1925-05-14

PRIVATE BILLS FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 120, from the Senate, respecting The Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Healy.
Bill No. 121, from the Senate, for the relief of Dorothy Strathy.-Mr. Preston.
Bill No. 122, from the Senate, for the relief of Minnie Williams Goldberg.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 123, from the Senate, for the relief of Ruth Dorothy Rutenberg.-Mr. Baxter.
Bill No. 124, from the Senate, for the relief of Charles Arthur Sara.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 125, from the Senate, for the relief of Frederick George Randall Lacey.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 126, from the Senate, for the relief of Mollie Weiner.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 127, from the Senate, for the relief of Norma Evelyn Stevens Hammond.-Mr. Church.

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

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has the government received a full report on the salary revision of the Civil Service?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the government to bring the same into operation this year?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce any legislation providing fixed labour laws for members of the Civil Service at 44 hours per week?

Questions
4.	What action has been taken in connection with the request of the Amalgamated Civil Servants, having reference to, (a) resintatement of eastern postal employees who were dismissed; (b) the right of government employees to petition; (c) dismissal of O. Power, Vancouver, British Columbia?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. The necessary orders in council authorizing salary revision have been passed and action is now proceeding to apply the revision this year.
3.	No.
4.	(a) The Civil Service Act passed in May, 1918, does not make provision for the reinstatement of dismissed employees.
(b)	Employees have never been refused the right to petition, and in fact, are regularly doing so.
(c)	Representations from the Amalgamated Civil Servants were received and, after the consideration, the reasons for Mr. Power's dismissal were given, which apparently satisfied the Amalgamated Civil Servants, as nothing further has been heard from them in regard to this matter.


MR. ALEXANDER McLEAN, VANCOUVER
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Did the Board of Pension Commissioners prefer a charge of perjury against a veteran of the Great War, named Alexander McLean of Vancouver?
2.	Was the said charge tried before Mr. Justice Macdonald, a justice of the Supreme Court, and jury at Vancouver ?
3.	Was the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment advised of the intention to prosecute said Alexander McLean?
4.	At whose request, or upon whose report was the said charge preferred?
5.	Before authorizing prosecution of a veteran of the Great War upon so serious a charge as perjury, did the government, or the Board of Pension Commissioners, exhaust every possible source of information as to the truthfulness of the statements of the said war veteran?
6. What was the finding of the jury, and what was the nature of the charge of the said Justice W. A. Macdonald to the said jury?
7.	Has the government been advised that, as a result of the said trial, Alexander McLean has been honourably acquitted and his name cleared?
8.	Before preferring a criminal charge against the said Alexander McLean, did the officials having the matter in hand, secure from the said Alexander McLean the material evidence in his possession which was later produced at the said trial? If so, why was the said charge laid? If not, why was not every effort made to secure the evidence in fairness to the said Alexander McLean?
9.	In view of the result of the said trial, has the government instituted enquiry to ascertain definitely who, among the officers acting on behalf of the Board of Pension Commissioners and the government, were responsible for the unwarranted blunder, and humiliation and embarrassment of said Alexander McLean? And will the government take necessary steps to punish and discipline all officials shown to be responsible?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	A charge of perjury was laid against an ex-soldier known as Alexander Archibald McLean, of Vancouver.
2.	It is understood that it was so tried but the department is not yet in receipt of any report upon it from the Attorney General of British Columbia or his agents, in whose hands lay the conduct of the trial.
3.	No.
4.	The official file of documents in the case was submitted by the Board of Pension Commissioners to the Department of Justice with a view to prosecution and proceedings were instituted accordingly.
5.	Yes.
6.	7. 8 and 9. Information is not available pending receipt of report referred to in 2.


DISTRIBUTION OF CENSUS
Mr. BROWN:: When will the full report of the census of 1921 be available for distribution?


Hon. Mr. LOW:: Three additional volumes during the present year; the remaining two volumes in 1926. Most of the data which will appear in these volumes have already been issued- in bulletin form.


STAMP TAX COLLECTIONS
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	What amount was collected in the fiscal year last closed under the tax requring stamps to be affixed to cheques, receipts, etc?
2.	Do the returns made enable the government to give the amount collected for stamps required for receipts ?
3.	If not, what is the amount estimated to have been received for stamps on receipts?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	$9,321,890.82.	,
2.	No.
3.	No information available upon which to base an estimate.


REBATE OF DUTY ON CHEESE
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1. What is the aggregate amount of drawback or rebate of duty allowed and paid to importers of cheese used in the manufacture of kraft or loaf cheese exported during the fiscal year 1924-25?
2.	To whom were such rebates paid and what amount was paid to each party receiving such rebate?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Nil.
2.	Answered by No. 1.

Further Leaislation



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE ASCENSION DAY ADJOURNMENT

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (.Prime Minister):: I move, in accordance with the notice given:
That when this House adjourns on Wednesday, the 20th of May, instant, it stand adjourned until Friday, the 22nd instant.


Mr. BAXTER:: What is the intention of the right hon. the Prime Minister with regard to sitting on Monday, May 25? I should like to know if the House will sit on Victoria day, or whether we will have a holiday in honour of the good Queen Victoria. Hon. members will probably want to make arrangements of one kind or another.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government thought it would be meeting the wishes of the House generally if we sat on the 25th May in order to get through the business as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: Has any action been taken in connection with the appeal by the municipalities of Ontario in regard to the export tax under firm contracts?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) :: My recollection is that there has
been no appeal from the government of Ontario. We have had representations made to us on behalf of the Hydro-Electric Commission.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend did not get my question. It was on behalf of the municipalities of Ontario that are interested in hydro-development, in connection with firm contracts by which they are bound. I think my hon. friend recollects the deputation. What, if any, action has been taken?


Thomas Andrew Low: Representations have been
made, and the whole matter is under consideration.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-FURTHER LEGISLATION RAILWAY FREIGHT RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I notice that the Premier of British Columbia has been here for a couple of weeks, I presume in connection with the freight rates question.

Is the government ready with its legislation in regard to the freight rates question, and if so, does it include something to provide for the claims which British Columbia has been advancing for so many years so ineffectually?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): I think that to answer fully my hon. friend's question would be to say that the government is not ready with its legislation.



HOME BANK

Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: When may we expect the Home Bank bill?


James Alexander Robb: We would like to make some progress in getting the budget resolutions off the slate before we bring up any other legislation.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: What harm would it do
to let parliament know what legislation is going to 'be brought down?


James Alexander Robb: We will let my right hon.
friend know in good time.


Arthur Meighen: It is now three and a
half months since parliament opehedl and none of the important legislation is down yet. We have no idea what it is going to be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take exception to my
right hon. friend's statement that none of the important legislation is down yet. I think a great deal of it is down. There is other important legislation to be brought down and I hope it will be brought down very shortly. Answering the hon. member for West Toronto, I think probably within another fortnight we shall be able to bring in the bill to which he has just referred.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What did the Acting Minister of Finance mean when he said that he would like to make some progress in getting the budget resolutions off the slate? What delay has been occasioned in the last two or three days?


James Alexander Robb: I am not referring to the last
few days. I am referring to the period that has elapsed since the introduction of the budget.


Arthur Meighen: How would that impede the bringing down of any other legislation? It would not impede it in the slightest degree. That is no excuse.

Canada-Finland Treaty



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT LANDS

Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Is the government prepared to bring in any 'legislation respecting the revaluation of soldier settlers' land, live stock and equipment?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENTS

Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: The Solicitor General (Mr. McMurray) promised the House that there would be some legislation in connection with the Dominion Elections Act. Is it still the intention of the Government to bring it down?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it will be brought
down very soon.



CANADA-FINLAND TREATY OF COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that goods produced or manufactured in Finland shall receive treatment as favourable as that accorded to goods produced or manufactured in any foreign country so long as goods produced or manufactured in Canada enjoy in Finland the same treatment as is enjoyed by similar goods produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom, as set out in Article 23 of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Finland, made at Helsingfors the 14th day of December, 1923.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Arthur Meighen: The House will readily
see the great difference between this resolution as a matter of both form and substance and the resolution which we were asked to pass as the antecedent to the Grain Act. This resolution at least sets out what nature of legislation the government intends. Would the minister be good enough to give us a review of the history of the enactment?-that is to say: what has led up to this; what has been our trade relations with England; how has it come about that we have entered into this arrangement; and specifically what is Canada to get in return for the concessions made.


James Alexander Robb: This will involve practically
the same legislation as we had last year in a bill that was passed through this House without very much objection if any, but that was defeated in the Upper Chamber. As my right hon. friend knows, the population of Fin-203i
land is about 3,335,000. The trade of Canada with Finland has been considerable and it is a favourable trade for Canada. For instance, for the ten months ended January, 1925, the total importations from Finland amounted to $13,581 and the total exportations to Finland of goods produced in Canada amounted to $908,777. The imports from Finland include the following:
Cream separators	 $2,187
Wrapping paper, kraft	 2,777
Tissue paper	 3,842
Other paper and	manufactures of.. ..	628


Arthur Meighen: The total of that would be only a few thousand.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, just a few thousand on kraft paper. When this goes through they will come under the French treaty which is 201 per cent on this particular article, and the present tariff being 25 per cent they will then have an advantage of 4| per cent. The total imports into Finland of kraft paper amounted to $2,777. Our exports to Finland are largely of farm products. The list is as follows:
Flour	 $787,995
Oatmeal and rolled	oats	 50,751
Clover seed	 2,880
Lard	 4,984
Felt	 6,060
Pipe and tubing	 11,695
Adding and calculating	machines	 18,000
Woodworking machinery	 4,095
Automobiles	 17,058
All other items	 5,259
Total	 $908,777


Mr. HOEY:: What is the duty on flour entering Finland?


James Alexander Robb: Finland has two tariffs, a general and a conventional. I have no record of the duty on flour, but the duty on passenger automobiles under the general tariff is 20 per cent.


Mr. FORKE:: Is there any duty on flour into Finland? I should not think so.


James Alexander Robb: There is a duty on flour and I will tell my hon. friend why I think so. The matter was brought to my attention last year by one who I think is the largest miller in Canada. He was complaining that this trade agreement had been killed in the Senate and those to whom he made the complaint retorted that this had been done by his own friends, the kraft people; for it so happened that he was also president of a kraft mill. He was disturbed because it meant a loss of trade in some way to him. The duty on passenger automobiles is 20 per cent under the general tariff and per cent under the conventional tariff, and that I
Canada-Finland Treaty

think is a fair indication of the general trend of the duties. Under article 5 of the treaty we shall be entitled to whatever favoured nation concessions Finland gives. There is no preference in regard to flour but there is a duty of about 2 cents per kilogram.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Are the imports from
Finland limited to those coming direct through Canadian ports, as is the case in other treaties?


James Alexander Robb: Yes; the imports under all
favoured nation concessions come through Canadian ports.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the minister fancies that he has given us even a fraction of the information we ought to have before coming to a conclusion.


James Alexander Robb: If my right hon. friend desires more I shall be glad to give it.


Arthur Meighen: Here we are proposing
to give concessions to Finland in respect of a very important article of Canadian produce, an article in respect of which Finland is in the world to-day a very keen competitor. It may be wise to give these concessions if we get sufficient to return, but I fancy that no hon. member has yet received from the minister information in regard to one single thing we get in return. He says that we shall get the conventional tariff subject to certain conditions. That compels us to look at our exports and see whether .these concessions are any good to us. Our principal export to Finland is flour; I gather from the minister's figures that it is more than al'l the rest together, four times over. And the minister tells us that he does net know whether or not there is a duty on this commodity into Finland.


James Alexander Robb: I said there was a duty but
no preference.


Arthur Meighen: But we need to know
not only that there is a duty but what it is, whether or not it is to be changed by the treaty, and if so to what extent. That is the principal single item of our exports to that country, over-shadowing all the others, and we ought to know something about it.


James Alexander Robb: I have told the committee
already that there is a small duty on flour but no preference. But I submit that there is a considerable advantage to Canada in having this treaty go through. I know where the opposition to this treaty comes from; It was the subject of a boast in the upper house last year. It was then stated that the opposition came from the kraft people. But

surely Canada need not be afraid of this treaty so far as our kraft imports are concerned, the total from Finland! being, as I have said, some $2,777. We are getting concessions on automobiles and other products and with these, in a market of 3,500,000 people, we shall be able to develop some business. What is the situation in regard to the kraft mills of Canada? The production in Canada was $4,000,000 and there was imported $5,464,000 of wrapping. The production of manilla paper was $4,464,198 and! all other wrapping paper $3,201,976, or a total production of $7,666,174. There was imported into Canada from all countries during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1924, $564,890, making a total for production and imports of $8,231,064. That was the production and importations.


Arthur Meighen: Production of what?


James Alexander Robb: Of kraft and wrapping papers
in Canada. What were the exports? Let us keep in mind1 that the total quantity that came in from Finland was $2,770, but during that period Canada exported $3,153,515. And they are afraid of an importation, of less than $3,000!


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the duty on kraft?


James Alexander Robb: I gave that a few moments
ago-25 per cent. Under this agreement Finland will get a duty of 20i per cent; she will have a preference of 4| per cent. My hon. friend referred to the question of flour. We have representations made to us on behalf of the Canadian Millers' Association, and I quote a letter addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, (Mr. Low) on March 7, 1924:
I understand negotiations are pending with regard to a commercial treaty between the United States and Finland.
The United States are our competitors in exporting flour.
I believe that a commercial treaty now exists between Great Britain and Finland and I believe Canadian goods would come within this treaty.
As the Finnish trade in flour is still in the hands of United States mills to a large extent, we would like to suggest that some action be taken through your department to protect the interests of Canadian flour shippers in the event of this treaty between the United States and Finland working to our detriment.
This is a valuable market and one we would like to maintain.
For the moment I had quite forgotten that the United States were negotiating for a special treaty with Finland.


Arthur Meighen: Who signs that letter?


James Alexander Robb: F. C. Cornell, who at that
time was secretary of the Canadian Millers' Association.

Canada-Finland Treaty


Arthur Meighen: I 'do not think we have
mluch light yet. We are clear on one thing only-at least I am; we are conceding to Finland a reduction of duty on kraft paper from 25 to 20i per cent. The minister starts out by saying that he knows where the opposition is coming from. I have not seen any yet. I am endeavouring to get some light. If the minister wants to throw an aspersion on any member of this House,-


James Alexander Robb: No.


Arthur Meighen: -that he has been influenced by any kraft paper man or anybody else not to do what is in the public interest, I hurl it back. I tell him first, that neither last session nor this did any kraft paper man speak to me directly, indirectly or in any other way with respect to the Finnish treaty of last session or this, nor did I know until now that this was a re-introduction of the Finnish treaty in another form. I assume the makers of kraft paper would be opposed to any tariff concessions. That is not something to introduce into the debate as a sort of sinister feature likely to colour the actions of hon. members. I set out to find what we are giving and what we are getting. We have learned a lot of what we are giving-4J per cent on kraft paper. I am not yet informed what we are giving in respect of other papers, or if we are giving anything.


James Alexander Robb: We are giving them our intermediate column on all business.


Arthur Meighen: It is considerable, but just what it means one does not know. One has to analyse the business to ascertain whether it is important or not. When we come to the other side we have very little, so far as specific application is concerned, to enlighten us on what we are giving, except as to kraft paper. We do not know what its application is specifically. Going the other way, we find our exports of flour are $500,000.


James Alexander Robb: They are $700,000.


Arthur Meighen: That is still more. The next highest is $50,000, and the rest is very, very small, $6,000. So flour overshadows all other exports many, many times over.


James Alexander Robb: It does.


Arthur Meighen: The minister tells us immediately afterwards what we get. There is a duty on flour into Finland, there is -no preference to anybody. So we are not getting anything on flour, and what the letter of Mr. Cornell had to do with flour I do not know.
Naturally he was anxious that, if necessary, steps should be taken to prevent the United States getting anything better than we are getting.


James Alexander Robb: That is it.


Arthur Meighen: But, first of all, we do
not know if the United States has got anything, and, in the second place, according to this resolution we would not be protecting ourselves at all. This resolution merely says that Finland shall give in respect of our goods as low a tariff as she gives the United Kingdom -not as low as she gives the United States.


James Alexander Robb: She gives the United Kingdom the most favoured nation treatment, and if she gives the United States anything lower than is now contained in the arrangement with the United Kingdom, automatically the United Kingdom will receive the same treatment.


Arthur Meighen: She does not give the
most favoured nation treatment to anybody on flour. Of course, in the future she might. That letter was written a year ago last March, and the United States cannot possibly have any preference on flour, because the minister has already said there is no preference to any nation on flour.


James Alexander Robb: Not yet.


Arthur Meighen: And I would not presume that the negotiations are continuing. As a matter of fact the United States do not make treaties with any other nation giving a preference in their markets. I think the minister will have to admit that the United States make their tariff as they think best suits themselves, and they give no preferential treatment to any country except to Cuba, which is part of themselves. So there is not any bugaboo to be afraid of there. In respect of flour, then, we get absolutely nothing. The minister suggested that we get something on automobiles-he did not tell us what it was. I should like to know what it is. But I do not want any hon. members to be under the delusion that we are getting something in respect of our great flour export business to Finland, for we are getting nothing at all.


James Alexander Robb: * We are getting a concession on automobile wheels. The duty is 20 per cent under the general tariff, and we will get per cent.


Arthur Meighen: Do we sell them any
automobile wheels?
Canada-Finland Treaty


James Alexander Robb: We have a pile of correspondence from the manufacturers of automobiles and agricultural implements urging us to get this concession put through.


Arthur Meighen: I think it would be not at all unlikely that we would be selling them automobile wheels, but I should like to know for sure.


Mr. GOOD:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it does not strike hon. members as rather curious, or at all events as rather signficant. that this and all similar questions are usually discussed wholly from the standpoint of our interests as producers. I hear constantly about "giving" and "getting." Now, I submitted to the House the other day, that public policy, particularly in such matters, ought to be based on the interests of the citizens as consumers rather than as producers. And yet day after day, week after week, year after year, public policy is debated here and elsewhere wholly, or almost wholly, from the standpoint of our interests as producers. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) talks about our "giving " concessions to Finnish producers: they are " getting " something if we " give " them a market; we are " getting " something if they "give " us a market. If we give to Finnish producers a market here, are we not entitled to consider what we are getting as buyers? I submit that we are looking at these questions in a topsy-turvy way. I am astonished, disturbed and discouraged at the persistent upside down attitude of the people toward these matters. There is sound ground for the view that public policy ought to be based on our interests as consumers rather than on our interests as producers. I submitted argument in that connection the other night when speaking on the budget. But apparently nobody ever dreams in these discussions of considering the interests of Canadian citizens as consumers. Personally I am in favour of freer trade relations with any country and I think this measure is perfectly in order whether we are getting or giving, because if we can break down these trade harriers producers and consumers are both bound to benefit. I rose only to call the attention of the committee to the very curious situation that faces us.


James Alexander Robb: Replying to my right hon.
friend (Mr. Meighen), the general tariff on passenger motor cars is 20 per cent. We will get the conventional tariff, 8f per cent.


Arthur Meighen: Have we sent them any?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, in the fiscal year ending in 1924 we sent them $13,523 worth.


Arthur Meighen: About six cars.


James Alexander Robb: I quoted the tariff a moment ago, but I might mention that there is a duty per kilo on passenger motor cars not weighing more than 900 kilogrammes. The general tariff is 3.50 markkas, the conventional tariff is 1.81 markkas. For those over 900 kilogrammes the genera! tariff is 5 markkas and the conventional tariff 2.18 markkas.


Arthur Meighen: If we are selling even
six cars to Finland it is something, but it is rather picayune as yet, I am afraid. I am always grateful to be set right and be put back on my feet instead of my head by the hon. member for Brant. I entirely agree that we are all consumers in this world, and in Canada we are not only consumers, but under the present policy we are being consumed. I think I got the right application of the hon. member's theory; that the lower our duties are the better for us, because it will be easier to live. On the same principle the higher Finland has hers the better for us, because if we cannot sell them our wheat it will make wheat cheaper here. No doubt the hon. member is very anxious, therefore, to get wheat down so that people can live more cheaply in Canada. People always talk on these points until they get responsibility, then they begin to think more seriously. In this case it is just a matter of whether or not a trade arrangement adds to the productive industry of this country more than it detracts. That is what we have to weigh. Will the minister tell us what other imports from Finland are affected here, before we go into the exports, besides the kraft paper? There must be something else; I cannot help thinking that if there has been any serious objection from the kraft paper people it must be because the whole information is not given us. Surely in the face of $2,000 of imports as against $3,000,000 of exports there would not be much occasion for worrying about a 4| per cent reduction. There must be more significance to it than appears on the surface.


James Alexander Robb: I will give the imports again, for the ten months ended January, 1925. The first item is cream separators, $2,187. My right hon. friend can figure out for himself what advantage that is going to be to Finland. Cream separators are on our free list. Then there is wrapping paper, kraft, $2,777. On goods from Finland there will be a reduction of 4f per cent.


Mr. CRERAR:: A little less than $100
altogether.

Canada-Finland Treaty


James Alexander Robb: On tissue paper, same reduction, the value of the import was $3,842; other paper and manufactures, $628.


Arthur Meighen: What about newsprint?


James Alexander Robb: Newsprint is not mentioned.
They do not ship any to Canada.


Arthur Meighen: But they may.


James Alexander Robb: They may, and it will not
hurt anybody if they do. Flagstone, granite, if manufactured, $1,487. The general rate is 35 per cent and the intermediate 32J. We give them a reduction of 2i per cent. All the other articles total $2,660. My right hon. friend can figure out how much Finland is going to get out of this deal.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What is the total volume
of our imports from Finland annually and our exports to Finland?


James Alexander Robb: The total value of the imports for the ten months ended January, 1925, was $13,581, while the total exports to Finland were $908,777. The following were the items of our export to Finland for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1924:
Rye	 $ 173,600
Oatmeal and rolled oats	 66,690
Flour of wheat	 1,322,501
Lard	 67'425
Tires	 7,219
Pipe and tubing	 37,341
Mowing machines	 28,283
Cultivators	 1,510
Other agricultural tools and implements.	699
Ploughs	 2,526
Adding machines	 19,125
Other machinery	 7,820
Automobiles	 13,523
Other vehicles	 3,200
Other articles	 5,817
Total	 $1,754,279
Our total imports during the same period amounted to $6,090.


Mr. MANION:: Is it not possible that we
are importing quantities of Finnish goods through some other country-England, for example? The figures are so vastly different that one would almost think that was being done.


James Alexander Robb: I have no record of that. That would be another question.


Mr. EVANS:: Under this resolution we are asked to consider what practically amounts to a treaty of reciprocity with Finland. I am at a loss to know why the government goes all round the world seeking to make trade treaties with all these small countries, while they pass by the one country with whom it is natural we should trade, the United States.
TMr. Crerar.]


James Alexander Robb: What evidence has my hon. friend that the government have not made an attempt to get a treaty with the United States?


John Evans: When Mr. Fielding brought down the first and second budgets of this parliament, he emphasized the point that we should push for reciprocity with the United States. Since then no member of the cabinet has made any report at all concerning what they have done to bring this about. The United States in many articles are offering us reciprocity. They place on the free list many articles that we produce in Canada, including agricultural implements and boots and shoes. This year, instead of seeking reciprocity with that great country, which is our natural market for many of our products, we have given the United States a slap in the face by increasing the duty on coal.
In answer to the right hon. leader of the opposition, we can classify the consumers of this country, and there is a class of consumers who really have to pay all the unfair charges which unfair tariff measures place against us. For instance, most of these unfair charges are passed on until they come down to the agriculturist, and the market of the agriculturist has been closed in, and no treaty has been made with the United States, which I believe could have been done had we been so minded. There is a country that calls for our store cattle from western Canada. We can raise all the store cattle we like in western Canada on the roughage which is consequent in a grain growing area. In the United States they have the feed and the corn to finish and fatten those beeves, and with the climate as it is, that can be done much more profitably in the United States than with us; but, instead of seeking reciprocity with that great country, which is the natural one for us to trade with, we go all round the world seeking trade treaties with other countries which do not amount to anything; and in all these treaties one thing is noticeable, that organized industry in this country is favoured every time as against the consumer. That class of our population seems to have the ear of the government at all times. To bring the cost of living down does not seem to be the aim of our legislators yet, and until that is done I think any trade treaty is useless while the cost of production and the cost of living in this country remain so high. I think it is a
Canada-Finland Treaty

desirable thing that we should trade with Finland. I am in favour of it, but I think every effort should be bent towards seeking a reciprocal trade arrangement with the country to the south of us.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: The minister has referred to the comparatively small total of our imports of kraft paper from Finland. I presume the matter which is troubling the kraft paper manufacturers is that under the proposed reduced tariff the imports will be greatly increased. I think the minister must be aware that the paper mills which produce kraft paper in this country have been having a very hard time. I am informed that one mill in Ontario has closed down altogether because it cannot get a market for its kraft paper.


James Alexander Robb: It so happens that the president, I think, or at all events a director of the kraft mill at Dryden, is one of the men who is urgent that we get this treaty through so that he will he taken care of there in regard to flour.


Arthur Meighen: He is in the flour business too. But the minister says this does not affect flour.


James Alexander Robb: It will, if the United States
gets in.


Arthur Meighen: If!


William Garland McQuarrie: I have received communications from British Columbia concerns, 'which I forwarded to the minister some time ago. One is from the Westminster Paper Mills. This is a new industry which we expected to be quite an asset to the community as it would employ quite a number of men. I have received a letter from that concern which reads in part as follows:
Understanding that the proposed preferential treaty with Finland, which at the last session was thrown out by the Senate, and under which the duty on kraft wrapping paper imported from Finland into Canada would be reduced from 25 per cent to 20] per cent, we desire to vigorously protest against any reduction in the rate of duty on importations of wrapping paper into Canada, from Finland or elsewhere.
Burdened with high labour costs and heavy taxes, and harassed by competition from European paper mills, who have the advantage of depreciated exchange, and low labour costs, H is with difficulty that the Canadian wrapping paper mills hold their heads above water, and in confirmation of representations made to the Minister of Customs some time ago asking for an increase in the rate of duty to 35 per cent, any change in the rate of duty on importations of kraft paper into Canada, instead of being downwards, should be upwards.

Then I have another letter from the Pacific Mills, Limited, Vancouver. They have mills at Ocean Falls, B.C. All these paper concerns, as I have said, have been having a hard time.


James Alexander Robb: Do the Pacific Mills also make newsprint?


William Garland McQuarrie: I think they do. As
the minister knows, the paper mills have been having a hard time, and if Canada is going to be the great country we want it to be, surely we must do something to encourage industries to locate and stay in this
4 p.m. country. We in British Columbia are very much interested in this industry, particularly because these mills are manufacturing the natural resources of our country. Now how are you going to do that if you allow importations unfairly to come into this country and put our mills out of business? I think it is a very great mistake to reduce the duty on kraft paper; I agree with the paper concerns that this duty, instead of being reduced, should be increased. We must give our industries a chance to live; otherwise we are going backwards instead of going ahead.


Mr. GOULD:: It seems to me rather lamentable that an hon. member should rise in his place and protest on behalf of the paper industry in this Canada of ours, which is filled with the natural resources from which paper is made, and show his fear because there is an import of kraft paper from Finland to the amount of $2,770, which is the figure the minister has given. It seems to me belittling on the part of the hon. member and more belittling on the part of those engaged in the industries who would ask him or any other man to stand up in the House of Commons and plead for them, and even go so far as to protest that the possibility was that they might be put out of business. Who are the manufacturers that they fear the granting of such privileges as these? And what privileges are they asking the people of Canada to stand for that they will take up such a picayune thing and make a protest on the floor of the House? It should be to the shame of the institution that they stoop to such a thing as to profess fear of competition from a country with few natural resources such as Finland has to provide for the production of kraft paper, as against the great natural resources of Canada. I anticipate that the minister has a great hope that our exports to Finland will increase. On the other hand, we

Canada-Finland Treaty
have reason to believe that the statesmen of Finland are confident that their exports to Canada will increase. That is the purpose. But apparently the policy adopted in order to develop our industries is to erect a barrier of taxation and then to spend) the money collected by taxation in going round the world trying to get favoured nations treatment, trying by some means to overcome the conditions w'e ourselves have created. I am prepared to believe that all the difference it will make in our tariff between Finland and Canada will be eaten up by the cost of the few words of discussion which have taken place in the House. We have erected a barrier, and now we try to crawd out and evade the barrier we have created. I endorse the sentiment expressed by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) that we are approaching these subjects from a wrong point of view. The loud protest comes from some institutions which are producing their manufactures from our natural resources, of which we have plenty, but now by the admissions they make and ' the privileges they ask they confess their inability to compete with other countries. I do not think any government of this country should listen to them but rather should read them a lesson-tell them that an all-wise Providence gave them these natural resources, and if they are industrious and capable they can stand upon their own feet and not create an extra burden upon the country.
Mr, CHAPLIN: How many other countries manufacturing kraft paper will have advantage of this treaty under the present favoured nations clauses of the treaty?


James Alexander Robb: No other countries manufacturing kraft paper will automatically come in. Of course there may be some countries which have the preference now, but no other countries will be added. Sweden had the privilege, and Sweden shipped in $48,776 worth, and the United Kingdom has the preference and they have something even better, they have the full British preference; and they shipped in last year $44,430 worth.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: While we are on the subject I would like to inquire what the importations of paper have been from Japan and from Norway, because both those countries are manufacturers of kraft paper; they will come under this treaty and will have the benefits of it.


James Alexander Robb: Japan will not be any better off or any worse off than to-day. Whatever preference Japan has now will not be affected in any regard by this treaty.


Robert Forke: Would the minister repeat again, what amount of flour was exported from Canada to Finland?
' Mr. ROBB:	For the ten months ending
January, 1925, the exports of flour were $787,995. For the previous year ending 31st March, 1924, the exports of flour were $1,322,501. That was for twelve months and the other period was for ten months. There is a letter in the file which may interest my hon. friends opposite, from the Goldie Milling Company, urging us to make this arrangement, as they feared the United States millers might possibly come in.


Robert Forke: Has the minister an idea by what method Finland pays for that flour?
, Mr. ROBB: We have no complaint from the millers that they have not been paid. It was the millers who urged us particularly to see that they were protected against the possible discrimination against them by the United States millers.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the minister explain how it comes that Japan will not have any advantage from that treaty, or will not be put in a better position than at present?


James Alexander Robb: Because Japan now has all
that we propose to give Finland.


Arthur Meighen: Under what?


James Alexander Robb: Under the French treaty.
They are a favoured nation.


William Garland McQuarrie: I must take exception
to the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould). It seems to me that they were entirely uncalled for. I am very much surprised that a man of his supposed intelligence should rise in this House and make a speech such as he has just favoured the committee with. I think it is without doubt the most narrow-minded speech I have ever listened to in this House, and we have had some of them from his quarter before. Besides being unfair to me, inasmuch as he possibly insinuated that I had some interest in some of these paper concerns, which is entirely untrue and unfounded, he displayed his ignorance of the few remarks which I made. He entirely failed to grasp the significance of the argument I advanced. The point I tried to make was this-and if I had some way of injecting it into his brain cells, I would1 do so-that it was not at all a matter Of the amount of imports of kraft paper we are receiving from Finland at the present time, but what we might be expected to receive if the duty were decreased from 25 to 20f per cent. I also tried to point out that paper con-
Canada-Finland Treaty

cems in this country were and have been for some time in a rather bad way. I also endeavoured to point out that in our province, British Columbia, we are interested, not financially and personally, but generally speaking as citizens of this country, in the industries of the country which are manufacturing our natural resources. Now, if we are going to put those concerns out of business by reducing our tariff that would be an injury to Canada as a whole. I happen to represent, in addition to the people who are engaged in industries, about 20,000 farmers. The farmers of British Columbia are also looking for protection. They are complaining now in regard to various of the tariff items. The farmers in British Columbia are certainly in a somewhat different position from the farmers of the prairies. If we are going to have a great country here, if Canada is going to amount to anything, it seems to me that besides protecting the farmer we should also protect the people who are engaged in industry. Those who are engaged in the industries of the country provide to a large extent the market for the farmers, if not on the prairies, at least in British Columbia.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It may be that I am
overlooking something, but there is one point in the treaty that is not clear to me. Article 5 which, I take it, is the central provision of the treaty, reads:
Articfles, the produce or manufacture of the territories of one of the contracting parties, imported into the territories of the other, from whatever place arriving, shall not be subjected to other or higher duties or charges than those paid on the like articles, the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country.
I tried to go through this treaty, though hurriedly-this is the first I have seen of it. If there is nothing more than that, it seems to be simply a statement that Finland will not charge more on articles from Great Britain than is charged on similar articles from any other foreign country.


James Alexander Robb: -enjoying that trade concession.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: But what is there to enjoy? Where does the minister get this difference as regards automobiles involving a change from one tariff classification to another? I may have overlooked it in the treaty, but I certainly have not yet been able to find it. I presume that this document dated the 14th December, 1923, the Treaty af Commerce and Navigation between the united Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Finland, that has been passed around, contains everything, and that it is simply 
under the 23rd article that we are taking action. Article 23 reads:
The stipulations of the present treaty shall not be applicable to India or to any of His Britannia Majesty's self-governing dominions, colonies, possessions or protectorates, unless notice is given by His Britannic Majesty's representative at Helsingfors of the desire of His Britannic Majesty that the said stipulations shall apply to any such territory.


James Alexander Robb: We are now giving the notice.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Yes. If that notice is not given, apparently Finland can impose against us any rate of duty that die sees fit. If the notice is given, we come in on the same footing as Great Britain. We do not, apparently, come in on a preferential footing, but we get simply the benefit of an agreement that our goods will not be charged more than goods which come from any other foreign country. In other words, we are not getting a preference into Finland, but we are simply receiving an undertaking that we shall not be put on a more unfavourable basis than any other foreign country.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend probably was not in when I stated the advantages that we had on some articles and I will not detain the committee by repeating them. I will give my hon. friend an item which I am sure will interest him. He will perceive the advantage that we receive in giving this notice in order to come under the most favoured nation tariff, and I challenge him to vote against this: " Preserved anchovies, sardines and other fish per kilogram "; general tariff 20 markkas; we are getting a tariff of 11 markkas, or about one-half the duty.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: That is not what troubles me. I am not bothering about the fish; it is the net I am looking at just now. I may be at fault in taking up the time of the committee, I may have overlooked something; I am asking the minister to be good enough to point out to me anything in the treaty, a copy of which has been handed to me, which provides for what we call a preference as against the conventional tariff. I do not see anything in it except that we are on the same footing as any other foreign country.
I do not want the details, I want just the principle.


James Alexander Robb: We are to enjoy the favoured nation treatment.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: There is something -wrong somewhere. In article 5 I can find no reference to any conventional or other form of tariff. This must be the original draft of a treaty that has been revised.

Canada-Finland Treaty


James Alexander Robb: The treaty between France
and Finland of the 13th July, 1921 is the basis that Great Britain and Ireland come in on. We propose to come in and receive the same advantages.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I understand it now after it has been explained, but there is certainly nothing in the documents before the House to give me the slightest intimation of that. I have not, I trust, uttered a word of criticism of this treaty. I have sought only to obtain information. I should like to know from the minister why, what I might call a comparatively minor trade arrangement is brought before the House at this time, and why, what I would characterize as a major trade arrangement with another British dominion, the Commonwealth of Australia, is not yet in any form before the House.


James Alexander Robb: The Australian treaty has
nothing to do with this, and if my hon. friend refers to the records, he will find that the Prime Minister explained the matter a few days ago. In that connection, I might say that to-morrow morning when the paper men of Canada read the remarks of some hon. gentlemen opposite they will say: Heaven save us from our friends, because we find these gentlemen object to an agreement whereby a very little paper comes into Canada and we are getting an advantage for other manufacturing industries and agricultural products. How are we going to expect these gentlemen to support them when we come in with an Australian agreement?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Nothing in my request for
information has been in the slightest degree either dictated or suggested by any pulp or paper interest or the interest of any other industry.


James Alexander Robb: It is the gentlemen sitting
behind and around my hon. friend.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Then I will ask the minister to be merciful enough, when he makes a remark of this kind, to make it in juxtaposition of some member he wishes to punish' and not apparently to cast the bolt at me. I do not see why we cannot ask for information without having the suggestion thrown out that members of this party are acting on behalf of certain interests in the Dominion. I will go a step further. While I have absolutely no thought of the particular interest to which he has referred, yet I cannot see why any aspersion should be cast upon a member of this party who, thinking that injury is threatened to an industry should rise to defend that industry and ask that it have a proper
chance for its life. I am not in that position. But I can understand how a member of parliament may honestly and honourably, and in support of the interests of the country, take such a position as that. I will go a little further, I want to point out to the minister that outside of some minute discussion of automobiles and of a reference to the paper industry, I am not in a position, although perhaps some other hon. members may be, to go back to my constituents and explain the benefits of this treaty. I am not able to point to a single thing to be gained by it.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend was not in
the House; if he reads Hansard to-morrow he will get the information.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I have been in the House
ever since the discussion commenced.


James Alexander Robb: You have not been following
it.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I have been following it
but I have not heard everything that has been said. That has not been the fault of the minister, except perhaps that his voice is not very strong. But I have not yet learned the advantages that are expected to flow from the treaty. It may be that I shall find them stated in Hansard, but I do not think I have missed veiy much this afternoon.


Mr. LADNER:: The remarks of the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) bring me to my feet. I have received representations from the Pacific Mills, Limited, and other concerns to place before the House the effect of this legislation so far as their business is concerned.


James Alexander Robb: I do not doubt that.


Leon Johnson Ladner: And I have not heard before that any industry affected by legislation in this country is necessarily subject to some suspicion or condemnation because it has asked the representatives of the people in parliament to place the situation before the body of members who are to legislate on the matter.


Oliver Robert Gould: Does the hon. member think that when the total import of a particular line into this country amounts to $2,777 it should occasion any question in the minds of large business concerns here?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Apparently the hon. member does not distinguish between the actual situation here and the principle that is involved. The principle is one of protecting industries that are indigenous to the country, and this legislation is contrary to that prin-
Canada-Finland Treaty

ciple. Whenever an hon. member in this part of the House rises to discuss the tariff from the protective point of view there is a regular outburst of objections from hon. gentlemen to my left simply because they favour the opposite. So far as placing the representations of different interests before the House is concerned, I do not know of any members who are more disposed to take advantage of every opportunity than many hon. gentlemen to my left. When it comes to holding the big stick over the government to force them into the pursuit of wrong, reckless and foolish policies, such as restoring the Crowsnest pass rates, they are all for it; there is no principle involved there but they know they will get a cheaper rate. But when we in British Columbia, seeking to develop our natural resources, raise our standard consistent with our policy of protecting all industries, no matter how big or how small, then that issue is something to be condemned, we are to be told that it is foolish, and that we should not engage in any such discussion. Now, surely there ought to be a bit of tolerance and mutual consideration of one another's interests without anyone becoming over-critical. The fact is that most hon. members in this House live in glass houses so far as some phases of their political and economic interests are concerned.
Mr. H!OEY:	I have the Finland tariff
schedules before me and it will be a source of comfort to my friends to the right to realize that there is a heavy export imposed by Finland on all paper leaving that country.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I notice among the
articles of our exports to Finland that there is an item of some $67,000 in lard.


James Alexander Robb: I did not give any such figure; our exports of lard for ten months amounted to $4,984, and it was about double the imports of kraft paper.


Arthur Meighen: What is the duty on
lard into Finland?


James Alexander Robb: The duty is .60 markkas per kilo.


Arthur Meighen: There is no difference?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Donald Sutherland: I asked the question because we import about ten million pounds of lard annually from the United States.


Arthur Meighen: The minister said it
was only finished imports that count. Apparently, so far as our exports go, we are not affected at all except as to automobiles.


James Alexander Robb: I did not say that.


Arthur Meighen: Well, that is the summation of it.


James Alexander Robb: I gave the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Baxter) evidence to show that there had been a gain in fish; the duty is reduced from 20 markkas to 11 markkas.


Arthur Meighen: What fish do we sell tc Finland?


James Alexander Robb: It can be sold if we get the
preference.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose we could sell
Nova Scotia coal to Newcastle as far as that is concerned, if anyone would buy it.


James Alexander Robb: I have no record with regard to our sales of fish.


Arthur Meighen: No, nor do I think there would be any record of fish sold to Finland. Similarly, we are not likely to sell cotton to Florida. The fact is that the only real benefit we get is on six automibiles we sold last year.


James Alexander Robb: I would not allow my right
hon. friend to say that.


Arthur Meighen: We are not getting anything out of the treaty that I can see, nor do I know that we are giving anything serious. It would not seem so on the surface. But is the minister certain that there are not favoured nations coming in under the treaty besides Finland? If he looks at the French treaty he will find that item 197, paper n.o.p., comes under schedule (e), which schedule is the list of those goods that get 10 per cent of the duty off the intermediate tariff. What is our intermediate tariff on paper?


James Alexander Robb: 
Arthur Meighen: Yes. That means that
France already got the benefit under the French treaty, under which the favoured nations also came in. And this only serves to emphasize what we gave under that French treaty and the fact that we got nothing in return. After the French treaty I am always critical of treaties made by this government. If ever there was a gold brick put over in this country it was that French treaty.


Mr. JACOBS:: We got cheaper champagne.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know if it is
better or cheaper; maybe the member for Halifax knows.


Mr. FINN:: No; when I take anything it
isn't that brand.

Canada-Netherlands Convention
Mr. MEIG-HEN:	Will the minister explain why this treaty comes in its present form? Why is it not introduced in the same way as the treaty of last session?


James Alexander Robb: It is practically the same.
We had an agreement.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but there is no
agreement referred to here. The minister is adopting a different plan; if there was an agreement last session there is none here.


James Alexander Robb: This is exactly the same as the one last year, with the difference that last year there were certain figures submitted, which the hon. member (Mr. Baxter) quoted a moment ago. A copy of the British treaty was distributed for the information of members. My right hon. friend I think has it now.


Arthur Meighen: This year there is no
agreement at all?


James Alexander Robb: It is exactly the same arrangement as was put through last year.


Arthur Meighen: Is there any written
agreement now between us and Finland?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Arthur Meighen: There was not last year?


James Alexander Robb: No.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 128 respecting trade between Canada and Finland.


Arthur Meighen: At this point, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he has received special written representations against this trade arrangement; and, if so, from whom?


James Alexander Robb: Speaking only from memory, I have received representations verbally and, I imagine, some by letter from the manufacturers of kraft paper. I do not recall any other objections.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. .


Arthur Meighen: At this stage may I ask that the minister lay on the table of the House or send us copies-the former would be better for all members-'any representations he has received of the character I have just inquired about? I think there must be something more than what he has mentioned.


James Alexander Robb: Any letters we have I will produce.



CANADA-NETHERLANDS CONVENTION OF COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That, it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide that a certain convention of commerce dated the eleventh day of July, 1924, entered into at Ottawa by the plenipotentiaries appointed by His Majesty and by Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands be approved, and to give effect to the provisions of the said convention.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Arthur Meighen: I suppose the minister
has arranged to get low duties on our butter going into the Netherlands? What is really effected by this treaty?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, we get the
favoured nation treatment in their market. A convention of commerce between Canada and the Netherlands was signed in Ottawa on July 11, 1924. This convention includes the Netherlands, the Netherlands Indies, Surinam and Curasao. The population of the Netherlands and their possessions is 51,780,000.


Arthur Meighen: What!


James Alexander Robb: That includes their colonial
possessions. The population of the Netherlands proper is 6,977,230.


Arthur Meighen: Where are the rest?


James Alexander Robb: Java and Madura, 35,017,200;
the island of Celebes, 1,200,000; Sumatra, 5,858,-800; Borneo, 2,000,000; Molucca Islands, 560,000; Dutch West Indies, 53,700; Dutch Guiana, 113,181. The customs tariff is very lew, there being no treaty or convention rates lower than the general tariff, but according to Dutch parliamentary papers it is considered desirable to introduce a system whereby it will be possible to discriminate in certain cases. In a word, measures of tariff retaliation are being studied, and the matter will eventually be dealt with in a bill which they are now considering. My right hon. friend knows that throughout the wortd to-day there is a tendency to put up tariffs, indeed he advocates it for Canada. At any rate, that is the spirit throughout the world, and we are making this convention now so we will have the most favoured nation treatment in our commercial relations with that large population.
Our principal imports from the Netherlands are cocoa butter, gin, plants, bulbs, shrubs, nursery stock, tobacco, starch, pickled herrings, artificial silk, binder twine, railway bars, electric lamps, diamonds (unset), aniline dyes,
3180	^	COMMONS
Canada-Netherlands Convention
litharge, zinc white, glycerine for explosives, toys. On most of these items there is practically no difference between our general tariff rates and the convention rates. Our principal exports to the Netherlands are wheat, wheat flour, oats, rye oil cake, condensed milk, lard, electric vacuum cleaners, automobiles, nickel and* asbestos. The value of our imports for the year ending March 31, 1924, was $5,359,980, and for the eleven months ending February 1925, $4,630,010. Hon. gentlemen will observe that there is very little variation in our imports, there having been practically no increase as between those two periods. Turning to exports, we exported to the Netherlands for the year ending March 31, 1924, goods to the value of $9,480,881.


John Livingstone Brown: Does that mean to 'the
colonies as well?


James Alexander Robb: No, only to the Netherlands
proper. During the same period our imports were just a little over five million dollars. For the eleven months ending February 1925, our exports increased to the value of $11,880,135. Hon. gentlemen will observe that while our imports have varied very little, our exports have increased considerably during the past year. It is just possible that a part of that increase might be accounted for by the increased value of the goods we sold.
There is considerable trade between Canada and the Dutch possessions, especially with the Dutch East Indies. Our imports from their possessions were valued at $2,941,189.


Arthur Meighen: Those are not included
in the former figures?


James Alexander Robb: No. These imports were
practically all sugar, coffee and tea. The treaty rates are the same as the general rates. During that same period our principal exports to the Dutch possessions were rubber tires, canned salmon and automobiles, the total value of which was $1,350,067. It will be seen that we bought from the Dutch possessions more than we sold to them, but to the Netherlands proper we sold double the value of our purchases from them. It is also provided under this arrangement that goods from this country destined to Europe and passing through ports in the Netherlands en route will be exempted from any duty which might otherwise be charged.


Robert Alexander Hoey: What are the chief exports
from Canada to the Netherlands?


James Alexander Robb: I will give some of the items,
in round figures, for the ten months period ending January, 1925:
Apples, green or ripe and dried	 $	60,000
Barley	 195,000
Buckwheat	 373,000
Oats	 1,371,000
Rye	 1,008,000
Wheat	 5,095,000
Oatmeal and rolled oats	 33,000
Hour of wheat	 1,168,000
Vegetable food products, not otherwise
provided	 144,000
Pneumatic tire casings	 84,000
Inner tubes for tires of vehioles	 15,000
Fodders, not otherwise provided	 12,000
Lobsters and canned salmon	 100,000
Hides and skins	 22,000
Butter	 4,000
Cheese	 23,000
Milk, condensed, canned or preserved,
not otherwise provided..		 477,000
Lard	  278,000
Honey	 26,000
Machinery, electrical vacuum cleaners
and parts thereof		55,000
Automobiles, value $500 to	$1,000	 57,000
Automobiles, value over $1,000	 22,000
Aluminum	 ' 33,000
Lead	 34,000
Nickel, fine, in ore	 268,000
Asbestos	 95,000
Soap	 16,000
A total export of $11,426,000 in that period.


Robert Alexander Hoey: A great many of these things
enter the Netherlands free. I cannot see any duty on butter.


James Alexander Robb: It is a low tariff country. I
may say that while the export of butter during the period referred to was not very considerable-about $3,000-there were no imports of butter from that country. Moreover, we will have the advantage of our trade going to other countries in Europe through the ports of the Netherlands without duty or other restrictions. The United States have a favoured nation arrangement with the Netherlands and we want to get the same advantage in that respect. Another reason why we have been urged to negotiate this treaty is put forward by the manufacturers of Canada who use rubber. There is a possibility of the Dutch possessions placing an embargo on the export of rubber and we hope it will not be placed as against countries that come under this favoured nation arrangement.


James Dew Chaplin: Does the minister suggest that goods shipped to continental Europe through Holland, say to Switzerland, would be subject to a duty?


James Alexander Robb: They have the right to impose a duty on goods in transit.

Canada-Netherlands Convention


James Dew Chaplin: The minister must know that so far as Germany is concerned they do not have to tranship goods. They have their own ports.


Mr ROBB:: The agreement provides for that.


James Dew Chaplin: It does not cut any figure.


Murray MacLaren: Is the provision in this treaty similar to that of the Finland treaty, that goods affected by it are required to come into Canada through Canadian ports?


James Alexander Robb: That is the law under the favoured nation provision; they must come in through Canadian ports.


Samuel William Jacobs: What is the value of the tobacco imported from the Dutch possessions?


James Alexander Robb: For the ten months ended January, 1925, tobacco unmanufactured, 10,627 pounds, at a value of $27,335. I imagine my hon. friend would have to pay more than that for it if he were buying it in cigars.


Arthur Meighen: As in the case of the Finnish matter the minister is asked whether it is provided that under this arrangement goods must be shipped direct through our ports. The minister answers that that is the law under our favoured nation arrangement. I cannot see how that affects the matter at all.


James Alexander Robb: All we are giving them is the benefit of the favoured nation provisions.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but we cannot impose any restriction unless it is in our contract with them. If it is in our contract with Japan or some other favoured nation, that cannot affect the Netherlands or Finland. The minister's answer so far is wrong. Where may be some provision under which these goods must come in through our ports, but those with whom we are now negotiating are not affected by a treaty we have with someone else.


James Alexander Robb: The officer advises me it is exactly the same as in the case of our treaties with Belgium and Italy. They get no privileges under those treaties unless the goods come in through Canadian ports.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but we have treaties with Belgium and Italy which provide that the goods must come in through our ports; then they get the benefit of certain rates. But here we are making a treaty, we will say, with the Netherlands. We say to them: You do so and so, and we will give you the rateswe do not say we will impose all the conditions but we will give you the rates-we give to France by our treaty. Now we cannot afterwards impose restrictions on the plea that we imposed those restrictions on France. That is not in the bond.


James Alexander Robb: I have the assurance both
of the officer by my side and of the customs officials after consultation with them, that the Netherlands will not be entitled to these concessions unless the goods come in through Canadian ports. I think my hon. friend must take the word of the officers administering the act.


Arthur Meighen: I would rather take the
word of the law itself. I want the authority. There is nothing here to show it.


James Alexander Robb: That is provided in our
favoured nation treaty.


Arthur Meighen: That is probably what
the officers rely on, but what is provided there does not affect the Netherlands at all. The Netherlands are bound by their arrangement with us, that is all they are bound by; and according to this resolution we agree to give them certain duties as low as we give any foreign country, our favoured nation duties. Now we have to do that if it is in the bond; we cannot impose any restriction afterwards even though the restriction applies to other favoured nations, because we did not stipulate to impose it. In the face of that reasoning, I certainly would like something better than the mere say-so of anybody.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will surely
be guided by the experience of those who have been administering the treaties that have been in force now for a few years, and I am informed that that is the way it is applied.


Arthur Meighen: Those are treaties; this is not a treaty at all.


James Alexander Robb: We are dealing with a country that has as great a population as Canada, good customers; why should my hon. friend not make to them the concession that they give to us? They have certain restrictions in their tariff, but they do not dot every "i" and cross every "t" in the agreement.


Murray MacLaren: It is specifically mentioned in the treaty with France.


James Alexander Robb: That is all these people are
getting.


Murray MacLaren: Why was it specifically
mentioned in the French treaty?

Canada-Netherlands Convention


James Alexander Robb: The French treaty was the
basis we started on. A! these others come in on that basis.


Arthur Meighen: They do not, I do not. care what anybody says, unless he can show me the bond. We make a French treaty and we say to France: You give us certain rates, and we will give you certain rates, and your goods -must come in through our ports. That is the treaty with France. But here we are passing legislation in favour of certain duties with respect to the Netherlands on condition that she passes some in favour of us, and it does not matter a whit what is in the French treaty unless we stipulate that the Netherlands can only get in here at the French rate of duty and subject to the French restrictions. But we have not done it.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Would this have any bearing on it?-the French treaty is made the basis; this treaty gives the favoured nation treatment, and that oovers the treatment that France gets.


Arthur Meighen: It is a rough-and-ready method of reasoning.


George Perry Graham: It is really the way the act is administered, I understand.


Arthur Meighen: You cannot impose a restriction in the treaty that is not there. We stipulated with France that the goods shall come in through our ports, and it will-not do for us to say casually and calmly to the Netherlands: That is the basis. The Netherlands are not interested in that fact. They say: Here is what you have agreed to legislate:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide that a certain convention of commerce dated the eleventh day of July, 1924, entered into at Ottawa by the plenipotentiaries appointed by His Majesty and by Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, be approved.
Now if we approve that, we are bound by every term of it, and we cannot import any other restriction on the mere plea that it is in the French treaty. This is a convention; it differs from the Finnish agreement in that way. It may be that the minister has a clause in the actual convention, although it is not embodied in this resolution, which imports the restrictions of the French treaty ' into this convention, but if he has not, he is down and out; he has to give to the Netherlands free admission through any port of any country.


Murray MacLaren: Is it stated so in the
act?
[Mr. MacLaren.l


James Alexander Robb: I would direct my hon. friend's attention to the treaty of 1913 with Japan. There was no reference there to coming in through Canadian ports, but those goods from Japan must come through Canadian ports to get the advantage of the treaty. My hon. friend would not blame this government or the friends of this government for putting through the treaty of 1913 with Japan.


Arthur Meighen: If it is not in the treaty
with Japan, certainly Japan could, if it would be any convenience to her, enter her goods through any other ports.


James Alexander Robb: The customs people would not recognize that, and they will not in this case.


Arthur Meighen: You would find out if
Japan raised the point.


Murray MacLaren: I think we should have_
this point elucidated a little more, because it is very important.


James Alexander Robb: If it is going to clear things
up, and hon. gentlemen insist upon it, we will refer it to the Justice department; and, if after looking into it they are not satisfied that it is absolutely clear that the advantages will be given only to goods coming through Canadian ports, we will make it clear in the bill.


Murray MacLaren: I must confess I have
very serious doubts as it stands that that condition is imposed. It may be rather late to refer to the agreement with Finland, but I put the same question to the minister when that treaty was before the committee, and, if it is possible, I hope the minister will give us a similar undertaking in regard to the treaty with Finland.


James Alexander Robb: In the case of Finland it will not be necessary, because we are taking as a basis the treaty that was arranged by the United Kingdom, and the basis of that is the French treaty, and under the French treaty that condition is imposed.


Murray MacLaren: It would certainly be a
very easy matter to insert the condition. It would make the point abundantly clear and beyond discussion.


James Alexander Robb: Finland might not accept that as a proper basis.


Murray MacLaren: I understand that that
condition applies, so what harm would there be in inserting it?


James Alexander Robb: It is not in the Japanese treaty at all, but apparently it is in the regulations issued by the Customs department under date of May 1, 1913; and my right hon. friend the

Canada-Netherlands Convention
leader of the opposition, if he was not then a member of the government, was certainly a very ardent, and the strongest and best supporter they had at that time.


Arthur Meighen: I thank my hon. friend
for the compliment, for that really is a compliment more than most members of this House realize. But at present we are discussing this treaty.


Samuel William Jacobs: A compliment in what respect?


Arthur Meighen: To have been the best
supporter of the last government is a title to immortality.


George Perry Graham: Faithful to the last!


Arthur Meighen: The regulation of the
Customs department is a good regulation; there is no doubt about that, but we cannot by regulation modify the terms of an express agreement. That is the point I am trying to raise. I am ready to accept the minister's undertaking so far as I am con-5 p.m. cerned-and, I think, for my friends behind me-that he will refer this Netherlands agreement to the Justice department, and unless the Justice department is satisfied that without any question the condition applies that the goods must come through our ports to get the benefit of the treaty, the minister undertakes to insert a clause in the treaty. I think that is satisfactory. But as respects the Finland treaty we will have to hold the government responsible in the face of very, very serious warning that no regulation, no clause of the French treaty or any other treaty will enable the minister to impose this restriction on Finland if we legislate merely in the terms of this resolution in return for their similarly legislating. Warning is given. There are several other features I wish to discuss, in relation to the treaty, but I do not wish to pass from that point.


James Alexander Robb: This government will not be assuming any greater responsibility than the government my rigjht hon. friend supported assumed in 1913, when they made the Japanese treaty.


Murray MacLaren: That is not a very practical argument-whether this government or the late government have failed or otherwise. My point is in the interests of the country, not what the past government has done or what the present government seems to be seeking credit for-


James Alexander Robb: Give us credit for what we have done already with regard to Canadian ports.
, Mr. MacLAREN: My remarks apply to the conditions in these treaties. I would ask that the minister make it quite clear that it does apply in the case of Finland. We have already had the satisfactory assurance with reference to the Netherlands, but I asked the question in the last -hour with regard to Finland and I received the reply that that would be in force. Now apparently there is considerable doubt thrown on that.


James Alexander Robb: I do not think there is mudh
doubt about Finland.


Murray MacLaren: I submit the including of one phrase that it should apply directly to Canadian ports would remove all doubt. Can the minister give us any assurance on this point?


James Alexander Robb: I will give the assurance that I will have the Justice department look very carefully into it, and I will be glad to discuss it with my hon. friend if he drops into my office.


Murray MacLaren: I wrould rather discuss it in the House.


James Alexander Robb: Well, I will not press it now.


John Evans: I would ask the minister if the memorandum, appendix No. 17, page 169 of the Customs Tariff, does not apply to that? It is dated March 17, 1924.


James Alexander Robb: Would the hon. member read it?


John Evans: It reads:
By order in council dated 12th March, 1924 (P.C. No. 409), printed herewith, published in the Canada Gazette of that date, the benefit of the intermediate tariff is extended to products originating in and coming from the territory of the Netherlands, Netherlands East Indies, Netherlands Guiana and Netherlands West Indies, when imported and conveyed without transhipment from a port to the Netherlands, Netherlands East Indies, Netherlands Guiana and Netherlands West Indies, or from a port of a country enjoying the benefit .of the preferential or intermediate tariff into a sea or river port of Canada.


Donald Sutherland: I notice that our
exports to the Netherlands are less than one-half of what they were in 1921. In 1921 they were over 120,000,000, and now they are less than $9,500,000. Can the minister explain the falling off of the exports?


James Alexander Robb: I think that would be quite
clear to any person after a moment's thought. From 1914 to 1918, and pretty well up to 1919, all that country was made bare of products by the war, and the friendly countries



Canada-Netherlands Convention
closer to the war were almost as bare as the countries actually in the war, and I suppose the additional supplies were to fill up the trade and the shortage during that period.


Donald Sutherland: During that year
there was an export of nearly half a million tons of condensed milk to that country. Is that trade increasing? Or how has it progressed?


James Alexander Robb: The exports to the Netherlands were as follows:
1922		 * 50,000
1923	 420,000
1924	 002,000


Samuel William Jacobs: In reference to the importation of diamonds and other precious gems, in what way will the duties be affected?


James Alexander Robb: Uncut diamonds are free.


Arthur Meighen: Much to the disgust of
the minister.


James Alexander Robb: Oh, no.


Arthur Meighen: I remember when we
had to take terrible abuse from his friends because diamonds were free.


Robert Forke: I was going to ask for an
explanation why that was so.


James Alexander Robb: There is a very simple explanation. There was a time when the country had a duty on diamonds, but it was found impossible to collect the duty. One reason was that it was very easy to smuggle diamonds. It was felt by the government at the time that it would be better business for Canada to admit uncut diamonds free, and build up a business, giving employment to citizens and manufacturers of Canada, because the duty we could collect on them would not be very much, on account of the ease with which they are smuggled.


Robert Forke: Smuggling would be a factor.


James Alexander Robb: I recall that in a recent byelection I did criticize the candidate of my right hon. friend because he was attacking this government for having made reductions in the duty on agricultural implements. I remember giving an interview and saying that I did not quite understand why that gentleman found any fault with the reduction of the duty on agricultural implements, when he himself was enjoying the privilege of importing uncut diamonds without paying duty.


Arthur Meighen: I must congratulate the
government on the ready acquiescence with which my hon. friends to my left accept the explanation.


Robert Forke: It may be our simplicity.


Arthur Meighen: Their simplicity varies
very greatly according to the colour of the government in power.


Robert Forke: That is not fair.


Arthur Meighen: The explanation the
minister gave was given last parliament and every parliament and every budget. But notwithstanding, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) rose in his wrath and denounced this business of letting diamonds in free and imposing a duty on foodstuffs.


George Perry Graham: That was not when he
was in the government.


Arthur Meighen: No, that was after he
got out. But hon. gentlemen thought that was a good demagogic appeal to the people, and they sputtered it up and down the side lines. I do not want to refer to individuals, but certainly those who were in the House-at the time representing the Progressive party-


Robert Forke: I did not.


Arthur Meighen: I know that, and I am
not sure if my hon. friend would have even if he had been here. I think he is a little more honest than that.


Robert Forke: Thanks.


Arthur Meighen: But I do remember,
notwithstanding the explanation given over and over again, just as sound and irrefutable as anything ever was, there was contained in party literature which I had to meet myself right out on the western plains, this same humbug that we should have a duty on diamonds in order to catch the rich. It was simply all a part of the whole villainous campaign in which hon. gentlemen to my left joined with the present Acting Minister of Finance and others who now calmly and in very dignified tones give the same explanation which they ridiculed just a few years ago. Certainly we cannot have a duty on diamonds. Such a thing is absurd; it has proved absurd in practice, and if and when, as is most certain, a change of government takes place, I know there will be some hon. gentlemen of that party to my left who will return to the old war cry and paint us the allies of the rich and powerful and the enemies of the masses and the poor because we have not a duty on diamonds. Enough, however, as to that.
I should like really to know what we are going to get out of this treaty. Nobody knows it. We have been told how many

Canada-Netherlands Convention
people there are in the Netherlands and how many blacks there are in Borneo, Sumatra, Java and so forth. We have also been given a list of our imports from those countries. To the extent that we give a reduction on these actual imports, of course we give a concession to those countries. The minister has read us a list of exports, but he has not told us that on a single export we get a different treatment from what we got before. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) informed the minister that the large items go into the Netherlands free now. We cannot get anything on that. What do we get anything on? The minister says: Well, if we do not have this treaty, the Netherlands would have power to impose duties on our goods destined for a foreign country but, calling at a Netherlands port. What nation in its senses would ever do that? We could do it in Canada. I suppose, if we chose to be so foolish, we could could collect our duties upon imports from Germany, intended for the United States, but in vessels calling at Halifax to discharge other goods for Canada and then going on. We could collect the duties if we were mad enough to do so and thereby destroy our own ports. That seems to be a purely fanciful consideration. The Netherlands are not going to do it, and I never heard of a country doing it. That is the only suggestion we get. Will the minister tell us one single article we export, on which we get a reduced duty into the Netherlands, the amount of the export, and how much the reduction is?


James Alexander Robb: I never said to my right hon. friend that we were getting any concessions in duties. I said very frankly that there was a low duty and there was no preference. There is, as I have already pointed out, a sentiment there that they should amend their tariff, and we want to get in on the favoured nation treatment so that we shall be clear. There is also, I repeat again, a possibility that they have now under consideration imposing a duty on Canadian goods in transit through their ports to other countries. There is, as is represented to us by manufacturers of crude rubber, a possibility of their imposing an embargo or export duty on rubber and we wish to evade that.


Arthur Meighen: This treaty will never
stop that.


James Alexander Robb: As to the concessions that we
are getting from the Netherlands on the'goods that we export to that country, if they are not giving us much, they are not receiving much from us on the basis of existing business.
204J


Arthur Meighen: The minister admits that we are not getting any reductions in duty at all. That is a rather interesting piece of information. But, he says, if we put this through, the Netherlands cannot impose their duties on our goods in vessels going to their ports but destined elsewhere. I cannot imagine how a country would do that. If a country were to legislate that its ports should be closed u,p and worthless, that would be just the same thing. Why in the world would a country legislate to say to other countries: Do not ship through our ports, do not use our territory? Surely no country in the world, even in this age, is as mad as that. So we are getting nothing there. The minister says: But the Netherlands are talking about raising their tariff; that spirit is abroad in the world, and in order that we may not suffer any more than another country would suffer, we are readly to give them concessions on our tariff already low. That is exactly what the minister is doing this for. There is the whole thing in a nutshell. What is this reduced to? Here we sit with a low tariff, a tariff that this party opposite and the party to my left declared they were going to slash down, down, down, year after year. They have been afraid to do so, but they have made certain instalments along that line. We are compelled with that low tariff to give concessions to-day, tomorrow, the next day, to South America, Europe, France, Italy, Japan and all the rest here, there and everywhere. '


James Alexander Robb: My right hon. friend gave
the concession to Japan.


Arthur Meighen: No. Japan got the concession before. We renewed it to Japan, but we renewed it under world conditions very different from those of to-day, when the tariffs of the world were about one-half and many of them one-quarter or one-tenth what they are now. Here we are with an already low tariff spreading concessions throughout the world in order to protect ourselves against being further penalized at the hands of other countries. That is the condition we are in and are suffering from now, and it is all the consequence of the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite. Why should we have to be giving concessions? I would have a tariff we could give some concessions from without suffering. I would be in the same position as they are. Other countries are virtually getting something for nothing from us and this country is getting nothing for something. We have to give something for nothing to the Netherlands just because of the policy of this government. Why is it that wr are not in their position?

Canada-Netherlands Convention


James Alexander Robb: With a lower tariff.


Arthur Meighen: No. They have a government in office that sees the state of the world and is prepared to adjust its position accordingly. It is going to raise its tariff. That government knows well that we have a government committed to my hon. friends to my left to lower the tariff, who can dictate to it what it is going to do and it does it.


Donald Sutherland: What proportion of the imports from the Netherlands during the past year came in free of duty?


James Alexander Robb: I do not have that. I can get it for my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: We have not yet any list of reductions on articles coming in. We have the admission that there is no reduction on anything we sell. Just let us know how much we are giving as an insurance fund against the adoption of a protective policy by the Netherlands. This is simply a contribution to the Netherlands by way of insurance that we shall not be any worse off than we are now. We are only paying them so much and we want to know what it is, to be sure that we shall not be any worse off than some other countries. What are the imports from the Netherlands upon which we are reducing the duty, all for nothing?


James Alexander Robb: I can get that information
only on the basis of the previous year's business.


Arthur Meighen: That is good enough.


James Alexander Robb: I will have it looked up and I shall be glad to give it to my hon. friend when we are in committee on the bill.


Arthur Meighen: But surely this is the
place to get that information.


James Alexander Robb: I have not got it now.


Arthur Meighen: How do I know whether or not it is expedient to adopt this measure? It would be far more expedient to get the government out that got us into this position. I might move a resolution to that effect.


George Perry Graham: That would be pleasing
but not expedient.


Arthur Meighen: It would not be expedient for the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), but I am thinking of the country at present. Surely the minister does not ask us to pass a resolution that it is expedient to reduce the duties on a whole line of articles without even telling us what the reductions will be.	|]i


James Alexander Robb: I have quoted two or three
times over a list of the large importations coming from these countries. My right hon. friend has been in parliament as long as I have; we came here on the same day. He has before him the customs tariff and he must know what the intermediate rate is.


Arthur Meighen: But I have not got it.


James Alexander Robb: Neither have I.


Arthur Meighen: I have not the list of
the articles the minister read. Can the minister not take them one by one, giving us the larger items, so that we may see what the reductions are going to be? Are we making any reduction in gin, for example? Are we making gin cheaper for the masses of our people? Are we making any reduction in tobacco or in butter? Surely this is the place to be informed of all these things?


James Alexander Robb: There are no imports of butter; we export that article.


Arthur Meighen: But still we might be
making a reduction on it.


James Alexander Robb: That would not hurt the men in the cities.


Arthur Meighen: No, but I fancy you
would hear a howl even from some hon. gentlemen to my left, at least from the wiser of them. Why does not the minister let us know what reductions we are making? We cannot be asked to pass a resolution that it is expedient to do something and wait to be told afterwards what we are doing.


James Alexander Robb: If my right hon. friend desires to prolong the discussion I am ready to read the whole tariff. I would just as soon pass my time reading the tariff as anything else.


Arthur Meighen: I want the tariff as it
affects this treaty.


James Alexander Robb: I will give the importations for the ten months ending January 31, 1925, together with the rates. The first item is "fruits in air-tight cans," on which the rate is 2J cents per pound. There is a reduction of half a cent.


Arthur Meighen: Quite a concession.
" Mr. ROBB:	That would be some advantage to my right hon. friend, who possibly buys fruit in air-tight cans occasionally.


Arthur Meighen: I would rather see the
country grow, and eat our own fruit.

Canada^Netherlands Convention


James Dew Chaplin: I would sooner eat fruit
from the Niagara district. '


George Perry Graham: You do not get them
canned there.


James Dew Chaplin: Yes, there are seventeen
canning factories in my own county.


James Alexander Robb: Of vegetables, peas and so on, the importations amounted to $12,000. The proposed rate is one cent per pound as against one and a half.


Arthur Meighen: What other articles are
there?


James Alexander Robb: There was an importation of
rice amounting to $44,000 and the rates are 65 cents per 100 pounds as against 75 cents


Arthur Meighen: Is rice dutiable?


James Alexander Robb: This is cleaned rice. Of cocoa butter, a large item, the total was $391,000. The rates are 2 cents and 2 cents.


Arthur Meighen: No reduction.


James Alexander Robb: No. Aromatic and caraway
seeds amounted to $12,000 and they are free in both lists. The same tariff rate as before will apply to ground spices, which is a small item. My right hon. friend asked me a moment ago about gin. That is a large item amounting to $563,000 and the rate is $10 per gallon. There is no concession on that. Of shrubs, trees, plants, vines and rose bushes the total is $21,000 and there is a reduction from 20 per cent to 15 per cent. Azaleas and seed stock which is a large item, amounts to $404,000 and is free in both cases. Is there any other item my hon. friend would like to know about?


Arthur Meighen: The larger ones.


James Alexander Robb: I see an item of flax, hemp, jute, jute cloth and canvas taken from the mill, not coloured, amounting to $12,000. It is free in both cases. On silk and its products the rate is 32| per cent less 10 off.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the importation?


James Alexander Robb: Twenty-nine thousand dollars; hon. gentlemen will understand that I am leaving out the hundreds. On velvets the rate is the same. On fibres, artificial silk yarns, and so on, amounting to $120,000, the regular duty is 20 per cent and this is reduced t.c 17J per cent.


Arthur Meighen: What about glass?


James Alexander Robb: Glass comes largely from
Belgium; I do not know that there is any quantity of it coming under this arrangement. There is no difference however in the duties. Has my hon. friend any other item in mind?


Arthur Meighen: If the minister says that these are all the important items the information is worth while.


James Alexander Robb: I do not say that; there is a long list.


Arthur Meighen: This simply means that we are making reductions without obtaining any concessions; it is more hacking at the tariff.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend will mentioi any item I will quote it.


Donald Sutherland: How is the trade in condensed milk affected? There has beer a large increase in this in the last few years.


James Alexander Robb: Condensed milk goes there, if is not coming here. My right hon. friend is asking for the duties on goods coming intc Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister prepare and lay on the table before we come to the second reading, a list of the actual importations affected, that is to say, those in regard to which there will be a reduction in the duty? He can prepare the information on the basis of the last year ending March 31.


James Alexander Robb: My right hon. friend means
on the second reading of the bill, I suppose?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: I will have that prepared.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 129, respecting a certain trade convention between His Majesty and the Queen of the Netherlands.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CUSTOMS TARIFF 1907 AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that Bill No. 118 to amend the Customs Tariff 1907, be read the second time.
John Evans: Mr. Speaker, I desire to move the following amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:-
The House regrets that the budget presented by the Acting Minister of Finance contains evidence of the
Customs Tariff

application of unsound principles of puiblic finance, affords no relief from the excessive burdens of indirqpt taxation and constitutes a failure to carry into effect substantial economies in public expenditure and the fiscal policy of the Liberal party as from time to time enunciated;
And that the policy of protection maintained in the present budget has greatly increased the cost of living and production has failed to provide adequate revenues or to prevent serious depression in trade and industry;
And be it further resolved that a revision of the tariff schedules, based on the needs for revenue instead of on the principle of protection is long overdue and should be immediately undertaken in order to bring down the costs of living and to place our industries on a permanently sound basis.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House-


Mr. A. J. LEWIS (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly let this matter come to a vote without stating my position. I understood it had been decided that the amendment should not be moved officially by this group. However, it is now before the House, and some of us in this quarter are placed in a rather awkward position. When the budget was first brought down it was agreed among ourselves that we should move the subamendment, which was in identically the same words as the amendment now before us. The Speaker disallowed the subamendment. His ruling was appealed and I voted against the ruling and in favour of allowing the subamendment. There were then two things before us-the budget and the Conservative amendment. At the time I asked the government some questions respecting certain legislation which I considered was, for this session, just as important to the western people as tariff reductions. Those questions were answered largely in the affirmative, and as a result, not because I agreed altogether with the government policy on the tariff question, but in order to give them an opportunity to bring down legislation , of the character I have referred to, I supported them with my vote. Now once again I am called upon-
Mr. MF.IGHEN:	Will the hon. member
permit a question? Has he any objection to giving the House what it was he asked from the government and what concessions he received?


Arthur John Lewis: It was not a matter of concessions at all. I simply said that if the government would outline their policy in regard to the Grain Act and other things,
I was not here with the intention of voting in any particular way in order to get votes; but that I believed the interests of Canada 
were far greater than any question of whether or not people Voted for me. For that reason I supported the budget proposals. At present I am called upon to make a choice between two things, with respect to both of which I have voted affirmatively; and that, of course, makes it very difficult. I might say that the budget passed the House and when it was discussed seriatim a few days ago no one raised any objection to it; that is, there was no vote against it. I cannot vote against the principles expressed in the amendment, and I am not going to swallow myself with respect to the budget. Accordingly, when the vote' is taken on this amendment I intend to leave the House and let the responsibility remain as between myself and my people.


Hewitt Bostock: As the hon. member who
has just been speaking (Mr. Lewis) referred to the present amendment having been already before the House as a second amendment to the budget, I wish to state that it was not put by the Chair. It is quite true that I ruled at that time that that amendment could not be moved, 'because on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means on the budget only one amendment can be moved. I allow it now because it is presented on the second reading of the bill bearing on the whole question of supply and ways and means. All authorities agree that on the second reading of such a bill any amendment can be moved which is relevant to the issue. On this point I quote May, twelfth edition, page 357, as follows with regard to the moving of amendments on the second reading of a bill:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move, as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill; or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction or prosecution.
But of course it must always be relevant, as it is in the present case. My statement is warranted, because I might be accused of taking one view on one occasion and a different view on another when practically the same question was involved. But on the second reading of a bill like the present one it is proper to seek a remedy for those who have a grievance, on the old principle of the right to air grievances before supply is granted.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

Customs Tariff
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, just before
the House rose a't recess the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans), having reference to the motion that Bill No. 118 be read a second time moved in amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:-
The House regrets that the budget presented by the Acting Minister of Finance countains evidence of the application of unsound principles of public finance, affords no relief from the excessive burdens of indirect taxation and constitutes a failure to carry into effect substantial economies in public expenditure and the fiscal policy of the Liberal party as from time to time enunciated;
And that the policy of protection maintained in the present budget has greatly increased the cost of living and production has failed to provide adequate revenues or to prevent serious depression in trade and industry;
And. be it further resolved that a revision of the tariff schedules, based on the needs for revenue instead of on the principle of protection is long overdue and should be immediately undertaken in order to bring down the costs of living and to place our industries on a permanently sound basis.
As far as I am able to recall, and I think I recall the circumstances correctly, this is the same amendment which the hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) moved at the time the budget resolutions were introduced, and which under the rules of the House it was not permissible to proceed with at that time. Now the hon. member for Saskatoon brings this forward as an amendment to the motion to proceed with the second reading of the bill which is based upon the resolutions that have already passed this House. If any useful purpose could be served in debating a resolution of the kind at this stage, I could understand the motive which has prompted my hon. friend in bringing in the amendment. While it is perfectly true that the amendment when presented by the leader of the Progressive party at the time the budget was introduced could not then be discussed, there is no single affirmation or sentence of the amendment which has not been fully discussed in the course of the long debate which took place on the budget, the longest debate, I think I am correct in saying, which has ever taken place in this parliament, certainly the longest which has ever taken place on the introduction of the budget. Were we to debate the amendment of the hon. member it would only mean spending a lot of time in reiterating arguments and statements which have been discussed at great length for over a period of a month, and
which certainly will not gain any emphasis by being repeated at this time.
I can only say that, under the circumstances, the motion as presented by my hon. friend cannot be construed as other than a motion of want of confidence in the administration. If the amendment were to carry it would mean that the government would not be able to proceed with the business of the country for the reason that it would be deprived of obtaining the revenues essential to the carrying on of the work of public administration. That is the only effect the carrying of this amendment could have.
What is extraordinarily singular is that the bill which the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is asking the House to permit to have its second reading is in identical terms with the resolutions which were introduced on which it is based, and which passed through the committee stage without a division. That is the feature I would like hon. members of the House to appreciate. The House has already without a single division approved everything of which the government at the present time is asking the House to approve in the bill for which we are now asking a second reading. I am inclined to feel that if my hon. friend the member for Saskatoon had appreciated that such was the significance of his motion, he would possibly-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Might I interrupt my right hon. friend? He states that there was no division of the House on the resolutions on which this bill is based. I would remind the right hon. gentleman that the House was divided on the principle of the resolutions when we divided on the budget; so it can hardly be claimed there was no division.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not
questioned that. I have said that we have been discussing for a month and a half the principle of the resolutions, and after having discussed for a month and a half the principle of the budget I cannot see that any useful purpose would be served in reopening the debate on that score. Not serving the purpose of discussion of any matter of principle, the amendment reduces itself to a motion to prevent the government from proceeding with the bill which is before the House at the present time. Now the bill which is before the House at the present time is as I have said1 to all intents and purposes, a reproduction of the resolutions which were introduced by the Acting Minister of Finance at the conclusion of the budget debate, which resolutions have already passed this House, and have received at least
Customs Tariff

the silent support and approval of every hon. member of the House. Under the circumstances the amendment introduced at this stage, in this way, can only be in the nature of a motion of want of confidence in the government. It may not have been so intended, but I would appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as to whether that would not be the effect, if it were- passed. Believing that to be its effect and significance I can only say the sooner we find out whether or not the government has the confidence of the House the better.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, I would be very much obliged if my right hon. friend would let me see a copy of the amendment. I feel in somewhat of a difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this question at the present minute as this is the first time I have had the opportunity of seeing the notice of motion. The usual practice of sending copies in advance has not been followed in this case.
My right hon. friend says that this resolution can have no useful effect. He points out that it cannot have any useful effect because the only thing it could do, if carried, would be to establish a want of confidence in the government. I cannot imagine anything more useful for this Dominion at the present time. If there is any one thing that the people of this country want to-day it is a chance to pronounce upon public questions.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Bring it on.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is something which would give them an opportunity of saying whether or not the present policy of drift and indecision is to continue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go to it!


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hon. gentlemen are exceedingly brave. They have it in their own hands. What is all this bravery about in saying "Go to it"? Who starts it? Who can start the election except the government, unless by some happy chance-


An hon. MEMBER:: "Chance" is right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: -unless a vote can be passed in this House which will precipitate an election. So that I do not agree at all with my hon. friend in saying that this is an idle resolution having regard for the point from which he attacks it, because, having regard to the point from which he attacks it, it is most useful. The thing that is wrong with this resolution is simply that gentlemen who voted for the budget and voted down another amendment dealing with pressing questions at the present time, namely 
questions of taxation and economy, are now in a position to know that with absolute safety they may vote to turn this government out. That is the weak part, Mr. Speaker, of the situation. There is no question at all as to the facts. Hon. members have framed a resolution in such terms that it puts in somewhat of a quandary any man who has any regard for financial institutions and for the proper progress of the country. Anyone who has a regard for Canada at the present time ought to be trying to get his government out of power, and that same man ought to have and generally does have some regard for the form of the motion submitted to the House. So the situation is perfectly plain. I only speak for myself, but I have to choose between two direct duties, one the maintenance of what I believe to be sound, proper, sane financial proposals, and the other the duty which is an imperative duty that I feel, that I ought to do everything that I can to ensure to the people of Canada the opportunity to register their opinion on the first possible occasion as against this government.


An hon. MEMBER:: That's that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: An hon. gentleman across the floor had something to say. I did not catch it. What was it? Very good, he had nothing to say. Now on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, this motion can serve a purpose that I do not think is at all commendable. It can serve the purpose of giving my hon. friends to my left the opportunity of voting safely against the government.


Robert Forke: My hon. friend can prevent that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. leader of the Progressive party says we can prevent that. I speak again for myself, and I say I am not in the habit of swallowing my principles for the purpose of making a switch on a vote. I think it is perfectly clear that this resolution has been so drawn as to make it a safety-first resolution, so that some gentlemen will be able to say, "We are opposing the government; we still believe in freer trade. We are against this government; there is our vote," while at the same time feeling assured that that vote is absolutely safe, that nothing is imperilled, and that the vote of want of confidence which ought to be passed by this House is impossible.
I agree with what my hon. friend said that this situation ought not to be made use of for the purpose of entering into another debate. We have already talked a very long time, but I really think my hon. friend went entirely out of his way when he talked about

Customs Tariff
the length of time this House occupied in connection with the budget. The government had it in its hands always to bring the debate to a close, as they brought it to a close when they made up their minds. Further than that, through the whips, my right hon. friend made it known a week before the conclusion. that it was time to bring it to an end. Yet notwitstanding that he went out of his way to castigate the opposition for obstruction.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How am I out of order?


Mr. CANNON:: In referring to a former
debate. It is an elementary rule that that cannot be done, and I want a decision on my point of order. We are not going to discuss the budget again.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. gentleman may not know, but I understand this is a continuation of the debate upon that question, and I do not think there is any doubt about it. I await your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: The first motion was for the Speaker to leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of Ways and Means. The resolution went to committee, and was adopted and reported by the committee; two bills were introduced based on the resolution, notably the one we are discussing now. The first reading of the bill was passed, and we are now on the motion for the second reading of the bill. My ruling is that it is the same debate, though at a different stage, and the hon. gentleman is therefore in order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I felt pretty
sure of my ground on the point of order that was raised. Under these circumstances it ill befits my hon. friend to charge the opposition with obstruction. Hansard itself is the best answer to that allegation. We all know that in parliament when we have not time for preparation, and particularly at the end of a long debate, things are said for which we are sorry afterwards. I admit that at once, but I submit that if there is one person in this world that ought to be careful it is the First Minister of the Crown, and he certainly ought not to make charges of that kind which the records show to be incorrect. So far we have had nothing from my right hon. friend acknowledging his error or pointing out that of all the long speeches delivered on the budget his was the longest.. Yet he makes the charge of Obstruction. I
am not going to give my right hon. friend any opportunity of saying that I am delaying this debate. I simply rose for the purpose of making these few remarks to join with my right hon. friend, not in connection with the major part of his observations, not in connection with that anticipated swan song of his as to what would happen if he could no longer function, but simply as to his one statement that we have had a long debate, a debate which the government could and ought to have stopped long before they did, but did not see their way to do so, and to suggest to hon. members that we ought not to go into another stage of a long debate and that the vote should be taken this evening.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Section 1 deals with the schedules in>
connection with the amendments to the tariff. These schedules I presume are the same as those in the resolution.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.
Bill reported, read the third ;time and passed.



THE SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second1 reading of Bill No 119. to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This bill has not been
distributed.


James Alexander Robb: It is precisely the same as the resolution we put through the other day and on Which the House was fairly unanimous.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am the last to suggest delaying the business of the House, but to ask us to proceed without even a shred of paper relating to this bill before us is going too far. I would take this opportunity of saying to the minister that he made this afternoon a statement which I tried then to correct in the very brief time at my disposal, and which I think was exceedingly unfair. A day or two ago he moved the resolutions into committee and we expedited them; the whole schedule passed through the House in one sitting. It may have been two sittings that we had on them, but I think it was one, and this was almost unprecedented in the consideration of the budget. Notwithstanding this my 'hon. friend to-day declared that he had been delayed. I thought this statement most unfair and unkind, and certainly was not in keeping with the minister's usual courtesy and fairness. We always seek to give fair treatment to him and to other ministers who extend to the House the usual courtesies of parliament, and his reference to delay hurt us very much indeed. Now, he surely is not going to impose upon us consideration of a bill that we have not seen?


James Alexander Robb: No, Mr. Speaker. I am very
glad my hon. friend made that qualification, that he did not think I wished to hurt him when I made reference this afternoon to the delay that had occurred. I was not referring to the proceedings in the committee but to the lengthy debate on the budget. I am sorry if I have injured my hon. friend's feelings, for he is the last man in the world whom I would wish to hurt.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We will forgive the minister.


James Alexander Robb: I regret that the bill has not
been distributed. I would suggest that we adjourn this debate and in the meantime have the bill distributed, so that later in the evening we can resume consideration of it.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not want to disturb
this love feast. It will be remembered that the night before last we sat very late, and if the bill has not been distributed no fault is to be imputed to the officers of the House. Later on in the evening, as suggested, we might proceed with the consideration of the bill.	'


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Immigration and Colonization Act



DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved the second reading of Bill No. 112 to amend the Department of Immigration and 'Colonization Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Duties and powers of minister.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I do not
want the minister to think that because we did not oppose the second reading no explanation of this bill is due the committee. We would like to know just exactly what is the purpose of the amendments.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Chairman, if hon. gentlemen will refer to the exp'anatory notes opposite each section, the amendments will be quite clear to them. The courts of British Columbia gave a decision that section 4 of the Immigration and Colonization Act had the effect of transferring to the Minister of Immigration and Colonization 9 p.m. the power conferred on the Minister of Justice by section 43 of the Immigration Act. The purpose of the amendments is to correct this situation for the future, and to legalize all such orders issued in the past, other than those which have been passed upon by the courts. That is, it is the intention that the Minister of Justice shall deal with all these cases.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do I understand this has reference to deportation of persons convicted of some criminal offence?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Yes, and who have
served their term.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the Minister of Justice kindly explain what is intended?


Ernest Lapointe: Apparently, when the
Immigration Act was amended, through some mistake the duty of signing the order for deportation, which had always been done by the Minister of Justice, was unwittingly transferred to the Minister of Immigration. This bill is merely for the purpose of restoring this duty to the Minister of Justice.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am speaking without
preparation, I admit, but I recall some years ago the question of deportation was under discussion, and if my memory does not serve me false, at the time I urged that the Minister of Immigration should deal with the
deportation of persons convicted of felony. Now I am again speaking wholly from memory, but I have in mind we were dealing particularly with offenders under the Narcotic Drugs Act, in which we were very deeply interested on the coast, because at that particular time both there and in Montreal orientals were known to be trafficking in narcotic drugs contrary to the law. The traffic became so notorious that the public of British Columbia was thoroughly aroused, and in order to contribute to the suppression of that illicit traffic it was thought desirable that these traffickers, when convicted, should be deported with very little ceremony; that is, that there should not be too much red tape in the deportation procedure. Having that in view, power was given to the Minister of Immigration to sign the deportation orders. Personally I should like to be very sure that that intention is still to be carried out, and that we are not by this legislation introducing some circuitous procedure. I am not reflecting on the Minister of Justice.


James Alexander Robb: Nor on the Minister of Immigration?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Immigration can look after himself in regard to these offenders. The Justice department is supposed to be conducted on a plane somewhat above that of the other departments, and the result is that the Minister of Justice sometimes delays unduly in his consideration of these deportation cases. On the contrary, the Minister of Immigration, acting on the reports of his officers, dealt with them in a more or less summary fashion. I should like to be assured that no greater leniency is to be extended to this class of offenders. This country should desire to get rid of such offenders as quickly as possible. We do not want to throw our courts open to -unlimited appeals from aliens who have been convicted of a felony. Every conviction of an alien should justify our deporting the offender with very little ceremony.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend may be
assured that his remarks will be noted. There is no intention to deal with these men any more leniently. It is simply a question of its being more practical to have this done by the Department of Justice, because the persons to be deported are in the custody of officers of that department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister describe the process? What has to be done? Who makes the appeal for the deportation?
3194	COMMONS
Immigration and Colonization Act


Samuel William Jacobs: As I understand it the only object of this act is to give the power to the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, instead of the Minister of Justice, to deport these people.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it is just the
reverse.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it thought that the
Minister of Immigration and Colonization is so soft hearted that he cannot do the work, and he wants the Minister of Justice to do it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is what I am trying to find out.


Samuel William Jacobs: I think the Minister of
Immigration and Colonization has been doing this work vigorously and with despatch during the last few years. He knows how it has to be done.


Ernest Lapointe: It has always been done by the Minister of Justice, under section 43 of the Immigration Act. It is the Department of Immigration and Colonization that asks for the amendment so that what has always been the practice shall prevail.


Robert James Manion: I would like to have a
thorough explanation of this bill. The little conversation that has been going on between the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, with a few words thrown in by the Minister of Immigration, has not made it clear, I am sure, to a good many of us. Will the minister explain it from start to finish?


James Alexander Robb: It is largely to avoid red
tape. The person who is to be deported is already under the charge of the Minister of Justice and we think it is a slowing down of the process that the necessary documents should first have to go to the Minister of Immigration and Colonization.


Robert James Manion: Does this deal only with
immigrants coming in, or with persons generally?	_


James Alexander Robb: With any person who has
to be deported.


Robert James Manion: How many years has a person to be in this country before he is immune from deportation?


James Alexander Robb: Five years, I think.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am a little uneasy
about this legislation, because I recall very well the serious condition which prompted the original legislation. I do not know what influence is demanding this change.


Ernest Lapointe: It is not a change; it .
has always been done in this way. A mere reading of section 43, which is set out in the explanatory notes of the bill, will explain that. The warden of the penitentiary is an officer of the Department of Justice and should receive his orders from the minister of that department.


Mr. EULER:: Is the order for deportation to be issued only at the expiration of the term of the man who is serving the sentence?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


William Daum Euler: Would it not be better to
remove him at once if you are going to get rid of him anyway?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think so. If a
man commits a murder in this country and is sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment, he would be very much pleased if we would send him back to Europe instead of detaining him.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister's observations make me even more suspicious of this legislation. The minister argues this: "I am the minister in charge of penitentiaries. Here is a statute which authorizes the Minister of Immigration and Colonization to issue an order in respect to a prisoner in one of these institutions. I do not think that is right; the order should be issued by myself." But. here is the weakness of the minister's position: In all sections of the country it is the official of the Immigration department who knows of the case, who is in touch with it, who is watching it. I believe the duty rests upon the clerk of the municipality or the clerk of the court in the municipality or district in which the offence was committed, and where the person to be deported is incarcerated, to notify the Immigration department. The immigration officer gets word of this and it is his business to see to the deportation; in all other forms of deportation these duties are always carried out by an immigration officer. For instance, if an immigration officer finds a person in the country contrary to the immigration law, he has him apprehended, detained, and deported on the next boat.


Ernest Lapointe: Who will give the order to the warden of the penitentiary to deliver that man to the officer?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Immigration advises the warden-


Ernest Lapointe: There is no connection
between the Minister of Immigration and the warden.

Immigration and Colonization Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: We will suppose there
is a man in Vancouver whose day of release is to come to-morrow. The immigration official gets word that to-morrow a certain notorious criminal is to be released. He cannot wire his minister and get an order immediately; it has to go through all the red tape at Ottawa before getting through the Immigration department and the Justice department. If this bill passes I venture to say that hundreds will be released without being detained at all.


James Alexander Robb: That is the difficulty we are
experiencing now: it comes to the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Immigration sends it to the Justice department; then it goes on to the warden. We propose to shorten the procedure so that it will go direct to the Minister of Justice.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. The way it is now-


James Alexander Robb: I have been doing it for the
last three months.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly. The minister
signs the order, and it is immediately communicated to the warden of the penitentiary.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: You are
wrong there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not wrong. That
is the law.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The section says so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the law; I do not care what circuitous route is followed here. I am objecting for this reason. We had all manner of difficulty in the years preceding 1918 in apprehending particularly violators of the Narcotic Drug Act. It became a veritable scandal on the Pacific coast. Public meetings were held in various cities out there, and in some of the cities eastward, protesting against the laxity of the regulations, the formality involved, and the difficulty of apprehending these people and getting them out of the country. This legislation before us in my estimation wrill make it more difficult than ever to secure the deportation of these individuals who are in the penitentiaries or jails committed for a felony.


Charles A. Stewart: Having the Minister of Immigration issue an order to his officer to take charge of the prisoner at the moment he is released did not short cut the thing, and this is not lengthening the process any because in all cases the Minister of Justice had to give the order. To all intents and purposes the prisoner is in charge of the Minister of Justice from the moment of his conviction until his sentence is served, and
the moment the prisoner steps out, instead of the Immigration department executing the deportation, it would be executed by the officer of the Minister of Justice.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me ask a question.
At the present time if the Minister of Immigration advises the warden of the penitentiary that such and such a criminal is about to be released and is to be held for deportation, that warden has to hold him.


Charles A. Stewart: Certainly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly, but when you
pass this law and the Minister of Immigration or any accredited officer so advises the warden, the warden says: "No, I take no instructions except from the Minister of Justice," and if it happens that there is a loss of connection between the Immigration department and the Justice department your criminal must be released, and nothing can hold him there. There is no doubt about that. You are simply adding another step to the procedure; that is all.


Ernest Lapointe: Will not my hon. friend admit that, after all, it is merely a question of procedure? There is no principle involved; it is merely a question of procedure. Now who knows which is the best procedure? Is it not the officers of the departments concerned who have been dealing with this matter for four years, and who have asked that there shall be no change in the procedure which has been followed all this time? Will not my hon. friend admit that after all the officers of the Immigration department as well as the officers of my department should be the best judges of what is the best procedure to follow?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is a veiy nice way
to put it, but I want to point out to the minister that we have a right to our opinion, and I will say something further to him. I want to tell him it was the failure of both the Justice department and of the Immigration department, not of this government but of past governments, to have a due appreciation of the situation that brought about this legislation in 1918. It was public opinion that forced that legislation on the statute book.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh no, it was-


Henry Herbert Stevens: It certainly was. I had
a good deal to do with it, and this is refreshing my memory. It was the indignation of the public on the Pacific coast that brought about that legislation, and now we are going back to the sleepy methods that were followed in previous days.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
3196	-	COMMONS
Immigration and Colonization Act
On section 2-Orders of Minister of Justice to be valid.
John Evans: Unless I misunderstand this bill, I think a word here is necessary on behalf of the stranger within our gates. I do not understand the member for Vancouver Centre as wishing for more stringent legislation in this regard. If I understand the bill aright, we may detain the immigrant who has committed an offence and keep him in jail or in the penitentiary or reformatory for many years, and then deport him without any further ado. After many years he has lost all connection with the land of his birth, he has lost his standing in this country as well, and we turn him adrift, perhaps penniless. In the name of humanity I think we are dealing too summarily altogether with those who are seeking new homes in our country.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course, my hon. friend has read the section of the statute? It applies only to men who are not Canadian citizens or who have not acquired Canadian domicile.


John Evans: Is it not a fact that those to whom this act would apply mostly require five years' residence in this country before they can obtain citizenship anyway? We may detain that man ten or fifteen years in prison in this country, at the end of which time he has lost all connection with the land of his birth, and then we summarily deport him without trial. It does not seem like British justice.


Charles A. Stewart: They have not lost citizenship. If a Canadian were to commit a like offence in another country and serve a like sentence, he would come back to Canada as a Canadian citizen. So it works both ways.


William Garland McQuarrie: Has the minister considered the point raised by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) as to whether the act could be so amended as to provide for the deportation of these convicts immediately after their conviction instead of keeping them here in the gaol or penitentiaries? It seems to me there might be something in that. I have considered the point previously. As a matter of fact, it has been put up to me by some of the authorities, more particularly in regard to the less serious offences which have resulted in gaol sentences. In the case of a sentence to gaol, what happens? It means that the municipality in which the offence is committed has to maintain the man while he is in gaol awaiting de-
portation. It is very doubtful indeed whether
the confinement in gaol is going to do any of these people any good.


The CHAIRMAN:: I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that section 1 is passed. It is section 2 we are dealing with now, providing that the orders of the Minister of Justice shall be valid.


William Garland McQuarrie: Section 2 deals distinctly with section 43 of the Immigration Act, which is the one I am discussing.


George Newcombe Gordon: I do not see the
relevancy at the present time.


William Garland McQuarrie: Section 2 distinctly
refers to section 43 of the Immigration Act, and it is that section of the act I am discussing.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the hon. member's intention to suggest an amendment to section 43 of the act, as coming within section 2 of this bill? This deals purely with the power of the minister to make an order.


William Garland McQuarrie: I say that this section is before the committee, and I am discussing with the minister whether it would not be advisable to further consider the suggestion which was made by the hon. member for North Waterloo. If I may proceed, Mr. Chairman-I shall uot be long-when a man is sent to the gaol, the municipality has to pay for his keep until he has served his sentence, and then he is deported. Why not deport him immediately after conviction? I do not see why that could not be done.


Ernest Lapointe: Because he has committed a crime. He has been convicted of a crime and has to serve a sentence. I am sure my hon. friend would be very popular with these people if, under such circumstances, he would allow them all to go scot-free.


Samuel William Jacobs: Suppose two men, one a Canadian and one an American citizen, commit a crime. The Canadian would be sen-, fenced to two years in the penitentiary for his offence, while the American would be sent to New York, both having committed the same offence. The thing is absurd on the face of it. The man should be punished, and in addition to that he should be sent out of the country. But to sentence a man to repatriation for an offence would make the Minister of Justice most popular with alien criminals. Suppose a man wants to go back to London and. has not the means; he says to himself, "I will commit an offence, incur

Dominion Lands Act
imprisonment for two years, and be sent back to my country, without any cost- to myself." Such a procedure would be placing a premium on crime.


William Garland McQuarrie: In the meantime, if you do not do that, you are simply providing him with board and lodging, because a man who is so unprincipled as to endeavour to do what has been suggested by the hon. member lor George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) would not care very much whether he was kept in gaol or not. This provision for the deportation of a foreigner who has committed an offence in this country is comparatively recent. When you send a man to the penitentiary what happens? The government has to keep him there and educate him.


Samuel William Jacobs: Where would New Westminster be if you did not have a penitentiary.


William Garland McQuarrie: I guess it would be in the same place as it is now. The government has to keep and educate this man and all that kind of thing, and the difference to my mind is this, that we owe a duty to Canadian citizens and British subjects, but we do not owe any duty to foreigners. When we deport them we are inflicting upon them possibly the greatest penalty that we can impose


Edward Joseph Garland: My hon.
friend suggests that we owe a duty to British subjects coming here on our solicitation, but that we do not owe any duty to foreigners Does he really mean that, or is that just a joke? I really do not think the hon. member can be serious in that.


William Garland McQuarrie: We apparently do not owe any duty to the people who are not Canadian subjects when we throw them out of the country. When we deport them we are through with them and they cannot come back to Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: But we are not paying them a compliment either by keeping them in gaol.


William Garland McQuarrie: But we are going to a lot of expense in keeping them in gaol, and the question is whether we should do that or not. I am simply suggesting this to the minister as something that might be considered. I do not say that I am absolutely in favour of it. I can quite see that lawyers might cast it aside as being ridiculous, but at the same time the more I think of it the more I am convinced that this matter should receive some consideration.
Mr. H.OEY: Will the minister tell us if all such prisoners after release are deported, or are exceptions made in certain cases?


Ernest Lapointe: It is optional.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Optional with the prisoner?


Ernest Lapointe: It is in the discretion of the department.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Optional with the department, but not optional with the prisoner.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Bill reported.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Bill No. 119, to amend the Special Act, 1915, has now been distributed. If hon. gentlemen have no objection, the government would like to proceed with it this evening. Copies are on the table.


Edward Joseph Garland: We have
not copies.


Arthur Meighen: I do not desire to waive the rule in this case. I do not think there is any need of proceeding with it. Other items were mentioned in last night's statement by the minister. I have not had time to read this bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right hon friend objects of course we will not proceed. We have already been over it in committee, and my hon. friend is familiar with it all.


Arthur Meighen: I do not care to proceed with it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then the
second reading will have to stand.
Bill stands.



DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. 75, to amend the Dominion Lands Act.-Hon. Mr. Stewart (Angenteuil)-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On sectiom 1-Conditions of entry for lands in Saskatchewan and Alberta south of south boundary of township 16.
Charles A. Stewart: There is
just the one clause in this bill dealing with the sale of school lan|ds, and it was not finished when we were m committee the other day.

*9
Dominion Lands Act
The hon. member for East York (Mr. Harris) moved an amendment, and I asked time to consider it. I have now drafted a proviso that will cover the objection taken by the hon. member. This proviso reads:
And provided that no action shall be taken save and in respect of a holder who has been actually fanning such lands in a proper and husband-like manner.
That is in order to take in onlly the men who are actually farming these lands, not the speculator who is using these lands for speculative purposes. This provision has been copied from the form of mortgage describing cultivated land. I have adopted the same clause and embodied it in this section. It amply covers the objection raised by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Arthur Meighen: What is meant by "such lands"? Does that mean lands that are surrendered or lands or quarter sections that are to be retained or the whole of the land bought?


Charles A. Stewart: It means
that the lands in question, whatever lands they are, both those that are surrendered and those to be retained, are being farmed. The idea is not to allow the speculator to come in who is not farming the lands, who is holding them for speculative purposes. Frankly, I do not think there are any left, but I tried to meet the objection so that this will be confined to men who are actually carrying on farming operations on those lands.


Arthur Meighen: A man might have
bought at a school land sale a section of land and he might be fanning only a quarter of it. He desires to retain that quarter and to abandon the other three quarters. He could not do that under this amendment. He would have to' be actually farming the whole section. My point is this, that under the amendment as worded, I fear the minister virtually negatives the whole clause. What I mean is this:	No man who is farming
land which he has bought at a single sale, will be anxious to give up that part of the land which he has under cultivation.


Charles A. Stewart: If my right hon. friend is speaking of farming, say 160 acres, no one farms the whole 160 acres. He farms portions of that. What I am trying to avoid is to say that, without his having performed any duties upon the land, he would be entitled to give it up.


Arthur Meighen: What the minister means is this, that if a man is farming a portion of the actual land bought, that should be 
sufficient. The way in which the minister has this worded, the mam would have to be farming in a good and husbandlike manner, perhaps not every acre, but every portion. I presume the minister means-and if he does, he is right-that even a man who is living in a town, provided that he is farming the land by means of a tenant or an employee, is entitled to the relief just the same as anybody else.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, if he is spending money on the property.


Arthur Meighen: I think that is quite
proper, but I fear the minister's wording will have to be extended; otherwise, it will mean that the man has to be farming every portion of the land even though he is not ploughing every portion of it. Any man who is doing that is not going to give up the rest and have all his payments centre on the one quarter.


Charles A. Stewart: All I am
seeking to avoid is that the speculator should come in and take advantage of this provision We want simply to deal with men Who can prove to the satisfaction of the department that they are in a position where they cannot continue; that they are liable to sustain serious loss, and that they have been putting forth their best endeavours to farm the land. They are the people whose investment we are trying to save. If a man is in no danger of losing his investment, he has no cause for complaint and he cannot ask to be taken under the protection of this legislation. Cases, however, constantly come to our notice of the kind I have described. There is a case on the Bluckfoot reserve of a couple who have spent 830,000 in trying to develop a farm. The husband died a year ago. The widow is left in possession of the property and she is unable to carry it on. There is no section in the Indian Act that gives me authority to deal with that case, but it is identical with cases that arise. The land which this couple have been farming comprises a considerable acreage. I have forgotten the quantity. So far as I am able to ascertain, they have been fanning it in a good, husbandlike manner, but the widow has got into a position where it is impossible for her to carry on. If she could surrender part of the land and apply the payments on the balance, that would get her out of a very difficult situation. That is exactly how I mean to apply this provision. I have gone carefully into this question, and I think the clause is drafted so as to give, us authority to deal with these cases where they arise.

Dominion Lands Act


Arthur Meighen: Supposing a man buys a section and sells half of it, and the purchaser who buys on an agreement of sale, cultivates a portion of that. The man is not farming anj of it at all, but he has some of it under cultivation through his purchaser. He applies to have the moneys he has paid all devoted to the redemption of the half section that he has sold. Will the minister feel that he is empowered under this amendment to yield to the importunities of that man?


Charles A. Stewart: Do I understand my right lion, friend to suggest that the other half the man is holding himself would not be cultivated?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. He bought it all
as one piece.


Charles A. Stewart: He could
scarcely claim to apply the payments on the half that was uncultivated to the half that was cultivated. That is one of the very serious difficulties with which we have to contend. The method of disposing of these lands by agreements of sale creates endless difficulties in making adjustment. There are so many parties interested in the matter that it almost puts an adjustment beyond the bounds of possibility.


Edward Joseph Garland: Supposing
one of these parcels of land to which the right hon. gentleman has called the minister's attention were used simply as grazing land for grazing purposes, and the other portion is the portion of which the minister has spoken, that is cultivated. The man is in difficulties. What is there in this legislation to prevent that man from having the payments on both quarters apply on the cultivated one and so get out from under his liability on the uncultivated land?


Charles A. Stewart: One can
hardly conceive of the various angles that will arise in connection with dealing with a question of this kind; but the legislation is devised, so far as we can devise it, for the purpose of meeting cases of real distress. I am not tying them down to just how much cultivation there shall be or whether it shall be fifty, sixty or seventy-five acres. If a man had a half section that he wished to retain without any cultivation on it, I would hesitate to some extent. If it were a quarter section, that would be a different matter, and I think I could agree to that, provided that he had a half section well cultivated and was having difficulty in meeting his payments.


Mr. BANCROFT:: What would happen in a case where a whole section, say of school land, purchased by a settler residing near there, was grazing land, was purchased for that purpose and he got into difficulties in just the same way as a man who bought land for farming and was unable to carry it on? Would the same treatment apply to him? Could he surrender three-quarters and keep one?


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry, but we do not cover that case. The moment you do that, you immediately cover the case of land with a two-strand wire fence around it, leased by a speculator for somebody to graze his stock upon. That is, perhaps, a real difficulty and it may be somewhat of a hardship. But if you carry it to that extent, the other purchaser comes in with whom we do not wish to deal.


Leland Payson Bancroft: I am sure the minister
will agree with me that there are some cases where this land is not leased, but purchased solely for that purpose, because pasture is scarce in some of those sections in the west. It might in a few cases work a hardship on such a man.


Charles A. Stewart: I had a fairly wide experience in this matter before coming here. We encountered all sorts of difficulties and I made some trips to Ottawa with regard to the leasing of school lands held by speculators or by people who hoped for an increase in value by leasing the land for a time. The real reason these people leased the land in our province was to get out of the wild land tax; and they avoided this by putting stock on the land. We were forced to meet this attempt to avoid taxation by enacting a clause providing that the stock must be the bona fide property of the owner of the land. If we undertook to assist cases of the kind suggested we might step into difficulties of all sorts. It was to meet the objection raised in the committee on the previous occasion that I drew up the clause I am now suggesting.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is going to be in a position under this amendment to do pretty much as he likes.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
true.


Arthur Meighen: And I do not know how the amendment could be framed to avoid putting him in that position. I want to put myself on record to this effect: This legisla-

Dominion Lands Act

tion will result in bringing back into the title of the government a very large proportion of the outstanding school land sales. The title will revert to the department and not only will the progress which has been made in school land sales for many years be arrekted, but retrogression to a great extent will ensue. I ask the minister to note what I am saying now; he will find that this will be the result.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
share the fear expressed by my right hon. friend. We know pretty well now the number of rescissions that will take place. We have had a great deal of correspondence and the matter was discussed fully with the provincial governments before this ktep was taken. It will be applied only in cases where there is real distress. It is true, as my right hon. friend says, that considerable power is placed in the hands of the minister, and this is necessary if the act is to be practicable.


Edward Joseph Garland: Approximately, what is the amount of the arrears on school lands?


Charles A. Stewart: I could not give that information now; I will submit it when the estimates are under consideration.


Arthur Meighen: This will be an expedient to relieve the large purchaser to a very great extent; he is the beneficiary of this legislation. But the small purchaser cannot possibly be relieved at all. The fellow who bought a quarter section in the boom times at a high figure must make his payment or lose his money; but the man that bought a section or two, if he is farming part of it, can come to the foot of the throne and make out a case for a lease. The poor chap with a quarter section must stay with his bargain.


Charles A. Stewart: Very few
fail on the quarter section. I do not think, speaking from memory, that I have one application from an individual who has purchased a quarter section.


Arthur Meighen: What could the poor
fellow apply for? There is no smaller unit; he has to stick, that is all.


Mr. SPENCER:: Does the department allow the purchaser of school land to re-sell the land to a second party? If so, does the department hold the original purchaser good for the full payment in case the second purchaser does not come through?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
quite follow the question.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I want to know whether
purchasers of school lands are allowed to resell, and, in that case, whether the department holds the original purchaser good for the amount.


Charles A. Stewart: In most
cases the sales are made by agreement, and the great difficulty in the department is that frequently it is not notified. But if they are prepared to pay out the amount against the land then the first purchaser is released, but not until the amount is paid.


Arthur Meighen: The minister I think has missed the point. What the hon. member wants to know is whether the department can hold responsible the person who purchases from the government's vendee. He cannot be held responsible, nor can the government hold their own purchaser responsible, inasmuch as the government's purchaser does not enter into any agreement at all; he gets a receipt for the money he pays. It amounts to this, that the purchaser from the government really takes rn option, but he is not bound personally; there is nothing by which he can be made to pay a cent. All he suffers is the loss of the first, payment in case he does not come through.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: On -the other hand, by that policy the government it seems is in a favoured position to cancel the land not held by legal restriction.


Arthur Meighen: That is right.


Milton Neil Campbell: In the past I think the department has erred on the side of leniency. A great deal of this land passes into the hands of speculators and is turned over by them to bona fide farmers at a large price. The speculator's object is to secure all the equity he can from the farmer. The farmer in many cases has broken up the land, he has put his buildings on it, having done all the work of development, and now he finds that the payments have not been kept up to the department; in fact, in some cases that I know of nothing further than the original payment was made. The farmer on the land wants possession of it and cannot secure it. I think the policy of the government should be to eliminate the speculator and eliminate him immediately; but in a great many cases they are not doing so. It is in cases where the land was purchased by wealthy men that the government is extending the most protection to the speculator. I know of instances in which land was bought at from six to eight dollars per acre originally and was turned over to the farmers at as high as

Dominion Lands Act
eighteen dollars. A farmer has worked on it for years, having spent a lot of money, and now he finds he has no opportunity of securing it. The speculator never paid any taxes and the farmer has let his own taxes run on, because he did not know whether he would acquire the land or not. The municipalities were not able to collect the taxes for the reason that there was no title to the land and they did not want to seize from the farmer; they knew he had his share of the crop to deliver to the original purchaser and they feared to put him out of business. The result is that the taxes have run up in arrears to an enormous extent; in one case I know of there is nearly $1,000 against one particular quarter section. A municipal officer told me some time ago that in view of the trouble they have experienced they would prefer to lose the taxes if they can eliminate the first party. It seems to me that if the department would wipe out the speculator and get the bona fide farmer on the land the municipalities could secure their taxes and be in better shape than they are to-day, because they would be doing business direct with the farmers. The only thing for the minister to do is, as I say, to eliminate the speculator, who has been a curse to western Canada. With regard to the -question raised by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Meighen), that a man might be living in a town and yet be farming his land by proxy, there are a great many cases of that kind and these men might be entitled to consideration. In many cases it has happened that some man has gone on the land and worked on it a very short time and then moved in town to engage in some other business, and necessarily he had to rent the land or get someone else to work it. In that case I would say that the man would be entitled to consideration, but I think the minister should not be bound by any very definite legal restriction and that he is perfectly right in leaving the matter to his own judgment. Indeed, I do not think it can be handled any other way. But I should like to point out that in the case of a speculator, who never intended to farm the land, but just used it to farm the farmer, merely trying to get all the money he could out of it without doing any work, and in a good many cases where he did not sell it had some broken up to comply with the provisions of the Wild Lands Act. I think the minister should take drastic action and eliminate that speculator. I want to point out another feature, that in re-selling the land the man residing on it should have the first opportunity to purchase.
205i
There are some cases of very great hardship, and in the cases I have referred to I may say that the department has been very fair and always willing to give the man on the land the first opportunity to purchase. I think that should be borne in mind, that somebody else might step in and put up a little more cash or pay a few dollars more and the man on the land would be losing his equity and forced out on the road.


Arthur Meighen: How does the minister
feel about that speculative argument?


Charles A. Stewart: The speculator is very hard to eliminate. When you attempt to do so you wipe out the purchaser too. You cannot do anything in that case. If he has made a sale of the property, and the property is cultivated, we cannot be responsible for the collection of the taxes. Where you find a speculator in possession of land to-day, he is paying the interest, although he may not .'be paying any of the principal. When he gets in arrears with his interest payments we take action; not so when the mani in arrears is the actual farmer. But if that speculator has some other man on the land working it, then you are going to put the latter out of business as well as the speculator the moment you take action on the contract. My hon. friend may say: Well, is there not some process by which you can protect the man on the land? There is not, because under the act we must sell the land by auction.


Milton Neil Campbell: I think the minister has missed the point of my argument. We will say a speculator bought land at ten dollars an acre, and resold it at fifteen dollars an acre to a farmer. His object is not to pay the original amount to the department at all, but as quickly as possible to secure his equity, and then assign what equity he may have to the farmer on the land. If the minister cares to look up the figures in his department he will find that m a great many cases the interest payments are not being kept up. I understand the minister has nothing to do with payment of the taxes, but I think the department is under a moral obligation to the municipalities to at least be reasonable in the matter. The point is this, the speculator should be eliminated and the land, or a reasonable amount of it, resold to the man on it. In most cases this man might be ahead by this proceeding, because he probably bought that land at a time when the value of it was inflated above what it is worth today. In a good many cases the speculator
Dominion Lands Act

never secured his full equity because the value of the land has dropped to such an extent that it is probably not more than equal to the amount of the original purchase price and any accrued interest there may be. In that case it would be perfectly fair to sell the land to the farmer. You would not be putting him out of business as the minister suggested; you would ibe putting him in business, because he would prefer to deal with the department rather than with the speculator. He would at least knory where he stood, and in a great many cases he would be getting the land a little cheaper than the amount that is against it to-day.


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry,
but it cannot be done.


Mr. COOTE:: Is not every quarter section
a separate sale? And in case a man bought ten quarter sections at one of these school sales, and is now farming three or four of these quarter sections, would he be able to turn them back under this suggested amendment?


Charles A. Stewart: No, he would
not, I can assure you.


Henry Elvins Spencer: If he could not turn back those extra quarter sections, -where would you put the limit?


Charles A. Stewart: If he is only farming one or two quarter sections, and is doing nothing with the balance but grazing them, he would not be entitled to consideration. Right off the bat I would say so.


Arthur Meighen: If the member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) is right-and I fancy he is, from recollection

that each unit is a quarter section, what is the effect of the minister's amendment? The land referred to in the minister's amendment cannot be any of the land except the land in the one sale.


Charles A. Stewart: If he is
farming the land in a good and husbandlike manner-


Arthur Meighen: What land?


Charles A. Stewart: The land he purchased; and he has purchased twenty, ten or two sections-


Arthur Meighen: Quarter sections.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. But he is the owner of ten or fifteen quarter sections, and the mere fact that because the sale was made for one quarter section does not limit the action provided for by the amendment.
[Mr. Campbell. |


Arthur Meighen: Suppose a man has bought ten quarter sections, does the minister mean he might actually be farming in a good and husbandlike manner the whole ten quarter sections?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Arthur Meighen: What does he mean?
That is what he said before.


Charles A. Stewart: True; but
surely my right hon. friend wou'd not expect that the act would so provide? We would much rather have not touched it if that were the case and left it absolutely to the jurisdiction of the minister; but we are trying to throw some protection around the minister as to how he shall deal with these sales.


Arthur Meighen: What is the meaning?


Charles A. Stewart: The meaning is that farming operations shall have been carried on in a good and husbandlike manner.


Arthur Meighen: On how much land?


Charles A. Stewart: I did not put in the acreage, because if I did so it would probably nullify the effect of the whole thing. You have to leave that to the discretion of the minister. But when you ask me if I am going to cancel eight or ten quarter sections of uncultivated land for one individual, I answer, certainly not.


Arthur Meighen: The minister cannot get through the maze so easily. Here he has an amendment which says that he cannot apply this relief clause unless the purchaser of, say ten quarter sections, is farming that land in a good and husbandlike manner. When I asked him what that " land '' meant, he said the land bought. I do not see
10 p.m. how it could mean anything e'se.
That is, he must be farming the ten quarter sections in a good and husbandlike manner, he must be farming each of them; there is no other way to farm them; he cannot farm every acre of each of them. Under the law he will have to be farming each of these ten quarter sections.


Charles A. Stewart: No, no; my right hon. friend has missed that.


Arthur Meighen: I have not missed it. The minister told me that.


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Arthur Meighen: The minister's answer
was quite right; I have just read the amendment through. Under the amendment as he has it he would be powerless to apply the relief

Supply-Trade and Commerce
unless the applicant was farming each of the quarter sections in a good and husbandlike manner. Any man who is actually farming the land is not going to ask that the contract be cancelled.


Charles A. Stewart: My right
hon. friend is wrong there. I know of at least a dozen half sections, in respect of which applications are now in the office, where 75 per cent of the lands are being farmed.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.


Charles A. Stewart: And the
request comes to have the purchase price applied on the one quarter.


Arthur Meighen: That is, one quarter of
the half?


Charles A. Stewart: No, 75 per
cent of the whole is being farmed, and they want to give up one quarter and apply the payments on the other. Many men who are farming on half sections owe more than the original purchase price, to say nothing of what they have paid in, and these are the real cases of hardship. It will help them out very materially if we apply the payments on the one quarter section and release them in respect to the remainder. There are not many men with eight or ten quarter sections in these days; those are mostly all cancelled.


Mr. McTAGGART:: The minister is perfectly correct in his summing up of the case. I know of a man who bought a half section of school land around 1917 or 1918 and has since been farming practically the whole of it, with the exception of a little pasture. He put up substantial buildings on one quarter- house, barn, stables, granaries-and had a well dug and fencing built. At the time he bought the land there wag great inflation of land values and possibly he paid too high a price; and he has been unable to keep up with the payments on the half section. So that to-day he is in the position of having made very substantial payments on the half section but of being unable to make good on the whole of his land. This legislation will enable him to release one quarter back to the department and have a chance to make good on the other quarter. This is not the only case of the kind. These men unwisely bought at an inflated value more land than they could handle, and they now find that after two or three years labour they are faced with the loss of everything because they cannot make good their payments.


Milton Neil Campbell: The minister stated
that the suggestions I made to him could not be carried out. I am quite aware that they could not be carried out in connection with school lands, but I was speaking in a general way of all government land. As a matter of fact I had particular reference to Indian land, of which the department can make direct sales after the original purchase has been cancelled. That is really what I had in mind, and perhaps I should have explained that to the minister. There is an enormous amount of land under the control of the Indian department which was. sold to speculators, the payments having been in arrears, in some cases only the original payments having been made.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Trade and Commerce-Dominion Bureau of Statistics (including western census), $125,000.
Robert James Manion: I notice that there is a
decrease of $75,000. It is so rare a thing I would like to have an explanation.


Thomas Andrew Low: It is because a large number of
census clerks employed in connection with the 1921 census are no longer required.


Arthur Meighen: They have not been kept on until now, have they?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, it takes time to complete the work.


Mr. HANSON:: When will the remaining
volumes of the census report be available?


Thomas Andrew Low: Three more volumes will be
available this year. The remainder will be published next year.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the
minister say that the work of compiling the census statistics is about completed?


Thomas Andrew Low: The work of concluding the
compilation is going on.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Will the reports be published in French at the same time as in English?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.
Mr. MiANION:	How many employees are
there in the Bureau of Statistics?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Thomas Andrew Low: They come under the civil government estimate, not under this one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What particular items does this deal with?


Thomas Andrew Low: This is for the outside staff. It to provide for salaries of temporary employees, printing and stationery, criminal and vital statistics, travelling expenses of the Dominion statistician and his staff, freight and express, telephones and telegrams, newspapers and periodicals, machine rentals and repairs, and contingencies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What permanent staff has
the Bureau of Statistics outside of Ottawa? I thought they were all localized here.


Thomas Andrew Low: There is no permanent staff
outside of Ottawa. We have to have a considerable outside staff, of course, for the decennial census.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Those are just enumerators. I understood the minister to say that this did not cover the salaries of the staff here in Ottawa. They would come under civil government. What salaries, if any, are paid out of this vote outside of Ottawa?


Thomas Andrew Low: This includes the salaries of
the temporary clerks employed in connection with the census, but these clerks are all gone now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If they are all out, why
vote this? What makes up the $125,000? Does it include anything for salaries for staff, and if so, where is the staff located?


Thomas Andrew Low: As I said before this vote is
to provide for the salaries for temporary employees, printing and stationery, criminal and vital statistics, travelling expenses of the Dominion statistician and his staff, freight and express, telephones and telegrams, newspapers and periodicals, machine rentals and repairs, and contingencies. It covers the salaries of temporary employees.


Robert James Manion: What salaries are paid in
addition to this for the permanent employees?


Thomas Andrew Low: If my hon. friend will turn
to page 103 of the Estimates, he will find the items scattered over the whole page. They are so placed in accordance with the Auditor General's requirements.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I saw that. I did
not wish to take up the minister's time, but I was curious to know how much in addition to this $125,000 there was paid. Page 103 takes in the whole department, and it does not ?ive the Statistics branch separately. I am

not in any way critical of the Statistics branch ; I am one of the boosters for it, I always like to say a good' word for it, because you can always get reliable information on very short order there. At the same time, I would like to know what salaries in addition to this $125,000 are paid in that branch.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am sorry my deputy has not the figures with him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the minister had any criticism lately with respect to the multiplicity of retuYns that merchants, manufacturers and others are required to make to the Statistics branch? I have had a good many complaints from business men of the large number and great variety of returns that are required of them from time to time by this department, so much so that many of them have complained of it as a perfect nuisance. I quite appreciate that the Statistics branch is an important one; it is important that we should have statistics, but when it is carried to such an extent as has been complained of to me, then I think there is such a thing as overdoing it. I spoke about this last year, and I should like to know how the matter stands.


Thomas Andrew Low: I quite agree that there is sometimes ground for complaint, but it is only occasionally that those who are called upon to make returns object. As a matter of fact, before I was in the House I remember objecting myself. I used to think it was a waste of time supplying all the details that were requested. However, they serve a useful and valuable purpose, and I do not think there are many industries which would care to have any of this work dropped.
Mr.' ANDERSON: What is included in this vote for the western census?


Thomas Andrew Low: The census of population and agriculture in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta will be taken by the bureau in the month of June, 1926, on a date fixed by the Governor in Council, and every tenth year thereafter. That is the clause in the act governing the taking of the western census.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then why vote the money this year?


Thomas Andrew Low: We have to start it this fall.


Mr. ANDERSON:: Are they going to take the census next year in the western provinces?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the idea?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Thomas Andrew Low: That is in accordance with the act, from which I have just quoted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When was the law passed?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Years ago.


Edward Joseph Garland: With what success has the merging of the different statistical branches into a central bureau been effected?


Thomas Andrew Low: We are gradually working towards centralization.	[DOT]


Edward Joseph Garland: It is not
yet completed?


Thomas Andrew Low: No.


Robert King Anderson: What amount of this
vote goes towards paying for the western census that is to be taken?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is impossible to say definitely, but it will come out of this vote.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do I understand that for
the purposes of the subsidies to the three prairie provinces, the western census is taken every five years? Is this part of the agreement under which they became provinces? Is that the act the minister has in mind?


Thomas Andrew Low: The census for the whole
Dominion is taken every ten years, but a census of population and agriculture, only, in the three western provinces is taken' every five years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It' has nothing to do with
the subsidies?


Thomas Andrew Low: Nothing whatever.


Robert King Anderson: When was the last
census taken? It was in 1921, was it not?


Thomas Andrew Low: The 1921 census was a census
of the whole Dominion, and included everything.


John Livingstone Brown: It takes the two to fulfil
the whole purpose. We have a quinquennia', census in the west. The Dominion census covers one period, and the census of population and agriculture covers the other, so we have a quinquennial census for the three western provinces.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has it any relation to the subsidies paid to the three western provinces by the Dominion?


Thomas Andrew Low: None whatever.


John Livingstone Brown: Oh yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister says no.


Thomas Andrew Low: My deputy informs me that the subsidy is based on the population in those provinces.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then the subsidy to the
three western provinces is changed every five years, instead of every ten. Why is the distinction made between the three western provinces and the other provinces? I am asking just for information.


George Perry Graham: Would the reason be that
the west is a new country, rapidly growing in population and it would be unfair possibly to those three provinces to keep them down to a decennial census? Would we profit any in the fclder provinces by having the census taken oftener?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Personally, I would like
to see a census taken of the old provinces. We would know how many people we have lost since the government came into power.


George Perry Graham: You would not be afraid of that.


Edward Joseph Garland: I can readily understand some of the objections taken by hon. members to my right to sending in the returns required by the bureau. I will not readily forget an objection of my own in the early days before I learned the value of statistics. I happened to be one of the unfortunate crop reporters, and when during my early days in western Canada I received the forms to fill in, I took care to fill them in with a booster's mind. Everything looked glowing and extremely good, and so no return I made could have reflected accurately the general conditions of that country. Later on I began to realize that we possibly had some enemies-well perhaps not exactly enemies, but people who liked to make a living off what we raised-and the thought began to grow in my mind, if I give them this information it will simply enable them to steal a little more from us; so that.I began to change absolutely the nature of the report I was making, until it was the very opposite of optimistic. However, I am glad to say that today I am beginning to realize the immense value of statistics, and therefore I notice with considerable regret the serious cut in the estimates. I do not think we have a more important department than the Bureau of Statistics. I do not think there is one single department of the government to which the government as a whole always look for guidance in its progress forward or for indication of what retrograde steps may have been taken.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am glad
I have one supporter when I make that statement. It is verv seldom T take pYcention

Supply-Trade and Commerce
to a reduction in the estimates. It is therefore with a full realization of the responsibility in this case that I do take serious objection to this reduction, especially as it is an enormous one. It is the largest single reduction in the Department of Trade and Commerce, a reduction	of
$75,000. The reduction amounts to almost half of the amount voted last year, but the minister states that the compilation of the census figures is practically complete. May I suggest that the department has a great and steadily growing work to perform^ Every country in the world recognizes that feature. My hon. friends to my right have tried to impress upon the government that in the United States tremendous strides for economy are being attempted, and that in their general budget they have reduced their estimates by about a billion dollars. May I point out however that they have increased their vote for this work? In Japan and also in Germany, this work is expanding. Germany has realized, as no other country has, the importance of the statistical barometer that can be developed by the proper use of statistics to indicate just how trade should expand or be contracted as the case may be. I think too many hon. members seem to regard this matter as a sort of joke, but after all the joke will be turned round the other way. One gentleman said that the joke has been on those who believe in statistics, statistics, and lies; but in a little while the joke will be on those who do not use the statistics. I think if this government realizes its responsibility in this matter it will not cut this vote. Although the work of the census may be practically completed, there is an enormous amount of work yet to be done. I should like to point out to the minister that in the last report made by the Dominion Statistician, he pointed this out. For example, in connection with the statistics of Immigration we have no information whatever in this country. We do not know how many people we are losing. We have to guess at it or rely on the figures given by the United States. There is no accurate taking of a return of the emigration from this country and the figures that we get in the returns from other countries are challenged by this government or by the department; but they have no evidence to produce to set off against these returns except the fact that perhaps some Canadians are coming back. Those coming in here are counted, but the emigration figures are very incomplete.
Certain improvements were recommended in compiling navigation statistics but I doubt

if they have become effective. Some improvements were recommended in the reports which were furnished respecting trade, but I would especially call the attention of the minister to the Income Tax branch and urge that the data which is brought together there should be correlated with that of the bureau. I do not think any more important work than that can be undertaken. When we try to find the actual income of farmers, we cannot do it, but we can find in the Year Book the net return of the manufacturers. We cannot get comparative figures with regard to agriculture. It is my belief that the agricultural feature of the bureau has been seriously neglected. I do not think that we have enough expert help in that division. We may have a sufficient clerical staff, but I think we should have one or two young men who, anxious to go forward in this work, will be ready to step into the places of the older ones when the time comes. Of the older ones the best is I think Mr. Godfrey who will have to retire, on account of his age, within a period of two or three years. I would strongly recommend the minister to take this matter into consideration, and I would be willing to support a vote in the supplementary estimates, if the minister thinks, after consideration of the matter, that this vote should be implemented.
We have no satisfactory statistics of civil justice, or very few. They are quite incomplete.
In conclusion, I do not think there is a more valuable book on which we can base accurate estimates as to the condition of the country, the trade and the future than the Canada Year Book. I think it is a splendid piece of work, well done. There are those in this House who say statistics are a joke. They have spoken to me in that way and have stated that statistics are the toys of faddists propagated by those who wish to send their theories broadcast on every occasion. I should like to call their attention to the words of men like Lord Reading and Lord Milner. In the official report- on the government of South Africa, Lord Milner said:
No one can have followed the account of the functions of government without feeling how complicated and scientific its business is, even in a new country-
Such as Canada is.
-with a small population. Great issues hang upon the judgment of those who guide its policy just as the safety of a ship depends upon the navigating officer. The captain does not guide his ship by guess work or intuition.
The navigation of a ship is a good example of scientific administration. A bank, a railway, an army, a mining group, must each be equipped with an intelligence department whose duty it is to collect and

Supply-Trade and Commerce
tabulate facts and figures (which are merely the most concentrated expression of facts) and to deduce correct conclusions from them. Much of the information upon which governments act should be prepared for them in the same way by their statistical offices. As in the navigation of a ship nothing should be left to guesswork that can be discovered by accurate observation and the comparison of measured results, so it shou'd be in matters of state. The policy of government ought to be based so far as is possible on information collected and prepared on the most scientific lines.
I could go on quoting many others, like Emile Levasseur, an eminent French economist,
S.N.D. North, De Bray and many other eminent men, whose judgment certainly ought to be regarded with some confidence by those who sit in this House. I would conclude by asking the minister, in view of the fact that we hope to have a constantly growing and expanding country with an ever increasing population and various social and economic problems, to take into consideration again the possibility of increasing this vote.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is this cut taken entirely from the amount that was used for the census, or will it reduce the staff of the bureau at all?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is confined entirely to the census.


Arthur Meighen: How many clerks are
being taken off the census?


Thomas Andrew Low: They have all gone but nine.


Arthur Meighen: When did they go?


Thomas Andrew Low: They have been dropped each year.


Arthur Meighen: How does the minister explain a reduction of $75,000 by dropping those nine? They must have been pretty well paid clerks.


Thomas Andrew Low: I said that there were only
nine left. There are a number of other items.


Arthur Meighen: How many were left a year ago?


Thomas Andrew Low: There were 188 at the end of the fiscal year, 1923-24.


Arthur Meighen: Were those dropped at
that time?


Thomas Andrew Low: No. They were employed originally for three years under the act. They were let out from month to month as they were not required. There are only nine left at the present time. -


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are these employees
absorbed into other departments, or do they leave the public service? If any are drafted into other departments, how many?


Thomas Andrew Low: Some of the temporaries may receive employment in other departments. They are not debarred from applying to other departments for employment.


Robert King Anderson: I think in Ontario the provincial government takes a census every year with regard to agriculture and some of the other provinces do the same. Do the governments of the prairie provinces not issue their own statistics with regard to agriculture?


Thomas Andrew Low: The governments of the western provinces do much the same as the governments of the older provinces. This department works as much as possible with the different provincial governments in the collection of these statistics in order to avoid duplication.


Robert King Anderson: Do I understand the
minister to say this is a duplication of the work, or is the Dominion government working in harmony with and getting their statistics from the provincial governments?


Thomas Andrew Low: We try to work in harmony
as far as possible with the governments.


Robert King Anderson: Can the minister say
how much of this vote is for the Dominion part of the census in Saskatchewan, for instance?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is impossible just at this
moment to say how much.


Milton Neil Campbell: I notice in the Auditor General's report for 1923-24, total expenditure in the Bureau of Statistics was $257,000, and the total amount for the sixth census was $159,000. That would leave approximately a net amount of $100,000 chargeable to the Bureau of Statistics. In that case this would not mean any reduction in the service. Can the minister state if that is so?


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not follow my hon. friend. There is no reduction at all in the permanent sendee. The reduction is due entirely to the census, as I said before.


Arthur Meighen: I do not presume anybody is getting the idea that the minister is really cutting down the staff of his flepart-ment.


Thomas Andrew Low: We cut it down last year.


Arthur Meighen: Very little. I notice
that the minister still has, as appears on page 104 of the estimates, 294 clerks. He had 296 last year. Therefore, even if he loses on the statistical end of his work, he is making it up very readily on the rest of it. He is keeping up the show anyway. He has made

Supply-Trade and Commerce
up his mind that if there is to be any contraction, it is going to be in the enumeration expenses. There will be nothing unnecessary spent in order to let the public know the facts. He has more statistical clerks than he ever had. He has 56 now where he had 55 last year and he has 41 junior statistical clerks where he had 38 last year. I really do not think he has made much of a reduction. I am inclined to suspect he is cutting out some of the services in the statistical branch, some of the other work of the department. I do ' not know what it can be. He seems to be getting rid of the money as before, but saving it in the statistics. Just what service he is cutting out, it would be interesting to discover.


Thomas Andrew Low: In 1921-22 there were 405
employees engaged in the work of the census; in 1922-23, 577, and in 1923-24, 364. As I said before, the number of employees has been worked down to nine at the present time. On the work of the census there was spent the following amounts:
1921-	22	
$1,664,0881922-	23	
259,1481923-	24	
158,015
For the ten months ended January
31, 1925	 40,304


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much in the last
fiscal year?


Thomas Andrew Low: We have not the figures for the fiscal year.


Arthur Meighen: Surely my hon. friend has the figures for the fiscal year. That is published.


Thomas Andrew Low: They have not been brought
up to the end of March yet.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister looks
at the ten-day statements issued by the Department of Finance, he will find the figures for the fiscal year issued at least three weeks ago.


Thomas Andrew Low: The figures I have were prepared in accordance with the usual custom, and the whole estimates would have to be re-prepared. We always bring down the figures showing the ten months. If my right hon. friend has the information, he might give it.


Arthur Meighen: I have it upstairs, but
I thought the minister would have it here as we are discussing his estimates.


Thomas Andrew Low: My right hon. friend always
wants something that we do not have.


Arthur Meighen: The minister apparently is just through with the 1921 census now. He was not in the House when in 1921 his party insisted upon the completion of the census that year and roundly abused us because we suggested it might run into 1922. He is now proclaiming that he is closing it up in 1925, about in time to start the semi-decennial census of 1926, which must take place in western Canada. It is quite right that the census clerks should be taken off; they should have been off last year or the year before. But my worry is this: I am anxious that the general service of the statistical branch itself be not curtailed, that is in any serious respect. I should like to know in what respect there is any curtailment in the census branch. To what extent does the minister intend making reductions, if any?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have no further reductions in mind at the moment.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister said a moment ago in answer to a question of mine that the co-ordination of the various departments for statistical purposes was not completed. WTiat is lacking? What departments are not yet completely under the bureau?


Thomas Andrew Low: Some of the other departments have statistical branches and it is hoped through time that all these will be centralized within the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Edward Joseph Garland: Which of them are not now under the control of that department?


Thomas Andrew Low: The Departments of Labour, Customs and the Interior.


Arthur Meighen: I am mystified by the whole proceedings. If the minister will look at page 103 he will find all the clerks of his department. He says now that he is cutting off $75,000 because of a reduction in the number of clerks owing to the closing up of the census statistics of 1921. I fail to see where he is cutting off any statistical clerks.


Thomas Andrew Low: Those are all under civil government.


Arthur Meighen: I know.


Thomas Andrew Low: They are not under discussion at the moment.


Arthur Meighen: Are not the statistical clerks under civil government?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Thomas Andrew Low: The temporary census clerks whom we are letting out are not included in the civil government vote.


Edward Joseph Garland: If the minister, in answer to the objections that are raised to the reduction in the vote, is stating that it is because of a reduction in the number of servants employed, how can he ask us to withhold examination until some other occasion and pass this vote in the meantime?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have endeavoured to clear up the situation. I have been asked how the reduction is made up and I have told the committee that the reduction in the temporary census clerks accounts for it.


Arthur Meighen: What is included in the item of $125,000 that is not included in the civil government?


Thomas Andrew Low: I have stated two or three times what that $125,000 is supposed to cover, but I shall read it again for the benefit of my right hon: friend. It is to provide for salaries of temporary employees, criminal and vital statistics, travelling expenses of the Dominion statistician and his staff, freight and express, telephones and telegrams, newspapers and periodicals, rental of machines and repairs, and contingencies.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does this vote of $125,000 represent all the costs of the Bureau of Statistics?


Thomas Andrew Low: The civil government vote is not included in this at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister last year
said that in ten months he had spent $40,000. Is that right?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, on the census.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much was spent of the $200,000?


Thomas Andrew Low: Last year? Does my hon.
friend mean in the whole bureau?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I mean out of the $200,000 voted for 1924-25.


Thomas Andrew Low: For the ten months ending
January 31, 1925 the following sums were
spent:
Salaries	
$15,181	42Printing and stationery	
26,992	92Criminal and vital statistics	
13,960	32Travelling	
626	74Freight and express	
214	77Telephones and telegrams	
935	20Machine rentals and repairs	
4,374	50Sundries	
1,826	05Total	
$64,111	92Salaries for the sixth	census	
$36,131	17Sundries	
3,924	92
This makes a grand total of $104,168.01 for the ten months. And in the previous fiscal year ending March 31, 1924, under the same headings, the total was $257,096.74.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the total cost to the country per annum of the Bureau of Statistics including the salaries under civil government?


Thomas Andrew Low: About $375,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As a matter of fact, last year out of the $200,000 voted the minister would spend about $125,000. He says he spent $104,000 for ten months; for twelve months it would be about $125,000.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, without civil government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Out of this vote of $200,000. So that the vote of $125,000 this year represents approximately the same amount as he actually expended1 in the previous year. Am I right in that?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes; but we have to prepare for the 1926 census.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What we are trying to get at is how many individuals are included in the salary expenditure last year of $125,000.


Thomas Andrew Low: I suppose my hon. friend as a former minister of the department knows that in this vote only temporaries are included. In the early part of the year we had quite a number, but the staff has been very much reduced on account of the completion of the work in connection with the last census.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why cannot the minister tell us what that reduction is?


Thomas Andrew Low: At the end of 1924 we had 188 persons engaged on the census; now there are only 9. My hon. friend was not in his seat when I made that statement earlier in the evening.


Milton Neil Campbell: I find it very difficult to understand the figures quoted by the minister. The Auditor General's report shows the total expenditure on the Bureau of Statistics as $259,000, from which has to be deducted $159,000 for the census, leaving approximately $100,000. This evidently does not include the item of $50,000 for salaries. How is that $175,000 made up?


Thomas Andrew Low: The statistician informs me that the $250,000 is made up of salaries, which are included under civil government, and the $125,000 item that is now under consideration.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Milton Neil Campbell: I think these items
should be put in a way to be easily understood. Naturally one would conclude from this that $125,000 was the total cost of the bureau. I am not complaining, I think the bureau is worth every dollar i't costs, perhaps even a little more, for it is one of the most valuable of our government departments; but it is impossible to understand just what the bureau does cost even after consulting both the Auditor General's report and the estimates.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We recognize, Mr. Chairman, that the expenditure on the census should naturally have diminished to its present point probably before this. It has been the desire of parliament for many years to bring the compilation of statistics for the Dominion to as efficient a condition as possible, and I think the House will agree with me that this very laudable object has been pretty well attained, for the bureau has been well administered and excellent progress has been made along this line. I would be the last one to urge the minister at this stage to increase his expenditure, but for the purpose of some show of economy in this particular branch, we should not wreck the work that has cost us a good deal to build uip over the last ten years. With regard to the western census, it has of course to be taken into account in connection with this branch, but if the minister is actually sacrificing some of the service that has been rendered, we ought to know.


Thomas Andrew Low: I do not know of any service
that is being sacrificed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: None at all?


Thomas Andrew Low: No.
Mr. STEVEN'S:	I am very glad to hear
that, because we certainly ought to maintain the efficiency of this branch. As I say, it deserves great credit for the manner in which it has its work handled. I confess still to some feeling of mystery about the nature of this expenditure. I cannot quite understand how the minister is maintaining the service and providing the additional expenditure for the western census this year. It may be covered by these figures in some way, but I cannot quite understand it. For instance, does the minister intend to increase the census staff this year?


Thomas Andrew Low: It will be increased slightly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Some of those discharged will be put back again?


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is the regular staff sufficiently large to draw out of the census figures all the material that is -available?


Thomas Andrew Low: As we are carrying on the
work at the present time, I have no doubt that the staff is sufficient; but as the country develops we shall have to increase the personnel. As stated' by my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell), it is very important work, and when parliament feels that we are in a position to spend a little more money on it I shall be very glad to recommend such increase to the government and ask the House to vote it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would it be possible by a larger regular expenditure, Mr. Chairman, to obviate to any extent the decennial expenditure on the general census? It has sometimes occurred to me that just as in the old days of the small store we had to have an annual stock-taking, when everything was turned upside down, to the inconvenience of everybody, and have now passed beyond that stage in a great many establishments because by a careful system of bookkeeping we know pretty well at any moment how the business stands, so it might be possible, with a closer co-ordination of the agencies at work on vital statistics, for example, through the various municipal officials, and possibly through a larger permanent staff, if necessary, of correspondents in different sections of the country, to collect annually a great deal of this information and have it available from year to year instead of gathering it -every ten years?


Thomas Andrew Low: I think my hon. friend will
find that -although the modern method of bookkeeping of which he speaks is very satisfactory for ascertaining the position of a business from month to month, yet all firms of any importance continue to take a physical inventory at the end of the year. While we may make an estimate from year to year as to population and other matters, I do not think it would be wise to dispense with the decennial census.


Robert King Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I am
not opposing the vote, but I am trying to get a clear idea of what the semi-decennial census in the western provinces means. I can hardly see its necessity, since the provinces themselves take a census nearly every year, and their figures should be available to the federal department. How often do the western provinces take that census, and why is it necessary for the federal government to take a census in the western provinces and not in the others?

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Thomas Andrew Low: The taking of the census is required by the act that brought these provinces into existence.


Robert King Anderson: Is the census taken by the provinces themselves not available to the federal government?


Thomas Andrew Low: There is no census taken by the provinces; they are only estimates.


Arthur Meighen: I think both ministers have missed the real reason of the semidecennial census in the west. The west not only gets a regular subsidy but is entitled also under the autonomy bills to a special subsidy in lieu of lands, and accepted that subsidy and yielded the lands on the terms, which amounted to contractual terms, that the census upon which the subsidy was based should be taken every five years.


Thomas Andrew Low: That is right.


Robert Forke: If I remember correctly, the municipal clerks send in returns each year to the provincial authorities, and the provinces may base their estimate upon those returns. The information is not exact, but it is fairly correct.


Arthur Meighen: You could not expect the Dominion government which pays a subsidy to do so on the basis of a census fixed by the provinces.


Robert Forke: I understand that, of course. I was simply referring to the method followed in the provinces.


Edward Joseph Garland: I notice in the only report concerning this matter that is available, dated 1922, that on page 9 reference is made to certain organizations that had not been completed. For example, with regard to "migration" it states:
The statistics of immigration and emigration are incomplete and out of correlation with the census and vital statistics.
Then we have reference to "navigation" as also incomplete; "imports and exports," incomplete; "trading operations," incomplete; "public finance," need for further organization of statistics; "income," need for correlation with the data of the bureau; "private finance," statistics require remodelling; "civil justice," no statistics exist-and so on. The issue of a monthly review of Canadian statistics is suggested, with the idea of making a monthly barometric forecast of the current economic trend. Has any progress been made in connection with these matters of organization, and if so, will the reduction in this vote impede the development that is suggested here as desirable?


Thomas Andrew Low: The statistician informs me that some progress is being made; that in the matter of trading operations and migration there has been considerable progress.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understood the minister to say there were other departments of government that compiled statistics. I think the country should have some idea of what is the total cost of collecting these statistics. I fancy it is not less than half a million dollars a year, which is quite enough for a country like Canada.


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend is in just as good a position as I am to make an estimate. All these items come up under supply to other departments and he can get them under the different headings.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is so much duplication, not only in the matter of statistics, but in surveying and a dozen other activities that might be mentioned, that it is really difficult to tell exactly what these services cost the country. The sooner the minister gets busy and puts all these different statistical branches under one bureau, the sooner he will get more efficient work. The cost of government is very materially increased by this duplication of services. Especially is that true in respect to the matter of surveying.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister know whether the Labour department is still fussing away with its little statistics?


Thomas Andrew Low: I included Labour in the list I gave a moment ago; Labour, Interior, and Customs. But the statistical work is being eliminated gradually from other departments, and we hope in time, to have them all under the Department of Trade and Commerce. Whether or not my colleagues will agree with me in that time will tell.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the Minister of Labour finds it hard to get anything to do.


Thomas Andrew Low: Things are so peaceful.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, they are very peaceful. I observe that in all parts of Canada there is considerable in the nature of death, but there is a lot in the nature of war, too. Really it is foolishness to run this statistical branch in the Labour department. The minister will remember that last year I read a letter from the head of the Labour department questioning an official as to where in the world he got his statistics, and the reply was that he got them from the statistical branch of the Dominion government. Evidently the Labour department did not know that such a branch existed.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister answered my question of a moment ago by saying that a little progress had been made in regard to migration and trading statistics and some progress in the rest. That simply confirms my opinion that work is being neglected that might be gone on with and the reduction in this vote is hardly justified.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Electricity and gas inspection-
Salaries of staff	 $137,055
Travelling expenses of the Director, staff at Ottawa, district inspectors, and inspectors; purchase and repairs of instruments; upkeep of equipment and	contingencies..	43,340
Export of electrical power	 500
International Electro-technical	Commission.	400
Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister tell
us how much electric power was exported last year; how much of it was exported by companies under annual license and how much under long term contract; the length of the contracts under which the export is made, and what are the remaining unexpired terms? I shall be glad to get this information by provinces.


Thomas Andrew Low: There is no information as to
the quantity contracted for by each individual corporation in the United States. Sometimes the term of the contract is a long one, sometimes a short one. The list of exporting companies, with the amounts in kilowatts for which licenses were issued for 1924-25, is as follows: Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, 80.000; Canadian Niagara Power Company, 45,000; Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, 3,000.


Arthur Meighen: The first two are the
same.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, I think the Canadian
Niagara Power Company was taken over by the Hydro Electric Power Company. Then, there is the International Railway Company of Niagara Falls, 200; Maine and New Brunswick Electric Power Company, 2,500; Sherbrooke Railway and Power Company, 100; Cedar Rapids Manufacturing and Power Company, 75,000; Western Power Company of Canada, 10.000; British Columbia Electric Railway 5,000; West Kootenay Power and Light Company, 1,500; Bridge River Power Company, Vancouver, 28,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Did the minister say the
Bridge River Power Company?


Thomas Andrew Low: The Bridge River Power Company applied for and received a license to export 28,000 kilowatts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They have not got a
plant yet.


Thomas Andrew Low: They applied for the license
and paid the fee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is rather a serious
thing. I am quite certain that the Bridge River Power Company have no plant. I am certainly very derelict in my duty in attending to the development in my province if they have. Why should1 a company without a plant to export get a license to export 28,000 kilowatts? Does the minister give a license to a firm that has not got power to export?


Thomas Andrew Low: My deputy informs me they
complied with the law. I do not know whether the application was renewed this year, but they made application last year for a license and complied with the law.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am going to ask the
minister if he would be good enough to lay on the table a full copy of the correspondence and the license in regard to it.


Thomas Andrew Low: I shall be very glad to comply with that request.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That brings me to this
very important question, and that is the export of power. This would indicate

and I wish the Prime Minister and other ministers would take note of this; I do not say it id any critical sense at all, I am very earnest about it-this would indicate what naturally a person looking purely for monetary advantage will tend to do. that is, to secure some privilege or right, then make contracts on the other side for the sale of that power. Here is a firm, for instance, that I am certain has no plant at all. They apply for and receive a license as if they were going to export. Naturally the only assumption you can make is that they then go to the other side of the line and make contracts for the purchase of power, then come back here and say to financiers: "We have a license to export, we have contracts on the other side for the purchase of power, and now we want financing for the erection or completion of a plant." Now what does that mean? It means the gradual establishment south of the line of a vested right in the power,. of a contractual character. I want to say to the government this: In my estimation, if we allow this process to go on, the result is going to be that there will be established in certain places south of the line factories, and small towns built up around those factories, with certain vested interests there dependent upon the receipt of this power, which they

Supply-Trade and Commerce
will claim later on was contracted for in perfect good faith. Then it will become a question of dispute between the two governments as to whether or not that power can be cut off.
I am going to repeat what I said in the budget debate. ' Power ought to be looked upon as an implement, a tool, and not as a product, and I think we should serve notice to the world that we expect persons who want our power to put their factory beside the power. That is what I think we ought to do. I will admit that if you can eliminate altogether all danger of the establishment of a vested right, then perhaps when you have a surplus of power during the period of development in this country, it is not a bad thing to sell power; I am not disputing that. But let us take this Carillon development, this big concern that desires a power development contiguous to this district. What is the desire there? The desire is to establish on a hydro-electric site a big power plant, ostensibly and deliberately with the intention of exporting power from that plant. The whole undertaking has that in mind. Now if the government say to the Carillon Power Company just as they have said to the Bridge River Company: "Yes, we will give you a license to export," and then the company go on and put in what they represent as $25,000,000 or something of that kind, secure $25,000,000 or $30,000,000 of American capital and invest it in that plant; and then they commence to export. A little later on, perhaps five years from now, the people of Ontario and Quebec will say: "We want power." There comes a big demand for power, and the price of power goes up. They turn to the Carillon Power Company and say: "You are exporting all your power. Why not sell some in Canada?" "Oh," they will say, "we got this power five years ago from the Dominion government with the distinct understanding that we were going to export. It is true the license was to be renewed from year to year, but the government and the people of Canada knew this power was for export purposes." Then they will point to the vested rights south of the line that have been established because of that right to export.
I want to warn the government, and warn the country, that this whole policy that is gradually growing up and becoming established ought in my estimation to be abandoned. I think the world ought to be informed that so far as Canada is concerned, hydro-electric power is looked upon as an implement or tool for the purpose of serving the factories of Canada, and that we invite industries to come to the power; but we warn
them we are not going to adopt or follow a policy of exporting power to industries in a foreign country.
Take the export of power on the Pacific coast. There are two companies, now one -the Western Canada Power and the B.C. Electric, two most estimable companies; I am not criticizing them at all. They are exporting power. Then, here is the Bridge River Company coming along, desirous of promoting a plant, and within a very few years, with the expansion clearly in sight in that country, there will be a demand for all the power that can be obtained. Take Vancouver City, which is dependent on the B.C. Electric and the Western Canada Power Company at the present time. I venture to say that the expansion of the city of Vancouver continuing in the ratio of the last five years will result inside of ten years in the absorption of all the power available at the present time. Now supposing at the end of ten years, or even five years, this increase is commensurate with what I have intimated; what is going to result? The B.C. Electric and the Western Canada Power Company are bound to say: "The price must go up. We cannot supply our customers south of the line with whom we have contracts, and we cannot increase the sale here. We have a demand for all the power we can produce." Then what will be the result? The retarding of the development of industry on the Canadian side. On the other hand, if we discourage the export of this .power, then there would be evidence on the part of Canadian hydro-power companies to develop industries in the neighbourhood in order to take all the power they could develop. In other words, you put pressure on the development otf industry in Canada, whereas under the present policy we are virtually putting a premium on the export of power, and a retarding influence upon the development of industry in Canada.
I do not desire to delay the committee at any length because it is late, but I want to make myself abundantly clear. I consider this question of the export of power, if not the most important, one of the most important questions before parliament to-day or that has been before parliament this year or last year or for many years. I believe in its effect in the future it will be found to have far greater significance than we at the present time dream of. I saw a statement the other day which I cannot quote exactly, intimating however that we could not absorb the power that is possible of development in Canada over long periods of years.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
On the other hand, I am advised by those who understand the business-and I had hoped to have here to-night definite data on this, but I have not-that in a definite period of time, some ten or fifteen years, or some twenty years, we will, in Ontario and Quebec, reach the limit of power. That is making a very broad statement and I was surprised to hear it. It is not my statement, but it was made to me by engineers who have studied the question for years,-that we are in sight, as it were, of the maximum power development. That is a very serious thing, because after all electrical power in factories is comparatively new. It is not looked upon as such an old factor as to be even yet beyond the point of almost experiment, at least not far beyond that point. So that when we hear these statements I think it behooves the government of Canada to be very, very careful. Notice should be served at once on all these companies the minister has cited that they must not consider these licenses as in any sense constituting a guarantee that they would be continued next year, or at any future time, with of course the exception of those that are under contract under some regulations of the past, and I understand there are only a very few small contracts existing.


Thomas Andrew Low: I suppose my hon. friend
knows there is no guarantee given beyond the year.	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, I know there is no
positive guarantee, but I have been trying to point out to the minister-and I hope he will not think I am doing it in a critical spirit-that it is a question which has obtruded itself on parliament this session. But I come back to the Carillon case, and I tell my hon. friend now that if this government were to give to the Carillon Power Company a license to export, as he has done the Bridge River Company, on the strength of that contracts would be made south of the line, 325,000,000 of capital would be supplied, the plant would be established on that understanding, and then later on the Carillon Power Company would say to this government or its successor, "Why, we advised you at the time, you knew what we were doing and here is a vested interest." The government of the United States would probably take the same view. It would become immediately a matter between the governments, and I think we know from a study of history that the moment a thing becomes a matter between governments it is very difficult of solution or of being easily unravelled. Regarding the Caril-

Ion Power Company, I think the Dominion of Canada should hesitate-not only hesitate, but I think should refuse-to be tied in any sense by any inferential guarantee, not a definite written guarantee but an inferential guarantee, to the Carillon Power Company or any other company, and that they should do more than that, and should serve notice on the world that these annual licenses are in every sense of the term temporary licenses, and that the purpose of Canada in the future is to retain the power for the development of Canadian industry.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: I had a letter today from the mayor of Toronto drawing my attention to this matter. He said that he had protested to the government in regard to certain contracts that had. been made in the past in connection with hydro-electric development and in which a lot of the municipalities of Ontario were interested, and that the consequence of this export duty on power going out of the countiy would be to put a load on the municipalities which have gone into the business and let the contracts in the past to American companies at a very low rate. They have a proposition before the government now, I understand, that they at least be relieved from the export tax by reason of these contracts made some years ago, and in regard to that I should like to know whether the government has any intention of taking into consideration the protest of Toronto and associated municipalities in this matter. I agree with what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has stated, and I want to say that the HydroElectric 'has now under consideration the establishment of a large steam plant in Toronto for the generation of power to supplement the production of hydro electric power.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Ten million dollars.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, ten million dollars. That is going on in other directions, and there is a great famine of power in almost immediate prospect. I spoke on this question the other day, and I said, "Our greatest resource to-day is the generation of power on our great rivers north to the Hudson hay slope". They will probably jointly produce millions of harse-ipower. Science is going ahead so rapidly in the way of high tension wires and long distance transmission, the products of those rivers will be worth millions and millions to us, and we ought to start now and say that not one kilowatt of that power shall go out of the country if it can be kept here. It might be an immense source of revenue. If we have a transporta-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
tion problem ahead of us, as apparently we have, and the 'cost of teansjportation is a most vital matter in connection with industry, we ought to keep that power for transmission purposes and not let it go out of the country. That would be the solution of .this tremendous problem more than anything eilse. I say to my hon. friends from the west that they ought to put in a protest now if they wish to keep down transportation 'charges. But if we start now and make cOmimitmente in which Americans will be interested and will be able to go to their government anid allege unfair .treatment on the pant of Canada, we will -be embroiled with the American people, and the firms which make the contracts, so that I join with my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre in saying we should call! a halt now and .that there should be no commitment in regard to any of 'the privileges. I .ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if he has heard of the protest made by the City of Toronto that this export tax should not apply to thorn in connection with the contracts made years ago with the Hydro-Electric. If we do as I have suggested we will get a new national (pdlicy in this country in connection with power. The .greatest asset we have .to-day is the immense power we have in our country, and if we sit quietly by, those who see the large profits in exporting it, will foe laying plans to get control of it, and they will entrench .themselves so that it will be very hard to dislodge them.
I again urge on 'the government-and I hope our friends from the west will make the same appeal to them-to call a halt in connection with the export of something which we have got which is limited ini quantity, because it will pass out of our hands if we do not guard ourselves.


Robert Forke: Without any invitation from my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) I intend to say a few words on this matter. I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, .and it seems to me the arguments he advanced are worthy of ithe most serious iconsidteratiion on the part of ithe minister. I can easily see how, by our exporting power, large factories being built and villages and towns growing up around those factories in the future, this .may became, as has already 'been said, an international question. I do not think there is much 'danger of the prairie provinces exporting any water-power to the United States.


William Findlay Maclean: That will come in five years. There is the Nelson river.


Robert Forke: Yes. I believe some day we shall have on the Nelson river perhaps the 206
greatest water-power in Canada. I have been impressed by the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, and this question should be gone into very carefully in order to ensure that no vested interests are created .that will cause international trouble. There is no doubt the time is coming when Canada will use all her water-power. It seems almost foolish in a way that water running down, which is of no use at the present time, which will continue to flow for all time .and which is not a thing that can be used up, should not be used by some people who can take advantage of it at the present time. Still, the argument has been advanced that if you give the power away to a foreign country, it may be difficult afterwards to restore things to their original condition. This question ought to receive the most careful attention and consideration before commitments are entered into that we may regret in the future.


Mr. McMASTER:: I had not the pleasure of being in the House when this discussion began, but I should like in a very few words to take issue with what has been said by the father of the House Mr. Maclean, (York), who has not shown in this regard that broad, generous, far-sighted spirit which usually characterizes his utterances. The idea that we in Canada, with 90 per cent of our electrical power undeveloped, should not use that vast potential power by turning it into electrical energy so that it might be exported and help us to pay our debts, is, I think, perfectly preposterous nonsense. The hon. gentleman will pardon me if I have said anything unparliamentary. We have in Quebec, I am told about 14,090,000 horsepower and we have developed about 1,000,000 horse-power. The suggestion is that we should leave that 13,000,000 horse-power undeveloped because in years to come we may want it for ourselves.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not the suggestion at all.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is the suggestion because, if you are going to prohibit its export and there is no market for it at home, how will it be developed? It will not be developed unless it can be used, and if it cannot be used in this country, it cannot be used unless it be exported.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to suggest to my hon. friend that he is the one that is talking the preposterous nonsense now.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is a matter of opinion. I used to think our protectionist friends were anxious to see an increase in the



Supply-Trade and Commerce
exports of this country, and that the idea of imports into this country caused them alarm. Usually they were always anxious for a favourable balance of trade and they rather encouraged exports. If we can manufacture power and sell it abroad when we cannot use it at home, surely we should be allowed to do so.


Robert Forke: Can the hon. member see a way clear that at any time Canada, after allowing that power to be exported for a number of years can say: Now, this must stop; we need this power for ourselves? Can that be managed all right?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Without any doubt.
Mr. FOlRKE: It is all right if that can be done.
Mr. MoMA'STER: First of all, water-powers should never be sold. They should be leased to companies, and one of the conditions of the lease should be that the first charge upon the company, so far as their customers were concerned, would be to see that Canadian customers were supplied.	If there was
not enough to go around, Canadian customers must have the preference.	As
power would get more valuable and expensive, the market for it inside the country would develop, and there would be no question but that regulations could be made to preserve for Canadian use such portions of the power as were necessary for Canadian use. The point I want to make is this, that we have in this country vast sources of potential electrical power which, if it can be turned to account and exported, it would be wise and in the interest of the country to export.
There is another phase of the situation. How can we, with any common sense, play the dog in the manger on this continent? How can we say, with wisdom or even with safety: We have sources of power which we will not allow you, our American cousins, to use, even on terms fair to ourselves, because in the far distant future we may possibly need it ourselves. Supposing the United States followed the same policy with us, where would we be? I saw the other day that the Premier of Ontario said: If American manufacturers want to use our electrical power, let them come into Ontario and manufacture in Ontario.


William Findlay Maclean: Or in Quebec.


Andrew Ross McMaster: In Canada, let us say
In what position would the textile manufacturers be if the United States said:	If you
want our cotton, come down to the United States and manufacture our cotton here. None

of our cotton is going to go north of the Great Lakes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is different. One is
a raw material and the other is an implement.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Power would be manufactured in Canada and' sent into the United States. Cotton would foe grown in the United States and sent into Canada. As a matter of fact, the sooner we realize that we have to develop this North American continent in close co-operation and under friendly conditions with the United States, the better for us. A policy of restriction in this country is extremely unwise. I trust to hear less in this House and elsewhere of that narrow and unwise policy of closing the walls of Canada against the export of power or anything else.


Mr. JELLIFF:: Can the minister give us a little more 'information in regard to this Bridge River Power Company? Who is the president of this company? Who is the secretary? What is the capitalization? What is the capital that has been paid in? What are the conditions under which a license has been issued? Is it an American or a Canadian concern?


Thomas Andrew Low: I am very sorry I have not
the information here to-night, but I shall be glad to give it to my hon. friend to-morrow or at any other time. I am now trying to find out by telephone just when this license was first granted to the Bridge River Power Company. If the information comes before we adjourn, I shall be glad to give it to my hon. friend.
As regards the discussion on the export of power, I quite agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that it would be a splendid idea if we could force these industries to come to this country and establish here. But after all, there is another side to the question. The water is, as some hon. member has remarked, flowing away. In other words, dollars are flowing by. The question we must adk ourselves! is: Are we to allow these dollars to flow away from us for the next twenty or twenty-five years until such time as the industries are ready to establish in this country? With our mineral wealth it is different; if we do not take it out of the ground to-day it will be there to-morrow. But the water that flows by to-day we shall not be able to use to-morrow, and millions of dollars in the next twenty-five years might come to the country through the export of power. Most industries in Canada require some export business; I know that the industries with which I am connected always require an export trade. We are able to sell 75

Supply-Trade and Commerce
per cent of our output in this country but we want the balance in the way of export trade to keep the wheels of the factories running day and night. And power is much the same.


Robert Forke: No.


Thomas Andrew Low: Power may remain idle for
years unless there is some use for it at home, and if we are able to export a small quantity of it, above what is necessary for home purposes in the locality in which it is developed, it is possible to develop a valuable business in the interests of our people. This year, before a license was granted, I notified all exporting companies that before we would renew any licenses they would have to submit to the department a declaration that the power was not required at home and that there was ample power to supply all the needs in the locality in which it was developed.
So far as vested rights are concerned, I have no dodbt that these corporations that enter into contracts across the border, and the companies on the other side, all look into the conditions under which the exporting concern is permitted to send out power. And when they turn up the act they will find in it a clause to the effect that the license shall be revocable on such notice to the licensee as the Governor in Council may deem reasonable in each case. I do not see therefore how anyone making a contract cam labour under any misapprehension as to the length of time he will be allowed to export power, or the people on the other side purchase it from the company generating.
I am not so much impressed with the argument that vested rights may be established and that we shall not be able to get away from them when we like. I repeat however that the water is flowing under the bridge continuously and if we do not use it to-day the same water will not flow 'by to-morrow or the next day. If the figures given by my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) are correct, we have 14,000,000 horse-power in the province of Quebec alone of which he says 1,000,000 horse-power is developed. So that, if that is correct, we have ample power to supply all the needs of Quebec and the Dominion of Canada for some time if it were harnessed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The same argument was
applied to timber not more than twenty years ago.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes; but it is not the export
of timber that has depleted the forests. There are other causes that have made greater inroads into' the forests than the export of timber.	,
20&i


Henry Herbert Stevens: But they are depleted
nevertheless.


Thomas Andrew Low: Yes, and they would have been depleted very largely in any case apart from the export of timber. A question was asked me about the Bridge River Power Company. The information I have is that this license was granted for the first time five or six years ago.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Before the power was
located.


Thomas Andrew Low: It has not been renewed for
this year; it is under consideration.


Arthur Meighen: It is not in the list
of licenses returned to this House this session, about two months ago.


Thomas Andrew Low: It has not been renewed this
year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Although I have not been here continuously, I want to bring a few facts to the attention of the government before any action is taken which will occasion irreparable damage, certainly to Ontario and I think to Quebec as well. We hear a good deal about a surplus of power. Well, there is a surplus of ice on the hottest day if you get to the Arctic; but there is no1 surplus of power where it is wanted. There is no surplus of power to-day which is convenient. I wonder what the government are thinking of when they listen to this talk about a surplus of power, when they know that Toronto has to put up $10,000,000 as a result of delays in connection with the St. Lawrence. They know that the whole of the power at Niagara Falls has been exhausted and that, after waiting for years and years to get some action in connection with the St. Lawrence, the Hydro commission, in the protection of the people of all the municipalities concerned, have been obliged in Toronto to put in a steam auxiliary at a cost of $10,000,000 to the people. And yet some people talk about a surplus of power. Where is the surplus of power in Montreal? The minister talks about fairness to the Canadian market. Does he know what the current prices are in Montreal to-day? And if he does, does he know what power is exported from that same district to the American side? Does he know for example what appears in the paper that is issued by Mr. Miles? I believe he is a good Liberal and was at one time certainly, if not now, a member of the local House. He has a chemical or a trade journal in which he is arguing in favour of Carillon power, and he is so anxious in this argument to make his case against the companies that distribute

Supply-Trade and Commerce
electricity to-day that he makes what I consider the strongest and most unanswerable point that has been advanced1 in connection with the whole business. He points out that from the Cedar Rapids Company the American gets power at $12 per horse-power per annum while from the same company they get in Montreal a multiple of that figure. And yet this go vernment talks about a surplus of power in Montreal. The thing is a farce, and everyone knows it. It is not what you have away off in the north or somewhere else, but what you have right here, that counts. Hon. gentlemen say that there is nothing to be uneasy about. Let me draw a picture to show what a great sum the municipalities of Ontario have to meet. At the time there were two companies, the Ontario Power Company on the Canadian side of the river and the Niagara and Lock-port Company on the other side. The Niagara and Lockport Company was the distributing end of the Ontario Power Company. That company was formed in just the same way as it is proposed to form the Carillon Company, for the purpose of looking after the American market, which my hon. friend says is in the interests of the people of the district. What interest has the company in the district as soon as that installation is completed? What work is there around a power house? Why, everybody knows, who knows anything at all about it, that if there is any activity in the world where little labour is used it is in a power house. The thing runs itself practically. And if you allow the product to be exported, you are losing the only thing that is going to bring labour and help the people here. But the situation is the same. Here is the Ontario Power Company, and there is the Niagara and Lockport Company. At first they make their arrangements between themselves. Under those arrangements there is a firm contract for 60,000 horsepower. That contract has still twenty five years to run. It had also three renewal periods of twenty years each. The price paid for that power is $12.35 per horse-power year.


George Perry Graham: What is that for?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is for the
power exported from the Ontario company's plant into the United States.


George Perry Graham: That is the export price?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes. The government talks about a surplus of power. I should like the government to tell us where they can get a firm contract for power anywhere in the whole of Ontario-
	! I J


Thomas Andrew Low: Who has said that there is a
surplus of developed power at the present time?


Henry Lumley Drayton: If there is not, why develop more just to send it to the States? My hon. friend answers his own argument at once.


Thomas Andrew Low: Who is talking of selling it to
the States If it is needed in this country it will be kept here.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know whether my hon. friend was in his seat in the early part of this afternoon when the question was answered and the House was informed that the government is considering the very matter to which he is now referring.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, I was in
the House and asked the question, and I was immediately told that the matter was under consideration. I should like to know before it is too late what possible justification there is for such a state of things. Now that my hon. friend raises that point, I am going to raise another. If there was one thing my right hon. friend talked about in the last campaign and talked about also in this House; if there was one thing he waxed eloquent upon, it was the alleged theft from the people of the principles of parliamentary control. I forget the name he applied to it, but certainly his description left nothing to be desired from his point of view of the case.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Minister
of National Defence says "hear, hear"; he agrees with it. Why, my right hon. friend would wax incoherent upon that question. The whole trouble was government by order in council. I do not remember any occasion before this when a government put through a budget by order in council. Here we have the whole thing in connection with this precious export duty on electrical power put through without the assent of parliament, without parliament having a .single thing to say about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can my hon.
friend tell me when the act was passed giving power to the government by order in council to do these things?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon.
friend is referring to an act which was passed by a very estimable gentleman, a very high authority, a man who will deserve and will always hold a very high place in Canadian history, Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point I
wanted to bring out was that from the time of Sir WTilfrid Laurier up to the time my hon. friends opposite went out of office they never thought it advisable to change that act in any particular.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if we can find something that will hold water a little better than that. Will my right hon. friend suggest that Sir Wilfrid Laurier ever

Supply-Trade and Commerce
thought the act would be used in this way? He certainly never used it in this way. I will admit the power is there, and it was also there in respect to every order in council that was passed by the late government-just the same; not the slightest bit of difference. The late government, that he has called despotic and all the rest of it, never attempted at any time to implement a budget by such an order in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was too busy with other things.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon. friend laughs; it is the only thing he can do, because he has no defence whatever. The power with respect to orders in council is not ordinarily exercised when the House is in session; there is then no excuse for action of that kind. If there had been any pressing necessity for the putting on of this tax and the House was not in session, my right hon. friend would at least have an excuse, but the House is in session, the order in council is passed, and he has no excuse. The fact of the matter is that the municipalities to-day are called upon to pay a tax which I do not believe any selfrespecting Canadian parliament would validate. It is validated by order in council, and that is the only way it could' be done.


George Perry Graham: I agreed with the leader of the opposition that the St. Lawrence waterway development should not be discussed without our giving him fair notice. I see that his desk-mate does not regard that arrangement; he bases a lot of his argument on a condemnation of this government for not going on with the St. Lawrence waterway development. I am going to keep my arrangement with the leader of the opposition that a discussion of this matter should have notice, although I think I could make a fairly good reply to that part of my hon. friend's remarks. Now, I want to get back to this Carillon power. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre is one of the gentlemen who gave this lease for the development of the Carillon power. There was not anything in it about export, but the law was there for export year by year if they wished to apply for a license. And they granted the lease for the development of the Carillon power a few days before the general election in December, 1921. What is asked for now is an enlargement of that power to make a greater development. But there has been a lease in force for the development of large power at the Carillon rapids-


Arthur Meighen: What has that to do with the export of power?


George Perry Graham: Now, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre spoke for fifteen minutes on the proposed development of the Carillon power.


Arthur Meighen: The export; nobody is against the development.


George Perry Graham: Oh, is that so?


Arthur Meighen: Not that I know of.


George Perry Graham: Now, I want to get this matter where it belongs, because this government has not done as much as the late government. did in regard to the development of the Carillon power.


Arthur Meighen: Except talk.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend does not like this part of it. I am not saying he did wrong; I am saying it was a little shady to rush it through a few days before the election in 1921.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend
permit me? He is making rather unfair


George Perry Graham: I am telling the truth, according to the record.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -unfair insinuations-


George Perry Graham: Not insinuations-a bald
statement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend insinuates that I did something that was wrong. Will he please produce what he is referring to? He is insinuating that there was some document signed by me-	*


George Perry Graham: No, I did not say anything of the kind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, he intimated that a few moments ago, and said that it was a few days before the election. I was in British Columbia a few days before the election.


George Perry Graham: I said that the new power lease for development at Carillon was signed by the then Minister of Railwajrs in a government of which my hon. friend was a member, a few days before the general election in December, 1921. My hon. friend cannot escape his share of the responsibility. I am not arguing that that was wrong, but I am pointing out to my hon. friend, when he declaims against any lease being signed for the development of the Carillon power, that his government signed it under the circumstances which I have outlined.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I made no such statement; I cannot let my hon. friend get away with that. I did not declaim, as he says, against the signing of a lease for the development

Supply-Trade and Commerce
of the Carillon power. I spoke entirely in a non-critical spirit, and the whole purport of my discussion was the question of the export of power. I did not attack the government for anything it had done or was about to do. I simply asked the government to be very careful in this matter, pointing out that in the years gone by it had grown to such a point that parliament ought to take notice of it. My hon. friend's insinuations and innuendoes are unjustifiable and unbecoming to him.


George Perry Graham: I accept the lecture, Mr. Chairman, but still I am not going to be driven away from this point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend cannot
drive me into any corner either on that point.


George Perry Graham: I am just stating the facts. My hon. friend can be in the comer or not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are not the facts.


George Perry Graham: I will show the record
whenever I am called upon. As a matter of fact a lease was signed for the development of a large amount of power at Carillon a few days before the election of 1921 by the Minister of Railways in the government of which my hon. friend was a member. That is on record.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not me.


George Perry Graham: Not you personally, but
as a member of the government you are jointly responsible. My hon. friend, of course, did not sign the lease for the power himself.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And that has nothing to
do with the export of power, which is what I was discussing. My hon. friend is not going to fasten any responsibility on me on any such hypothesis as that.


George Perry Graham: If I might be allowed to
go on, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre should not get so much annoyed because I mention this fact; he has mentioned Carillon at least a dozen times.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly.


George Perry Graham: Certainly. Let us get
discussing Carillon power. I have not come to the question of export yet. I was pointing out that the lease for the development of power at Carillon was signed in December, 1921, by the Minister of Railways in the government of which my hon. friend was a member. He is responsible for the signing of that
lease just as much as was the Minister of Railways, although I know enough about governments to know that a man may not be always present, but he has to accept responsibility just the same.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No one is trying to evade it.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend said he
did not know the lease was being signed, that he was in Vancouver.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not seeking to
evade any responsibility. I was in Vancouver at that time; I was not in Ottawa then nor for a month before. I do not seek to escape any responsibility for any act of the previous government, but I want the minister to understand this: I discussed in good faith and in all courtesy with the minister and his colleagues the policy of the export of power as it was developing-and I used this expression -under this government and under previous governments. My hon. friend is by innuendo and insinuation seeking to fasten on me personally some responsibility in regard to the export of power by the Carillon Power Company, and I am not going to allow him to do it. I want to say further, it is not becoming to him or to his record for fairness to make an insinuation of that kind.


George Perry Graham: I am bound I will not lose my temper over this, Mr. Chairman, because there is nothing to lose one's temper about. I was pointing out that the government of which my hon. friend was a member had through its Minister of Railways signed a lease with the Carillon Power Company in 1921 a few days before the election, and no member of the government Can escape responsibility for the signing of that lease. If I have insulted any person, I apologize; but that is all I was saying.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not at all.


George Perry Graham: That is what I meant to
convey, and did convey, that no minister can escape responsibility for the act of the government.
Mi\ MEIGHEN: What is the matter with it?


George Perry Graham: I did not say anything
was the matter, but I was pointing out that when this government came into power it found that lease signed in December by the Minister of Railways of the late government a few days before the last election, and that very lease for Carillon Power remained in
Supply-Trade and Commerce

force until a few months ago, the identical lease, not given by this government, but given by its predecessor.
Now the same company is asking for the powers under that lease to be enlarged. No arrangement has been made with them; no arrangement, I imagine, would be made with them unless subject to the act in force when my hon. friends were in power, and which is in force now. So that as far as this Carillon question is concerned, this development is in the same position it was in when this government came into power. I want to make that clear.
I am strongly of the opinion-if it were my personal business, I might perhaps think otherwise, being after the profits-that any government in Canada ought to go very slow in approving of the export of power in any great quantity. There is no question about that in my mind; I agree heartily. There is an argument on the other side which has been presented to us very strongly time and again by people living along certain powers, who feel they are losing day by day in seeing the power flow by their doors without development. They take the ground that development cannot take place unless outside capital is got for that development, and that would imply the export of a part of the power. That is the situation. It is not changed at the present time from what it has been for months and years.
As to the point raised by my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton), he has made a pretty strong plea for the 60,000 horse, power for the municipalities of the province of Ontario. The Hydro-Electric in itself is an entity, and is not an entity financially. Its financial standing is the financial standing of the municipalities that belong to the Hydro, and they are protesting that an old contract which they took over from the Ontario Power Company should not be subjected to this export tax. I take the view that one of the best ways to discourage the export of power is to put a good tax on it, just like you would put an export tax on any other product. But this is a question that has to be carefully considered. We have not been wasting any time in considering it. It was only last week that the people who are most vitally interested came to us in very large numbers, and they unanimously expressed the view that they were in favour of the export duty on power.


William Findlay Maclean: Not the city of
Toronto.


George Perry Graham: This deputation without
one exception assured us they were in favour of the principle of a tax on the export of power.


Arthur Meighen: Because they did not
want it exported.


George Perry Graham: But they did ask this, that the power exported under this old contract from which they could not recede should be excluded from the tax. That is a serious matter.
It is under consideration, and will be given the fullest possible consideration. There is no attempt at all to shirk responsibility, and the arguments of this deputation are being carefully considered by the government at the present time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
says it is only a short time ago. I brought this matter most pointedly to the attention of the government in the early days of the budget; that is about six weeks or two months ago.


George Perry Graham: What I said was that this deputation of municipalities came to us only a few days ago.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The matter
must be an old one with the government. I brought it up six weeks ago.


George Perry Graham: I was speaking of the
visit of the deputation from the municipalities, which came here only last week, I think. There need not be any doubt about it; the government is going to give the matter every consideration, and being from Ontario myself and always taking a deep interest in the development of this province, the House can rest assured that at least I am not prejudiced against the province of Ontario.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When I rose first to discuss this matter I think the House will bear me out that I treated the government with every courtesy and consideration. I indicated to the government that I desired to digcuiss 'the matter not in a spirit of criticism at all. I pointed out that this question of the export of ipower had grown inito a problem by the gradual development of the hydro electric power system in Canada, and that we were faced with a condition which was the product of the years. The . Minister of Railways sought to divert What was I think a reasonable and a proper discussion of a vary important matter, as he himself indicated in the latter part of his remarks when he expressed the view he takes of this question, but in the first part of his remarks he sought to insinuate and by a circuitous innuendo to

Supply-Trade and Co,amerce
suggest that in some manner I and the government with which I was for a short time connected was responsible for tlhe whole business.
I think 'he was unfair, and in my estimation it ill became his usual! toourtesy and fairness. I resent it very much and I suggest that this item should stand. It is getting ipretty late. We 'harve asked the minister in charge to furnish us with certain information regarding the Bridge River Power Company. That company I know has not any works at all, 'but I would like to look into it, and ailso ito see this lease that the minister refers to-in fact all the papers connected with the Carillon Power Company. I ask him in all fairness, in face of his suggestion that something has been done by myself and others that was calculated to reflect on our administration, that he should produce all the correspondence and papers, and the famous lease upon which he bases his insinuations and innuendoes; and if we have those papers before us, and if the government will give us some indication what their inten-' tion is regarding the charge on. the 60.000 horse-ipower from the Ontario Electric, then I think we can property and faiiily consider the item. I ask that the minister consent that the item should stand.


George Perry Graham: I cannot for the life of me
understand how my hon. friend takes the attitude he does 'towards ime, that I was making a personal allusion-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Read Hansard to-morrow and the hon'. member will see.


George Perry Graham: I was saying that, as far as the Carillon Power Company was concerned, he as a member of the government was responsible. We did not iissue that lease. It was forced upon us. I did not say whether it was right or wrong to issue it.


Arthur Meighen: The minister said that it was peculiar that it was issued just before the election.


George Perry Graham: Yes, I repeat that now.


Arthur Meighen: What is the government supposed to do, if it has any responsibility?
I want to remind him that after his government was elected they declined to take responsibility and forced us to continue two [DOT] or three weeks after election. It was our business then to carry on.


George Perry Graham: I thought it was a peculiar circumstance but this government did not issue that lease.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What was peculiar about it? What was the insinuation?


George Perry Graham: I have stated the facts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister has stated more than the facte.


George Perry Graham: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister has stated more than the facts.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member cannot get me fussed about this matter. He has got into a temper for no reason at all. I have stated the facts as nearly as I could, and I do not want to go over them again. I made no personal reflection. Gan we not criticize a previous government without it being considered a personal reflection? I did not mean anything of that kind. I want to tell my hon. friend that I respect his good will, but I will not be put in a wrong position by him or anybody else if I can help it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister has not much regard for the feelings of other hon. members.


Mr. SPENCE:: Signing a lease for the development of electrical power is entirely different from the exporting of electrical power. I think the policy proposed is a bad one for the government to entertain. It is said we are going to develop 14,000,000 horsepower in this Carillon project. I have talked with engineers who know something about it, and they say that the horse-power that can be developed there is over-estimated.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: It is 14,000,000 horsepower in the whole of the province of Quebec, and not simply in the Carillon Power Company.


David Spence: It is said you are overestimating the amount of horse-power you can develop, and if you go into a contract and guarantee to lay down a certain horsepower our good friends to the south will see that you develop as much as you contract to develop. The first thing you know you will be developing at different points on the St. Lawrence river, and that will be a bad thing for the country. My own view is that the industries cannot remain stagnant here forever, and I think in five years we will be able to use all the horse-power we can develop.


Lucien Cannon: Does the hon. member approve of the lease passed by the former government for the Carillon development?


Arthur Meighen: I never saw it.


David Spence: Signing a lease for the development of power is different from exporting power. I am opposed to the principle of anything going out of the country. I want

Supply-Trade and Commerce
to see the industries of this country developed from our own power. I come from a city where we have great electrical power development and we know something about the matter. The Hydro Electric would not have been the success it has been if it had not been for the big city of Toronto. We are bound to spend $10,000,000 in a steam plant because we cannot get the power otherwise. We can carry this development on in Toronto without sending the power to the Lnited States. The Minister of Railways mentioned the fact that a deputation waited on him a few weeks ago, and he made a correct statement in regard to the matter. He asked if they were opposed to the principle of exporting power, and they said no, the}'' were in sympathy with it, it was all right; they were earned away with the idea of having to pay a duty on 60,000 horsepower on a deal made in 1904. The gentlemen who answered the Minister of Railways were friends of the minister, but they were not expressing the views of the city of Toronto or the views of the Hydro Electric people. I know the gentlemen who made the statement, I know their politics, and I say they had no right to make that statement. They were in the room at the time and they had no business to make such a statement. I do not believt they expressed the views of the city of Toronto or of the people of the province who put their heart and soul into the hydro electric development of this country. I say to the minister that he was stating the absolute fact when he said that the deputation made the statement to him that they approved of the principle of exporting power, but they had no right to say that and were not expressing the views they should have expressed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have asked the minister if he will let the item stand until we have the information which he agreed some time ago to lay on the table. I say it is a reasonable request, and I again ask the minister to permit the item to stand until he brings down the information.


Thomas Andrew Low: The information is contained, I understand, in certain papers. My hon. friend can obtain these in the regular way. As to the question of an export tax, that matter is under consideration, as has already been stated, and I see no reason why we should be asked to allow the item to stand over to-night after debating it for a couple of hours.


Arthur Meighen: This is an appropriate
item under which this whole subject can come before parliament. The government has chosen, while parliament was sitting, to act in this matter by order in council, consequently the matter did not come up in the budget. It is now up for review by parliament, and parliament's duty is to express an opinion on a question of as far reaching consequence for Canada as anything that has come before the House for years and we should not be shut off in the discussion until we have the data before us. The information which has been asked for is certainly elementary and manifestly necessary. The data as to what has been done in British Columbia and the further data mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) should be furnished. The minister should not ask that this item be allowed to pass, especially in view of what has been done by order in council, until this information is furnished to the ' committee.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: KING:	If my hon.
friend insists on having the item stand, all I can say is that what we desire to do is to get on with the work as rapidly as possible. If the hon. members are agreeable to proceeding with some of the other items, there is no objection to letting this stand and taking up some others.


Arthur Meighen: It is now half past twelve. Certainly there has been no obstruction. We did not need to debate this at such length, except for the interposition of a reference that was unnecessary. We might have had it stand before; but we are not going to consent to go on with other items after twelve-thirty, especially as we have made good progress every day since the budget debate closed, and of course we know what caused the delay in the budget debate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon.
friend says:	We will go on with this item.
Very good. This is the only item' on which we can discuss the question of export of power, and I am now going to refer more particularly to the Carillon power. The first information that we ought to have is: Who are the applicants for the power? What gentlemen are behind the application? Who are the gentlemen who have been lately in the corridors of this House looking after the question of that license? What do those gentlemen want to do with it? I do not for one minute question their perfect financial solvency and strength. Where will this money be spent? To what municipalities in the

Supply-Trade and Commerce
United States is the power to go? Will the company be not only a Canadian company, but an American company? If a Canadian company and as well an American company, what will be the inter-relationship of the two companies? What will the contacts be? What arrangement will be made for the contracts? What arrangement will be made, for example, to prevent a repetition of what we have in connection with Ontario power? I may be absolutely all wrong, because the only information that I have is what I have seen in the newspapers.


Thomas Andrew Low: I am listening to my hon.
friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
connot carry on two conversations at the same time.	The minister cannot talk to the
Minister of Railways and Canals and listen to me at the same time, and I am quite willing to wait until he is ready. I am absolutely in the dark and I think all hon. members are in the dark as to the exact terms of the present proposal. Perhaps the minister could tell me now how large a quantity of power has a license been asked for? What is the present application? Will the minister kindly table the application or send it across the alleyway? Of course, as the item under consideration is the only one on which we can discuss this question, the application must be in the bag there. Has the minister the application here?


Thomas Andrew Low: Proceed. I will answer later.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we had better get along with one question at a time, because the minister will forget them.


Thomas Andrew Low: I will make a note of them.
As regards the Department of Trade and Commerce, no application has been made.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I observe that
my hon. friend immediately takes the ever efficient coaching of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), who whispers in his dulcet tones that no application has been made. Are we to understand that the whole of this Carillon power is a myth, that there is no application to the government? I do not care about the technicalities within which truth may be hid, but is there any truth that this government has been approached, yes, time and again, in connection with an export of power from Carillon? I will take my hon. friend's denial, but I will wait for it.


George Perry Graham: I thought my hon. friend
was addressing the other minister.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, in this case the Minister of Railways and Canals was giving the cue to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


George Perry Graham: He gave it to me.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was returned
then. In this game of battledore and shuttlecock, we will go to the shuttlecock. Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce mean to say that the whole of this question of the export of Carillon power is a myth and that this government has not been requested, pressed, to grant it?


Thomas Andrew Low: I say to my hon. friend without any hesitation that we have had no application for a license to export 'Carillon power.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does my hon.
friend want that to go to the country as a real answer giving the truth of the situation? Does he mean to say that we have not had deputations here, well worked-up deputations?


Thomas Andrew Low: My .hon. friend asked me a
question and I have answered it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am putting
another question. I am asking whether worked-up deputations did not come to press the government to give those licenses for export, and I will await an answer to that.


Thomas Andrew Low: I know of no worked-up deputation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does he know
of any spontaneous deputation? What does the minister say?


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend knows that
deputations have waited upon the government. That is public property.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that we have had deputations waiting upon the government pressing for licenses for the export of this power. For how much?


Thomas Andrew Low: No quantity at all was stated by the deputation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the government want to take that position? We have three members of it here now.


An hon. MEMBER:: Four.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But one is asleep. I am referring only to the members of the government that are not yet asleep. I see he has wakened up. Does the government seriously want the country to understand, after what I think everybody knows has been going on not only for weeks, but for months, that it does not know how much power is
Supply-Trade ana Commerce

sought to be exported? What does the government say? That it does not know how much power the promoters of this new exploitation think they should have the right to export? If the government wants to say that it does not know, I shall have to take that answer, but it will surprise many people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I may speak for the government, I will say that the government does not know. There has been before the government no application that I am aware of, and the government has nothing before it to consider. The hon. member is simply wasting the time of the committee in asking these questions. Even if there had been an application, is there anything in that to which the hon. member could take exception?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would want to look at it before I would know. The right hon. member forgets all his pre-election discussion-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What does my hon. friend want to discuss? An imaginary application?


Henry Lumley Drayton: -of the whole of this question as to the export of power, and I am going to tell my right hon. friend that I think I would be unkind to him to take altogether seriously the idea that nothing has been said to him about the export of this power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I simply say to my hon. friend that I will not permit any insinuation of the character he is making at the present time. No application whatever, that I am aware of, has been made to the government with respect to the export of power. I am making that statement fully conscious of its significance and meaning in every particular.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was not talking about that technical word "application" at ithe moment. I wanted to know whether the Prime Minister had not been approached in connection with this very question of the export of Carillon power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend knows that I presided at the gathering at which a deputation stressed from their point of view the advantage it would be to many municipalities to permit a certain amount of power being exported. And this is all public knowledge. Surely municipalities have a right to present their own point of view to the government. But I repeat that the government has received no application and has 
had nothing before it to consider. The reply given to the deputation was that the government was just as conscious as any member of this House of the importance of considering the future needs of Canada and protecting the requirements of the Dominion against any possible encroachment from any direction. The government is just as sensible and as watchful of the interests of the provinces and of all classes as any deputation that can come before it, and it has so stated. What o:her position does my h-on. friend wish the government to take in the matter?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is becoming
a habit with the Prime Minister to miss the point. I never suggested that there was anything wrong about any municipality waiting on the government; they all have a perfect right to do so and to receive proper consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is there anything improper in any individual or group of individuals doing the same?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not the slightest. I am merely asking for information. There seems to be such a fog of dense ignorance in government benches as to the whole question of Carillon power that I wonder hon. gentlemen opposite even knew the name.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is my hon. friend who is maiking a myth and mystery of it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I again ask the Prime Minister: Apart altogether from that deputation, has he not been approached with a view to securing his sympathy in connection with a license for the export of Carillon power? If he says no, then there is an end of the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Ever since
the government has been in office it has had the same sort of representations made to it as hon. gentlemen opposite had when they were in power; and I presume that for the next ten, twenty or a hundred years this will continue; some will want the right to export power while others will be of the opinion that it should be carefully safeguarded. Some think that its export should be totally prohibited, while others think that all these matters are questions of development. I do not understand what my hon. friend means when he seeks to insinuate that in some way either the government is doing what is wrong in listening to representations that are made to it, or individuals are wrong in making such representations in regard to matters that are of great public concern.

Supply-Trad'1 and Commerce


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
is getting away from the point; he has taken me back a hundred years.


George Newcombe Gordon: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but I do think his remarks are not quite relevant. I would draw his attention to the following from Bourinot with reference to the relevancy of arguments:
The precise relevancy of an argument is not always perceptible, but the Speaker must be satisfied that it is relevant, otherwise he reminds the member that he must speak to the question. It follows therefore that the debate must not stray from the question before the House to matters which have been decided during the current session, nor anticipate a matter already appointed for the consideration of the House.
I do not think that the hon. member has been speaking to the point before the committee, in the way I have heard him speak in a good many years; and he has repeated so many times what he has had to say that I am beginning to conclude that he is not strictly in order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would indicate one or two reasons why I think you are wrong. In the first instance, I have asked a question, which is perfectly pertinent, with regard to the export of power. I have failed to get certain papers; they are not here. And I have failed to get any definite information at all on a matter which is of transcendent importance to the country, a matter which cannot come up again. Now, I am trying to get informattion if I can and so far I have not been able to get it.


George Newcombe Gordon: Does the hon. member say that this matter cannot come up again
on a motion to go into Supply on some other day.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It can come up on this estimate.


Arthur Meighen: Does the Chairman
suggest that any question connected with the export of power cannot come up under this estimate?


George Newcombe Gordon: I never said any such thing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Prime
Minister, as I was pointing out, took me back many years; he said that representations had always been made on the subject. I am interested in this particular question of the export of Carillon power. Has the Prime Minister been approached-I am not using the word in the slightest degree invidiously
but in order to get established what we all know to be a fact-has the Prime Minister been approached, I say, in connection with this very question of the export of power, apart from that delegation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have given the answer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You will have to read it to-morrow.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose I shall have to be content with that, but I do not know that everyone else will be content with it. I should like to know in connection with this lease which is being discussed whether the Dominion controls it or whether it is controlled by the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec.


George Perry Graham: That is a big question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, but we might as well know where we stand on the question. The position has been taken by the premiers of both provinces where the power is located that this export ought not to be allowed.


George Perry Graham: I think they are both against all export.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, and they happen to represent the two provinces which are immediately concerned, Hon. Mr. Tasche-reau, Premier of Quebec, in a reported speech, has stated pretty fully his grounds of objection, and in connection with the question of power going to waste he has pointed out that he had then under arrangement a large development in his province and was getting industries to go in to use it. The mere fact that he has been able to do that is in itself evidence that there is not so very much in the statement that unless we allow this export the power will be wasted. Does not my right hon. friend think that the considered opinions of the two provinces primarily interested ought to be the governing factor in the matter? I submit that they ought to be. I would point out to the government that the title to the water is in the province, subject to the rights of navigation; and when we have both these owners taking the position which they do take, I really submit to the Prime Minister that he would allay a good deal of unrest that now exists if he would now say that there is going to be no export. I am afraid my right hon. friend is singularly unresponsive to-night.
Supply-Trad* and Commerce


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When any application is received it will be considered in the light of all circumstances of public importance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then about this question of the tax on the municipalities. So far as I know this is the only vote on which it can be considered, and in the absence of any resolution dealing with the matter but action by order in council, I really would have thought that the right hon. Prime Minister would have wanted full and free discussion upon the question. Why should we not have it? Is there any doubt? Because if there is, this is the only chance I shall have of removing it. Is there any doubt whatever in the minds of the government as to the absolute justice of the claims of these Ontario municipalities? If there be any doubt, in all fairness to the municipalities why should it not now be raised? In other words, Mr. Chairman, unless the government now have absolutely determined to do what really I would submit- is the only proper thing to do, relieve these municipalities, and are at present merely indulging in an obstinate silence, the only fair thing to do is to point out some weakness in the municipalities' case; and I do not think I am asking too much in requesting them to do so. I would ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) if he can point to any weakness whatever in the case of the Ontario municipalities? I think I have a right to an answer. It is a serious question.


George Perry Graham: Does my hon. friend now think seriously, having been a member of government, that if he were in my position with the matter under consideration he would want the members of the government to be cross-questioned one at a time? The government acts as a whole.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have been
talking to the government as a whole, but I can get no answer from anybody. I am not asking for an immediate decision. I would like to know if there is any point of weakness in the municipalities' case that we can be informed of and discuss. As I have said, this is the last chance I have of answering any objections. Is there any argument advanced that is not sound? Is there the slightest excuse for withholding the claim of the municipalities? If there is, it should be stated now. I am not asking that the government, if there be any such thing, have not a right to consider it; but I think we have a right to know whether any such thing exists at all,

unless it is thought by the government not proper for discussion. So far they have not said so.


Arthur Meighen: I read a statement attributed to the Prime Minister-I am not quite certain of the occasion, but I have it upstairs; I think it was to a delegation-to the effect that in his judgment surplus power should be permitted to be exported from Canada. Was such a statement made?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Arthur Meighen: Then a lot of newspapers are travelling along a wrong track, and for the purpose of getting their way in this matter are extolling the government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like again to
appeal to the minister to let this important item stand over.


Thomas Andrew Low: We have been debating it -now for nearly three hours, and surely if we are to make any progress at all we must get some of the items passed.
Mr. STEVENS': I want to point out this to the Prime Minister as the leader of the government, without any disrespect to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that during the discussion of the estimates of this department we have made excellent progress with very large and very important items. We come to this -item to-night, and I intimated in my previous remarks that this raised perhaps the most important and significant question before parliament; I qualified it in this way, that if it was not the most important it was one of the most important questions. To my mind it is the most important. I made that statement, if the minister will recall, before the little tiff between myself and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham)-


George Perry Graham: Let us forget it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -which apparently has occasioned this impasse. I had no intention of delaying the committee or causing any unreasonable discussion, but I submit to the government and to the Prime Minister that in view of the tremendous significance and importance of the question this item should be allowed to stand. I am not asking the government to give way on anything; simply on the meritsl of the case I ask that this item be allowed1 to stand until we have had the documents and other information which we have asked for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend wall recall that about three-quarters of an houir ago I said the government would not

Supply-Trade and Commerce
hesitate for one minute to allow the item to stand, provided hon. gentlemen opposite worilid be prepared to alllow us to pass another iiteim or two before tlhe committee rose.
1 a.m. I aim quite iprepared to repeat that proposition at this hour, but 1 certainly do not think the government should be called upon to meet the whims of my hon. friend in the matter of whether or not we are to make progress with the estimates. I submit that until the difference arose to which he refers, there was no thought of holding up those items, and then my hon. friend got up and stated, "I will see this item does not go through to-night."


Henry Herbert Stevens: I beg my right bon. friend's pardon, I did not make that statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I think my hon .friend did.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want the Prime Minister to be fair. I made no such statement. I admit I resented very muich what I considered an unfair insinuation, but it had nothing to do with this item or the previous discussion. I regret very much the Prime Minister taking this stand1, but again I would submit to him the importance of this item is such, and the necessity for information so pressing, that it is utterly unreasonable to ask that it pass' tonight.


George Newcombe Gordon: Would it satisfy the committee to let the first litem, salaries of staff, the second item, travelling expenses, and the fourth item, International Electrotechnical Commission, pass, and allow the third item, export of electrical ipower $500, to stand?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The point is that it is all one item.


George Newcombe Gordon: If consent is given the one item can stand and the other three pass.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister at 12.30 agreed that this item should stand provided we would agree to take up some new items and let them go through. It was a strange suggestion to make at 12.30 after we had got through to-day two resolutions of the Minister of Finance, both very important; the second reading of the budget resolutions as a bill and the debate on an amendment; and some further bills to-night, and then made some progress on the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That is the treatment this government has had from the opposition. They have never had anything in the nature of obstruction for an hour of the whole of this parliament. There has
been ample progress made to-day, and now we are not allowed to have an item stand except conditionally-an item that involves as big a question as ever was before the people of Canada, an item on which that question can alone be appropriately discussed. Before we can get that to stand pending the bringing down of what is admitted to be important information, we must submit to conditions. That is supposed to be reasonable treatment, and this is propounded to us at one o'clock in the morning. We are not anxious to hold up the item, but we are anxious that there should be reasonable discussion in the light of reasonable information on this item. I am prepared to allow the item to pass if I get the undertaking from the minister that on the next item that comes up in his department, when he presents his estimates again, we can have the discussion finished, he having brought down the information asked for. The understanding is that we can then have a full discussion on this same subject.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I had an arrangement similar to this two years ago, but I was told afterwards that it was illegal. I do not desire that we should be caught that way again. The arrangement should be clearly understood so that there will be no question about the right to go on with this discussion on whatever item is now fixed.


Arthur Meighen: The next item taken up, I said, and the material brought down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon. leader of the opposition has made a suggestion which I think will meet the situation, and I am prepared on behalf of the government to accept it in the spirit in which it is made.


George Newcombe Gordon: The understanding is that on the next item introduced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce the debate will continue on the question of the export of electrical power-the same as this item that has been debated under this vote in committee; and that is accepted, I understand, by the right hon. leader of the opposition.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
. Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 1.05 a.m. (Friday).
Spillers Elevator
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 15, 1925