of the administration of justice.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What my hon. friend has said with regard to Ontario applies equally to New Brunswick, and I think, to Nova Scotia as well. In both these provinces the municipalities build the court houses and meet all the cost of admin-
9 p.m. istering justice so far as the magistrates' courts are concerned if it is right to extend this provision to Ontario it is right to apply it to the other provinces.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I can corroborate what my hon. friend (Mr. Baxter) has just stated. The municipalities in New Brunswick build their own court houses and meet the magistrates' expenses, the cost of fuel, caretaking, and so on, so far as preliminary inquiries in the magistrates' courts are concerned.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I should imagine that in Alberta the proceeds of estreated recognizances are as considerable as they are in any other province. While the local authorities are not responsible for the building and maintenance of court houses, they meet a substantial portion of the "expense of administering the law," to use

the expression in the section. Perhaps the situation there should also be considered.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would move, if the minister will accept the amendment, to strike out the words "with respect to the province of Ontario". If the principle is right as applied to Ontaria, it is right as applied to every other province.


Lomer Gouin: I would ask my hon. friend not to insist on that amendment. We had delegations from Ontario on this subject at the very beginning of the session. The bill was introduced four or five weeks ago, and its terms have been familiar to all hon. members. I know that some of the provinces oppose this amendment and possibly the good province of New Brunswick is with the opponents of the bill. If this amendment passes, possibly one or two other provinces may come to us and represent that they should be treated the same way. Just now we desire to pass the amendment which applies to the province of Ontario alone.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: This legislation is not helping the province of Ontario at all because it is not a matter of interest to that government. Nor is there any reason for asking the province of New Brunswick, or any of the other provinces, for their opinion. In New Brunswick the province does not bear one penny of this cost. In Ontario, I suppose it is the municipalities that are benefited. The province itself does not get the money under this legislation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They got it before.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: They got it before this act was passed?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: We never got it in New Brunswick.


Lomer Gouin: The province of New Brunswick received all the money.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Oh, no.


Lomer Gouin: Yes.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Most of the fines are received by the police magistrates and under special statute have to be paid over to the particular department under which the prosecution is brought. In New Brunswick fines that are not allocated go to the municipal authorities.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-Section made to extend to corporations:
Lomer Gouin: I have an amendment to propose to section 542. Paragraph (a), of section 542, as at present framed reads as follows:
Everyone is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction before two justices to a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars, or to three months' imprisonment with or without hard labour, or to both, who-
(a) wantonly, cruelly, or unencessarily beats, binds ill-treats, abuses, overdrives or tortures cattile, poultry, dog, domestic animal or bird, or any wild animal or bird in captivity.
I propose to replace paragraph (a) by the following:
(a) wantonly, cruelly, or unnecessarily kills, slaughters, beats, binds, ill-treats, abuses, overdrives, overloads, tortures, infuriates or terrifies any cattle, poultry, dog, domestic animal or bird, or any wild animal or bird in captivity, or subjects or causes or procures or, being the owner permits, any animal to be subjected to any operation which is performed without due care and humanity or, being the operator, does not when proper and possible use some general or local anesthetic of sufficient power to prevent such animal from feeling pain when so operating ; or
The amendment has been asked for by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Whenever an operation is performed they want the operative to use an anesthetic.


Mr. McBRIDE:: How would this provision affect the branding of cattle?


Lomer Gouin: I do not think it would apply to the branding of cattle, it refers to operations.


Mr. SHEARD:: Would it apply to the docking of horses' tails?


Mr. BROWN:: Is there anything to define what an "operation" is? Because I can conceive it to be quite possible that "operation" might be defined in such a way as to handicap operations on the farm.


Lomer Gouin: It is a very hard thing to define. This provision is demanded by the Department of Agriculture, I understand, and I am told that the same legislation has been passed in England and all the other dominions.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Then it does not apply to the ordinary operations on the farm?


Lomer Gouin: Not ordinary
operations.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: That ought to be very clearly pointed out, because if the interpretation of the paragraph were left to some uninformed inspector or magistrate very serious results might follow?


Lomer Gouin: The matter is left to a judge. If the House deems the provision to be dangerous I will not insist upon it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What has the Minister of Agriculture to say about this, seeing that the amendment emanated from his department?


William Richard Motherwell: I was not listening.


Mr. COOTE:: I did not quite catch the entire wording of the amendment but, I want to point this out: I know from personal experience that to give chloroform, or any anesthetic, to one of these animals that we sometimes have to operate on is very expensive. I had a favourite horse that needed to have a rather serious operation, and I asked the veterinary what it would cost to give him an anesthetic. He replied that it would cost more than the horse was worth. I think the committee should be a little careful about passing these amendments without really knowing just how far they go, and what the result is likely to be.


Thomas George McBride: I am afraid such a provision as this if applied to the branding of calves would be rather hard to comply with. I know of one justice of the peace who declared that if he had his way he would put in the penitentiary any person found applying a hot iron to a calf, and we have got to brand our calves. I do not think this should carry. There is considerable feeling in our part of the country that all cattle should be dehorned. Now
Criminal Code Arndt.

how would we get along if we were dehorning cattle? There are many operations that cattle have to undergo, where they are ranching in a large way, and, I think, if this provision were enacted, it would be rather difficult to get someone to decide what the law really meant.


William Richard Motherwell: I think there can be no objection to the provision for giving anesthetics to animals undergoing painful operations. Would the hon. member not want an anesthetic himself, if he had to undergo an operation? If it be used in the human family, it should be used in the case of animals. We have our tonsils cut out, and other operations, and we do not consider the question of cost. It is evidence of advanced civilization when we consider our dumb animals in this respect. I think we should enact this provision.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would that apply to branding, dehorning or similar operations?


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
does not want me to enter into a minute classification of the painful operations?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think it would affect dehorning. That is a very rapid operation, and over in a very short time, and, if performed, with proper equipment would not require an anesthetic.


Alan Webster Neill: Is there not an act which provides that if you administer chloroform or an anesthetic, a medical man must be present?


George Gibson Coote: I would request the Minister of Justice to withdraw that clause relating to operations performed on animals. I think the expense would be prohibitive.


Sir LOMER  GOIIIN@: I will withdraw the whole amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
. Progress reported.

The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Trade and Commerce-Canada Grain Act, Administration of $1,300,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the reason for the increase?


Mr. ROBB:: It is the usual increase of business, and is based upon the estimate

of last year.. Last year there was not quite sufficient to cover the amount required, and we had to put through some orders in council and supplementaries.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Under this item, I
notice, there is an increase in last year's expenditure of $125,000. I do not wish to enter into that feature of this estimate, but wish to bring another matter before the committee in connection with the estimate. It is a matter that was mentioned in this House some two years ago, it has come before the Department of Trade and Commerce a number of times, and it was taken up with the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) when he was Prime Minister, I believe that he and the Department of Justice have had correspondence on the subject. I refer to the case of one of my constituents, Mr. J. A. Campbell, of Sovereign, Saskatchewan, who shipped a car of flax in November of 1916 to the Acme Grain Company, of Winnipeg, Manitoba, with instructions to sell the flax when it reached a certain price. On February 2nd, 1917, Mr. Campbell enlisted and went overseas. 'In April of 1917, while Mr. Campbell was overseas, the car of flax was sold, because flax had reached the stipulated price, but the Acme Grain Company defaulted. Their liabilities were $35,000, and their assets, which were represented by the guarantee bond they had obtained, were but $7,500. Mr. Campbell's flax was sold for $2,894.55, but, when he got his share of the bond, he received only $621.86, being a net loss to him of $2,272.69, and this loss was sustained over five years ago. Mr. Campbell claims this amount, with interest, for a period of something over five years. I might enter into some proof of the legal ground for his claim. I will read some sections of the Canada Grain Act, which are not very lengthy. Section 210 reads:
Any person desiring to carry on the business of grain commission merchant in the western inspection division shall make application in writing to the hoard for a license to sell grain on commission, stating the locality where he intends to carry on such business, and the probable amount of business he will do monthly.
Then section 211 reads:
On receiving such application the board shall fix the amount of a bond to be given to His Majesty with sufficient surety for the benefit of persons entrusting such commission merchants with consignments of grain to be sold on commission.
In section 213, provision is made for the issuing of a license to such company on
283b

Supply-Canada Grain Act
payment of a fee. The board referred to in this legislation is the Board of Grain Commissioners, which is under the supervision of the Department of Trade and Commerce, which department is a department of this Government, which Government represents the people of Canada. Mr. Campbell claims that this Department of Trade and Commerce should make good his claim. I am well aware that the Department of Justice has ruled that Mr. Campbell his no legal claim on the department, so that I do not care to enter into the controversy and try to prove that he has. If he has not a legal claim, I am quite sure that he has a moral claim. This is the case of a Canadian citizen. He is a resident of my constituency, and I know him personally. He went overseas, and for nearly two and one-half years was in the service of his country. For about seven months of that time he was in hospital. We can easily imagine the thoughts that a person would have while overseas presumably to protect our interests as well as his, on hearing that his property at home was looted to the extent of over $2,200. We can easily imagine what kind of effect it would have upon him to get word from the Department of Trade and Commerce that he had no legal claim to recover this loss. He might easily reason that Britain had no legal right to go into war to protect Belgium. Indeed, I question if she did have any legal right; but yet she went in because she had a moral right, and to show that she had that moral right, about 1,000,000 of her sons gave up their lives. Also he might reason that, even though Britain went into the war, Canada was not legally bound also to go in. Yet Canada went into the war and about 50,000 of her sons are mouldering in Flanders to-day, not because she was legally bound to go, but because she felt morally bound to go. Therefore, if the department is not legally bound to make good this claim, it seems to me that this gentleman, a returned soldier, has a moral claim on the finances of this country. I might refer the committee to item No. 168 on page 43 of the Estimates, where we passed in this committee an expenditure of $5,000 to provide for the building of a tablet to the memory of the late Bowman B. Law, who lost his life in the fire which destroyed the old Parliament building. When this item was going through, I was revolving in my mind what claim there was on the Government of 180
Canada to make this expenditure of $5,000.
I did not raise any question in opposition, because I, like the rest of the committee, felt that, perhaps, there was a moral responsibility on the Government to make this payment. If there is a moral responsibility on the country to pay out $5,000 in this case, there is a greater moral responsibility on the Government to pay out something over $2,200 to make good an actual loss for one who left his country and left his property in the care of the citizens of Canada.
There is another item in the Estimates, that for militia annual drill. We recall quite well in this committee that we made provision to expend $1,100,000 for the ensuing year on annual drill. While there was some opposition to this item of expenditure, it went through. During the discussion, the point was raised that it was very necessary to keep up annual drill in order to have people in shape in case of some future possible war. The expenditure of $1,100,000 under this item will not have as far-reaching effect as the payment of this just claim against the Department of Trade and Commerce. I make this statement because the injustice done to this individual is known throughout western Canada. He is the type of individual that does not let a small matter drop. He is the kind of individual that made good at the front because he is the kind that sticks to and hangs on when there is a point to be gained. He has written in several of our western papers; he has corresponded with the Department of Trade and Commerce. I venture to say that they have a voluminous correspondence over this case. He has also corresponded with the Department of Justice, with the Department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment, with the exPrime Minister (Mr. Meighen) and with the Great War Veterans' Association. His correspondence has reached tremendous proportions, and this has been going on for several years, so that the case is very well known in western Canada. He has taken the matter up with western members; there are other members in this House who are well acquainted with the facts in this case. Others suffered loss through the defaulting of this company; but Mr. Campbell, to the best of my knowledge, at least, is the only returned man who has suffered loss in this way. Therefore, I would suggest that his case be given favourable consideration. I am aware that I would not be within my rights to



Supply-Canada Grain Act
move that this estimate be increased to make provision for this loss; but I would submit to the minister of this department that, in bringing down his supplementary estimates, he make provision for taking care of this liability.


Mr. McCONICA:: I desire to associate
myself with the hon. member for Kin-dersley (Mr. Carmichael) in support of the contention which he has just presented. I am personally acquainted with Mr. Campbell, and I am aware that he has no legal claim against the Government. I believe, however, he has a moral claim in this regard. The board, appointed by this government, were directed by the statute to provide a sufficient bond to protect him in the business which he entrusted to these commission grain merchants. They failed to provide a bond that was sufficient to cover his loss. He was at the front protecting the lives of the people of this country; he suffered a very severe loss, and he is a man who could ill afford to stand a loss of this character. He feels, and his associates, soldiers who were at the front with him and are now his neighbours, familiar with the circumstances, all feel, that while he has no legal claim he certainly has a moral claim upon this country, which he helped to defend. For that reason I sincerely hope that the suggestion of the member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) may receive the earnest consideration of the minister.


James Alexander Robb: It is only fair to say that the member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael and the member for Battleford (Mr. McConica) have already urged Mr. Campbell's claim upon the Department of Justice. To-night they have put it upon a new ground, and I am glad to know that they have withdrawn the contention that Mr. Campbell has a legal claim. The matter has been fairly stated by the member for Kindersley. It has been several times reviewed by the previous government, and was referred to the Department of Justice. That department, having examined the Manitoba Grain Act and all the claims and pretensions of Mr. Campbell, have given their ruling that Mr. Campbell has no legal claim. Now, it is fair to say on behalf of the grain commissioners that the bonds upon grain companies are always based upon the previous year's business, and to add that while there were other firms willing to purchase grain, Mr. Campbell himself selected the Acme Grain Company, to whom he shipped his grain on the 
20th of November. On the 18th of December the bank surrendered the bill of lading to the Acme Grain Company. We have the statement that Mr. Campbell enlisted on the 19th of February, 1917, so it is apparent that Mr. Campbell was himself in the country when the bill of lading was surrendered to the Acme Grain Company. He cannot evade that share of responsibility. Mr. Campbell on the 7th of April, 1917, gave instructions to the Acme Grain Company to sell the grain afid in the month of May the company defaulted. Now, I am bound to say that my hon. friends have convinced me that upon compassionate grounds Mr. Campbell may have some claim upon the country. Even supposing that he himself had surrendered the bill of lading to the Acme Grain Company, whom he had selected among all others to ship his grain, it is fair to assume that had he been in the country before the company defaulted it is possible he would have crowded them and obtained payment. Therefore, having in mind that Mr. Campbell spent seven months in hospital, that he voluntarily enlisted and went to defend the country, I am prepared to admit that it is possible that a claim might be made out on compassionate grounds. But I am not prepared to-night to commit myself and say that the Government will recognize that claim. We will take into consideration the representations made by the members for Kindersley and Battleford and at a later date, if not this year, then during next session, make a statement as to what we shall do.
Mr. M(3RRISON: I wish to associate myself with those who have spoken on this matter. I do not know Mr. Campbell personally, but I have had considerable correspondence with him with regard to this affair and have also interviewed the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb).
I am convinced that the real reason why Mr. Campbell's claim is not recognized is the fear of the Government that there would thereby be created a precedent which would result in many more claims. But Mr. Campbell is the only soldier who has suffered loss through a grain company defaulting. I can sympathize with him because the first car of wheat I grew and shipped was stolen, and I know how it goes. Mr. Campbell is a young man just starting out in business, and he entrusted the car of flax to this firm which should have been bonded with sufficient security. They should not have got away with all their assets except their bond of $7,500.

Supply-Canada Grain Act
The Minister of Trade and Commerce admits that the matter has been put on a new plane and that we are admitting that Mr. Campbell has, not a legal, but a moral claim. Suppose I owed the minister some money and could evade payment legally: I admitted that, but I had the upper hand, and would not pay him, although I was morally indebted to him, because I was not legally bound to; what would my neighbours think of me? They would think I was a beautiful specimen, a pretty fine fellow. I submit that the country owes Mr. Campbell this $2,270 and should pay it.


James Alexander Robb: I do not even admit a moral claim. I say that on compassionate grounds his case might be considered.
Mr, MORRISON: I do not consider that there is any " compassion " in the matter, I think the country owes Mr. Campbell the money, at least morally.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: On what moral
ground does the' country owe jhim the money?


Mr. MORRISON:: He was protecting
our interests and the country should have protected his, when he was not here to look after them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am sympathetic
with Mr. Campbell, but this country never undertook to insure anyone against the loss of any kind of property.


John Morrison: The country did
undertake to protect the farmers in the shipping of grain, in providing that ^11 grain companies should be bonded With sufficient security. The Acme Grain Company were not bonded with sufficient security or Mr. Campbell would not have sustained the loss he has suffered.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: In view of the recent decision of the Manitoba court, have any steps been taken to insure that companies will not spring into existence without putting up the necessary bond which the law now requires? Further, what, if any, steps have been taken to protect the sellers of grain in that connection?


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps it would delay the
proceedings to go into that question at any length to-night. As my hon. friend is perhaps aware, the Manitoba Grain Act was passed to safeguard the handling of western grain, and that act was attacked by the people for whom it was enacted. It was taken into the courts and a suspicion was aroused that some parts of the act
180i
were ultra vires. That suspicion led to action being taken in the courts, and a judgment was rendered upholding the pretensions of certain people that the Government had no right to bond these grain dealers. Now, the Government had done all that they could be expected to do. They have appealed the judgment, and until that judgment is reviewed in the higher courts the Government will still act on the principle that the Manitoba Grain Act is legal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In other
words, you are continuing the present practice?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Mr. MILLAR:: Because of the belief that the Grain Act is in some respects unconstitutional, is it true that certain terminal elevator companies have been refusing to pay overages since 1920?


James Alexander Robb: That is quite true.


Robert Milton Johnson: We are
asked to vote a considerable sum of money for the administration of the Canada Grain Act, and I think the producers of and dealers in grain are entitled to know whether their interests will be protected. It is quite true, as the minister says, that the Grain Act was passed in 1908 and the Board of Grain Commissioners constituted to administer it. He also informs us that until this contentious question is decided in a higher court it will be assumed that the act is constitutional and that the commissioners have full power to carry out their duties. The question has been raised whether the Canadian grain trade should be administered solely by the federal authorities, or jointly with the provincial authorities, and such joint administration would necessitate certain amendments to the Grain Act. But if that is right, Mr. Chairman, let me repeat, those who are subject to the provisions of that act have a right to know what protection they enjoy.
The case which has been brought before us this evening, peculiar and special though it be is by no means singular, for we know that whether grain companies are bankrupt after conducting their business in a proper way or not, these cases are coming before us continually. Last year I am informed that a grain company in the city of Edmonton defaulted to the extent of many thousands of dollars, and the people who had consigned their grain to it were the losers. Last winter, before I left for the session, we had a similar case in the city of Regina where another firm, the mem-

Supply-Canada Grain Act
bers of which were respected citizens, went bankrupt under very sad circumstances indeed. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) perhaps is familiar with that case, but at any rate my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) will know what I refer to. I would not care to go into the details of that case here, but many farmers lost a considerable amount of money by that failure. One man told me that he consigned several carloads of grain to that firm, and simply had to write them off as a dead loss. It would appear therefore that either the act itself is defective or the Board of Grain Commissioners are incompetent to administer it.
But that is not the worst, 'Mr. Chairman: the act is being openly defied. I shall not deal with Section 215 which is at present the subject of controversy. But some grain firms of Winnipeg last year declined to pay to the federal government those overages which were legally due if the act is constitutional. On the 27th April last the following answer was given to a question put on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar), and will be found at page 1254 of Hansard:
For the crop year 1920-21 the total value of the overages to be delivered to the government was $130,524.06. Accounts have been rendered for this amount, but no payments have yet been made.
To my mind that is a serious state of affairs, and I cannot refrain at this stage from asking hon. gentlemen who have opposed our demand for a new system of marketing grain: Can they wonder that the farmers of western Canada are up in arms against this condition of affairs and determined that it shall cease?' I contend that if nothing else justifies their demand, that action on the part of certain grain firms does. Of course, the alternative suggestion is: Deal only with firms who have established a reputation for honesty and have ample capital to cover their losses. That is all very well, but under the law two or three people, members of this House if you like, could organize themselves into a grainhandling firm and proceed to do business with very few, if any, assets at their disposal and no guarantee beyond a bond, which represents only a very small percentage indeed of the value of the product that they will at times 'be called upon to handle. * If we are to have no better guarantee than that that our business will be properly transacted, I submit that we have a right to question this item and before it is

passed insist on an assurance that in the administration of the Grain Act by the Board of Grain Commissioners the producers of grain as well as those who deal in it shall be amply protected.


Thomas Sales: How long does the minister propose to allow the grain commission to issue licenses to private concerns?


James Alexander Robb: Permission to issue licenses to private elevators was given by an Order in Council passed, I think, at the request of gentlemen in this House who at that time represented the farmers of western Canada-the grain producers. Now, if representations are made to us that they do not desire the practice to be continued we will consider those representations.


Thomas Sales: What Order in Council is the minister referring to?


James Alexander Robb: I have not the Order at
hand.


Thomas Sales: If the minister is referring to the Order in Council which created the sample markets, I can only say that there was very considerable opposition to their creation.


James Alexander Robb: There was also a demand.


Thomas Sales: But I can assure my hon. friend that that demand was not from the farmers of the West. How long does the minister intend to allow the commission to permit private elevators, or elevators with private licenses, to conduct a public business?


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that a public business?


Thomas Sales: Yes. sir.


James Alexander Robb: I do not quite understand the question.


Thomas Sales: Do you intend to continue to allow an elevator with a private license to conduct a public terminal elevator business?


James Alexander Robb: So far as I know that is not allowed. It has been brought to my attention. Within a public terminal elevator there was what is termed a " private house," and I have given the grain commissioners strict instructions that all such abuses must cease. I might as well tell my hon. friend and the House that we have now before us complaints of irregular inspection and inferior grades-


Thomas Sales: Hear, hear.

Supply-Canada Grain Act


James Alexander Robb: -inferior grades that have been delivered to our customers in Great Britain. I have under my hand a complaint respecting certain cargoes of grain shipped to Great Britain, and this complaint contains the names of the shippers and the vessels on which the grain was carried. I am not making any threat to expose those shippers, but I say now for the benefit of those gentlemen who have been so shipping, and who cannot be exonerated from doing a grave injury to the Canadian grain trade, and to those representatives at the foreign ports to which that grain was shipped, that this Government cannot stand idly by while the fair name of our western wheat is injured by mixing in transit, and I warn them that unless the practice is stopped there will be a full exposure of their transaction.


Thomas Sales: I am very glad to receive the assurance of the minister on that ground. I noticed as I came in that the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Johnson) was making some remarks regarding the commission. This commission is a very important body-none more so in Canada. If the right men are on it they can render exceedingly good service; if the wrong men are on it they can do great harm. Almost since its inception the commission has been, I was going to say, a crime. One man who was appointed on it had no qualifications whatever for the position; the appointment was purely a political one. Another gentleman was appointed on it, I do not know what for. He surely knew all about the elevator business; the farmers of the West thought he knew a good deal too much about it.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Who were they?


Thomas Sales: Well, the second gentleman of whom I have spoken was manager of a company which was twice convicted and fined while he was manager for carrying on illegal operations, and he was put on this commission to act in a judicial capacity.


Mr. LOVETT:: Who appointed these
men?


Thomas Sales: As far as I can remember, they were appointed shortly after the election in 1911.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: I thought so.


Thomas Sales: I am not quite sure, but I think that is the case. The third member of the commission was a man of undoubted ability; he was the chairman. The farmers had great faith in him; but here again the Government pursues a niggardly policy by paying only $6,500 a year, and the Grain Exchange, by paying him more than the government paid him, took him away from the service of the country, in which he was doing really valuable work. I contend that the salaries paid on this commission should be higher. I do not see how a man who knows as much as one of these commissioners knows about terminal elevators and the grain trade-a very highly paid business-can afford to take the position of commissioner at $6,000 a year and be honest. Now I want to refer a little to the assurance that the minister has given us. This commission has always proved itself-some members of it at any rate-to be a willing tool in the hands
10 p.m. of the parties interested in the grain trade. For instance, in the Canada Grain Act I find no reference whatever to a private elevator; the only thing I can find in that respect is a reference to the hospital elevator. But when this sample market business was forced upon us by the late government in 1917, an Order in Council dated August 25 was passed and in it I find the first reference to private terminal elevators, as follows:
The board will issue public terminal elevator licenses and private terminal elevator licenses.
The first fight was to get the warehouse receipts issued by these private elevators put on the same footing as those issued by the public elevators. The trade managed to secure that. A regulation was made governing the sample markets; it reads in this way:
Grain received into private elevators must be the property of such elevators. Private elevators are prohibited from doing a public storage business ; provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall curtail the right of sale of grain in store in any private elevator.
Later, as I have said, they issued warehouse receipts and began to trade in them. Clause 17 of the regulations reads as follows :
Notwithstanding the foregoing rules and regulations for private terminal elevators, the owner or owners of grain may enter into a contract for the handling and mixing-
Mixing, you will note.
-the handling and mixing of grain in such private terminal elevators.
That was the whole fight of the trade. When they talked about sample markets they wanted the right to mix the grain, and once they got that legislation through they cared nothing about the sample market. It is true the Government found a

Supply-Canada Grain Act
place for a sample market at Fort William, but it was never used. And now we come to the gem of the whole business. They wanted to get the right to do a public business. This regulation, which should be issued each year before the opening of the grain trade, came out about the first of September. On the second of September, 1920, by Order in Council, section 17 was cancelled and the following was substituted therefor:
.Notwithstanding the foregoing rules and regulations for private terminal elevators the owner or owners of grain may enter into a contract for the storing or handling and mixing of grain in such private terminal elevators, and such contract may, if desired, be in the form of a warehouse receipt, which shall be registered by the board as to quantity only.
If desired by whom? I would like to ask the minister that question. This Order in Council was put through by the grain commission at the request of the trade and was absolutely unknown to the farmers of this country, whose grain was to be handled. This grain has been going into these houses; mixing has been going on; the grade of our grain has been degraded; No. 3 has been lowered to such an alarming extent that we have the statement of one of the millers before the agriculture committee that they did not want to buy any grain out of a mixing house. I make the statement that the result was to degrade the whole grain of Canada.
I know there is an item of $40,000 for a grain inquiry, if it is desired. I say there should be a grain inquiry. Our Grain Growers' Association in Saskatchewan passed a resolution to the effect that such an inquiry should be carried on. But we do not want a political inquiry; we want a real inquiry, an inquiry which will tell us how much of the grain goes into these mixing houses and how much comes out. We want an inquiry which will tell us how much of the farmers' wheat was sold without their permission. We do not want an inquiry which will send out miles into the country for the purpose of bringing witnesses to give evidence against certain firms. We want a real inquiry which will ascertain the facts, an inquiry into the physical handling and grading of our grain.
I would like them to inquire into another thing. There is a very strong suspicion that grain is taken into private elevators, mixed, and then transferred by rail to public elevators. I would like that to be inquired into. I am certain that the farmers are robbed of millions of dollars 
a year by this mixing alone. Let me explain what I mean: Take a car of No. 3 which just narrowly misses being a 2, and -take a car of No. 4 which narrowly misses being a 3. Now there is at times 14 cents a bushel difference between those, and it is quite possible for a man skilled in the mixing of grain to take that high 3 and that high 4 and turn them both into a 3, and gain 12 or 14 cents a bushel. It is quite possible to take a car which is graded " tough " and mix it with some dry grain, and do all this kind of thing which, Mr. Chairman, to say the least of it should be stopped. These are the practices I would like to see a real grain inquiry into.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: You will never see it.


Thomas Sales: I do not think we ever should had my hon. friends to my right remained in power. I am hoping, however, to see a real grain inquiry. While I am on my feet I would like to say this further: I think that the producers of grain, whose interests this commission are supposed to guard, should certainly be represented on that commission, and they certainly should be represented on any inquiry that would be held in the future.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before the hon. gentleman gives up the subject will he explain how those things which he has described are done? We eastern men know practically nothing about the handling of grain. We know how coal, and steel, and fish, and other commodities are handled, but we know nothing about the handling or transhipping of grain. Perhaps the hon. member will explain how the cars that he speaks of get their grade? Who gives them their number-whether it be 1, or 2, or 3 or 4-in the first instance, and how is it possible for these frauds to be carried out? I am anxious to know how they can be provided against. I think I can assure my hon. friend that as far as this side of the House is concerned nothing can be more desirable, from our standpoint, than to make such frauds absolutely impossible, and my hon. friend will help hon. gentlemen on this side by showing how it is possible that with ordinary, intelligent officials in charge of the business these frauds can be perpetrated on honest farmers in this country.


Thomas Sales: Mr. Chairman, I will do my best to explain the matter to the Solicitor General. First of all, the cars are

Supply-Canada Grain Act
graded under the Grain Commission. They have charge of the grading. They grade the wheat at Winnipeg and it is forwarded to the terminal elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William. A terminal elevator will take grain of certain grades which is not its own and store that grain, but this is not where the frauds are perpetrated. We will take grade No. 3, for instance, which is the one which is most used. Very often there will be a difference of 12 cents a bushel between No. 3 and No. 4. Now here is a car of No. 3 wheat which is just below No. 2; and a car which is not good enough for No. 3 and goes into No. 4. In the public bin we have this situation: Here is a car which misses being a 2 and is a very good car of 3. Here is my hon. friend next to me with a car of what we call on an average grade of 3, that is in the middle; and here is another man with a car Which narrowly misses being a 4-all cars grading number 3 wheat. When they all go into the public terminal elevator and are mixed together what comes out is the average 3. Have I made myself plain there? That is the public terminal elevator-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Just on that point,
does the hon. gentleman say that these different grades Should be kept separate-


Thomas Sales: No sir.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: -and not be put together?


Thomas Sales: No, sir, they are one grade; but there is such a lot of difference between the car which narrowly misses being a 2 and the car which narrowly misses getting into the 4-quite a difference. Mix these grades together as I have stated, and we get the average 3. Now we will take the private elevator.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the purpose of showing grades 1, 2, 3, and 4 in a car if they are all to be dumped into one and the chances taken of what will come out?


Thomas Sales: Evidently I have not made the matter plain to my hon. friend. I am speaking of one grade only. There is a grade No. 1 that should go together, a grade No. 2 that should go together, and a grade No. 3 that should go together. I am speaking of the No. 3 grade because there is such a wide spread between 3 and 4. There is perhaps 3 cents difference in price between 1 and 2, and 4 cents difference in price between 2 and 3; but between 3 and 4 is a wide spread and this is the grade
which lends itself so readily to manipulation. I have spoken of the public elevator business. Now for the private elevator business where I maintain this mixing goes on which is- detrimental to the producer. A car of good 3, which narrowly misses being a 2 is taken and mixed with the best of 4 and then it is graded out as a 3. It all comes out as a poor 3 which narrowly misses being a 4; in fact the charge is made that the inspector when the grading is going on will say "I cannot allow any more of this to go, it is too poor, it is too near the line" and they strengthen it by putting a little better wheat into it; but it is the lowest of the grade. Have I made myself clear, Sir?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My difficulty is that I do not understand why once the government inspector names a car No. 3-that certainly must be the class or he would not call it No. 3-why he mixes it up with a No. 4-there is certainly a mix-up of some kind-to get the proper grade.


Mr. HUGHES:: Which farmer loses?
Where does the fraud come in?


Thomas Sales: We have always contended the farmer suffers that loss.


James Joseph Hughes: Who suffers the loss? The farmer that has the No. 3 wheat or the farmer that has the No. 4?


Thomas Sales: Well, the farmer gets paid for No. 4' wheat but if, by mixing that wheat with No. 3, the elevator owner can obtain 12 cents a bushel, you know who gets the money. Further than that, let me say this when our degraded No. 3-which is just above a 4, that is all-gets into the British market you cannot fool the man in England who is buying our wheat for milling purposes-


James Alexander Robb: Hear, hear.


Thomas Sales: - and he will only pay for the low 3 because that is what he expects to get. In that way Liverpool sets the price of wheat to the farmers; and if this de-' grading is permitted to go on, even those not used to the grain trade can see that the farmer must be the sufferer.


James Alexander Robb: I understand the Minister of Finance desires to make a statement so perhaps we had better pass this item, and we can have a full discussion on the next item.


Thomas Sales: Before the item carries I would like to have an assurance from the minister that enough money will be paid to
2842	COMMONS
Budget Changes-Mr. Fielding
get really good men for this commission who will honestly serve this country. I know that as salaries go in the grain trade you cannot possibly get good men at $6,000 a year. This grain trade is a very highly paid business. You cannot expect to get a really efficient man at $6,000 a year, as the minister will find out, if he makes inquiry. I should like it to be put on a basis where we could expect to have really efficient men on the commission.


James Alexander Robb: If this item is passed, I
think it would be fair to consent to a full discussion of the whole grain trade on the following items.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it the intention of
the Government, in view of the allegations or charges made in the last few months in regard to this-


James Alexander Robb: Permit me to finish. This
whole item has not yet passed. There are other items in it, and the hon. member can make his point-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to propound a question. Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with the grain inquiry which was commenced and suspended for lack of appropriations, in view of the added charges, which, I understand, have recently been filed in affidavit form with the Board of Grain Commissioners at Port William?


James Alexander Robb: There is an item in the
estimates for that purpose, and, when that item is under consideration, the Government will be glad to listen to representations from Parliament.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the minister would
be prepared to make a definite statement at that time, I would be satisfied. I think the House is entitled to a statement in regard to this matter.


James Alexander Robb: We will make a statement
when that question is under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 9th, the debate on the motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the

House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. Sir Henry Drayton.
Hon. W. iS. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :	Mr. Speaker, my first dutyand it is a pleasure as well-is to offer my grateful acknowledgment of the very many kind words that have been said in the course of this debate concerning myself and my public life in what, I suppose, must be called the evening of my career. It is a pleasure to me to feel that, in a somewhat long political career, through all the storm and strife which seems to be incidental to political discussion, not only have I had the good fortune to have the loyal support of the great party to which I belong, but it has been my great good luck, I count it, that, in almost all these movements, I have had, in a very large degree, the goodwill and friendship of hon. members whose sense of public duty obliges them to differ from me. For all the good words that have been said from all portions of the House, for the loyal support of friends, and the very generous observations of my political opponents, I desire to offer sincere thanks.
Before I proceed to inform the House of the changes which the Government desire to propose in the budget resolutions, I shall ask permission of the House to call attention to some of the criticisms that have been offered. The field is a broad one, and the temptation is strong, but I shall try to resist it, except to deal with a few points. First, let me say that I shall deal with the attitude that has been assumed by my good friends of the Progressive party in relation to this budget. I think we had a right to expect a rather more generous criticism of the budget than has come from them. We expected no help, no aid and no sympathy from my hon. friends of the official Opposition. It is not their business to be pleased with anything we do, naturally. On the trade question there is a broad line of demarka-tion between the official Opposition and the Government. They boast that they stand for protection. We of the Liberal party have never stood for protection, and we do not stand for it now. In our resolution of the last session, which I had occasion to read at an earlier stage of this debate, we distinctly took issue with them on that ground. They declared for protection. We declared in our resolution that we were not prepared to accept that principle.

Budget Changes-Mr. Fielding
Our Progressive friends do us the justice of saying that, as far as we have gone, the budget is all right, but they think it should go much further. Well, from their point of view, it is reasonable, perhaps, that they should think that. But then most of us learn that we cannot in all things have our own way. All political matters are essentially matters of compromise, in some degree, and, so long as the compromise is not one of principle, there is no reason why men should not compromise, because it is only by a policy of that nature that government can ever be carried on. So I say to my friends the Progressive party, that they are not asked to compromise any principle, but if they believe, as most of them have said, that as far as the budget has gone, it is in their direction, then it seems to me they should be willing to accept it, they may say, as a temporary measure; but, whatever view they may want to take of it, it is a step in the right direction, and, for that reason,
I think they should give it their support. A year ago the Liberal party voted for a certain resolution. I read it in the House before. May I call attention again to a portion of it, as follows:
That, while recognizing that existing financial requirements of the Dominion demand the maintenance of a Customs Tariff, the House is unable to concur in the declarations by the Government that the tariff should be based on the principle of protection ; the tariff is a tax, and the aim of legislation should be to make taxation as light as circumstances will permit;
And further on-
That, while keeping this aim clearly in mind, the House recognizes that in any readjustment of the tariff that may take place, regard must be had to existing conditions of trade, and changes made in such a manner as will cause the least possible disturbance of business.
I want to call attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that this is not only our own policy, but it was the Progressive policy, because every Progressive in the House did us the honour of voting for it. We had not as large a Progressive group as we have to-day, but the hon. member for Marquette then, as now, was their leader. He did not have a large group, but he had a very energetic group. They found the Liberal policy of that day was entirely in harmony with their own policy, that resolution called for a revision downward, and made in such a manner that business should not be disturbed, and that is exactly what the budget proposes. I say, in all sincerity, that this budget ought to commend itself to our Progressive friends, not as a finality, not as something
that is entirely in line with their own views, but as something which follows the right direction, and, so far as it goes it should have their cordial support. If, instead of having the large group they have to-day, being the second group in this House, they had the good fortune, or the misfortune to be group No. 1 and to be charged with the responsibility of carrying on the government of this country, and if the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) were standing in my place at this moment, I venture to say that he would be obliged, in the light of that resolution, to bring forward a budget substantially in line with that which I have presented. The responsibility is over the whole of us, and I believe if any hon. gentleman of the Progressive party were charged with the responsibility that has come to us to-day, he would feel, if he listened to the representations that have been made, that this was not a time for radical changes, but a time for caution, for moderation, for seeking to take into consideration the interests of the whole country. We are so apt, each of us in our own part of the country, to look at things from a sectional point of view, and that is unavoidable. One of the great things of Parliament is that mind meets mind, from east and west and from north and south; and while we look at things from different angles, we discover, for the first time, many of us, that there is another side to every question. As we meet together and mind rubs against mind, in the contact of mind and mind we discover that we are able to take broader views. I said this in opposition and I say it now that, while I believed the Liberal party would win, I had no fear that the Progressive party would do any great wrong to this country. I believed a sense of sobriety would come to all men placed in a position of responsibility and would lead those men to apply moderately the doctrines to which they had committed themselves. So I say, in all sincerity, if hon. gentlemen opposite were standing in our place to-day, they would be obliged to pursue a policy very much along the line of that which we are trying to follow now. It is a policy of moderation, a policy which conforms entirely to the resolution that I have read.
Very much attention has been called to the fact that although we make small reductions in the tariff, we have increased the sales tax, and emphasis is laid on that fact. The sales tax and the customs tax are two different things. No matter what
2844	COMMONS
Budget Changes-Mr. Fielding
customs duty you might have at the present time, you would need to have a sales tax. The hon. member for Marquette expressed his disapproval of the principle of the sales tax, and that is a fair matter of opinion; but to the best of my recollection, he did not propose any substitute for it. Last year we received $60,000,000 from the sales tax. We are increasing it one-half, and this year we expect to get $90,000,000 and possibly $100,000,000 from that tax, One or two hon. gentlemen in the Progressive party have suggested other things. One suggested a land tax, another an inheritance tax. There may be merit in either or both of these suggestions; but they are not what we might call "ready reckoners"; they would not yield money very quickly. We have not the machinery to establish a land tax, and even an inheritance tax would not bring us much revenue in a hurry. Death is sure; but sometimes it is slow, and I am not sure that either by an inheritance tax or a land tax we could get much money in this year of our Lord. I am not condemning either of those taxes. I regret to say that all that we can get out of these proposed new taxes will still leave us short of money at the end of the year; whoever may stand in my place a year hence will probably have to devise new taxes, and, perhaps, some of the suggestions coming to us to-day will be found to be exceedingly useful. Therefore, because a tax is not adopted to-day, it does not follow that it may not have to be adopted at no distant date.
As regards the question of the tariff proposals, I think my hon. friends of the Progressive party should have given the matter more consideration. They should not be antagonistic to them; they should regard them, as being in their own direction, although they do not go as far as they wish the reductions to go. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) have both treated these reductions that we make as small things. The leader of the Opposition said that they were microscopic; the ex-Minister of Finance said that they were so unimportant that they were hardly worth mentioning, and I think it was the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) who said that they were piffling. Well, I hope they will tell that same story when they go back to the manufacturers of the country and when they are asked what they think of this thing; but I get an inkling of what they will say then, because before the leader of 
the Opposition had finished his speech, he pictured, and called the attention of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Raymond) to what he said was a fact, that as a consequence of these reductions, microscopic and piffling, the workmen of Brantford were going to walk the streets in idleness. When he goes to the manufacturing districts, he will not find that these are viewed as mild as piffling reductions. They are reductions which account for a great deal. Two and a half per cent off an item in a manufacturing industry is often regarded as a very serious injury, and I know to-day there are many interests in Canada which are alarmed at the reductions that are made. I think their alarm is needless. Capital is usually easily alarmed; manufacturers are easily alarmed.
I remember that two days before the budget of 1897 was brought down, I was waited upon by a deputation of bankers. I do not think I have ever made this statement in public before. They came to me and pleaded that we should not touch the tariff at all. They pointed out, as men always do, the interblending and the interdependence of interests. It was not the manufacturer alone; it was the banker, the labourer, the merchant. All interests were interwoven into a network, and if we touched the tariff at all, dreadful things would happen. If we had acted on their views, we would have made no changes at all. We made changes, important changes, as I shall proceed to show. What happened? Was the business of the country ruined? How far the tariff had anything to do with the matter, I will not venture to say, because it is not for me to boast. But for many years afterwards, the business of Canada flourished as it had not flourished for years before. So, if there are manufacturers who are disturbed over this, I ask them to look back to the records of 1897 and to remember that the alarm which they then felt was uncalled for, and it is uncalled for to-day.
We have been delving into ancient history in this matter. I am not sure that that is very profitable; but if we are to have ancient history, we had better have it correctly. The statement has been constantly and frequently made in this discussion that the Liberal party in 1897 made no material changes in the tariff. Perhaps, when men hear a statement made first, they do not look into it closely; but when they hear it made a dozen times, they begin to believe it. I suppose that when my hon. friend from West Toronto, who

Budget Changes-Mr. Fielding
is a decent, respectable and God-fearing man, stated the other day in this House that the Liberal party in 1897 adopted the tariff of Sir John A. Macdonald, he was repeating an ancient fabrication which at one time he had heard, and which possibly had gradually grown upon him until he believed it himself. There is no shadow of foundation for such a statement. The Liberal tariff of 1897 was not the tariff policy of Sir John A. Macdonald. It made important changes. To begin with, it introduced the British preference. Did that distinguished stateman ever introduce such a tariff? Yet, my hon. friend from Toronto only echoes what other people have said when he declares that in 1897 we simply adopted the Conservative tariff policy. But that was not all. The British preference itself brought considerable reductions in the tariff, but beyond that there was a long list of reductions, and substantial reductions, made by the dozen in the general tariff at that time. Therefore, 'when we are told that the Liberal tariff policy of 1897 was a policy adopted from the Conservative party, I want to tell my Conservative friends who make that statement that they are simply repeating an ancient fabrication which never had any foundation, and which should no longer be imposed upon this House. I could read the items if I had time.
Arthur Meighen: That statement was embodied in the campaign literature of hon. gentlemen behind my hon. friend, including the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell) in the last election.


Mr. FIELDING:: What statement?


Arthur Meighen: The statement which my hon. friend has just denounced as a fabrication.


William Stevens Fielding: I have never seen it in that form. I have never heard it made by any Liberal; I have always heard it made by my Conservative friends. I am willing to be generous and to believe that they are misinformed, and that gradually the thing has grown upon them until they imagine it to be a fact.
I think that instead of undertaking to prove what the Liberals said at the time I might do as well by producing another witness. It will be remembered that at that time the leader of the Conservative party was Sir Charles Tupper. Now, bear in mind that we are told that the policy we adopted was the policy of the Conservative party; it is said that we were merely continuing the National Policy. I was under the imlpression, Mr. Speaker, that I had by me the extract from the speech of Sir Charles Tupper, but I find that it is not among my papers. However, I remember distinctly hearing Sir Charles Tupper denounce that policy. He declared that a greater crime could not very well be committed against the industries of Canada than was to be four\d in the tariff of 1897. He said, virtually, "I have heard the sorrowful wail of the manufacturers and the workmen of the city of Montreal rising up in protest against this tariff." Well, if it was the National Policy, the old Conservative policy, if there was no material change in it from that policy, why in the world did that veteran leader of that day find it necessary to denounce it as a crime against the industries of the country? I am going to ask my hon. friend from Toronto to forget that dream of his and never to repeat that ancient proposition.
Now, we have heard in this debate a good deal about reciprocity. I am glad we have, and we shall hear more about it again. And there we have another broad line of demarcation between the official Opposition and ourselves. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has said distinctly that he does not want any reciprocity. Well, I am glad to have that open confession. He gets back to the old slogan: "No truck or trade with the Yankees." I am glad to have the statement from him, if it is his view.	-


Arthur Meighen: I cannot sit while my hon. friend misrepresents me. I stated that I was opposed to any extensive reciprocal arrangement with the United States, but I have never used the words, "No truck or trade with the Yankees," nor have I ever heard any one on this side, supporting this party, use that expression. I have only heard the hon. gentleman himself make use of it in seeking to put up a shadow that he might knock down.


William Stevens Fielding: I never attributed to the right hon. gentleman the words "No truck or trade with the Yankees," but the sentiment is there. Those words express the sentiment of the Conservative party.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


Jacques Bureau: It was the Conservative slogan of 1911.


William Stevens Fielding: Will the right hon. gentleman deny that in the debate the other day he said that we had reciprocity and it
2846	COMMONS
Budget Changes-Mr. Fielding
took years to recover from it? Why did [DOT]we have to recover from it? And who tried to recover from it? From the time we had reciprocity, between 1854 and 1866, up to the time the Tory party were driven out of power in 1896, there never was a public man in Canada, Grit or Tory, who did not stand for reciprocity. My right hon. friend says that it took us years to recover fronj the effects of that reciprocal agreement. How and where does he get his evidence in support of that statement? I repeat, Sir, that there was never a public man, either Grit or Tory, who sat in the seats of government during all that period who did not stand for reciprocity Did they not send delegate after delegate to Washington, almost begging for reciprocity? Yet we are told now that it took us years to recover from reciprocity. If it was an evil from which it was considered desirable, in the interests of the country, that we should recover as quickly as possible, why did the Conservative party go begging for reciprocity?


Arthur Meighen: That was during the period of recovery. From the breaking of those Pitenmages ceased, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier announced that they had ceased for good.


Mr FIELDING:: He stated that we
would not go to Washington, and he was right. And we did not go to Washington; Washington came to us. Washington sent her delegates to us after years, as we thought, of ungenerous treatment. Washington sent to Ottawa delegates who said: Never mind the past, we are prepared to meet you in a fair spirit now?" Were we right or wrong, then, in treating with them? What would this country have said if we had replied to those delegates: "Get you gone. You quarrelled with us in bygone days and refused to consider terms with us. Go away; we will have no truck or trade with you at all"-what would the country have thought had we made any such reply? That would have been the attitude of the Conservative party, however, if I understand, and am to judge by, their position to-day. Now we have a clear understanding from hon. gentlemen opposite; they do not want reciprocity. Indeed, Sir, it will be a difficult thing for us to secure reciprocity; I am afraid we lost the golden opportunity in 1911. It will not come again, I fear, but if it does come, there is this difference between our friends opposite and us. We the Liberal party say that if at any moment our American 
neighbours are prepared to meet us in the spirit in which they came to us in 1910 and 1911 we are ready to discuss the matter with them with a willingness to make a satisfactory arrangement so long as we protect the interests of Canada just as we did in 1911. My right hon. friend and his associates on the other hand, take the opposite stand. They say: "Don't come; keep off the grass!" And that is a big enough and broad enough difference to divide two parties in this country. I do not hesitate to say that, in my judgment, any political party that deliberately declares that it does not want to establish friendly and better trade relations with the great Republic beside us can never win the confidence of the people of this Dominion. Hon. members of this House have been discussing tonight the estimates of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb). Let them take up that little booklet his department issues, "Commercial Intelligence," if that is the proper title, and they will find therein a list of men whom we are sending out with the object of helping to encourage trade between other countries and Canada. We have these men in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, in fact all over the wide world, and we want trade from all these various countries. But right alongside us are 110,000,000 of the richest people on earth; and what are we told? Hon. gentlemen opposite would tell them we do not want to trade with them. I say that it is in the interest of Canada and, indeed, of the Empire, that we should cultivate friendly relations with this great nation beside us, and my only fear is that we have lost our opportunity. But let it be known that there is this broad line between hon. gentlemen opposite and ourselves, that when the same opportunity comes again we shall be ready to grasp it, while they say they do not want to have anything to do with the United States on any such conditions. That is a big question. I had occasion to discuss this matter some years ago, and while I do not often indulge in the vanity of quoting from speeches of my own, I shall venture to do so to-night.


George Perry Graham: You cannot do better.


William Stevens Fielding: During the campaign of 1911 I addressed a meeting in Windsor Hall, Montreal, and I am going to ask the indulgence of the House while I read a passage or two from that speech, which I think has a bearing on the present situation in Canada. I said:
Four years ago, I think it was. I had the pleasure of addressing a meeting in this same

Budget Changes-Mr. Fielding
hall, at which I ventured to discuss the question of the tariff in its relation to Bast and West. I would like to quote for you a passage in my speech then, but I will give you the substance of it. I ventured to point out to the manufacturers of Canada that It was a mistake for them to array themselves in antagonism to the people of the western provinces. That opinion I want to express again to-day. There is She danger that Bast and West may be brought into antagonism. The danger is not to be found in reciprocity itself, but the danger is that the manufacturing interests of this country and their allied moneyed interests will array themselves in hostility to the growing feeling of the western farmers. Don't make any mistake about it-the day is within sight of the younger men here, and of some who are not so young, when there will be more people west of the Great Bakes than east of the Great Lakes. The West is going some day to dominate Canada and we, who live in the East, if we are wise, may as well look ahead and see this. What kind of a West is it to be? Is it to be a wise and prudent and sympathetic West, or is it to be a rash and reckless and dangerous West? The answer can be made by the manufacturers of the Dominion and the allied moneyed interests to-day. I do not hesitate to say that with proper care, with fair treatment, with reasonable argument, we can brting the western farmer to be sympathetic and to be willing to work in harmony with the people of this eastern country, who have done so much for the building up of the West.
A Voice: Will there be no factories in the West?
Hon. Sir. Fielding: That is a very proper question to ask. Certainly there will be factories in the West. But I think the gentleman will agree With me that while factories will grow as they grow everywhere with population, for the present and in the early future agriculture is to be the dominant force in that Western land. My friend will admit that. There will come factories, but for the present and for the future, and may be for the future far ahead, the agricultural interest is going to dominate in that country. We must consider whether we are going to antagonize and irritate that interest or whether we are going to meet them as brethren and deal out to them fair consideration.
Then after some further remarks, I said:
Now, I believe that if we meet the farmers in a right spirit, if we point out their extreme views, as we have to point out their extreme views when they insist on free agricultural implements, if, I say, you meet these people in the right spirit, if you reason With them, if you let them understand that you are not trying to oppress them, if you give them a kind and sympathetic hand, they will be disposed to be more reasonable and fair and to take their full share of the burden of developing our vast Dominion.
But suppose you do not do that. Suppose the manufacturers should organize to-day with their money to defeat this agreement, I want to tell you, my brethren, that there wili grow up in that western country a dangerous feeling. Don't make any mistake about it. I beg the manufacturers of this country-I always talk frankly to them and I am doing so now-I beg them not to range themselves up against the farmers of the West. The manufacturers are not hurt: they are more frightened than hurt. I give it to you as my opinion, worth much or worth
little, that if by the forces of the manufacturers this agreement be destroyed, there will grow up in that western country a feeling that will be dangerous to the manufacturing interests of Canada and dangerous to the welfare of this Dominion.
That was eleven years ago, Mr. Speaker, and I do not hesitate to say that while other causes may have had an influence in upsetting the western people, if I may so express it, yet the gravest charge the western people were able to bring against eastern Canada was that that reciprocity agreement which gave them some help was destroyed by the attitude of the manufacturers and their allied monied interests in the West. If there is unrest to-day, if we have men in that western country, saying things against the integrity of the Dominion, make no mistake, you can trace their origin to the fatal error made by eastern Canada in 1911. I do not want to dwell further on that question of reciprocity, but I should like you distinctly to understand that we accept the broad issue that is laid down on that question.
A curious phase tof this debate has been the picture presented to us of the industrial condition of Germany. There is an economic condition in Germany to which our attention must be drawn. But it seems to me that hon. gentlemen opposite have not been content to deal with the economic question only; they have traded, if I may say so, on the anti-German feeling. Now, undoubtedly the picture they present is this. Germany has a remarkable depreciation of the mark. But Germany is prosperous, her people are willing to work long hours for low wages, industry is humming, business is good, and Germany is flourishing because1 the mark has depreciated. Well, if that is true, what fools we mortals be in Canada and the rest of the world! Here we have been struggling to keep our credit good, here we have been fighting to make our dollar 100 per cent, and when a few months ago our dollar in New York was worth 15 cents less than par we did not know whether to be angry or sorry, but we all felt it was something to regret: and when a few days ago my hon. friend from Marquette mentioned incidentally in debate that he was glad to know our dollar to-day is worth almost par the sentiment was applauded all over the House. Evidentally we are wrong; we should be sorry that the Canadian dollar is worth 99J cents to-day, for if worth only 50 cents, 40 cents, 10 cents, then, according to this picture of Germany, we would be
2848	COMMONS
Budget Changes-Mr. Fielding
in a happy and prosperous condition. Well, I refuse to believe that.
There is a situation in Germany which demands some attention. It is an economic law, which usually is found in operation, that where a country's currency is severely depreciated, that depreciation, if not accompanied, is soon followed by a corresponding advance in the price of commodities and wages. There is to-day a race on in Germany between the continued depreciation of the mark and the relative advance in the price of commodities and wages. At present the mark has won. It used to be that about 4| marks would buy a gold dollar; to-day it would take nearly 300 marks. That is a condition which cannot continue much longer. There is now coming an increase in the price of commodities and wages, and there can be no doubt that as the months roll on that increase will be very pronounced, and when conditions become very bad we will not of course hear such glowing reports of German prosperity.
However, there is that economic condition to which attention must be drawn. But, as I remarked a moment ago, my hon. friends have not been content with calling attention to that economic condition, they have tried to drag in all the horrors of the war. I think it was my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) who pictured the horrors of the war and asked: Are we going to trade with these German people? And my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Baxter) went further, if I am not mistaken; he thundered his denunciations against the Germans and asked beseechingly:	Are we going to trade with these
Germans? Every other nation in the world is trying to trade with the Germans to-day, and we should not be too proud to trade with them. I have an individual right as a citizen to say whether or not I want to buy German goods, and I know what my preference is in the matter; but as a nation we have no right to legislate against Germany.
My hon. friend from St. John paid a high compliment-and one which I am sure we all admired-to his leader, and declared his loyalty and devotion to him, but before he finished his speech he denounced in vigorous terms one of the great acts of his leader's career, at least the Conservative party think so, that is the Treaty of Versailles. When my hon. friend waves the bloody shirt and thunders out his denunciation against what he terms 
the premature peace, and regrets that the cities of Germany were not devastated as were the cities of France-when he does all that, I tell him he is denouncing his leader, because that leader and his friends were the people who brought about that peace. They cannot say I did it. " Never shake thy gory locks at me." I was not one of those who joined in the joy-ride to Paris, nor did any colleague of mine, when our friends opposite went through the amusing farce of pretending to negotiate the peace treaty. Be it good or be it bad, I had no responsibility in the matter. They are the men who signed, sealed and delivered that document, which on the first page declared that its purpose was to put an end to the state of war and bring about between Germany and the allied countries, including Canada, a firm and enduring peace. That is what my hon. friend's leader and his colleagues did. But they did more than that-they wasted $1,000,000 of the money of the people of Canada in a special session of Parliament for the purpose of approving that treaty-about as useful and necessary a proceeding as the fifth wheel of a coach. However that may be, they signed, sealed and delivered that bond, and declared that Canada and the Empire were at peace with Germany. Now they come here and talk about the harm that would be done if we trade with Germany. I am not more anxious to trade with Germany than other people, but in view of their action at Versailles I do not like to see my hon. friends waving the bloody shirt and denouncing Germany. We have made our peace with Germany, and we ought to treat her decently; and that is all I propose to do.
Now, on the economic question relating to Germany, much can be said. The German mark is worth to-day one-third of a cent; under normal conditions it was worth 23 cents and a fraction. By the act of last year the government declared that for customs duty purposes it should be valued at 12 cents-for convenience I take that figure as half of the 23 cents and a fraction. The hon. member for Centre Vancouver, who gave much attention to this matter the other day, rather held that that was a mistake; that if anything the percentage was too high, it was piling on the taxes too heavily. He said it might be better to make the percentage 35 and there is merit in that suggestion. After studying this question we have formed a conclusion of our own as to what will be the best method of dealing with this mat-

Budget Changes-Mr. Fielding
ter, and at a later stage of my remarks I will inform the House what that is.
It has been stated over and
11 p.m. over again that we are taking off 2i per cent on agricultural implements and adding a certain percentage by way of sales tax. Now, I want to put a fair question, and I will put it to my hon. friend from Vancouver, who generally takes a fair view of these things when politics allow him to do so. Does my hon. friend say that we can carry on efficiently the government of Canada and meet our obligations without new taxation? He will not say that; I am sure he would admit at once that if we are to meet our obligations-I do not say whose obligations they are; I am not making any point in that regard; they are the obligations of Canada-if we are to meet those obligations; if we are to pay interest, if we are to pay our pensions, if we are to make provision decently at all for the public service of the country, we must have increased taxation. That being the case, why alarm the people by saying that we are taking off 2| per cent and piling the taxation on in the form of sales tax?
Hon. gentlemen opposite are constantly saying that the sales tax hits everybody. I think it was the hon. member for Carle-ton who said the other day that the sales tax affects one hundred per cent of the people. Now, that is rather a magnified statement. There is a very large list of exemptions from the sales tax, chiefly foodstuffs. The only change we have made in the matter is that we have increased the list of exemptions. I do not see how in the world it can be said that there is anything wrong in that respect. We do adopt the sales tax, and we increase the amount of it, because the country needs it.
With further reference to the German business, I think one hon. gentleman said that if we had any favours to give in this matter we should give them not to Germany, but to our friends. Well, one of the misfortunes of this matter of depreciated currency is that it hits one of our friends. Is Italy our friend? Was Italy our ally in the war? In what we are doing we are penalizing not only Germany, but Italy as well.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend will permit me, the suggestion that I made to reduce the percentage to 35 would meet the case of Italy.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman's suggestion as far as it went, was a good
one, and I have given him credit for that. The Italian lira is usually worth the same as the French franc, a fraction under 20 cents; I call it 20 for convenience of calculation. Under the law of Canada, as it was last year, goods coming from Italy have been valued for duty purposes at 10 cents. The actual value of the Italian lira was 5i cents, the value for duty purposes being, therefore, really double. I know there is trouble in connection with these depreciated currencies, but I would like to point out that it is not only Germany that is hit; it reaches Italy also, one of our friends. I will come to that a little later and suggest what I think will be a reasonable way of meeting the difficulty.
I have been surprised to be told that this .is a protectionist budget. I cannot understand the logic of that statement. With the exception of one or two items in relation to tobacco for purely revenue purposes, every change that is made in this budget is a downward revision of taxation. How can anbody make a protectionist budget out of a reduction of taxation? Is this to be the final word? There is no finality in politics. I say again, with all due respect to my hon. friends opposite, that if they stood in our place to-night they would not be able to go any further than we have gone. Whether we shall be able to go further another time is a question that we must leave to the future. But let me add this: You know the mind of our Conservative friends; you know the direction in which they are looking in regard to the tariff, and you know the direction in which the Liberal party has been looking through all the years. That is the direction in which they will continue to look.


Arthur Meighen: Is not all my hon. friend says with regard to this budget true of the 1919 budget?


William Stevens Fielding: Well, I have not
studied the 1919 budget.


Arthur Meighen: Everything a reduction, and the hon gentleman opposed it.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think the hon. gentleman will find that I opposed any reduction at all.


Arthur Meighen: Opposed the budget.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I think my hon. friend will find he is mistaken in that view. However, I am more interested in the budget of 1922 than I am in the budget of 1919, though I do not mind a little delving into ancient literature for the purpose

Budget Changes-Mr. Fielding
of trying to correct the errors that have been made.
I think it was the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Fansher) who dwelt on the payment of drawbacks to various companies, and he saw in this some great wrong. Why, he said, you have paid half a million dollars by way of drawback to the Ford Motor Company, and a million and a half to the Atlantic Sugar Refineries, but I have seen no drawback paid to the beet sugar people. Well, as the beet sugar people had not paid a cent into the treasury they could not very well have any drawback. There are two phases of that matter to which I want to give a little attention by way of explanation. If my hon. friends have not already heard it, they will see at once that the explanation is very simple and that there is no favouring anybody in these drawbacks. First, in regard to the Atlantic Sugar Refineries, I may point out the duty on sugar varies according to the character and quality of the sugar. When a cargo of sugar arrives at Montreal or Halifax, it would be a great convenience if you could then and there determine the amount of duty to be paid and settle the matter forthwith. But you cannot do that; it takes time, and in the meantime the steamer is lying at the wharf and expense is being incurred. Now, common sense generally prevails in government matters; I will say that even of my hon. friends when they were in power, because they did have some common sense policies. What they do is this: there are two tests in the sugar business. There is the colour test, which is called the Dutch standard, the value of the sugar being judged by its colour, and there is another test of the strength of the sugar which is called the polariscopic test. It takes time to apply these tests and to ascertain exactly the rate of duty to be paid on a cargo of sugar. So the customs people say: "We will let you .pay your duty now at the very highest rate which can apply; we want to take no chances. Then we will test the sugar, and if it is found that your sugar is not valued as high as that, you will be entitled to a refund." Is that reasonable? Is that businesslike? It is simply a refund of duty that was overpaid by the Atlantic Sugar Refineries. Is there anything wrong in that? I think it is a businesslike transaction from beginning to end.
Now, let us turn to the question of drawbacks made to the Ford Motor Company. In every case it will be found that the drawback paid to the Ford Motor Company

was for exports. It is a principle of our Canadian law, and I think it is a principle of commercial law everywhere, that you levy your taxes upon consumption in your country. If an article comes into the country and enters into consumption, it is taxed; if it does not enter into consumption, it is not taxed. Suppose two bales of goods are landed on the wharf at Montreal. One of them goes into warehouse and awaits the judgment of the owner, who next day or next week makes up his mind to send it off to the West Indies. It goes out; no tax is paid on it. It has contributed nothing to Canada except the labour of the men who handled it in taking it off the ship and putting it in the warehouse; it is simply passing through. That is reasonable; you do not want to collect duty on goods in transit. Well, the man who owns the other bale of goods says: "I will not leave that bale in the warehouse. I will send it up to the factory; I will put it through the mill; I will give employment to people; I will turn it into manufactured goods; and then I will send it out to the West Indies." Is he not then entitled to a drawback on the duty he has paid? Is he to be penalized because he gave employment to a large number of people? The other man passes his bale out of customs, but he gave no employment. The first man, for his own selfish profit- of course this is a selfish world-takes that bale of materials, puts it through his factories, and does other things to it. He pays a duty on it and then when it is ready to be exported abroad, he says: "That has not been consumed in Canada, that is going away to the West Indies; I am entitled to a drawback," and so he is.


John Morrison: What was the manufacturer's object in importing the raw material and manufacturing it; was it not to make a profit on it?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, and he paid the duty when he brought it in.


John Morrison: And he gets a drawback when he exports it?


William Stevens Fielding: 
Some hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not believe the Liberal platform of ,1919 played any considerable part in the election campaign last winter.


Some hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


William Stevens Fielding: I never mentioned it, I never heard it mentioned; it was never discussed in any election in which I took part. I know from reading the press, however, that my Conservative friends referred to it. It was always the tariff they talked about and the Liberal platform of 1919, and they generally talked in that way for two reasons: The first was in order to declare that the Liberals were not living up to that platform; and they pointed to this, that and the other constituency where they alleged somebody was saying something that was not in harmony with the Liberal platform, and therefore they argued "The Liberal platform is dead and gone." The other reason they referred to it was to enable them to take the stand that if the Liberal platform was adopted the country would be ruined. I do not think the Liberal platform of 1919 had any material result in influencing the election. The election did turn upon the general tariff policy but I am going to say frankly I do not think that was the reason the people voted so enthusiastically for the Liberal party. I think something else was responsible for their enthusiasm. They made up their minds that whatever was going to happen they were not going to have any more of the Tory government.
My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, who was then the Prime Minister, made a tour of Canada. We will all do him the justice to say he worked very hard. He worked very hard and it was greatly to his credit; he travelled the country from ocean to ocean; he was engaged in addressing meetings morning, noon and night. Everything that he has told us here about the sins of the Liberal party he told on the hustings repeatedly; he repeated it, as I say, morning, noon and night. I do not like to say that the people did not believe in him but what they probably said to themselves was this: "Perhaps these Liberals are no better than they ought to be; perhaps these Progressives are worse, but we will take the chance rather than have the Meighen government again." That seems to be responsible for the whole result, that is the explanation of the whole thing. If we had been hearing something new about this Liberal platform of 1919 I might be able to draw some other inference. But it was not a new story; we had heard it not only in the House but on every hustings in Canada. I will do my right hon. friend the justice of saying that he told the people on every platform in Canada all the things he has been telling us here and they said: "Perhaps it is true but we will take no chances; we will get rid of the Meighen government." That was the upshot of the whole matter.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to call your attention to some proposed amendments in the resolutions of which I have already given notice. What I propose to do is to lay on the Table resolutions in amendment of those tabled on May 23rd so that the two may stand separately and by comparing them hon. members may see exactly what is proposed. Then, after the amendments have, in that way, been laid on the Table by way of notice, we will consolidate the two, and in consolidated form

2852	COMMONS
Budget Changes-Mr. Fielding
the resolutions will be considered in committee. In the meantime I am sure the House will desire to know at the earliest possible moment at least what the most important of these amendments are, and it is for that purpose I will detain hon. members for a few minutes longer.
In the resolutions already tabled there is provision for a tax on confectionery of 5 per cent. The tax remains but we are making a proviso that it shall not apply to " goods packed ready for sale in cartons or other packages bearing the name of the manufacturer, selling by retail at 10 cents or less per carton, nor to include candy known as ' gross goods ,' selling by retail at 1 cent." There is a lot of confectionery that is made in moulds, and the changing of these moulds would be a very troublesome and expensive business. I have reason to believe, therefore, that this modification will go a long way towards removing the objection that was raised.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that the same modification we had before?


William Stevens Fielding: In the sales tax? I think it is along the same line.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It seems to be the same.


William Stevens Fielding: That is right. Of course every interest that is touched feels badly about it. I would not care to say that every interest is going to be completely satisfied. Every interest that is touched feels injured, and comes and complains that it has been particularly singled out when it has not. However, we are doing the best we can to modify cases and meet some of these objections. In levying taxes for revenue there is always a danger that you may shoot too high and miss your mark; that if you put your tax too high you may affect consumption and get less revenue. I rather subscribe to the doctrine that moderate taxation will give more revenue than high taxation. Upon reflection we are going to apply that doctrine to some of these things. Now we have had representations from day to day from numerous large and powerful deputations representing each interest, and we have had oceans of correspondence, and we have had the benefit of a long debate in this House. It would be strange, therefore, if, out of all these things we did not learn something and find ground upon which to make some changes. In view of all these facts we have decided to pro-

pose certain changes for your considei ation.
I have ^already mentioned confectionery. We propose to put a tax of 10 cents a gallon on what is commonly called " soft drinks". Complaint was made that as the resolution read it discriminated against the "bottled goods" and turned business into the hands of the soda fountain man who escaped. What we are proposing here is to take in the soda fountain man, applying to him an ad valorem tax of 5 per cent, and as respects the remainder we reduce the tax from 10 cents to 5 cents. I think the 5 cent tax in this way will largely meet the objections that are raised. I do not think it will be found necessary to increase the price of the bottle which was selling, say at 5 cents; I think the small tax of 5 cents will probably be absorbed and not reach the consumer. However, that is to be seen in the future. In the case of ale, beer, porter and stout, we had proposed a tax of 15 cents per gallon. We propose that it shall be reduced to 12J cents. In the case of cigarettes, we have proposed an increase of excise from $6 to $9 per thousand. We now make it $7.50 per thousand.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The existing tax on cigarettes being how much?


William Stevens Fielding: The excise was $6. We proposed to make it $9 and now we are making it $7.50. We are proposing to add to the exemptions from the sales tax two items-fertilizers and dried beet pulp, the fertilizer being what its name implies and the dried beet pulp being something the farmers will recognize. In the case of the stamp tax, the present tax is 2 cents on all cheques. We had proposed to make it 2 cents per unit of $50. We still keep that principle of a unit of $50 with 2 cents on each $50, but we place a limitation on it. We provide that the graduated tax shall extend up to $5,000 which would mean a tax of $2. It has been shown very clearly that very many large transactions, involving apparently a great deal of money are handled on exceedingly small margins, and if these are subject to the heavy tax first proposed, it would really wipe out the profits, and would work a great hardship. We propose that the maximum tax shall be $2. The rate will remain 2 cents per unit of $50. The large proportion of the cheques of the country are $50 or less, and this will remain as at present at 2 cents. On all cheques above $50 the graduated tax will apply until we reach $5,000. That will

Budget Changes-Mr. Fielding
mean a sum of $2, and from there on there will be no increase. It will be a $2 tax on everything above $5,000. In the case of stock transfers there is a tax of 2 cents per share. We had proposed to make it 5 cents per share. We now propose to make it 3 cents per share, but we will include bonds as well as stocks, so that we think in that way we will probably have a very slight falling off in revenue.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that per unit of $100 in the case of the bond?


William Stevens Fielding: The same as stock.


Henry Lumley Drayton: A unit of
$100 in the case of a bond?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes it is 2 cents per share already. Now we make it 3 cents per share. I have not the exact words of the resolution. I think it is intended to make it a unit, but I make the statement with that reservation.
On beet root sugar we proposed an excise tax which would have netted 49 cents per 100 pounds. We propose to make it 24 cents per 100 pounds.
Canadian raw leaf tobacco has a tax now of 5 cents a pound upon it. We did propose to remove that tax, as respects the portion of the raw leaf sold to the Canadian factory, because when it goes in there and later on comes out, we get the tax on the manufactured article. There remained a tax on that portion which was not to be sold to the factory. It has been represented to us that there is a very large quantity of raw leaf tobacco on hand almost unsaleable, and that where they get sale for it, it does not command more than 6 to 10 cents a pound at the most. It would mean a tax of 5 cents on goods which, in some cases, had to be sold at 7 or 8. Therefore, we have concluded to abolish the tax altogether. We propose to put a tax on receipts. There is an English tax on them now of two pence, I think. We propose in the case of receipts that up to $10 they shall be exempt, but for every receipt of $10 or upwards we propose a tax of 2 cents -simply a straight tax. In the case of cigars we had1 proposed a re-adjustment of the duty the object of which was to make the tax on the cheaper cigar a little less, on the medium cigar the same as at present while on the higher priced cigar-the rich man's cigar-the tax would be increased. The duties are somewhat readjusted, as will be seen in the notice, but the substance is the same. The higher priced cigar will pay a little more, the medium
18 li
cigar will be as at present, and the lower priced cigar will be a little cheaper.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That will
be a change in the classification. Do you continue the exemption of $120?


William Stevens Fielding: There will be a readjustment of the figures, but, substantially, it will be what I say. We are not aiming to get more revenue out of it, we are aiming to cheapen the lower priced cigar. That is the essence of the whole movement. To do that the medium priced cigar pays the same, the higher priced cigar a little more and the lower priced cigar a little less. Any change made is to correspond with that.
In regard to automobiles, we had proposed a tax of 5 per cent to be levied on automobiles up to $1,200 and 10 per cent on the larger and more expensive vehicles. We propose that the 5 per cent shall apply to all automobiles, up to the cost of $1,200, whether they be small or large, and the 10 per cent will apply to the excess. The small automobile costing $1,200 will pay 5 per cent. The more expensive will pay 5 per cent up to $1,200 and 10 per cent on the'balance. The figures are the same, but there is a little readjustment in the way they are stated. All bona fide sales of automobiles up to the 23rd May shall be made exempt from taxation. That will apply not only to automobiles owned in Canada, but to the imported automobiles, provided they can prove a bona fide sale, and that they shall be entered into Canada not later than the 1st July coming.
I think I have mentioned all the important items. There are some minor ones I will not trouble about, except the question of depreciated currency. I have referred to the past history of the matter. The effort of the late government was to obtain a standard of valuation by valuing the mark and determining What value should be put upon it, having regard to various considerations. What we are trying to do is this: We are not thinking of the value of the mark, but we propose to have the value of the article determined by the standard of the English value. If two parcels come into Canada on the same day, one being from England and one from Germany, both of the same character, the value shall be determined by the value of the English article, if articles are made in England of like class. Where the articles are not made in England, and, therefore, you cannot get the English standard of value to serve

Amended Tariff Resolutions
your purpose, you take the value in a neighbouring country where the currency has no substantial depreciation. We might-take Holland or Switzerland, or some of those countries where there is no substantial depreciation. The standard is the English value. Whatever is the English value of the article we will take as the value of the foreign country, in any case in which there is a depreciation of currency. We have approached it in a different way from my hon. friends opposite, and, perhaps, we shall accomplish the same purpose.
I think I have spoken of all the important changes. I need not say that the increase in taxes is not a very agreeable thing for any government. I have told more than one friend that by the time I get through the budget I do not expect to have a friend on earth. But I am going to ask the House and the country to regard this budget as an earnest effort to meet a condition, which however we may regret it, faces us, and which we must face seriously and courageously. With all the taxes we will get under the new system, we will fall short of the needs of the year, and whoever may stand here a year hence may have to adopt some other means of taxation But I say that in the budget that we are presenting to the House, we have carried taxation about as far as we think the country can stand it, and though there will be difference of opinion here and there as to the method, we hope that on reflection this budget will recommend itself to the country as an earnest effort to meet conditions which face us, and which, I am sure, we all agree must be faced bravely and courageously.



AMENDED RESOLUTIONS

[Stage Direction]
1.	Resolved, That it is expedient to amend section forty of the Customs Act by providing that in the case of importations from a foreign country, the value for duty shall not be less than the value that would be placed on similar goods produced in the United Kingdom and imported from that country, if such similar goods are produced there. If similar goods are not produced in the United Kingdom, the value
for duty shall not be less than the value of similar goods imported from any European country .in which the currency is not substantially depreciated.
The minister may determine the value for duty of such goods, and the value so determined shall, until otherwise provided, be the value upon which the duty on such goods shall be computed and levied under regulation prescribed by the minister.
2.	Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the said act by adding at the end of section one hundred and one thereof the following provise :-
"Provided, however, that upon the entry outwards of wines and spirituous liquors to be exported from a Customs warehouse either by sea or by land or inland navigation, as the case may be, the person entering the same for such purpose shall give security by bond of an incorporated Guarantee Company authorized to do business in Canada and whose bonds are acceptable to the Dominion Government, such bond to be in form approved by the minister, in double the duties of importation on such goods, that the same shall, when the entry aforesaid is for exportation by sea, be actually exported to the place provided for :n said entry, and when the entry aforesaid is for exportation by land or inland navigation,, shall be landed and delivered at the place for which they are entered outwards, unless in either case the said goods were after leaving Canada lost and destroyed, and that such proof or certificate that.such goods have been so exported, landed or delivered, or lost and destroyed, as the case may be, as shall be required by any regulation of the minister, shall be produced by the collector or other proper officer within a period to be appointed in such bond. This proviso, however, shall not apply to wines and spirituous liquors in a Canadian port, without entry thereat for warehouse and for no other purpose than their transportation in transitu on a through bil of lading, from a port outside of Canada to another port of destination outside of Canada Via a Canadian port or ports."
3.	Resoved, That it is expedient to amend section one humdred and two of the said act by inserting the words "or in such bond" between the word "exportation" and the word "there" in the second line thereof, and by adding at the end of the said section the words "and if security by bond is given, the said bond may be cancelled."
1.	Resolved, That it is expedient to amend proposed resolution number 2 amending schedule A to The Customs Tariff, 1907, by striking thereout tariff items: 143a, 197a and 198a, the several enumerations of goods respectively, and the several rates of duties of Customs, if any set opposite each of said items, and to provide that the following items, enumerations and rater of duty be inserted in schedule A:
[Stage Direction]
Amended Tariff Resolutions
Tariff Items		British Preferential Tariff	Inter- mediate Tariff	General Tariff
[Stage Direction]
143a
[Stage Direction]
Cigarettes, the weight of the paper covering to be included in the weight for duty, per pound
[Stage Direction]
$4.70
[Stage Direction]
$4.70
[Stage Direction]
$4.70
[Stage Direction]
and
[Stage Direction]
25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
25 p.e.
[Stage Direction]
197a
[Stage Direction]
Super-calendared or machine finish grades of book paper, not coated, when used exclusively in the production of magazines, newspapers and periodicals, printed, published or issued regularly under regulations prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Excise
[Stage Direction]
12J p.c.
[Stage Direction]
22§ p.c.
[Stage Direction]
25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
198a
[Stage Direction]
Coated papers, when used exclusively in the production of magazines, newspapers and periodicals printed, published and issued regularly under regulations prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Excise
[Stage Direction]
n\ p.c.
[Stage Direction]
321 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
638a
[Stage Direction]
Hatters' bands (not cords) and hat sweats; hatters' tips and sides when cut to shape; and cashmere when cut to shape for underbrims and hat covers. All articles in this item when imported by hat and cap manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of hats and^caps in their own factories
[Stage Direction]
Free.
[Stage Direction]
Free.
[Stage Direction]
Free.
[Stage Direction]
2.
[Stage Direction]
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend proposed resolution number 3 amending schedule B to The Customs Tariff, 1907, and to provide that in item Number 1028 after the word "parts" the words "not finished" be struck out and to provide that the said resolution be
[Stage Direction]
further amended by striking thereout tariff item 1029, the enumeration of goods, and the rajte of drawback of customs duties set opposite to the said item, and to provide that the following item, enumeration and rate of drawback of customs duties be inserted in said schedule B :-
[Stage Direction]
Item No.
[Stage Direction]
Goods
[Stage Direction]
When subject to Drawback
[Stage Direction]
Portion of Duty (not including Special Duty or Dumping Duty) Payable as Drawback
[Stage Direction]
1029
[Stage Direction]
Hatters' plush of silk or hatters' bindings.
[Stage Direction]
cotton, and
[Stage Direction]
When imported by hat and cap manufacturers and used in the manufacture of hats and caps in their own factories
[Stage Direction]
99 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
1. Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the proposed resolution respecting amendments to The Inland Revenue Act and amending acts by striking out paragraphs (g) and (h) of section one of said resolutions and substituting the following:-
1.	279 (g) On cigarettes made from raw leaf tobacco or any substitute therefor, weighing not more than three pounds per thousand, seven dollars and fifty cents per thousand;
(h) On cigarettes made from raw leaf tobacco or any substitute therefor, weighing more than three pounds per thousand, twelve dollars and fifty cents per thousand.
2.	Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the proposed resolution respecting amendments to The Inland Revenue Act and Amending Acts by Striking out of said resolution the proposed amendment to subsection three of section three hundred and twenty-eight A of the said act and substituting therefor the following:-
'Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Inland Revenue Act by striking out of said act section three hundred and twenty-eight A, as enacted by chapter twenty-eight of the statutes of 1918 and by striking out of said act section
three hundred and twenty-eight B, as enacted by chapter fifty-two of the statutes of 1920.
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the proposed resolutions respecting amendments to The Inland Revenue Act and amending acts by striking out paragraph 6 of said resolutions and substituting the following:-
"6. Resolved, That 'it is expedient to amend The Inland Revenue Act, chapter fifty-one of the revised statutes, 1906, as amended by chapter six of the statutes of 1914 and chapter thirty-four of the statutes of 1921, by adiding the following:-
"There shall be imposed, levied and collected on all sugar produced in Canada from sugar beets, the following duties of excise:-
"Sugar, sugar drainings, melado, sugar concrete and molasses testing over fifty-six degrees and not exceeding seventy-five degrees of polarization, per one hundred pounds, 12 cents; and for each additional degree over seventy-five degrees, per one hundred pounds, \ cent.
Provided that fractions of five-tenths of a degree or less shall not be subject to the duty and that fractions of more than flve^tenths shall be subject to the duty as a degree. Provided that
285^
[Stage Direction]
Amended Tariff Resolutions
such [DOT]duty of excise shalll not be payable when such sugar is exported."
4.	Resolved, That it Is expedient to amend The Inland Revenue Aot. chapter fifty-one of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, by repealing section one hundred and ninety-nine of the said aet, which provides that beer brewed for private use shall not be liable to any duty under the said act; and to provide that section two hundred and four of the said act be amended by striking out the words ''except for use of himself or Ms family, as by this act provided" in the third and fourth Lines thereof.
1. Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the proposed resolution amending the Special War Revenue Act, 1915, by striking out paragraphs two, three and four of said resolutions and substituting the following:
" 2. That subsection two and three of section eight of the said act be amended by providing that the tax imposed on cable companies and telegraph companies shall be increased from a sum equal to one cent upon each despatch or message therein mentioned to a sum equal to three cents upon each such despatch or message ; and that every company may charge the three cents to and collect the same from the person paying or liable to pay the regular charges for the transmission of the despatch or message, and that any enactment founded on this paragraph shall come into force on the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two."
" 3. That it is expedient to amend section 12 of the said act by striking thereout subsections two and four and substituting the following:
(2) No person shall issue a cheque payable at or by a bank unless there is affixed thereto an adhesive stamp or unless there is impressed thereon by means of a die a stamp of the value of, if the amount of money for which the cheque is issued
(i) does not exceed $50	two cents
(ii)	exceeds $50, for every $50 or
fraction thereof	two cents
but not to exceed in any case two dollars,
and every adhesive stamp affixed to a cheque shall be cancelled by the bank at which the cheque is payable at or before the time of payment.
"(4) No person shall sign a receipt for money paid to him by a bank chargeable against a deposit of money in the bank to his credit until he has affixed to the receipt an adhesive stamp or unless there is impressed thereon by means of a die a stamp of the value of, if the amount of the money for which the receipt is signed
(i) does not exceed $50	two cents
(ii)	exceeds $50, for every $50 or
fraction thereof	two cents
but not to exceed in any case two dollars,
and every adhesive stamp affixed to such receipt shall be cancelled by the bank at the time the money is paid."
Resolved, " That it is expedient to amend section 12 of the said act by striking thereout paragraph (b) of subsection 3 as enacted by chapter seventy-one of the statutes of 1920, and substituting the following:
''(b) If a bill of exchange transferred or delivered to a bank or issued by a bank is payable on demand, or at sight, or on presentation, or within three days after date or sight, such bill shall, for the purpose of the value of the stamp to be affixed thereto or im-
pressed thereon, be deemed to be drawn for an amount not exceeding five thousand dollars."
Resolved, " That it is expedient to amend section 12 of the said act by providing that wherever subsections 3 (a), 3(c), 3(d), and 3 (f) of said section 12, as enacted by chapter seventy-one of the statutes of 1920, provide for payment of a tax at the rate of two cents for every one hundred dollars, the said subsections be amended to provide that the tax shall be at the rate of two cents for every fifty dollars of the bills, notes, advances or overdrafts therein mentioned."
Resolved, " That it is expedient to amend section 12 of the said act by striking thereout subsection 13, as enacted by chapter seventy-one of the statutes of 1920, and substituting the following:
" (13) No person shall sell or transfer the stock or shares of any association, company cr corporation, or any bond, other than a bond of the Dominion of Canada issued exempt from any taxes imposed in pursuance of any legislation enacted by the Parliament of Canada or subject to any agreement specifying the amount of fee to be paid on transfer thereof, by agreement for sale, entry on the books of the association, company or corporation, by delivery of share certificates or share warrants or bond endorsed in blank or bond payable to bearer, or in any other manner whatsoever, or accept the transfer or delivery of any stock, share or bond unless in respect of such sale or transfer there is affixed to or impressed upon such stock, shares or bond, or a document showing the transfer or agreement to transfer thereof, an adhesive stamp, or a stamp impressed thereon by means of a die, of the value of three cents for every one hundred dollars or fraction thereof of the par value of the stock, shares or bond sold or transferred. Provided that in case of sale where the evidence of transfer is shown only by the books of the company the stamp shall be placed or impressed upon such books; and where the change of ownership is by transfer of the certificate or bond the stamp shall be placed or impressed upon the certificate or bond; and in case of an agreement to sell or where the transfer is by delivery of the certificate or bond assigned in blank or bond payable to bearer there shall be made and delivered by the seller to the buyer a bill or memorandum of such sale, to which the stamp shall be affixed or impressed; and every bill or memorandum of sale or agreement to sell before mentioned shall show the date thereof, the name of the seller, the amount of the sale, and the manner or thing to which it refers, provided that the first delivery by a corporation or company or such shares or debenture stock, in order to effect an issue, or the first issue of a bond, shall not be subject to the tax proposed by this resolution; and to provide that any person who violates any of the provisions proposed by this resolution shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars and that any enactment founded on this resolution shall come into force on the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two."
" 4. That it is expedient to amend section 13 of the said act by striking thereout subsections 2 and 3 and substituting the following:
"(2) Every express company carrying on business in Canada shall before the issue of a money order or traveller's cheque affix thereto an adhesive stamp of the value of, if the amount of money for which the money order or traveller's cheque is issued

Amended Tariff Resolutions
(i) does not exceed $50	two cents
(ii)	exceeds $50, for every $50 or
fraction thereof	two cents
but not to exceed in any case two dollars,
and the company may charge the amount of the stamps so affixed to and collect the same from the purchaser of the order or cheque or from the payee thereof. The company shall before delivery of the order or cheque cancel the stamp by writing on or across the stamp initials or other identification of the company together with the date of the issue of the order or cheque."
" (3) No money order shall be issued under the provisions of the Post Office Act until there is affixed thereto or to the relative advice a postage stamp of the value of, if the amount of money for which the money order is issued
(i) does not exceed $50	two cents
(ii)	exceeds $50, for every $50 or
fraction thereof	two cents
tout not to exceed in any case two dollars,
to be paid for by the purchaser of the order. The postmaster or other officer of the Post Office Department issuing the order shall cancel the stamp by impressing thereon when affixed the date stamp of the post office at which the order is issued."
" Any enactment founded on this resolution shall come into force on the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two."
2.	Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the said act by providing that no person shall give a receipt unless .there is affixed thereto an adhesive stamp or unless there is impressed thereon by means of a die a stamp of the value of two cents, which is to be cancelled by the person by whom the receipt is given before he delivers it out of his hands ; that the expression "receipt" shall mean any note, memorandum or writing whereby any money amounting to $10.00 or upwards, or any bill of exchange or promissory note for money amounting to $10.00 or upwards is acknowledged or expressed to have been received, deposited or repaid or whereby any debt or demand or any part of a debt or demand of the amount of $10.00 or upwards is acknowledged to have been settled, satisfied or discharged or which signifies or imports any such acknowledgment and whether the same is or is not signed with the name of any person; anid to provide that any person who violates any of the provisions of any enactment founded on this resolution or who refuses to give a receipt duly stamped, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding $100 ; and to provide for certain exemptions from the foregoing; and to provide that any enactment founded on this resolution shall come into force on the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three.
3.	Resolved, That Schedules I and II to paragraph 8 of the said proposed resolutions to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, be struck out of said resolutions and the following schedules substituted :-
Schedule I
Automobiles adapted or adaptable for passenger use:-
(a)	valued at not more than
twelve hundred dollars each five per cent
(b)	valued at more than twelve
hundred dollars each, on the value of twelve hundred dollars	five per cent
on the value in excess of
twelve hundred dollars.. .. ten per oent
Not to include automobiles entered as settlers' effects.
Confectionery which may be classed as candy ocr a substitute for candy but not to include goods packed ready for sale in cartons or other packages bearing the name of the manufacturers, selling by retail at ten cents or less, per carton, nor to include candy known as "gross goods" selling by retail at one cent	five per cent
Beverages, when containing not more than two and one-half per centum of proof spirit not in casks, bottles or other closed containers, as follows :-
Beverages derived wholly or in part from cereals or substitutes therefor, untfer-mented freuit juices and imitations thereof, carbonated beverages or aerated waters, all other compounded or mixed soft -drinks, sold by a person conducting a soda fountain, ice cream parlor, or other similar place of business	five per cent
iSchedule II
Ale, beer porter and stout, per
gallon	twelve and onehalf cents
Beverages wheR cotaining not more than two and one-half per centum of proof spirit,
In casks, bottles or other closed containers, as follows :-
Beverages derived wholly or in part from cereals or substitutes therefor; unfermented fruit juices - nd invitations thereof; carbonated beverages or aerated waters; all other compounded or mixed soft drinks, per garion	 five cents
Cigars:
(a) valued at not more than forty dollars per thousand, per thousand. .	. . fifty cents
(b)	valued at more than forty dollars per thousand and not more than one hundred and ten dollars per
thousand, per thousand. . three dollars
(c)	valued at more than one hundred and iten dollars per thousand and not more than one hundred and fifty dollars per thousand, per thousand.. .. seven dollars
(d)	valued at more than one
hundred and fifty dollars per thousand and not more than two hundred dollars per thousand, per thousand	ten dollars
(e)	valued at more *han two hundred dollars per thousand, per thousand.. .. sixteen dollars
4.	Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that any enactment founded on the aforesaid
[Stage Direction]
Amended Tariff Resolutions
resolutions shall not apply to the excise tax provided for in Schedule I on automobiles purchased before the twenty-fourth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, and sold by a dealer in Canada to a bona fide user prior to that date and imported and entered for consumption on or before the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two; and to provide further that any enactment founded on the aforesaid resolutions so far as it imposes an excise tax on beverages mentioned in Schedule I shall come into force on the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two.
5.	Resolved, That it is expedient to amend paragraph 7 of said proposed resolutions amending subsection one of section nineteen BBB of the said act by adding to the list of goods, to which the taxes specified in ithe said paragraph shall not apply, the following:
Fertilizers;
Dried beet pulp.
6.	Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the said act by providing that any taxes imposed under the provisions of paragraph seven and paragraph eight of the proposed resolutions relating to The Special War Revenue Act on sales and deliveries by manufacturers, producers, wholesalers or jobbers shall apply to sales to and also to importations by His Majesty whether in the right of His Majesty's Government of Canada or His Majesty's Government of any province in Canada for the purpose of resale; and by providing further that under the provisions of paragraph seven of the said resolutions the purchaser shall be furnished with a written invoice of any sale, which invoice shall state separately the amount of such tax.
On. motion of 'Mr. Maclean (Halifax), the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.25 pun.
Tuesday, June 13, 1922