1923-06-27

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouata.) presented the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Printing.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have just received the following cablegram:
Honourable Rodolphe Lemieux,
Speaker, House of Commons,
Canada.
The members of the Industrial Group of the House of Commons visiting the Marconi Company's wireless telegraph stations send from Radio House, London, greetings to the members of the Canadian Parliament. They recall with pride the fact that the first long-distance wireless telegraph service in the world was established by Senatore Marconi between Great Britain and the Dominion of Canada.
Secretary, Industrial Group,
House of Commons,
Radio House,
London.
To this cablegram I have despatched t' e following reply:
Secretary,
Industrial Group,
London, England.
In the name of Canadian House of Commons I wish to reciprocate your greetings and to thank you for your thoughtful reference to Canadian pioneering experience in wireless which, if possible, links the Dominion more closely to Motherland.
Rodolphe Lemieux,
Speaker, House of Commons.



FUEL SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South and Richmond) presented the third and final report of the Select Committee on Mines and Minerals, and moved:
That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the third and final report of the Select Standing Committee on Mines and Minerals the minutes of proceedings and evidence with reference to the possibility of an independent fuel supply for Canada be printed in blue book form and as an appendix to the Journals of the House, and also that rule 74 be suspended in connection therewith.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Postmaster General) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 246, to amend the Post Office Act.
He said: By an amendment to the Post Office Act in 1920 a new schedule of postal rates was applied to newspapers and periodicals. At that time the rate was one-quarter

of a cent per pound. The new schedule raised the rate on an ascending scale until it reached the maximum of 1| cents per pound, which went into effect January 1, 1922. Strong objection was made to this maximum rate, particularly on the part of publishers of small town dailies and of weekly newspapers circulating in the rural districts, and it was alleged that the increase represented an added expense of at least five hundred per cent to this class of publishers. They asked that the maximum rate be reduced to three-quarters of a cent per pound, or that in any event it be made not more than one cent a pound instead of the li cents established by the amendment of 1920. This request has been repeated at frequent intervals during the past year and a half both by individual representatives of these publishers and by delegations and correspondents, and after observing the operation of the act the Government is of opinion that the maximum postal rate on these publications might fairly be reduced to H cents a pound. It is to give effect to this decision that the present amendment is introduced.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Will the minister not add to his explanation a statement of how the present rate compares with the actual cost of carriage of these publications to the country?


Mr. MURPHY:: I would be pleased to do so if I had a statement of that kind prepared. The proposal, of course, will represent a decrease in the receipts, but this decrease will be made up by increased business from other branches of the department. I will try to get information for my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: Is it not a fact that the charge now fails to bring in anything like the cost to the country of the carriage of these publications?


Charles Murphy: My right hon. friend is
correct. Of course, the disparity was all the greater two years ago when the rate was only a quarter of a cent a pound, and it was still greater prior to that time when newspapers used to be carried free.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

*Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Is it proposed to recommence construction on the Hanna to Warden and Loverna (Saskatchewan) to Warden lines, in Alberta?

Dr. F. G. Banting
2.	If so, what are the proposed routes?
3.	Where is it proposed to locate divisional points?
4.	Will Big Bailey and Hanna continue to be divisional points ?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: Mr. Speaker, I can give no further information in answer to this question than has been given already in the discussion on the Branch Lines Construction Bill.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: This question was placed on the order paper before the discussion the minister refers to took place. I am quite content to let the question drop.
Question dropped.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COAL
*Mr. SHAW:: 1.	What persons, firms and corporations in the province of Alberta supply coal to the Canadian National Railways?
2.	What price is paid per ton?
3.	Are the contracts for such coal awarded by tender?
4.	For what period have such contracts, if any, been awarded ?


George Perry Graham: I think on reflection my hon. friend will agree with me that it would not be in the interests of the Canadian National Railway Company to make this information public. The purchasing of this coal is not an easy matter for the buying department of the railway company, and to make public to every coal dealer what business we are doing with the other coal companies would probably tend to a combine on their part which might very materially increase the cost of coal to the railway company.
HALIBUT FISHERY TREATY Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):	The second resolution on
the order paper I notice is worded, " In Committee of the Whole I think this is a mistake.


Hewitt Bostock: It is an error.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Yes. The
Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) has a resolution on the order paper relating to legislation arising out of the treaty, and I think it would be well to hold this resolution over until after the other resolution has been advanced a stage so that the treaty and the legislation pertaining thereto may be considered at the same time.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.


DR. F. G. BANTING EXPRESSION OF THE NATION'S GRATITUDE TO THE DISCOVERER OF INSULIN
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That whereas the recent discovery of the insulin treatment for diabetes, by Dr. F. G. Banting of Toronto, as the result of devoted application and research, and the discoverer's disinterested and generous action in placing it at the disposal of the public, have conferred inestimable benefit, not only on the Canadian people but on sufferers in all parts of the world, it is expedient that Parliament should give some expression of the nation's gratitude to one who has rendered such distinguished service to science and humanity, and that such recognition should take the form of a vote of an annuity sufficient to permit Dr. Banting to devote his life to medical research.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for me to supplement the words of the resolution by any comment; they speak for themselves. Moreover, the great service which Dr. Banting has rendered to science and to humanity is now known throughout the world. The government has felt that some formal expression by the parliament of Canada of the services of this distinguished Canadian would be fitting at this time and in giving it the form suggested by the resolution we believe we are interpreting the wishes of all Canadians. It is perhaps appropriate that I should recall that during the war Dr. Banting also rendered valuable services as a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and was wounded in action. We feel that in Dr. Banting, who was born in Canada and is a graduate of one of our own universities, Canada has a citizen of whom all who belong to the British Empire are justly proud. He has brought added fame to our country and in return, as the representatives of the Canadian people in parliament, we desire to express our country's appreciation of the great work that he has performed for science and humanity. We hope that by the provision which the resolution suggests Dr. Banting may be enabled to devote his life to medical research in a manner which will add to the benefits his discoveries in the field of medicine have already brought to his fellow men.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the resolution, I think, constitutes a beginning, so far as public policy is concerned in this country, of recognition in any substantial way of scientific and humanitarian achievement. Dr. Banting being a Canadian and having achieved his fame and his contribution to scientific advancement in this country, it is appropriate that we as a nation should be the first to act in recognition of his services. I do not think, although not pretending to any particular scientific attainment, there can any longer be a doubt as to the supreme value of Dr. Banting's discovery and the beneficial, indeed the curative, pro-
Dr. F. G. Banting

perties which it possesses. Ample demonstration that this is the case has been made by those whose judgment ma3'- be taken as final not only in our own country but at various points in the United States and as well in other lands. What it means in the way of alleviation of suffering, in the way of contribution not only to the length but to the happiness of human life, it is impossible to estimate and quite impossible to exaggerate. That Dr. Banting should be especially rewarded and that at the same time the reward should take such form as would be to him an encouragement to pursue his scientific activities, seems to me axiomatic. I am personally aware- by those words I mean on the information of friends of his who undoubtedly know-that what this scientific man endured in the way of privation, in the way of personal sacrifice, in order that over a course of long years of experiment he might bring to fruition the objects he had in mind, is as yet, and probably always will be, unknown to the public at large. I can vouch for it that he made everything bend,-when I say everything I mean much that meant suffering to himself- he made all things subordinate to the attainment of his great goal; indeed, in doing so he only repeated what all men have had to do from the beginning of time to achieve any such wonderful result as he in this instance has brought about. Consequently it is only just to the people of our country, only just to the good name of Canada that this parliament should in a fitting way recognize what he has done for the nation and for the world. It is best from the standpoint of interest that we do it; for it will enable Dr. Banting from now on to pursue investigations along similar and other lines, from which investigations there is at least reasonable hope that results will ensue of great benefit to the human race. Therefore, as one who feels that the country should act in honour to its citizens; as one who feels as well that the greatest benefits to the world in the future are to come from scientific research and scientific achievement,
I have real pleasure in seconding the resolution.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I feel very happy to have the privilege of being associated with the resolution now before the House. Dr. Banting's name is now known all over the world, and it is peculiarly gratifying to the Canadian people that a discovery so important and of such great benefit to humanity should have been made by a Canadian. I feel sure that money will have no peculiar attraction for Dr. Banting ; that his great ambition is to achieve some-
thing for the benefit and the service of humanity. However, I am very glad that we are making some contribution which will in effect be opening the door of opportunity to him so that he can more consistently devote his time to the great work he has undertaken, a work which is a blessing to humanity and the results accruing from which bring honour to himself as well as to his country. I repeat that I am pleased to be associated with hon. members of the House in paying this tribute to Dr. Banting,-a man whom the people delight to honour.


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister in charge of the Department of Health):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to add just a few words in support of the resolution introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and to unite with him, the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), and the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), in paying tribute to the eminent physician who has achieved so much in the path of science, and particularly of medicine, in Canada. This move of the House of Commons will redound not only to its own credit, but, I submit, to the credit of Canada as a whole. It is a sincere though feeble endeavour to recognize the services of one who through many long days and nights has devoted his efforts unremittingly to forwarding the cause of science, and who has, as it were, drawn aside the curtain which hides from the human eye some of the numberless mysteries of science. The exact nature of Dr. Banting's discovery is still obscure to the layman. In a word, it consists in reducing or controlling pathological activities which are normal in the human body if not carried to exaggeration. Sugar is an element of nutrition, important-indeed, essential-to the life of man but if it is produced in exaggerated quantities the result is disaster to the human body. The , discovery of Dr. Banting tends to check this exaggerated fabrication of sugar in the system, and it is hoped that the use of insulin will not only temporarily reduce that pathological activity but do away with it entirely. Canada is still a young nation. It has however in the spheres of industry, agriculture and commerce accomplished enormous results. Unlike the European countries its steps have been somewhat slow in the field of science, literature and the fine arts. Only a few months ago it was my inestimable privilege to preside at the opening of an exhibition of paintings in our Museum. Those paintings were exclusively the work of Canadians, and I cannot say how much impressed I was by the excellence of the exhibits. Time will come, and only time can

Dr. F. G. Banting
accomplish that, when Canada will take her place among the older European nations in the field of fine arts, sculpture, music and painting. Dr. Banting's discovery does not *ank as an achievement in the fine arts. It is a good deal more than that and will bring its own special advantages to humanity at large. And so I say it is the duty of the Parliament of Canada to take whatever steps are calculated to encourage men to devote *their time with enthusiasm to scientific research, especially when the results of that work are to help humanity and relieve its sufferings.
Mr. Speaker, I think this House will accept the resolution unanimously, and as the minister presiding over the Department of Health I wish to say in the name of Canada that we extend our hearty congratulations and encouragement to this young physician, who has become illustrious not only in this country but in the world at large.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: When this question was before the House on the 27th of February last the minister took the position that he could not do anything for Dr. Banting. I notice that the resolution does not include the name of Mr. C. H. Best, Dr. Banting's co-worker and associate. I think the country will approve the action of this Government in granting this annuity to Dr. Banting. It is a step in the right direction to recognize these men who are Canadians and Britishers for contributing something towards the advancement of medical science. It is well they should receive some recognition before they have died or left the countiy. I should like to find out from the minister if the name of Mr. Best is going to be included, and if any recognition is to be given to Dr. Macallum, who has made important discoveries in helium, and to other Canadian scientists. The Government of the Province of Ontario has appropriated $10,000 per year to establish a chair in the University of Toronto for continuing Dr. Banting's work. I think something might be done as well for Mr. Best, Dr. Banting's associate and coworker.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: I should just like to point out one fact in connection with this grant by the parliament of Canada to Dr. Banting which has not been mentioned, and that is the fact as I am informed on very good authority, that Dr. Banting could have exploited this discovery and was offered an almost fabulous sum for the purpose of exploiting the remedy which he has discovered. If
you look down through the history of medicine you will find, with one exception I think, that every discovery that has been made by a medical man in an effort to cure disease has been given freely to the world. Take antisepsis, which was discovered by Lord Lister, anaesthesia by Simpson and Morton, vaccination by Jenner, three of the most outstanding discoveries in scientific medicine in the history of the world and without which much of the health of to-day would be impossible. All these discoveries were given to the world freely. It might be of interest to the House, and I do not wish to utter any word of ill-feeling against anyone in this connection, to know that the one exception that occurs to my mind where a medical discovery was exploited was the preparation 606 which was discovered by Erlich, of Berlin, Germany. I personally am particularly glad, as I am sure is every medical man in the House, to see Canada taking this attitude towards the discoverer of a health-giving remedy, for unfortunately in the history of medicine and surgery too seldom has recognition been given. There is one country in the world, however, which has on many occasions honoured its scientific men more perhaps than any other country, and that is the Republic of France. As you walk around the streets of Paris you will frequently come upon a street named after some distinguished scientist, the Avenue Pasteur, for instance, and you will find many statues and monuments commemorating the men who have shown great learning in scientific work. I wish as a medical man, like the Minister of Health himself, to congratulate the government and parliament upon having decided to do this worthy thing.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: As we in this corner of the House have so frequently criticised public expenditure it is a great pleasure to be able to recognize the justice of the principles underlying this grant. I am not quite sure that it is setting a very good precedent for parliament to make grants in special cases, since I presume this body is hardly in a position to decide exactly v'ho most merits recognition of this character, but until we have some other body constituted for the purpose I am very glad to see that we are recognizing an achievement of this character. I take it from the remarks which have been made in this House and throughout the country generally that there has been a real contribution in this case and that we are proceeding along right lines when we recognize advances that are made in the scientific world. This action appeals, too, because in this particular case the achievement is one that is made

Dr. F. G. Banting

in the interests of the saving of life, whereas very often we have honoured as our greatest heroes those who have made their achievements not in the saving but in the destruction of life. It is a decided advance when we begin to understand that the saving of life is infinitely greater than the destruction of life for any purpose whatever.
There is another point to which I would call attention, and that is that we are getting away from the idea that men will accomplish great things simply to attain monetary success and only under the spur of competition. These motives have been held before us as the only ones which control men's activities at the present time, and I am glad to think that we recognize that men can work and work hard for other than financial advantage.
I like the way in which the motion is expressed, that this grant is made not only as a material recognition of past work but in order that this scientist may be able to continue to carry on his work. We have had the statement put forth very frequently that unless men were driven by the necessity of achieving some financial success they would not do any work. I believe that idea is absolutely wrong. If they are at all assured that they will have a competency, the truest men will go forward to accomplish even greater results. This recognition is probably an act of justice in one case; but we must look forward to planning that a great many of the more obscure workers in the fields of industrial and scientific research, as well as in many other departments of our life to-day, shall be given the same opportunity which has been accorded to this one scientific student-that is the opportunity of carrying forward their work and of performing something worth while in the service of humanity.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: On behalf of the University of Toronto, and the other universities of Canada, I desire to thank parliament for this recognition of the discovery made by a worthy son of a Canadian college, Dr. Banting. Undoubtedly this action by parliament will have a beneficial influence within the University of Toronto, and the other universities of the country, and encourage their graduates, professors and students in the service of humanity and progress.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee this day to consider a certain resolution respecting the Northern Pacific halibut fishery.

He said: His Excellency the Governor General has been informed of the subject matter of this resolution, and recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) (for the Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee this day to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend subsection three of section 13 of The Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, and to remove the restriction of the said subsection by which the liability to pay the tax imposed continues for the period of only three years and by which the Minister is permitted at any time within three years only to assess such person for the tax, and to provide that the Act shall be construed as if the said restriction had never been contained therein.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General has been informed of the subject matter of this resolution, and recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Sir Henry Drayton:	I assume that what
is being done here is a rather circuitous method of extending the operation of the business profits tax until the collections are all made. The act was a temporary measure, and I assume that the legislation will be extended so that all collections can be made.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may point out to my hon. friend that this is merely a motion to have the resolution considered later. The point to which he refers can be explained when the resolution itself is being considered.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: That will be quite satisfactory, but my object in bringing forward the point now was that we might have some real, definite information on it when the resolution was under consideration. We had difficulty yesterday in learning anything.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (for the Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee this day to consider a certain proposed resolution for amendment of the Income War Tax Act, 1917.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General has been informed of the subject matter of this resolution, and recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

Oriental Immigration

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Thomas Langton Church: When the House adjourned last night it was agreed that the representatives of Toronto should be allowed an opportunity this morning on the orders of the day, or on a motion to go into committee of supply, of discussing the question of the Toronto viaduct. At the request of the mayor and council of the city of T oronto-


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon. gentleman not to make any extended remarks or argument on the present occasion. Ample opportunity will be afforded when the motion is made for the House to go into committee of supply in a few minutes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was agreed last night that an opportunity, would be given my hon. friend to take up this subject to-day. Perhaps he might move the adjournment of the House, or we can move to go into supply.


Thomas Langton Church: At the request of many Toronto organizations-


Hewitt Bostock: I should call attention to the fact that it is against the rules, unless on a matter of urgent public importance, that an hon. member should move the adjournment of the House. All those motions for adjournment have been done away with in the rules and proceedings of the House. Let us live up to the rules. This question can be brought up when motion for supply is made to-day.


Arthur Meighen: The House will surely be going into supply pretty soon, and the hon. member will then have an opportunity to bring the matter up.


Mr. BUREAU:: It can be done by unanimous consent.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING- It is desirable that this matter should be discussed, and the Government is quite agreeable that it should be brought up. We will proceed with supply when the orders of the day have been called, and the hon. member can then bring up the question.


ORIENTAL IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: I
desire to call the attention of the Prime Minister to order No. 45, standing in my name, which reads:
283^
Resuming the Debate on the Motion of Mr. Neill for the Second Reading of Bill No. 6, An Act respecting Immigration.
I introduced this matter very early in the session and the second reading was adjourned from time to time at the request of the right hon. Prime Minister, who stated bis conviction that the object desired to be attained could be better attained by means of negotiations with the nations concerned. We are now near the close of the second session of this parliament, and the province of British Columbia will be asking, with ever-increasing emphasis, what she is to expect in the way of relief on this subject. Is the Prime Minister in a position now to make any statement relating to the progress of the negotiation? Further, if the Prime Minister finds during the recess that these negotiations fail, will he consider the adoption on behalf of the government of this bill in question, which has proved very successful in New Zealand?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I mentioned to the
House on an earlier occasion, the government received from the government of Japan representations to the effect that the Japanese government were prepared further to restrict the immigration of their labourers from Japan. It was pointed out in their communication to our government that any legislation on this subject by the Canadian government might be misunderstood in Japan, particularly if it appeared to be of the nature of exclusion; the Japanese government, it was stated, were anxious, on the one hand, to avoid any unrest in their own country, and, on the other to further the wishes of the Canadian parliament in a friendly way. We were asked if we would allow the Japanese government to show, as a result of its own action, what it might be in a position to do or was willing to do in this regard. Conferences have taken place between the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) and the representative of the Japanese government in Ottawa, as a result of which I think there is every reason to believe that a very substantial reduction in the number of immigrants coming from Japan to Canada will be made in the course of the ensuing months. If by any chance the facts should ^how that this endeavour on the part of the Japanese government to restrict its own people in the matter of immigration to Canada is not sufficient to achieve the object which we have in view of limiting the number of orientals coming into Canada, then, at a subsequent session of parliament, the matter may again be considered.
Supply-Toronto Viaduct


HOPPE AND ISENBERG LEASES
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. SHAW:: Can the Prime Minister tell me if the fiat issued in connection with the Hoppe lease has yet been cancelled by the Government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been cancelled, yes.



SUPPLY-TORONTO VIADUCT

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding for
the House to go into Committee of Supply.
Thomas Langton Church: At the request of many Toronto organizations, including the mayor and the corporation of the city, I desire to bring before the House this morning and discuss for about ten minutes the case of the city of Toronto and its agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway and its successors and assigns, now the government of Canada, and the Canadian Pacific Railway for the erection of a viaduct across the waterfront in Toronto. The lower end of the city of Toronto on Front street, between Yonge and York, resembles a city or town in Flanders or France, destroyed in the late war by the German government. The city of Toronto placed a contract with the railways before the Railway Commission, and after ten years of effort before that body, the othei day a meeting was held at the City Hall in Toronto, at which meeting the Railway Board washed its hands of the whole agreement, and the matter is now in the hands of the government to decide. The statement of the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners delivered at the City Hall, Toronto, on Thursday the 7th June last, was as follows:
This board has nothing to say as to whether the viaduct scheme will go through or not. It is out of our hands. We went so far as to say in Ottawa in 1921 that we would not interfere. It is now a matter for those concerned to raise the money.
The government is a party to the contract. The parties to the contract were the corporation of the city of Toronto, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, and the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada;-it is now the Grand Trunk Railway and their successors and assigns, who are now the government. The city of Toronto has been treated in a most unjust and unfair way, not onljr by the present government, but by the preceding governments, in failing to carry out this agreement. The disgraceful conditions in Toronto have made that city waterfront a by-word for more than twenty years. Behind the presidents of the

railways, whose policy has been a compound of evasion and procrastination, is the Railway Commission, the members of which washed their hands of the case, after loudly declaring that final jurisdiction rested with them. The Railway Commission is supposed to enforce the agreement between the municipalities and the railways and they have washed their hands of the affair. A large revenue has been contributed by the city towards the National Railways. The only forum we can go to and ask for the enforcement of this agreement is the parliament of Canada. An agreement is an agreement in law, even if it is made by a municipal corporation and the Grand Trunk. The government can be brought into the Exchequer Court and adjudicated in that way. Matters have been.allowed to drift along till the present time. We have a station there which the Grand Trunk built some ten years ago, and it is now ready to be opened. But that station is an eyesore to everybody coming into the city. It is an up-to-date station, made to fit in with the elevated tracks which were proposed to be constructed. When this agreement was entered into the Harbour Commissioners did not look upon it as "a scrap of paper," but considered it a binding agreement between the railways and the city. They laid their plans before the government for the rebuilding of the harbour at Toronto at a cost of 826,000,000. Now,
820,000,000 of that money have been expended to-day to provide a right of way for this viaduct, and to provide new piers and breakwaters, for the carrying out of the agreement. Why is this document treated as a scrap of paper? Can the railways of this country ride rough-shod over municipalities of Canada in this way, and treat a solemn agreement as a scrap of paper? An agreement is an agreement no matter by whom it is made; and we say that Canada is a party to it, because under the description in the agreement the party of the second part is the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada hereinafter called the railway company and their successors and assigns. They are bound by that agreement. The Grand Trunk is not bankrupt. The sum of $73,000,000 was voted by this government the other night for railways and $26,000,000 in addition was for the purpose of extensions and branch lines. Many of these lines, of course, are not revenue producing, but for many years the branch lines have been producing a revenue. The Grand Trunk made most of its money in Ontario, and if the Grand Trunk had not been made a link in the Canadian National Railways they would have made money. According to the Acworth Report

Supply-Toronto Viaduct
on Railways of 1917 there was taken, out of the old Grand Trunk in Ontario $22,000,000 cash and $122,000,000 credit for the Grand Trunk Pacific, with the result that the Grand Trunk became bankrupt and was not able to carry out its solemn agreement with the Harbour Commission. Now the party of the first part, the city of Toronto, has fulfilled its contract with the government;-and in making these comments this morning I want to have it understood that I am not criticising the present government, because I say that all governments since 1913 have treated this agreement as a mere scrap of paper.
Another contract was entered into with the city in connection with the sale of the lot on which the new union station stands. The Grand Trunk purchased a lot in 1905 and agreed to build an up-to-date station, and subsequently became a party to the erection of a viaduct on the waterfront so that the trains might be brought in that way and the city get the benefit of a proper terminal. The viaduct agreement has not been carried out either; like the rest, it has been treated is so much waste paper. It is signed by the four parties to the contract and it provides a penalty of $100 a day during the time of the failure of any of the parties to implement it. That penalty, accumulating from 1913, has now run into hundreds of thousands of dollars which the city could collect if it wanted to take steps in the matter. The city has no desire to institute legal proceedings, but the people of Toronto are absolutely tired of the way this whole question has been ignored. After ten years of waiting they are now impatient, and they are clamouring for proper treatment. When passengers arrive at the station they are treated like a lot of cattle. There are sixteen tracks across the waterfront at Cherry street, and almost as many at York and Bay streets. The level crossings are an eyesore to the city, and after the expenditure of such a large sum as $20,000,000 to prepare the right-of-way for the railway, it is not to be wondered at if the residents of the city of Toronto are now exasperated. Some of the tenants along the waterfront have been simply driven into liquidation through the failure of the parties to this agreement to observe their part of the undertaking. The railways cannot handle the business on these tracks, either in respect of passenger traffic or in the matter of freight. During the Exhibition 165 trains were assembled at the union station in the rush period, and this will given hon. members some idea of the state of congestion there at the present time.
I would point out to the government that after all it is only a short-sighted policy on the part of the National Railways to delay the execution of this contract, for if a proper terminal were provided for the people it would increase the receipts from freight and passenger traffic. The agreement it is estimated will call for an expenditure of $32,000,00, to which the city of Toronto is liable to contribute one-third. That $32,000,000 is made up in the following way:	The new
station, including land, represents an expenditure of $9,500,000. That sum has already been spent. For land damages, the sum of $7,500,000 was to be provided; and the amount to be spent on the viaduct construction was fixed at $16,000,000. As I say, the first item of $9,000,000 odd has been spent so that there is only approximately $22,000,000 remaining to be expended, of which the city of Toronto is to provide one-third. And the city is ready and willing to-morrow to put up its share if the Railway Board will proceed with their part of the contract. Now there is no use in the government going around a circle in this matter. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) made some reference the other day to Sir Henry Thornton in connection with this question. Well, I do not think that there is any room for argument, nor has either the Railway Board or Sir Henry Thornton, any option, so far as this contract is concerned. Here is a specific agreement to which we have the seal of the company; and neither Sir Henry Thornton nor the Railway Board can set it aside. A contract is a contract, and all that is required in this case is that parliament shall provide the money which is called for. The representatives of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Harbour Commission, the city of Toronto, and the Grand Trunk have held between twenty and thirty meetings in an endeavour to adjust the dispute. We inquired of the directors of the Grand Trunk what their stand in the matter was, and they informed us that they could do nothing. They said: "You have your contract; get the government to carry it out". Let me inform the House that we will carry out our part of the contract if parliament will provide the money to enable the railways to do their share. There is absolutely no use in vacillating on this question until Sir Henry Thornton comes back. Sir Henry Thornton, in the first place, is not a cure-all for the transportation ills of this country; and in any event the contract should be carried out. Why should the government have to wait for Sir Henry Thornton?
Supply-Toronto Viaduct

As I have stated before, there is only one course open to the government, and that is to include in the estimates a sum sufficient to begin the operations necessary under the National Railways' part of the contract. The Canadian Pacific Railway declared the other day that they were ready to carry out their bargain, and the Mayor of the city expressed the same preparedness. We are simply waiting -upon the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific, and we have been waiting thus ever since 1913. The citizens of Toronto are absolutely disgusted at the way this contract has been ignored, and visitors to the city are impressed in any but a favourable way. Besides this, there is considerable damage being caused the business interests of the city through the failure of the government to observe its agreement. Lands on which we could get factories established are lying idle simply because the Grand Trunk will not make a move in this matter. Surely the Harbour Commission and those persons who are interested must have some recourse against the government for the damages they have sustained. They have been out their rentals from this $20,000,000 worth of revenue producing property. They have not been able to get any revenue from it, and are now drawing on capital with the result that deficits are being piled up. The people of Toronto are sustaining damages and cannot get the use of their own property. In England, in Australia and in the United States the railway legislation provides a summary remedy for situations similar to this; any municipality can enforce a contract with the railway corporation in the event of failure on the part of the latter to carry out its terms. But to-day in Canada the railways are altogether supreme. They can go into a municipality, enter into a contract and then ignore it, interfere with trade and commerce, occasion damage and ruin to business, drive people into liquidation, and apparently be immune from the consequences of their actions. That is the condition of affairs as we have it in Toronto at the present time.
In 1913, an act was passed, as Chapter 26, 1 and 2 of George V to consolidate the acts relating to the harbour of Toronto. By this act the docks were to be moved into the bay and new bulkheads and pierheads were to be built. The Minister of Public Works of that day, the Hon. Mr. Rogers, stated that the Harbour Commission would have to start building their works before the government would undertake any expenditures. The Harbour Commission then spent $20,000,000 The government, I may say, has not done so

badly so far as harbour improvement is concerned. But certainly in regard to its contract in connection with the union station it has failed miserably. An order in council was also passed by the government in 1913, providing for the carrying out of these works in the harbour, and that order in council shows that the work was to be completed in the year 1916. It was provided in the main agreement between the railways and the city that the work should begin within one month from the signing of the agreement. Up to date not a spadeful of earth has been turned towards carying out this agreement. The work was to have been finished in 1916, when we were tc have a new union station with elevated tracks across the waterfront. Seven years have elapsed and nothing has been done. It is not a question of law. The agreement has been validated by legislation, and althrough the railway companies appealed the judgment of the Railway Commission, the Privy Council declared it to be binding on all parties.
I regret that at this late stage of the session I have not an opportunity of laying all the facts before hon. members, because this is the only body that can give the people of Toronto the relief which the viaduct agreement provides for. The Grand Trunk Railway Company is a party to the agreement, and in the opinion of eminent counsel who have been consulted, the government of Canada are the successors and assigns of the company. It is no use now to refer us to Sir Henry Thornton and the directors of the Canadian National Railways. We were referred to the Grand Trunk Railway Company by Sir Robert Borden when he was Prime Minister, but repeated interviews with the Grand Trunk directorate and officials extending over a period of ten years did not bring us the slightest satisfaction. The city of Toronto has been treated very unfairly in this matter. Instead of building sundry branch lines for the Canadian National Railways that will not be revenue-producing for some years to come at least, I think the government would have been better advised to carry out this viaduct agreement, for the works covered by it would more than pay fixed charges.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I shall support the statements of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) very briefly by informing the House of some particulars regarding this proposed work. For thirty years the city of Toronto endeavoured to protect its citizens crossing the waterfront, and when we reached 1913 interest in the question was revived and it was pressed upon

Supply-Toronto Viaduct
the railway companies very strongly. The city submitted a plan for the elimination of the waterfront level crossings at a cost of about half that involved in the present plan. But the latter plan was the work of the engineers of the railway companies. They said to the city council: "Your plan is not complete. Here is a larger and better and more comprehensive plan." Some of us thought at the time that the railway companies were hopeful that the increased cost involved by the adoption of this plan would frighten the city council and prompt its rejection. I was a member of the council that year and I recall the circumstances very clearly. When the engineers of the railway companies submitted a plan which straightened out the line from the station to Cherry street at double the cost they said: " Any other plan is insufficient and we will accept nothing but the plan which we are now submitting to you."	.


George Perry Graham: From the station east to Cherry street?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes, a matter of a couple of miles. The straightening of that line involves the removal of millions of dollars' worth of buildings. But the city council said: "Yes, we will accept your plan and fit it into our harbour plan. It will increase the cost of our harbour, but it is a good plan and we want to make a complete job of the whole thing." I want to impress upon the House, Mr. Speaker, that the city of Toronto has acted as fairly, as generously and as honourably as any municipality *could act.
The city has been forced to agitate for this viaduct in order to save the lives of its citizens. The crossings on the esplanade are really death traps, lives have been lost there on occasions, and it is a wonder to me that more fatal accidents have not occurred. We have opposite, across the bay, a beautiful park of 1,500 acres. On holidays as many as 100,000 of our citizens cross at Bay street, and they have to pass over ten railway tracks with cars shunting up and down all the time. This crossing is right at the throat of the coach yard of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and every Canadian Pacific train running out *of Toronto comes over that crossing to the yard and back again to the station. Consequently there is more traffic at Bay street than at any other two crossings in the whole city. All through the summer tens of thousands of people use the Bay street crossing, and the only protection afforded them is by means of gates.
I should like the House to consider the urgent necessity for this work. One of the leading papers of the Dominion, the Toronto
Globe, has during the past few months been constantly bringing this subject before its readers. I suppose we have perhaps one of the finest railway stations in the whole Dominion, but it stands there like a monument, with not a track near it, and with no preparations being made for running trains into it. Only the office portion of the building is being used. In the meantime over half a million people, possessing a beautiful modern station, are compelled to use perhaps the most inefficient railway structure to be found on the whole North American continent.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Mr. Speaker-


George Perry Graham: Not as bad as St. John.


Murray MacLaren: There is one exception
-the minister has mentioned it.


George Perry Graham: I foresaw it.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I rather take issue with
my hon. friend there, because although a very small and inadequate station may be bad enough in a city of the size of St. John, in a city of half a million it is a good deal worse. Everyone who goes out of the union station must cross from two to five tracks, according to the track where his train is standing. This is bad enough for Toronto people who know the dangers to be guarded against, but for strangers it is a much more serious matter.


Mr. VIEN:: You are always sober in Toronto.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Well, if only drunken men were killed on these crossings we would have fewer casualties. But any person is liable to meet with an accident at the old station. We are forced to use it by reason of the refusal of the railway companies to carry out their agreement. Now, that agreement was not forced upon them, it was the outcome of their own proposition. I am not going to curse the former government, bt cause this happened in the middle of 1913, and during the war we could hardly expect the necessary expenditure to be made. But I think the time is come when something should be done, w'hen at least a start should be made in carrying this work to completion. It is going to take several years to construct, and during this time we will have to suffer more or less inconvenience, but we shall be willing to put up with this in the sure and certain hope of ultimately having relief. We have spent
820,000,000, and I presume before we are through wTe will spend another 810,000,000, on our harbour, and we hope that from the construction of that harbour our water borne traffic will largely increase. But every ton of freight that comes in by water now has to
*1446
Supply-Toronto Viaduct

cross these eight or ten or twelve tracks at Yonge street, Church street, Bay street or some other street. That is a serious handicap against the development of water borne traffic that ought to be removed; there ought to be free access for the freight traffic as well as for the passenger traffic to the pier heads in our city. During the summer months the volume of passenger traffic out of Toronto to the St. Lawrence, to the Niagara, to Hamilton to Port Dalhousie and Grimsby is enormous, to say nothing of that which goes to the Island every day. A number of people approximating 25 per cent of the whole population of the city crosses these tracks every day. It is a condition that I do not think exists anywhere else on the North American continent, and it is one which the government really ought to take some steps to alleviate. I know the Minister of Railways is familiar with the situation there, and I do hope he will persuade his colleagues to put an appropriation in the estimates this session. It is not too late yet; we can bring down another list of supplementary estimates. That would give my hon friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) a chance, because I am told there is nothing for his department in the present estimates.


Charles Murphy: We are practising economy.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: 
William Findlay Maclean: May I, on behalf of Toronto, express the sympathy of that city with the hon. member for Quebec County (Mr. Lavigueur) and the city of Quebec, of which he was at one time mayor, in having their grievances presented to this House. Toronto will help in any way it can to get justice done to Quebec. But the question really before the House and the one to which I must direct myself concerns the city of Toronto, and for just a few minutes I propose to deal with that-probably from my own point of view, but certainly from some knowledge of the situation.
Now what is the situation at Toronto? It is this: It is a city on the waterfront and every approach to it by means of rails except the old Great Western line-now Grand Trunk; Canadian National-is on the lake level. Every other railroad comes into Toronto on the high level of the plain immediately surrounding the city, and the elevation of all these roads before they enter Toronto is quite two or three hundred feet above the level of the lake. In the old days the Grand Trunk was only able to approach the city on the level, but was not in a position to bridge the rivers, and therefore it took the easier way of building on the lower level. Now, the problem is this: An agreement was made, and
Supply-Toronto Viaduct

the city of Toronto is calling for the carrying out of that agreement by the companies. In the meantime there is an immediate relief for the situation. In what does the relief consist? First of all, the use of the new union station immediately. To do that you must take all the through traffic, and especially that of freight, from the front of the city by the crosstown line that now exists on the upper level, and remove a part of the existing difficulty, and to try and reduce the obstructions and inconveniences as they now exist to the public. Now, by building a cut-off line of four miles on the right of way of the Canadian Pacific from Leaside-and the National Railways now own one-half of all that double track right of way-from North Toronto Station on to Leaside-and then directly east from Lea-side to a junction with the Canadian National railway tracks in Scarboro and to a second junction with the Grand Trunk at Scarboro junction all that freight traffic can be taken off the Esplanade to the north, and the only cars left on the front will be the passenger trains and the local freight traffic that must be handled on the lake level. Those four miles of double track can be built immediately at an expenditure of not more than $500,000, including one temporary lumber viaduct across the Don in addition to the two now existing, the high level bridge on the west Don and the high level bridge on the east Don. All that work can be done in four months. When that is completed all the through traffic which now encumbers the front of Toronto will be taken off the esplanade and across the city to the north. In that way thousands and thousands of dollars in the consumption of coal alone by the railways can be saved. Because here is what takes place now. Every train coming into and going out of Toronto, with the exception of the Hamilton trains must be lifted up two to three hundred feet in order to get over the rise whether westerly to Guelph, the rise by the old Northern to the north, or the rise on the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific to the north east by way of Agincourt and Scarboro in the east. But between these two heavy grades which exist to-day to the north and east of Toronto, and which are totally unnecessary, the cut-off line to which I have referred, including a temporary viaduct over the Don, can be built at a cost of less than S500,000. There will be immediate relief given and the new union station can come into use within three months. That is the practical proposition I wish to outline. I am not abandoning in an5T way the claims of Toronto to the carrying out of the esplanade agreement but you get an entirely new view point of the situation if you carry 
out the improvements I have outlined and take away this traffic on the front to the north. The fact is that the grade out of Toronto by the old Grand .Trunk at Scarboro is a one per cent grade; it is one of the worst grades in Canada. The Canadian Pacific Company grade to Wexford is another one of one per cent. But between the two lines there can be obtained, and has been surveyed, a grade of one-half of one per cent which was discovered some years ago. The improved line on that improved grade can be built and put into operation for less than half a million dollars and the new station can come into use immediately. Later a permanent viaduct may have to be built and other things done. When you come to deal with the esplanade there will be immense claims for damages. This matter has got to be settled and settled immediately. The government and the railways are parties to it and an immediate settlement must be brought about. In the meantime all the trains can come in and go out in accordance with the plan which I have indicated. Trains to the west will go out on the esplanade where the grades have been separated. The trains that have to go east will proceed by way of Parkdale and Davenport to North Toronto, which is the proper place for a great new station for the city.


Thomas Langton Church: What is to become of the harbour?
Mr. MACLEAN (York) The harbour will be improved by this scheme. There will be an open front and everybody will be able to get to it by overhead bridges. In the meantime the best route-the best route for handling passenger traffic; one that is convenient to the street car system and the radials, that shortens the distance in the mileage, and reduces the cost of operating the railways-is by way of north Toronto. The saving in mileage alone for passengers coming into Toronto from every quarter by making the station at North Toronto will be immense. Then there will be the saving to the railways by the avoidance of the grades to which I have referred, the worst grades in Canada. Those grades can be avoided by taking the traffic to the north. If the scheme I have outlined is carried out relief will be afforded to the city of Toronto almost immediately. The Minister of Railways knows about these facts, also the engineers of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railway. In a word what I suggest is this that the new station which is one of the finest in the country, be put into use immediately; that the trains going west go along the front where there is now a com-

Supply-T or onto Viaduct
plete suppression of grades, and that all east bound trains, go round by way of Parkdale and North Toronto, where there are no level crossings to be overcome.


Thomas Langton Church: That will mean scrapping
the viaduct order.


William Findlay Maclean: No it will not.
My proposition will improve the harbour by taking a great deal of traffic off the front. It will also improve property in that part of the city. But it gives a real service and real use to the new union station. It will afford a much better point of distribution for the passenger traffic, not only the people who live in Toronto, but those who come to that city, if they can enter the city from the north rather than the south. At North Toronto, Parkdale, or West Toronto Junction or Davenport, there could be a better distribution of the traffic immediately throughout the city than exists to-day, I say that the agreement must be earned out and the esplanade situation relieved. What I suggest should be done this summer and it could be done at an expenditure of less than half a million. It would furnish relief in the southern portion of the city and a better entrance to the city could be secured. All the traffic that now encumbers the waterfront can be taken away, the distance can be shortened and economies can be effected. Toronto would then have a new front. Toronto is no longer the city of the old days on the waterfront, but it is becoming a great and growing city to the north end and west, because one of its developments now is to the north. The development cannot be to the south. The harbour would be much improved, if the approach to it were improved by taking away all freight and passenger trains. I hope we will have a declaration from the minister, on behalf of the government, that not only are they prepared to carry out the agreement which the railways and people have made and to which the government is a party, but that they will undertake to afford immediate relief in the direction I mentioned, and if they do that they will have made a beginning in the settlement of the Toronto harbour problem. It will take years to build the viaduct, and it will involve millions of dollars in damages, how large the damage will be I do not know. I cannot say who will find the money. I make the prediction that the moment claims for damages come to be adjusted, the claims will run up into twenty, thirty or forty millions. Everybody is waiting for an opportunity to present a claim for damages, and they have a right to put them in. There is a real and immediate solution of the problem, without
interfering in any way with the claims of the city for the carrying out of the agreement.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):: Supply-Toronto Viaduct
an additional 295 acres of property along the inner harbour waterfront, in addition to the reclamation of some one thousand acres of property known as the Eastern Harbour .Terminals, which was prior to 1912 Ashbridgu's Bay marsh.
It would not be easy to have access to that property if this railway were diverted to any other part of the city. The improvements were all brought about as a result of the proposed plans of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk and the Harbour Commission.
The commission have proceeded absolutely along these lines in accordance with their undertaking and they and the Dominion government have to date expended approximately $19,000,000 thereon, reclaiming in the inner harbour to date 60 acres of new land and constructed three miles of modern dockage, of which 27 acres of land is now under lease and option. In the eastern section 450 acres have been reclaimed and 4^ miles of dockage constructed and 250 acres are now under lease and option. New industrial plant and equipment in the newly developed sections have been erected by private capital to the amount of approximately $8,000,000.
"W e must have access to these properties.
The main entrance to the eastern harbour terminals is, as is well known, via Cherry street, at which point there are 16 tracks, on the level. The viaduct order provided for the elevation of these tracks, and it was with the expectation that this would be done that the harbour commission undertook the reclamation and improvement of the eastern harbour terminals. Our tenants are still confronted with the necessity of having to use this dangerous crossing and times without number are subjected to unreasonable delay by the blocking of the crossing by freight trains and switching movements. Furthermore, the district is subjected to an added premium as regards fire insurance on account of the Cherry street level crossing.
Of course, matters such as these are of no consequence to railway companies as they apparently are not interested in the development of the eastern or central harbour terminals, and, just so long as they can operate trains in and out of Toronto at grade, little consideration will be given to this matter. The inconvenience or delay caused citizens in general in the carrying out of their daily business pursuits is apparently of little consequence in so far as railway interests are concerned.
All of the above moneys have been expended by the harbour commission in perfectly good faith and the interest and sinking fund charges have to be paid thereon from the revenue derived as a result of the improvement, and, if these properties are to be subjected to temporary approaches plus the closing of one of the main arteries, viz., Bay street, then there will be ninety acres of property in the inner harbour waterfront, between Simcoe and Church streets, valued at over four million dollars, a large amount of which wili remain idle for many years- Why? Because the railway companies refuse to carry out their portion of an agreement made between them, the city and harbour commission. The effect will be strangulation of inner harbour waterfront improvements.
The harbour commission and the city have repeatedly pressed for the commencement of the viaduct construction since 1913. mainly for the reason that the harbour commission were, as a result of the viaduct agreement, constructing and reclaiming pro-' 
perty in the eastern harbour terminals and along the inner harbour waterfront; little consideration was given to these repeated requests for the reason that the railway companies were not suffering as a result of the delay.
Furthermore, as a condition of the agreement waterfront properties being improved were to be provided with proper access thereto, and I have no hesitancy in saying that the work would never have been proceeded with by the commissioners had it been anticipated for one moment that the agreement of 1913, solemnly executed by all parties, would not be carried to completion.
I need not read further. Hon. members will see that a solemn agreement was entered into between the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the city of Toronto. The city is prepared to carry out the agreement. In view of the long delay by the railway companies to do their part, I think the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) should tell members from Toronto what action he proposes to take.


Thomas Langton Church: Are you in favour of moving the viaduct up to Donlands?


David Spence: I certainly am not.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
House that the hon. Minister of Finance CMr. Fielding) shall have leave to withdraw bis motion?


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
Thomas Vien: Is it finished?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why, it is not started.


Mr.   ATEN@: I am referring to the part of the work that was to be done by the harbour commissioners.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Every single bit of the work which is necessary for the building of the viaduct and which was to be done by the harbour commissioners has been completed, and we are out the interest on the capital expenditure all these years.
There is something further. As a result of this glorified programme we have had to do other work, part of which is governmental and part municipal. The government entered into an arrangement for the doing of their part of the work and a good deal of it has been constructed, such as the cribbing and the breakwaters, but it is not yet finished. I just want to point out, as showing how this matter has been neglected, that under the former administration we gave as much money as could be
given for the purpose of getting this work done where it was most needed. The essential breakwaters were put up; the votes were 81,000,000 to 82,000,00 or 83,000,000 a year to that end. The work that was left to be done was largely the bridging of the approaches. That work has not been done, and the city has been trying in vain for the last two years to get these bridges built. I venture to say there is not a single public artificial highway anywhere else in Canada for which the government is responsible in connection with which the government has not constructed the necessary bridges. We have the artificial highway at the eastern gap, and on the other side there is a park largely used by the labouring people of Toronto, a park that was to have been connected up by this bridge over the artificial channel made by the government of Canada.
Not only is it a part of our common responsibility to do this work, but arrangements were made for it years ago; yet we can get nothing, not even a statement from the minister one way or the other. This is not merely a Toronto matter; it is not a municipal squabble. Even if it were, the fact that the municipality has spent millions based upon its faith in the honour of this country is surely sufficient. But it is much more than that; it is something that the whole hinterland of Ontario is interested in. Think of the spectacle we have to-day: a splendid station building that cannot be used; the placing of lives more or less in jeopardy every day through the use of a station that is obsolete. Why can the government not say something? What do they want us to do? Do they want us to understand that solid agreements mean nothing, amount to nothing? When is the agreement to be carried out so far as that bridge is concerned? Two bridges are called for, one over each of the artificial channels.


George Perry Graham: Is the western channel finished?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Dredging is still going on there, but it is government work; the city part of it has been finished. So it is with the eastern channel-there is no difficulty about putting a bridge over the eastern channel to-day, but we can get nothing at all, one way or the other. Are we to understand that agreements mean nothing?-that unless some particular political influence is exercised no action is to be taken? I would have thought the matter was so clear that we would have without the slightest delay a statement from the government. Millions have been spent; nothing has been done. If we cannot get anything else, perhaps we could get a statement

Supply-Toronto Viaduct
as to how much longer the government thinks nothing should be done, no relief should be given.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Mr. Speaker, I
am sorry to hear my hon. friend scold so; he is generally good-natured. If the member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) during all the years that he was head of the Board of Railway Commissioners had waited on Sir Henry Drayton and talked it over with him, we might have made some progress, because subsequent to 1913, the year of which he speaks, he was either head of the railway board or Minister of Finance. But he does not seem to have waited on that gentleman at all when he had all the authority. I am surprised, to use his own language, that he did not say anything. How much longer did he want Toronto to wait?


David Spence: It was war time.


George Perry Graham: Not after 191S.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon.
friend permit a question? How many millions did we spend in that time for the purpose of implementing that contract?


George Perry Graham: I do not know how many millions the then government spent in implementing the contract. I do know that all the money that was spent was in the erection of a station and the post office in connection with it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, no.


George Perry Graham: The station was erected, I believe, by the Toronto Terminals Company through the sale of bonds, the shareholders of that company being the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Railway Company. I am not going to reply to my hon. friend in kind, but I think it is fair to point out that his great anxiety about the completion of this viaduct, seems to have possessed him only since the latter part of 1921. Previous to that time he had the power as a member of the government to do all the things he is asking this government to do, or very many of them. He had the power as Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners to insist that the agreement made in 1913 should be carried out, but it was not carried out and has not been up to this day.
I am just saying that by way of supplementing my further remarks.
The problem is a difficult one. My hon. friend found it so when he was Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, otherfSir Henry Drayton.]
wise he would have had the viaduct completed ere this; and he found it so when he was Finance Minister. The agreement having been made in 1913, there was every reason in the world for not proceeding with the work up to 1918, but there was no reason why it should not have been proceeded with following the close of the war; the necessity then was just as great as it is to-day. I agree with everything that has been said as to the situation in Toronto, except that I think one point has been exaggerated by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), who said that all the passengers had to cross the tracks when they got on and off the trains at Toronto. Well, if they wish to walk upstairs they do not have to cross so many tracks. I know it is not so convenient, but there is a way to go upstairs and go out to the upper level to Front street. Of course I, like all the rest, insist on going out on the lower level because it is more convenient, hence I have to cross some tracks. But the situation is far from ideal and I agree with everything that has been said with regard to it. The situation in Toronto is just the same now as it has always been so far as the Grand Trunk Company is concerned. The Terminal Company consisted of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and the contract was made with the two railways.


Charles Murphy: And the city of Toronto.


George Perry Graham: Yes, and the city of Toronto. The contract was made in 1913 and my hon. friend has correctly given the history of it. But the government to-day, as the only shareholder of the Grand Trunk, stands in identically the same position as that in which the shareholders of the Grand Trunk stood when that agreement was made. I think my hon. friends would not urge that the government should proceed to take from the Toronto Terminal Company, the Canadian National Railway Board or the Canadian Pacific Railway management their authority to proceed with the construction of the viaduct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does not my hon. friend know that the whole reason for the delay was that the Grand Trunk could not finance their share?


George Perry Graham: That was the excuse and possibly the reason.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does not my hon. friend know it?


George Perry Graham: I would not say-

Supply-Toronto Viaduct


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does not my hon. friend know this further that his own directors have said that it is entirely that question, entirely a question for the government to say whether they will finance it?


George Perry Graham: In a measure my hon. friend may be correct. To come back to the question, my hon. friend's suggestion and that of the other hon. gentleman is that the government without the recommendation of the Canadian National Railway Board should proceed to put a vote in the estimates to complete this work whether the board want it or not. I say that whatever negotiations are carried on and whatever arrangements are come to should be arrived at as between the companies. Following that, it is true that if any work is to be done the parliament of Canada would have to pass a vote for the purpose, but for parliament to pass the vote before something was decided upon as between the city of Toronto and the companies, and I understand that negotiations are going on continually, would be the wrong way of going about it. But I do not want to continue the discussion. My hon. friend from South York has taken a different view. I do not know whether he wants to take the tracks up to the Donlands or not, but there is something in his view that the whole trackage should be removed from the waterfront and an entrance made farther north. It is said that in a multitude of counsel there is wisdom, but when the counsel is so conflicting I do not know that I can get much wisdom out of it.


William Findlay Maclean: I want my hon. friend to understand that I did not for one moment abandon the rights of the city of Toronto to the construction of the viaduct.


George Perry Graham: I am not sure that my hon. friend if he adheres to the viaduct, could make out a good case for the removal of the tracks from the waterfront because that is the purpose of the viaduct. If the tracks were removed to the north the viaduct would not be required. This is a very large question and I agree absolutely that it does not alone interest the city of Toronto, it interests all the travelling public passing in and out of this great centre of the province of Ontario, which is the city of Toronto. The traffic originating in and around Toronto and in the province of Ontario is I presume the largest traffic of any province of the Dominion for the Canadian National Railways, and I am in hopes that before very long something will be arrived at of a definite
nature between the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National and the city of Toronto so that the situation may be alleviated. Generally speaking at the present moment the work would not be a productive expenditure, but the traffic is increasing so rapidly in that particular centre that there should be a method of handling that great traffic that would save annual expenditure, and in that way be productive, because the traffic particularly, is handled at risk of life and the expense of handling traffic must be greater than it would be in a well conducted terminal. We have a station there costing I think my hon. friend said 89,000,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The station was $4,000,000. The original viaduct was to be 89,000,000.


George Perry Graham: Up to the present time, I am told, the station has cost 86,000,000, and in addition to that the government contributed some 82,000,000 for a postal station.


Thomas Langton Church: May I ask a question? The position taken by the city is that they want the contract carried out. They want the viaduct, the whole viaduct and nothing but the viaduct and that they will not consent to the new station being opened until they get the viaduct. Could the minister tell the House whether his law officers advise that the government is a party to the contract as standing in the shoes of the Grand Trunk Railway the party of the second part in the contract?

and being such a party the contract can be enforced by specific performance and the government taken into the Exchequer Court of Canada.


George Perry Graham: There is always a difficulty in suing a government. In the first place if we say that the government becomes a party to the contract in place of the Grand Trunk, suit could not be entered against the government except by consent, that is by fiat, and that sometimes is not so easy to get. The better way is to have this thing straightened out amicably if possible, rather than by reference to the Exchequer Court. My hon. friend has asked me a question. I say that the situation so far as responsibility is concerned is not changed one iota by the transfer of the Grand Trunk stock. The Grand Trunk as a corporation is part of the Canadian National Railways, and the Canadian National assumes the responsibility formerly assumed by the Grand Trunk. There is therefore no change in the relationship of the Grand Trunk although the government is the shareholder.
Supply-Toronto Viaduct

As my hon. friends can understand, it is difficult to give a definite statement. I hope that when the president of the Canadian National returns from the West and the president of the Canadian Pacific from across the sea they will get together with the city of Toronto at close range and discuss this matter with the hope of coming to some amicable arrangement by which the situation in Toronto can be relieved.
My hon. friend from Quebec county (Mr. Lavigueur) made an eloquent plea this morning for the city of Quebec. I do not wish to go into details, but to express the view that I have great sympathy with him when he said that the original plans for the terminals at the city of Quebec were far superior to the ones later adopted.


Mr. HAROLD PUTNAM (Colchester):: The advocacy of the hon. members from Toronto in the interests of their city reminds me of a duty, that I should bring to the attention of the Minister of Railways the fact that on lesser scale but in serious measure we have a corresponding situation in the town of Truro, the chief town of the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I shall be thankful if I am not told to go to the Railway Board, and if I go to it I shall be thankful if I am not sent back to the Minister of Railways; and I am speaking partly from surmise and partly from experience. Tennyson in his "Vision of Sin" describes a voice that came from a clear sky and in very clear tones but in language that no man could understand, and I am a little afraid of that mystery when I press for the rights of the town of Truro corresponding with the rights for which the hon. members for Toronto are pressing. Some who love that town regard it as a miniature of Toronto, with streets and physical characteristics resembling Toronto's, with the instincts and temperament of its people resembling those of the people of Toronto, and that to some extent would constitute a compliment in the opinions of some hon. members. On the other hand, by pointing out the resemblance, I run the risk of keeping away from Truro some of my good friends elsewhere in this parliament. The town of Truro has a population of about eight thousand, and it has those deadly level crossings in a very important and central part of the town. One of the hon. members for Toronto put forth the fact that the holiday seekers in his city were compelled to cross the tracks there to get to a picnic resort, which I appreciate not as a luxury but as a necessity. But a still greater necessity obtains in my own town because hundreds of the homes

are so situated that little, children have to cross some half dozen pairs of rails to get to school, and during the hours of their absence you can well imagine that the hearts of their mothers are suffering very unfair and very real anxiety.
The traffic is such that a subway is very urgently needed. The freight shed, wisely or unwisely, was put upon the side of the rails whereby it is necessary to haul the freight over these tracks. In the winter-time the snow is often missing from the tracks, and besides the inhumanity to the horses engaged in hauling the freight there is considerable loss in time, worry, wear and tear connected with the hauling, to use language which is mild in the very extreme, and to say nothing of multiplied danger in this freight traffic. This matter has been agitated for some time. Now and then a life is snuffed out on these rails just as is the case in Toronto. I do not think there is any fear that a great catastrophe will happen in the sense of a number of lives being lost by any one happening. I think that happening is just about as remote in the modern town where I live as in the great city of Toronto, or vice versa; but, Mr. Speaker, there is that continual danger present to individuals, and there is the periodical loss of life, the importance of which of course we cannot exaggerate. At a country crossing, where a driver is passing with a team of horses or automobile, we can with some fairness say that it is up to him to exercise due vigilance and allow nothing to distract his attention with some possible reverence we may say that an accident would be the driver's fault. But the matter is entirely different in a city like Toronto, or even in a town like Truro. In the case of persons coming home hurriedly, chatting in groups or wearied with the exertions of the day, it may be found that temporarily the human machinery has broken down and the necessary precautions may not be observed. There may be a lapse of memory due to causes that cannot be exactly analyzed. As lives have been sacrificed in Toronto and Truro at these level crossings in the past just as surely will such losses occur in the future. If the question of expenditure is involved in providing protection, the conditions are in favour of more prompt action in Truro than in Toronto, because in Truro it is not a matter of the expenditure of millions or even of hundreds of thousands to place a subway there which will serve the public. I commend this matter to the minister as being an entirely worthy and necessary object. I only regret having taken up even this much time

Halibut Fishery Treaty
of the House when I know there is a general desire that parliament should arrive at a close.


Thomas Langton Church: Might I ask the minister
whether he could not arrange to be present at the proposed conference in Toronto on the matters we discussed this morning?


George Perry Graham: All that I can say is that I will try to be present.
QUESTIONS UNANSWERED:


Murray MacLaren: I wish to draw attention to the unanswered questions on the order paper. It is supposed that the House will prorogue at a very early date, and unless the answers to these questions come down very soon the session will terminate without the answers being given. The question that stands in my name, number 3, has been on the order paper for a number of days. There is nothing abstruse in what I am asking, and the answer would not require to be at all long. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the Minister of Railways is anxious to give me this information; I do not think he would wish me to return to my home without receiving an adequate reply. I cannot help thinking that if the minister would instruct his department to bring these answers to the House the matter might be expedited and the necessary information given to me.


George Perry Graham: I will have the matter
looked into,. Of course, one reason why questions relating to the railways cannot be answered promptly is, that much of the information asked for is not in the possession of the department at all, and we have to send perhaps to Halifax, or to Moncton, or as far west as1 Edmonton, for it. However that is not the fact in this case. I will draw the attention of the department to the matter and ask them to expedite the answering of these questions. I want to give my hon. friend the information as soon as possible.


Murray MacLaren: I feel that is the case.
However, I should like to point out that the third question is a matter entirely within the knowledge of the government, and will not require any reference to the railway board. In that case there is no ground for delay such as was referred to by the minister.


George Perry Graham: I might answer that
question. So far as the giving to the government by the National Railway management of any assurance that unrouted shipments will be transmitted only through Canadian ports my answer to that would be "Up to the present, No."
Motion (Mr. Fielding) withdrawn.



REVISED


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask permission, Mr. Speaker, to return to government notices of motion in order to take up the resolution which appears in my name with respect to the Northern Pacific Halibut Fishery treaty?


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Resolved by the	 House of Commons:-
That it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the treaty between His Majesty and the United States of America providing effective measures for the preservation of the halibut fishery of the Northern Pacific ocean, which was signed at Washington on the second day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, a copy of which has been laid before parliament, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty, acting for Canada, by the plenipotentiary therein named, and that this House do approve of the same.
He said: On March 6th, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) laid on the Table of the House a copy of a treaty between His Majesty the King and the United States with respect to the preservation of the halibut fishery on the Pacific coast. This treaty was signed on March 2nd, at Washington by plenipoten-liaries representing the parties thereto. The purpose of the present resolution is to obtain from parliament approval of the [DOT] provisions of the treaty. The treaty provides for a close season for halibut in the waters contiguous to the Pacific coast in the United States and in Canada. The period of the close season is three months, from November to February, to be observed over a period of five years. Either party may be at liberty, on two years' notice, to terminate the convention at any time after the five years has expired.
There is another provision in the treaty to the effect that halibut caught in those waters during the time that the convention obtains may be used for the purposes of food by the crews of vessels, fishing for other kinds of fish. If any quantity should be caught, the treaty provides that after being brought to the shore, they shall be transferred at once to officers of the Marine department of either Canada or the United States, and disposed of by those officers at such price as they may be eble to obtain. The purpose of this provision is to do away with any element of profit in the catch of halibut and thereby remove all



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Halibut Fishery Treaty
[Stage Direction]
incentive to fishing for halibut during the close season.
The treaty contains a further provision for the establishment of an International Fisheries Commission to study the life history of the halibut, and to make recommendations to the governments of the two countries with respect to measures that may be required by way of the better preservation of this important natural resource. The treaty contains a clause to the effect that the governments of the two countries shall introduce legislation to make effective its provisions.
I may say that the treaty has already been assented to by the Senate of the United States, so assented to on March 4 of this year and recommended for ratification by that body, subject to a reservation which appears in the resolution assenting to the treaty. I shall read to the House the resolution itself:
Resolved (two-thirds of the senators present concurring therein) that the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of Executive D, sixty-seventh congress, fourth session, convention between the United States and Great Brtiain, signed March 2, 1923, for the preservation of the halibut fishery of the northern Pacific ocean, including the Behring sea, subject to the .understanding, which is hereby made a part of this resolution of ratification, that none of the nationals and inhabitants and vessels and boats of any other part of Great Britain shall engage in halibut fishing, contrary to any of the provisions of this treaty.
In so far as we have learned the circumstances, it would appear that the "understanding" was added at the last moment, the treaty receiving the Senate's assent only on the last day of the recent session of congress. Apparently the reservation was thought necessary because of a fear expressed by a senator from one of the western states that while the citizens and vessels of Canada would be controlled ships coming from Great Britain not being included in this prohibition, their owners might feel free to fish for halibut in these waters. However, what was overlooked in that regard was the fact that legislation which will be introduced by both the government of the United States and the government of Canada to prohibit fishing during the period of the close season will provide that not only shall the nationals of the countries concerned not have the right to fish in the prohibited area but that the citizens of every country shall be prohibited from operating from a Canadian or an American base or from attempting anything by way of halibut fishing in those waters. If they are unable to find a base on the Pacific coast, either in the United States or in Canada, it is hardly likely that the citizens of any country would be able to carry on fishing operations in northern Pacific waters.

The legislation which will be introduced by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to give effect to the provisions of this treaty will render it immediately apparent to the members of the United States Senate that the reservation they have attached as a condition to ratification is wholly unnecessary. We feel satisfied that under these circumstances the reservation will be withdrawn and the treaty assented to and ratified as it stood at the time it was signed.
I may disclose to the House evidence of the apparent haste in which the reservation was prepared by drawing attention to the wording. It reads as follows:
That none of the nationals and inhabitants and vessels and boats of any other part of Great Britain shall engage in halibut fishing contrary to any of the provisions of this treaty.
If the expression "any other part of the British Empire" had been used, it would not have been open to exception. However, the intention is perfectly plain, namely, that of preventing the citizens of any other part of the British Empire from availing themselves of fishing rights which will be denied the citizens of Canada by the terms of the treaty. We hold that the intention has always been that the prohibition should extend beyond the citizens of Canada or the British Empire to apply to citizens of any country in any part of the world. Such will be the effect as soon as the contemplated concurrent legislation is passed.
I need only add in conclusion that, as will be apparent from the reading of the treaty, its provisions relate wholly to matters which, to all intents and purposes, are of exclusive concern to the United States and Canada. The two countries might effect without a treaty, by concurrent legislation as is intended, practically all that is proposed here. Inasmuch, however, as it was thought advisable to have on record the understanding of the governments in this matter, the governments of our respective countries decided to have their commitments given the form of a treaty. I believe the terms proposed are so manifestly in the interests of the country that parliament will readily give its approval to the treaty.
Arthur Meighen: The motion, I understand, is a motion adopting the resolution which appears on page 5. I wish at this stage to make a very few comments on the general question, and will reserve more detailed treatment perhaps-


Hewitt Bostock: If the hon. member will allow me, it is by a clerical error that this

Halibut Fishery Treaty
matter has been placed on the order paper as one to be considered in committee of the whole. It is a simple resolution presented to the House; so that if the right hon. member has any remarks to make, he should make them now.


Arthur Meighen: I understood there was an error in the order paper. I desire first of all to read the resolution, which says:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the treaty between His Majesty and the United States of America providing effective measures for the preservation of the halibut fishery of the Northern Pacific ocean, which was signed at Washington on the second day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, a copy of which has been laid before parliament, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty, acting for Canada, by the plenipotentiary therein named', and that this House do approve of the same.
I am not discussing at the moment anything connected with the matter of the treaty, but rather certain extraordinary circumstances that attended the preparations for and the execution thereof. These circumstances ate called attention to by the wording of the resolution itself. Hon. members will observe that the resolution declares that the treaty was signed "on behalf of His Majesty the King acting for Canada, by the plenipotentiary therein named, and that this House do approve of the same." I think the records of parliament will be searched in vain for any previous reference to His Majesty the King executing a treaty "acting for" Canada by the plenipotentiary. If it is merely a misplacement of the phrase, and if the words "acting for Canada" should appear after the word "plenipotentiary"-and I really do not know why they are not there, in a resolution of such importance as this-the effect is that the plenipotentiary in the execution of the treaty acted for His Majesty the King as a representative of Canada. His Majesty the King did not for Canada. The authority given the representative of His Majesty in the document on which he bases his right to sign clearly states:
Hon. Ernest Lapointe, one of our counsel, learned in the law, member of the parliament of Canada, member of our Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Marine and Fisheries of our Dominion of Canada, have named, made, constituted and appointed, as we do by these presents name, make, constitute and appoint him our undoubted commissioner, procurator and plenipotentiary, giving to him all manner of power and authority to treat, adjust and conclude with such minister or ministers as may be vested with similar power and authority on the part of our good friends the United States of America.
The treaty undoubtedly affects chiefly the Dominion of Canada and the United States; it is an exaggeration to say that it affects solely the Dominion of Canada and the'United
284i
States. Our treaty with France respecting the tariff was a treaty which affected solely the Dominion of Canada and France; there were no others directly or indirectly bound thereby, and no others affected by the treaty as such. But here the case is different. Had it been a case where we alone had been affected it is nevertheless true, and in my judgment it is important to observe that anyone named by Canada and given his credentials by His Majesty the King executes that treaty as a representative of His Majesty the King-but in respect of Canada. I observe by the correspondence that the government attempted in the first place to make the treaty without so far as the title is concerned the interposition of His Majesty at all. The treaty as submitted by the United States of America was styled in the following language:
Convention between the United States of America and Great Britain concerning halibut fishery.
In the communication from the present government to the United States, and as well in that to the British government, it was insisted that the words "Great Britain" should be changed and the words "Dominion of Canada" substituted, although every previous treaty had been made between the United States, if that was the country, and His Majesty, the King. The error of this step on the part of the present government was pointed out and they yielded the point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think my right hon. friend wishes to misrepresent the facts.


Arthur Meighen: Nor have I done so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is he referring now to the nominal heading affixed to the convention, which nominal heading was drafted by the United States government, or is he referring to what is vital and material, namely, the sections of the treaty that refer to matters executive?


Arthur Meighen: I am referring to precisely what I said. In the title of the treaty submitted by the United States government in the first place the heading was:
Convention between the United States of America and Great Britain concerning the halibut fishery.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Which is the
meaningless part of the treaty.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister says that this is of no importance; but at the time he considered it sufficiently important to have his government address a message to the British Ambassador at Washington, for transmission, of course, in which the government
Halibut Fishery Treaty

took the stand that the words "Dominion of Canada" should be substituted for "Great Britain" in the heading. The government should have known, and I think it did know, that all treaties are made between His Majesty and whatever other country is affected thereby. Pursuing the matter, and on request that credentials be given and full authority be accorded, as was quite proper, to the representative of Canada to sign the treaty on behalf of His Majesty, this authority was immediately given; and then the notification came, no doubt in the usual way, from the British Ambassador, that the terms of the treaty being agreed to on the part of the United States and Canada he was given authority to sign and was prepared to sign along with Hon. Ernest Lapointe, who had been endowed with full authority from His Majesty. This, however, appeared to affront the dignity of the government or of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) and objection was immediately taken to that hon. gentleman having anyone else sign the treaty along with him. I note, with some regret the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) from the House during this discussion. Thq Minister of Finance, associated with the Minister of Marine, had previously negotiated without any great success, a treaty with France, and in the execution of that treaty and in the arrangements looking to its completion they had associated with them the British Ambassador to France, as in the case of Italy, the British Foreign Minister. When the terms of that treaty were under discussion I referred to this feature of the matter and the Minister of Finance very frankly stated that he approved of the association of the British Ambassador in British treaties and of his signature thereto whether those treaties affected a single dominion or affected the Empire as a whole; and he acknowledged the great assistance given by the British Ambassador in connection with the treaty. But when it comes to this Halibut Treaty the Minister of Marine and Fisheries declines to have the British Ambassador associated with him, and in this attitude he is supported by the government. He wants the signature of the Hon. Ernest Lapointe to stand alone as executory to that treaty; and representations to this effect were made persistently both to the British Ambassador and overseas until a message was despatched by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies to this government-after very many messages had been sent across from Canada, all representing that the greatest speed was necessary and that the 
treaty should be signed without delay-a message, I say, was finally despatched by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in certain terms which I shall now look up. I am now turning over a multitude of pressing epistles from the present government urging the point and asking for a hurried decision. Then I come to the message to which I have referred, dated the first of March, 1923.
With reference to your telegram of February 28 regarding the Halibut Treaty the wishes of your ministers are being telegraphed to his Majesty's Ambassador at Washington by the Secretary ef State for Foreign Affairs.
Not desiring to continue a somewhat undignified controversy with the Canadian government as to preserving the historic form of execution of treaties and at the same time loath to proclaim that hereafter there shall be no unity of action at all in so far as foreign policy and foreign treaties are concerned the Secretary of State for the Colonies, acting for the British government, stated merely that the British government had telegraphed the wishes of the Canadian government to the British Ambassador at Washington; whereupon the hurry of the previous weeks was consummated, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries hied himself to Washington and had the exceeding and unprecedented honour of executing this treaty alone without being impinged upon in that glory by the presence of the signature of the British Ambassador. The British Ambassadors, as do the ambassadors of all countries, in keeping with historic custom, necessarily take a special part in the negotiations for and the execution of treaties with the countries to which they are accredited, and never has any exception been asked for, never has any exception been made until we come to this occasion of the execution of the Halibut Treaty. I wonder how much better off we are. Is our autonomy in the smallest degree enlarged? Does anyone understand just how we are advantaged by the supreme glory of having the Minister of Marine and Fisheries execute this treaty alone, having, figuratively speaking, kicked the British Ambassador out of the door in the execution of a treaty with a foreign power?
All the while the reasons given by the government in the negotiations were to the effect that Canada alone was interested, that the treaty was one which solely concerned this Dominion and no other part of the Empire. And no sooner was the treaty executed than there was the addition of a clause by the Senate of the United States bringing in the subjects of the whole Empire and although

Halibut Fishery Treaty
there was a fearful hurry up to the 1st March, the very stars in their courses were going-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend uses the expression that the reservation of the Senate brought in all the subjects of the British Empire. The words in the Senate reservation are, "every part of Great Britain." Does he say that this expression includes all other parts of the Empire?


Arthur Meighen: Undoubtedly that is the intent of the Senate. Does anyone think that the Senate intends their reservation to apply to the residents of the British Isles alone, and not to the subjects of the Empire generally, as all other treaties have applied before? But the point is not of any importance to my argument anyway. The fact is that the reservation of the Senate brings in some other parts of the Empire. That is enough for my point at present. Although there was all this precipitate hurry up to the 1st March, we have since gone through nearly four months before any desire is evinced to bring forward the treaty for ratification. There has been no treaty in operation yet. I suppose the reason for the delay is because the Senate reservation completely destroyed the pedestal upon which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries wished to stand. Now we are asked to ratify the treaty. We are going to prorogue this week, and we are asked to ratify the treaty and accept the devout hope expressed by the Prime Minister that the Senate will yet retrace its steps and not make any special reservation applicable to other parts of the Empire. It would have been well, I think, if the grounds of this hope had been given. I do not think that intrinsically the matter is of such colossal consequence.
I do wonder what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries thought was going to be gained by this act with reference to signature by the British Ambassador which, if you do not call it discourteous, so nearly approaches discourtesy that the term applies as well as any other that can be thought of. Quite clearly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) holds a distinctly different view, as do other members of the government. What is the intention? Is this treatment to continue to be accorded the British Ambassador? Are these petitions to the door of the British government to be made in respect of future treaties? Canada has for years been not only engaged in but in charge of all negotiations concerning the terms of any treaty in which she is specially or solely interested. All that is ever done by the British Ambassador, I presume, is to see that any proposed treaty
contains no terms that affect such general policy as all parts of the Empire are interested in. This being conceded as having been the practice for years, what more do we want? Why should we continue this process of offering one affront after the other in order, if possible, to magnify and emphasize before the world our desire to dissociate ourselves from the Empire in general?
We are in something of a quandary now. We are legislating, according to this bill, against Canadian fishing even on the high seas, as to w'hich, as it involves extra-territorial jurisdiction, we have no legislative power at all. Let me repeat:	As to which,
being extra-territorial, we have as yet- though I think we should have, as respects our own citizens-no authority at all. We are legislating as well that no other subjects of the British Empire shall operate there, or if they do, they cannot use our ports. In effect, we are trying now to meet the American reservation by denying indirectly the right of any British subjects to carry on these fisheries in the close season in our own as well as in extra-territorial waters.
Now, I do not deny that the objects of the treaty can only be met by making it applicable to all British subjects. Undoubtedly from the beginning Great Britain should have been associated with us, so that we would be in a position to defend our course of legislating to the best of our power to make the treaty so universally applicable. As the reser vation stands, the execution of the treaty b>
His Majesty will bind British subjects. -Is it the intention that the Australian parliament shall ratify the treaty?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: No.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what the idea of the government is in this regard. As far as this feature is concerned, I am not making any particular criticism. My criticism is directed against the unnecessary and, to my mind, indelicate action by this government with relation to the historic form of executing treaties in which this country is chiefly interested.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is in order for me to give a resume of what preceded the negotiations which led up to the signature of this treaty. We have on the Pacific coast of this continent the greatest halibut fishery in the world, though it has been considerably diminished through over-fishing. The fishery started in 1888, and the industry has made wonderful progress in the interval, halibut being the best fish we have for shipping in fresh condition.
Halibut Fishery Treaty

In 1913 or 1914 it was discovered that vast numbers of halibut go to the banks of Alaska during the winter time, and following that discovery winter fishing started on a considerable scale. To take halibut at that season of the year is especially destructive as the fish are then in a spawning condition, and from the reproduction standpoint their capture should not be allowed. Furthermore, the flesh is then in bad condition. This winter fishery is carried on at the worst season of the year, and it is then that all the accidents to the vessels occur. In addition to that, on account of the very rough weather thea prevailing, the vessels engaged lose about fifty per cent of their equipment. And when it is borne in mind that the lines of every big vessel run to a length of forty-eight miles, with hooks at every ten feet, it will be realized what a heavy loss this entails, as also a loss of fish, because halibut at that time bite with avidity, and the dead fish pollute the fishing grounds.
The fisheries yield about fifty million pounds each year, of which about nine million pounds are taken by Canadian vessels, the greater proportion being taken by American vessels. But owing to the greater proximity of the Canadian cpasts, seventy per cent of the fish caught by American vessels is shipped by the Canadian railways. So it is very important from many viewpoints that this halibut fishery should be protected.
In 1918 an international commission was appointed by the United States and Canada to study the condition of the fishery. At that time many special war measures were in effect in both countries, and as one of these the commission recommended the adoption of two treaties, one concerning the Fraser river run of salmon, and the other, among other things, this close season for the protection of the halibut fisheries. The first treaty was negotiated, was signed, but was not ratified by the Senate of the United States; the second treaty was drafted but was never signed. Meanwhile the fisheries authorities of both countries, though they were not in accord on some other points, were in agreement on this question of the necessity of a close season for the protection of halibut on the Pacific coast, and the suggestion was made that a special treaty be negotiated and signed to provide for that close season, quite independently of the other recommendations of the international commission. The United States government approached the government of Canada in the matter of the negotiation of that treaty; in fact, they drafted a treaty and s'ent it to Canada for the consider-

ation of this government. This treaty, after the making of a few modifications, was signed, and it is the treaty which is now submitted for the approval of the House. As I have stated, it was drafted by our friends of the United States, not by us. Then, as my right hon. leader said, when the treaty came before the United States senate, a reservation was added that it should apply to the nationals of any part of the British Empire. The treaty was signed three days before the end of the term of congress; in fact, the term of congress expired the following Sunday-its last legislation was adopted on Sunday morning. The treaty was submitted in a great hurry and it is more than likely that this little rider, added at the last minute, was not given the consideration which would have been given it had the treaty been submitted at an early stage of the session.
We do not wish, after considering everything, to accept this reservation, for obvious reasons; though by the legislation which will be enacted the same purpose will be served, the same end will be reached. The legislation which both countries will adopt will make it impossible for the nationals of any country to carry on fishing operations1 in the waters covered by the treaty. In the first place, there is no discussion possible as to our right to prohibit halibut fishing in the territorial waters within the three mile limit; that will apply to the world. We have not the right or the power to prevent anybody from fishing in the extra-territorial waters, but it is physically impossible for any vessel to carry on halibut fishing operations in Pacific waters without using as a base either American ports or Canadian ports. So that the mere closing of our ports and the closing of American ports to fishing vessels during the close season will make it impossible for any national, the citizen of any country, to carry on fishing operations there.
Then, I may be asked, why should the reservation nqt be accepted? If we were to accept it we would have to submit the treaty for ratification to all the parliaments of the British Empire. We cannot bind the Australians or the New Zealanders not to fish in extra-territorial waters off our coast any more than we can bind the citizens of any foreign country not to do so; the only way that we can prevent it is by closing our ports, and this we will do. In the second place, it would be a discrimination against British subjects, against the citizens of Australia or New Zealand. But if it were possible to carry on fish-

Halibut Fishery Treaty
ing operations there we should exclude them and the citizens of Japan for instance-


Arthur Meighen: Before the minister goes further, if he will permit me: Will he not admit that if the treaty were ratified by the British government then it would be binding in the way desired by the reservation?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Arthur Meighen: If he will look at section 132 of the British North America Act I think he will see that it would.


Ernest Lapointe: We do not want to
do that. This treaty was asked for by the United States, the object being to prevent the nationals of Canada and of the United States from carrying on fishing operations during certain seasons. We accepted the treaty suggested by our friends of the United States and we are still prepared to abide by that decision. We do not want to apply the treaty to Australia, to New Zealand, to South America or even to the United Kingdom. It is a Canadian concern; we want this treaty to bind and affect Canada. As I was saying a few moments ago, if it were possible to carry on operations in those Pacific waters without the use of our ports or of United States ports, the Japanese would be far more likely to carry on fishing operations there than any citizen of the British Empire. The provision which we are going to enact and which will also be enacted by the United States will apply not merely to the citizens of the British Empire, but to the whole world. We have submitted the treaty for approval because we have reasonable expectation that the Senate of the United States will withdraw that reservation at the next session of congress. Moreover, with the legislation which we are going to enact and which will be put in force by the Governor in Council, it will be possible to reach the same end if the United States enact the same legislation, quite independently of the treaty.
Now, to come to the criticism of the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). He started by commenting on the wording of the resolution submitted by the right hon. Prime Minister, laying great emphasis on that part of it which reads:
-and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty, acting for Canada, by the plenipotentiary therein named, and that this House do approve of the same.
My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen), as usual, issued a sort of challenge. I said to him once that he was strong on mistaking assertions for arguments. He issued a sort of challenge that we would in vain search the records of parliament to find such a wording.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this resolution was copied word for word from a resolution introduced into the House of Commons of Canada on October 20, 1919, by the government of which my right hon. friend was a member. That resolution was introduced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs who was at that time Hon. Mr. Rowell, and it read as follows:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the Convention between His Majesty and the United States of America, providing effective measures for the protection, preservation and propagation of the salmon fisheries of the Fraser River system, which was signed at Washington on the seoond day of September, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, a copy of which has been laid before parliament, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty, acting the Canada, by the plenipotentiaries therein named, and that this House do approve of the same.
Of course what was legal, what was good, what was right, what was constitutional in the time of my right hon. friend becomes a crime when those miserable Liberals do the same thing.


Mr. JACOBS:: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman to say that there is a difference between the two, one dealt with salmon and the other with halibut.


Arthur Meighen: I congratulate the hon. gentleman on getting something to the point.
I take full responsibility. I had no part in it, but I had full constitutional responsibility for it. I do not think it is worded rightly, though.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend
seems to think that many things that were done during his time were not right. He has to take the responsibility, but he did not tell us at the time that they were wrong.


Arthur Meighen: I had not charge of it.


Ernest Lapointe: Precedents have a great deal to do with the British constitutional system. We thought that by following the precedent created by my hon. friend's friends we were doing the right thing.


Arthur Meighen: You usually are.


Ernest Lapointe: But I think we will be more careful in the future in following in the footsteps of my right hon. friend.
Now I come to the famous signature to the treaty, which has been the subject of so many comments. First let me say, Mr. Speaker, that it was a great misapprehension, a great error on the part of a section of the press when it stated that the mode of signing the treaty had anything to do with the reservation that was added to it. The terms of the treaty would have the same meaning, the same effect, the same result whoever were the signatories to the treaty.
Halibut Fishery Treaty


Arthur Meighen: I never suggested anything else in the world.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not speak of my
right hon. friend now, but of the press; I mentioned that. The member of the Canadian government who signed the treaty for His Majesty the King had full authority do act in that capacity, and another signature would have added nothing nor taken away anything from the merit or demerit of that agreement. This question of the protection of our fisheries was a purely Canadian question, purely a domestic question, and the government of Canada took the position that one of its members should represent His Majesty in the negotiating and signing of this treaty. Is that a crime? If it is a crime I confess that I am an unrepentant sinner. Our action in this regard is in line with the logical and natural sequence of the principles which have been asserted and accepted by all responsible authorities in the British Empire for the past few years. Nowhere, perhaps, are those principles more clearly asserted than in the memorandum circulated on behalf of the Dominion prime ministers in March, 1919, which I take from the British Year Book of International law for 1922-1923, page 32. The Canadian Prime Minister and the prime ministers of all the Dominions subscribed to that memorandum. Here is the language of that memorandum:
All the treaties and conventions resulting from the Peace Conference should 'be so drafted as to enable the Dominions to become parties and signatories thereto. This procedure will give suitable recognition to the part played at the Peace Table by the British Commonwealth as a whole, and will, at the same time, record the status attained there by the Dominions. The procedure is .in consonance with the principles of constitutional government that obtain throughout the Empire. The Crown is the Supreme Executive in the United Kingdom and in all the Dominions, but it acts on the advice of different ministries within different constitutional units; and under Resolution IX of the Imperial War Conference, 1917, the organization of the Empire is to be based upon equality of nationhood.
That is a fine principle and I accept it entirely as far as I am concerned. May I quote an extract from a despatch of the Canadian cabinet dated the 4th of December, 1918, to the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, then in London. I take this despatch from. Mr. Rowell's book "The British Empire and World Peace"-page 176:
Council is of opinion that in view of war efforts of Dominion other nations entitled to representation at Conference should recognize unique character of British Commonwealth composed of group of free nations under one sovereign and that provision should be made for special representation of these nations at conference.
I Mr. Lapointe.]
My hon. friends opposite at that time were proud of saying that they had achieved a new status for Canada, that they had taken a step which placed Canada in the family of the nations of the world. We heard that many times in this House. As a matter of fact, Canada at the Peace Conference was represented an entity as were the other Dominions of the Empire, and the Peace Treaty was signed for Canada by Canadians appointed and having their authority to act as such by His Majesty the King.


Arthur Meighen: And associated with another signature representing the British Government.


Ernest Lapointe: For the United Kingdom and the British Empire. For Canada they acted alone. They signed alone for Canada. The treaty says so, and my right hon. friend knows it.


Arthur Meighen: I know that.


Mr. McMASTER:: Did they not also sign under order in council passed by the Canadian government and despatched to the Old Country?


Ernest Lapointe: So we were told, and I think it is so.


Arthur Meighen: That is all right.


Ernest Lapointe: Now, by the League of Nations, which was constituted by that very treaty, Canada was given separate representation. Canada has a distinct representation on the League of Nations, we are an international unit, and Canadians should not be ashamed of it.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask the hon. member who is objecting to separate representation either in relation to this treaty or in relation to the other?


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend has objection-


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.


Ernest Lapointe: -to a Canadian signing a treaty for Canada-


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.


Ernest Lapointe: -authorized by His Majesty the King, without having somebody to witness his signature and endorse it. I do not. What did those hon. gentlemen say after this was done? This is an important question. Perhaps I am speaking too long, but this is history, and I think-


Mr. BOYS:: Smile, though.


Ernest Lapointe: I will keep smiling. That has always been my habit.

Halibut Fishery Treaty


William Alves Boys: You were not smiling five minutes ago.


Ernest Lapointe: But I come back very easily to my natural mood. Here is what Sir Robert Borden said in an address on the British Commonwealth of Nations before the American Historical Association at New Haven on the 20th December, 1922. I have the address itself which I understand was published in the Yale Review of last month:
The Dominions, as signatories of the Peace treaty, became members of the League of Nations and acquired at least vis-a-vis the other members of the League of Nations, a distinctive international status that they had not previously possessed. In accordance with constitutional usage the Peace treaties were submitted to the parliament of each Dominion for ratification, which did not take place until after the approval of each parliament had been secured.
And the Hon. N. W. Rowell, one of the ministers at the time, says in his very interesting book "The British Empire and World Peace/' page 179:
This is a great step in advance and opens the way to the Dominions obtaining full satisfaction of their national aspirations within the British Empire, just as the United States obtained the satisfaction of her national aspirations without the Empire.
The only important nations which have not so far recognized and accepted this principle are the United States and Russia. Russia is not a party to the Treaty and has not been called upon to consider the question, but when she does one need not apprehend any dissent from her; there remains only the United States.
Now, I claim that by signing and accepting the signature of Canada on that treaty the United States have recognized the international status of Canada, and it should not be the part of Canadians to criticize that status.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman allow me. Why did he permit the British Ambassador to sign the French treaty?


Ernest Lapointe: Why should my right hon. friend dodge the question all the time?


Arthur Meighen: Why are you dodging this question?


Ernest Lapointe: Why speak of the French treaty now? I am discussing a treaty with the United States to which my right hon. friend has objected.


Arthur Meighen: You are dodging the question, but pretty clumsily.


Ernest Lapointe: That is all right. Now, I have given the opinions of two members of the Canadian government of that time. I see my hon. friend (Mr. Boys) watching me; let me assure him that I am still smiling.


William Alves Boys: I am watching.


Ernest Lapointe: I have given the opinions of some of our distinguished public men who were members of the government at the time. May I now give the opinion of constitutional authorities on the new status acquired by the Dominions. I have here an extract from an article in the British Year Book of International Law for the year 1922-23, by Dr. Malcolm M. Lewis, lecturer on international law in England, page 33. It says:
This process was carried a step further in the procedure adopted for securing ratification of the Treaty, which was debated and approved by each Dominion parliament and was ratified for it, not on the advice and responsibility of the government of the United Kingdom, but on the advice and responsibilty of the Dominion government concerned.
The Dominions consolidated their newly acquired international status by becoming, and being recognized as, original members of the League of Nations. They are entitled to the same representation in the Assembly of the League as sovereign states, and there is no legal obstacle to one or more of the Dominions being elected to the Council of the League as the representatives of the Assembly. In fact, as far as the League is concerned, they have the same rights, and duties, as independent states, and these rights and duties are increased by the fact of their being appointed Mandatory States over certain former colonies of the German Empire. The Union of South Africa has been given a "C'' mandate for German South-West Africa, New Zealand for Samoa, and Australia for certain islands in the South Pacific. It is significant that these mandates were received by the Dominions direct from the Secretariat of the League of Nations, and correspondence thereon is not being conducted through the Imperial government. That this is a deliberate policy is shown by the fact that New Zealand wished to take her mandate through the Imperial government, but in consequence of the attitude adopted by South Africa and Australia all the mandates were issued direct. The dominions concerned are, therefore, responsible for their mandates not to the British government but directly to the League of Nations.
As original members of the League of Nations the dominions are also members of the International Labour Organization for which provision was made in the various treaties of peace. As such, they are entitled to direct and separate representation at all general International Labour conferences, and at the three conferences already held they have not only availed themselves of their right to be represented, but have, on occasions, indulged in cross-voting both amongst themselves and with the representatives of the British Empire.
Dr. Keith, another authority on constitutional law, says in his book "War Government in the Dominions," page 155:
In one point only did the proceedings in the matter of signature and ratification vary from the forms which would have been employed had the dominions been independent states; the Dominion plenipotentiaries were nominated and authorized to act for the dominions by their governments, but they received formal full powers to treat and sign from the King on the advice of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the royal ratification for the Empire was signified on the advice of the Secretary of State.
What is the difference between, the procedure, as demonstrated by Professor Keith in this article, and the procedure which has been
Halibut Fishery Treaty

adopted in his treaty? The same author, at page 156 of the same book, says:
Each of the units is a member of the League in its own right, possessing one vote in the Assembly of the League, and the right to be represented there by not more than three delegates. The covenant, moreover, recognizes the possibility of other dominions or colonies attaining membership of the League, and treats them as units of international law, possessing international obligations.
Now, what is the opinion of British statesmen on that subject. May I quote Mr. Lloyd George. I take his words from a recent book, "The Constitution of Canada," by Mr. W. P. M. Kennedy, page 370. On the subject of the Imperial Conference of 1921 Mr. Lloyd George spoke as follows:
He expressed himself satisfied with the progress achieved through full and free consultation between the prime ministers. He welcomed the idea of a Canadian minister at Washington. He emphasized that the dominions had been accepted fully into the comity of nations by the whole world, and that they were equal partners in the dignities and the responsibilities of the British Commonwealth, with "liberty as its binding principle. . . . based not on force but on goodwill and a common understanding."
I have here the words of Mr. Bonar Law, which are perhaps more emphatic than those of Mr. Lloyd George, but I do not like to weary the House by too many quotations. I will quote the words of Lord Milner, which appear in "Canadian Constitutional Studies," page 114;	.
The only possibility of a continuance of the British Empire is on a basis of out-and-out equal partnership between the United Kingdom and the Dominions. I say that without any kind of reservation whatsoever. It is very easy to say that; but undoubtedly the working out of it in practice without bringing about the severance of relations between us and the dominions will be one of the most complicated tasks which statesmanship has ever had to face. I am not afraid of it, and yet I have to admit that the difficulties are such that our best efforts may end in failure. I hope not. At any rate there is no other way out.
The new status of the Dominion is further exemplified in a recent act of the British parliament, the constitution of the Irish Free state. In the treaty between Ireland and the United Kingdom no mention is made any longer of the British Empire, but of the British Commonwealth of nations, and here is the oath that is taken by the members of parliament of the Irish Free state under that treaty-
I do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the Irish Free state as by law established and that I will be faithful to His Majesty King George V, his heirs and successors by law, in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of nations.
Professor MacNeill, K.C., in the Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, page 53, says:

The establishment of the Irish Free state preserves to Ireland her position and indefeasible status as an independent nation and her entrance into the British Commonwealth of nations as an equal member of that commonwealth confirms and strengthens the status of each member of that commonwealth as an independent nation, "in the fullness", to use the words of Mr. Healy, the Governor General, "of partnership in liberty with the nations co-operating in equal membership of a great commonwealth of free peoples".
Now, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend said that it was the first time such a thing had been dreamed of. I think I have shown that at the Peace Treaty, in the negotiations for the League of Nations, in everything that pertains to the League of Nations, the Dominions act on their own behalf. But, Sir, I have here the text of the Royal treaty of the convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, signed at London, January, 1914. It was an international convention, signed by many countries of the world. Great Britain signed, through many gentlemen who are mentioned Lord Mersey was the president of the British delegation. For Australia Captain R. Muir-head Collins signed, and for Canada Mr. Alexander Johnston, General Director of Marine and Fisheries, signed. I understand this is mentioned by Mr. Keith in his work on Dominion governments. At the Radiotelegraph Conference in 1912 the delegates sat there and signed alone for their dominions, as the British delegates signed for the rest of the British Empire. In order to show that we have not done anything so revolutionary in that matter, may I say that what has been done has been according to the practice of Canadian statesmen in the past. I have here the text of a resolution moved in the House of Commons in 1882 on April 21st, 1882, by the Hon. Edward Blake, who was certainly a good Britisher and a good constitutional lawyer, and what was the motion moved by Mr. Blake? It was as follows:
That Mr. Speaker do not now leave the Chair, but that it be resolved, that Canada no longer occupies the position of an ordinary dependency of the Crown; she numbers four million of free men, trained in the principles of constitutional government'; she comprises one-half of the North American Continent, including seven provinces federally united under an Imperial charter, which recites that her constitution is to be similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom; and that she possesses executive and legislative authorities over vast areas in the Northwest out of which one province has already been created, and in time others will be formed.
Then the resolution reads:
That it is expedient to obtain all necessary powers to enable Her Majesty, through her representative, the Governor General of Canada, acting by and with the advice of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada, to enter by an agent or representative of Canada, into direct communication with any British possession or foreign State for the purpose of negotiating com-

Halibut Fishery Treaty
mercial arrangements subject to the prior consent, or the subsequent approval of the parliament of Canada signified by act.
I call attention to the fact that Mr. Blake advocated a step which was going much further than the one which my right hon. friend objects to. He moved that Canada should be represented in the negotiations of its treaties for Canadian people by the Governor General of Canada. Sir Richard Cartwright on the 18th February, 1889, moved the follow-lowing resolution:
That it has become a matter of extreme importance to the well-being of the people of this Dominion that the government and parliament of Canada should acquire the power of negotiating commercial treaties with foreign states.
That a humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying that she will empower her representative the Governor General of Canada, acting by and with the advice of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, to enter, by an agent or representative of Canada into direct communication with any foreign 6tate for the purpose of negotiating commercial arrangements tending to the advantage of Canada, subject to the prior consent or subsequent approval of the parliament of Canada, signified by act.
In 1891 the Hon. David Mills, who was subsequently Minister of Justice, moved the following resolution:
That all the words after the word "that" be left out and the following inserted instead thereof:
"It is expedient to obtain the necessary powers to enable Her Majesty the Queen through her representative the Governor General of Canada upon the advice of his ministers, to appoint an agent to negotiate commercial treaties with other British possessions or with foreign states, subject to the prior consent or subsequent approval of the parliament of Canada.
Let me quote the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he introduced the Naval Service Act in 1910:
This policy is in the best'traditions of the Liberal party. This policy is the latest link in the long chain of events which following the principles laid down by the reformers of the old times, Baldwin and Lafontaine, step by step, stage by stage have brought Canada to the position it now occupies, that is to say the rank, dignity and status of a nation within the British Empire.
As I am quoting from distinguished men, I wish to quote words from my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). In a speech which I admired very much, delivered by the right hon. gentleman when he was overseas in 1921, and which is published in his "Overseas Addresses," I find the following at page 15:
We legislate each for ourselves unfettered; we advise through separate councils a common sovereign; we confer together in order better to understand the wider overriding common interest; between a sense of independence and a sense of unity there is no clash but harmony. On these principles our own league of nations has survived, and it has served the world wonderfully well.
These are fine words, but surely they must not be merely words; we must act upon them.
But I find other words of my right hon. friend. I find them in Sir Robert Borden's book "Canadian Constitutional Studies" at pages 113 and 114. Sir Robert Borden says:
In May, 1921, the Canadian Prime Minister, in the Manchester Guardian Centenary number, May 5, 1921, declared that the relations between the constituent parts of the Empire must be based upon a conception of complete freedom and equality in national status. Further he observed that the practical need would be met by clearly understood and definitely acepted declarations of principle in so much of the form and content of the existing mechanism as may be found to be obsolete.
These, too, are fine words, and I think we acted in perfect harmony with the doctrine laid down by my right hon. friend in the position which we took in the present case. My right hon. friend declares that we were guilty of an act of discourtesy. I believe he said it was an affront; at least, it was an act of discourtesy towards the British Ambassador in Washington. Well, Sir, surely when a man is twenty-one years of age, as my right hon. friend has stated so many times that this nation is, it is not discourteous on his part to sign his promissory notes without asking his former guardian to sign with him. Is an obligation of the Canadian government to enforce regulations in Canada invalid, not binding, because it is not endorsed? We are not living in 1830; this is 1923 and everybody in this country should bear that in mind. But, Sir, I say that it was not an act of discourtesy; rather, I think it was an act of gracious courtesy on the part of his Majesty the King, to appoint Canadian men to sign Canadian treaties on his behalf. Far from impairing the unity of the Empire it strengthens it, it exemplifies it, while recognizing the autonomy of every part of the Empire.
I have heard somewhere or read in the newspapers, the silly argument that because we have not a strong navy and strong military forces we should not sign treaties. Mr. Speaker, Canada is much stronger than most of the independent nations; and force is not the only criterion of national status. We need no navy. After all, what have we done? We have contracted by this treaty to fulfil certain obligations, and we need not have any navy to fulfil our obligations. If we do not fulfil them we shall deserve whatever may come to us. Everything that has been done in Canada, and in every part of the British Empire for that matter, looking in the direction of responsible government and nationhood has always been assailed as a dangerous step; every move which has been made in this country in that respect has been made against the will
Halibut Fishery Treaty

and despite the clamours of those who are apprehensive of the future and imagine destruction and separation ahead. But, Sir, the fuller the liberty that has been given the greater the unity of empire that has been accomplished. Why, when the government of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman accorded responsible government to South Africa the action was attacked in the British parliament as a foolish one. I have here the words of a great and distinguished British statesman, Lord Balfour, who at the time assailed the action of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman as the most reckless experiment that political folly had ever conceived. Yet, Mr. Speaker, that folly is accepted to-day as having been the greatest piece of wisdom that Great Britain could have displayed in that day. We need not be afraid of having more liberty provided we maintain unity; and this all Canadians desire. In conclusion, I say that the treaty which is submitted for the approval of the House has the same force, the same strength, the same validity, being signed by a Canadian, as it would have if signed by anyone else.


Robert Forke: I am reluctant to say anything after the very eloquent and able address we have heard from the other side of the House; I rise merely to associate myself -with the ideas that have been expressed. I do not think there is an hon. member in this House who is not a perfectly loyal and true Canadian; and whatever little differences there may appear in our expressions of that loyalty, I am inclined to think that ultimately it will be found that our views are essentially the same. As one who was not bom in the Dominion of Canada I rejoice in the fact that step by step this young country is attaining to full national existence, a nation free and equal with other nations in the commonwealth. There is one encouraging circumstance that predominates in all the events that have taken place, and ir is this, that with every apparent slackening of the legal bonds that unite the various parts of the Empire there seems to be a proportionate increase in strength in the common loyalty and in the other high sentiments that are, after all, more truly representative of "the ties that bind." I fully realize that there may be some difficulties ahead of us; no doubt there will arise some troubles which it will be difficult to solve. But knowing the temper of the people of Great Britain, their generosity, their freedom-loving spirit, knowing the loyalty of Canadians and their faith in their own young nation, and believing in loyalty to that common Crown to which

we all pay fealty, I have no fear for the future. We know that no young man ever reaches the full stature of manhood until he has taken upon himself the responsibility and duties incident to manhood. And so shall it be with a nation. Until we too are ready and willing to take upon ourselves the responsibilities and duties of nationhood, Canada can never attain to that position which she should rightfully occupy. I repeat that I am only too glad to associate myself with the idea of Canada as a free and independent nation-a nation co-equal with her sister nations in the commonwealth.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended taking any part in this debate, but I am impelled to do so from the happy position which I find so many members apparently to be in. Only the other night the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in connection with votes of public moneys and the like said that what was wrong when he was in opposition is right when he is in power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says what is deliberately untrue when he makes that statement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will leave it to Hansard. My right hon. friend said, "Certainly, there was another government-'


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So there is.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There was another government then, and the answer made to his own argument, as read by me, was that to-day there is another government. Yes, there is another government to-day, and we are finding that while our friends across the aisle laughed at the Conservative government when it claimed that Canada had arrived at nationhood, to-day they are loudly proclaiming the veiy same doctrine. Why, those of us who were in the House at that time can recollect that we were told it was absolutely unnecessary for Canada to consider the terms of the Peace Treaty. Eloquent speeches were then delivered by our friends opposite, as members of the official opposition at that time, that it was entirely unnecessary for us to consider the terms of the Peace Treaty, that Canada was still a colony, not a nation. That is what a considerable portion of my hon. friends opposite then asserted.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The hon. member would be too fair to imply that all or nearly all, the speeches then delivered were of that character?

Halibut Fishery Treaty


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, 1 have not gone the length of saying everyone said so. I stated that a considerable portion of my hon. friends opposite held those views at that time, and that eloquent speeches were made and applauded to the echo just along that line. Why, I remember very well the eloquent speech of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) calling the government to account and holding it up to ridicule-for what? Simply because the administration of that day made the very claim which my hon. friends opposite now so fondly hug to their hearts. The whole truth _ is, we are talking to-day about something that should not be discussed at all. There is no issue on that head between us.


Thomas Vien: Who started it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, some hon. gentlemen seem to want to say something. I have not the slightest objection to answering any questions, but I think we might have interruption from one quarter at a time.


Thomas Vien: If my hon. friend will allow me-he stated, "We are talking to-day about something that should not be discussed at all." My remark was that he was the man who started it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I said that
things were being talked about which there wias no necessity to discuss-for instance, this very question as to nationhood that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) has said so much about. And the reason I say so is that my hon. friends over there are all converts. The former administration had no doubt whatever as to the absolute freedom and independence of this country-of our nationhood. There is only one issue that will ever arise between us and our friends across the aisle on this head, and that is as to how those rights should be exercised; that is. as to what partnership means. There is the only difference. My hon. friend referred to the statement of Lord Milner on the question of partnership. He is absolutely right. What is the function of a partner? Is he to co-operate with his partners, or is he to look upon himself as having absolutely nothing to do with the partnership? Surely partnership means something. The only trouble, I think, we are ever likely to have with our friends opposite is this. We have the conviction that the force of this country can be best exercised in the closest co-operation with other component parts of the British Empire. We have the conviction that the British Empire is strong
when it acts as a unit. This argument as to our rights being called in question is entirely beside the issue. There is no question about it. I honestly and thoroughly believe that Canada is, as is admitted now by everybody, a free and independent nation within the British Empire. And I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not at all ashamed of the title, "British Empire," and do not want any substitute. The British Empire has stood for a lot, it has meant a lot, and it is going to mean a lot in the future.


Thomas Vien: What about Canadian?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend suggest that there should be a Canadian empire? I wonder what the meaning of the interruption is?


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend is criticizing the government for the elimination of the British Ambassador at Washington from the signing of the treaty. Then my hon. friend says that we have obligations as partners within the British Empire. I ask him-and my remark was to this effect-whether this partnership is to go as far as the elimination of the identity of the representatives of the Canadian nation when signing a treaty on behalf of Canada?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the principles enunciated today by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I do not pay much attention to the ambassador's signature one way or the other. We had an absolute right to sign the treaty ourselves; but, as the hon. Minister of Finance said only the other day, it is a good thing to have a British signature on a treaty, that it did no harm and certainly lent dignity and strength to the treaty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend nlean to say that the signature of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not a British signature?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is not going to get me into a debate on a question to which I have already said I attach no importance. Rather I attach importance to the trend of view of the government, not as expressed here, but as to its logical conclusion.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend says that he is not concerned with the question of the signature at all. Is not the whole question raised by the right hon. leader of the Opposition about the elimination of the British Ambassador in the signing of the treaty?
Halibut Fishery Treaty


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I I think I had perhaps better try to answer one question at a time.


Thomas Vien: It is one question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was asked a
question by my right hon. friend, the Prime Minister, before, and I dealt with one from my hon. friend who has just spoken when he asked me something about "Canadian." Now, the position of the Canadian people as I see it is just this, that the Canadian people are absolutely free and independent, and that the first duty that the Canadian people owe not only to the British Empire but to Canada, is1 to Canada itself, is to have Canada just as strong and as free and as efficient as we can turn Canada into. That is what I think about our Canadian situation. But I also think that besides that first duty to Canada, that the best future not only for Canada but the best and greatest future, yes not only for the British Empire too, but for civilization in this world is that Canada ought to continue to act not as a unit but as a partner in a real partnership, that our influence for good and for peace is infinitely stronger if it be in joint union with the other kingdoms of the British Empire. I am convinced that there is something in unity, that there is still a whole lot in tradition, that there is still a whole lot in the different races of which this country is composed, that to-day we ought not to try and think that everything of the past should be discarded, but rather we should use this new nationhood of ours in such a way as to make better and stronger and more efficient the greatest influence for good that the world has ever seen-the British Empire.
Mr. VlEN: In what way did the signing of this treaty by Canadians hamper the work that my hon. friend now advocates or,hamper our progress?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have much
pleasure in again answering my hon. friend, for the third time now I think upon this particular issue. As I said before, I see nothing wrong in that signature as an isolated act. I see a great deal of good, though, in keeping in touch with British channels. They are ours just as much as they are British. We have a British Ambassador at Washington, and he is ours just as much as he is British, just the same.


Thomas Vien: Would my hon. friend allow
me a further question? If the British Ambassador is just as much our ambassador as that of the British Empire why did my hon. friend

and his colleagues when in power negotiate to appoint a Canadian Minister at Washington?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am very glad my hon. friend has brought that up. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) very justly pointed out that things have been done in the past for which we had to take governmental responsibility. He will also bear with me when I say that constitutionally, that government no longer existing, I standing here to-day on my own responsibility have a right to my own views. I want to tell my hon. friend this, that although that provision was made there was never an appointment made. Personally I think there ought to be no appointment made, and the money should be saved. Why is there no appointment made to-day? I am inclined to think that the real reason why it is not made to-day is- that the government have been listening to the wise counsels of the hon. Minister of Finance who spoke so very, very strongly against that question of separate ambassadorship. I am inclined to think so. Following the subject that my hon .friend has given me, there is one way that we could get every benefit without cost and without any possible fear of entanglements one way or the other, and that would be if this government were to request the British government, and I have no doubt they would do it, to appoint to some high office on the staff of that embassy a Canadian who could be particularly charged with the carrying on of our business.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: As an assistant?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if my hon. friend thinks there would be any harm in a Canadian working for the British Empire?


Joseph Archambault: That is not the
question at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If he does not
think that, what is the force of his question? I may be wrong-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hon. gentlemen laugh. I have never claimed infallibility at any time. We have heard some claims in that direction, but I have never claimed it. I still think that it is a good deal better that there should be one ambassador at Washington representing the whole of us than that there should be an ambassador representing the Mother Country, and one for each of the Dominions, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, the Irish Free State and India.

Halibut Fishery Treaty


Mr. HOEY:: Following out that argument
would the hon. member be prepared to advocate the appointment of a Canadian British ambassador at Washington?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would be very glad to do it. I think, Mr. Speaker, that owing to the fact that we are so near, that so much of the business is Canadian business with Washington, that that would be a very proper solution of the whole question.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Would my hon. friend
go further and suggest that it would be a wise thing to have a British assistant to the Canadian ambassador?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would say to
the hon. member for Brome, it might be; I do not know. We might have such a good man that he would not require any assistance at all. But really, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this is a matter to laugh over. It is a serious question. It is a matter which in the long run may have a great deal to do with the future efficient functioning of the British Empire. We ought not to laugh at it.
There is just another thing I would like to say in connection with the subject while I am on my feet. Most of our interests and most of our troubles with the United States are entirely financial; I do not mean financial *n its narrow sense but in the broad sense of the word-trade questions. We are anxious to get business from them, and there is almost always something on which Canadian business interests could be helped. There are really few of those matters which involve diplomacy at all, one way or the other. Our business interests have little to do with diplomatic matters. They are business questions, the matter of getting trade and that sort of thing, and really what we want at Washington is not somebody who can make a great speech on a constitutional question like my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe), but what we really want at Washington is a first-class business representative. That is what is required, and that is something which can certainly be done at any time without any trouble one way or r.he other.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will acquit me of any intention of speaking at any length. I hope you wall have observed the fact that most of my remarks to-day have been provoked by questions from hon. gentlemen, and I apologize for taking up the length of time I have with this impromptu statement.


Mr. RENE MORIN (St. Hyacinthe-Rou-ville):: Mr. Speaker, after the eloquent and exhaustive speech which has been made by
the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) on this important question it ill becomes a modest back bencher to take part at some length at this eleventh hour of the session in the discussion of this resolution, but the subject is to my mind a most important one and I believe that the arguments to support the stand taken by the government have not been exhausted. I shall therefore take the liberty of giving my views to the House on some of the points that have not yet been touched upon.
There is first a very strong argument to make it seems to me, in reviewing the development which since confederation has marked the evolution of our international relations. I will, however, relieve the House from this historical development because while it is an argument that may have some value in itself it is not very conclusive. There is, however, an appreciation of this argument which I find in a book recently published by Mr. Porritt, entitled "Fiscal and Diplomatic Freedom of the Overseas Dominions," where he makes this appreciation of these developments:
There is no law on the statute books of Westminster to support the existing diplomatic freedom of the dominions. It is a freedom, however, that may now be said to be recognized and guaranteed like so much else in the polity of Great Britain and in the polity of the Empire, by usage or the law of the constitution.
The strongest argument that I intend to make derives in my humble judgment from the position that Canada has taken in the Treaty of Peace and in the League of Nations. When the Treaty of Peace was signed at Versailles each of the self-governing dominions was represented by special delegates, distinct from those of Great Britain, having received their full powers directly from the King, on the advice of the Dominion cabinet, and acting separately each for his local government, as a separate entity.
When the League of Nations was formed, the self-governing dominions claimed and obtained the recognition of a distinct status, giving them an international existence, and were admitted into the league as separate states on the same footing as all the small independent nations, and were allowed their representatives as all the other members, the sovereignty of which was not controverted.
It may be said that from that moment a status separate and distinct from that of the Empire as a * whole was fully recognized as appertaining to the dominions by the government of Great Britain and by the foreign nations which entered the League. Who will hold now when Canada has entered the
Halibut Fishery Treaty

League of Nations as a separate entity on a footing equal to that of other full sovereign states with her distinct representation that she should not necessarily enjoy a status and a diplomatic freedom enabling her to act alone in her intercourse with foreign nations in all matters which are her exclusive concern?
No one at the time thought of denying the dominions this new status which they had fully earned by their sacrifices for the cause of the Empire. It was recognized by all the leading statesmen of the Empire. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has given quotations from Lord Milner and Mr. Lloyd George. I have another one here which I think is most important from Lieutenant-Colonel Amery then Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies and now First Lord of the Admiralty. In a speech in the House of Commons on the 30th of July 1919, he was still more explicit. He said:
That which has most impressed the outside world is the fact that at that conference-Paris-the full equality of the dominions with ourselves as nations, has been recognized not only by us but by the other governments. They have been treated not only as equal nations within the brotherhood of the British Empire but as equal nations with other nations outside the Empire and I know that there are some timid imperialists, I might perhaps call them, who think it is a beginning of the end of any effective imperial unity. My conviction is exactly to the contrary; I have always been convinced that closer imperial unity could only be based on the recognition of the fullest equality of status between ourselves and the other dominions of the Empire.
In the dominions expression is given to the *same sentiments. You hear General Smuts in an address to the people of South Africa declare that
The dominions have in principle authority and power, not only in respect to their domestic questions but also their international or foreign relations and. . . the questions of peace or war which may affect them. If a war is to affect them they will have to declare it; if peace is to be made in respect of them they will have to sign it. Their independence has been achieved.
This change in our status is to-day sanctioned by international law. In addition to what has been quoted by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries may I quote from Oppenheim's International Law, third edition:
But the position of self-governing dominions underwent a fundamental change at the end of the world war. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and also India were not only separately represented within the British Empire delegation at the Peace conference, but also became, side by side, with Great Britain original members of the League of Nations. Separately represented in the Assembly of the League they may, of course, vote there independently of Great Britain. Now the League of Nations is not a mere administrative *mion .... but the organized family of nations. Without doubt therefore the admission of these four self-governing dominions to membership gives them a position in international law.

Now all these declarations were accepted in Canada and elsewhere as a recognition of a new order of things. This progress in our constitutional development is largely due to the untiring efforts of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and of the then Prime Minister of Canada, Sir Robert Borden; and the leaders of his party after him on many occasions emphasized this progress in this House particularly on the question of the ratification of the Peace Treaty and on that of the appointment of a Canadian Ambassador at Washington.
Is it possible in the face of all these developments of our constitutional rights, when we are told and we claim that we have acquired complete nationhood; that we are on an equality of status with any other part of the British Empire; that a partnership now exists between the different parts of the Empire-is it possible to maintain the practice of having our treaties, concerning our own particular commercial interests, having no relation whatever to any other part of the Empire-made in the name of Great Britain signed by the British Ambassador or ratified by the Crown on the advice of the Imperial cabinet?
To keep up such a practice is in my humble opinion absolutely inconsistent with the position which Canada now occupies in the family of nations and in the league; it is incompatible with the status that has been accorded to Canada; it would be a retrograde step injurious to those who have been the protagonists of our constitutional progress, and unworthy of our national dignity.
We have entered the League of Nations with our distinct representatives entitled to vote independently of those of Great Britain and even adversely to them. It is a position in which we necessarily find ourselves because if it was otherwise, the other nations by allowing the dominions a distinct status in the league, would merely have been granting Great Britain the right to have four times as many delegates in the assembly as any other membef of the league, and it is not to be presumed that it was their intention to do so.
If, after having assumed that stand, we must in our diplomatic relationships with other countries, in matters relating exclusively to Canada, act as if we were in tutelage, appear only accompanied by our guardian, and become bound by our contracts' only if they are made with the authorization of the Mother Country and signed by an Imperial delegate, distinct from the Canadian diplomatic envoy, is there a nation which will not think that Canada entered the League of Nations under false pretences and for no other

Halibut Fishery Treaty
purpose than to increase the British representation? Since we have agreed to enter the League of Nations, we are in honour bound to act as if we enjoyed complete diplomatic freedom and should get rid of all formalities which would imply a state of subordination and dependence. We are in association with the commonwealth of British nations but this should not prevent us from acting in accordance with our views and singly in matters which concern us alone. We may keep the Imperial government posted on our external relations; we may, and should, abstain from doing anything to damage or affect our co-partners, we may, and should, take the advice of the Imperial cabinet in all matters which have any bearing on the Empire at large, but all these are matters to be settled between ourselves.
In our dealings with foreign countries, regarding matters which affect Canada alone, we must act on our own behalf-without the participation of any tutor or guardian-under powers derived directly from the Crown, on the advice of the Canadian cabinet or parliament. To do otherwise would be to acknowledge a state of subjection incompatible with the status which we now occupy in the League of Nations.	.
Since the League of Nations was formed, Canada has tried to live up to her new status. When the Disarmament Conference took place at Washington in November, 1921, no invitation was sent to the dominions. The British government decided to appoint some representatives from the dominions, and was proceeding to appoint the delegates suggested by the prime ministers of the dominions when General Smuts protested against this procedure in a telegram addressed to the Canadian Premier on October 19, 1921, in which he says:
Agitation in congress against our independent voting power in the League of Nations was a direct challenge to new dominion status. It is first great international conference after Paris and if dominions concerned are not invited and yet attend, it will be a bad precedent and dominions' status will suffer. If a stand is made now and America acquiesces battle for international recognition our international status is finally won.
A copy of this telegram was sent by him to the British Premier Lloyd George, who acknowledged the truth of the statement in a wire to the Canadian Premier on 21st October, 1921, wherein he said:
I am completely in accord of course, with his (Smuts) view that dominion representatives should hold the same status as at Paris.
To which message Mr. Meighen replied on 27th October, 1921:
Essential that Dominion representatives should hold same status as at Paris and that this status must not be allowed to be prejudiced by proceedings at Washington Conference.
As it was then too late to start negotiations for a direct invitation, the procedure concerning the nomination of the Canadian representative was altered to the extent that he received his full powers from the Crown, by direction of an order in council of the Canadian cabinet, and not from the imperial cabinet. The effect of the protest was noticeable, however, at the Genoa conference which took place a few months after, when, in January, 1922, the invitation was addressed directly by the Italian Ambassador to the Prime Minister of Canada.
There is no doubt in my mind, that under her new status Canada can act alone in her dealings with foreign countries in all matters of exclusively local interest, and this view is supported by an authority like Oppenheim, who states in the .volume from which I already have quoted:
International negotiations can be conducted by all such states as have a standing within the family of nations. . . It would be wrong to maintain that states which are not fully sovereign can never be parties to international negotiations on those points concerning which they have a standing within the family of nations.
And further he says:
Not full sovereign states can become parties only to such treaties as they are competent to conclude. . .
Ordinarily a vassal state can conclude treaties concerning such matters as railways, extradition commerce and the like.
Now, what are commercial treaties? The same author thus defines them:
Commercial treaties are treaties concerning the commerce and navigation of the contracting states and concerning the subjects of those states who are engaged in commerce or navigation.
-Undoubtedly the treaty which we have before us falls within these categories, and should have been made exclusively in the name of Canada.
It is an	agreement which, to have
any	effect,	must be	implemented by
local legislation. My contention is, that under the present constitution, as it has developed since confederation, Canada has sole and exclusive jurisdiction to pass legislation to give effect to that treaty. If Canada alone could give effect to that treaty then it necessarily implies that Canada alone could make it, and that it should not only have been signed by the Canadian plenipotentiary alone, but should have been made in the name of the Dominion of Canada.
There was another reason in this particular case why the Canadian government should assert its right to act alone. The American

Halibut Fishery Treaty

government only of all the nations which have participated in negotiations which led to the formation of the League of Nations, has refused to recognize the right of the dominions to a separate and distinct representation in the league, and this opposition to dominion representation was one of the grounds upon which the United States senate rejected the league. Under these circumstances the Canadian government was well inspired in insisting that the treaty should be negotiated directly by Canada and the United States, without the intervention of the British Ambassador, because this new procedure involved, to a certain extent, the recognition by the United States of our new status, and it would have been a mistake to allow the occasion to pass without taking advantage of it.
This is in accordance with the rules of international law. Oppenheim says on this point:
A permanent diplomatic envoy needs no other empowering document than his general letters of credence, if he is not entrusted with any task outside the limits of the ordinary business of a permanent legation: but in case he is entrusted with any such task, as for instance if any special treaty or convention is to be negotiated', he requires a special empowering document, namely, "full powers."
It therefore follows that the full powers having been issued to the Canadian Minister of Marine, no other authority was required.
The action of the Canadian government m abstaining from requiring the signature of the British Ambassador, as had heretofore been the practice, did not mean any lack of consideration or courtesy to him. It was in duty bound to claim and assert the right of Canada to act under her own exclusive authority in the negotiation of her treaties. That was one way, and perhaps the only way to maintain a stand in full accord with the new position this country occupies within the comity of nations.
Some timorous people are inclined to dread the consequences which such a policy may have on our relations with the Empire. They say that the adoption of such a policy would bring about the disintegration of the Empire or would disrupt it, and that it is equivalent to a declaration of independence. As a matter of fact, I believe that is the only argument which may be brought forth against these views. But in Canada we are getting used to this argument, and experience has taught us that there is not much in it. As far back as 1837 the question of responsible government for the colonies was agitated At that time there were very strong objections to such a policy, and Lord John Russell,
fMr. Morin.]
then Prime Minister, had recourse to this high sounding argument when he wrote:
It is proposed that the executive council slhould bo made to resemble the ministry in this country. I hold this proposition to be entirely incompatible with the relations between the Mother Country and the colony. The relations between the Mother Country and the colony require that His Majesty should be represented not by a person removable by the assembly but by the governor sent by the king responsible to the king and to the parliament of Great Britain. This was the necessary constitution of a colony, and if you have not these relations existing between the Mother Country and the colony you will soon have an end' to the relations altogether.
A few years after responsible government was granted to Canada and the relations between the two countries were not affected in any way. Later, in 1859, when Galt increased the duties on British manufactured goods imported into Canada, the same argument was advanced. The Sheffield manufacturers in a memorial contended that:-
The policy of protection to native manufacturers in Canada should be distinctly discountenanced by Her Majesty's government as a system condemned by reason and experience as being directly contrary to the policy solemnly adopted by the Mother Country and calculated to breed disunion and distrust between Great Britain and her colonies.
The firm answer of Sir A. T. Galt is well known. He said:-	'
*Self-government would be utterly annihilated if the views of the Imperial government were to be preferred to those of the people of Canada. It is therefore the duty of the present government distinctly to affirm the right of the Canadian legislature to adjust the taxation of the people in the way they deem best,, even if it should unfortunately happen to meet the disapproval of the Imperial ministry. Her Majesty cannot be advised to disallow such acts unless her advisers are prepared to assume the administration of the affairs of the colony, irrespective of the views of its inhabitants.
It was this stand which finally won for Canada absolute fiscal freedom, and yet no disruption or disunion followed.
Again, you may recall the answer of the Marquis of Ripon to the demand of the colonies at the conference of 1894 to negotiate their own commercial treaties when he said that:
To grant such a right would be equivalent to breaking up the Empire into a number of independent states.
The power to negotiate treaties was conceded to Canada in 1907 and the fatal results which were predicted did not materialize in this case, any more than in the others. We are justified in stating that not only is such an argument without foundation, but the reverse proposition is nearer the truth-that the greater the freedom granted to Canada the firmer are the ties which bind this country and Great Britain together. To-day

Halibut Fishery Treaty
these ties are apparently so elastic that on the 30th of March, 1920 in the British House of Commons the Right Hon. Bonar Law could say:
There is not a man in this House who would not admit that the connection of the dominions with the Empire depends upon themselves. If the self-governing dominions, Australia, and Canada chose to-morrow to say:	We will no longer make a part of the
British Empire, we would not try to force them. Dominion home rule means the right to decide their own destinies.
And yet these ties, elastic as they are, are so strong that in the first days of August 1914, when war was declared between Great Britain and Germany, all the self-governing dominions, without being bound or even called upon to do so, but simply by a movement of their own free will, without hesitation, without discussion, flew to the side of Great Britain and fought with her, till final victory was won. Would Canada have made the sacrifices which she did make in this war if she had been compelled by a superior authority to take part in it? I believe not. No, Mr. Speaker, the argument that Canada cannot expect to enjoy a measure of sovereignty which will entitle her to make her treaties in her own name, to appoint her own commercial plenipotentiaries acting under powers derived from the King on the advice of his Canadian cabinet, without endangering the unity of the Empire is a pusillanimous one and must be set aside.
Now Mr. Speaker, some may find that I have been rash in my statements. I may have scared the "timid imperialists" of this House if there are any, but I think that we might as well face the situation squarely. At all times has our constitutional development pointed towards the goal which we have now reached; our position to-day, as I have outlined it, is the logical conclusion of the claims and actions of the former governments and of the former leaders of this House. When one studies the political history of Canada during recent times, he is astonished at finding to what extent the successive Premiers of Canada of both parties were of one mind in claiming for Canada, larger and larger powers, more and more liberties in her dealings with other nations. This movement for larger and more complete liberty has taken a new impetus on account of the war, and now I claim that Canada, by her sacrifices during the war; on account of the economic crisis through which she has to trend as a consequence of her participation in the war; by the efforts and foresight of her leaders, has acquired a status equal to that of the other small nations which compose the family of nations. I claim that this status 2851
has been acknowledged by the British government, by foreign nations and that she must not do anything which may be of a nature to prejudice that status; that on the contrary she must, on every occasion assert her right to full and complete sovereignty in her dealings with foreign nations in all matters which concern her alone.
By doing so her position in the comity of nations shall become more and more exalted and the ties which bind her to Great Britain will in no way be affected: if anything they will be strengthened because associations founded on freedom and natural inclinations are more solid and more durable than those founded on the domination of one partner and the subordination of the other.
Our actions in this respect are only in line with the aspirations of our forefathers who, as far back as 1851, in the platform of the Reform party claimed that:
Canadian commerce and commercial intercourse with other nations, should be under the control of the legislators.
They would be in accord with the conception of our aspirations, as set forth by a famous statesman Lord Elgin, who in 1850 declared that he conceived it his mission:
"To convince Canadians that without severing the bonds that united them with Great Britain, they might attain the degree of perfection and social and political development to which organized communities of freemen had the right to aspire."
If we are freemen our aim can only be freedom; freedom in our internal affairs, freedom in our commercial intercourse with other nations, the fullest freedom consistent with the maintenance of our association with the British commonwealth of nations.


William Findlay Maclean: I am thoroughly in accord with what the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) stated to-day, and I am also in thorough accord with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, (Mr. Lapointe). I go further and I state my justification in a few words, by quoting from two of our poets. Tennyson says that the constitutional development of our country and of our Empire
broadens slowly down From precedent to precedent.
It is a constitutional advance which can be justified by every Canadian, by every other nation or British commonwealth. I wish to quote from another poet who says:
Daughter am I in my mother's house,
But mistress in my own.
I wish to say, in regard to the future of the world, that Canada is the equal of a benign mother in this regard. As far as this con-
Halibut Fishery Treaty

tinent is concerned-and this continent has the making of a future world above any other, or equal to any other country-I say that Canada is here to stay by the grace of the United States, if they choose to accord it; but in spite of the United States if we must. When we are on this continent, the equal of any nation or power, we have the right to make our own treaties concerning this continent. We are the equal of the United States or any other nation in making treaties for ourselves, That is in line with what has been quoted here to-day from Canadian statesmen and from British statesmen, time after time. I am glad to see that almost the unanimous opinion of this House is that Canada has at least reached a national status, and that fact is recognized in the House and still more in the world at large.


Hewitt Bostock: If the Prime Minister replies the debate will be closed; so that if any hon. member wishes to speak he must do so now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say at
once, that after the comprehensive, eloquent and convincing address made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe), and after the remarks of the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) and the scholarly and informative address of the member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Morin), I hesitate to avail myself of my right to speak again. Were it not that the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), in the course of his remarks, made one or two statements which I think should not be permitted to go wholly unobserved, I would not attempt a further reply. The first comment which my right hon. friend made on the action of the government was in the nature of some exception to the wording of the resolution as it had been given the House. My hon. friend read the resolution and quoted these words-
The treaty was signed on behalf of His Majesty acting for Canada by the plenipotentiary named therein.
He took exception to the particular phrase "acting for Canada," coming after the words " on behalf of His Majesty." He said he thought that was not the proper order of wording, that the phrase, if used at all should have come after the word "plenipotentiary." When the Minister of Marine and Fisheries cited to him the wording of a treaty for which the government of which he was a member was responsible, my right hon. friend remarked that he did not think the wording was right, and he went on in characteristic fashion, to add, that he was not at that time in charge of matters himself. In view

of my right hon. friend having claimed that when he is in charge whatever he does is correct, he will, perhaps, permit me to read to him an order in council passed at the time he was Prime Minister, and for which he himself was responsible. I am not at all sure that the order in council was not drafted by my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister, might have added that I stated that I took the full constitutional responsibility for the order in council.	I thought I was rather
frank in doing so. I do not know why he criticized it. Whether I drafted it or not, I took the full responsibility.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my right hon. friend will take full responsibility for the order in council which I am about to read.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There have been several treaties in the making of which Canada has had a part. There were several treaties which grew out of the war and which were signed at Versailles, and there were treaties signed	at Washington, after the conference on the Limitation of Armaments. The representative of Canada at Washington was the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, formerly Prime Minister of this country. Sir Robert was appointed representative by His Majesty the King on the recommendation of the government of my right hon. friend opposite. In preparing the order in council recommending that full power be given Sir Robert Borden as the representative of Canada at the Washington Conference on Limitation of Armaments, my right hon. friend used language which I think deserves to be quoted here. Sir Robert Borden has thought it of sufficient importance to direct the attention of the country to it in the report of the conference which he prepared for presentation to this parliament. At page 43 there will bo found the following statement by Sir Robert Borden:
For convenience of reference I also set out herewith (2) the text of the order in council sanctioning the issuance by His Majesty the King of the Full-Power necessary to provide me with authority to sign, "for and in the name of His Majesty the King in respect of the Dominion of Canada", such treaties as might be concluded at the conference-
Exactly the form and order of words to which my right hon. friend takes exception.


Arthur Meighen: It is a better expression; clearly it is.

Halibut Fishery Treaty


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, Sir
Robert Borden will no doubt be pleased to learn that the right hon. gentleman thinks the language he used is superior to that of his former leader. The order in council itself appears in the document at page 143. It is dated Thursday, the 27th day of October, 1921, at which time my right hon. friend was in office as Prime Minister. I think I had better read the entire order in council as it has a bearing on the present case. May I say that the present government, in the drafting of the order in council referred to in the resolution, followed verbatim et literatim, with the exception of the names, the wording of the particular order passed by its predecessor.
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on a report from the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, submitting that it is expedient, in connection with the forthcoming conference on the Limitation of Armament and on Pacific and Far Eastern questions, summoned by the government of the United States to meet at Washington on November 11th, 1921, to invest fit person with full power to treat on the part of His Majesty the King in respect of the Dominion of Canada with persons similarly empowered on the part of other states, is pleased to order and doth hereby order that His Majesty the King be humbly moved to issue letters patent to the Eight Honourable Sir Robert Laird Borden, a member of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, G.C. M.G., K.C., naming and appointing him as commissioner and plenipotentiary in respect of the Dominion of Canada with full power and authority to conclude with such plenipotentiaries as may be vested with similar power and authority on the part of any powers or states, any treaties, conventions, or agreements in connection with the said conference, and to sign for and in the name of His Majesty the King in respect of the Dominion of Canada everything so agreed upon and concluded and to transact all such other matters as may appertain thereto.
I think, when we realize that the procedure in international matters respecting treaties was gone into very carefully by Sir Robert Borden and those associated with him at the time, our government might have justly been held remiss had we without good cause taken what I might describe as a backward step in asserting the manner in which this country should be represented in negotiating a treaty which has to do solely with its neighbour and iteslf.	_
The next point my right hon. friend ventured to criticize was a change in the wording of the draft. Nothing appears to have been too small for him to call attention to. The wording to which my right hon. friend has directed the attention of the House appeared as the heading of the draft which was sent by the United States government to the Canadian government for consideration. This heading was in the following words:
Convention between the United States of America and Great Britain concerning halibut fishery.
When the draft was presented in that form our government'took the view that the convention was not between the United States of America and Great Britain, but between the United States and the Dominion of Canada. Great Britain does not covenant to do anything by this convention. It would have been quite as appropriate and accurate to have stated that the convention was between the United States and South Africa, or New Zealand, or Australia, or Ireland or any other part of the Empire, as it was to say that it was between the American government and Great Britain. Had the American government wished to make reference to the British Empire as a whole the term "British Empire" might have been used. But the entire treaty has relation to the question of fisheries on the Pacific coast of the United States of America and of Canada, and the convention in that respect was therefore one between the United States and Canada. I might point out that the present government was not the only government that drew attention to the apparent error which had been committed in that regard. The British government were kept in touch with the negotiations and were asked for an expression of view on any phase of the proposed agreement. I will read the following telegram which was sent from His grace the Duke of Devonshire, the Secretary of State for the Colonies in Great Britain, to his Excellency, the Governor General. It is dated London, February 15, 1923:
Your telegram January 16th and your despatch January 24th,
Full powers for Mr. Lapointe sent by mail February 13th.
As regards text of draft treaty, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs suggests following modifications:
(1)	Title of treaty to be Convention for the Regulation of Halibut Fisheries on the Paciiio Coast of Canada and the United States.
That is the title the British government suggested should be given to the convention between the two countries.
(2)	In accordance with the usual treaty practice title of his Majesty preamble to read "His Majesty the King of the Urtited Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India."
Do your ministers see any objection?
It will be observed that the British government itself recognised that the convention related solely to Canada and the United 'States, and was careful in suggesting an appropriate designation to bring in the names of these two countries, making no reference to Great Britain or to any other part of the British Empire. Why does my right hon.
Halibut Fishery Treaty

friend not take exception, to the British government having ventured to make specific reference to Canada?
My right hon. friend had a word to say about preserving the historic form of the execution of treaties. I think I have already pointed out wherein the present government has sought to preserve what has come to be the accepted form in the making, signing and ratifying of treaties affecting different parts of the British Empire. The leader of the opposition suggested there had been some discourtesy; that the British Ambassador at Washington had been overlooked. I will not take up the time of the House to read the entire correspondence, but if anyone will peruse the communications that passed between the several governments he will observe our government was most careful to point out that it was as respects Canada that the signature of the Minister of Marine was desired. We were careful to point out that the treaty had to do entirely with a matter of concern to Canada and its neighbour to the south. We did not at any point say that the British government might not, if it thought desirable, ask the British Ambassador at Washington to sign. We did not say that we would take exception to his signing. What we did do was to point out that, the treaty relating as it did to Canada and the United States exclusively, it was not necessary, in our opinion, that more than the signature of our own minister, who had been given full powers by his Majesty the King, should appear on the agreement I might quote a paragraph from the communication referred to by my right hon. friend, which was despatched on February 28, from His Excellency the Governor General to the Secretary of State for the Colonies:
My ministers are of opinion that, as respects Canada, the signature of the treaty by Mr. Lapointe alone should be sufficient.
And elsewhere;
The view of my ministers, however, is that the treaty being one of concern solely to Canada and the United States, and not affecting in any particular any imperial interests, the signature of the Canadian minister would be sufficient, and they would respectfully request that his Majesty's Ambassador at Washington be instructed accordingly.
What does that language mean? It means by implication that had any Imperial interests been concerned Canada would have expected the British Ambassador as well as her own minister to sign the agreement. But inasmuch as the treaty related exclusively to a Canadian matter, inasmuch as it had no bearing of an Imperial character, we felt it was unnecessary in the circumstances that the British Ambassador should place his

signature beside that of the minister who had negotiated the treaty.


Arthur Meighen: Was there any imperial
interest affecting the French treaty that does not affect this one?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Every treaty
has, I think, to be considered in the light of the circumstances under which it is negotiated, and of which proper and full account should be taken. In negotiating the commercial treaty with France, the Canadian ministers, I think, used to a considerable extent the good offices1 of the British Ambassador at Paris. They were in a foreign European country, the British Ambassador lent his good offices in furthering the negotiations, and while there was no obligation, whatever, necessitating the signature of the British Ambassador, it seems to me wholly appropriate that under the circumstances he should have been asked by our ministers to join with them in signing the convention.


Arthur Meighen: What does my right
hon. friend mean by "good offices?" What good offices were exercised then that were not similar to those offered in this case? I should like the Prime Minister to be more specific.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it will
be quite evident that negotiations with the United States, owing to the proximity of Washington and Ottawa, can be conducted by ministers and officials in a way in which it is not possible to carry on negotiations of a diplomatic character between Ottawa and some European capital. As I say, each case must be considered on its own merits.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the point
I am raising at all. One may be verbally negotiated, the other may be written. But what good offices were necessary in the negotiation of the French treaty that were not necessary in these negotiations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I have answered my right hon. friend. It is not a question of what was necessary, but what in the circumstances was appropriate. I would say in this connection, that in previous negotiations with France, my right hon. friend's minister had associated himself with the British Ambassador in Paris for the purpose of concluding a temporary arrangement, to take the place of which the new agreement was intended. Under such circumstances, I think it was only proper that the British Ambassador should have been associated with the treaty.

Halibut Fishery Treaty


Arthur Meighen: Will the Prime Minister not admit that this correspondence shows that the good offices of the British Ambassador were proffered and given in just the same way in connection with this treaty?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I will not admit anything of the kind.	The correspondence speaks for itself.


Arthur Meighen: The correspondence
discloses this.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to enter into a verbal discussion with my right hon. friend at the moment.
As to the "preservation of the historic form [DOT]of execution of a treaty," which is the phrase my right hon. friend uses, without attempting in any way to set forth what in the opinion of the government is the proper recognition to be given different parts of the British Empire in matters of the kind, I should like, speaking for myself personally to quote from an article by Sir Robert Borden which has recently appeared, as expressing, in the paragraph which I am about to read, my own views ns to the present position with respect to treaties of concern to Canada, and the course of action appropriate in respect thereto. In the Yale Review for this month there appears nn article by Sir Robert Borden entitled, "The British Commonwealth of Nations." On page 12 the article contains references which have already been quoted by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe). In a copy of this article which has been sent to me by, I think, Sir Robert Borden himself, I find inserted the page which I have in my hand, with the following note at the head:
The following paragraph was inadvertently omitted by the Yale Review. It should appear on page 12 at the place indicated.
The place indicated is at the end of the sentence quoted by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. This is Sir Robert Borden's view of the present position in the matter of *treaty-making so far as Canada is concerned.
Since the beginning of the present century Canada *has in many instances negotiated treaties that concerned her special interests. In such cases the diplomatic unity of 'the commonwealth is preserved by the form of the treaty and by the method of execution and ratification.
The King is named in the treaty as the High Contracting Party and the execution is undter powers issued by him upon the recommendation of the Dominion government. Ratification takes place also upon the recomendation of the Dominion government; but any relevant question as to the effect of the treaty upon the commonwealth as a whole must naturally be the subject of consultation between the governments concerned prior to ratification. It is not improbable that in this respect usage, arising out
of practice and experience as to the proper character, method and extent of such consultation, will develop into a recognized convention. There seems no reason to desire or to anticipate any modification in the form of such treaties. The ancient formula by which the King is designated as the enacting authority still subsists in the statutes of each dominion and in those of Great Britain; in form the King, in reality the legislature, enacts.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me direct attention to these words, " The king is named in the treaty as the high contracting party." That is precisely what we have in the treaty which the House is now considering. The treaty is between His Majesty the King, and the United States. "Its execution is under powers issued by him upon the recommendation of the Dominion government." There appears in the correspondence which lies on the Table of the House a copy of the order in council under which the Dominion government asked His Majesty the King to give full powers to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to act in his name in the negotiating and signing of this treaty The government in so doing acted with a full sense of its responsibility to this parliament. The power rests here with parliament. It is this parliament that in reality is enacting this treaty. It is enacting the treaty through the recommendation made by the ministry in office to-day, which is responsible to parliament, and which has made its recommendation to the king, which recommendation the king has accepted and on which action has been taken.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister had better be a little more accurate in that regard. Does he wish to convey the impression that the king acted upon the advice of this government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I am perfectly accurate, Mr. Speaker. I say the king's action in this regard was based upon the recommendation of this government.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister did not say so. It was the commencement of the negotiations that led to the king's action. But the advice tendered His Majesty to act would be the advice of the British government, of his own ministers, and this government communicated, not with His Majesty, but with the British government and got it to give that advice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend is resorting to the kind of hair-splitting of which he is so fond.


Arthur Meighen: No, this is very important.
Halibut Fishery Treaty


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The essential thing so far as this parliament and country is concerned is that this govsrr.ment made a certain recommendation to the king. It may be asked: How that recommendation was transmitted, and in what form it was sent? It was sent to His Majesty's ministers in Great Britain and transmitted by them to the King.


Arthur Meighen: With their advice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I am prepared to say, "with their advice." Which shows that they approved entirely of the action to which my right hon. friend now takes exception.


Arthur Meighen: No, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend is taking exception to the fact that the Canadian minister signed this treaty.


Arthur Meighen: No, I am not, and I will not permit the Prime Minister to misrepresent me. I object to no such thing. Nor did I object to the recommendation made to the British government for transmission to His Majesty with their advice. It is the proper method. I entirely approve of it, and I entirely approve of the appointment of the Canadian minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then what is my right hon. friend objecting to?


Arthur Meighen: What I did object to was the change in the usual practice and the refusal by this government to permit the British Ambassador to be associated in the execution of the treaty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think, Mr. Speaker, I have made it plain that the usual practice, at least in the view of the one member of the Privy Council who has the largest experience, is that as respects matters affecting Canada, a Canadian minister should sign on behalf of His Majesty and be given full power for that purpose, That practice was established by the conference at Versailles and by the Disarmament Conference at Washington.


Arthur Meighen: Will the Prime Minister give me an instance where the British ministers did not sign as well?


Ernest Lapointe: They did not sign the Peace Treaty on behalf of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say for Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Those were
matters of general and Imperial interest in which all parts of the Empire were concerned.


Arthur Meighen: The French treaty?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The present
treaty is not a matter which is of imperial interest; it is primarily of concern to this country.


Arthur Meighen: Will the Prime Minister permit an interruption, not a question? He says they were matters of general and imperial interest; surely he does not mean that. I do not wish to be always harping on the Frenoh treaty, but will he say that that treaty is of more imperial interest than this? Or the Italian and other treaties? Or the treaty negotiated four years ago with France? All those are as distinctly Canadian as this one. I wish the Prime Minister would not make such general remarks without being careful as to their real significance.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a question.


Arthur Meighen: I do not say it is a
question.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, it is a lecture.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know my right hon. friend is a little restive. He realizes the position he is in, and is simply trying to extricate himself as best he can.


Arthur Meighen: No, not at all. Try to be fair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am prepared to leave it at that. So far as the government's action in this matter is concerned, far from there being any desire or intention in any way to overlook the British Ambassador, the chief and sole aim was to preserve the recognition of the status of Canada as one of the self-governing dominions of the Empire and those full rights of autonomy and responsibility which she has acquired and which during recent years have been so often referred to by her public men.
I shall conclude with one further reference to a remark of my right hon. friend. He said that he could not understand why there was this desire-and he applied his words to this treaty-"to dissociate ourselves from the British Empire." I think I am quoting my right hon. friend correctly in that remark.


Arthur Meighen: I am not quite sure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am very glad my right hon. friend is not quite sure, because I regard his remark as thoroughly disloyal, I marvel at any leader of any party in this House venturing to say that the government was seeking to dissociate itself from the British Empire.

Halibut Fishery Treaty


Arthur Meighen: I did not say anything of the sort. The Prime Minister is imagining it in order to get an excuse to work up his heat. If the Prime Minister will take my remarks as they appear in the typewritten transcript of Hansard, and will wait until eight-thirty tonight, I shall be prepared to stand by the report of what I said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have the very words of my right hon. friend. I quote his words as I took them down. He said he could not understand why there was "this desire to dissociate ourselves from the British Empire." That is the sort of expression my right hon. friend is fond of using when he does not think he will be brought to book for it. I tell my right hon. friend that the government, in the action it was taking, far from being prompted by a desire in any way to estrange Canada from the Empire, believed that its action was calculated to strengthen the faith of Canadians in the greatness of the Empire, and to increase the respect which all other parts of the Empire and other countries have for Canada.
I wish to quote again words of Sir Robert Borden from the article to which I have referred. At page 15, Sir Robert says:
I am of those who believe that the essential unity of the commonwealth has in no sense been diminished by its development into an organization which is virtually a Britannic League of Nations.
That at all events is the position which we on this side of the House take. We believe that the more the British Empire comes to be understood as a Britannic League of Nations, the more serviceable it will be to its component parts and to human society in general, and the more likely will it be to endure on a permanent basis. It is as a part of a league of Britannic nations, as one of a community of sister nations within the British Empire, that we have taken a course which we believe will afford recognition to that particular status. There never has been a time when the assertion of her autonomy by Canada has not been followed by some protest from one quarter or another. We believe that the more self-government is realized in all its phases, the more enduring and permanent will be the basis of the Empire.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I am one who believes strongly in that community of free nations which comprises the British Empire, and I hope to live to see that community of nations grow stronger from year to year, and as time goes on to mean more and more to our great human society. I believe that in the British commonwealth to-day, we have the greatest example the world has ever
known of a community of free nations in the nature of a League of Nations which is an inspiration and a model to the League of Nations itself. As the British Empire endures so will the League of Nations prosper on similar foundations of liberty and freedom, and consultation and co-operation between component parts. It is because I want to see the British Empire endure, it is because I want to see all its parts work together in closer harmony and co-operation-because I believe it is the greatest agency which the world has ever had for the preservation of freedom, liberty and justice-that I hope every effort will be made upon the part of each free nation of the British Empire to see that in the matter of self-government, it exercises to the full the rights which are conceded to it, as being a component part of the Empire. In that way it will help to illustrate and make for that freedom, justice and cooperation among the nations of the world which we pray all may come to practise and enjoy.
I shall conclude with but one further quotation. On the 24th of May, His Majesty, the King, addressed a message to the school children in all parts of the British Empire. Here are the words with which His Majesty concluded that address. They have been recorded in all the schools of the Empire:
Get knowledge, be brave, honourable and kind, thinking of others before yourselves, and always play the game. So will you fit yourselves to hand down this community of free nations to your children and grandchildren as a great instrument for justice, peace and goodwill, which will deserve the respect and esteem of mankind.
I submit Sir, that we will not find anywhere a truer and nobler expression of what the British Empire is than in those words of His Majesty, wherein he speaks of it as a "community of free nations." If we are a community of free nations, is it to be said as my hon. friend, the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), has suggested with respect to the signing of a treaty affecting Canada but not affecting any imperial interest, that there is no question as to the right you have; you have the right but you must not exercise it? Mr. Speaker, we have passed that stage. We want not only the right, we want also to exercise our rights. We believe that in the exercise of all our rights we will gain more of strength and of influence as a nation; and, so far as the British Empire is concerned, we believe that its greatness will be proportionately greater as our strength and influence as a country increase.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Halibut Fishery
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by Mr. Lapointe; that a message be sent to the Senate to inform Their Honours that this House has passed the following resolution:
Resolved by the	 House of Commons:-
That it is expedient that Parliament do approve -of the Treaty between His Majesty and the United States of America providing effective measures for the preservation of the halibut fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean, which was signed at Washington on the second day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, a copy of which has been laid before parliament, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty, acting for Canada, by the plenipotentiary therein named, and that this House do approve of the same.
and requesting that Their Honours do unite with this House in the said resolution by filling up the blank therein with the words, "Senate and."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess

[Stage Direction]
-CLOSE SEASON FIXED FOR CANADIAN TERRITORIAL WATERS
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure for the protection of the Northern Pacific halibut fishery, and to provide:
1.	That a close season be established during which it shall be unlawful for any person to fish for, catch or attempt to catch halibut in the territorial waters of Canada contiguous to the western coast of Canada, or for any national or inhabitant of Canada to fish for, catch or attempt to catch halibut in the territorial waters of Canada aforesaid, in the territorial waters of the United States contiguous to the western coast of the United States, in the high seas extending west-terly from the limit of the territorial waters of Canada and of the United States, also Behring Sea.
2.	That making use of a Canadian port to outfit a vessel to engage in prohibited fishing, or permitting the departure of the same with intention to engage in such fishing, or entering any port in Canada while prosecuting a voyage to fish for halibut or with halibut intentionally caught in the close season, shall be an offence against the proposed legislation.
3.	That the vessel, cargo and outfit operated or used for the purpose of committing an offence against the provisions of the proposed legislation shall be liable to seizure and forfeiture, and if such vessel is the property of a national or inhabitant of the United States or is registered in the United States the same shall be delivered as soon as practicable after seizure to an authorized official of the United States to be dealt with in accordance with the laws of that country.
4.	That foreign ships found fishing or preparing to fish for halibut in such territorial waters shall be liable to seizure and to be forfeited, and that certain

provisions of the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act be made applicable for the purposes of the proposed legislation.
5.	That the Governor in Council may join with the government of the United States in appointing an International Fisheries Commission, consisting of four members, two to be appointed by the Governor in Council and two by the government of the United States, such commission to exist for a period of five years, and thereafter until two years from the day when either of the constituting governments shall give notice of desire to terminate it, and Canada shall pay the salaries and expenses of the members of the commission appointed by the Governor in Council, and one-half the joint expenses incurred by the commission.
6.	That the Governor in Council may make regulations for giving effect to the recommendations of the commission, and to give full effect to the provisions of the proposed act, and such regulations may create offences and impose penalties, and that the said act shall come into force on a day to be named by the Governor in Council, and may be repealed by the Governor in Council at any time during the existence of the International Fisheries Commission.
Motion, agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On paragraph 1.
Arthur Meighen: This is the general clause of the resolution. I do not wish to take the occasion to make any particular speech but to correct some misrepresentations of the speech I made, if you call it a speech, on the motion itself. I did not realize that I had committed such a grave attack or propounded some new and dangerous theory affecting our autonomy such as called for the long volley of reply that came from lion, gentlemen opposite. I did not know that my innocent remarks were really worthy of a whole afternoon of thunder from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe), from the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin), and finally from the Prime Minister.
I have not any accusation of misrepresentation, certainly not of deliberate misrepresentation, to make against the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I think that so far as he referred to my own remarks he was quite fair. All I have to say about his reference to them is this:	He seemed to assume,
and he seemed sincerely to assume, that my objection was to the fulness of Canadian autonomy and the fulness of Canadian national rights, that I harboured in my heart the idea that domination from Britain would be advisable. There were protests in his speech repeatedly against some theory of domination, and these were re-echoed in very scholarly language indeed by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville. No one in this country would resist the going into effect of any such theory or idea more determinedly than would I. The thought of domination

Halibut Fishery
has long since ceased to be in the mind of any practical person or any prominent person in public affairs in either Britain or Canada. The talk of domination is only for the purpose of rearing something that can be struck at with venom, vigour and indignation in order, if possible, to gain applause. I have been accustomed to this sort of attack. No matter what I say, however clearly I say it and however simple and indeed axiomatic it is, it is always followed by representations wherever it will be believed they will pay, that I have delivered a ringing, imperialistic harangue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear. Could I receive a better confirmation of what I have stated? Already it is declared by the "hear, hears" that I have delivered such a speech this afternoon.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: Now I place myself in
tke hands of the House. I wonder if hon. gentlemen will not realize what has been the basis of the campaign when the speech I made this afternoon is rejoiced in by hon. gentlemen opposite as giving them an opportunity once more to impale me before certain portions of this country as a wild and blood-thirsty Imperialist. I have not the least doubt that there will be newspapers in the near future, and one of them edited by an hon. gentleman opposite which will declare to their leaders that I preached domination by Britain over the affairs of Canada. I ask hon. gentlemen now to be good enough to watch as I will do myself, and read with great interest the editorial attacks that will follow. But I am accustomed to it. I have become accustomed to it through many years.


Joseph Archambault: Is my hon. friend
referring to La Minerve?


Arthur Meighen: I did not know that La Minerve was edited by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) :	I thought it was
Le Canada.


Joseph Archambault: I thought my hon. friend referred to La Minerve.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman did not think so at all. He thought he had a joke, but in such view he was mistaken. I was glad to hear the quotations made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries which constituted a large portion of his address and certain of them, I think constituted by far the best portion of his address.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear. That is
what I thought too.


Arthur Meighen: The modest views of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries agree with my own. With those quotations enunciated I have no quarrel whatever; with some of them I had to do at the time of their creation, but I am no more loyal to them than . I am to the others. I do not know any at this day who disagree. Nothing was said this afternoon on the part of any hon. member in this House out of accord with what was quoted by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, unless it was certain phrases that fell,
I hope inadvertently from the lips of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin). Something has been achieved all right through these years, not against obstacles at all but simply as a matter of natural growth. Something has been achieved in that way of fuller national status for our country, fuller control over local affairs, fuller influence over those wider affairs that more and more affect us as we grow in stature and in consequence. I say again it has not been achieved against resistance. I have not witnessed nor come in contact with any resistance on the part of British statesmen or the British people- none whatever. But control of our own affairs, and increasing influence in other matters in which we are interested are quite consistent with the preservation of that co-operation and that unity upon which, at least, as much depends as upon the preservation of our autonomy.
I argued this afternoon against what I deemed an indecorous casting aside of one evidence of that unity without any purpose being served whatever, without any object being gained; nothing whatever being achieved in the way of control of domestic affairs or of control of our part in any affairs at all. Without anything to be gained I do not think it is worth while.
Now, I go further than I went this afternoon. I think his conduct has been a grave mistake, and I will tell the Minister of Marine and Fisheries why. In the conduct of our diplomatic affairs-using the adjective for want of a better-in the conduct of our treaty and other relations with other powers and nations of the world, it is essential, so long as the British Empire exists-whether you call it a commonwealth of nations or the British Empire; one title is as good to me as another, but the latter carries with it a tradition that I for one am not going to forget- it is going to be essential that in all these relations there shall exist harmony and a unity of purpose; in a word that
Halibut Fishery

all our outside relations are harmonized so that we present to the world not a discordant but a united front. I do not mean by this a hostile front but that we present to the world the fact that we are still together, and that we are not one of us pursuing a policy which conflicts and discords with the policy of the other. The means we have adopted in the past of doing so have been to associate with us in the maintenance of our outside relations the appropriate representative of the British government; and by means of such association we take care that we are not entering into covenants or commitments at variance with policies which, although they may be general, though they may be of British rather than Canadian origin, are nevertheless of consequence to us the same as they are of consequence to Britain. Such association we have always preserved, and I want to know what the reason is for not having the preservation of that association attested by the signature of the British representative? Would it not be better in later times, if anything should arise which would make it appear that we possibly had given cause for embarrassment in connection with other affairs to the British Empire, to be able to point to the signature of the British representative as attesting not only consent or approval, but rather attesting the fact that there is nothing within the four corners of the treaty that is in any way detrimental or embarrassing to other interests of the Empire?


Thomas Vien: Does my right lion, friend mean thereby that a few matters concerning Canada alone should at all times receive the rubber stamp of the British Ambassador?


Arthur Meighen: I was not referring to rubber stamps at all. Matters concerning Canada alone, purely domestic matters never have; but in the case of matters affecting the relations of this country with other countries it is better to have the attestation of a representative of Britain; because though they may appear-and though doubtless they often are-what one may call the sole concern of the Dominion it is not for us alone to say that such is the case. There may be others concerned, although, perhaps, not nearly so much concerned as we are; there may be other relations affected besides our own. Can we stand up and say to all the rest of this Empire "This is our concern and our concern alone" when the matter affects relations with an outside nation? If this is to be done hon. gentlemen say we still preserve unity? I do not know just what hon. genlemen are willing to preserve. What is there left to preserve if we are to make-as stated for example by

the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville -what treaties we like, or as he expressed it, make treaties between the Dominion of Canada and foreign nations in absolute diplomatic freedom, to use his exact words. If we act in this way I ask again, what is there left to preserve? You may preserve a feeling. But a feeling may exist between any other country and the United Kingdom but, in a word what is there to preserve if there is not diplomatic unity to preserve.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my right hon. friend intend to start the debate over again? This is entirely out of order. I do not want to interrupt my right hon. friend but the treaty has been approved. Discussion of the signature to that treaty has nothing to do with the legislation now before the House. There is no question of the treaty in this legislation. We are asking merely the right to close our ports and impose penalties in the case of persons fishing in our territorial waters.


Arthur Meighen: I know that I have not
the right to start the debate over again, and I do not intend to. The extent to which I have gone is attributable in part to questions put and interruptions made. I will not proceed any further. I wanted to make my position on the subject clear. I will not start in to refute or attempt to destroy what has been said on the other side. I will make no reference to the alleged reply of the Prime Minister, inasmuch as from beginning to end it was based on a distortion of my own remarks.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 2.
Arthur Meighen: I would like to have the minister's views as to the validity of the proposed law in regard to extra-territorial rights. The committee will remember that this House passed an address two or three years ago, asking that there should be an amendment to the British North America Act giving this country the same power of legislation in personam, but in relation to extra-territorial rights or extra-territorial offences, that the British government itself possesses in relation to their own subjects. Certain objections were taken to it, but it passed this House anyway, and was forwarded, and I am not quite certain'-I cannot recall definitely-as to the reasons why it has not yet been adopted; but until it is adopted, how have we the right to legislate even in personam? The minister understands me.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.

Halibut Fishery


Arthur Meighen: The minister knows we
have not the right to legislate as to what might be done by others than the citizens of Canada in extra-territorial waters. That is to say, if the offence is committed in extraterritorial waters, how can we legislate against it in the absence of an amendment to the British North America Act?


Ernest Lapointe: I quite understand the
objection. I was not absolutely sure about it; but it was referred to the Department of Justice, and the resolution and the bill have been drafted by that department. Of course, where other people are concerned, there is no doubt we would have no right in extraterritorial waters; but it seems the Justice department are of the opinion that we can deal with Canadian citizens in those waters.


Arthur Meighen: It is the only way, of
course, in which we can meet the obligations under the treaty, but I am inclined to think the Justice department is taking a flyer at it -taking the chance. I suppose it cannot do any harm.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my hon. friend has the opinion of the Department of Justice. Certainly the Department of Justice once upon a time had a very different view. This House adopted the resolution it did adopt as a result of the opinion of the Department of Justice. The question then arose having particular regard to aeroplanes. We became interested in offences by Canadian citizens outside of our territorial jurisdiction, and the opinion of the Department of Justice then certainly was that we had no right to create an offence, whether by a Canadian citizen or anybody else, outside territorial waters. That is why they adopted that resolution. What new light has the department got?


Robert Forke: If the offence is committed
on the high seas, who has the right? Surely some one has.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member has not quite got the drift of this question at all. The Mother Country has the territorial rights. We have all rights given us in connection with our own land. Those rights extend to the three-mile limit. What we wanted to do-and the reason this resolution was passed before-was to put ourselves in the position of being able to police these districts. Take the case of the aeroplane. Of course the law is different in reference to ships. We need not worry about that question. We wanted the right to be able to police outside the three-mile limit.


Robert Forke: Does the hon. membpn
mean to say that Canada has no control over Canadian citizens on the high seas?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, that is the whole thing; and the House adopted the resolution that we should have an amendment to the British North America Act which would give us extra territorial rights? The whole House, on the advice of the Department of Justice, was told that we had not that control. I understand my hon. friend to say to-day that the Justice department has changed its mind. I think the best way of showing how it has changed its mind would be to read its opinion. I know of nothing i hat has turned up in the meantime to make a change.


Ernest Lapointe: In answer to my hon. friend's question, the Justice department prepared the legislation. We asked the Justice department to prepare the legislation to meet the requirements of the treaty, and to prepare if, of course, according to our laws, and this is the bill and the resolution which were prepared, not by us, but by the Department of Justice.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But the instructions to the department in that case would be just the same as in any other matter. Here is a treaty; we want an act to carry it into effect and provide for it, and among other matters, we have this question. Did the minister get an opinion from the department whether that bill if enacted would bo the law?


Ernest Lapointe: We had the opinion of the Department of Justice before the bill was prepared.


Arthur Meighen: The Department of Justice would never vouch that this clause would be effective. It is put there, in the hope that people would follow it, and not in the belief ihat we have the jurisdiction to pass it.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not admit that.


Arthur Meighen: They gave a previous opinion to that effect.


Ernest Lapointe: I am bound by the fact that they have presented the bill.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister say the department has expressed the opinion that this House has jurisdiction to give effect to penalties for violation of these provisions?


Ernest Lapointe: I say the Department o! Justice prepared the bill to meet what is contemplated by the treaty. They made a difference, as my right hon. friend will see when
Halibut Fishery

he has the bill, in section 2, as between the citizens of Canada and foreign citizens. In reference to territorial waters, it applies to everybody from everywhere. In extra-territorial waters it applies only to citizens of Canada, because we are supposed to have thr-i'ght to prohibit only Canadian citizens in extra-territorial waters. They did this and prepared this legislation; they were asked by the Department of Marine and Fisheries to prepare legislation according to the law.


Arthur Meighen: And the Justice department-poor fellows-what else could they do? Here is the Minister of Marine and Fisheries bound by that treaty to give effect to certain things, one of which the government of Canada was not in position to give effect to. That is handed to the Justice department and they are asked to prepare a law to do that. They prepare this, and it is the best they could do. Certainly I could not have done it better if I had been asked to do it. But the Justice department will not say that we have power to give effect to it.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend knows that the Justice department would never lend itself to the preparation of a law which it knew to be illegal or to be one that could not be enforced.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know; they might have to. What else could they do?


Ernest Lapointe: I am not a dictator to the Department of Justice.


Arthur Meighen: It would be the duty of the Department of Justice to prepare a law to carry the treaty into effect. It is not their fault if we have not the power to give effect to that treaty; it is the fault of those who made the treaty. There are cases, which I shall not mention because I am not familiar with them, where the same thing has had to be done on other occasions; but on this occasion they could only do what they have done. The minister got them into that position.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes; and now he is making a treaty which in my opinion, as, I am sure, in the opinion of the Justice department as well, this country has no power to carry through.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 4.
Mr. STEVENS:: Suppose the ships of some foreign country, say, Japan, come into extraterritorial waters off the Canadian coast, there

would be no power to prevent them from fishing?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In that case does the
treaty purpose to restrain the nationals of Canada and of the United States from fishing, while permitting foreign vessels to engage in the business?


Ernest Lapointe: As I explained this afternoon, it is impracticable for foreign vessels tc come and fish off the coast without using our ports, and that we can prevent them from doing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I heard the minister say that but I do not agree with him.


Ernest Lapointe: Well you are wrong.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know a little about this matter.


Ernest Lapointe: And so do other people.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The reason the Japanese do not fish halibut off the Pacific coast is that the market for this fish is in the New England states, in eastern Canada and elsewhere in America. There is a very small market for that class of fish in the Orient, where they get the cheaper fish. But within the last five years the Japanese have gone into the salmon canning business and have virtually put British Columbia and Alaska salmon off the British market. This appeared in a government report the other day and is also recorded in public statements. I apprehend that as soon as this restriction is imposed on the nationals of Canada and of the United States the Japanese will make efforts to find a market for this particular fish, because there is no difficulty in their coming across, fishing off the coast, icing the fish and taking it back to the Orient. The only trouble in their way at present is the lack of a market for this high-class fish. My hon. friend comforts himself with the thought that they cannot come and fish.


Ernest Lapointe: I have the advice of experts on the subject.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The opinion of many to whom I have spoken, and my opinion also, is that they will come as soon as they find a market for this fish; and I expect that to occur in a few years' time. I suggest that we should be prepared in such an eventuality to know exactly what we are going to do.


Ernest Lapointe: Then my hon. friend is
opposed to the close season.

Halibut Fishery


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, no. The minister is misinterpreting my remarks.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no way of preventing Japanese vessels from coming and fishing off the coast if they can do so without using either our ports or the American ports. If they can come and fish under such circumstances we are unable to prevent them. Nevertheless, everybody in my hon. friend's province is asking for this legislation because it is highly important that there shall be a close season if the halibut, which are being destroyed in alarming numbers, are to be conserved. We have had representations from every source in British Columbia, and I have not heard one word against this proposed legislation and the treaty. We cannot meet the difficulty in any other way.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not for one moment suggesting that this legislation should not be passed. I merely want to know what we are going to do should foreign vessels come and fish during the close season.


Ernest Lapointe: I have already pointed out that there is no means by which we can prevent them from coming and fishing. Perhaps my hon. friend can suggest one. We have no right to go into extra-territorial waters and stop anybody who wants to fish. If we had a treaty with the Japanese we might be able to do so, but we have not. But the advice of all experts on this subject convinces us that neither Japanese
9 p.m. nor any other foreign vessels can carry on fishing operations in these waters which are covered by the treaty. In the extra-territorial waters our restrictions can apply only to our own citizens; similarly the American government will control its own nationals. But we believe that it is imperative that we should prevent our citizens from carrying on operations, and should make .t impossible for foreigners to do the same, by closing our ports. That is the only way we can save the industry; otherwise we should have to let the halibut disappear in a very short time.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On paragraph 5.
Henry Herbert Stevens: When are the commissioners to be appointed?


Ernest Lapointe: When the treaty has
come into force, after its ratification. They will not be appointed before next winter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not before ratification by the United States?


Ernest Lapointe: No.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 247 for the protection of the Northern Pacific Halibut Fishery.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. LAPOINTE moved the second reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and the House went into-committee on the bill, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Interpretation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I notice that paragraph (d) of clause 2 provides that the prohibited waters shall comprise certain waters in Canada and off the United States shore, and also the Behring sea. Why is the Behring sea included in this? It must be remembered that the Japanese, for instance, have far easier access to the Behring sea than our fishermen have.


Ernest Lapointe: As I said this afternoon, the treaty was drafted by the United States themselves. We were asked to include the Behring sea and I do not see any objection to doing so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not in a position, perhaps, to offer any facts to back up what I am going to suggest; it may be that our interests there are nil. But it would appear to me as if we were legislating ourselves out of any right to enter the Behring sea, and that is not necessary for the purposes of this treaty. It must be remembered that one has to go away round the Aleutian islands, a couple of thousand miles or more from Prince Rupert, to approach the Behring sea, which is not near the halibut fisheries at all.


Ernest Lapointe: What will be the harm in including it if it is not near the halibut fisheries?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot tell my hon. friend what the harm is unless he can tell me why it is in here. To me it is a purposeless thing, unless the United States government had some reason for putting it there.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think myself that it serves a very important purpose, but I would not like to add a rider or reservation to the treaty to exclude the Behring sea. As my hon. friend himself says, the inclusion of the words "Behring sea" cannot have any effect, because there are no halibut there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What I meant was this: The present halibut fisheries, so described, lie off the Queen Charlotte islands and the panhandle of Alaska, the southern narrow strip
Halibut Fishery

of the Alaskan coast running down the British Columbian coast. Up to the present the halibut fishing in the Behring sea has not been developed, but I am not so positive that there are no halibut there; it looks as if some information that we are not possessed of induced the American government to include the Behring sea in the treaty. It will certainly give a distinct advantage to the Japanese. If there is any need for including the Behring sea, in the absence of any other information we must assume there are halibut there, and if that is the case the Japanese will have access to those fisheries while we have not.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend may be sure that neither the United States nor Canada have entered into this treaty and have included the Behring sea for the benefit of the Japanese. I do not think the United States are trying to facilitate matters for the Japanese and to enable them to fish in their waters, any more than we are doing in our own waters. This is an honest effort to provide a close season and to prevent American and Canadian fishermen from destroying the halibut. Both countries have for years been trying to arrange this close season and the treaty has been drafted in such a way as to cover all possibility of fishing in violation of this close season.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Virtually the minister's answer to my question is that he does not know why the Behring sea is included.


Ernest Lapointe: Just to make sure that we shall have a close season wherever there is a possibility of halibut fishing being carried on.


Arthur Meighen: Is there not a danger in including the Behring sea? On the Atlantic I would not see very much danger so far as the extra-territorial waters are concerned, but in Behring sea you are very close to Japan, which is a fishing nation. Is not the ultimate effect just going to be to make the Behring sea a fishing preserve for the good of Japan alone? The minister says the United States would never do that. Well, what is the good of this parliament ratifying the treaty if we are only going to be able to plead in defence of our wisdom that we are relying on the good sense of the United States? We had better just refer the matter to the United States senate and tell them to act for Canada. We ourselves would like to know in ratifying this treaty what it is going to do for us. The minister says the inclusion of Behring sea will not do any harm. It looks to me as if it would; it looks to me as if it would

shut Canadians out should they be disposed to go up there, and make of Behring sea a sort of reserve for Japan.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend may be sure there is no idea of making it a reserve for Japan.


Arthur Meighen: Is that not the effect?


Ernest Lapointe: This treaty has been carefully considered by the officers of the fisheries departments of both the United States and Canada. It is the result of their combined investigations and of what they know of the fishery conditions in these various waters, and they thought that Behring sea should be included. We cannot prevent the Japanese from going there; there is no doubt about that, but we want to have a close season in as considerable an area as possible.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot conceive of any possible reason for including Behring sea if it is the object to preserve the halibut fisheries of the Pacific coast. Furthermore, if a reason does exist, then we are simply abandoning the Behring sea to the Japanese. That is the effect of this legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: If that is the effect, my hon. friend may be sure that both Canada and the United States will be willing to amend the legislation so as to exclude the Behring
sea.


Arthur Meighen: I have no doubt that is correct, but it is a remarkable plea to make in defence of a treaty.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not admit that that would be the effect.


Arthur Meighen: I know the minister does not admit it, but this is his argument: I cannot see what good the inclusion of these words is going to do; I cannot see why it should not perhaps do harm, but if it turns out that way we shall be willing to amend the treaty.	.


Ernest Lapointe: Those are not exactly my words. The middle part of my right hon. friend's remarks is from his own lips.


Arthur Meighen: It is simply a plainer statement of what my hon. friend has just said.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Knowingly in possession of halibut unlawfully caught.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to point out again to the minister a possible effect of this. We have not developed on the Pacific coast the

Halibut Fishery
trawler system of fishing to any considerable extent for reasons that may perhaps disappear as time goes on and the country expands. If trawler fishing in the Behring sea is developed; if good fishing grounds are discovered there, Canadian and American vessels catching halibut in their trawls would be forced to comply with this act; the halibut would have to be turned in and sold, and so forth. But the Japanese, fishing right alongside, would have the full privilege of fishing with trawlers and keeping the fish. Within the past five or ten years the Japanese have developed a salmon fishery in the Behring sea which is rapidly displacing the fishing of the Americans and Canadians on the Pacific coast. I merely cite that to illustrate that fishing in that district is in its infancy and that its development under the conditions that I have described wrould result in disaster to us.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend knows that the close season is for three months only, during the winter. I do not think there would be any salmon fishing in the Behring sea in the month of January.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not talking about salmon fishing; I am talking about halibut fishing.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend suggested that while engaged in other fishing the Japanese might catch halibut and would be entitled to keep it. But there is no other fishing there during that close season.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But the Japanese can go in there with trawlers; they can trawl for halibut, and if they discover a halibut bed in the Behring sea they may take the fish and keep them. Does my hon. friend not see the force of that contention? If instead of arguing away from the point the minister would admit that he does not know why the Behring sea is included and that while it is too late to remedy it he would undertake to examine into the matter and if possible get the Americans to exclude the Behring sea, that would be a reasonable answer.


Ernest Lapointe: That far I can go,
surely.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is hardly sufficient to answer that it is not likely to happen. I rather expect that not only in the Behring sea but on the Pacific coast the old beds which we are seeking to preserve will within five years be fished quite extensively by the Japanese.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-International Fisheries Commission.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I have just seen the bill at this moment. I' note that there are to be four commissioners, who are to be empowered to make recommendations concerning regulations.


Ernest Lapointe: This is to carry out the recommendation of the International Commission of 1918.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. LAPOINTE moved the third reading of the bill.
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, a clause in this bill has just been drawn to my attention which does seem rather remarkable. Section 13 says:
This act shall come into force on a day to be named by the Governor in Council-
So much for order in council.
-and may be repealed by the Governor in Council,-
So much more for order in council.
-provided that it shall not be repealed by the Governor in Council at any time during the existence of the International Fisheries Commission hereinbefore authorized.
Where is this government going to stop? Why not ask parliament for a bill authorizing it to make treaties with any country at any time of any kind and repeal them at any time and on any occasion? It would save a lot of the time of the House. The government asks for power of unconditional repeal; what is parliament for? If parliament deals with the passing of an act, surely parliament should be asked when the act should be repealed. There is no reason for asking parliament's authority to pass if you give the government unconditional authority to repeal. There have been cases where the power of repeal has been reserved to be exercised on the happening of a certain event named by parliament; thus parliament has the whole say. But here there is no event it all; the government decides when to repeal the act that parliament passes. Where is this order in council policy going to stop? I do not know anything else I could suggest to the government to enable it to take everything into its own hands and away from parliament that it has omitted. This is one art the ministers have mastered, and possibly having mastered something they ought to be left to its exercise.


Ernest Lapointe: There is nothing
very mysterious about this thing.

Halibut Fishery


Arthur Meighen: did not say so.


Ernest Lapointe: terious.


Arthur Meighen: It is not mysterious; I It is certainly not mys-It is autocratic.


Ernest Lapointe: This close season cannot be enforced until the United States congress ratifies the treaty and until the exchange of ratifications takes place. We cannot have this law in force now-


Arthur Meighen: I do not object to that, but-


Ernest Lapointe: Another condition may
arise that would give occasion for the putting of the legislation into force. If the United States government, without the ratification of the treaty by the United States senate, passes similar legislation, enacting exactly the same clauses, the Governor in Council may then put this into force, and that cannot be done otherwise than by order in council.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend-


Ernest Lapointe: Now, if the right hon.
gentleman will permit me-


Arthur Meighen: If the minister will excuse me, I did not take any exception


Ernest Lapointe: I would like to continue if my right hon. friend will allow me.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want the minister to misrepresent me.


Ernest Lapointe: I have not misrepresented anybody


Arthur Meighen: He intimated I was objecting to the government having power to call the act into effect. I was not. I objected to the government having power unconditionally to repeal it.


Ernest Lapointe: It was not necessary for my hon. friend to interrupt me to say what he has just said. The difference between what this government is doing now and that famous government by order in council to which he referred is this: Parliament knows what we are going to do. We are asking parliament to give us the power to put this law into force if certain conditions arise. My right hon. friend was legislating by order in council. He was inaugurating policies in this country without parliament ever having been consulted on those policies. That is just the difference.


Arthur Meighen: I ask the hon. gentleman now to name one single instance.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh!


Arthur Meighen: Already the hon. gentleman is becoming the official jeerer for the government.


Ernest Lapointe: No, but my right hon.
friend is something else.


Arthur Meighen: I ask him now to give
one single instance in the ten years when the late government did by order in council anything which it was not authorized to do by the parliament of this country.


Ernest Lapointe: If it is quite in order
I am quite willing to answer my right hon. friend. I can give him one specific instance if he wants it.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: During two consecutive
sessions of parliament the government of my right hon. friend introduced legislation in the House to appoint a purchasing commission. The bill was fought in parliament and the government had to withdraw it. The following session the same thing happened again, and the bill was withdrawn a second time, and then when every member of the House had gone home after the close of the session an order in council was passed instituting the purchasing commission.


Arthur Meighen: He has come to a specific case as he states. I tell the hon. member that the order in council which was passed was entirely within the power of the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: A laugh does not answer. A laugh may be all that is within the power of hon. gentlemen, but it is no answer. Not only so, but the government obtained the opinion of the Justice department.


Joseph Archambault: Read the opinion.


Arthur Meighen: Read it 1 The government obtained the opinion of the Justice department stating that we had the power to pass what we did. We did not pass indeed any order in council establishing a buying commission. We passed an order in council whereby through a commission the government could buy.


Ernest Lapointe: I did not say the government had no right to do it. The government had any right under the War Measures Act. They could do anything under that act, and that is what they did in that specific instance.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is
wrong there. If it had been passed under

Business Profits War Tax
the War Measures Act, the War Measures Act was passed by parliament and it was legislation of parliament the same as any other legislation. As a matter of fact, it was not passed on the authority of that act at all. The hon. gentleman should be more careful. It was passed under the authority of powers vested in ministers, under the various acts that give the department power. While I am on my feet the Minister of Justice once, not intentionally I know, made the statement last session that every order in council of the late government which had gone before the courts to determine our authority to pass it had been found ultra vires. Not being certain at the time I afterwards went into the matter with the Justice department and reviewed the whole case, and I found that never in the history of the late government was one single order in council which we passed reversed or declared to be illegal by any court.


Ernest Lapointe: Unfortunately I have
no right to answer.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend subsection three of section 13 of The Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, and to remove the restriction of the said subsection by which the liability to pay the tax imposed continues for the period of only three years and by which the minister is permitted at any time within three years only to assess such person for the tax, and to provide that the act shall be construed as if the said restriction had never been contained therein.
Motion agreed to and thfe House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. FIELDING:: When the Business
Profits War Tax Act was passed it was evidently treated as a measure of a temporary character. There was a clause in it which reads as follows:
Any person liable to pay the tax shall continue to be so liable for the period of three years from the time at which such tax would have been payable.
The business profits tax has ceased to be operative. No new taxes are being levied under the act, but there is a considerable sum of indebtedness to the government arising from past years, and of course we desire to preserve our right to collect these moneys. There may be some doubt arising from the use of that expression "liable for the period of three years", and we are bring-
286i
ing in this resolution to remove any doubt. The effect of it is that the parties shall be liable. It becomes a debt to the government of Canada to be collected at any time the government are able to collect it.


Mr. HANSON:: Without any limitation at all?


William Stevens Fielding: As to time, certainly. It is like any other debt.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But unlike any other debt there is no limitation. I do not see why the minister should make it perpetual without any limitation. If the government does not collect say within three years from the date of the assessment, why should the Crown be in any better position than an ordinary creditor?


William Stevens Fielding: Because the Crown is at all times in a better position than a private claimant.


Mr. GOULD:: I understand that this will do away with the privilege that obtained in the past of taking notes from certain companies in payment of taxes.


William Stevens Fielding: It does not take away any privilege the government have, but it makes it clear the government have power to collect the debt in any way in which they think they can collect it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the minister is quite right in bringing down this bill if it is what I assume it is, that is, if it is to remove the limitation of three years and preserve to the Crown its full right of priority to these taxes over all other claims. Something has been said as to the necessity for this and the hardship it may work if collections are allowed to be made for a longer period than in the ordinary case. I would like to say in connection with all these collections that are being delayed, my hon. friend is doing just what I did, refusing to put business out of business. That is why he needs this bill. He has been in power now for eighteen months and more, and the reason that he wants this bill is that he wants Canada to continue to function. He wants to be able to give people time, and it is absolutely necessary to give them time. I think he is doing the right thing. What we did before was to enable people to carry on. They ought not to be allowed to escape payment of the debt on the one hand whenever the debt can be collected, nor on the other hand should the Crown lose its absolute priority. The Crown has absolute priority as to the course to be pursued, and unless
Business Profits War Tax

the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) thinks that we should have sold out the three hundred odd farmers in his own province that were carried there is necessity for this kind of provision. I take it that what the minister is doing is simply carrying out the old instructions that were given. Those were that every man that could be made to pay should pay; but that if you could only collect a fraction of your debt by closing industries, shutting up factories, and adding to unemployment, it was not good business for the government to do it. I take it that that is what my hon. friend is doing.


Oliver Robert Gould: In reference to the statement made by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) that three hundred farmers were not sold out in Saskatchewan I should like to point out that when he was a minister of the Crown he seemed to consider it his duty to impose heavy penalties in the case of these farmers. Instead of granting concessions such as are proposed, a penalty of 7 per cent was imposed upon those farmers who were in arrears, while the company referred to was allowed to give a note for arrears. I did complain of that. That is the difference between the treatment extended to "big business' and that granted to small concerns.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There has been no difference in the procedure at all. Anybody who knows the facts knows that to be true. A whole lot of nonsense was talked and all sorts of allegations were made against the late government. I will ask my hon. friend the minister now if he has had to make any change whatever in the general instructions that were given in connection with these taxes. Further I am going to ask him this: Take for example the Riordon case that has been referred to. Why, pulp now is worth $30 or $40 a ton more than it was when it was thought we should sell out the Riordons. If we had done that we should have cut out the claims of hundreds of farmers in the north country. I am going to ask the minister now if he has sold the Riordons out or if he has in any way changed the instructions that were given?


Mr. CAHILL:: I should like to ask if the Riordons have paid off their creditors through the country?


Henry Lumley Drayton: You will have to
ask the minister.


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot answer the
first question. In regard to the question of my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) I think
ISir Henry Drayton.]
it has been the rule hitherto to refuse to give any information, regarding the government's claim against any particular person for income tax. I regard that as a confidential matter and I propose to adhere to the rule.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the position taken by my hon. friend is absolutely right. I should like to point out though just what is sometimes done by hon. gentlemen. The minister has said, and said properly that this is not a matter to which any publicity should be given. Why, the old government was charged with having brought down legislation which would prevent the giving of particulars in each and every one of these cases.


Mr. MARTELL:: Does not my hon. friend think it is often a good policy to give people time to meet the claims against them?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is perfectly right, making sure that no claim is waived. There was no difference in the world made between any of these cases. Anyone who got time had to pay for it, and every man was forced to pay that could be made to do so.


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry the Minister of Finance cannot give information as to the Riordon case. However, I do not find fault with him for not giving it. So far as I know I do not think he had any part in the dishonest, virulent, and utterly disgraceful campaign that was carried on in connection with the Riordon note. Nothing was so likely to impose on the ignorant as a campaign of that sort. The Minister of Agriculture laughs in glee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: What I was noting, Mr. Chairman, was that when my hon. friend stated the ignorant were imposed on he took a deliberate look towards the Progressives.


Arthur Meighen: I had in mind, I admit, a real interrogation point as to why the campaign should have imposed on the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould), I did not know until this evening that it really had. I am sorry if my remarks necessarily included him. I knew that it had imposed on the Minister of Agricultu". I know that he stooped to use it. I knew that he filled the pages of his paper in Regina with the most scandalous advertisements deliberately intended to mislead the people of Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: I have no paper.

Business Profits War Tax


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend does not know of it; he is not responsible for the Leader. In one sense I do not believe he is but he was the parent of this campaign, and the pages of that paper were filled with paid advertisements deliberately intended to deceive the hard-working people on the question, to deceive the honest electors. He did deceive them by the hundreds and he is responsible for the dishonest campaign that was carried on. The Riordons were treated just the same as everybody else, just in the same way as this government has treated them ever since they came into power-precisely the same. Whatever was done was done in the public interest. All that the note given in this case did was to fix the amount so that there could be no future dispute on the part of the Riordons. The note carried interest at the rate of 7 per cent, it was a demand note for which they were liable at any time.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I am not saying this in the spirit of fault finding but if the Riordons are trying to reorganize their affairs and get on their feet will not this discussion have the effect of preventing them from achieving their purpose?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think it will have that effect. I do not think it will affect them very seriously, if I thought it would I would not discuss the matter. I hope they will be able to get on their feet again; I believe an honest attempt is being made to do so.


Robert Forke: If this discussion is going to be kept up I hardly see how we are going to prorogue by Saturday.


Arthur Meighen: It is just as well that the truth should come out in regard to this as in regard to other matters, especially when we find intelligent people like the hon. member for Assiniboia associating himself deliberately with those responsible for the campaign to which I have referred.


Oliver Robert Gould: I may inform my right hon. friend, and I wish to state most positively that I have never referred publicly to the Riordon incident, and this is the first time I have ever made mention of it.


Arthur Meighen: I am very glad to hear the hon. member say so. I rather thought my allusion of a moment ago did him an injustice. I now know that it did. However, I have said all that is necessary and I think the whole situation is now clear to the House. Sometimes it is hard to describe a shade of difference in colour, but if there was
one thing that was blacker and more indelibly disgraceful than all the rest it was the conduct of certain gentlemen opposite with respect to the Riordon matter.


Mr. GARDINER:: Can the Minister of Finance give the committee any idea of the probable amount of arrears carried by the government?


William Stevens Fielding: I understand the question is in relation to the amounts unpaid. On account of the business profits, I am advised that about $8,000,000 remains unpaid out of $200,000,000 levied.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I have no objection to the resolution, but, as a matter of information, I would like to know whether the three year restriction was imposed at the outset?


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member will admit that I am not in a position to answer. I think the idea was that the act was of a temporary character; and as a matter of fact it was suspended after a short time, but 1 cannot say definitely as to the cause. I am only guessing at it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was entirely an act of a temporary character. It was the same here as in England and other places, an emergency matter, and of such a character that it would never do for the permanent kind of revenue-absolutely unfitted for normal times-and it was renewed each year for the three years. Of course, when times were good and the money could be collected there was no trouble; but when deflation came we certainly did not want to throw off all these rla;ms with one hand or to throw people on the street with the other hand; and the extension is necessary for the purpose of keep-;ng the prior lien as against all the property these people had.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Could the ex-Minister of Finance inform me whether or not the act contemplated operation for a period of three years; or whether, as far as the Crown was concerned, it could only recover for that period?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was renewed each year. It was only an act in the first instance for one year, and it was then renewed for another year.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Fielding thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 248 to amend the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916.
Income Tax


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and the House went into committee on the bill, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend The Income War Tax Act, 1917, and to provide:
1.	That in any case the income of a tax-payer shall be deemed to be not less than the income from his chief occupation, and if he has income from more than one source the minister shall have power to determine which one or more, or which combination thereof shall, for the purpose of the Act, constitute the tax-payer's chief occupation, and the income therefrom shall be taxed accordingly.
2.	That such reasonable rate of interest on borrowed capital used in the business to earn the income, as the minister in his discretion, may determine, shall be allowed as a deduction, notwithstanding the rate of interest payable by the tax-payer. To the extent that the interest payable by the tax-payer is in excess of the amount allowed by the minister, it shall not be allowed as a deduction.
3.	That in computing the amount of the profits or gains to be assessed, a deduction shall not be allowed in respect of the disbursements or expenses not wholly, exclusively and necessarily laid out or expended for the purpose of earning the income, or any outlay, loss or replacement of capital or any depreciation, depletion or obsolescence, except as otherwise provided in the Act.
4.	That further provisions be made respecting the exemption of the income of Consuls and Consuls General, and of officials or officers of a foreign country, and respecting the exemption of the income of officials of Great Britain or any of its self-governing colonies and of the pensions of any member of the military, naval or air forces of His Majesty's Allies.
5.	That in the case of a return by an employer, the penalty shall be further limited to an amount equal to ten per cent of the aggregate amount of the tax payable by the employees who should be reported on such return, but in any case should the penalty be less than two dollars then in lieu thereof the penalty shall be two dollars.
6.	That sections twelve to twenty-one of the said act be repealed and provisions be made regarding notices of appeal, and for an appeal on notice to the Exchequer Court of Canada from the decision of the minister, and further proceedings thereon.
7.	That all taxes, interest and penalties payable under the act shall constitute a lien upon the assets of the tax-payer, both real and personal, and this lien shall be deemed to attach or to have attached, on the first day of May, immediately succeeding the taxation year in respect of which the tax was payable, or to which the interest and penalties relate, and shall have priority over any mortgage, conveyance or securities as shall be prescribed.
8.	That when the minister has knowledge or suspects that any person is or is about to become indebted to a tax-payer he may demand of such person that the moneys otherwise payable to the tax-payer be in whole or in part paid over to the Receiver General of Canada on account of the tax-payer's liability under this act.
fMr. Fielding.]
9.	That further provisions be made regarding distress in default of payment, and for the recovery of all taxes, interest and penalties in the Exchequer Court of Canada, and for the registration of a certificate of the Commissioner of Taxation as to amounts remaining unpaid, and the enforcement thereof.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
William Stevens Fielding: I think, as far as these resolutions go, they are likely to have the entire concurrence of the House, and I am inclined to think two or three hon. members would be glad if we' would go much further; but I am cherishing the hope that the resolutions will be found satisfactory. The resolutions do not introduce much that is new. In several instances they are really intended to clarify the existing law. Where a party is engaged in several lines of business, questions arise as to the particular branch of business on which the tax should be levied. It is desirable we should make it clear that whatever is determined to be his chief occupation shall be recognized as the basis of taxation; and as doubts have arisen in that respect, it is made clear here that the minister, in the event of a dispute of that character, shall have the right to determine what is his chief ocupation; and the tax shall be levied accordingly. It is, perhaps, debatable whether we have that power now, but this is designed to make it quite clear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the minister goes a little further. I went through the resolution this afternoon. I think we have had the power always; but the minister is going a little further now. He is providing now that if a man holds two positions, or if he is in two businesses, the minister will have the right to say "both of these are main businesses," and treat them accordingly.


William Stevens Fielding: It is giving the minister the power to determine disputes of that character. That is one purpose of the resolution.


Mr. MARLER:: Will this section of the act not permit the minister to distinguish what is class A income and what is class B income also?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, it will give the minister-that power.


Herbert Meredith Marler: In other words, the income will be the sum of the earning capacity of the tax-payer, no matter from what source.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Herbert Meredith Marler: And also that the tax will be paid on the greatest income the tax-payer has; in other words, if a man's class A income exceeds his class B income, he has to pay on his class A income.

Income Tax


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the old law.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Would the minister inform the committee why no deduction is allowed from class A income, providing the deduction is of a character such as allowed on class B income? In other words, I will illustrate it in this way: the class A income of the taxpayer amounts to $5,000, and the class B income to $2,000. There are deductions allowed under the act with respect to the class B income of $2,500; consequently the deductions, taking a hypothetical case, are more than the man's class B income. The overplus of $500 is not allowed as deductions from class A income; hence the tax-payer is not paying on his net income.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He is paying on his net income, but he cannot deduct his collateral losses, that is all.


Herbert Meredith Marler: No, it is not a case of loss at all. It is a question of actual carrying charges. When the income tax came into* effect in 1917, people had many obligations; subsequently, under the administration of the act, and quite correctly so, the income was divided into class A or earned income and class B, unearned income, or income which the man derived from investments which the man had put aside. Unfortunately many people incurred various charges such as mortgages on real estate, interest on borrowed money and so forth, and cases have happened where these charges properly incurred are allowed as deductions from class B income. I should like the minister to explain the theory in the act by which a man does not pay on his net income but pays on the whole of class A income even if he has legal and properly deductable charges from class B income.


William Stevens Fielding: There can be no deductions from earned income. Whatever is determined to be the earned income becomes the income of the man's greatest occupation, and from that there can be no deduction.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I hope the minister does
not think me impertinent in pressing the point. If so, I will stop immediately.


William Stevens Fielding: I am sure my hon. friend would not be that.


Herbert Meredith Marler: When the tax-payer's legal deductions under class B income are more than the total of that income, why should not the difference be allowed on account of class A? In other words, why should not the tax-payer pay on his net income? This is a
very important point, because the tax bears very heavily on the people at the present time, particularly on professional men who have a small amount of savings and who, unfortunately, at times have charges which they acquired in past years and which in many cases are more than the whole of their class B income. They struggle along notwithstanding that, but under the income tax law they are not allowed to deduct anything on account of this. They are charged on the whole of their earnings, and I cannot see the justice of that feature of the act.


Thomas Langton Church: I hope the minister will
see his way to amend the law in order that the tax may bear less heavily on those who are least able to pay. The income tax to-day is a great hardship on the man with comparatively small earnings and moderate means. It is not a very desirable form of taxation, for it strikes the smaller man at many points; it begins at his breakfast table and is double-edged. If the man has an income of $4,000 he has to pay his municipal tax on the 1st of May in one instalment, and then the federal authorities come along a few days afterwards and tax him a second time. In other words, the small wage earner is taxed to death. The Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin, when he brought down his budget on the 5th of February, announced a reduction in the income tax in Great Britain because the country was expecting it. The wage earners in Canada are expecting the same thing, because the present system of taxation is not equitable. In my own city I know of a man who was assessed on $50,000. He represented to the municipal authorities that his income was only $25,000, and they accepted his word and marked it down to that figure. A few days afterwards he took out an insurance policy for several hundred thousand dollars on his business. That instance is well known. But there is no difficulty in the tax collector getting after the small man, and he is hit hardest. There should be some co-ordination of the methods of taxation in this country. In the United States the federal, the state and the municipal authorities agree to allow certain fields of ta/xation to be 10 p.m. exploited exclusively by each of these bodies respectively, and the system has worked out satisfactorily. This tax in Canada has been so onerous that charity is being starved. This is a fact so far as Toronto is concerned. When any business man is appealed to on behalf of the hospitals he declares that his subscription is already paid to the Minister of Finance of the country. The whole basis of taxation in Canada is
Income Tax

wrong. If the war is to be paid for, and nobody suggests that it should not, some method should be found of distributing the burden as equitably as possible so that those who are able will pay more than the less fortunate tax-payers. I hope that next year the minister will provide that incomes up to $4,000, say, shall be exempt from federal taxation. And in the meantime some means ought to be found of co-ordinating the various branches of taxation in this country.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Perhaps the minister would prefer that I should defer any questions1 I may have to ask until a later stage.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know that I
can give any particular reason for the law as it exists. It is the law, and I have not been able to change it. I cannot enter into the reasons that actuated those gentlemen who framed the bill.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The minister has his able assistant with him, but I cannot see where the justice of the law comes in.


William Stevens Fielding: The ruling of the department is based on the law, and I am informed that when the act was first introduced the Minister of Finance of that day so explained its purpose. However, the law will have to be judged as it is drawn, and if there is any doubt about the matter the Minister of Justice will be my adviser. The question arises at times respecting interest on borrowed money. It is claimed that the interest on borrowed money in whatever form it may be is a proper charge against a man's business and should be deducted before his income is declared.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That has always been the case.


William Stevens Fielding: I am informed that it
is doubtful whether the law permits that now. We are proposing to make it clear that where interest is paid in any form in business it is a proper charge against the business and should be deducted before the income is declared.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The whole
question was as to whether it was borrowed against the business. There is one point, however, on which I would comment. The minister is to fix the rate of interest. Why is that done? Suppose a man has to float a bond at 6 per cent and the annual rate of interest comes to 4 per cent. Is it intended that the actual expenditure which would be 6 per cent will be discounted and cut to 4 per cent? Surely the department should not

interfere with the details of the actual costs of carrying on business.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I may put a case to the
minister. In the year 1921 a company which had made capital commitments prior to that time found themselves in the position of being compelled to borrow money on the market at what proved to be the peak price. Bonds at 8 per cent sold to the underwriters, we will say, at 90, 92 or 95. These bonds ran for a period of twenty years, and can only be callable-I am speaking of industrial institutions-after the stated interval, at a premium. Does the minister propose that as the current rate of interest drops from time to time it shall be allowed as against the income and that the business itself will have to absorb the difference? In the supposititious case I have cited the money cost nearly 110 per cent and the bonds were for a period of twenty years. That was a definite charge against the business as a capital expenditure. It seems to me wholly unfair that in a bona fide case of this character the company shall [DOT] not be allowed to charge the full amount they have to pay. I quite appreciate that the bond discount is another phase of the question, about which I shall have something to say a little later.


William Stevens Fielding: The ordinary, reasonable rate of interest would be allowed. But suppose the bonds were issued at a high rate of interest, and produced a premium, that practically is not the real rate of interest at all. I hope my hon. friend sees the point.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: If the bonds are issued at, say, 7 per cent, and are sold at a premium, 7 per cent is not the real interest on that transaction. The object here is to give the minister power to fix a reasonable rate of interest, which would be the ordinary current rate. If under exceptional circumstances a high rate is paid, it would be for the minister to say whether he would allow it or not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Supposing the 7 per cent bond is sold at a premium of 110, this gives the man 6 per cent money. This presents no difficulty. The whole $110 goes into the business and he is really paying only 6 per cent, although the face of the bond says 7 per cent. If it is a case of fraud, and the money has not gone into the business, the department could look after that under the present law. I really think my hon. friend has not thought this out.


William Stevens Fielding: It is an extreme case, but just for illustration suppose the man issues

Income Tax
his 10 per cent bond at 120, he is not paying 10 per cent, and he should not be allowed 10 per cent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He would not get it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He is being allowed only 10 per cent on 100, not 10 per cent on 120.


William Stevens Fielding: But if the bond is issued at a premium, then you are paying a less rate of interest in reality than appears on the face of the bond.


Arthur Meighen: Surely what he is allowed is the interest he pays, and this is really only 6 per cent on the money he gets. I have every confidence in the minister's adviser in such a matter as this, but either it has been wrongly stated to us or the principle is wrong. As the minister has it to-day, he can make any allowance he likes. He can allow me on what I owe my bank 5 per cent, whereas I may be paying 8. Usually the man whose credit is lowest pays the high rate. According to this, anyone who is in that position is going to have to pay on an income that he really is not getting. In a word, he is going to be penalized for his own poverty.


William Stevens Fielding: If he issues 10 per cent bonds at 110, and then claims he is paying 10 per cent and asks for a deduction accordingly, that is certainly not the real rate of interest he is paying.


Arthur Meighen: But his income tax return does not show what rate he is paying. Supposing he issued a 10 per cent $1,000 bond and sold it for $1,200, he would pay on the $1,000 bond $100, and he would return in his income tax statement the $100 paid. The 10 per cent does not appear at all. That $100 should be allowed. It works out really to be a little more than 8 per cent interest.


William Stevens Fielding: The bond itself bears 10 per cent as the rate of interest, and he will be tempted to claim 10 per cent, and that is what he would be allowed.


Arthur Meighen: He cannot.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not so sure of that. What we are concerned about is that only a reasonable and fair rate of interest ought to be allowed.


Arthur Meighen: I may be charged more than is fair and reasonable. Hon. gentlemen to my left say that nearly all of their constituents are charged an excessive rate of interest and if they are, and cannot help paying it, it ought to be allowed them. Why should the minister be empowered to .say: Here is a farmer paying 9 per cent, but we
are going to allow him 6 per cent when he puts in his tax papers.


William Stevens Fielding: In the case cited of a farmer paying the ordinary rate of interest in his district, this would be a reasonable rate.


Arthur Meighen: Why should the minister have any jurisdiction? A man is not going to pay any higher interest than he can help.


William Stevens Fielding: In the illustration I gave a man may claim he is paying 10 per cent because he pays that on the bond. Of course, that is only an illustration. I do not see any objection so long as the rate of interest to be credited is fair and reasonable.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Suppose he sells his 10 per cent bond at a premium of 25 per. cent, he -would get in cash $125. As against this sum which has gone into the business there is only a charge of $100. His interest payments, although 10 per cent on the face of the bond, are really only 7i per cent on the actual money that is in the business. It would be just exactly the same, assuming that 7i per cent was the proper rate, if he issued a 7i per cent bond and sold it at par. The only room for fraud would be if the man sold his 10 per cent bond at a premium of 25 per cent and put only the $100 in his business, pocketing the $25. Then I would quite agree with my hon. friend, because the man is not paying interest for it. But that is something which could be checked to-day.


William Stevens Fielding: As a matter of fact, he could put that $25 anywhere he likes, but I am advised that according to the law and practice that $25 is not taxable and we do not get the benefit. If he sells at a premium a $1,000 bond bearing interest at 10 per cent he will claim that that is the rate of interest he is paying. Should he in such a case be credited with paying 10 per cent?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


William Stevens Fielding: Very well, then this law will say he is not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Take the illustration advanced by the minister himself of a $100 bond sold at $120 bearing 10 per cent interest. As a matter of fact that means interest at 8 1/3 per cent. If the man puts the $20 premium in his pocket, he must show that as a return in his own personal income.


William Stevens Fielding: I am informed that that is not the custom.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then it is a fraud. On the other hand, if he turns it into the busi-
Income Tax

ness, it stands there as part of his capital and ought to be allowed the full interest charged.


William Stevens Fielding: I am told that according to the practice of the department, the $25, or whatever the amount, is not taxable. I repeat the case: A man says, "I am paying interest at 10 per cent," and he asks to be allowed that. Under this law he would be told, "No, that is not fair because you do not really pay 10 per cent, you pay 7 or 8 per cent, and we charge you that rate." What is unfair in that?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let me put a concrete case to the minister which came under my own personal observation. In 1921 -when money was at a peak price and people had to take care of commitments made prior to the depression, they were obliged to go out and borrow in the market at 8 per cent par. Bonds were sold to underwriters at less than par and were put on the market at one point below par so that the money actually netted the investor 8.10 per cent. Three years later money eases away and is worth only 6 per cent, and these same bonds are quoted at that rate. As I understand it, the purpose of the resolution is to give the minister power to allow only the payment at the rate of 6 per cent on that money, although as a matter of fact the borrower is paying over $160,000 a year interest on the $2,000,000 borrowed. This gives the minister power to allow only S120,000. That is not fair; it is not just.


William Stevens Fielding: In the case my hon.
friend mentions there would be no difficulty whatever. The man is actually paying 8 per cent or a fraction more; under the circumstances that would be a fair and reasonable rate and would be allowed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not what the
resolution says.


William Stevens Fielding: So far as giving the minister power is concerned, I am not anxious to have that power; if it could be exercised by somebody else, I should be happy to agree to that. But I am told that in the experience of the department cases are arising which make this a necessary measure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I can understand cases
arising where a man has deliberately bonded his property by the issue of high interestbearing bonds and has taken the premium himself without putting it into his business. That, of course, is a form of fraud.


William Stevens Fielding: He has a right to do it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not say he is doing it illegally, but he is certainly doing it with the idea of defeating the act. A case of that kind should be met on its own merits in a different way. Now, money may at a given time be worth five per cent while a man is paying over 8 per cent for a period of say twenty years. If the minister will give me an assurance that the department will in a bona fide case allow the actual amount of interest paid, I shall not have another word to say, but there is no such assurance in the resolution.


William Stevens Fielding: In the case cited by my hon. friend, where a man has paid 81 per cent; where that is the rate he is obliged to pay and he is going to pay it for twenty years, he should be allowed that rate. All these cases will have to be judged on their merits. In all laws of this kind somebody must have the responsibility and I do not know how you can do otherwise than leave it to the minister and trust him to exercise the power in a rational manner. As I say, though, if some other method could be devised it would be very agreeable to me.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let us say that bonds
bearing interest at 6 per cent and extending over a term of five years are sold at 90; that would make the rate of interest 8 per cent. As I understand it, in a case like that the department will not allow the spread of that capital loss as an interest charge over the succeeding five years, though in the ordinary course of business that is exactly what is done. When a firm sells a bond issue at a loss they simply calculate it as an added interest on the bond, and in my opinion that is the way it should be dealt with by the department. But as I understand it, unless the matter is rectified in this legislation, the department simply call that a capital loss and no allowance is made.


William Stevens Fielding: That is true.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does my hon. friend look upon that as fair treatment?


William Stevens Fielding: That is the law as it has been administered for some time. I am not anxious to invent troubles; I meet those that come. We were advised by the Department of Justice that the discount was a capital loss and should not be allowed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Undoubtedly the Justice
department would give such a decision, based on the law as it stands, but what I suggest is that we should adjust the law so that what is in common practice recognized as an in-

Income Tax
terest charge shall be so regarded by the law. Then the Justice department would certainly give the opinion that under the amended law the discount would be an interest charge and not a capital loss.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Unless my memory is all wrong, these difficulties have arisen since I had anything to do with the administering of the department.


William Stevens Fielding: Possibly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was not
familiar with that decision of the Justice department; I had thought that everybody was allowed his proper disbursements connected with the carrying on of his business. Certainly bank charges of interest, bank charges on a man's overdraft, on the discounting of his notes and so on, are very proper charges against his business, and I have never heard that challenged. Nor have I ever heard challenged what actually happens when a loan is made. Suppose money is worth 6 per cent and a business concern making a bond issue puts it out, for the purpose of keeping its credit in good shape, at 5 per cent, selling it at a discount. Now, when the investor buys bonds at a discount he regards it as just so much more interest to him, and if he buys it at a premium it is the same thing reversed. Unless firms are permitted to make that discount up in the ordinary added charges the effect is to make one rate of interest for the man who sells up to the market and another rate for the man who sells below the market, and that does not seem to be fair.


Mr. BAXTER:: I assume that the department acting on the advice of the Justice department, has been following certain English decisions which may or may not be applicable to our act; at all events they think they are. Under these decisions the interest that has been paid to banks on what might be called current accounts, temporary loans, has been deducted, but interest payable in respect of bond issue has not been permitted to be deducted. These at all events are the English authorities, and I understand that the minister is introducing this legislation for the purpose of allowing a deduction on bond interest on other permanent securities. I am in sympathy with what the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) says, but at the same time I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that all over the country outrageous means are being resorted to for the purpose of evading the income tax. Those of us who are putting in honest statements, rendering an account up to the last cent of our income, are being penalized for our honesty in favour of people who are putting in statements that are not a bit better than a tissue of lies. I want to see something that will protect the honest man whose case was referred to by the hon. member for York-Sunbury but that will give the minister or will give someone the power, if a company makes a sham issue of bonds at an outrageous rate of interest, payable perhaps in New York or elsewhere outside the Dominion, and not taxable, to allow that business only the fair and legitimate amount of interest that ought to be borne by it. So far as this legislation is intended to prevent fraud of that character I am heartily in favour of it, but I would like to see the provision accompanied by some rider to protect the man who had honestly issued bonds at a high rate of interest some years ago from having to submit to a smaller rate of interest merely because the price of money drops for the moment. At the same time I wish to reaffirm my adhesion to the principle that the department or someone should have ample authority to prevent these outrageous frauds that are taking place in almost every direction.


Mr. MILLAR:: I would like to ask a
question that is very much akin to some already asked, but it affects more particularly the man who borrows direct from the bank. When one borrows from a bank at 8 per cent the bank retains the interest at the time the loan is made. Suppose for instance one borrows $100 at 8 per cent, he will get only $92. The note is renewed every three months and the interest compounded would probably accumulate to almost 9 per cent. We will say 9 per cent for the purpose of illustrating the point. Would the borrower be allowed in connection with his income tax return the interest he has actually paid or just 8 per cent?


William Stevens Fielding: I doubt if you could
reduce these various suggestions into writing. You must allow some measure of discretion to someone, and I doubt if any better discretion can be exercised than the minister can bring to bear on the question. Temporary interest has hitherto been allowed. I would think in the case cited by my hon. friend that whatever is the usual and customary rate in that part of the country an intelligent minister would say should be allowed. We must suppose that the minister has some intelligence, and if in one part of the country the interest rate is a high one, if it is the ordinary current rate the minister would allow
449S
Income Tax

it, and if in other parts the interest rate is low, I think the minister ought to be allowed to recognize that as the proper rate. You must give some discretion to the minister whoever he may be. The suggestion of my hon. friend from St. John commends itself very much to me, but I doubt if you could put it into writing to make it effective. I can assure the House that there is no desire on the part of the minister to get any power in this matter, but I do not see how you can conduct a department of this character without having someone with some discretion to determine these matters in dispute. There is a ease I shall come to later where I am anxious to be relieved of authority. Far from seeking authority, I am trying to get rid of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In connection with the
rate of interest to be added, and having in mind my hon. friend's illustration of a bond selling at 120, the minister takes power to determine what the rate shall be, but in the next clause in connection with discounts, that is of bonds sold at a discount, the minister does not take a similar power. Why should not the principle applicable in the one case be equally proper in the other? Why not take power in this act to determine whether the discount should be allowed as interest and not capital loss?


William Stevens Fielding: This matter has been
settled in the practice of the department for some years, and I hesitate to depart from it. The department years ago ruled that the discount was a capital loss which should not be credited. I suppose something can be said on both sides of the question, but that has been the fixed policy of the department and I am reluctant to depart from it. In this matter I am rather disposed to take the doctrine "what we have we'll hold," and what we have not got we will try to get if it is necessary for efficient management.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just one comment on the minister's explanation. Does he not see that the tendency is to drive issuing companies to issue at a high rate of interest so as to earn a premium rather than at a lower low rate of interest and sell at a discount? Just let me point out the advantages of a discount, if money happens temporarily to be dear. Very often a firm rather than fixing a high rate of interest on a long term bond would prefer to sell at a normal rate of interest and accept a discount spread over the term of the bond. That is preferable in my estimation in normal business to selling bonds at a high rate of interest and securing the

premium. The legislation presented here will have a tendency to force concerns to sell their bonds at a high rate of interest, which is certainly not in the interests of the department or the revenue of the country. I think while my hon. friend is certainly right in not seeking trouble, he must recognize that it is good business practice to sell a bond issue at a discount and absorb the loss in the interest charge from year to year.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no doubt that a law like the Income Tax Act will at all times be open to suggestions of possible changes. I am inclined to think it is desirable that we should have a consolidation of the income tax law, and when we come to deal with that consolidation in a proper way these suggestions may well receive consideration. I would not like to adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend in this measure, which only aims to deal with a few points about which there ought not to be much difficulty.


Oliver Robert Gould: I had a question which I wished to ask the minister more particularly with reference to clause 1. I will cite a concrete case to illustrate my point. I think the business income tax forms are called Form T and the agricultural forms Form TA. At all events that will serve for purposes of illustration. The case which I cite is that of an individual whose activities may be partly business and partly agricultural. In 1921 this individual made out his income tax returns on his two activities as a total but he was advised by one of the zone commissioners of taxation that that was improper, and that he would have to segregate the two. In segregating the two it was obligatory for him to take all his exemptions and place them against his agricultural tax bill, and use the other sum total of his business activities as a basis for taxation, upon which he paid the sum of $28 I believe. I think this year the same man is allowed to take the two activities together. I may say that if in 1921 he had been allowed to do that the sum payable would have been considerably less than $28, but I am not prepared to say exactly what it would be. I have wondered whether the returns sent in covering the year 1921 or the returns covering the year 1922 were correct.


William Stevens Fielding: All I can say about that, if my hon. friend or anybody else is interested in a case and would be kind enough to send us a memorandum we would have it investigated. I would not like to answer offhand here. We get many applications and in most cases we are able to give satisfactory explanations.

Income Tax


Oliver Robert Gould: When I am around my home many visitors come to ask me to assist them in making out their returns, and I usually abuse the tax form because of its complications. I have in mind a thought suggested by the statement made by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) that would be particularly applicable, in our rural municipalities in the western country where we keep a clerk upon full salary the year round paid out of municipal funds. Our provincial governments ask for an inventory each year, not for taxation purposes, but simply for the purpose of collecting data as to how much stock, how many horses, cattle, how much agricultural machinery and so forth each individual owns. This goes through the municipal clerk's hands, and I maintain that this inventory would be of assistance to the minister, if the municipal clerk was allowed say a very small percentage of the income tax that would be derived, I think it would be one of the best investments the minister could make. People do not send in wrong returns wilfully as is sometimes charged, but in many cases they are absolutely unable to make the returns out right. I am sure it would be a very good investment for the minister to adopt my suggestion, which I believe I made to the ex-Minister of Finance when he was occupying the position of minister.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it might be to the advantage of the committee if I proceeded to state the object of the several clauses and then perhaps it will not be necessary to go into the matter more in detail. Under the present law a foreign consul who is a citizen of a foreign country residing in Canada and devoting his whole time to diplomatic work is exempt from income tax, but that exemption does not apply to the officials of his staff. We propose that those officials shall also be exempt if they are citizens of a foreign country residing in Canada and devoting themselves entirely to diplomatic work, provided that a similar exemption is extended to Canadian officials in the country from which the foreign consul comes. This is reciprocity as respects not only the consul himself but also his staff.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the minister proceeds to section 5 would he give us a statement as to the necessity for section 3? I think he overlooked that.


William Stevens Fielding: The object of that, I
am informed, is that the expenses of each year shall be considered in connection with that year, but that each year must stand on its own bottom
Now, in the matter of pension exemptions. We exempt- pensions paid by the British or Canadian governments, but we do not exempt pensions paid by foreign governments. There are a number of citizens of Canada who have served in the armies of our allies and who have been aiiowed pensions. We propose to deal with them as we do those receiving pensions from the British or Canadian governments. The exemption, however, will apply only to those who served in the armies of our alllies during the war. That provision, I imagine, is not likely to be regarded with any objection.
Now in regard to the matter of penalties. I think much of the dissatisfaction with regard to the income tax-and I am aware that all tax laws must create dissatisfaction-results from the penalties which are imposed. The penalties that are imposed are of a substantial character, sometimes for very small offences. For example an employer fails to make a return as to those people in his employ as required by the act, and we impose penalties running up to as high as S50. We propose now to reduce that, and provide that the penalty shall not be less than $2 and shall not be more than $50, but it is to be governed by a percentage so that no more than 10 per cent of the amount of taxation would be paid in any case. The list of persons sent in in that way would be a list of persons paying only small sums, and we say the penalty for neglecting to send a return shall in any case be not more than 10 per cent of the taxation involved, with a further proviso that the penalty shall not be less than $2 or shall not be more than $50. In that way I hope we shall to a large extent meet the complaints that are made. The penalties undoubtedly seem to be severe for a small offence but I am hoping that in that respect there will be less complaint in future.
Now as to appeals. Under the present law provision is made for a board of appeal. I think I am correct in stating that neither in the time of my predecessor nor in my own has any one of these boards of appeal been created. The law is there and some people occasionally ask for an appeal. Experience has shown that by a little patience, correspondence, and negotiation we have generally managed to avoid the appeal and come to a settlement. However, I think there ought to be an appeal but not to the Minister of Finance. We hope, of course, that by continued correspondence, patient inquiry and good will we can avoid courts of appeal and come to a friendly settlement; but if in any case a
Income Tax

cantankerous person is not satisfied with the representations that are made and the judgment of the local officers, he ought to have the right of appeal but he had better not go to the Minister of Finance. We propose that he have the privilege of going to the Exchequer Court. These are the main, in fact the only, provisions of the bill.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I suppose we will have an opportunity of discussing section 7 of the resolution when the bill comes before us?


William Stevens Fielding: The bill will come up
in a moment or two and I would rather my hon. friend spoke now.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I should like to see that
section in the bill.


William Stevens Fielding: Have you not a copy
of the bill?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I have a copy of the bill here but it has not been introduced, therefore I avoided speaking on it. What I wish to point out to the minister is that section 25 of the bill carries out the intent of section 7 of the resolution creating a prior lien on all the assets, movable and immovable, of the taxpayer. Under the law as it exists at the present time there is a lien I know in favour of the government for any income tax owing. I think it may possibly be a prior lien but it is not a prior secured lien at the present time. Under the bill as drafted a prior lien will be created on all the assets of the individual. There is a proviso in this section that an individual may alienate personal property, but there is no provision that he may alienate his immovable property. In addition to this the minister might, perhaps, bear in mind that income tax is payable by instalments if need be. It would mean, I take it under this section of this bill that anybody intending to borrow, anybody desirous of effecting a mortgage on a piece of real estate, would first of all have to show the person from whom he was borrowing his receipt in full for his income tax before that person would lend him any money. If the tax-payer had paid his income tax in toto for the year there would be no difficulty; but if the taxpayer was paying it by instalments I question very much, in the event of his wanting to borrow, whether he would not be very seriously jeopardized by the provision of the clause as it is now drafted. I certainly would think that if he were mortgaging his property he would be. I suggest very respectfully to the minister that the clause as drafted is likely to create difficulty.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a lien now, I believe but the effect of this is that the tax falls due, say, on 30th April, and the priority of lien takes effect from that moment. I shall have to give further thought to the suggestion of my hon. friend arising out of the payment of instalments. Of course we want the prior lien to be maintained and broadened if we can. We want to get our money; I am becoming a very mercenary person in all these matters.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am quite aware there is a lien at the present time, and I think there is a prior lien. But this section of the bill as now drafted makes that lien an actual secured lien which is quite a different thing from an ordinary prior lien, and that is what I take exception to. Of course, if it is understood that way by the government, and the government does not think as I do that it would be a very serious matter for the borrowing public, I have nothing more to say. However, I think the point should be brought to the attention of the government. I might also say to the minister that this section will bear some discussion when the bill is brought down.


John Millar: I have just one question I should like to ask and it is one in which many hundreds are interested. A short time ago I passed on to the minister a suggestion sent by a business man in the constituency from which I come. He was trying to find out if there was not some way to avoid the unnecessary trouble and expense to which many thousands are put to make out statements when they themselves know, and local authorities know, that their receipts only amount to a very small fraction of a taxable income. I know it is a difficult matter to adjust, but I can assure the minister if he can devise some way of saving that expense to those people he will confer a very great benefit upon them. It makes it necessary for most of them to go to a lawyer and have a statement made out, at an expense of from $2 to $5, and to a man who has lost Ins crop, or perhaps has had a very poor crop, that expense is quite an item.


William Stevens Fielding: I have difficulty in understanding how he can obtain the knowledge without the return. I do not mind confessing that, when I was on the other side of the House and talked about this question, I expressed the pious hope that the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) would be able to do something to simplify this matter. The returns were very annoying.

Income Tax


Henry Lumley Drayton: Much worse
than that.


William Stevens Fielding: I am free to confess that having had the responsibility on my own shoulders, I see great difficulty in attempting to simplify. What seemed to me an easy job is a very hard one. I do not see how you can gather the information, unless you lequire the return.


John Millar: The suggestion I passed to the minister from the business men was that a statement from the clerk of the municipality-and I think I might add also, on my own behalf, a statement from the banker 

should surely be sufficient.


William Stevens Fielding: We want uniformity of practice. We cannot oblige the municipal clerk or the banker to make the return. I wish I could make it simpler. I know it is a worry. When I have to make up my own return I get very "mad."


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister will remember when we were discussing the act last year I drew to his attention that I, during the latter term of my office, had heard that companies were being incorporated for the purpose of enabling them to avoid taxes. I was surprised the other day to have a gentleman dealing in rather a large way, come to me-he thought I was in business-with a view of getting an incorporation of a private holding company which would enable him to defeat the purposes of the income tax. I drew the matter to my hon. friend's attention last year, and he said he would look into it and follow it up. I have been told since that it has become a common practice. My hon. friend will very easily find lots of people within a very short distance who would do it. I would like to know the minister's idea.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid there is too much foundation for what the hon. member has mentioned. We are giving the matter some attention, and if we are fortunate enough to be able to complete before next session the consolidation which I referred to, I think we will have to deal with the matter very seriously. For the moment we are not able to deal with it. I regret to say that reports have reached me that there is too much foundation for what my hon. friend has said.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad to see the minister has arrived at that conclusion. He will find that reports that have reached him have not been exaggerated.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would require only a very short section of the act. Could protection not be put in now?


William Stevens Fielding: It is a difficult matter to deal with.


Mr. EVANS:: I desire to bring to the attention of the minister a case which seems to me to be one of gross unfairness, where a tax is not levied on a man's net income. An acquaintance of mine, a farmer, met with crop failure for two seasons. Being a veterinary surgeon, he went out to make his living at his former profession. He made a little money, and had to pay income tax on it. His money all went to clear his debt on his location; and at the end of the year there was nothing left even to pay the income tax. It was a gross hardship to pay any tax.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the new section will cover the case. Where a man is engaged in two occupations difficulties arise, but under this section power will be vested in the minister to determine what is his chief occupation and on that he must pay.


John Evans: But that is a tax on a man's net income.


William Stevens Fielding: No, that is too broad a statement. He might make $20,000 in a year, which is subject to taxation; he might go out and speculate, lose it all, and have no income, and he would have no tax to pay. That is an extravagant illustration, but it is based on what has occurred. That which is his greatest income should be taxed. We cannot prevent a man speculating, but we do not want the income tax to suffer on that account.


Alan Webster Neill: Does the minister think it is necessary to adopt paragraph No. 8 of the resolution, which says:
8. That when the minister has knowledge or suspects that any person is or is about to become indebted to a tax-payer he may demand of such person that the moneys otherwise payable to the tax-payer be in whole or in part paid over to the Receiver General of Canada on account of the tax-payer's liability under this act.
We already find the minister under paragraph 7 stating that all taxes, interest and penalty payable under the act shall constitute a lien upon the assets of the taxpayers both real and personal, a condition that does not exist in reference to municipal or provincial taxation. But has he a right to go out on a roving hunting commission, whenever or wherever he suspects a man to have any dealings with the taxpayer, and register a letter and send it to that man, and say "Do not pay that man what you owe him; pay it all to me?" I do not think, with all the other means they have of collecting, it is necessary to give the minister such extreme powers as those.
Income Tax

Is there any precedent in any other country where a man can make use of a mere suspicion and go out and take action of that kind? I object to the word "suspect." If he only has a mere suspicion, he can hold up this man and prevent the payment of money to him that would perhaps really be of substantial benefit to him at the moment. Meanwhile, while the consideration of the adjustment of his taxation goes on, which might last for two or three months, the money is withheld from him and he cannot make use of it.


William Stevens Fielding: I am told there is a
precedent in the United States law, but that is not the best reason in the world. However, I am advised in the light of experience that something of this kind is necessary. All sorts of attempts are made to evade taxation, and we must have privileges in the method of guarding the revenue which in view of some people are not necessary. We ought to have the benefit of the doubt in the matter of saving the revenue. We all have a common interest in that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister think the ordinary garnishee process is not sufficient? I rather think this is an extraordinarily wide power, and if arbitrarily operated it might work a very great injustice. I hate to see a power like this placed in the hands of the tax collector of any government, I do not care what the personnel might be.


William Stevens Fielding: Least of all, I do not think hon. members need fear that any power we have- will be exercised in an arbitrary spirit. The manner in which the income tax has been applied by my predecessor and in my own day would indicate that there was no desire to use the power arbitrarily. I think every desire is manifested to make it as easy as possible. A few cases will arise under this provision, and if they arise, I think hon. members will not object to our exercising the power given to us.
Resolution reported.
On the motion for the second reading of
the resolution:


Joseph Archambault: I wish to say-


Hewitt Bostock: Under rule 17 A this motion is not debatable. Later on the hon. member will have an opportunity to speak.
Motion agreed to and resolution read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Fielding thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 249 to amend The Income War Tax Act, 1917.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Mr. FIELDING moved the second reading of the bill.


Joseph Archambault: I must confess that I was keenly disappointed on reading this bill. I was disappointed at the fact that there was no provision, in the matter of earned and unearned income, no provision regarding exemption on account of children, and no provision with reference to persons married under the regime of community of property. No one realizes more than I do the tremendous task of the Minister of Finance; no one appreciates to a greater extent than I do his earnestness, his ability and knows the many demands that are made upon him. But surely when these demands are reasonable, when they are in the public interest, the minister should yield to some of them, to some extent at least. In this special instance I venture to say, from the discussion which arose on this question when it was brought up on a previous occasion, that it was the wish of this parliament that some amendment should be introduced regarding the proposal which was put before the House. When I submitted my resolution on March 21st touching these matters, it was passed unanimously; there was not one dissenting voice raised against it. On the 17th of May, when I renewed my proposal, I think it was evident that I had the sympathy of the whole House in the matter. There was not a single word of opposition. I am fully aware that in order to meet our obligations we must get as much revenue as we can. But I submit that we should get that revenue from the people who are most able to pay. I will not weary the House with the arguments that I have already advanced. I am sure that the minister is himself convinced of the soundness of my proposals, and he must have had very good reasons for not bringing in the amendments suggested. It is not asking too much, I hope, to request an explanation from the minister of the reasons why he did not incorporate these amendments into the bill. I feel confident that were I to submit an amendment to the House it would carry. But I will refrain from doing so until the Minister of Finance explains why these amendments were not included in the bill. I do not say that when the bill is before the committee I will not propose them. However, I shall listen to the reasons the minister may offer and I hope that before the bill reaches that stage he will give to the House some satisfactory reasons for not bringing forward the amendments and at the same time assure us that in the near future legislation will be enacted to provide

Income Tax
for the readjustment of income taxation more in line with justice and equity.


William Stevens Fielding: I wish I were as free as my hon. friend to advocate all these popular notions, because they are popular, I am sure. But I regret to say that I am not, because I must have regard to the condition of the revenue. The hon. gentleman brought forward his motion last year and we took it into consideration. More than that, we made some concession. That, I think, should be evidence that I am not so absolutely unyielding as he pictures me. As to a larger review of the Income Tax Act, if it is necessary, I hope that my hon. friend will have patience enough to wait for that consolidation which, without giving any guarantee, I trust will be undertaken in time for next session. I am sorry that I cannot give any reasons that will be satisfactory to my hon. friend because I know how zealous and enthusiastic he is in the matter. But we cannot have everything we want in this wicked world; we must wait patiently for some of the things we much desire.


Herbert Meredith Marler: As I understand from the minister that next year there is likely to be a consolidation of the act I will in no way suggest to him any amendments I might have to submit to the bill he is now bringing down. On the other hand it is more than probable that no opportunity will be afforded myself or any other hon. member to study the proposed consolidation before it is brought down next year. It will therefore be as well for me now to suggest to the minister certain matters which I should like him to take into consideration when he does undertake the consolidation he has announced.
The first point I want him to consider in that consolidation is the question to which I referred previously this evening, as to the payment on net income of the taxpayer. Where the taxpayer has legal deductions under class B income, if those deductions exceed the total of his class B income, then I think he should be permitted to have a deduction for the surplus made from class A income. In short, the taxpayer should pay on his net income. There is another point which I would draw to the attention of the minister and that is in regard to the manner in which the tax is computed at present. There is the normal tax, there is the surtax, and there is the interest on the
11 pan. surtax or the supertax. This is not only exceedingly onerous on



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
those who are unfortunate enough to have to pay income tax, but it makes it very difficult indeed to compute the tax. Another question that comes to my mind, and which possibly may not be very popular in this House or to the minister but which I would venture to suggest nevertheless, even at this time of the session. I believe that the income tax to-day is far too heavy. That tax under the act as it stands at present is not helping to stimulate savings; it is not stimulating business. I believe that the taxpayers, having to pay as they do pay to-day very heavy taxes, are utterly unable to invest any money in industrial concerns, and for that reason the progress of the country is seriously impeded. In the United States, if I might refer to that republic for a moment, a deduction is allowed, or a lesser tax is levied on account of the savings of a particular taxpayer. If a taxpayer can show a bona fide saving in any year, he is allowed a lesser rate of taxation on the amount actually saved. This encourages economy, which is very essential in this country and I think it is a very important question that should receive careful consideration when the minister comes to take up the consolidation that he has mentioned. Certain deductions are allowed under the present income tax law. Under the act as passed in 1917-this was during the war of course-deductions were allowed for contributions made to the Red Cross and patriotic funds. I am aware, as I think are other members also, that representations have been made to the minister to allow deductions for contributions to bona fide charitable or educational institutions. The deductions allowed under the 1917 act for contributions to the Red Cross and patriotic funds were subsequently withdrawn. The work which those funds carry on is far from finished, and there are numerous charities badly in need of funds not only in the city of Montreal but all over the country. These charities are having greater difficulty year by year in securing funds for carrying on their work, which, in part at least, is really the duty of the state. I ask that contributions made to bona fide charitable and educational institutions be allowed as deductions, or that they be taken into consideration when the new act is framed.
It is quite true that the minister will immediately say: Well, all these demands must mean a diminution in the revenue. I quite admit that, but still as regards charitable and educational institutions I do not think the state can claim for one moment that deductions allowed for contributions to them will

[Stage Direction]
Income Tax
not eventually enure ten times more to the benefit of the state. Again I quote the income tax law of the United States, under which individual tax-payers-not corporations -are allowed deductions up to 15 per cent of their taxable income, provided that these deductions are paid to a charitable or educational institution approved of in the proper way. There is no question that in allowing deductions of this description and allowing also a taxpayer to pay on his net income alone-which do seem to me perfectly fair and reasonable requests to make-there will be a certain reduction in the amount which will be collected under the income tax law. On the other hand, possibly it is pertinent to suggest that the income tax law was originally framed for the purpose of paying our war debt. Whether the amount derived from income tax can ever be segregated for this purpose I cannot presume to say, but I think I may go this far, that the time does seem to have arrived when the people are strained to the uttermost in their efforts to pay taxes. I am perfectly aware that without these taxes the budget cannot be made to balance as we are budgetting at the present time. The only suggestion I venture to make in these last days of the session is that we should really live within our income, and that our budgets should, if possible, be made to balance with the taxes that are collected. It is quite true that my suggestions would mean a certain decrease in the net revenue collected from income tax, but at the same time it would be an encouragement to people to be charitable and economical.
It seems to me that with our budget deficits year by year we must come to the point sooner or later, and the sooner the better, when we should live strictly within our income.
William Stevens Fielding: How?


Herbert Meredith Marler: By spending less, by actually cutting out many, many things we now spend money on. Perhaps this is the most unpopular thing for any member to say in the dying days of the session, and I suppose everyone will criticize me.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not at all.


Herbert Meredith Marler: But let our expenditure be pared down ruthlessly. We should reduce our expenditure to the very minimum and restrict it to keeping our buildings and our public works in repair, in order that we may make our budgets balance without having to increase taxation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have been
greatly cheered to hear the remarks of the

hon. gentleman. We have heard speeches along exactly the same lines from this side of the House. We have deplored the increases both of taxation and of expenditure. We now find all our work has not been in vain, and we look fonvard to the early date when my hon. friend will cross over here-not to take a place down in the comer, but to take his seat among us and really do something to try to cut down expenditure. We are assured that so far as he is concerned none of these extra supplements were brought down until the thirteenth hour passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Income to be not less than income from chief occupation.
Arthur Meighen: Observing as I do that we are now almost through with the second budget of this government, and that it has left the income tax schedules in the same condition as it found them, and remembering also the aspirations-to use the most euphemistic term I can think of-of hon. gentlemen opposite and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) himself, may I inquire if after eighteen months he has not been able to invade the precincts of the profiteer and ease the burden on the masses? And does he hope by remodelling and changing the schedules at some later and undefined time to achieve this end? How is it we have had to wait eighteen months to get the burden on the masses eased and the profiteer brought to book? Is the progress of the future to be as slow as the progress of the past? Is there really any room left for hope?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not heard any
allegations that anybody is engaged in profiteering. I had understood that the profiteering was usually carried on during the regime of my right hon. friend. Eighteen months, you know, is a short period in the life of a nation. We are not going to accomplish immediately all that he mentions, but I hope that as years roll on, with patience and courtesy and good will all round, some of these results will be brought about in the natural order of things. I suggest that my right hon. friends be patient and that they rather bear those ills they have than fly to others that they know not of.


Arthur Meighen: I quite realize the solemn truth and wisdom of the Finance Minister's assertion that anything we may hope for will come in the natural order; it certainly will not come in the government order, we may be quite certain of that. Then, he advises the

Income Tax
country to bear the ills they have rather than fly to others they know not of. Well, the country is already impressed with the necessity for that.


William Stevens Fielding: I gave the advice to my hon. friends, not to the country.


Arthur Meighen: I also am, as the whole country is, thoroughly imbued with that truth, and I think the people are very regretful-the evidences of it are not a few-that they had not been imbued with it and acted upon it sooner. Yes, I admit that times were better in our day; profits were greater on the part of all classes of the country-I am compelled to admit it. We, however, enacted certain legislation to take for the nation a share of those profits, and we were assailed because we did not take more from the profiteer and less from the masses. Now I wonder how it is that in this session we are amending the very bill that apportions as between the profiteer and the masses, and still the Finance Minister can scarcely dot an i or cross a t.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7, subsection 15-Notice of dissatisfaction respecting the decision of the minister.
Henry Lumley Drayton: That seems unfair and improper. If a man has a case that the minister himself thinks ought to be considered by the court, I do not know why as a preliminary to his going to the court he must put up security for costs.


William Stevens Fielding: The suggestion came from a very well informed source that that is a wise precaution. It has been well considered and I am confident that it will serve a good purpose.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I see it is entirely satisfactory to the minister; I hope he will assure us that no litigant who has the right under the act to go to the court will be denied that right.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend can be
assured that the good spirit in which this act has always been administered will be continued.
Subsection 15 of section 7 agreed to.
On section 10-Taxes to be a lien.


Herbert Meredith Marler: That is the section to
which I had reference a moment ago. It creates on the property movable and immovable of every taxpayer a prior lien ranking before any other obligation of any description. In addition to that, the section
287i
as drafted is retroactive from the first of January, 1923. It means that any creditor lending to a debtor on any security, whether it is personal property or real property, will first have to satisfy himself whether or not the taxpayer's income tax has been fully paid I can say positively that no person would lend on mortgage in the province of Quebec without first satisfying himself that the income tax had been totally paid under this section. Moreover, the section allows the transfer of personal property to a bona fide purchaser but it allows no transfer of immovable property. The section is an exceedingly dangerous one. I do not complain in the least degree of the power it puts in the hands of the government, but I do complain of the difficulties it will put in the way of very many borrowers. The government should content itself with a prior unsecured lien, not with a prior secured lien on the property of the taxpayer.


William Stevens Fielding: As my hon. friend states it, we want a secured lien if we can get it. I realize there is something in what my hon. friend says, but I wish he would not press his suggestion now. It will be a short time, after all, before this matter can be reviewed again, and if experience shows that the trouble my hon. friend suggests has arisen we can deal with it in the consolidation. I am hoping the trouble will not be as serious as he suggests.


Herbert Meredith Marler: There is not the slightest shadow of a doubt that the trouble will actually be there when this legislation goes into effect. I am not pressing anything on the minister; I am only explaining the exact effect this legislation will have on the borrowing public, particularly as affecting mortgages in the province of Quebec. If the minister wishes to press the section, of course I will do nothing else but agree to it, but I suggest the insertion after the word "personal" in line 19, of the words "and real"-in other words, differentiating between personal and immovable property.


William Stevens Fielding: Would my hon. friend
read the clause as he suggests it be amended?


Herbert Meredith Marler: The proviso reads:
Provided always, however, that the lien or charge hereby created shall not follow or attach to personal property.
I suggest inserting here the words " or real " before " property."


Henry Lumley Drayton: That would discharge the lien entirely.
Income Tax


Herbert Meredith Marler: No. The effect would be that the purchaser would not have to follow whether or not the income tax had been paid. Without this proviso you could not purchase a stock or a bond or a piece of real estate without first inquiring whether this lien, which is an actual mortgage on the man's property, has been fully paid.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is simply a case of another search of taxes.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Yes, but this tax may
extend over a term of months. Are we going to insist on the taxpayer paying his whole tax at once before he can sell his stock, before he can sell a bond or a piece of real estate? It is unreasonable.


William Stevens Fielding: If it has the effect of inducing the taxpayer to pay up, that at least is one of the virtues. I hope my hon. friend will find that the evil is not so serious as he suggests. When we come to the consolidation possibly we may be able to meet his views.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Might I suggest to the minister an amendment, to add after the word "personal" in the nineteenth line "or immovable." That does not affect the intention of the section in the very least because it intends to allow a bona fide seller to sell to a bona fide purchaser his personal property. I only want to make it clear that a bona fide seller may sell to a like purchaser his immovable property.


William Stevens Fielding: I hope my hon. friend
will not press it.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I dislike pressing my hon. friend, but what reason is there why it should not be included? I think I am entitled to at least get an answer.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend will
cress I will delay the third reading and give the matter consideration but at this stage I think we might accept the section as it is.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would like to ask whether the opinion of the Department of Justice has been taken as to the power of this parliament to enact section 7.


William Stevens Fielding: I understand that the
Department of Justice has so advised.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: With all respect I would
like to differ from the department, and I do not think anyone would have much to fear about that. While parliament has the power to enforce, that must be within reasonable limits, and to say merely because it is a Crown debt it thereby operates as a lien on real and personal property goes far beyond 
any express or implied power of the Dominion parliament. A Crown debt takes priority and always will take priority in the administration of assets over other creditors, but that this parliament can legislate so as to constitute a debt due the federal Crown a mortgage upon any particular piece of property in the province I shall always doubt until it is resolved by some authority even higher than the Department of Justice.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I think this section purports to create such a mortgage.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 26-Collection of tax from third party.
Robert Forke: Will the minister give us an explanation of this? It seems a rather unusual section. It says, "When the minister has knowledge or suspects that any person" and so forth.


William Stevens Fielding: I am told that this
arises from actual events coming under the observation of the department. This is really necessary to prevent evasions of the law. The cases arising would not be numerous, but I think it will be a preventive measure in a large degree. There is a tendency in many lines for people to evade this income tax law. It is almost as open to evasion as the customs law when crossing the border, but all these changes are the result of experience in the department, I am assured. The cases are not likely to occur very often, but they will occur occasionally and I think the existence of a clause like this will help to prevent fraud.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 28-Certificate of default to be registered as judgment.
Arthur Meighen: Has the minister done
anything towards preventing what is really the grossest system of evasion possible? That is to say, the formation of what are really personal companies to which are assigned the assets of an individual and out of which the individual draws an amount that is really not his income at all but merely the sum he lives on, allowing the rest to accumulate and thereby escape all the income tax except the corporation tax alone. I wonder if the minister has done anything to meet that situation which has arisen practically wholly in his own time.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman who sits behind my hon. friend raised that question in his absence and we had a little discussion

Income Tax
on it. I cannot say that anything particular has been clone. I realize that there is too much ground for the view that the law is being evaded. The matter is engaging our attention, and if the consolidation is brought about which we hope, it ought to be included. At the moment we are not sufficiently well advised to deal with it. I quite realize that there is something along the lines suggested by the right hon. gentleman.


Arthur Meighen: It is far more important than consolidation. It is a matter of millions upon millions. Other countries have met it, and why has this government spent eighteen months during which this evasion has been rampant and taken no step even to copy the legislation of other countries? It is a gross indictment of the administration, I may impress upon the minister.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Does my hon. friend mean to suggest that these so-called companies have been incorporated since the present administration came into office?


Arthur Meighen: Practically all.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Surely my hon. friend is not serious when he suggests that.


Arthur Meighen: There may have been some incorporations taken place before. The income tax has not been in force for so many years, but the effect in the way of evading the tax has been since that time.


Herbert Meredith Marler: No.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member knew before I wonder he has not impressed it on the government and tried to get some remedy before this. He apparently knew before 1921. Why has he not brought that to the attention of the minister?


Herbert Meredith Marler: How does my right hon. friend know I have not impressed it on the government ?


Arthur Meighen: If he has, it has been rather an ineffective pressure. If the hon. member for the St. Lawrence-St. George division of Montreal (Mr. Marler) has no more effect on the government than to keep on pressing eighteen months and get nothing, it seems to me that it might be a good suggestion for him to go back to his constituents. He comes from a portion of Canada from which he ought to be able to speak with authority. Surely he can produce something more than pious aspirations from the lips of the Minister of Finance.


Herbert Meredith Marler: That is precisely the reason I spoke the way I did to my hon. friend,
because I thought I did speak with some authority. This act has been in force since the 20th of September, 1917. My hon. friend comes forward to-night and charges that most of these companies have been brought into effect since this government came into power.


Arthur Meighen: The evasions have.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend has been so very kind in his remarks to me that perhaps he will allow me to continue. Companies were brought into existence during the administration of my right hon. friend. Did he take any action?


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend has asked a question? Now perhaps he will permit mo to answer. He must remember that the income tax refers to the year previous and previous to a certain date in that year, and as a consequence the incorporation of the company would require to be about the year 1918 or 1919 to have any effect at all so far as our income tax collection was concerned.
I never heard of such an incorporation myself within those years I want to tell my hon. friend, until virtually before we went out of office.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am prepared to accept the hon. gentleman's word but not his assertion that this government has not done as much as his government.


Arthur Meighen: They had reason to do a whole lot more because the effect of the evasions has been since we went out of office. The hon. member knows that. The loss to the revenue has been in the last two years. The effect certainly has been recently even of incorporations in 1918, which would be the first year they were incorporated.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am sorry to differ.


Arthur Meighen: Of course it has been. Does he mean to say it has not been in these last two years?


Herbert Meredith Marler: It has not been wholly in these two years. That is the assertion I made at the commencement.


Arthur Meighen: At all events it has been very nearly wholly, and you cannot get thing? cured just in a minute. The last time we were in office was in the year 1920-21, and I do not think that evasion had effect up to that time. It has only had effect since then


Herbert Meredith Marler: Nothing but righteousness happened up to that time!


Arthur Meighen: Mostly so, or punished crime. But now we find, it seems to me
450S

Montreal Harbour Commission
in the words of John Hay, "Nothing but unpitied suffering and unpunished crime.-'


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Act to come into force.
Herbert Meredith Marler: May I make another plea to the Minister of Finance?


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Herbert Meredith Marler: To suggest that section 25 of the act shall not go into effect until the commencement of the 1924 period of taxation. There is to be a consolidation of the act next year. I am only asking that this particular section 25 be delayed for a year. Six months of the year have already elapsed.


William Stevens Fielding: Will my hon. friend state his request again?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I ask that instead of section 25 coming into effect at the commencement of the 1923 tax period as provided for in subsection 4 of section 11, it come into effect at the commencement of the 1924 taxation period. In other words that the operation of this section be delayed until the first of January, 1924, instead of making it retroactive on the first of January, 1923.


William Stevens Fielding: I will assent to the suggested amendment of the hon. gentleman.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved-1. That it is expedient to provide that the Governor in Council may from time to time, advance and pay to the Corporation of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, hereinafter called the corporation, such sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of $10,000,000, as are required to enable the corporation to carry on the construction of terminal facilities in the harbour of Montreal for which plans, specifications and estimates have already been approved by the Governor in Council, and to construct such further terminal facilities as are necessary to properly equip the said port; in addition to the moneys heretofore authorized to be advanced to the corporation by the Governor in Council by any act.
2.	That no advance shall be made in respect to the construction of terminal facilities unless such detailed plans, specifications and estimates for the works to be performed by the corporation, on which the money so to be paid is to be expended, as are satisfactory to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, have been subnutted to and approved by the Governor in Council before any work on same is commenced.
3.	That the corporation shall submit to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for approval monthly applications for such advances as they may be entitled to .apply for, with statements, in detail, in such form as
IMr. Meighen.]
the minister may direct, and upon approval of the same, authority for the payment of the amount applied for may be granted by the Governor in Council.
4.	That the corporation shall, upon any advances being made, deposit with the Minister of Finance debentures of the corporation equal in par value to the advance so made, repayable within twenty-five years from the date of issue, and bearing interest payable half-yearly at the rate of five per centum per annum.
5.	That the principal and1 interest of any sums advanced under any act founded on these resolutions shall be payable by the corporation out of all its property and assets, and out of all its tolls, rates, dues, penalties and other sources of revenue and income whatsoever, and shall rank as a charge thereon, and have precedence in regard to payment next after the payments provided for in section eight of chapter ten of the statutes of 1896 (First session).
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 4-Security for advances.
Mr. SPEARMAN:: May I ask the minister if the harbour commissioners are regularly paying the interest charges on the loans that have so far been made to them?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, every cent of interest has been paid. Last year they paid in interest the sum of $1,138,062.12. They also paid the amount necessary for a sinking fund, and had a surplus of over S200,000.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 250, to provide for further advances to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. LAPOINTE moved the second reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 2-an additional $10,000,000 may be advanced to the corporation for the construction of terminal facilities.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This bill has
not been distributed. Is it in the usual form?


Ernest Lapointe: It is exactly in the form of the preceding bill-word for word.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



BANK ACT AMENDMENT SENATE AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 83, respecting banks and banking.

Bank Act
Joseph Tweed Shaw: What is the nature of the
amendments made to this bill by the Senate?


William Stevens Fielding: I think most of the
amendments are of an unimportant character. One of the amendments relates to the question of insurance. There was much discussion in the Banking and Commerce committee, and a clause was put in the act preventing any bank agent from acting as representative of an insurance company. That is the substance of it. An amendment has been made which is designed to meet the case of the Weyburn bank. It was represented in the Senate that the agent of that bank received a considerable portion of his income from the handling of hail insurance, and if that were taken from him, it would practically destroy his income. I have no personal knowledge of this, but I understand that representations made to the Senate led them to adopt words which would practically have the effect I have stated, although they did not mention the name of that bank. The amendment proposed by the senate reads:
After subclause 3 of clause 76 insert the following as subclause 4:
"4. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the agent or manager of a bank, with chief office and branches in one province only, from acting as agent for the placing of hail insurance."
There is no mention made of the Weyburn bank, but I understand it is to meet that particular case. There is one amendment regarding the issue of stock not below par. That is technical, and there is no objection to it.
On page 45 of the bill, section 88, a clause was inserted by the Banking and Commerce committee protecting the unpaid vendor in certain cases. That clause has been stricken out by the Senate.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I do not concur in that amendment.


William Stevens Fielding: In section 91 the language in the clause relating to discount says:
The rate of interest or discount charged by the bank shall appear on the face of the note.
These words were struck out by the Senate. I think these are the most material alterations. The rest are purely technical as far as I remember.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I desire to protest against the elimination of the protection for the unpaid vendor under section 88. I have no desire to delay the House at all. I think it is important that that clause should remain.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I have no objection to the amendment regarding insurance, nor yet have I any material objection to the amendment
to section 88; but I have a serious objection to the amendment proposed to section 91. I think the rate of interest or discount should appear in every case on the face of the note.
I understood, while in the committee, that the bankers themselves had no objection to this provision, and I cannot understand what interest would be in any way jeopardized by having the rate of interest appear as the Banking and Commerce committee desired.
1 would, therefore, oppose the Senate amendment to section 91.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: 
Robert Forke: Why?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why should it? Why should the dealings between one man and the bank be disclosed to another party? I do not think there is any serious objection to the amendment.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: In order to meet the situation my hon. friend suggests, why not exclude drafts from the operation of the section? The section, as I understand it, was designed as a deterrent to banks in charging an excess rate of interest.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You cannot
differentiate between a draft and a promissory note. If the objection is valid against one it is against the other. But I have never been able to see what purpose was served by having the rate of interest or the discount appear on the note. There might have been reasons given but unfortunately I was not present when the committee dealt with this clause.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.
Dairy Industry Act



DAIRY INDUSTRY ACT 1914 AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of bill No. 241 to amend the Dairy Industry 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-Definition.
William Richard Motherwell: There is a slight omission in the bill as printed. I move that a new section 1 be added as follows:
Paragraph (k) of section 3 of the Dairy Industry Act, 1914, chapter 7, of the statutes of 1914, is amended by striking out the word "or", in the second last line thereof, and substituting the word "and" therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 2 (new section 3)-Minimum standard of fat in butter.
Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):: Paragraph
(d) provides that no person shall manufacture, import into Canada, or sell any milk or cream which contains any fat or oil other than that of milk. Would it not make it more clear if, after the word "cream',, the words "or substitute therefor" were inserted?


William Richard Motherwell: It would do no harm if my hon. friend wants to make assurance doubly sure.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I move that the section be amended accordingly.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-Establishment of guilt for violation of act.


William Richard Motherwell: There may be some stocks of filled milk or filled cream on hand by some dealers and it was thought advisable that the section relating thereto might not come into force until the dealers have had time to get rid of those stocks. I therefore move that there be added to the bill as section 7 the following provision:
Section 3 (original section 2) of this act shall not come into effect until October 1st, 1923.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. (Thursday).
Thursday, June 28, 1923.