1923-04-27

RAILWAY COMMITTEE

Mr. FIELDING moved:: That the name of Mr. Healy be substituted for that of Mr. Murphy on the select standing com-mitteee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 139, to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
He said: This bill provides for amendments to the Bankruptcy Act as follows: (a) To abolish the system of authorized trustees and to accept the English system of administration of estates by trustees selected by the creditors, assignments to be made to the creditors at large and deposited with an official receiver who will be chosen from among local legal officers, such receiver to appoint a custodian with authority to conserve the assets of the estate under the direction of the receiver. The custodian shall call the creditors together, who at their first meeting will choose a trustee, and from that day the custodian's duty will be completed. In cases of petitions that is to say, compulsory assignments -the appointment of custodian is to be made by the court rather than by the receiver, the latter directing, as in the case of assignments, the conservation of the assets, (b) To provide for sales in the province of Quebec of property subject to hypothec in the same mode as to notices, etc., as in the case of sales made by the tariff, (c) To restore to the landlords the privileges which they were entitled to under the laws of the different provinces on the first of July, 1920. (d) To provide for the examination of the debtor by the official receiver on the causes of his insolvency and the distribution of his assets. This is a very important feature of the English act. It is hoped that the debtor will be deterred from assigning by the prospect of this compulsory examination. (e) To enable a composition between the debtor and creditors only after the assignment. This is to protect the creditors and prevent debtors from defrauding their creditors by disposing of their property. Many requests for such a change have come to our department, (f) To compel trustees in every case to apply to the court for a discharge within fifteen days after the payment of the final dividend and to prohibit appointment of such trustees in any other matter until he has obtained such discharge. It is further proposed to amend the law which refuses the claim of a wife as the creditor of an insolvent and to enable her to rank equally with the ordinary creditors;

Shire Horses
to extend the section which authorizes the examination of persons connected with the affairs of the debtor so as to enable the examination of relatives or any other persons who may have received gifts or preferences; to provide for the distribution to the creditors of any property acquired by the debtor between the time of his assignment and his composition with his creditors. There is a difference in the present law as to assignment and receiving order, for reasons which we cannot discover. Other amendments are introduced to remove doubts with respect to the meaning or interpretation of the different clauses of the Bankruptcy Act. I shall give to the House a list of the local officers that we intend to choose as receivers. The following officials, or the persons for the time being exercising the functions of such officials, shall be official trustees:
(a)	In the province of Quebec, the prothonotaries of the Superior Court;
(b)	In the province of Nova Scotia, the prothonotaries of the Supreme Court;
(c)	In the province of New Brunswick, the Circuit Court clerks;
(d) In the province of Prince Edward Island, the deputy prothonotaries of the Supreme Court;
(e)	In the province of Ontario, the local registrars of the Supreme Court;
(f) In the province of Manitoba, the deputy registrars of the Court of King's Bench;	,
(g)	In the province of Saskatchewan, the local registrars of the Court of King's Bench;
(h)	In the province of Alberta, the clerks of the Supreme Court;
(i)	In the province of British Columbia, the district registrars of the Supreme Court.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 137 (from the Senate), for the relief of Eliza Harvey Northgraves.-Mr. German.
Bill No. 138 (from the Senate), for the relief of Olivette McMaster.-Mr. Hoeken.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Acting Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House do to-morrow go into committee of the whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide that the time within which the
various provinces of Canada may earn and be paid the sums allotted to the said provinces under the provisions of "The Canada Highways Act", chapter fifty-four of the statutes of 1919, be extended for a further period of two years.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been apprised of the subject matter of this resolution, has given his assent thereto and commends it to the consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon, W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture): My attention has been called by the Prime Minister to a question that was asked yesterday by the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Elliott) with respect to the Shire horses that have recently arrived from Great Britain and are now stationed at the Experimental Farm here. The question was asked as to the disposition of these breeding animals throughout Canada. Our natural desire, Mr. Speaker, is to place these animals in conformity with the wishes of the donors, since they have been made a gift by the Shire Breeders' Society of Great Britain. It is equally our natural desire to place them where some attention has already been given to the breeding of Shire horses, and we find on examining our records that the two places that have paid the most attention to the breeding of Shire horses are Lacombe in the province of Alberta and Len-noxville in the province of Quebec. There are very few, however, in the latter place, consequently it was thought that for the best use of these breeding animals and to carry out the wishes of the donors it would be wise to locate them in Alberta, at Lacombe. This, however, is only a tentative arrangement and the final disposition of the horses will not be made until the return of Mr. Archibald, Director of the Dominion Experimental Farms, who will return on Monday or Tuesday next. In the meantime we shall be very glad to have any representations from Ontario or elsewhere as to where these animals could be placed to better advantage than under the arrangement already made.
So far as locating them in Ontario is concerned, there are a few Shire horses scattered here and there throughout the province, but we have had no intimation from any source that they would like to have the Shires mixed with other breeds here.
Mr. BRETHEN:: I had the pleasure of
examining these horses to-day and they
Grain Commission

certainly appear to be a typical lot of Shire horses of very high quality. I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the district around Weston, Ontario, near the city of Toronto. I may say I am not a resident of that district, but I know that for a number of years the breeding of Shire horses has been conducted in that district, and I think that at least one of these horses could be used there to very good advantage.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Stevens Fielding: There was a little misunderstanding between the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) and myself regarding a delayed return. I was under the impression that it referred to a matter in my own department, but I find that what he had in mind was a return touching another department, and I have called the attention of the proper department to it.



THE BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: May I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) what day next week he expects to bring the budget down? I understood it was to come down next week.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend has indicated next week. There was a time when he bad a right to fix the date, but not now. I share with my hon. friend the feeling that it is desirable to have the budget down at a very early day, but I really would not care to fix the day at this moment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Could my hon. friend tell the House, because many members are interested in the matter, whether the budget will be brought down before Thursday' of next week?


William Stevens Fielding: I think I can assure my hon. friend it will not be before Thursday; possibly on Thursday, but I do not wish to be too precise.



GRAIN COMMISSION INQUIRY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MANION:: I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to a despatch I notice in one of the journals at the head of the lakes wherein the statement is made

that the Board of Grain Commissioners are at the head of the lakes to make a thorough investigation into the grain screenings question. Has the department given orders for a thorough investigation of the screenings question? I have not heard of it.


Mr. ROBB:: I have not read the despatch to which my hon. friend refers, but that will be one of the subjects submitted to the proposed Royal Grain Commission for investigation.


Robert James Manion: I just mentioned it because it was stated positively that the Grain Commission was there for that purpose. That is why I asked that question.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: May I ask what is the cause of delay in appointing that commission and, when the government expects to be able to surmount the obstacles in the way of its appointment?


James Alexander Robb: We hope to make the appointments and to make an announcement to the House ivithin a very few days.



IMPERIAL SOLDIER DEPORTED

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon):: I wish to bring to the notice of the government a case of inhuman treatment meted out to a British soldier who came to this country in 1&22 but was deported as a common criminal because he contracted tuberculosis last March. The man was so ill with tuberculosis in a hospital at Saskatoon that the army authorities refused to be responsible for his upkeep anj' longer, and on the recommendation of the two army doctors there, Dr. Creighton and Dr. Walker, as well as the medical health officer of the city, he was advised to go home to die. He was advised to let the army authorities take him back to Wales, his native place. The following is an extract from his letter written to a friend in Saskatoon.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I would point out to the hon. member that while he may draw the attention of a minister of the Crown to some matter of urgent public importance, he is hardly in order in reading a letter from some person with regard to this matter.


John Evans: I just wish to give a short extract. He says that he received good treatment at Winnipeg, but on arrival at Montreal after an uneventful journey he was taken to the immigration office. In the hallway there, he says, was a table at which was seated a fellow who told him to take off his overcoat.

French Treaty
This he took from him, and conducted him upstairs to a room that was nothing more than a cell, with two single beds in it, one of which was occupied by a Chinaman suffering from tuberculosis as well as a most loathsome skin disease, in all probability leprosy, he says. He determined to spend the night-


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. I
must call to the hon. member's attention that he is not in order in the address he is giving to the House on this matter. If he desires to draw the facts briefly to the attention of the minister of the Crown or to ask a question on a matter of urgent public importance he may do so, but an explanation in detail such as he is giving now is not in order.


John Evans: I would ask the government if they are aware of such inhuman treatment being meted out to a class of men who have done nothing worse than facing death in the trenches for the Empire to which we belong.


Mr. BELAND:: I did not catch every word of the statement made by my hon. friend. I do not quite know whether he refers to a Canadian soldier or an ex-imperial.


John Evans: An ex-imperial.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Then it is a question of immigration entirely, not a question of treatment by the soldiers' department, is it? It is a question of deportation?


John Evans: Deportation.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That does not come within this department.


William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of
the Interior (Mr. Stewart) is not here at present, but I will see that his attention is drawn to the hon. gentleman's question.



FRENCH TREATY


[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 23, respecting a certain Convention of Commerce between His Majesty and the French Republic, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Convention approved:
Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon.
friend the Finance Minister take the position that if we carry this clause we approve of the whole matter?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I think
we should discuss the details before we take up clause 2.	.


William Stevens Fielding: Clause 2 declares approval of the treaty, and therefore the whole matter comes under review.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was challenged, Mr. Chairman, as to the accuracy of certain figures which were taken from the returns of the government as supplied by the Bureau of Statistics. In view of that fact I want to find out, if I can, what the true figures are. For example, figures which have to do with the amount of silk and manufactures of silk exported from France, from Switzerland and from Japan were challenged. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) told me yesterday that my figures were ten per cent right and ninety per cent wrong. Now, they happen to be official figures supplied by the Bureau of Statistics, and I want to know whether they are wrong or whether the Minister of Marine was merely, when he spoke as he did, using a figure of speech, as he so often does, to embellish his eloquence. If I am wrong in regard to these figures I want to be put right.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not quite understand what my hon. friend is calling in question. At an early stage of the discussion we were asked to produce a lot of information. It was a fair request but it involved a great deal of time and trouble. Nevertheless the department prepared that information and submitted it. I do not understand that my hon. friend is questioning the accuracy of any of those figures, and if not I have some difficulty in understanding what the purpose of his present comment is.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not object to the figures; the objection was made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Now I want to find out whether the official figures are right or whether the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is correct in his statement. Let me repeat: In debating this question I dealt with the benefits which accrued to France. I took the item of silk and silk manufactures. I speak from recollection. My recollection is that under the item as to silk and its manufactures, for the year to which the figures applied-and I think it was the year 1922-we imported in round figures $1,000,000 worth of goods from France, $3,000,000 worth from Switzerland, and imported $4,000,000 worth from Japan. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries when replying told me that I was ten per cent right and ninety per cent wrong.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Not on that point.

French Treaty


Henry Lumley Drayton: According to the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) this treaty .had to be entered into having regard to the position of France-in view of the tremendous extent to which France had suffered. Yet it would now appear that, so far as the item to which I have referred is concerned, it is not a treaty for the benefit of France but a treaty for the benefit, in far greater proportion, of Switzerland and Japan. I pointed out to the minister that it is somewhat difficult to say you are helping any one producer in a common market if, at the same time, you help in exactly the same proportion every one of that producer's competitors. As to that I was told that my figures were only ten per cent right. What I am now trying to find out is this: Are the returns of the department correct? Take the item of silks and manufactures of silks-


William Stevens Fielding: To what returns does my hon. friend refer?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was speaking of the returns of the department that has to do with the collection of trade figures.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know that anybody has contradicted them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I certainly understood the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to say-


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -that my statement in regard to silk and the manufactures of silk was ten per cent right and ninety per cent wrong.


Ernest Lapointe: On a certain item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It may be that to-day we shall learn that the minister only made that statement for the purpose of turning a comer and that the figures as to exports which I gave are right-that there was an import of only 11,000,000 from France of silks and the manufactures of silks as against $3,000,000 in the case of Switzerland and $4,000,000 in the case of Japan. That was the gravamen of the charge that I made. Perhaps the minister will say to-day " I was not referring to the real business at all. All I was referring to was a quoted rate as to the duty that had nothing to do with it." There would have been something in what the minister said as to specific rates of duty if there was one specific rate for France and another specific rate for Switzerland. But that is not the fact; they all take the same rates. The one matter that

I was referring most to was the fact that France's exports to us under that item, were only one-third of Switzerland's and only one-fourth of Japan's.


Ernest Lapointe: The trouble arises out of the fact that my hon. friend was speaking of one thing and I was speaking of another. I was not speaking at all of the proportion of silk exported from France as compared with the exports of Japan or Switzerland. My hon. friend has only to take Hansard and read my remarks as to that. I stated that my hon. friend, in discussing item 851 concerning silks, said that we had reduced the duty to a fixed rate of twenty per cent, and I said that he was ten per cent right and ninety per cent wrong, for the reason that only ten per cent of the silks imported into Canada come under that provision for a reduction of twenty per cent, the balance, ninety per cent of silks imported into Canada, remaining at 27^ per cent, less the ten per cent provided for in schedule B. That is where my hon. friend was making a mistake, according to the figures which had been given me by the Finance department. I was not referring- to Japan or Switzerland in any way whatever.
Sir HEN R"i DRAYTON: All my hon. friend
was doing, was putting up a straw man in order to knock him down.


Ernest Lapointe: No, I was knocking the hon. member down.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There was never any complaint by me or anybody else, having regard to that part of the discussion, as to a particular percentage here or a particular percentage there; the point was this-and my hon. friend knows it perfectly well-that there were reductions made-


Ernest Lapointe: Do not talk so loudly;
it does not frighten us.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No. The hon.
member does not care, I know he does not care.


Ernest Lapointe: No, I have the habit.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But the point was that reductions were being made in the tariff for the assumed purpose, for the advertised purpose, of helping France, and I pointed out, that similar reductions are made to Switzerland and Japan. Is that true, or not?


Ernest Lapointe: What my hon. friend was contending in his main speech, and what I objected to, was that the reduction was only on luxuries; he instanced silk, and said that we had reduced the fixed duty to 10 per cent.

French Treaty
I told him that it was only on ten per cent of the silk imported into Canada that that duty applied, and I still maintain that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister does not answer my question. He comes back to the same matter. I will read what I stated:
I wonder whether my hon. friends realJy realize what the treaty does, and what further excuses we are going to have for letting in this large amount of articles which can be described only as luxuries, under such circumstances as indicate that the contention that this treaty is for France is very largely absolutely wrong. '
I was pointing out that this was not a treaty for the benefit of France. That was the argument I sought to elaborate. I pointed out the different articles of commerce which other countries ship to us to a greater extent than France, and I said these other countries got the same concessions as were given to France. That is the point I was talking about, and I am going to ask the minister: Is it true that all the countries that were mentioned-take for example, silks in the first instance sent to Switzerland and Japan-got under this treaty exactly the same concessions that France got?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend wanted to clear the ground as to the subject of discussion and difficulty between himself and myself. Here is the point of difficulty. In his speech, at page 2008 of Hansard, my hon. friend said:
However let us proceed. Let us take item 581, silk fabric. This is something that is pre-eminently in the class of luxuries and there is a fixed duty of 20 per cent against the intermediate tariff of 27} per cent.
That is what I was telling him. I told him there was only ten per cent of the silk imported into Canada coming under item 581 with a fixed reduction of 20 per cent. That was the point of discussion between us. The other features in regard to Switzerland and Japan I did not touch.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know why the minister referred to it at all, because that is all I was trying to get at.


Ernest Lapointe: I wanted to remain at peace with my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was the minister's turn yesterday and he did well yesterday-splendidly.	Will he tell me, does
Switzerland, and does Japan, get exactly the same benefit under this treaty as France obtains?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am going to ask him again in regard to my figures: Is it
144J
true, as shown by the reports of the statistical department, that in one year Japan sold us in silks and the manufacture of silk $1,006,000 worth of goods?


Ernest Lapointe: I have no doubt it is true, when the hon. member says so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not want it put in that way.


Ernest Lapointe: I have not the figures which the hon. member has, but that is not the point of discussion between us.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understand the minister does not dispute the fact. And that of the same article Switzerland sold us $3,970,706? Does he dispute that?


Ernest Lapointe: I have not the figures here. I am sure that my hon. friend states the real truth.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am only saying what I was told. These are not my figures. Now will my hon. friend tell me what particular benefit he claims from France under this item and under the reductions, when France is selling merely a fraction of what Swizerland and Japan sell in this market under that item? He gives both of them the same reduction.


Ernest Lapointe: This is quite another subject of discussion. I understand my hon. friend is leaving the other matter and is turning the corner.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, not at all, I am staying with the same question.
Mr. LAPOINTE No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What benefit is this treaty to France when the same reductions are given to the chief competitors of France in the market?


Ernest Lapointe: France knew that, and she asked for it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was asking my hon. friend.


Ernest Lapointe: And I am answering my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He tells us that France knew, but I am asking for my hon. friend's answer.


Ernest Lapointe: We were looking for the benefit of Canada, rather than for the benefit of France. The hon. member should ask France that question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am very glad to have that statement from my hon. friend.
French Treaty

I hope he will remember that, and that it will not be charged, as has already been hinted, that this is a factious opposition by the party on this side of the House to the interests of France.


Ernest Lapointe: I never said that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That being so, will he tell me on what ground he bases his belief that it is a good thing to have a lower rate of taxation on an article of luxury such as silks, and how Canada is helped by it?


Ernest Lapointe: I will not say that. I have given my argument on that yesterday. He is not asking a fact, but he wants me to discuss the principle now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Now, Mr. Chairman, what did we have yesterday? We had one of my hon. friend's eloquent orations, very well done, as he was running true to form he got us back to that old joke of his about the Bourbons, and it is a good joke, but he has given us that joke twenty times.


Ernest Lapointe: But it still has an application to the question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He also paid
compliments, and we were glad to have them. But he said just a moment ago that in connection with the item of silks, he was considering the interest of Canada and not that of France. We have got that far. I ask him: Considering the interest of Canada, on what ground does he think it is a good thing to reduce taxation on luxuries such as silks?


Ernest Lapointe: The provision respecting silk is a benefit to Canada on the ground that to obtain concessions, we have to make concessions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us see just
where we are. This item, as my hon. friend said just a moment ago, was not considered for the benefit of France. Now he says that this item was not considered for the benefit of Canada. How was it considered?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend of
course, wants to go into a cross-examining duel between himself and me. I do not think that is of much interest to the other hon. members. I told my hon. friend that this question of silk arose between himself and me because he had stated that the duty on silk had been reduced to 20 per cent, and I said that only ten per cent of the silk imported into this country was reduced to 20 per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we are entitled to find out what was actuating our ministers and where the real benefit comes in.
fSir Henry Drayton.]
Here we have a concrete case and where is it left? In the first instance, we leam that it was something done to help France because of those other competitors. In the next instance, it was something done to help Canada. In the third instance, it is a concession wrung from Canada. Are we not to find out why it was done? What difference does it make how big the concession is when the question is one of principle? My hon. friend will agree that, in some instances at least, he reduces the duty on silk to a fixed rate of 20 per cent, in others he takes 10 per cent off the intermediate tariff | I ask my hon. friend again whether, in connection with the negotiations for this treaty, he was proceeding on the idea that it was a good thing for Canada to lower the duties on the luxuries of life; whether that is where he thinks Canada gets the benefit.


Ernest Lapointe: We had to lower the
duties on the things that were of interest to French trade, and some of those articles, of course, are rather articles of luxury. But my hon. friend knows he is wrong when he says that all the articles reduced are luxuries.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I dare say that is right, and my hon. friend can find a few that are not luxuries. Can my hon. friend say that the great majority are not luxuries?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What will my
hon. friend say about silks?


Ernest Lapointe: I am speaking about the majority; I am not speaking of silks.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We shall endeavour to arrive at the majority. What will my hon. friend say about silks?


Ernest Lapointe: I would rather that my
hon. friend should make his speech, mentioning all the articles, and I will answer afterwards. I do not think this is of great interest to the members of the House. My hon. friend likes to hear the sound of his voice. I do also; but really we could proceed in some other way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I rather like to get my hon. friend talking. I always like to hear from him. He is always very effective, and he is making the best he can of a horrible case.


Ernest Lapointe: Is that so?


Henry Lumley Drayton: But my hon.
friend says that the majority of imports from France into Canada-and he will correct me if I am paraphrasing him wrongly-are not luxuries, f


French Treaty


Ernest Lapointe: The majority of the
articles mentioned.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not talking about that.


Ernest Lapointe: That is what I am talking about.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will my hon. friend say this, that in volume of returns- the real thing that counts-the majority are not luxuries?


Ernest Lapointe: A question of opinion is involved. My hon. friend knows that some people regard some things as luxuries and others believe they are not-buttons, for instance.


Arthur Meighen: It will be pretty hard to make a list of luxuries if you do not include ninety per cent of all the articles reduced by this treaty. I know- the minister got through with his speech yesterday. I admire his brain too much to allege that he imagines it was an argument. He is a master of banter and humour, and yesterday's exhibition was one of his best in that regard. But he never got to the meat of the treaty at all; he never got near it. Let us see if we cannot establish two premises, and I should like to get them into the minister's mind, or any other person's mind. The first is that by this treaty we have heavier duties against us for Canadian exports to France than we had before-I do not say heavier than the French general tariff, but heavier than we had before. That is correct. The second is that they are Heavier altogether on agricultural exports. A few trivial things in connection with our manufactured products-and they are spare parts at that-are reduced. They are wortn while, but relatively they are trifles. Let us have it established in our minds that we have a higher tariff against us for Canadian exports to France than we had before, and that for our agricultural exports to France- and this is very important when we are speaking about wider markets-we are getting by this treaty, a narrower market that we had before. Nobody can dispute that in the frankness and serenity of his own mind. He may say, as an hon. member said last night, that is a departure from rectitude to refer to that. I do not so regard it, and I do not regard that remark as worth answering. In the next place, we have a lower tariff than we had before on luxuries imported into Canada. Of that there can be no doubt, and it is not worth while arguing to establish that. I ask another thing to be considered,
that if we had been free to increase our tariff on luxuries and the French government knew we were free-I mean on the goods on which they have now a lower tariff -then we would have beqn on an equality or better than an equality in the negotiations with France; because, aside from war years and the immediately subsequent years, if you look back over all the normal years of our history, French exports to us are about five times ours to France-they average almost five times for the five years preceding the war. Have I made that premise clear, that had we been free to exercise the weapon that was in the hands of France, we woidd have been on more than an equality in the negotiations? I do not ask that to be conceded, I do ask it to be conceded that we would have been on an equality. These things nobody can dispute at all; First, we have a higher tariff against our exports to France than we had before, chiefly as regards agr-cultural exports; second,, we have a lower tariff against imports of luxuries into Canada ; and third, had we been free, aside wholly from the history of our politics, to have used France's weapon on the goods France sent to us, we would have been on at least an equality with the French negotiators. If those are conceded, let me put the matter in this form. Leave out of account the history of the Liberal party and the history of the Conservative party, and assume that bound by nothing and considering the interest of Canada and nothing else, our negotiators went to France. Did they not have to choose between two things: first, a higher tariff against luxuries into Canada and a lower tariff against agricultural products into France, or, on the other hand, a lower tariff against luxuries into Canada and a higher tariff against agricultural products into France? Which would they have chosen, had there been no commitments and no political history to tie their hands? There is not a man at large in this country who would not choose the higher tariff on luxuries coming into Canada and a lower tariff on agricultural products going into France. Then why have we not that? Had there been no political history in this matter, we should have had it; had there been no political commitments that would have been the state of affairs. And we have not got it just because of those commitments. That is all I want hon. gentlemen to admit; and while I do not expect them to admit it aloud, it is nevertheless the truth. If hon. gentlemen opposite think the matter over they cannot help being convinced that this is the fact.
226b
French Treaty

And therein is a lesson. This is one of the products of wrong pre-election commitments and principles. I know there are other products, of course; another product we had last session when there was a violation of those commitments,-a very bad harvest indeed. We have not the same consequences to-day; we have to-day another product of false political commitments, not as bad morally but financially worse; the harvest this time is the sacrifice of Canadian interests. And while you may have it in one form or the other, you are bound to reap a harvest of ill if you make commitments that are false. This is one product of such a policy; as I have stated, last session we had another. And these are not, the last. Now, I have stated in very brief form the way I sincerely view the whole history of this French treaty negotiation; and this government in other negotiations must either abandon and prostitute its principles or sacrifice the interests of Canada. Last session it chose the first; this session it chooses the second.


William Stevens Fielding: I much regret that the right hon. gentleman has deemed it necessary to repeat and to adhere to an absolutely unwarranted and unfounded position in comparing the present condition of affairs with the terms of this treaty. Again and again the hon. gentleman has made comparisons between the rates now existing and those set forth in the treaty, and in assuming this position again to-day he is thereby conveying for the hundredth time to the country the impression that the present rates are available to us.


Arthur Meighen: No, no.


William Stevens Fielding: The right hon. gentleman's (Mr. Meighen's) position in this matter is most unfair. But he has advanced it, and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) spent half an hour repeating the same' thing. My right hon. friend knows that the existing rates are as dead as Julius Caesar. Why then does he compare the live body of this treaty with the dead corpse of that old arrangement? Does the right hon. gentleman not know that the present condition which he speaks of, and which he compares with the rates as set forth in the French treaty, cannot be taken advantage of now? Again and again we are told that this treaty is not as good as the old one; but my right hon. friend knows that the French government gave definite notice abrogating the old one. He knows also that after certain negotiations, succeeding the termination of the old treaty, an interim arrangement

was made-and made by himself and his colleagues-which begins with the statement that pending the conclusion ot a new commercial convention, with a view to which negotiations would begin immediately, the French and Canadian governments had agreed to "the following provisions". The leader of the Opposition is also aware that the French government called him to account for this engagement to begin immediately; and for reasons which I have not assailed, and which might have been good, he did not fulfil the terms of that engagement. Well, we have fulfilled the engagement of hon. gentlemen by entering into negotiations; and whether we had entered into such negotiations or not, we had notice that the French government would not continue the old arrangement. What, then, is the good of hon. gentlemen again and again quoting the existing rates as if they were at our disposal? They are not at our disposal. I say, they are dead and gone; and if we did not adopt this treaty, wise or unwise as it may be, fair or unfair, we should have to come under the operations of the French general tariff. A comparison between that tariff and this treaty is a fair matter; a comparison between the existing rates, which are 4 p.m. dead and gone, and the treaty before us is not a fair matter. And no one knows that better than my right hon. friend. I am amazed therefore that, in the light of the discussion that has occurred on this subject, he should continue in the stand he has taken. But there is another thing. The right hon. gentleman says, why did we not arm ourselves when going over? He said that we were not in a position to deal with the French government and threaten them with this, that or the other thing. Well, if that is good policy, why did not the right hon. gentleman himself arm the representative of his government, Sir George Foster, when he sent him over only a few months before we went over?


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Stevens Fielding: That gentleman went to make an arrangement.


Arthur Meighen: No; this was made in 1921, and there was no session between the making of the interim treaty and the exit of the late government.	,


William Stevens Fielding: The treaty was not made in a day. My right hon. friend sent Sir George Foster over to make a treaty.


Arthur Meighen: No.

French Treaty


William Stevens Fielding: Did he go without authority?


Arthur Meighen: He was over on other business. The government cannot raise duties; parliament only can do that; and there had been no session of parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: But before my right hon. friend sent his representative over he should have armed him with power to jack up the rates, and then threaten the French government with a high tariff. Now, I do not think it would have been good policy for the right hon. gentleman to fix exorbitant rates merely for the purpose of threatening the French government. I do not think that would have been wise, and evidently my hon. friend was of that opinion too; because if his government had deemed it good policy to do that they would have armed themselves to that purpose. If they had thought it wise to adopt that course, when they sent over Sir George Foster they would have done what they are now suggesting that we should have done; they would have asked Parliament to jack up the tariff rates and threaten France with them. But they did not do that, and I commend them for having avoided that course, because it would have been folly to do anything of the sort. Yet this is the very thing my right hon. friend is asking us to do.


Arthur Meighen: In so far as the historical account of this matter goes, I do not find much, if any, fault with what the minister says. Not at all. I do not say that, situated as they were, because of what they had done, they could have had the old treaty renewed. I have not argued that. I have argued, however, that if they had not made certain commitments they could have insisted upon as good a treaty as the old one. My hon. friend says, why did we not jack up the duties on luxuries before Sir George Foster went over to negotiate a treaty? In the first place, Sir George Foster did not go there to negotiate a treaty.


William Stevens Fielding: Then he went without authority.


Arthur Meighen: No, he was over on other business.


William Stevens Fielding: So were we.


Arthur Meighen: If my hon. friend wants to escape responsibility by a quibble of that kind, he may. But what does that matter? We had a treaty that was satisfactory so far as we were concerned. The old treaty was satisfactory and if it had been renewed we should have been pleased. It might have
been better, of course, but it was fairly satisfactory as far as it went. The French government knew that we were not tied to what the hon. gentleman was bound to; they knew that we had not stripped ourselves of every weapon of negotiation as he had done; and they naturally would take that into account in framing a treaty. Now, I have only argued that, and why does the minister continuously misrepresent me? I have never argued that, situated as he was by reason of his past commitments, he could have got as good a treaty as he could have secured otherwise. The minister says it is true we are worse off than we were. He says: It is true that Canada is not in anything like as good and as satisfactory a position as she w'as before in this matter; but I am not to blame. That is precisely what I dispute in his case. I say that he had no need to sacrifice the interests of Canada and to accept a treaty in any respect worse than the one we had before, had he not been in the situation in which he placed himself, which situation he must have known was economically unsound, and which indeed he has himself declared in the House he does not believe to be a sound one. That is the reason he could not secure a renewal of the old treaty; the simple fact is that Canada was not as strong in the negotiation as was France. Must it always be that we are to get the worst of negotiations? Are we always to take the worst position whenever we make a treaty?


Mr. FORKE:: I want to get this matter straight. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) continually refers to the fact that the Minister of Finance did not arm himself with a weapon. What is the weapon to which he has reference?


Arthur Meighen: I shall come to that in a moment, but I have stated it three of four times.


Robert Forke: You hinted at it.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend opposite, I contend, should have been in an untrammelled position in negotiating with France.


Robert Forke: What do you mean?


Arthur Meighen: He should have been in a position to put a tariff on the goods that France sends into this country. What in the world is the harm to the country in a high tariff on silks and brandies?


William Stevens Fielding: Or anything?


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend did not think it harmful to put the tariff on sugar, and some other things of that nature, but
French Treaty

he seems desperately averse now to having any high rates on brandies and champagnes and silks.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman
is complaining of brandy; I am not.


Arthur Meighen: I am not complaining
about the duty being up. What does the hon. minister mean by that?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not referred to brandy, and my hon. friend has; that is the difference.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman says he is against putting the duty up'on it. If he had not been tied by commitments, he would have been known to be in that position by the French negotiators. Had he not been tied by commitments, at the first session of parliament-for parliament alone could act- he would have armed himself and put himself in a position which would have lent additional strength to his side of the negotiations. 1 do not want the minister to be continually saying that I am telling the country that he could have got the old treaty; he could not have got it. Because the French negotiators knew his history; they knew his cards, they knew that he had stripped himself of every power under it before he left these shores, and that what he had not done his party had done for him. That is why he could nor, get it. I have no doubt these duties are lower than the general tariff, but we are worse off than we were. Had we had no party or political commitments we might have been at least in as good a postion as we were, if not in a better one, because France had more to lose by the loss of Canadian trade than we_ had to lose by the loss of French trade. The minister follows that argument just as clearly as I do; there is no clearer mind in the House. But I ask him not to misrepresent my position. I know it was a case of taking this treaty or taking the general tariff-I presume it was; I accept his word in that respect. But that that was the case was the fault of the minister himself.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Is it not a fact
that before my right hon. friend's administration went out of power the French consul at Montreal had repeatedly asked them to make a new treaty?1


Arthur Meighen: I do not know, but I have assumed it to be correct. If I had been a French statesman and knew the government in power here I should have done the same thing.	>


Joseph Archambault: The right hon.
gentleman should know.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose so. But how does that conflict with my position? I know we were under obligations to treat; I admit freely that France called upon us to fulfil those obligations. But is that a reason why an otherwise strong position should' be imperilled by the minister's own record and the record of his party? We had to make the negotiations, but the fact that we could not succeed in them and had to take a far worse position than we were in before-


Joseph Archambault: What was the
reason?


Arthur Meighen: The reason was simply that France knew we dare not raise the duties on her products because of the minister's commitments.


Joseph Archambault: There were no minister's commitments at that time.


Arthur Meighen: There was no Liberal convention? There was no resolution two years ago?


Joseph Archambault: My right hon.
friend was in power at the time. France was not treating with the Liberal party then.


Arthur Meighen: When?


Joseph Archambault: France was treating with the late administration.


Arthur Meighen: She was. not treating
with us when this treaty was made; if she had been, there would not have been this treaty. We were not tied up by commitments of that sort; we would have stood on an equal footing with the French negotiators.


William Stevens Fielding: Why did you not raise your tariff, then?


Arthur Meighen: We did make a tariff, and I wish it was the tariff still.


Joseph Archambault: My right hon.
friend is trying to get away from the point.


Arthur Meighen: I admit that we had tc negotiate-


Joseph Archambault: Then why did you
not negotiate?


Arthur Meighen: Because we were out of office.


Joseph Archambault: Why did you not negotiate before you went out of office?

French Treaty


Arthur Meighen: How could we negotiate between the summer of 1921 and the 6th of December?


Joseph Archambault: What did you
negotiate in 1921?


Arthur Meighen: We got an interim treaty. What more could we do?


Joseph Archambault: Is it not a fact that after the interim treaty was passed the French consul repeatedly asked the late administration to make a new treaty?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know whether he did it repeatedly or not. I am informed that there was a request for the negotiation after the interim treaty had been passed.


Joseph Archambault: Why did you not raise the tariff, then?


Arthur Meighen: For one thing, I was at the Imperial conference. Then, there was an election campaign. The hon. gentleman would hardly suggest that we should, with an election pending, go to France to negotiate a treaty. If we had done so, I know what would have been said; I know how eloquent the hon. member would have been, and how justly eloquent, in denouncing us for taking that responsibility.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question respecting an item in the treaty under the head of cobalt products. I asked the question before. What are the present rates of duty into France upon oxides of cobalt, hydrated salts of cobalt and other salts of cobalt, and what were the old rates? The book of particulars that the minister gave us does not include that article.


William Stevens Fielding: I could not at the moment give the hon. gentleman the rates. I I will endeavour before the third reading of the bill comes on to answer his question.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister remembers, that was specially requested in the speech made by the hon. member for Lincoln 4Mr. Chaplin) a week ago.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not recall it. Another hon. member asked me for some information on that subject, which I gave him, and I rather thought the point was covered.


James Dew Chaplin: In his address of yesterday the Minister of Marine (Mr. Lapointe) made reference to item 404, which I had dealt with in my address. I had pointed out that the exports of that item amounted to some $75,000 and that none had been sent to France. The minister says:
Well, I wish my hon. friend would consult with his friends the manufacturers of agricultural implements. They will tell him that reapers and binders are exported to France and that the cotton that is used for the wings goes there in a knocked-down state and is adjusted in France.
If we are shipping this article under the head of tissues of cotton, where is it in the export returns? I cannot find any indication that one dollar's worth went to France. Is it the case that agricultural implements exported as a whole are virtually taken to pieces when they get on the other side and each article separated so as to make possible the application to it of the French tariff? That does not seem reasonable. The minister could not have meant that; what he must have had in mind was that some of these parts subsequently went over as spare parts and for the purposes of customs taxation were - charged separately. But, even if that was the case, where do they appear in the customs or the trade returns? I have been unable to find them.


William Stevens Fielding: We will endeavour to find out, to please my hon. friend, though I do not quite see the importance of the question.


James Dew Chaplin: The importance of it is this: When a minister makes a statement of that kind he should be in a position to verify it. I made a certain statement based upon the official returns, and I made it in good faith. I would like the minister to say where he gets his information. It certainly cannot be taken from the returns.


William Stevens Fielding: My point is this:
Whether it is in the returns or not has no bearing on the question whether it should be included in the list of things that could be exported to France.


James Dew Chaplin: I agree with that statement, especially when these articles are parts of a machine that are required for repairs. The minister may be glad that he has been able to get even that concession. But I would like to know from the Minister of Marine just what he meant by the statement he made.


Ernest Lapointe: I have received the information from agents of manufacturing companies, who state that these pieces of cotton go through, as I said yesterday, to be adjusted on the wings of binders and reapers. That means that very little went from Canada, because the duty was prohibitive-1,240 francs per 100 kilograms. Most of it was going from the United States, and it was desired
French Treaty

that the Canadian manufacturers should be put on the same footing as those of the United States.


James Dew Chaplin: Yes, but the minister
must realize that while that is absolutely true, and I do not wonder that the manufacturers want such a concession, the thing must be very small when you cannot find it in the return. My objection to this treaty amounts to this. I have been an exporter of goods-I have tried to keep my own goods out of this discussion altogether, but I have exported goods for forty years to all the countries of Europe except the southern ones -and during all that time, during all the time of the previous treaty as well, owing to this high minimum tariff of France I have never been able to export a dollar's worth of goods to France during that whole forty years. It is not because I have not tried. I have tried to do it. My objection to this treaty is that the minimum tariff of France is an adequate protective tariff that prohibits goods from going in.


William Stevens Fielding: Will my hon. friend
suffer any harm by having these items put on the list of possible exports for the future? What harm comes to him or any other citizen if we are not exporting them?


James Dew Chaplin: No objection except this. One likes to see something on the list that is going to be of some benefit during his lifetime, and not to have to wait for years. You should consider the people in business now as well as those to be in business ten years from now.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, and we are not forgetting the people in business to-day, but we are also thinking of those coming in the not distant future.


James Dew Chaplin: I have tried to be perfectly fair in my criticism. I have said more than once during my address that there may be some things that can now be exported to France. There is nothing in my line so far as I can see. We may be able to export to France; we will try and see what we can do. If the minister will get me the information regarding the present rates of duty on the cobalt items and at the same time include those for nickel I shall be very much obliged.


William Stevens Fielding: I shall be very happy to
give the hon. member the information later. I am anxious to give every reasonable information that is asked. We have everything to gain by giving the fullest information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if we can get the information now as to the effect of this on the other nations clearly, truthfully. So that no one is going to say that I am making a mistake of ninety per cent or any other per cent, I am going back to the trade figures of 1922. I am going to put the figures as I have them before my friend, the whole of them-the few items that I referred to the other day. Perhaps it will not be necessary to go over all of them. I am going to take first the item of silk and silk manufactures. The expert of the department is here and I am sure he had to have these figures before him before he ever advised the Minister of Finance, and I have no doubt he has the figures absolutely at hand. The first figure I give my hon. friend is the sales of France to Canada. Under that item for the year 1922 the sales amounted to $1,006,141. I ask if that is correct.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend is reading from any official return I take it for granted the figures are correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am sorry to
say that all I have got is a copy of the figures. I believe it to be right, but I cannot say that.


William Stevens Fielding: If they are drawn from
any official return I take it for granted they are correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is merely
copied from them. I did not do the typewriting, but I am going to get at the real truth, I am not going to have it said afterwards that I misrepresented facts to this House to the extent of ninety per cent; I am going through these facts, and I think I am entitled to get the information. A charge has been made and I propose to go into these figures and ask the gentlemen that know about this thing if the figure of imports into this country of silk and the manufactures of silk from France for the year 1922 is correctly stated at $1,006,141.


William Stevens Fielding: If it is so stated in any official document, yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we can get on and get the facts? The expert is here. Surely to goodness my friend knew what he was dealing with. Surely to goodness they were old things to him. They must be familiar to him. The only time we can get the facts so that we are not going to have that kind of vague charge made again of insincerity and untruthfulness is here and now. Now I want to know whether that figure is right or not.

French Treaty


William Stevens Fielding: I thought I had made it clear. If the information the hon. gentleman has is drawn from any official document submitted to this House I have no doubt that it is correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we are entitled to more than that.


William Stevens Fielding: No, you are not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My friend says, no. Surely I am entitled to know on what information he proceeds in connection with this item. Surely I am entitled to know what he has before him. These figures I think are correct. I think they are; they have been attacked. I think I am entitled at least to get the figures as my hon. friend understands them.


William Stevens Fielding: I understand them as they appear in the official returns.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I would ask mj' hon. friend what they are.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not carry them in my head.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That may be so. Will my hon. friend say his expert has not got them?


William Stevens Fielding: I will ask him for them now. If the hon. gentleman desires any additional information I will get it for him i_i the proper way, but I am not going to crossexamine the expert.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not want him to cross-examine the expert. If my hon. friend wants to take the attitude that we cannot get this information while the bill, is in committee-


William Stevens Fielding: You cannot get it now


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid it will take a long time to get the bill through.


William Stevens Fielding: I have time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon. friend wants to take it that way we will have to wait till we can get the information. Now I am going to give these figures to my hon. friend. During the same year that those exports were made by France, the figures show an export by Japan under the same item of S3,970,706. I want to ask my hon. friend if he takes issue with that item.


William Stevens Fielding: If it is so stated in the document it is correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know what document my hon. friend is referring to.


William Stevens Fielding: The official returns of the trade of Canada. I take it for granted my hon. friend is reading from that. I have no other source of information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What figures did my hon. friend have before him in considering this matter? .


William Stevens Fielding: The documents, the documents.


Henry Lumley Drayton: "The documents, the documents," says my hon. friend. Let us see, now. We have got Japan at $3,970,706. We have Switzerland at $4,093,045 under the same item. Now what does my hon. friend say as to that? Is that correct or not?


William Stevens Fielding: If it is "so nominated in the bond," it is true.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then, perhaps it is fair to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) this, whether his strictures the other day were intended to apply to these figures.


Ernest Lapointe: What figures?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The figures I have just read.


Ernest Lapointe: What I said had no application at all to the trade of Japan or Switzerland as compared with France. I did not refer to that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I want to point out to the committee this, Mr. Chairman, reserving for the future that corroboration I am to get: In the year 1922 the exports of France under this item amounted to $1,006,141 as against $8,063,751 which Japan and Switzerland sent us. I ask my friends if they considered that.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, we have considered the whole business-yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I say that figure, then, was present to their minds when this treaty was arranged; that, having regard to that item of silk and silk manufactures which our total imports, I think my hon. friend will agree with me, amount to as much as $35,000,000 in some years and perhaps average $30,000,000 or $32,000,000, they had before them and considered the fact that the sales of France to Canada were as 1 to 8 as compared with the combined sales of Switzerland and Japan to
French Treaty

Canada. That is what my hon. friend told me. Now I am going to ask him: When he is negotiating a treaty which, in the case. of silks from France on one side and from Switzerland and Japan on the other, involves a ratio of 1 to 8, would he entirely disregard the claims of the silk manufacturers of the province of Quebec?


William Stevens Fielding: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: I congratulate the Minister of Finance. He is always most astute, always very happy, and he is such an old hand at the game that he knows that one of the best things is to belabour the other side when you have not a good answer to make. He does it very well too, very nicely and very pleasantly. I do not object to it at all. I rather think these things show the absolute paucity of anything like good reasons in support of this treaty. Now, let us see what the facts are. My hon. friend says that I do not know anything about-


William Stevens Fielding: No, my hon. friend said he did not know.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are not in the happy position of having a phalanx of experts and clerks working out everything for us. When we want information we have to do everything as best we can ourselves. My work has been challenged by no less a person than the Minister of Marine nad Fisheries.


Ernest Lapointe: Keep within the limits of the challenge.	.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Minister of Finance says that I do not know anything about the most favoured nation treaties. Well, my hon. friend is not really doing himself justice. Why, I actually congratulated my hon. friend on the good work he did, on a former occasion in having the most favoured nation provisions abrogated as regards Germany and I am pointing out how very much

French Treaty
better it would have been if he had done the same thing in the case of other countries before he entered into this treaty. The minister no doubt realizes that he is in charge of this treaty and that we have some right to be given information as to the principles on which these items have been treated. He tells me that I cannot possibly understand this treaty because I cannot get it into my head that a low duty on luxuries is a good thing for Canada. I will be frank with my hon. friend; I cannot get it into my head that a low duty on luxuries is a good thing for Canada. My hon. friend says that we have certain reductions. He took this very item relating to silk that we are discussing and he says that these reductions will be a benefit. I do not know that he made use of the word "inestimable" but he said they would be a benefit to the great mass of the people of Canada. I am going to ask my hon. friend if he really seriously thinks that the great mass of the people of Canada are benefited.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not use the words "the great mass of people" as applied to silks. My hon. friend has added these words himself, I did not use them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am very glad to hear it. I only want to get the government's viewpoint. It is a fact from the point of view of the minister that it is nothin the interest of the great mass of the people of Canada that low rates of duty should apply on silks. Am I right in that?


William Stevens Fielding: No my hon. friend is not right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well then we are in this wonderful position in connection with this wonderful treaty that it is in the interest of the great mass of people to reduce the duties.


Robert Forke: I do not think they are very much interested.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is what my hon. friend says. I wonder if the mind of my hon. friend ever goes back to his own platform. I wonder if my hon. friend has ever thought of the platform to which he is pledged. We have heard so much about the scrapping of other platforms that the disease may be communicable. I hope it is not a disease which may be communicated. I have a distinct recollection that in the platform of my hon. friend and his party there was a call for heavy taxes on luxuries.


Robert Forke: The ex-Minister of Finance is enjoying himself this afternoon.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am going to ask my hon. friend if he considers silk a luxury.


Robert Forke: Silk stockings.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend think they are luxuries? He thinks they are luxuries? Well, then we have it in the first instance that it is not good for the people of Canada to reduce these items.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does my hon. friend say?


William Stevens Fielding: All I ask my hon. friend, when he is attributing statements to me is, that he shall not credit me with words that I never uttered.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I certainly do not want to do that. What did my hon. friend say?


William Stevens Fielding: I think a duty like 271 per cent, less 10 per cent discount, is not a low rate of duty. I do not think the mass of the people of Canada will consider it is a low rate of duty. Many of them will consider it is a pretty stiff rate of duty.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That was not the question. The question was whether it was a good thing to reduce the taxation on luxuries in the interest of the masses-I will not say the great masses.


William Stevens Fielding: Reductions of duties generally are in the interests of the masses.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the minister apply that to silks?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think the duty on silks has been reduced to a very low figure. On nine-tenths of the imports of silk into Canada to-day the duty will still be 271 per cent, subject to ten per cent discount. That is not a low rate of duty. It is a luxury duty.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend think he should leave the duties on the necessaries of life higher than the duties on luxuries?


William Stevens Fielding: In some cases they might be. There might be instances.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the minister will admit that, even before the duties were reduced, the duty on silk was lower than
the duty on woollens?
French Treaty


William Stevens Fielding: In same cases, yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And so a further reduction is made in the duty on silk. Will the minister tell me whether silk is manufactured at the present time in the province of Quebec? I am told that it is.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: By a company at-


William Stevens Fielding: I do not remember where, but silk is manufactured in Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the minister more interested in getting silk from Japan than he is in having it manufactured in Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is an even break, or what? Does he expect silk to be manufactured in Quebec with this treaty in force?


William Stevens Fielding: I think it will be, yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What particular item in silks is it to which the fixed duty applies, and what are the other items?


William Stevens Fielding: They are set forth in the treaty. I can only answer in the words of-the document itself. It is item 581 of the treaty.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not any analysis, of course.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not, either.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But the Minister of Marine must have an analysis.


Ernest Lapointe: It is item 581.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the minister give me an analysis of the amounts which apply to the different rates.


Ernest Lapointe: I was informed that ninety per cent of the silks imported into Canada come under the duty of 27J per cent intermediate tariff, and that only 10 per cent come under that reduction to twenty per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister give me the figures? I have the items. I suppose he had something before him when he made that statement or he would not have made it. The item is to be found at page 27 of the treaty.


Ernest Lapointe: Schedules D and E.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it not in D, at
page 27 of the treaty?


Ernest Lapointe: Schedule D gives the fixed rate of 20 per cent on a certain part of item 581, and in schedule E the balance of the item 581 is mentioned, and comes under the intermediate tariff.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can you give me the particulars of the export?


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who told my hon. friend there was only 10 per cent in one and 90 per cent in the other?


Ernest Lapointe: A gentleman called an expert.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who was he? I got my information from a governmental source, believing it to be true.


Ernest Lapointe: I think my information is correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who gave
my hon. friend that information? I think I am entitled to an answer. He says my statement is 90 per cent wrong.


Ernest Lapointe: Do you challenge that?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I only want the authority. That is all I am interested in.


Ernest Lapointe: This is information I have received from government officials.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the hon. member give me the figures?
Mr. LAPOINTE. I cannot give more than I have.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It stands in this way-


Ernest Lapointe: I may say also to my hon. friend that there is no division in the present report as to the various forms of silk coming under the tariff, but this is the information the officers gathered, and they estimated that about 90 per cent would come under schedule E, and 10 per cent under schedule D.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the minister see where he has put himself?


Ernest Lapointe: I have pretty fair vision wherever I happen to be.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does he see that he has now admitted that it was impossible for me to deal with that item in any other way than the way in which I dealt with it?


Ernest Lapointe: No, I certainly do not. My hon. friend made a statement that the silk imported into Canada would be imported

French Treaty
at a duty of 20 per cent, and he had in his hand a document showing that part of the silk would come in under a duty of 10 per cent, and the balance would come in under a duty of 274 per cent. I admit that my hon friend had not in this document the proportion that would come under schedule D, and the proportion that would come under schedule E, but Be had enough to know that there were two divisions or portions, one coming under schedule D and another under schedule E, and he made a statement implying that all the silk would come under schedule D.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the hon. member correct when he says this item is not divided in any of the government returns?


Ernest Lapointe: That is what I am told so far, because they had no division in the duty.	[DOT]


Henry Lumley Drayton: It has not been divided.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What basis did the minister use to get at these figures of 90 per cent and 10 per cent?


Ernest Lapointe: The basis of men who were supposed to know, who know the imports 'coming to Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And further deponent saith not. Is that the attitude? The minister will not give me any information further than that somebody told him?


Ernest Lapointe: The information has
been acquired in that way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is one thing I will not be ashamed to do every time, and that is to give the source of my information, I will not say somebody told me, I will say who told me.


Ernest Lapointe: I will say officers of the government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not telling me what department?


William Stevens Fielding: What difference does it mah:e?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to get the truth.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend wants further information in detail as to this matter, he will be good enough to frame his question and, so far as the information is in the power of any department of the government, he will get it but one can ask fifty questions on an occasion like this which nobody can answer offhand.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will frame the question immediately. In connection with the statement made by the Minister of Finance that 10 per cent of the figures given the other day were correct and 90 per cent were wrong, I want to know the basis on which that calculation was arrived at, supported by the amounts of the different exports into Canada coming under that head? I only want the facts.	.


Ernest Lapointe: Does the hon. member admit he was wrong when he stated that silks imported into Canada would come in at a reduced duty of 20 per cent?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I said they would come in at a reduced duty in any event. I was not caring whether it was 20 per cent or 274 per cent, but I was addressing myself to this fact; that while my hon. friend is talking about meeting France and what he is doing for her, pretending to help France, he is helping Japan and Switzerland under that item just in the proportion of eight to one.


Ernest Lapointe: That is another question altogether.


James Dew Chaplin: In my address the other day I asked for some information in regard to two articles; one was item 469 in schedule B. Under that head you will notice in the book of particulars that there are no figures at the end of the two last items, but a note of interrogation. I ask to have these figures filled in. In schedule B, under No. 533, sex, there is another item with two more notes of interrogation on the last two columns. I should like to have those filled in.


William Stevens Fielding: If there are any omissions of that kind, I will promise my hon. friend that before the third reading, we shall examine his speech and endeavour to bring before the House the information if it is available.


James Dew Chaplin: Another thing which I should like to call the attention of the minister to-and I have already done so in my address-is the necessity for improving the books of information, especially the trade returns. I called the minister's attention to some things in the index, and I complimented his deputy on the way in which his index was written, because it was a great improvement on the index of the Customs department. But I should like to point out that there are items that do not get into the customs returns. I have had three or four members of the House, particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the Min-
French Treaty

ister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) attack me upon the question of the mistake that was made with reference to bronze powder. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) also said, "Why, for years, these people have been exporting this article." I have looked through the customs returns; I have looked through the returns which the Minister of Trade and Commerce laid on the Table only the other day and which were signed by him, and I cannot find that item of bronze powder. If an article is being exported to any considerable extent, it should get into the returns, and the minister should tell us under what item or where that article appears, because it does not appear in the returns. Somebody in the department should be able to tell us where that item has been lost, because it would be interesting to get that information.
There is just one more thing to which I should like to call the minister's attention. I have looked through the returns of this year to get an idea of the exportation of grapes, but they must be mixed up with some other fruit and very likely are. Where the amount of export of an article gets beyond a certain figure, say $10,000 or $20,000, it should be put in an item by itself, so that we might be able to get some reasonable information in regard to it.


William Stevens Fielding: The point of the discussion at that time was whether or not it was worth while mentioning bronze powder in the list of articles that might possibly be exported. The question of whether it appeared in the customs returns or not did not touch the point at all, and it is not worth while spending much time on that. I have no doubt that the trade and commerce returns are the fruit of long years of experience by capable officers; but there is always room for improvement, and if there is any defect in the forms used in making up the returns, I am sure, as a minister, I am glad to have my attention drawn to the matter by my hon. friend. All these matters will be brought to the notice of the proper department and, as far as possible, the returns will be made complete. The point of importance, however, was not whether articles were in the returns or not, but whether they should be put on the list of articles that might be exported to France. As regards bronze powder, the hon. member argued that it was waste of time ot put it on the list. He was wrong in that.


James Dew Chaplin: I admit that I was wrong as regards that, but in regard to many hun-

dreds of other articles, no reply has been made.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member's argument was that articles that did not appear in the returns had no business to be in our treaty. Who cares whether an article is mentioned in the returns or not; if it is an article which is being made in Canada, did we not act wisely in putting it in the list of possible exports? My hon. friend is right in his suggestion as to the accuracy of the returns; I am glad to have his suggestion, and I will have it brought to the attention of the proper officers.


James Dew Chaplin: I did not refer only to one item. The hon. member was able to find I was mistaken as regards one item, not amongst two or three, but amongst several hundred that*I mentioned. What about such an item as borax or cyanide of potassium? They have been on our import list for years, and yet those are listed as articles that we can export to France. There is no use in my going through the same thing again, and I do not propose to take up the time of the committee in making another address. I do not, however, want the minister to say that because I have been corrected on one thing, there are not dozens and dozens of articles that have never been made in Canada and possibly never will be.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member may be wrong in that also. He does not know so much about the matter as he thought he did. He makes a mistake like the rest of us. But what harm can come to him or anybody else by putting those on the list of things we can export to France, if they are made in Canada? Will he tell me that?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend knows very well the use that was made of that slip, not of my hon. friend, but in the customs returns. It was made use of for the purpose of showing that the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) did not know what he was talking about. That one little slip was magnified to such an extent that it was made to cover dozens and dozens of cases in which apparently he was perfectly correct. My hon. friend knows the argument on the matter, and there is no good in going into it any further. I think he appreciates just as well as I do that that is not a very good way of fairly meeting an argument.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it is.


Henry Lumley Drayton: To pick out one little thing in which an error has been made?

French Treaty
If that is true, if everything done by my hon. friend was to turn upon his errors, how did he introduce this treaty? What understanding did he have of the question of border countries and the like? He was absolutely wrong. But because he was absolutely wrong in connection with something about which he should know a great deal more than the hon. member for Lincoln knows about bronze powder, I would not say for one moment that my hon. friend is wrong in everything. He is not. My hon. friend appreciates just as well as I do that his type of argument was very unfair.
I was dealing with these imports into Canada from countries that get the same benefit as France does out of this arrangement. I am going to ask whether item 575, braids, cords, fringes and tassels, has been reduced from 354 per cent to a fixed rate of 274 per cent. Is that correct?


William Stevens Fielding: I could not answer the hon. gentleman at the moment. I will apply the same answer as I did a moment ago. As regards any of these questions which I cannot answer at the moment, I will undertake to see that the information, if it is within our power, will be given later.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I assume it will be given when this matter is still in committee, because after it is out of committee, the information will be of no value.


William Stevens Fielding: From 324 per cent to
271 per cent intermediate, I am informed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like
that checked. Is the expert quite sure that the rate of 274 per cent is not a fixed one?


William Stevens Fielding: We think not, but we will look into it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us look at the particulars. I think the expert is wrong. At page 27 he will find item 575.


William Stevens Fielding: The rate is 324 per
cent, and the reduced rate 274 Per cent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it not a fixed rate?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, it is in schedule D.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that the fixed rate is 274 per cent. The information I have as to imports into Canada under that head shows that France sold us, under the item of braids, cords and fringes, which are covered with other things, $47,847 worth of
145	.
goods while Switzerland sold us $112,407 worth. Is any objection taken to that statement?


William Stevens Fielding: If it is in the returns it is correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to check my figures where he takes exception to them.


Ernest Lapointe: Why should I? You must know whether they are right or not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, they come from the government.


Ernest Lapointe: They are your own
figures; they were quoted in your speech.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, they come from the government returns and have been carefully scrutinized by the ministers. I want to know whether the statement I have just submitted is correct.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no doubt the figures are correct if the hon. gentleman is quoting them from the returns.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are in this position; sometimes when we quote from the returns we are told we are absolutely wrong, and at other times we are told that the ministers do not know anything about the matter, but that if the figures are in the returns they are right. It is therefore somewhat difficult to know when the figures are right and when they are wrong. We were told, for example, that we were wrgng about bronze powders because we relied upon the returns; now, on the other hand, we are told to look at the returns. I wonder if we can take this for granted, that, except for the challenge to the figures submitted in the case of bronze powders and the rates of duty on silks, everything else we have quoted is correct?


William Stevens Fielding: Such figures as are quoted from the official returns are correct. Any comments made upon them in the course of argument may or may not be correct. Concerning them this deponent saith not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister said that the member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) was wrong when he quoted from the returns in regard to bronze powders.


William Stevens Fielding: No, he did not rely on the returns in that case.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister bear with me a moment?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.

French Treaty


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
will remember that the returns showed imports into Canada of 846,000 worth of bronze powders, but no exports. Would he not say that was wrong?


William Stevens Fielding: No, I would not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that my hon. friend thinks the returns are right. Now, then, I want to know whether I am wrong about brushes. Let us take item 653, brushes. Am I right in saying that the intermediate tariff there was 25i per cent?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend has the tariff; no doubt he quotes it correctly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, I have not the tariff.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not dispute his
figures.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then there is no dispute concerning that item. For that year France sold us 842,941 worth of brushes while Japan sold us $114,415. Is there any challenge to these figures?


William Stevens Fielding: If they are from the
returns they are correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I understand that the minister is not challenging the figures in regard to brushes?


William Stevens Fielding: I am not challenging the returns.	.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quoting certain figures. I havp a pretty shrewd idea that they are right, and it was a rather small thing for the Minister of Marine to hang his hat on. However, I propose to go through with it and see if I can find anything else except a quibble.


William Stevens Fielding: "Quibble" is not parliamentary.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I will withdraw it if my hon. friend can furnish a better description.


William Stevens Fielding: I could.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us take next item 651. The intermediate rate there is 30 per cent. Is that right?


William Stevens Fielding: Correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Under this item France sold us $11,332 worth of 5 p.m. goods and Japan $107,761. Is there any question of the rates there?


William Stevens Fielding: If they are given in the returns they are correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But so far as my hon. friend is advised, are they properly given in the returns?


William Stevens Fielding: I know nothing to the contrary.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Very good. Let us take next item 368. The intermediate tariff I think is the old rate of 274 per cent. Is that
correct?


William Stevens Fielding: Correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is ten per cent taken off that, I believe. The sales under this item were, from France, $3,829, and from Switzerland, $75,586. What does my hon. friend say about these figures so far as he is advised? Are they correct?


William Stevens Fielding: I have nothing to the contrary.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then, item 453-


William Stevens Fielding: Suppose we shorten it by agreeing that all, the quotations from the returns are correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the minister says that all the things I have said here are correct, I am quite content to stop. I thought I was seriously challenged the other day.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not want my hon. friend to stop, but I am serious when I say I take it for granted that all these figures,, if quoted from the official returns are correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not like that expression "if quoted from the official returns." The statement was made that a very large preponderance of benefit under this treaty went to Switzerland and Japan instead of to France, and the veracity of that statement has been challenged. So long as it is absolutely clear that that is right, I do not propose to delay the minister. But I want to get it perfectly clear that it is right; if there is any doubt about it, I will go on.


William Stevens Fielding: As you please.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the minister says it is clear that I am right, I stop.


William Stevens Fielding: I think my hon. friend is quite right when he gives us the figures from the official returns; I readily agree that they are correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not want it suggested that there is any doubt about

French Treaty
these figures being from the official returns. There is an "if" each time.


William Stevens Fielding: I will go further and say that when my hon. friend purports to quote from official returns I will assume he is quoting correctly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: All these quotations of quantities of goods are assumed to be from official returns.


William Stevens Fielding: If they are from official returns they are correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: An "if" comes in again.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not wish to imply that my hon. friend is misrepresenting the official returns. If he says he is quoting from the official returns I will assume they are correct.


James Dew Chaplin: I read in one of our agricultural reports a short time ago the suggestion' that Canadian butter manufacturers should reduce to the lowest possible point the amount of salt in their butter in order to suit the European trade. I have communicated with two or three butter factories and I cannot find that any of them have been making anything other than salt butter. I would like to ask the minister if any unsalted butter was shipped out of Canada the last year. There is nothing in the returns to show that there was.


William Stevens Fielding: When I was in Brussels it was represented to me that Belgium was taking orders for fresh butter from Canada. I do not know that any went to France but if it can be sent to Belgium there is a fair chance of its going to France.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister gave us certain economic reasons why, in connection with article II, France is allowed to, give, without extending them to Canada, special privileges to Germany in connection with goods for reparation. But why are Spain and the Netherlands also given a position of superiority to Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: When that matter came up before, I was asked for an explanation of article II in regard to border states and I said that at the moment my impression was that it corresponded to a similar article in the old treaty. Thereupon the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) quoted the language of the old treaty and showed me that in that respect I was incorrect. He was right on that point and I was wrong; I was asked the question while
145^
on my feet and had no opportunity to reflect upon it. The clause that is put in giving some privileges to France to deal with border states is now inserted in all the French treaties. I have one or two eases here. For instance, the Angio-French commercial treaty made in 1922 provided as follows:
Notwithstanding' the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, His Britannic Majesty will not be entitled to claim for raw materials or manufactured articles the produce of the territories of his Britannic Majesty the benefit of any special treatment which his Catholic Majesty has conceded or may concede to the products of Portugal or to those originating in and proceeding from the Spanish zone of Morocco.
In several other treaties the French are now inserting that provision. I admit that it is susceptible of the interpretation that my hon. friend suggests, but I am assured and believe that that is not really its main purpose; it is intended to deal chiefly with the matter of reparations. Belgium, for instance, is a neighbouring country; France may wish in connection with accounts between France and Belgium to bring in Belgian goods; and German goods may have to go into France by way of reparation. This arrangement is also contemplated by the Treaty of Versailles -that in the adjustments of commercial relations regard is to be had to the needs of France in the matter of reparations. I do not think there is any danger to be apprehended in that connection. Our real competitor in France is'the United States, and if we are assured of the most favoured nation treatment as respects that country I think we may reasonably be content. However, on that point my hon. friend was right; the clause is wider than I thought it was, but I am satisfied that it brings no harm.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I quite appreciate the suggestion regarding what is in the Versailles treaty, but we go beyond that. Did France want to go beyond it, or is it an error in drafting?


William Stevens Fielding: It is not an error of drafting; it is based on what we understood to be French policy. I find that article 23 of the Covenant of the League of Nations provides:
Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon, the members of the League-
That includes France, and includes Canada.
-will make provision to secure and maintain freedom of communications and of transit and equitable treatment for the commerce of all members of the league. In this connection, the special necessities of the regions
devastated during the war of 1914-1918 shall be borne in mind.
French Treaty

This is part of the Treaty of Versailles, to which we have agreed. The intention there clearly is to provide for the matter of reparations, and that, I am satisfied, is really what France intended.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend does not quite get my point. I quite agree that France was to have the right of getting in these goods on the account of reparations. My hon. friend was quite right in making that exception; I am not objecting to that at all. Then my hon. friend goes on to say that that is really all France wants-at least I think I was right in so understanding him.


William Stevens Fielding: Possibly that is the way it will be applied-yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is rather hard for me to get anywhere in this discussion unless I take what my hon. friend gives me. Was I right in understanding him to say that that was all France wanted-to look after her right of getting these goods in on reparation account and having perhaps some special arrangement in that regard with Belgium as well as with Germany? Was I right in understanding that?


William Stevens Fielding: Hardly. What I meant to say and what I do say is this. France requires and puts into all her treaties that provision. I could show my hon. friend several treaties with that provision. I understand and believe that the intention of France, although it is possible to give the clause another interpretation, the main purpose of France in requiring that provision is not to get a general trade but to deal with reparations and questions between the neighbouring nations. I believe that is the intention of France, although I admit it is possible to interpret that clause in the way my hon. friend says.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Did France put forward any other claim in the demand she made for this clause except to look after her reparations?


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot recall the discussion in detail. The language is there and I admit it is capable of the interpretation my hon. friend suggests, but I believe that is not the main object and that it will not be so applied.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is unfortunate, if that was not the object, that the wording is as we have it. It was a mistake in draftsmanship, was it not?


William Stevens Fielding: Not necessarily


Henry Lumley Drayton: It may be in for some other reason; I do not know. But does not my hon. friend think it would have been better just to cover what was intended? Take the very question of these small tools that my hon. friend is providing for. He says our real competitor is the United States. Is my hon. friend quite sure of that? Is he quite sure that before the war Belgium was not making a larger amount of many of these tools and exporting them to France? I think my hon. friend will find that is the fact. I do not like to put it forward as a fact because Ii have not the same opportunities of finding out that my hon. friend has, but I know it used to be so at one time. I ask my hon. friend if that is not true to-day.


William Stevens Fielding: It is possible.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, then, would it not have been better to have had this confined just to what the hon. gentleman had before him?


William Stevens Fielding: It is possible, again.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It seems not only possible but obvious. Well, I think we understand that, at any rate. We understand that Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain may be put in a position of advantage over Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not catch the question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The position is that, under this treaty, nations that have nothing whatever to do with reparations may be put by France in a position of advantage over Canada. You have Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands, at any rate, that are adjacent, and you also have Switzerland. Now is it a fact-I am not going to debate it if we have it admitted-that under this treaty those nations are all allowed so far as we are concerned, to get terms more advantageous than Canada gets?


William Stevens Fielding: I admit it is possible, but having regard to the general tenour of the article I am quite sure that is not the intention. I do not know that it adds much to the debate but of course if this treaty seems to be such a horrible thing as hon. gentlemen suggest it can be terminated on six months notice at any time. I cannot imagine any serious trouble likely to arise. If my hon. friend asks me if it is possible-yes, it is.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is possible that these advantages may be given under this treaty. Now I want my friend to contrast

French Treaty
the covenants contained in article III with the covenants contained in articles X and XI and give us something which will occur to him as a real reason why these covenants are not interchangeable covenants, for usually we have interchangeable covenants in agreements.


William Stevens Fielding: Would my hon. friend repeat the question? I am sorry to ask him.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What I would like my friend to do would be to give me the reason why, having particular regard for the moment to article III and articles X and XI which provide certain covenants-contrasting in particular article III, our covenant, with the covenants contained in articles X and XI,-why these covenants are not made reciprocal covenants as is usual in agreements.


William Stevens Fielding: Often covenants are not reciprocal. If my hon. friend will point out any error in either covenant I can more readily discuss it with him.


Henry Lumley Drayton: All right. As we go through it we will see if I understand the matter correctly. I take it that under article III we obtain in France the benefit of the percentages of differences between the general and minimum tariffs and that those percentages are to remain the same. I point out to my hon. friend that the covenant really stops there. There is nothing to provide that there shall be any difference between the general and the minimum tariff. In other words, if everything was lifted up to the general tariff there would be no percentage at all. Or putting a case not so extreme, my hon. friend has a case where he gets a reduction in a tariff where the general tariff, we will say, is 100 and the minimum tariff is 50, and he gets 50 per cent of the difference. He there would get a tariff rate of 75. Now let us assume that the minimum tariff is raised to 90. His percentage of 50 would still remain, but he would pay a rate of 95. Am I right?


William Stevens Fielding: This is a case where we could not get the minimum tariff on all these goods, and so we agreed to have a percentage of reduction. Does my hon. friend think that is unreasonable?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not what I am addressing myself to.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, I do not quite see the point. If he insists that there must be exactly a corresponding clause in the other part of the treaty, I do not see that it is necessary. I do not think it was important
for us to insist that there should be the same difference between the general and minimum tariff. We did not attach importance to it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would not my hon. friend attach importance to the case I gave him, which I think he will agree is perfectly possible under his own contract? Take a general rate of 100 and a minimum rate of 50. We are entitled to 50 per cent of the difference between those rates. The minimum tariff rate is raised to 90. Under the contract rate in each case you would just have this difference, in the one case you would have a duty of 75 per cent, and in the other case a duty of 95 per cent, if I understand my hon. friend's clause. Am I right?


William Stevens Fielding: The words as respects percentage, I am bound to admit, are not ours. They were taken from the treaty of the late government. If article III is read in connection with article IV it will be seen that we are given the assurance-and I am coming back to what was the main object of the treaty-that we shall be granted the same rates that are extended to the United States: It is provided in article IV that:
If France shall at any time grant to the United States of America as regards any of the products mentioned in schedule B to the present convention percentages more favourable than those mentioned in the said schedule, or the benefit of the minimum tariff the same or similar products originating in and coming from Canada shall immediately and unconditionally enjoy the benefit of the said concessions.
I do not think we could ask anything more than that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has not answered my question, I think he knows exactly what I am asking. Is it or is it not permitted under your contract for France in the case of any item-100 we will say, being the general rate, 50 being the minimum rate -to advance the minimum rate to 90?


William Stevens Fielding: Suppose that was done
what great hardship would come? My hon. friend is imagining things. If this treaty proves to .be anything like as dreadful as he pictures we can get rid of it after six months' notice. I cannot imagine these things happening.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has now given absolutely the strongest argument in favour of the treaty which has yet been advanced, namely that it can be got rid of in six months. I again ask the Finance Minister if under this contract with France, where the general tariff is 100 and the minimum tariff is 50 the latter could not be advanced to 90. Cannot France do that?
French Treaty


William Stevens Fielding: The essence of these
clauses is that we get the same treatment as the United States. If France makes any such changes as my hon. friend describes and gives advantages to the United States she must also give them to Canada. That is the essence of the arrangement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What I want to know is whether France can do what I have suggested?


William Stevens Fielding: France might possibly do it but she would have to give the benefit to Canada as well as to the United States.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is not following me. I will use this illustration : Suppose we have a general rate of 1,000 and a minimum rate of 500. Now then we will assume that the minimum rate is increased by 50 per cent which would bring that rate up to 750. Is there anything to prevent France from bringing that minimum up to 750 or even 900?


William Stevens Fielding: It could not be done
while the arrangement with the United States exists. If that arrangement terminates we have the assurance that we shall get the best terms that are going.


Henry Lumley Drayton: France could
do it apart from that arrangement could it not?


William Stevens Fielding: It could.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It could do
that? So that that is the result. W'e would suffer that loss and practically get no advantage at all. I point out to my hon. friend the advantages enjoyed by France under article X and ask my hon. friend why it is that different treatment should be handed out to Canada. In article X it will be observed, France enjoys a discount of 10 per cent in addition to the benefit of the intermediate tariff. France retains any benefit she enjoys under the contract but the benefit which is granted to Canada may be taken from her. Why is that?


William Stevens Fielding: It was something which pleased France and did not hurt us.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It does not
hurt Canada to get terms which are unfavourable to her and are favourable to France? Is that right?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is arguing the matter. I am not bound to agree with his argument.
fSir Henry Drayton.]


Henry Lumley Drayton: If any wrong is done to Canada under this contract I want to understand it. There is an absolute covenant in article X, as I understand it, that the proportionate difference between the intermediate and general tariffs shall at no time be less than it is at present.


William Stevens Fielding: That is correct.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no provision of the like protecting Canada herself.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no like provision.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says there is no like provision. Is there any provision which, although not of a like character, does protect Canada? If so I would like to have it.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid I will have to let my hon. friend proceed with his argument.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The question at issue here is not the argument I am advancing, that is r'f'f what the committee should vote on. They must vote on what the government has to say about its own legislation. This is a government measure. Is there any clause, even if it is not of a like character, which gives any protection to Canada at all? If there is will the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Marine and Fisheries kindly point it out. I do not think there is.


William Stevens Fielding: I have told the hon. gentleman that there is no such covenant. I have told him that the explanation is that the French government attached importance to one thing, we did not attach great importance to it, and in the framing of a treaty you have got to try and please both sides. In this case it was something the French wanted; we did not think it was of any importance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no
clause granting similar protection to us.


William Stevens Fielding: We shall see how the treaty works out. It must be judged by its results.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is a bit lopsided.


William Stevens Fielding: Possibly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my hon. friend quite clear that we shall always get the same treatment as the United States? As I read the treaty if France gives greater concessions to the United States in the future than it is now giving to Canada we shall have to pay for those concessions, and the United States will not.

French Treaty


William Stevens Fielding: We have the guarantee that in the case of the goods mentioned in schedules A and B we will get as good treatment as the United States and that is what we think is the main feature. In A and B we think we have covered practically everything that we are likely to export-hon. gentlemen opposite think we have covered a great deal more-but everything we can reasonably expect to export is covered by A and B. As respects other articles, if later on something new arises and the United States gets some favoured privileges and we think we are entitled to get similar privileges in return for some fair concession the two governments have agreed, they will recognize that obligation and by mutual conference will come to an agreement. If France gives the United States some advantage they must give it to us for a fair return. That is only reasonable.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it reasonable under this contract that we should have to give concessions to France for advantages which are extended to the United States without any obligation on her part? I ask my hon. friend if that is reasonable.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not quite understand my hon. friend's question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let me read the article in question:
If at any time France grants to the United States of America for any products other than those enumerated in schedules A and B to this convention more favourable treatment than is granted to Canada, Canada shaill be entitled to claim the benefit of the same treatment for any identical or similar products originating in and coming from Canada, on condition that France shall be entitled to ask from Canada a reasonable and equivalent concession. France undertakes to give due consideration to any claim thus put forward by Canada and promptly to make known what concession of a similar nature she wishes to receive in return. The governments of the two countries undertake to examine these questions in a friendly spirit and with a mutual desire to arrive at an equitable agreement.
I point out' to my hon. friend that, under that reservation, valuable concessions can be granted to the United States for nothing, and that Canada has a right to get the same concessions, if she is able to make a new arrangement, a new treaty with France in connection with them, at the price of giving concessions of a similar, or some other nature. Perhaps I am wrong in saying of a similar nature. She has to give valuable considerations for further tariff rights or advantages in France which the United States may get for nothing. My hon. friends may think that is right, but I venture to think that it is not right, that in view of the tremendous amount
that is already being given, that we ought, as a matter of course, to get the benefit of any further concessions granted to the United States without giving any further concession. We must remember that we have given this long list. While we have surrendered our autonomy having regard to a great many items which are absolutely fixed, while we give this exact percentage of difference as between the intermediate and the general tariff, the United States has given nothing. Surely my hon. friend does not mean that if the United States, on top of all this, gets something further it is reasonable Canada should pay to get the same thing.


William Stevens Fielding: The observations of my hon. friend may be well founded, perhaps, if he has the knowledge which his remarks would imply. In that case, however, I must compliment him on the fact that he possesses superior knowledge to that which I possess, because he tells us the United States are going to get something for nothing. How he knows the terms and conditions the French government are going to give the United States passes my comprehension; I confess I do not know. This agreement does not make any limitations as to the terms of any agreement between France and the United States. They can make their own arrangement. What is most likely to happen, I think, in view of events that are occurring at the present time, is that the present arrangement with the United States will not last long, and I have not any fear that they will get any terms or conditions not extended to Canada. This is not an agreement to determine what the United States and France will do, and the only relation of the United States is this: that if she is our chief competitor, and we take care that whatever France gives the United States in the matter of concessions she must give to us, I do not see anything wrong in that. I think it is reasonable, we have covered in A, and B, everything Canada wants to send to France. If it turns out there is something else, and France makes some arrangement with the United States, then she must give us the same terms, if it is something new. If the United States gets something new, what is unfair in saying that the representatives of France and the representatives of Canada may sit down and deal with it? France may say to us: "Well, we are giving this to the United States, and we will give it to you if you give us some concession in return". What is wrong in that? Nothing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon friend did not get me. What I was pointing out
227S
French Treaty

was that we pay the price for what we are getting. The United States to-day has not paid the price for what she has got.


William Stevens Fielding: The United States did not get that in our day; they got it while other gentlemen were managing public affairs, and we have no responsibility for it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the hon. minister thinks he assisted the United States in getting the contracts. I suppose he thinks we have something to do with the United States' people getting the contracts.


William Stevens Fielding: No I do not think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then, why did the minister make the remark?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is introducing the United States in the matter; we are not doing so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is really missing the point in this matter altogether. My hon. friends go over there and they find an existing condition of affairs. I am not dragging in the United States, this contract drags it in and my hon. friend drags it in. They say they want as good a deal as the United States. Very good. I point out to my hon. friend-and if I am wrong I want to be corrected, because I am only trying to get the truth in connection with this matter-that considerable trouble has been given by Canada in connection with this treaty. My hon. friend has said that this treaty puts Canada in the position of the United States, her chief competitor. These words were used by my hon. friend more than once during this debate. I point out to him that the United States paid nothing whatever for any of these things. If I am wrong I want to be corrected. I think I am right, and I point out that under this very contract that is the state of affairs which my hon. friend recognizes as proper, not only for the present but for the future. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) is a lawyer; I have no doubt he looked after the drafting of the treaty; one would naturally expect that. Well, under this clause which is drawn here, France may give-I do not say must give-so and so. My hon. friend seemed to know an awful lot about what France would do. I do not pretend to know. All I know is about this contract, which is supposed to look after Canada's interest. I point out to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that France may give further advantages to the United States in her market, and she may give them for nothing- there is nothing said one way or the other
fSir Henry Drayton.]
as to the terms of agreement between France and the United States. And I further say that the effect of this agreement is that, although the United States may have got those additional things covered by this contract for nothing, Canada is not to get them for nothing as the United States did, but has to pay a consideration for them. I will ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries whether that is not correct.


Ernest Lapointe: What is wrong with the clause as it is?


William Stevens Fielding: This clause does not
purport to deal with the relations between France and the United States. If I could only get that into my hon. friend's head it would save him a lot of trouble. This is an agreement, whether wise or hot, between France and Canada. France and the United States can do anything they like in commercial matters. The only advantage is that in respect of a wide range of articles, if France is going to give certain concessions to the Uni ted States-and this list covers nearly everything we need-she must give those concessions to Canada and if something new arises, and she gives it to the United States, we can say to her "This is a new commodity. we have a right to it, let us sit down and arrange what we will give for it." I cannot see anything wrong in that. My hon. friends thought we were making an arrangement with the United States but we are not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I never contended that this was a contract binding the United States. I was speaking simply of sections of this treaty, drafted, I suppose, by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe). I am not bringing into this contract anything that is not there now!


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, the hon. gentleman is telling us that under this contract, the United States can do certain things. I say that this contract has nothing to do with the United States.
Sir HENRY I)R A) TON: My hon. friend is quite in error about that. This contract, as regards this particular matter that we are discussing, says that if France gives the United States further concessions, we are to get the same concessions, if we can make an agreement. Am I right in that?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Sir HENRY DRAV  TON@: It says further that we are to give something for those concessions.

French Treaty


William Stevens Fielding: Further concessions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: On both sides.


William Stevens Fielding: No, we are dealing only with the one side.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are we not dealing with France and Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are they not two ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Two sides?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So, this is dealing with concessions on both sides. France makes concessions to the United States. Canada comes along and says: "I want those concessions from you." France says: "Give me so many more concessions," and that is the way the matter would be worked out. What I am poinitng out to the minister is that a treaty has been negotiated by France with both Canada and the United States, that while concessions are granted to the United States for nothing, a consideration is asked from Canada and that if further concessions are made to the United States we can only get equivalent concessions by paying for them. Am I overstating that?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why?


William Stevens Fielding: We will under this treaty enjoy, not many, but some concessions that the United States do not get. Again I must ask my hon. friend to notice this. This is a contract, not between France and the United States, but between France and Canada. Recognizing, whether rightly or wrongly, the fact that the United States is our greatest competitor, surely we want to claim the best terms that are given to the United States. Therefore we put in that list B, which guarantees the best terms given to the United States, a long list of items which hon. members think are too many. We put in schedules A and B practically all articles that Canada is likely to want included, and we may say that if something more arises, we shall make a special arrangement about it. I cannot see anything wrong in that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Except that again the United States gets something for nothing, and we pay. Apparently, however, we are not gaining anything by further discussion as to that. What is the effect in law, or what is the intended effect of article 17?


William Stevens Fielding: A clause of that kind will be found in every commercial treaty between two nations. It is simply guaranteeing between the two nations that they will have the same privileges as regards interior transit and so forth. I do not think there is anything new in it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The sales tax is something that is new since the old commercial treaty was made. What is the view of the government in connection with the sales tax, considering articles 17 and 18?


William Stevens Fielding: Both France and Canada have at present local taxes which, we think, balance one another, and I do not think there is going to be trouble on that score. It means that, practically speaking, there shall be mutual guarantee of equal treatment in these things. If the cost of applying these things seems to be a large matter, that might be a subject of negotiation. I think, however, there will be no trouble in regard to it. Our sales tax on the one hand and the French local tax on the other will balance one another.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend say that the point is covered or that he does not fear trouble?


William Stevens Fielding: I think it is covered.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Under the contract what is my hon. friend's view as to the sales tax on French goods coming into Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: We will treat the goods of France the same as we treat the goods of any other foreign country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that national treatment; is that the way in which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries understood it; or when he was drawing that contract and advising the Minister of Finance in regard to the legal effect of it, is this not what he thought, that he w'as going to give the goods of France the same treatment as the goods of Canada, once he had exacted his lower duties?


Ernest Lapointe: What my hon. friend refers to is the last clause of article 18, which reads:
Subject to the laws now in force in either country France and Canada grant each other national treatment as regards consumption dues or other duties imposed upon the sale of goods.
The sales tax will apply to French goods in this country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thank my hon friend for reading the clause. I was asking what it meant.
French Treaty


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend has done nothing this afternoon but read from the treaty.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have been asking the hon. member what he meant by certain sections. What does this section mean?


Ernest Lapointe: It means what it says. It is very clear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does it mean that France and Canada agree with each other that the products of France in Caanda and the products of Canada in France shall both be subject to like treatment?


Ernest Lapointe: To the laws in force in France and in Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is hardly an answer to my question. Are they both to be subject to like treatment under those laws?


Ernest Lapointe: We cannot adjust the laws in France and Canada so as to be the same on everything.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I really credited my hon. friend with more intelligence.


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot say that of my hon. friend after some of the remarks he has macle.


Henry Lumley Drayton: On the terms of his considered clause, can the extra sales tax charged on imported articles be charged on articles coming from France?


Ernest Lapointe: Surely.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The extra sales tax over the Canadian-can that be done?


Ernest Lapointe: Surely.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Under what section?


Ernest Lapointe: Section 18.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has an opinion been received from the Department of Justice on that question?


Ernest Lapointe: Surely national treatment means that what is charged on Canadian goods shall be charged on French goods. It is so clear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend must know that is not the point. Does he not know-


Ernest Lapointe: I know that is what you are talking about all the time. '


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does he not know there is a difference-


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think you do.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon. friend not know that there is a difference in the rate on imported articles and on domestic articles?


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the clause carry?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, we want to have this matter cleared up; we want to know what stand the government is going to take. In this contract Canada covenants with France to give France certain treatment in her markets, and we want to know whether, over and above the tariff duties reserved by the contract, the government can also charge a rate of sales tax on the imported goods of France, as of other countries, higher than the rate she levies on her own goods. We want to know what stand the government takes in this matter, and I think we are entitled to the information. In view of the covenant of the treaty, does the government concede that this internal tax of ours, the sales tax, is to apply to goods imported from France?


William Stevens Fielding: Read the concluding
words of the article.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But I want the government's position.


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot undertake to explain it more clearly than it is stated in the act; I am not a lawyer. It seems that my hon. friend wishes to continue the discussion and I think we had better call it six o'clock. However, I shall not be able to be here this evening and I ask that the committee report progress.


James Dew Chaplin: Before we rise I will ask the minister to get some information in regard to item 214 in schedule B. This item refers to wheels, tires and wheel centres of iron or steel. I want to know what kind of tires this refers to, whether of steel or rubber?


William Stevens Fielding: I shall get the information.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 108 (from the Senate), for the relief of Violet Gardiner.-Mr. Sheard.

Criminal Code
Bill No. 110 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frederick Fong Young.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).
Bill No. Ill (from the Senate), for the relief of Thomas Percy Eversfield.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 113 (from the Senate), for the relief of Jean Elizabeth Burgess.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 114 (from the Senate), for the relief of Thomas Wesley Scott.-Mr. Chew.
Bill No. 121 (from the Senate), for the relief of Fannie Boyle.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 122 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Forbes.-Mr. Spencer.
Bill No. 123 (from the Senate), for the relief of Julia Tracey Kay.

Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 124 (from the Senate), for the relief of Charles Philip Roy McCabe.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 125 (from the Senate), for the relief of William George Haden.-Mr. Mc-
Master.
Bill No. 126 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gertrude Irene Wood.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 127 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Murray.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton) .
Bill No.	128	(from	the	Senate)	for	the
relief of James McAllister.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 129 (From the Senate), for the relief of David Albert Clayton.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No.	130	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Hugh Russell Fulton.-Mr. Mc-Killop.
Bill No.	131	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Maybelle Elizabeth French.-Sir Henry Drayton.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No.	132	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of John Darton.-Mr. Church.
Bill No.	133	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Minnie Eileen Biggs.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No.	134	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of Thomas Henry Bottomley.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No.	135	(from	the	Senate),	for	the
relief of William Ritchie Dowd.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
HURON AND ERIE MORTGAGE CORPORATION On the motion of Mr. White, amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 34, respecting the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation, were read a first and second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 102, to amend the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Definition of "opium joint" repealed:
Sir LOMER GOUIN:: Clause 1 and clause 2 will have for effect to strike out the criminal code provisions with regard to opium joints as it is considered that this subject is more satisfactorily covered by the provisions of sections 4, 10, 11 and 12 of Bill No. 72, an "Act to prohibit the improper use of opium and other drugs," which passed the House the other day. We have now in the Criminal Code a definition of such houses, and this is to put the definition in line with the act which was passed the other day. Section agreed to.
On section 3-Amendment to penalty clause in respect to advertising, printing, posting or selling intelligence on horse-races:


Mr. TOLMIE:: Would the minister give us an explanation of that?


Lomer Gouin: I have already given an explanation to the House. This prohibits advertisements and the printing and publishing, exhibiting and giving of tips, selections and odds on horse-races. Reading the clause, which is very clear, the House will find that we propose that in the future no one shall be permitted to advertise, print, publish, exhibit, post up, sell or supply, or offer to sell or supply:
(i)	other than on the premises of an association lawfully conducting race meetings in Canada, and during the actual progress of a race meeting thereon, any tips, selections, odds, winning money prices, pari-mutuel payments, or any similar intelligence with respect to or applicable to any horse-race, whether such race be held within or without the Dominion of Canada, and whether at the time of advertising, printing, publishing, exhibiting, posting up or applying such news or information such race has or has not taken place;
The second part of the section reads as follows:
(ii)	any information intended to assist in or intended for use in connection with book-making, pool-selling, betting or wagering upon any fight, game, sport or race, other than a horse-race whether at the time of advertising, printing, publishing, exhibiting, posting up or supplying such news or information, such fight, game, sport or race has or has not taken place.
That is to say that no publicity as to betting, book-making and pool selling on horseraces will be allowed in any other place or at any other time than on the race-track during a race. By the second part of the section this will apply to all cases of betting on games * or races of any kind.

Criminal Code


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I think, perhaps, we should have some little further explanation as to why betting should be permitted during the time of a race on the race-track and made illegal at all other times; as to why a monopoly should be given in the matter of betting on horse-races at the time of a race meeting and should not be extended to other kinds of betting in other places. I do not quite see the principle.


Lomer Gouin: This point was debated and disposed of by the House at a previous sitting. The pari-mutuel system was discussed and the House by a large majority decided that it should be retained. Betting on horse-races was also considered at the same time, and it would seem that the opinion of the House was in favour of its being allowed. The great abuse, as to which we have received complaints, is not the betting on race-tracks but the betting outside, and especially the book-making and the pool-selling not only on races in Canada but on races outside of the Dominion. I am afraid that the prohibition of betting on race-tracks, as it has obtained for years past, would have the result of creating difficulties.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Under this provision is it not impossible for a man to enjoy the practice of betting except on a race-track and during the time of the meeting?


Lomer Gouin: The betting is only allowed on the race-track. It has been so for many years.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does that not give a monopoly of the betting to those who are conducting the horse-races?


Lomer Gouin: Not necessarily.
Anyone can bet on a race-track; everyone is free to do so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In the case of a
baseball game does betting become illegal.


Lomer Gouin: Yes; that is to say the advertising of it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it illegal to bet on a baseball game while the game is in progress?


Lomer Gouin: On a private game you can bet any amount you like. What we want to do is to prohibit the book-making and the pool-selling on any games. In the case of horse-races betting is only allowed on the track during the course of the meeting.


Mr. SHAW:: I think there was an amendment proposed last year if not to this section perhaps to section 236-a section at least allied [DOT] 
to this one, and relating to guessing contests conducted by certain newspapers. I think the minister was asked some time ago if, in view of the decisions which had been recorded in the courts, it was the intention of the government to bring in an amendment.


Lomer Gouin: I will bring it in
immediately after this.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: Shall I report the bill?


Lomer Gouin: No. One minute. I have other amendments to propose. I beg to move that the following section be added to the bill:
Section 294 of the said act is amended by striking out the word "fourteen" in the second line thereof and substituting therefor the word "sixteen".
This amendment was inserted in the government's bill of last year. It was passed by the House but was defeated in the Senate. Section 294 as it stands provides, that the consent of a child under fourteen is no defence in a charge of indecent assault. The effect of the amendment is to change the age of consent from fourteen to sixteen years.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Lomer Gouin: I now beg leave to move that the following section be added to the bill:
Subsection 2 of section 301 of the said act, as enacted by chapter 43 of the statutes of 1920, is amended by striking out the words "of previous chaste character" in the third line thereof.
This also was passed last year by the House but rejected by the Senate. Section 301 as it stands provides that
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for five years who carnally knows any girl of previous chaste character under the age of sixteen and above the age of fourteen.
The effect of the amendment is to strike out the words "of previous chaste character".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Lomer Gouin: I now beg to propose that the following section be' added to the bill:
Section 412 of the said act is amended by inserting the word "badge" after the word "ticket" in the second line thereof and also after the word "ticket" in the third line thereof.
The amendment is asked for by the Toronto Transportation Commission, and appears to be unobjectionable. Section 412 provides that everyone is guilty of an indictable offence ana liable to six months' imprisonment who by means of any false ticket or order, or of any other ticket or order, fraudulently and unlaw-

Criminal Code
fully obtains or attempts to obtain passage on any carriage, tramway or railway, or in any steam or other vessel. The effect of the amendment is to extend these provisions to the fraudulent use of a badge as well as a ticket or order.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Sir LOMER  GOIJIN@: I move that the following section be added to the bill:-
Section 1024A of the said act as enacted by chapter 43 of the statutes of 1920, is amended by inserting after the word "conviction" in the fourth line thereof the words "or acquittal".
This is the case my hon. friend for Calgary (Mr. Shaw) had in mind.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: No.


Lomer Gouin: Clause 1024A was adpoted in 1920, Chapter 43 of 10-11 George V and reads:
Either the attorney general of the province, or any person convicted of an indictable offence, may appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from the judgment of any Court of Appeal setting aside or confirming a conviction for an indictable offence if it conflicts with the judgment of any other Court of Appeal in like case.
I have the following memorandum on the subject:
This amendment is asked for by the Attorney General of Alberta, and appears to me to be unobjectionable. As section 1024A stands at present (1920, chap. 43, sec. 16), it does not? cover the case of a person acquitted in the court below, and the purpose of the amendment is to make it extend to such a case. It appears that in the case of Rex. v. Stubbs, 24 Ca. Cr. Cas. page 303, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta decided that a certain kind of automatic gum vending machine, which paid rewards or premiums of varying amounts upon irregularly occurring times, was not a gambling device under section 228 of the code, whereas it has been held unanimously by the Courts of Appeal of both Ontario and Quebec that the machine in question is a gambling device, and this has also been held by the Court of Appeal of Manitoba. In the case of one MacNeil, subsequent to the Stubbs case, the Appellate Court of Alberta unanimously held that notwithstanding the decision of the Appellate Courts of the other provinces above mentioned they were not prepared to overrule their decision in the Stubbs case. The result is that the law of Alberta on this subject is not the same as that of the other provinces, and as the purpose of section 1024A was to provide a means of obtaining uniformity of interpretation of the Criminal Code throughout all the provinces, I think the section should be amended as above so as to cover cases like the Stubbs case.
That is to say, that under a special section of the Criminal Code the Appellate Courts of Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba have decided that a certain machine was a gambling machine. The Appellate Court of Alberta has decided the contrary. To make sure what the real meaning of any clause of our Criminal Code is it was provided in 1920 that in such cases where decisions were contradictory, an appeal should be provided to the Supreme Court, so that the citizens of Canada might be sure as to the meaning of any of the sections of our Criminal Code. As the section was drafted, it only applied to conviction on appeal to set aside a conviction, and did not apply to the case of acquittal, so that in case of acquittal the attorney general or any other interested party had not the right to appeal. By adding the words "or acquittal" the whole case will be covered.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Lomer Gouin: I think this was the amendment my hon. friend for Calgary West intended to introduce.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The point I had in mind was in connection with some legislation passed last year. My recollection is that it was an amendment to section 235 or 236 of the code. The legislation introduced dealt with what were commonly known as guessing contests, conducted by newspapers, and based upon the results of football and baseball games and sports of that character. Apparently in most of the western cities, at least, means have been found to get around the provisions of the statutes, and I was simply inquiring from the Minister of Justice as to whether he proposed to amend that section since the act was passed last year.


Lomer Gouin: Does the last part of subsection (f) not cover the case?
(f) Any information intended to assist or intended for use in connection with bookmaking, pool selling, betting upon any track, game, sport or race.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am afraid that would not cover the case. The minister is probably familiar with the legislation. It apparently * originated in the Senate last year. It is a guessing contest depending upon the result of football or baseball games, the newspaper charging a small amount for each guess, and then paying a very large amount, usually dependent upon the number of subscribers, to those who guess most nearly the results of these events. I have not had time to consider this amendment, but I think it only deals with information supplied for a particular purpose and does not deal with the actual contest.


Lomer Gouin: The actual contest is the game. The amendment applies to all games, except horse-races.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems to me there should be a protest against this class of legislation. I for one do not want to do anything that will encourage betting or gambling.
Canada Temperance Act

But I cannot see why certain exceptions ' should be made and others should be penalized for carrying on what is precisely the same kind of thing. There are certain men who bet on a horse race on the tracks, and apparently that is perfectly legal. Other men who seem to want to exercise the same right, whether it is good, bad or indifferent, and to do some betting, are immediately performing an illegal act. This thing was brought to my attention last year in connection with some of these papers that were carrying on guessing contests of this character. I am free to admit that personally I do not like this kind of thing; but these people who are doing this kind of thing are perfectly justified in protesting that if it is right for one group in the community to be allowed the privilege of betting, it is right for other groups in the community to be allowed the same privilege, and there ought not to be discriminatory legislation of this kind.


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

[Stage Direction]
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice)' moved the second reading of Bill No. 43, to amend the Canada Temperance Act.
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: May I be permitted to ask the Minister of Justice if he will consent to allow this bill to stand over to another date? Certain of the British Columbia members on this side of the House, who intend to take part in the discussion and who are opposed to the passage of this bill, are unable to be present to-night. I believe also the minister is going to move an amendment. That amendment I saw this afternoon; but I think these other hon. gentlemen have not seen it. Under the circumstances and as this is rather an important matter, I would ask the minister if he would be good enough to allow the bill to stand until .some time next week when the hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred will be able to be present.


Lomer Gouin: We might have the second reading now, take the bill into Committee of the Whole and then report progress. Will Monday suit the hon. member?


William Garland McQuarrie: Tuesday. It is understood, of course, that the whole matter will be open when the bill comes into committee.


Lomer Gouin: Certainly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Lomer Gouin: I would ask to be allowed to propose an amendment which can remain before the committee for their consideration. I beg to move:
That paragraph (c) of subsection 2 of section 163 be struck out and the following two paragraphs be added as paragraphs, (c) and (d) respectively:
(c)	The importation of intoxicating liquor into a province by any person duly licensed by the government of Canada to carry on the business or trade of a distiller where the intoxicating liquor so imported is imported solely for the purpose of being used for blending with or flavouring the products of the business or trade of a distiller carried on by him in the province and while kept by him in the province is kept in a place or warehouse which conforms in all respects to the requirements of the law governing such places or warehouses and is used solely for blending with or flavouring the products of his said business or trade as a distiller; or
(d)	The importation of intoxicating liquor into a province by a person engaged in and carrying on the business of exporting intoxicating liquor from that province, where the intoxicating liquor so imported is imported solely for the purpose of his export business and while kept by him in the province, is kept in a liquor warehouse which conforms in all respects to the requirements of the law governing such warehouses, and when sold or disposed of by him is actually exported from that province:
Provided, however, that the exceptions contained in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this subsection, or either of them, shall not be applicable to any province in which this section is declared to be in force, unless in the order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council mentioned in subsection five of this section or in any subsequent order in council it is specially requested that the said paragraphs, or either of them, be declared in force.
Progress reported.



RADIOTELEGRAPH ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend The Radiotelegraph Act, chapter forty-three of the statutes of 1913, by providing that the Governor in Council may authorize the payment of a portion of the license fees collected in respect of certain prescribed licenses, to a provincial government, private company, or other prescribed party, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any act, to any department or employee thereof, for services given in connection with the operation of broadcasting stations and for services performed for the minister in connection with the licensing and inspection of stations.
Motion agreed to and House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Ernest Lapointe: Section 10 of the present act gives to the Governor in Council the right
to prescribe the tariff of fees to be paid for

Radiotelegraph Act
licenses and for examination for certificates of proficiency held and issued under the provisions of the act. This amendment relates to radiotelephone broadcasting stations. During the past two years considerable progress has been made in the development of radiotelegraphy, and whereas last year there were issued about ten thousand licenses for receiving stations it is estimated that during the present year the .number will be increased to about fifty thousand. These receiving stations are served by broadcasting stations that are rather expensive to maintain. Last year there were forty broadcasting stations but only twenty-five have renewed their licenses for this year. The cost of a broadcasting station varies from 87,000 to $20,000 and the maintenance cost from $2,000 to $5,000 or $6,000 a year. At present these broadcasting stations are operated either by the vendors of apparatus or by newspapers and big de-. partmental stores for advertising purposes, and also by a provincial government and private companies. In Ottawa there is a broadcasting station operated by Mr. Booth. As I say, the upkeep is rather expensive and this bill proposes to meet the case of Manitoba, among others. In that province there were two broadcasting stations in Winnipeg operated by the Winnipeg Free Press and the Winnipeg Tribune, both of which have closed down. The Manitoba government however now operates a telephone line in the province and it is quite prepared to establish and maintain a first class broadcasting station; but the authorities want to have some remuneration. It is therefore deemed- advisable that part of the license fee should be given to these broadcasting stations which serve the public. After all, they are affording enjoyment to thousands of listeners and it is only fair that they should receive some remuneration for their services. It is also provided that part of the license 9 p.m. fee should be given for the services rendered the minister in connection with the licensing and inspection of stations. It is the intention to have the Manitoba government, or any other corporation with which the department may enter into an arrangement for the purpose, issue licenses on behalf of the department, for which they will be paid part of the license fee as remuneration for their services in collecting the fees for this government. The same thing applies to inspection; if they provide inspectors they will be paid part of the license fee for the purpose. I believe this is the best arrangement that could be made, and it is to that end that the bill is proposed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose we shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter in detail when the bill is brought down?


Ernest Lapointe: As my hon. friend desires; but really there is not much either in the resolution or in the bill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would be of interest to the House to know who are operating broadcasting stations at present. The minister might also tell us what proportion of the fee he proposes to give to the stations. Is the act going to define that?


Ernest Lapointe: No, that will be for the Governor in Council.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The proportion of each fee will be as the minister recommends to council?


Ernest Lapointe: It will be fixed by regulation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will that regulation apply to the general principle in regard to the fees or will the regulation vary according to the users?	.


Ernest Lapointe: As regards the last question, there is no change from the present act. The act provides that the Governor in Council shall prescribe the tariff to be paid for the license, and the only change is to make a part of that fee payable to the broadcasting stations for the services they render. Now, as regards the question of my hon. friend as to the broadcasting stations now in operation; there are none in the Maritime provinces. The stations in the other provinces are situate in the following places:
Province of Quebec-
Canadian Wireless & Electric Co., Quebec.
La Cie de L'Evenement, Quebec.
The Northern Electric Company, Montreal.
University of Montreal, Montreal.
Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of Canada, Montreal.
La Presse Publishing Company, Montreal.
Province of Ontario-
J. R. Booth, Ottawa.
Star Publishing & Printing Co., Toronto.
Simon, Agnew & Company, Toronto.
T. Eaton Co., Ltd., Toronto. ,
Canadian Independent Telephone Co., Toronto.
The Evening Telegram, Toronto.	.
Wentworth Radio Supply Co., Han*ilton.
London Free Press Printing Co., Ltd., London.
The Radio Shop, London.
The Abitibi Power & Paper Co., Iroquois Falls. Province of Manitoba-
Manitoba Telephone System, Winnipeg.
Province of Saskatchewan-
Leader Publishing Company, Ltd., Regina.
Province of Alberta-
W. W. Grant Radio Ltd., Calgary.
The Calgary Herald, Calgary.
The Albertan Publishing Co., Calgary.
The Edmonton Journal Ltd., Edmonton.
22S6
Radiotelegraph Act

The Radio Supply Co., Ltd., Edmonton.
P. W. Shackleton, Olds.
Province of British Columbia-
Western Canada Radio Supply Co. Ltd., Victoria.


Sis HENRY DRAYTON:: I think my hon. friend is wrong when he says there is no change from the present act. It is true thai under order in council the amount of the fes is fixed, but that must be a flat level; no differentiation can be made. In the present case a portion of the fee is to be paid to the broadcasting station. What I want to know is whether that amount will be at the minister's discretion or whether there is to be a regular rule regarding the matter?


Ernest Lapointe: There will be a regular rule. I am of opinion myself that the same proportion of the fee should go for the same services rendered anywhere in Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the minister think that he should help reduce the cost of advertisers by refunds of this kind? I notice from the list he has read that a great many of the people operating these stations are using them really only to advertise their business. Does he propose to help them to carry the cost of that advertising?


Ernest Lapointe: I am sure their intention is to advertise their business. Still, they are giving concerts, lectures and so on, and thus contributing to the enjoyment of the receivers. There may be something in my hon. friend's suggestion, but my present impression is that it would be hard to differentiate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Take the case of broadcasting, which is entirely for the purpose of selling radio instruments and parts. Does the minister intend, in effect, to help to carry the cost of selling this equipment by contributing a part of the license fee?


Ernest Lapointe: These matters will all have to be considered; all we ask is the power of regulation. There may be a difference between a purely philanthropic company organized only for the purpose of giving enjoyment to the thousands of listeners, and a company which broadcasts chiefly for its own benefit.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Complaints come from the receivers with regard to the tremendous misuse of broadcasting, resulting in conflict of currents, and the like. Has the minister considered that question at all?
Mr. LAPOINTE. Yes. The reason for the collection of the fee is to pay for the services of inspectors to prevent that very thing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the regulations in that respect? I have not noticed anything in the statute that would cover it. How does the minister now police broadcasting?


Ernest Lapointe: We have inspectors all over Canada, seven on the permanent staff and twenty-eight on part time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the
regulations which govern broadcasting?


Ernest Lapointe: I have not the regulations here; if my hon. friend desires to have them I can furnish them. I do not see, however, that it is necessary to have them for the purposes of this legislation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the general interest is considered, it is that of the receivers rather than that of the transmitters. I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but I am told that the receiver does not interfere with the currents, so that the receiver is not to blame for all these difficulties. It is the sender, the broadcaster who is responsible for that. Am I not right?


Ernest Lapointe: The trouble my hon. friend refers to arises in connection with the operations of transmitting stations of which there are 1,900 throughout Canada. It is the duty of the inspectors, among other things, to see that these stations do not get off what they call the wave-length and thus interfere with broadcasting. The transmitting stations are different from the broadcasting stations.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But there is conflict even on the part of the main broadcasting station themselves. Upon whom are the fees placed, upon the broadcaster and the transmitter, or upon those who listen?


Ernest Lapointe: The fee payable by the receivers is only one dollar per year. The broadcasting stations have to pay 850 per year. In Great Britain the license fee for the receiving stations is $2.50; and they are proceeding on the same basis as that on which we want to proceed. Of that fee of $2.50, one-half goes to the department and one-half to the broadcasting company. This system has been in operation only since December last. There are over 100,000 licenses for receiving stations in England.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I hope the result will not be the multiplication of broadcasting, because the chief trouble to-day is that there is so much conflict in the waves. Is the service self-supporting?


Ernest Lapointe: Not yet.

i, upyniini /ire


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the country is not making anything out of it, why should any of the fee be given away?


Ernest Lapointe: For the reason that I have stated. For instance, in Manitoba there will not be any broadcasting if we do not adopt this system. It does not pay the broadcasting stations to operate as under present conditions; the two stations in Manitoba have in fact, ceased operation. The Manitoba government is quite ready to give the service, but I think it is only reasonable that they should receive some compensation, and I do not see any better way of doing it than by giving part of the license fee to the provincial government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When the bill comes down I hope my hon. friend will be in a position to tell us how much of the fee has been asked for by the Manitoba authorities, how much revenue he is now getting from his licenses, and what is the cost of the service to the country, with the resulting deficit.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will have all these details when the estimates of the department come up. They really have nothing to do with this proposed legislation-unless my hon. friend wants to prevent my going on with the bill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, no. But this information can appropriately be given in connection with the bill.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 144, to amend The Radiotelegraph Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COPYRIGHT ACT, 1921, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 24, to amend the Copyright Act, 1921, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 5-Commencement of act:
George Newcombe Gordon: Section 5 was to stand the last time this bill was under consideration. Shall the section carry?


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have not
copies of the bill. While we are waiting for the bill I might say that I have received a telegram-I think many telegrams have been received-to this effect:
Sincerely hope you will resist indignantly-
That is something my friend will agree I never do.	.
-the attempt to reinstate legalized piracy in copyright law.
I think perhaps we ought to get some explanation from the minister as to this question of reinstating legalized piracy in the copyright law.


James Alexander Robb: What interpretation does
my hon. friend put upon that telegram?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The interpretation I put upon it is that the minister's bill is going to steal somebody's writing from him. It would appear that the sender of the telegram looks upon the minister as a burglar, not for his own benefit but for somebody else's.


James Alexander Robb: Is this from the printers or
authors? *


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think it is
from an author. It may be from a printer, but I think it is from an author.


Robert James Manion: I had a gentleman call
upon me a short time ago who claimed that under this act Canadian song writers, for example, would be deprived of any remuneration for their songs used on discs for phonographs, for instance. I do not know whether that is the case or not, but that was the statement made to me, and I should like to inquire what the minister thinks about it.


James Alexander Robb: It is exactly the opposite. It is to protect the song writers that we are putting through this legislation.


Robert James Manion: Is there another bill on
copyright going through the House?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I also have received a copy of the telegram that has been referred to, and I happen to know the gentleman whose signature is appended. The minister asked if it was from a printer. The gentleman in question is an author of some standing, a writer of articles, books, and so forth. I was going to make the same inquiry as my hon. friend for West York as to what legalized piracy was going to be perpetrated under this act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-licenses, importations:
George Newcombe Gordon: This section was allowed to stand with the consent of the committee.


James Alexander Robb: The bill as originally presented met with the entire approval of the authors but met with very much opposition from the printers and publishers. The committee will

Copyright Act

remember that when this bill was before the House a few days ago, the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), presented considerable opposition to this section that is now under consideration. I have had a. conference with my hon. friend and have submitted to him an amendment which we hope will meet with the approval of both the authors and the printers and publishers, but I am bound to confess that to-night I am somewhat confused to find that my hon. friends opposite, who I thought were opposed to our bill as originally presented, now seem to indicate that they might be opposed to the amendment I had in mind to present to satisfy those whom my hon. friend for South Wellington represents. I am bound to say on behalf of the government that if the committee is willing, the government would be quite prepared to allow the bill to go through as originally presented, but my hon. friend for South Wellington presented an argument the other evening which almost convinced me that there were others who had some rights, and I was hoping that the amendment would satisfy all interested.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I must say that I have been taking no stand at all on the bill or the proposed amendment. I was simply asking for information, and I have not been given any information yet as to what the minister thinks of this telegram or as to what is going to be done. Perhaps it would be fair to ask the minister just what is being done by this bill. What rights are being created on the one hand, and what rights are being taken away on the other, either from the publishers or authors?


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps my hon. friend for
South Wellington would present his argument again to the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would think the government would have some idea of what they were about. I would think that the minister ought to be able to tell the House what he thinks should be done. He tells us that there was an argument made against the bill the other day by the hon. member for South Wellington, but it does seem to me that the responsible minister in charge of a highly important bill like this should tell the House just exactly whose rights the bill will interfere with on the one hand, and what rights it will create on the other, and generally what the effect of the legislation is.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps my hon. friend was not in the House when the bill was presented a few days ago. Had he been here
[Mr. Robb.)
then he would have known that not onlv the hon. member for South Wellington but the chief whip of the Opposition, the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) presented considerable opposition to this particular clause. My hon. friend will remember that the government of which he was a member put through a Copyright Act in 1921, which was assented to on the 4th of June, 1921, but after having passed both Houses of Parliament the government for reasons which I am not called upon to explain never proclaimed the act although they were in power all the balance of that year. It was contended that the act passed in 1921 failed to comply with the requirements of the Berne convention, and that consequently Canadian authors were deprived of privileges which they might otherwise enjoy. This amendment now presented to the House is to make the bill of 1921 acceptable to the authorities of the Berne convention and to allow Canada to become a member of that convention.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Has the minister been able to find any correspondence with the Berne convention to show that the convention itself objects to those particular clauses of the act of 1921? I might say that I made the statement when the bill was before the House on a former occasion that information had come to me that the only objection that had been made by the Berne convention was an article which appeared in a newspaper published in Switzerland which is supposed to be the official or unofficial organ of the Copyright convention. I stated that my opinion was that the article had been written by a civil servant in Ottawa, and that that was the only objection which the Swiss authorities had so far taken. Since that time the gentleman whom I have named, the member of the Civil Service, has done me the honour of calling upon me and explaining that the article in question which appeared in the newspaper in Switzerland was not actually written by him. He says he supplied the material and the records to the newspaper, but did not actually write the article. I think in justice to this gentleman named I should make that statement to the committee. While I am on my feet permit to say this: I was satisfied when the bill was up before, and I am just as firmly satisfied now that apart from the minister himself there is not a man in the committee at this present moment who understands this legislation


James Alexander Robb: You might include me.


Hugh Guthrie: And the minister himself admits that I may include him. I have tried

Copyright Act
to get to the bottom of this matter; I have spent a lot of time on it and I confess I do not fully understand it now. My suggestion to the minister, when the bill was last up, was that he appoint a small committee, as was done in 1921, before whom the authors, publishers and printers can appear and state their claims. The committee will have to go to the bottom of the matter and report on this bill. I understood that my suggestion on that occasion agreed with the view of the minister. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) backed up the proposal very emphatically. He said that he did not understand it, that the committee did not either, and he refused to commit himself to legislation which he did not understand. I do not know any-[DOT] thing quite as complicated or quite as involved as the coypright question. I do know this, however: In 1921 a special committee was appointed, the various interested parties were heard, and they agreed on the legislation then passed. The bill was passed but it was not proclaimed because under the peculiar situation which exists, as between Dominion laws and Imperial laws, it was necessary, or at all events it was deemed proper, to submit the legislation before proclamation to the Imperial authorities, because they reserved the right to proclaim our act in the London Gazette which is the official communication between Great Britain and the Berne convention. The bill was not proclaimed.
The minister says that intimation has come from the authorities of the British government that the particular provisions mentioned in section 3 are objectionable, that they are not in conformity with either the letter or the spirit of the Imperial act. Well, that is rather an old complaint in regard to copyright by the Imperial government. In 1910 when the late Sydney Fisher was minister he attended an Imperial conference upon this very question. An agreement was then reached between the Imperial authorities and the authorities of the various dominions represented at that conference, and the Imperial act of 1911 was passed which practically recognized the agreement that was then come to. So far as I can understand the Imperial legislation of 1911 and the act passed by this parliament in 1921, I do not see that we have come in conflict in any way with the Imperial act, nor do I believe that we have in any way come in conflict with the Berne convention. The authors and writers in Canada say we have. I do not see in what respect we have come in contact. The publishers and printers in Canada say we have not. They desire to
146}
have the act passed in 1921 put in force. The minister intimated when this bill was last discussed that he would produce a communication the department had received from the British government. I have not had the opportunity of seeing that communication, nor do I know just what the objection of the Imperial government is. It was stated that the copyright convention had made objection. My information is that it has not done so; but objection had been taken at the instance of a certain civil servant who had sent forward the article referred to for publication in Switzerland.
I am now going to renew my request to the minister that he appoint a special committee to consider this bill. I have said all that I can say on that subject. I know there is a great deal more to be learned on the subject than I know; there is a great deal more to be said than I have said. If the government, take the responsibility of passing this bill-they have a majority and can do so-they will only do it over my protest. Again I ask that the minister, who admits he does not know the substance of the Copyright Act or what the effect of the amendment will be, let this bill go to a special committee. He has handed me the draft of an amendment wihch has been prepared since the matter was last before the House. I think it is a decided improvement on the bill which he introduced. I am neither going to consent to it-I have no power to do so-nor am I going to oppose it. But if this bill goes through in the form in which it has been introduced, or in the shape in which the minister wants it, he must take the responsibility. I know the publishers all object to it, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association objeftt to it. and the printing trades throughout Canada object to it. Those in favour of the bill are apparently the authors or writers of the country. Their reason for supporting this legislation is this:	If this bill, or if the
amendment to the act of 1921 passes, it will not be necessary for writers to have their books published in Canada; they can publish them in the United States and avoid publication in this country. Under the law passed in 1921 where an author publishes his work in the United States provision was made for publication in Canada on payment to the author of the exact royalty or fee which he received from the American publisher. If the author would not agree to that then the publisher had the right to go to the Secretary of State, I think it was, or to the commissioner and get a license for the publication of
Copyright Act

that work in Canada on payment to the author of the exact amount which he received for his work in the United States. That arrangement seemed to me to be pretty fair. That is the arrangement, I am informed, which was agreed to in 1921 before the bill was passed.
The United States does not belong to the copyright convention. The United States insists that anybody who gets copyright in that country shall publish there, otherwise you will get no copyright. A Canadian author is therefore in this position: There is a market for his literary work in the shape of 120,000,000 of English speaking people, it is the greatest book-buying population in the world. Naturally the Canadian writer wishes to sell his work and to get copyright in that market. He is bound to have publication there and when he sells the American rights he sells the Canadian rights as well. The American publisher then says "I am not going to publish in Canada, I will publish in the United States," and it has been objected that very often there is no publication in this country. Sometimes it is said that there has not been a supply even of the works of the author in this country. Now, the publishers of Canada ask merely the right to republish in this country on payment to the author of the same amount that he receives from the American publisher. It looks fair to me but the authors do not agree to it. They ask that the bill passed in 1921 be amended in that respect by striking out the four clauses in question. On the other hand the publishers and the printers desire the act passed in 1921 to remain as it is, in order that the book publication and printing be done in this country and, they say, without any loss whatever tQ the author. That is the case as I understand it.
There is this other point: My view is that we should stick to our act passed in 1921. If the Imperial government has objection to make to that act let us know upon what the objection is based, let us understand what the objection is. I am satisfied that we should allow the act of 1921 to stand or to be proclaimed in the form in which it was then enacted. If objection is taken by the Imperial authorities we will know of it at once. The Prime Minister, I believe, is going to the Imperial conference in October next. He would be in a position then to discuss this matter with the Imperial authorities and see what the foundation of this objection is. The Prime Minister himself happens to be one of the authors of this country, and would be a person specially informed and specially 
qualified to discuss the question with the Imperial authorities.
My suggestion to the minister-rand it is only a suggestion-is that he drop his present bill and allow the act passed in 1921, after all parties had agreed to it, to be proclaimed. If the Imperial government objects, and says there is some way we have contravened their jurisdiction, that is a matter for further discussion between the authorities of the Imperial government and the Dominion government. I do not think there is any conflict over the jurisdiction of the Imperial government, or in regard to the rules and regulations of the Berne convention. I think the act passed in 1921 is strictly within our rights. I may be wrong in that, as I do not profess to be any kind of an expert in regard to copyright questions or copyright laws, but I would advise the minister to take one of two courses: either let the bill go to a special committee, and let that committee study the question, or withdraw the bill and let the act of 1921 be proclaimed. It will not take long to have the question settled, because the conference is meeting in October next, and it will probably deal with the matter and settle it. I think it is hopeless to ask the committee of the whole House to consider so intricate and involved a question as this, when I think, on the confession of everybody, including myself, we do not know the real principles at stake. We do not really understand the rules and regulations of the Berne convention or the attitude of the Imperial government, and I think it would be well to have this matter cleared up before the House attempts any further legislation.


James Alexander Robb: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: The position of the minister reminds me of the position that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) found himself in last year. Of course, there is a little difference. The Minister of Agriculture-and I think, perhaps, this was the first time any responsible minister in this House ever did such a thing-introduced and carried through a bill which he characterized as a "rotten" bill. It was awful, as the min-
Copyright Act

ister said; nevertheless he put it through. I do not, however, think any other
10 p.m. responsible minister in a responsible parliament ever before admitted that he did not know anything about a bill, admitted the statement made on the floor of this House by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), who has had to leave, that the minister himself, who was supposed to know something about the bill, knew nothing about it and yet asked this House, that is supposed to act intelligently, to have some knowledge of the subject, more than that, to be able to get a definite statement from the minister as to the effect of his legislation, to put this legislation through. I canot think my hon. friend is serious in his proposition.	.


James Alexander Robb: I have told my hon. friend what the effect is.


Henry Lumley Drayton: All the minister has done in connection with it is to produce a letter that is merely a comment from the British authorities. The minister distinctly told the committee ten minutes or a quarter of an hour ago that he himself did not understand this bill. The hon. member f .*r South Wellington said that he was sure that no one in this House including himself understood it, and if there is now in the House any hon. gentleman who understands this bill, I should like him to stand up and say so. Then the minister himself says that he can be included in that description. Is it not a farce to ask the committee to pass the bill under those circumstances. The responsibility is on the government. There is nothing more that we can say or do.
Amendment agreed to on division.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Mr. ROBB moved that the amendment be concurred in.
Borne hon. MEMBERS: Question.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Marcil):: Mr. Tol-mie has moved the insertion of a new section 18A as follows:
18A. Notwithstanding the provisions in this act or any other act or law pertaining to or relating to live stock or in connection with live stock yards, it is hereby enacted that in every case where in the opinion of a veterinary inspector duly appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Animals' Contagious Diseases Act, a contagious disease or contagious diseases of

Live Stock Acts
animals exist, or are suspected to exist, the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and amendments thereto and the provisions therein shall prevail as against this act or all or any other act or acts relating to or pertaining to live stock or live stock yards as defined herein.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Since yesterday I have looked into this amendment. I have discussed it with the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) and I am prepared to recommend that this proposed provision be tried out, at least for a year.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Richard Motherwell: It has been drawn to my attention by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) that there are one or two omissions in subsection 2 of clause 4. I move that the word "chartered" be inserted before the word "bank" in the third line, and that the words "shall be deposited in an account" be changed to read, "shall be deposited in a shippers' trust account."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
William Richard Motherwell: I should like the permission of the committee to revert to section 13 of the reprinted bill. That is the section providing a penalty for violation of the act, and it was the subject of some reference the other day by the hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr Gould). In order to meet his views, in some measure, at least, I would move that the word "four" in line three be changed to "five," so that the penalty will be $500 instead of $400.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to, bill as amended reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 21, to amend the Trade Mark and Design Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Marcil in the chair.
On section 1-Act amended so that Part II, Industrial Designs, will apply to designs of non-residents, etc.:
James Alexander Robb: The present act allows only residents of Canada to register industrial designs and trade marks. There is no good reason why that distinction should exist. Indeed that was recognized by the previous government and a bill was first brought in in
1920 to remove this distinction. For some reason or other that bill was dropped, but in 1921 another bill was brought in for the same purpose. From the record it appears that in connection with both the bill of 1920 and the bill of 1921 the Canadian manufacturers were consulted and approved of the proposed changes, but in 1921 when the bill was up for its second reading two sections of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association expressed some doubt to the government as to the regulations, and the bill was withdrawn. We are bringing in this bill at this time to make some corrections, believing that it is in the general interests of Canada. It is really along very similar lines to the Copyright Act which we were dealing with to-night, and the Patent Act which we passed a few days ago. If we are going to keep goods out of Canada the right method of doing it is through the custom house, and we now propose to remove the restrictions that exist in the Trade Mark and Design Act and bring that act into line with the Copyright Act and the Patent Act, so that generally all these goods will come under the Berne convention. The advantages of working under that convention are that Canadia'ns taking out patents in other countries will be protected in those countries. It is also of some material advantage, I submit, to the people of our own country that we should not restrict the registry of trade marks and designs to our own people here. It is an advantage to them to be able to register their trade marks and designs abroad. Let me give my hon. friends an illustration of how it might be of material advantage to Canada. Suppose that a co-operative association dealing in butter establishes as their design a clover leaf or maple leaf. Now unless we so amend our legislation as to enable a Canadian to register that trade mark in other countries, after his business has been built up some person might appropriate that design, as happened recently down in Brazil where a very valuable trade mark on fish was appropriated. Those generally are the reasons for presenting these slight amendments to the bill.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose that the American act is free of these words?


James Alexander Robb: Canadians can now register in the United States.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This does not affect our business in the United States at all?


James Alexander Robb: No. It will affect it in Russia, China, and a number of the South American republics.

Trade Mark and Design Act


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was interested in what my hon. friend said. When we were discussing the Patent Act he said that we had an arrangement whereby we kept goods out by the Patent Act while the Americans did it through their high tariff, and he said the same thing in connection with the Copyright Act. I would ask the minister now that these barriers are being taken down, whether he does not think that the customs should be rearranged.


James Alexander Robb: I will go into that with my hon.' friend later.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But we are considering the bill now. The book of annual statistics for the United States shows for the last accounting year a per capita purchasing ratio or figure of $131.66 for Canada and $24 for the United States. Apparently the high tariff in the United States is much more effective than the Canadian low tariff plus these patent and copyrights acts to which my hon. friend has referred. Does he think that abnormality should be removed?


James Alexander Robb: That is another question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are considering now one of the safeguards and I do not know why we should not have a little frankness on the question. Why not? It is desirable, is it not, that we should know exactly what we are doing and I am giving the minister the latest figures and asking him for his view? Surely the point I am urging has something to do with this question.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will observe there is a reciprocal advantage in removing this because of the benefit that our trade marks and designs will enjoy in some other country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Apparently the minister does not want to discuss the business of his own department.


James Alexander Robb: Not at this late hour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I can well understand that desire.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Conditions of registration:
James Alexander Robb: This amendment is necessary under the terms of the International convention and to make this legislation conform to the Patent Act in that regard.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Filing of application already filed in another country.
(Mr. Robb.]
James Alexander Robb: Copies of this bill when printed and of the Patent Act were sent over to the British authorities. We have not advanced the bill furthe. because some days ago we received a cable from them requesting that certain slight amendments be made so thao the bill might very properly conform to the regulations. To meet the British government's requirements I propose to move the following.
That clause 3 of bill No. 21 be amended by adding an "s" to the word "section" in the first line and substituting for the word "is the word "are" in said line and by adding to said clause the following:
50. Any trade mark the proprietor of which is an association the existence of which is not contrary to the law of the country to which such association belongs, even if such association does not possess an industrial or commercial establishment may be registered under this act upon compliance with the requirements thereof and on such particular conditions as may be established by regulations to be made by the minister with the approval of the Governor in Council.
The object is to put co-operative associations on the same basis as incorporated companies or individuals.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Clause 3 as
drafted, it seems to me, simply provides for a retroactive right to the extent of four months. Is that right?


George Newcombe Gordon: That is what it says.


James Alexander Robb: After filing here at home the
applicant would have four months to register in other countries.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The foreigner
after registering in his own market has four months in which to make registration in Canada, and when he registers here his registration is retroactive to the same extent?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: WThy is the four months fixed? Is this in conformity with the Berne convention?


James Alexander Robb: The commissioner tells me
that this is part of the regulations of the convention.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the
Berne convention?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Graham for the adjournment of the House.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What will be the
business for Monday?

Cabinet Appointments


Mr. GRAHAM:: We will begin with the French treaty, followed by the .Immigration Act, and other resolutions and bills, if reached, that may be on the order paper.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is not going to be any Supply on Monday?


George Perry Graham: No Supply.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My reason for asking that question is that there had been a discussion on the subject between the Minister of Finance and myself.


George Perry Graham: If it is considered wise to have Supply we will notify my hon. friend. At the present I do not think we will reach it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Minister of Finance told me he vvould be here. There was a matter I was going to bring up in Supply last Monday, but the minister was not here then and I would not go on with it. He said however, he would be here next Monday. I think, perhaps, we might have a little discussion about it in the interim.


George Perry Graham: We will discuss the matter and let my hon. friend know in the event of our deciding to take up Supply.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
Monday, April 30, 1923.